Ohio’s Cleveland Heights — There are still two vetoes that City Council may wish to override, even if the Cleveland Heights Law Department has decided that Mayor Kahlil Seren cannot block his own recall election.
On July 17, Seren used his veto once more, informing the council members that he was permitted by the charter to continue monitoring their city email accounts in his capacity as the city’s conservator of the peace and enforcer of all laws.
This rejection was in response to an ordinance council enacted on July 7 that was intended to assure compliance with Ohio’s public records law and shield elected officials and staff from illegal access to official email accounts.
Seren described the idea of the mayor needing to submit requests for public records as completely absurd during that discussion.
The council’s legislation also said that clear, legal processes must be established for any review or disclosure in order to protect the integrity and confidentiality of city-managed email accounts.
Seren vetoed the proposal, arguing that it was not in the best interests of Cleveland Heights residents and that the council’s decision was against the charter.
City Law Director Bill Hanna and Deputy Law Director Christopher Heltzel delivered an eight-page legal opinion to the council on July 21 outlining several reasons why the citizen-led petition proposal for mayoral recall would not be removed from the ballot on September 9.
The other two vetoes, however, are still up for debate.
Last Wednesday, Councilman Craig Cobb, a lawyer and former municipal judge who wrote both of the laws that Seren vetoed, stated that he would like to discuss further steps with Hanna and Council President Tony Cuda.
Cobb stated, “I think it could not hurt to override the vetoes.”
With council on break for the rest of July and the next regular meeting scheduled for August 4, Seren might have bought himself another month of email sorting in the interim.
The same holds true for the other veto, which concerns a law that restricts the use of local email systems and social media accounts to official informational purposes and forbids their use for political propaganda.
Seren described this ordinance as a council reaction to the legitimate transmission of the administration’s stances and policy preferences, as suitably stated by the elected mayor.
Seren also sees it as a violation of his administrative authority and of every public official’s and city employee’s right to free speech and expression.
Seren went on to say that it is incredibly badly written and prone to serious unanticipated negative effects.
He continued by giving some hypothetical instances to support his claim that the legislation would forbid the council president from thanking the clerk via email for her assistance with a work.
In a similar vein, he stated that the director of planning, communities, and development would not be permitted to inform a developer via email that he believes a new building design is good.
Additionally, Seren argues that the rule would forbid the city from posting a message wishing Cleveland Heights residents a happy new year.
This policy was more specifically designed to target mayoral email blasts to residents, according to council talks prior to the vote on July 7.
Among these was one on June 13 in which Seren began with I have experienced political lynching at the hands of weaponized, untreated racist biases in the community, just like many other Black mayors under the Trump administration.
Additionally, Serens and staff members publicly criticized former city employees, which council members believed was inappropriate.
Seren noted in his veto that many of the issues the council was supposed to address were already addressed by the election and ethics rules that were in place.
According to Seren, utilizing public resources for electioneering is already illegal.
The council ought to be more aware of this sad overreach.
See the Sun Press for further information.
