Cleveland Heights council asks law department to draft rules on key-card access, contract transparency and possible independent review after administrator's 
ab

Council members directed the city law department on April 7 to draft potential ordinances and other measures to tighten security and transparency at city hall and to clarify council’s investigatory and charter powers following the March resignation of City Administrator Dan Horrigan and subsequent media reporting that raised questions about the mayor’s wife’s access to city offices.

Council President Kuda opened the Committee of the Whole meeting by reviewing recent events, saying the city had seen “news articles alleging a hostile work environment” and that the former city administrator had resigned on March 17; Kuda also said “It appears the mayor's wife was given key card access credentials to city hall and some or most of its offices.”

Why it matters: Council framed the discussion as a set of limited, legislative options it can pursue as an oversight body: restricting nonemployee key-card access to city facilities, requiring more timely public disclosure of contracts and contract modifications, lowering review thresholds for contracts, and pursuing charter revisions that could change confirmation and investigatory procedures. Council members emphasized they were not taking personnel action at the meeting but were authorizing staff research and draft legislation for future consideration.

What council asked the law department to draft - Limit key-card access to employees and approved contractors and create an audit trail for card swipes so council and the public can review access logs. - Require all city contracts to be shared with council members within 24 hours of execution and posted publicly on the city website (council discussed using Lakewood’s posted-contract table as a model). - Require that contract modifications be documented in writing and reported to council within 24 hours; several council members said oral amendments violate standard boilerplate and should not be accepted. - Revisit the dollar threshold at which council must review or be notified about contracts (current threshold cited as $50,000), with some members supporting lowering that to $25,000 or adopting an alternative transparency approach that posts contracts below the threshold.

Council also discussed charter remedies that could affect investigatory authority and employment actions. Proposals included: requiring council confirmation for certain directorship firings, exploring whether the law director should be appointed or report to council to avoid perceived conflicts, and giving council the option to hold an executive session without the mayor present in select personnel or investigatory circumstances. Multiple members said the law director would be asked to advise on which charter changes are legally possible under the Ohio Revised Code.

Independent review and Burgess & Burgess deliverables Council asked the administration and law director to clarify the scope and deliverables of a Burgess & Burgess survey and contract the city used; several members said Burgess had presented staff interview findings in mid-March and that council should receive the deliverable. Council directed staff to request the Burgess report and to confirm whether staff interviews were presented on March 13 and whether those results are public. Members also discussed commissioning an independent HR consultant or investigator to evaluate workplace climate if the law director advises council it has authority to do so; some members said the law department might be conflicted because it works for the administration.

Record retention and evidence preservation Council asked the law director to advise on record retention and evidence preservation, including how long video and email records are retained and whether preservation notices are needed while investigations are ongoing. A staff member noted department-specific retention schedules exist and are required under Ohio public-records rules (Sunshine Law).

How the council acted The meeting produced no final ordinance votes. Instead, council used show-of-hands consensus (not a formal roll-call vote) to send the suggested measures—key-card restrictions, contract-posting and modification-reporting requirements, and a review of spending thresholds—to the law director for drafting and to request Burgess & Burgess deliverables and related information from the administration. Those show-of-hands decisions were recorded as the council’s instruction to staff rather than a final legislative action.

What remained unresolved Council repeatedly said it would await legal guidance from the law director on subpoena or investigatory powers under the Ohio Revised Code, on whether the law director’s office is conflicted from reviewing certain personnel matters, and on the proper scope of any independent investigation the council could initiate without duplicating or interfering with administration-commissioned work. Several members also expressed concern about administrative capacity and the need to avoid overburdening already-stretched departments.

Ending note: Council members said they will meet the law director on Thursday for a deeper legal review and will circulate draft language to council when available. Councilors emphasized the measures under consideration are intended to improve transparency, protect employee safety, and preserve records while the city clarifies facts arising from recent resignations and reporting.