Cleveland Heights council questions mayor’s accessibility and Facebook remarks; no formal action taken

Cleveland Heights City Council members met in a special Committee of the Whole on May 23 to discuss the mayor’s recent unavailability and a Facebook video the mayor released, and to seek legal guidance on whether council could assume mayoral duties if the mayor were inaccessible.

The discussion mattered because the assistant law director said the city charter contains a provision — Article 4, Section 10 — that could allow the council president to act as mayor when the mayor is “absent or inaccessible,” but that applying that clause in a strong-mayor charter raises separation-of-powers issues that need careful legal analysis.

Assistant Law Director Chris Helsel told council: “the inquiry circles around, article 4, section 10 of the charter, which states that when the mayor is absent or inaccessible or is unable for any reason to perform the duties of mayor, the president of council shall act as the acting mayor with the same powers and duties as the mayor, but shall not thereby cease to be a member of council.” Helsel said the provision was carried over from an earlier city-manager form of government and that “it’s not at all a straightforward issue” how a transfer of authority would be executed under the current strong-mayor structure. He said the law department would provide a legal opinion and analysis “as soon as humanly possible.”

Council members described weeks of public concern about the mayor’s whereabouts. President Kuda opened the meeting noting staff and residents had been concerned after the mayor missed a promised public statement earlier in the week; the mayor later released a video Wednesday evening. The meeting notice also stated there would be no public comment at this session and that regular public comment would resume Monday, June 2 at 7:30 a.m.

Several council members criticized the mayor’s Facebook video and his response to allegations about comments by his wife. Councilwoman Larson said the mayor’s statement and the underlying conduct were unacceptable, saying, “That behavior disqualifies him as our mayor.” Larson urged that the mayor’s remarks had “further divided the community” and said his response did not promote healing.

Councilman Cobb, who said he had spoken with Jessica Cohen at a community event on the morning of the meeting, said he had intended to apologize on the city’s behalf for hurt caused by the comments and expressed disappointment that the mayor had not issued a meaningful apology. Vice President Davita Russell — present on Zoom — and other council members described a city “torn” and said residents have lost faith in city leadership.

The mayor addressed the council and framed portions of the discussion as political. He told the body, “this council, by no means, is my overseer,” and defended his right to discuss difficult topics privately and publicly. He also said commentary about historic issues was meant to prompt constructive conversations about division in the community.

Council members asked whether the law department had reviewed the mayor’s video before it was released; Helsel said requests for legal advice from the mayor would be subject to attorney-client privilege and that “that’s not the law department’s privilege to waive.” Helsel also said the law department was available to offer advice to members of both the executive and legislative branches upon request.

Council discussed possible next steps, including drafting a resolution or retaining a communications consultant to help with public messaging, but no formal motion or vote was taken during the meeting. President Kuda described the meeting as informational; the record shows no action or ordinance was adopted.

The law department will provide a written opinion on the charter question, and council indicated it may consider drafting a resolution or other formal response at a later meeting. Public comment on the matter is scheduled for the council’s regular meeting on Monday, June 2 at 7:30 a.m.