Cleveland Heights committee discusses ordinance to publish city contracts online

Cleveland Heights council members and the mayor discussed Ordinance 84-2025 at an Administrative Services Committee meeting on May 12, a proposal that would require the city to publish executed contracts in a searchable format on the city website. The committee did not take a formal vote.

The item grew out of concerns about transparency, including questions about a roughly $48,000 Burgess contract that several council members cited. Vice President Davita Russell, who introduced the ordinance, said she supported an amendment to allow the mayor’s designee to carry out posting duties: "I did like the amendment that, the mayor wanted to add as far as the mayor or designee. I am very comfortable with that." Law Director Bill Hannah and other members discussed how the ordinance would intersect with existing city code (noted in the meeting as section 17-116) and state procurement thresholds.

Committee discussion centered on several operational details that members said must be clarified before moving the ordinance forward. Members debated what dollar threshold should trigger public posting — the draft would require posting for contracts above a lower limit, with a proposal discussed to start at $7,500. Council members noted that the alternative of lowering the council approval threshold from $50,000 would create different workload implications. "This approach helps to achieve what I would want by reducing the threshold, which is increased transparency," one council member said in support of the posting requirement as an alternative to lowering the approval threshold.

Members also raised questions about how long posted materials should remain online and whether the ordinance should be applied retroactively. Several asked for clarity on retention schedules across departments and whether the legislation should require a specified look-back period or be applied only to contracts executed after the ordinance takes effect. "I think we really need to have a start date because otherwise, there's gonna be a we're not gonna see something for a long time," one councilor said, urging a defined effective date and a separate start date for any retroactive posting.

Technical format and usability were another focus. Several members recommended the posting include an execution date (so records can be sorted chronologically) rather than a free-text "contract term" field that is harder to search. Councilman Jim Posch and others pointed to Lakewood’s posted-contract table as an example of a simple chronological format. Committee members also discussed whether the city’s website vendor (CivicPlus) or a simpler HTML table should be used for the initial implementation, and whether the city should use the Open Checkbook platform (a member said Open Checkbook’s timelines may not match the council’s needs).

Operational burden drew repeated questions. Council members asked who would compile and post the records, whether department-level retention schedules are consistent, and whether the city needs a designated public information officer to manage requests and maintain the postings. Staff member Adi Dawson confirmed the law department prepared the draft language; the committee discussed asking staff to report on administrative impacts and whether to include a regular notice in council packets highlighting newly posted contracts.

Mayor (name not given) spoke at length about the backdrop to the ordinance, saying the measure had arisen in a political context and citing criticism he has received about the Burgess contract. The mayor said he would prefer the ordinance be applied prospectively and indicated he would accept language allowing a designee to perform notification duties. "I've been accused of being untrustworthy by members of this council... around the Burgess contract in particular," he said, adding that the ordinance could address transparency concerns while avoiding an unduly political framing.

The committee reached informal agreement on several drafting points to be clarified before the ordinance moves forward: add "mayor or designee" where appropriate; consider using "execution date" as a searchable field; and make the posting requirement effective going forward rather than establishing an open-ended retroactive look-back. The committee did not adopt a formal vote or amend the ordinance on the record; members asked the law department and staff to return with clarified language about start dates, retention schedule implications and administrative responsibilities. The meeting was adjourned without a formal action on the ordinance.

The item will return for further drafting and committee consideration with the expectation that staff will propose definitive language on effective date(s), retention-period display, and who will maintain the public contract table on the city website.