MANSFIELD — Two former members of the Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority who refused requests to resign have been removed by court order.
Richland County Common Pleas Judge Brent Robinson ruled Monday that Mansfield Mayor Tim Theaker has the power to remove his board appointees, Debra Chase and Isoleen Dunn.
“I’m pleased with his decision,” Theaker said. “I think he deliberated and weighed all the options. I am looking forward to (the MMHA) being able to move forward.”
Both Dunn and Chase were contacted but declined to comment on the ruling.
Theaker re-appointed Chase and Dunn to five-year terms on the board in 2021 and 2022, respectively. He asked both of them to resign in January and filed a lawsuit after they refused to step down.
The Ohio Revised Code requires Theaker to appoint two of the agency’s five board members, but the law doesn’t specify whether board members can be removed — or the procedure for doing so.
The one exception is noted in the Ohio Revised Code 3735.27 (F)(1). Under that statute, Theaker is required to appoint one board member who is a resident of a dwelling unit owned or managed by the housing authority.
The same section states that if the board’s resident member no longer qualifies as a resident, another resident member shall be appointed to serve the unexpired portion of that term.
In his order, Robinson wrote that Chase no longer qualifies to be a board member “as appointed” by Theaker, since she no longer resides in housing owned by the authority.
Chase testified during a February hearing that she has lived at her current residence for nearly 14 years, and that it hasn’t been owned or managed by the MMHA during that time. She also told the court she wasn’t aware she was supposed to be the board’s metro resident.
“I never knew there was such a rule. Nobody’s ever explained that to us,” she said. “I should have been informed of these rules by the board.”
Robinson found that Theaker had the authority to remove Dunn because there is no statutory or case law preventing it.
Mansfield Law Director John Spon represented Theaker in the case. He submitted four pieces of case law as evidence: Marenkovic v. Youngstown, State ex rel. Hamilton City Bd. of Commrs. V. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, the state, ex rel. Burns v. Disalle, Governor and Stebbins v. Rhodes.
Each case upheld an appointing body’s right to remove an appointee, though none of them specifically dealt with a housing authority.
MMHA director, mayor said board activity put agency at risk
During hearings on Feb. 21 and March 17, Spon argued both board members put the agency at risk of losing millions of dollars in grants and tax credits for a new, low-income housing development project by refusing to approve meeting minutes, expenditures and financial statements for several months last year.
After a contested vote in August, the board failed to approve the items for months. Dunn and Chase joined the other board members in approving the bills and financial reports in December. Meeting minutes still have not been approved since August.
During a hearing March 17, MMHA executive director Steve Andrews submitted audio recordings of all board meetings from Aug. 23 to Dec. 21 into evidence. Andrews also played sections of the recordings, including an audio clip of the August meeting where board members voted 3-2 to approve a budgetary increase of $18,000 to create two new deputy director positions.
“After voting to approve something, after that fact, every time the discussion came up, (Dunn) would deny approving it,” Andrews said on the stand.
“When asked any questions regarding it, (she would) change the topic, would not answer questions and not be willing to move forward on either correcting the minutes or approving them as they stood.”
Andrews testified that board members Dunn, Chase and Sarah Hairston repeatedly refused to approve bills and financial statements during the months of October, November and December, either by voting no or abstaining. He also played audio clips from corresponding meetings.
Andrews said a failure by the board to approve such items could result in state audit findings, jeopardizing the agency’s opportunities to secure development grants.
Dunn said she “couldn’t believe” what she heard on the tapes and claimed the audio has been doctored.
Dunn and Chase also said they never got in the way of the agency’s funding and that Andrews didn’t adequately inform the board of the agency’s ongoing activities.
“They came in with the accusations that we were holding up money,” Dunn said. “I’m sitting there like, ‘What are you talking about?’ The board didn’t even know half the things that were going on.”
In her closing statement on March 17, Dunn said she believed she deserves to remain on the board.
“I went on that board to serve, to help people in the city and not to hurt them,” she said.
“When you’re on the board, you’re there for your mind. Not to be a puppet. If I feel that something is not going right, or is not right, I’m going to speak up.”
Dunn also said she came to court to defend her name.
“I am very disgusted, to say the least, that I was drug through the mud in the public and in the paper,” she told Robinson. “I know what decision you have to make, but that’s the reason I’m here.”
Chase said her role on the board makes her feel whole.
“I love the people we help. They deserve something good in their life,” she said. “I am not a criminal. Like Isoleen said, I’m so tired of the falsehoods.”
Robinson noted during the hearing that his ruling isn’t a judgement on anyone’s character, actions or intentions as related to the housing authority.
“My focus from the beginning has been, can the mayor remove people he previously appointed? And if he can, are there grounds for that?” Robinson said during the final hearing.
“Can he do it for no reason, just because he feels like it? Or does he have to have good cause? That’s all I’m trying to figure out.”
