The following is an email I was copied on which was sent to the Mayor, Law Director and all Council Members about the issue surrounding the Mayor pocketing the wedding fees couples paid to the City.
-----------------------
Mayor Gorden and City of Beachwood Council Members,
I am writing this email after reading over the weekend two articles written in response to Ohio Auditor Dave Yost statement that the Mayor's practice of personally retaining the wedding payments couples made to the City was "improper and contrary to law".
(Click here to read the first article and Click here to see the follow up article).
According to these articles, Beachwood City officials were "shocked" to learn of Auditor Yost's comments because according to them, in the last year the Ohio Auditor's Office looked into this practice and ruled there was nothing illegal.
In the first article, Mayor Gorden was quoted as saying, "Today's comments are a direct contradiction to their previous findings. We're not sure what has changed in recent months that lead to this".
Mr. Mayor, perhaps what has changed is it seems that when the Auditor's office originally investigated this issue, they were told by the City that the wedding money you personally retained came from couples making completely voluntary gratuities and that they were never told there was a fee? However, it seems the Auditor's Office has changed their original opinion once they learned the statements they relied on from the City in their original investigation are very different from what actually occurred in reality.
To make this point, please click here to listen to this recorded phone call I made to the Mayor's Office to inquire about weddings. I recorded this phone call because I have no interest in getting involved in a "he said/ she said" debate. I don't have confidence that City officials will be truthful so I recorded this phone call so there would not be any questions about what was said.
In this phone call, the Mayor's assistant clearly states that there is $125 "fee". She never used the word "gratuity" or "voluntary".
In case anyone who reads this email does not know the law, ORC 2921.43 prohibits any public official from accepting or soliciting any extra compensation for performing an act or service in their official capacity as an public official. While the Beachwood City Council did pass an ordinance approximately 8 years ago which specifically only allows the Mayor to accept "gratuities" from weddings, this ordinance did not allow the Mayor to accept fees from weddings or allow him to solicit gratuities from weddings.
Also, before the City realized that this practice was under scrutiny, it seems obvious that the Mayor's office openly characterized and referred to these payment as "Fees". This is evident from the Mayor's office's internal wedding worksheet which you can see by clicking here and it clearly refers to the payment as a "fee". However, once the City learned the media was looking into this practice, they "reworked" (the law director's words, not mine) this document and replaced the word "Fee" with "Suggested Gratuity". To see this "reworked" document click here .
I imagine the City will try to claim that the use of the word "fee" on this internal worksheet was an honest mistake and once the media started looking into this practice, they realized this mistake and "reworked" this document and replaced the word "fee" with "suggested gratuity".
Similarly, I imagine the City will try to claim that the Mayor's assistant made a one time mistake on the recorded phone call where she clearly stated there was a $125 "fee" and that she really meant to say there was a "suggested gratuity" of $125.
Here is the problem with that response. Even if the recorded phone call didn't exist and one were to believe the Mayor's claim that the City always characterized these payments as "suggested gratuities", telling couples there is a "suggested gratuity" of $125-$250 is clearly soliciting this payment. ORC 2921.43 doesn't just prohibit the acceptance of these payment but also distinctively prohibits the solicitation of these payments. Even under the City's claim that they never represented this payment as a "fee" but instead a "suggested gratuity", suggesting a gratuity is clearly soliciting this payment and is still undoubtedly illegal.
I also think it is important for everyone to click here to watch the WKYC report where Tom Meyer initially exposed this practice. In this report, it seems the Mayor is trying to argue that the money he received was not a "fee" but instead a completely voluntary "set gratuity". To support this position, Mr. Meyer was told that not everyone who was married made these payments because in approximately 20% of the wedding he performed, the voluntary gratuity was waived by the Mayor if the person getting married was a friend of his. First of all, I don't understand how you can waive a payment that is voluntary and secondly, you can't have different payment levels for a service provided by the City depending on whether the person is a friend or politically connected to the Mayor.
I have heard that the City has recently realized this concept of "suggested gratuities" is also illegal because soliciting this compensation is prohibited by ORC 2921.43. In response to this, I understand the City's new position is that these payments were completely voluntary gratuities and were not prompted or solicited. Even without the recorded phone call with the Mayor's assistant or the internal worksheet the Mayor's office used which referred to this payment as a "fee" and then recently changed to "suggested gratuity", I find this hard to believe as almost every payment was either $125 or $250. It is troubling but not surprising if the City put forward a clearly intentionally misleading statement like this.
Keep in mind that questions about this practice only surfaced after the Mayor personally retained these wedding payments for at least 7 years. Last year, when this practice was exposed and first questioned by the Auditor's Office in an official investigation, it seems the City intentionally misrepresented to them how they communicated and characterized the nature of these payments to couples in an effort to convince them this practice as legal.
Now the Auditor's office has learned the true facts about this practice and realizes it is illegal, it seems the City is trying to escape or lessen their culpability by blaming the Auditor's Office for initially ruling this practice was legal and are "shocked" they have changed their opinion.
Please stop being "shocked" and it is disingenuous to blame the Auditor's office for originally ruling this practice was legal when it seems they based this conclusion on the City's inaccurate and misleading claims that they never told couples there was a "fee" but instead told them these payments were voluntary and unsolicited "gratuities". If the City was honest and forthcoming when they were questioned during the Auditor's Office initial investigation, I highly doubt they would have ever told the City this was legal.
Every Councilmember is copied on this email so they can not say they were not made aware of all these facts. I hope each of them take their responsibility to uphold the law seriously. Instead of waiting for action to be taken by others, they should take action now that they have all this information.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to call or email me. If any of the information I provided is inaccurate, it is not intentional and please reply to this email and point it out so I can quickly correct it.
