The following email was forwarded to me which every Beachwood resident should read. It is an email to the Ohio Auditor's Office explaining why the Mayor broke the law by pocketing wedding fees and asking them to act on this information. I am interested to see if they do or if they look the other way like City Council and Prosecutor's office has.
If the Auditor's Office does not act, they need to explain their reasons.
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Beachwood Mayor Wedding Fee Issue
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:56:43 -0400
Mr. Yost,
I have learned that the Ohio Auditor’s office is looking into the Mayor of Beachwood Ohio’s practice of retaining the payments made by couples to the City in order to have Mayor Gorden officiate their marriage
ceremony.
Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.43 (A)(1) prohibits a public official from BOTH SOLICITING and accepting additional compensation for performing an act or service in their capacity as an elected official. The fact that this section of the Ohio Revised Code specifically prohibits both accepting and soliciting additional compensation is key to this issue.
I understand the Mayor and other City officials defend the legality of this practice by claiming it does not violate Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.43 (A)(1) because Beachwood City Council passed an
ordinance which allows the Mayor to retain gratuities from officiating weddings.
This argument is flawed for the following two reasons. If my analysis is misguided, I would appreciate if you could reply to this email and explain where my logic and reasoning is faulty.
Point #1
It is true that Beachwood City Council did pass an ordinance allowing the Mayor to accept gratuities. However, ORC 2921.43 (A)(1) prohibits BOTH the acceptance AND SOLICITATION of additional
compensation for performing an act or service in the capacity as a public official.
The ordinance Beachwood City council passed only allows the Mayor to accept this extra compensation but does not allow him to solicit this extra compensation which is also prohibited in ORC 2921.43. While he might have been allowed to accept gratuities due to the ordinance, he is still prohibited
from soliciting such gratuities.
The City has admitted that these payments were solicited. In an attempt to defend the legality of this practice City officials assert the payments were not mandatory fees but merely suggested gratuities (more
on this in Point #2). Even if you were to believe that these couples were told or led to believe the payments amounts ($150 if in City Hall during City Hall hours and $250 if outside of City Hall or outside of City Hall
hours) were just suggested voluntary gratuity levels instead of mandatory fees, suggesting these payments is clearly and unmistakably the act of soliciting this extra compensation which is prohibited in ORC 2921.43 (A)(1) .
Unless there is another ordinance that exists which I am not aware that allows the Mayor to solicit extra compensation for providing an act or service in his capacity as a public official, this practice is in clear
violation of ORC 2921.43 (A)(1).
Point #2
I have viewed a number of internal documents from the city which were given to individuals via public records requests. It seems the City’s strategy is to ignore and deem irrelevant what people who made these payments were told or led to believe by the Mayor's office.
City officials will tell you this practice is legal because City Council passed an ordinance allowing the Mayor to retain gratuities and these payments were voluntary. However, they conveniently ignore or claim it is irrelevant that couples who made these payments told they were fees and were never told
that they were voluntary or a “gratuity”.
I understand your office has a recording of a phone conversation with one of the Mayor’s assistants where she clearly stated that this payment was a fee and never used the word gratuity or voluntary. In this recording, she also stated that the payment need to be made to the City and never
alerted the person that this money would be retained by the Mayor.
Even an internal document the city and Mayor’s office used clearly listed this payment as a “fee” until recently when it was changed after this issue became public. From documents I have read, the law director, the finance director and council president all argue that it is irrelevant what these payment were called or what the people who made these payments were told and led to believe.
Of course it matters. It is insulting and ingenuous to argue that this practice is legal because the ordinance allows for the Mayor to keep voluntary gratuities and claim it is irrelevant that the people who made these
payments were not made aware this was a voluntary payment and were told this was a fee.
I have also heard that the finance director and the law director have used the fact that some couples didn’t pay anything to support their position that these payments were voluntary. What they forget to mention is that in the Channel 3 news story by Tom Meyers, the Mayor told Mr. Meyers that he waives the payment if they are friends of his.
I don't understand how the Mayor can admit he waives the payment and then tries to argue the payment was voluntary. I also am disturbed that City officials have attempted to assert that these instances
where the Mayor waived the payment for people who he is friends as proof that this payment was voluntary as not everyone paid the same amount. It is troubling that City Officials would intentionally use this argument they know to be misleading.
Conclusion
Please look into the two points which are outlined in this email when considering this issue. If any of my points are misguided, please respond to this email and explain where my logic and reasoning is flawed.
