Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Revision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pepper Pike council divided over mayor’s charter post; debate erupts over hiring outside counsel
Summary
Councilors argued over the mayor’s January posting about proposed charter changes and whether Council should publish a corrective statement before the May 6 vote. A motion to retain outside special counsel prompted legal warnings from the city law director that an ordinance — not a motion — may be required and raised concerns about process and timing.
Council members spent the bulk of their March 25 meeting debating how to respond to a mayoral posting about proposed charter changes and whether the council should hire outside legal counsel to advise on advocacy limits ahead of the May 6 referendum on Issue 17.
Council member Mr. L said the mayor’s posting “was misleading” because it omitted context about the changes and that a council statement was needed to explain that “the mayor continues to have the right to participate in Council meetings including the right to introduce ordinance and resolutions and take part in discussions of all matters coming before Council; he just won't preside.” Several other members said residents deserved fuller context before the vote.
At the center of the debate was a motion by Council member Mr. Gtii to “authorize Pepper Pike City Council to hire an attorney to advise Council and its individual members on matters related to the 2024 Charter review, the Charter Review Commission town hall meetings, the city website, written and oral communications and all other matters pertaining to the vote on Issue 17 on May 6, 2025.”
Law Director Mr. Byron warned councilors there are legal constraints on engaging independent counsel and on how city resources may be used. He advised caution about using a simple motion to retain counsel, saying a motion likely would have no legal effect and recommending instead an ordinance that names a specific special counsel and a dollar limit. As Mr. Byron put it: “there may be a problem… the Ohio Supreme Court said that no, the law director is the legal counsel to the city; the council does not have authority to go outside,” and he suggested an ordinance-based approach if council wished to proceed.
Council members exchanging views described the issue as an unsettled area of Ohio law. Some framed hiring outside counsel as seeking a second, independent legal opinion to clarify the line between informational communications and prohibited advocacy; others cautioned that the process must not appear to be “opinion shopping.” Several members urged quick resolution so council could publish a council statement providing context to residents before the ballot.
By meeting’s end, councilors had not enacted a binding special‑counsel contract. Several members asked the law director to draft an ordinance that would set a clear process and scope for retaining outside counsel; others proposed working with the mayor to produce a joint or council‑authored statement for the website. Council scheduled continuing discussion rather than taking final action that night.
Next steps: Mr. Byron said he would provide case citations and help draft enabling legislation if the council directs him to do so; members agreed to continue work on an ordinance and on a council statement ahead of the May 6 vote.
