Mentor council adopts citywide nepotism ordinance after public debate about hiring of councilman’s son

Mentor City Council approved Ordinance 25‑O‑001 on third reading on Feb. 18, enacting section 151.011 of the city codified ordinances to establish a city nepotism policy that restricts employment when a candidate is a relative of certain city officials.

The ordinance passed after public comment from residents who urged approval and others who raised concerns about how a technical position in the engineering department had been filled. Jeff Cook urged council to pass the ordinance and cited Ohio law he said prohibits using a public position to secure employment for a family member; he told council he had reviewed email records and believed the position had been promised to Councilman Scott Marne’s son before it was publicly created. Daniel Lavric told council the ordinance’s repeated introduction was “disgusting” and said that the earlier abstentions by Councilman Marne and another member should be disqualifying.

Councilman Marne and administration staff explained the hiring process for the staff-member in question. City staff said the individual had worked as an intern and was later appointed to a part‑time technical position by the city manager under administrative authority; the city manager confirmed he appointed the employee and described the role as part time while the person attended school. Council members and the city attorney explained that the proposed ordinance does not apply retroactively to existing employees, includes a civil‑service exception for positions filled by competitive examination, and does not supersede collective‑bargaining agreements.

After discussion, council voted to approve the ordinance on third reading. Roll-call votes recorded in the meeting transcript show unanimous approval among the council members present at the time of final reading.

Why it matters: The ordinance creates a formal, written rule intended to avoid appearances of favoritism in city hiring and clarifies exceptions for civil-service positions and existing employees. Public commenters raised specific allegations about prior hiring practices that council and administration characterized as administrative actions, not legislative ones; the ordinance sets a clearer legislative standard going forward.

What remains unclear: Public commenters alleged a prior promise and lack of a public posting for the position; council records in the meeting indicate the city manager made the appointment and that some procedural information (dates and exact salary history) was “not specified” on the meeting floor.

Provenance: Public comment about nepotism began with Jeff Cook’s remarks and the item concluded with the ordinance’s third-reading approval.