SHELBY — An ordinance that would have enacted a disciplinary salary reduction for Shelby Municipal Court’s clerk of courts was vetoed by Mayor Steve Schag earlier this month.
On Tuesday evening, Shelby City Council voted on whether to pass the ordinance despite the objections of the mayor, essentially overriding his video — but the vote to override the veto failed.
Therefore, the ordinance — which would have reduced the salary range of the clerk of courts to $1 — will not take effect. Director of finance and public record Brian Crum said there is a period of time before the exact same legislation could be presented again.
But the matter resulting in the ordinance’s initial introduction is likely far from over.
THE ISSUE
On April 3, Councilman Nathan Martin threatened legislative action after finance director Brian Crum shared that two of Shelby Municipal Court’s accounts were not reconciled with the bank.
Crum stated on April 3 that the court’s civil account was off by $3,700 and the criminal account was off by $3,600. He noted these accounts have not been balanced for many years, throughout multiple personnel changes with the clerk of court.
“They don’t have high hopes of finding the remaining differences,” Crum said.
Since 2018, every time Shelby Municipal Court has been audited, it has received a notice regarding the improperly reconciled bank accounts. Last year, the auditor gave a warning to the court that if the situation was not rectified, the auditor would give an adverse opinion, a big red flag that could negatively affect the city and the court.
At their March 20 meeting, council rejected the option of writing off the unreconciled balances at the court. Martin expressed frustration that no accountability for the mistakes had taken place.
On May 1, Ordinance 14-2023 — sponsored by Martin — was first introduced to council. If passed, the ordinance would have reduced the salary of the clerk of courts to $1, a significant decrease from the previous hourly range of $17 to $28.50.
“It is Council’s responsibility to ensure that salaries and wages reflect adequately the value that its employees provide the city,” the ordinance read.
“The Council has taken gross exception to the continued non feasance taking place in the Clerk of Courts office with little oversight and accountability in spite of Council’s repeated admonitions,” it continued. “As such, the current wages of that office are simply not justifiable to a Council that boasts good stewardship and a value-added mindset.”
After coming out of executive session on May 1, law director Gordon Eyster voiced serious concerns regarding the legality of the ordinance, and strongly encouraged council to discuss with outside legal counsel before passing it.
Prior to Tuesday, the ordinance was not discussed publicly by council; each time, members voted to go into executive session. Reason being, “to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion or compensation of a public employee or official, or the investigation of charges or complaints against a public employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual”
With little to no public discussion, the ordinance passed its first reading on May 1, second reading on May 15, and third reading and final passage on June 5. Councilman Steve McLaughlin voted against the passage of the ordinance every time.
THE VETO
Nine days after the ordinance passed on June 5, Mayor Steve Schag filed a letter addressed to council to announce he would be exercising his veto power by returning the ordinance. It was his first veto as mayor of Shelby.
“While I appreciate the diligent work and thoughtful deliberation of the City Council on this matter, I regretfully find myself unable to support this legislation due to significant issues that I believe it raises for the Shelby Municipal Court and our community,” Schag wrote.
Schag stated the chief reason for his disapproval was the reduction of the clerk of court’s annual salary range to “a nominal amount of $1.00.” He pointed to serious risks of this action, including the disruption of court operations and future litigation/expenses posed by the enactment of the ordinance.
“Such a provision undermines the principles of fairness, professionalism, and appropriate compensation for the critical work performed by dedicated individuals,” Schag said.
“All parties agree that the goal is to have an efficiency in fiscal management that consistently receives clean Ohio audit reports. There are differences of opinion as to how we get there.”
THE FAILED OVERRIDE
Schag’s letter of objection was read into the record at Tuesday evening’s meeting of Shelby City Council.
Immediately after, Martin motioned that the ordinance be passed, “the objections of the mayor to the contrary notwithstanding.” Councilman Garland Gates seconded the motion.
Ultimately, Martin and Gates voted in favor of overriding Schag’s veto. Council members McLaughlin, Charlie Roub and Derrin Roberts voted against the override.
Before the vote, Martin reiterated that the reason the ordinance was introduced in the first place was to take accountability for Shelby Municipal Court receiving multiple negative ratings on their audits.
“Those have been given to council and they’ve been getting progressively worse, not better,” Martin said. “Council has met with the municipal court multiple times to address these issues, but the municipal court has not done anything to the satisfaction or the asking of city council.”
Martin also rebuked Shelby Municipal Court Judge Sheree Studer for not removing or asking for the resignation of the current clerk of courts, Shannon Small.
“This is the only avenue through which this city council can rightly and justly, through checks and balances, exercise our will on the court to achieve accountability,” he said. “There is no other mechanism, except for accepting on good faith that the judge will do the right thing.”
Judge Studer was elected for a six-year term in November 2017. Her term expires at the end of this year, and therefore the city of Shelby will vote for a municipal court judge during the upcoming general election on Nov. 7.
Gates noted that Schag’s letter made reference to “future litigation” and asked the mayor to clarify if litigation had been threatened. The mayor responded that no, litigation had not yet been threatened, suggested or hinted at.
“Speaking only for myself, if I were to make a decision to vote a certain way because I feared either the probability or possibility of litigation … it would not be showing leadership,” Gates said.
“As far as I’m concerned … it would be cowardly on my part to change my vote because I’m fearful of something. I fear only the Lord God Jehovah, and although I have every respect for the judicial process, I do not fear it.”
Roub said he believed some of the concerns outlined in Schag’s letter had some merit. He said he did not want to take the risk of being involved in litigation.
“I believe this council has done a great job of letting the court know its feelings on this particular situation, and I agree with most of what Councilman Martin has to say, it’s about accountability,” Roub said.
“We’ve taken a message to the court, and if the court chooses to ignore that, November is coming. And I believe my responsibility has been fulfilled here. We brought this to the attention of the voters, and we’ll leave it up to them to handle it.”
