State ex rel. Stevenson v. Mayor of E. Cleveland
| Decision Date | 29 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 110221,110221 |
| Citation | 2021 Ohio 1093 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., COUNCIL PRESIDENT, KOREAN STEVENSON, Relator/counterrespondent, v. MAYOR OF EAST CLEVELAND, BRANDON KING, ET AL., Respondents/counterrelators. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Appearances:
McDonald Humphrey, L.L.C., and Jonathan M. McDonald, for relator/counterrespondent.
Mayor Brandon King and Finance Director Charles Iyahen, pro se.
{¶ 1} Relator/counterrespondent, East Cleveland City Council President Korean Stevenson, in her official capacity, seeks writs of mandamus directing respondents/counterrelators, East Cleveland Mayor Brandon King and East Cleveland Director of Finance Charles Iyahen, to (1) allocate $50,000 for the payment of services rendered by an attorney retained by city council, (2) force the mayor to act in compliance with Section 72 of the East Cleveland City Charter for expenditures in excess of $2,500, and (3) provide responses to a public-records request made by an attorney on behalf of Stevenson in her official capacity. King and Iyahen also seek a writ of mandamus to direct Stevenson to "schedule and put a Permanent Appropriations Ordinance * * *, the Fiscal Recovery Plan Resolution * * *, and a Transfer Deficit Reconciliation Ordinance * * * on the Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for March 2, 2021 and March 16, 2021, as first and third reads, respectively; or, as Emergency Legislative pieces on March 16, 2021 * * *."
{¶ 2} Stevenson's first and second claims for mandamus are denied, a writ of mandamus is granted for her third claim, and King and Iyahen's request for mandamus is dismissed.
{¶ 3} As part of the 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"), East Cleveland received significant revenue it did not expect to receive when its 2020 budget was passed. After a reorganization of council took place in mid-2020, Stevenson began making inquiries into several issues, including the expenditure of CARES Act funds. Council passed Resolution 39-20 on November 6, 2020, to contract for attorney services from special legal counsel to, in part, assist it in matters relating to these expenditures. On November 9, 2020, themayor vetoed the ordinance with a letter stating special counsel was not necessary because the city law director could ably serve the needs of council. The record does not establish that this veto was overridden by council.
{¶ 4} Stevenson and King continued to clash over Stevenson's requests for information about how CARES Act funds was being spent. So, on November 18, 2020, Stevenson, through special counsel, sent a public records request to the finance director seeking "all documents including, but not limited to, award letters, grant applications, executed contracts, disbursement receipts, and financial reports which outline where, when, and how the money has been disbursed to date."
{¶ 5} No official response to the records request appears in the record. Attached to the complaint is an email from the law director to the finance director responding to the finance director's request for direction about how to respond to the records request. The attorney that filed the records request was copied on the email, but this communication between the law director and finance director is not addressed to the attorney, nor does it provide a response to the records request. In the email, the law director informed the finance director that it was the law director's opinion that the attorney was not properly retained to represent council, and therefore could not make a records request on behalf of a member of council. This level of professionalism appears to be shared by those involved in this dispute.
{¶ 6} Stevenson commenced this action by filing a complaint for mandamus on January 11, 2021. The parties participated in mediation, which was ultimately unsuccessful. In response to the complaint, on February 3, 2021, themayor and finance director filed a motion to dismiss that attached 128 pages of unauthenticated documents and made arguments that relied on facts outside of the complaint. So, on February 8, 2021, this court converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, and held the motion in abeyance pursuant to a February 4, 2021 scheduling order. The February 8, 2021 order provided notice of the conversion of the motion, and allowed King and Iyahen to amend or supplement their motion. The order also gave the parties an opportunity to submit evidence that was properly authenticated or stipulated, and set a briefing schedule. On the date any amendment to the converted motion for summary judgment was due, King and Iyahen filed a counterclaim instead. They did not amend their converted motion or submit properly authenticated evidence.
{¶ 7} The counterclaim sought a writ to compel Stevenson to schedule certain council meeting agenda items pursuant to East Cleveland Charter and state statutes. This court, in an order journalized on March 1, 2021, modified the briefing schedule to account for the new claims. In the order, we once again reminded the parties that all evidence must be stipulated to by the parties or authenticated pursuant to Civ.R. 56. We further warned the parties that any claim that failed to show by clear and convincing evidence entitlement to mandamus would be denied.
{¶ 8} Another order issued on March 1, 2021, directed the mayor and finance director to certify what records were produced, when they were released, what steps had been taken to fulfill the request, what steps, if any, still needed to be taken to satisfy the request, and whether the released records fully resolved therecords request. The mayor and finance director submitted a document with many of the same unauthenticated records that were attached to the motion to dismiss.
{¶ 9} On March 8, 2021, Stevenson filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim with a request for sanctions for filing a frivolous claim, as well as a brief in opposition to King and Iyahen's motion to dismiss that was converted to a motion for summary judgment. She also filed her own motion for summary judgment for the claims raised in her complaint. On March 12, 2021, King and Iyahen filed a combined brief in opposition to Stevenson's motion for summary judgment and a brief in opposition to her motion to dismiss.
{¶ 10} The case is now fully briefed and before this court on cross-motions for summary judgment and Stevenson's motion to dismiss.
{¶ 11} The parties are asking this court to resolve significant issues that exist between the legislative and executive branch. "'Any judicial resolution of such a dispute has significant political implications in the struggles for dominance of, control of, or impact on a government.'" Coyne v. Salvatore, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 79507, 79509, and 79510, 2002-Ohio-5819, ¶ 2, quoting Dennis v. Luis, 741 F.2d 628, 632 (3d Cir.1984). The system of checks and balances that have been established in the East Cleveland Charter means that sometimes the executive and legislative branches of government are going to find themselves in conflict. For the good of the people of East Cleveland, these coequal branches of government should endeavor to resolve their differences by using the tools that already exist at theirdisposal to amicably move forward with solutions to the significant challenges facing their city. The acrimony apparent in the briefing, especially in the filings of King and Iyahen, and Stevenson's affidavit attached to her motion to dismiss, do nothing but damage the reputation of those attempting to denigrate other city leaders. This rancor only does further harm to the citizens of East Cleveland through the inability of the parties to conduct themselves commensurate with the level of trust granted to them by their constituents. John Adams said our government is "a government of laws, not of men." The animosity between city officials has led them far astray from this maxim. The parties have taken on the solemn mantle of public service. The mayor and councilpersons have responsibilities bestowed on them by the citizenry of East Cleveland. They must endeavor to put these citizens, always, first.
{¶ 12} A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue except in the exceptional case. To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, relators must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that (1) they possess a right to the requested relief, (2) that respondent has a clear legal duty to provide the requested relief, and (3) they possess no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 437, 2006-Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 18, citing State ex rel. Marsalek v. S. Euclid City Council, 111 Ohio St.3d 163, 2006-Ohio-4973, 855 N.E.2d 811, ¶ 8.
Mandamus lies to compel the performance of an act which is clearly enjoined by law upon a respondent. State ex rel. Pistillo, v. Shaker Heights (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 85; State ex rel.Freeman, v. Valentine (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 183. This principle applies whether the source of the duty involved is a city charter provision, Cleveland ex rel. Neelon, v. Locher (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 49, or a state statute, State, ex rel. Tulley, v. Brown (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 235.
State ex rel. Ohio Motorists Assn. v. Masten, 8 Ohio App.3d 123, 126, 456 N.E.2d 567 (8th Dist.1982).
To continue reading
Request your trial