In the near future, I will put together another email detailing new information I have received surrounding the Mayor cashing 100% of all allotted vacation days for the last decade even when he has admitted to taking time off. However, I want to wait to see how this office rules on the wedding fee first.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen - [email protected]
If the Auditor's Office does not act, they need to explain their reasons.
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Beachwood Mayor Wedding Fee Issue
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:56:43 -0400
Mr. Yost,
I have learned that the Ohio Auditor’s office is looking into the Mayor of Beachwood Ohio’s practice of retaining the payments made by couples to the City in order to have Mayor Gorden officiate their marriage
ceremony.
Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.43 (A)(1) prohibits a public official from BOTH SOLICITING and accepting additional compensation for performing an act or service in their capacity as an elected official. The fact that this section of the Ohio Revised Code specifically prohibits both accepting and soliciting additional compensation is key to this issue.
I understand the Mayor and other City officials defend the legality of this practice by claiming it does not violate Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.43 (A)(1) because Beachwood City Council passed an
ordinance which allows the Mayor to retain gratuities from officiating weddings.
This argument is flawed for the following two reasons. If my analysis is misguided, I would appreciate if you could reply to this email and explain where my logic and reasoning is faulty.
Point #1
It is true that Beachwood City Council did pass an ordinance allowing the Mayor to accept gratuities. However, ORC 2921.43 (A)(1) prohibits BOTH the acceptance AND SOLICITATION of additional
compensation for performing an act or service in the capacity as a public official.
The ordinance Beachwood City council passed only allows the Mayor to accept this extra compensation but does not allow him to solicit this extra compensation which is also prohibited in ORC 2921.43. While he might have been allowed to accept gratuities due to the ordinance, he is still prohibited
from soliciting such gratuities.
The City has admitted that these payments were solicited. In an attempt to defend the legality of this practice City officials assert the payments were not mandatory fees but merely suggested gratuities (more
on this in Point #2). Even if you were to believe that these couples were told or led to believe the payments amounts ($150 if in City Hall during City Hall hours and $250 if outside of City Hall or outside of City Hall
hours) were just suggested voluntary gratuity levels instead of mandatory fees, suggesting these payments is clearly and unmistakably the act of soliciting this extra compensation which is prohibited in ORC 2921.43 (A)(1) .
Unless there is another ordinance that exists which I am not aware that allows the Mayor to solicit extra compensation for providing an act or service in his capacity as a public official, this practice is in clear
violation of ORC 2921.43 (A)(1).
Point #2
I have viewed a number of internal documents from the city which were given to individuals via public records requests. It seems the City’s strategy is to ignore and deem irrelevant what people who made these payments were told or led to believe by the Mayor's office.
City officials will tell you this practice is legal because City Council passed an ordinance allowing the Mayor to retain gratuities and these payments were voluntary. However, they conveniently ignore or claim it is irrelevant that couples who made these payments told they were fees and were never told
that they were voluntary or a “gratuity”.
I understand your office has a recording of a phone conversation with one of the Mayor’s assistants where she clearly stated that this payment was a fee and never used the word gratuity or voluntary. In this recording, she also stated that the payment need to be made to the City and never
alerted the person that this money would be retained by the Mayor.
Even an internal document the city and Mayor’s office used clearly listed this payment as a “fee” until recently when it was changed after this issue became public. From documents I have read, the law director, the finance director and council president all argue that it is irrelevant what these payment were called or what the people who made these payments were told and led to believe.
Of course it matters. It is insulting and ingenuous to argue that this practice is legal because the ordinance allows for the Mayor to keep voluntary gratuities and claim it is irrelevant that the people who made these
payments were not made aware this was a voluntary payment and were told this was a fee.
I have also heard that the finance director and the law director have used the fact that some couples didn’t pay anything to support their position that these payments were voluntary. What they forget to mention is that in the Channel 3 news story by Tom Meyers, the Mayor told Mr. Meyers that he waives the payment if they are friends of his.
I don't understand how the Mayor can admit he waives the payment and then tries to argue the payment was voluntary. I also am disturbed that City officials have attempted to assert that these instances
where the Mayor waived the payment for people who he is friends as proof that this payment was voluntary as not everyone paid the same amount. It is troubling that City Officials would intentionally use this argument they know to be misleading.
Conclusion
Please look into the two points which are outlined in this email when considering this issue. If any of my points are misguided, please respond to this email and explain where my logic and reasoning is flawed.
In the near future, I will put together another email detailing new information I have received surrounding the Mayor cashing 100% of all allotted vacation days for the last decade even when he has admitted to taking time off. However, I want to wait to see how this office rules on the wedding fee first.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen - [email protected]