Sincerely,
Mike Burkons
-----------------------
Mayor Gorden and City of Beachwood Council Members,
I am writing this email after reading over the weekend two articles written in response to Ohio Auditor Dave Yost statement that the Mayor's practice of personally retaining the wedding payments couples made to the City was "improper and contrary to law".
(Click here to read the first article and Click here to see the follow up article).
According to these articles, Beachwood City officials were "shocked" to learn of Auditor Yost's comments because according to them, in the last year the Ohio Auditor's Office looked into this practice and ruled there was nothing illegal.
In the first article, Mayor Gorden was quoted as saying, "Today's comments are a direct contradiction to their previous findings. We're not sure what has changed in recent months that lead to this".
Mr. Mayor, perhaps what has changed is it seems that when the Auditor's office originally investigated this issue, they were told by the City that the wedding money you personally retained came from couples making completely voluntary gratuities and that they were never told there was a fee? However, it seems the Auditor's Office has changed their original opinion once they learned the statements they relied on from the City in their original investigation are very different from what actually occurred in reality.
To make this point, please click here to listen to this recorded phone call I made to the Mayor's Office to inquire about weddings. I recorded this phone call because I have no interest in getting involved in a "he said/ she said" debate. I don't have confidence that City officials will be truthful so I recorded this phone call so there would not be any questions about what was said.
In this phone call, the Mayor's assistant clearly states that there is $125 "fee". She never used the word "gratuity" or "voluntary".
In case anyone who reads this email does not know the law, ORC 2921.43 prohibits any public official from accepting or soliciting any extra compensation for performing an act or service in their official capacity as an public official. While the Beachwood City Council did pass an ordinance approximately 8 years ago which specifically only allows the Mayor to accept "gratuities" from weddings, this ordinance did not allow the Mayor to accept fees from weddings or allow him to solicit gratuities from weddings.
Also, before the City realized that this practice was under scrutiny, it seems obvious that the Mayor's office openly characterized and referred to these payment as "Fees". This is evident from the Mayor's office's internal wedding worksheet which you can see by clicking here and it clearly refers to the payment as a "fee". However, once the City learned the media was looking into this practice, they "reworked" (the law director's words, not mine) this document and replaced the word "Fee" with "Suggested Gratuity". To see this "reworked" document click here .
I imagine the City will try to claim that the use of the word "fee" on this internal worksheet was an honest mistake and once the media started looking into this practice, they realized this mistake and "reworked" this document and replaced the word "fee" with "suggested gratuity".
Similarly, I imagine the City will try to claim that the Mayor's assistant made a one time mistake on the recorded phone call where she clearly stated there was a $125 "fee" and that she really meant to say there was a "suggested gratuity" of $125.
Here is the problem with that response. Even if the recorded phone call didn't exist and one were to believe the Mayor's claim that the City always characterized these payments as "suggested gratuities", telling couples there is a "suggested gratuity" of $125-$250 is clearly soliciting this payment. ORC 2921.43 doesn't just prohibit the acceptance of these payment but also distinctively prohibits the solicitation of these payments. Even under the City's claim that they never represented this payment as a "fee" but instead a "suggested gratuity", suggesting a gratuity is clearly soliciting this payment and is still undoubtedly illegal.
I also think it is important for everyone to click here to watch the WKYC report where Tom Meyer initially exposed this practice. In this report, it seems the Mayor is trying to argue that the money he received was not a "fee" but instead a completely voluntary "set gratuity". To support this position, Mr. Meyer was told that not everyone who was married made these payments because in approximately 20% of the wedding he performed, the voluntary gratuity was waived by the Mayor if the person getting married was a friend of his. First of all, I don't understand how you can waive a payment that is voluntary and secondly, you can't have different payment levels for a service provided by the City depending on whether the person is a friend or politically connected to the Mayor.
I have heard that the City has recently realized this concept of "suggested gratuities" is also illegal because soliciting this compensation is prohibited by ORC 2921.43. In response to this, I understand the City's new position is that these payments were completely voluntary gratuities and were not prompted or solicited. Even without the recorded phone call with the Mayor's assistant or the internal worksheet the Mayor's office used which referred to this payment as a "fee" and then recently changed to "suggested gratuity", I find this hard to believe as almost every payment was either $125 or $250. It is troubling but not surprising if the City put forward a clearly intentionally misleading statement like this.
Keep in mind that questions about this practice only surfaced after the Mayor personally retained these wedding payments for at least 7 years. Last year, when this practice was exposed and first questioned by the Auditor's Office in an official investigation, it seems the City intentionally misrepresented to them how they communicated and characterized the nature of these payments to couples in an effort to convince them this practice as legal.
Now the Auditor's office has learned the true facts about this practice and realizes it is illegal, it seems the City is trying to escape or lessen their culpability by blaming the Auditor's Office for initially ruling this practice was legal and are "shocked" they have changed their opinion.
Please stop being "shocked" and it is disingenuous to blame the Auditor's office for originally ruling this practice was legal when it seems they based this conclusion on the City's inaccurate and misleading claims that they never told couples there was a "fee" but instead told them these payments were voluntary and unsolicited "gratuities". If the City was honest and forthcoming when they were questioned during the Auditor's Office initial investigation, I highly doubt they would have ever told the City this was legal.
Every Councilmember is copied on this email so they can not say they were not made aware of all these facts. I hope each of them take their responsibility to uphold the law seriously. Instead of waiting for action to be taken by others, they should take action now that they have all this information.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to call or email me. If any of the information I provided is inaccurate, it is not intentional and please reply to this email and point it out so I can quickly correct it.
Sincerely,
Mike Burkons