Mayor, city auditor at odds

During Monday night’s Hillsboro City Council meeting, Hillsboro Mayor Drew Hastings distributed copies of an email exchange between him and another “elected official” to council members.

The email exchange was between Hastings and Hillsboro City Auditor Gary Lewis after Lewis responded to the mayor’s question of whether the “2016 budget included sufficient funds for the purpose of acquiring outside legal counsel for various issues that may arise within the City.”

“I think transparency in public affairs works best,” Hastings told council about the email exchange. “My attitude is to deal with problems head-on and not let rumors take over … particularly if it has ripple effects on city operations.”

The following is the email exchange between Lewis and Hastings.

• • •

The following email was sent by Lewis on Friday, Jan. 8 at 9:55 a.m.

Dear Mayor,

Last month you inquired as to whether our 2016 budget included sufficient funds for the purpose of acquiring outside legal counsel for various issues that may arise within the City. After doing some research, please be advised of my findings;

Reference is made to Title 7 of the Ohio Revised Code, Section 733.51:

1. The city director of law shall prepare all contracts.

2. The city director of law shall prepare all bonds.

3. The city director of law shall prepare all instruments in writing in which the city is concerned.

4. The city director of law shall serve the several directors and officers of the city as legal counsel and attorney.

Section 733.54:

(9) When an officer of a city entertains doubts concerning the law in any matter before him in this official capacity, and desires the opinion of the city director of law, he shall clearly state to the director of law, in writing, the question upon which the opinion is desired, and thereupon the director of law shall, within a reasonable time, reply orally or in writing to such inquiry. The right conferred upon such officers by this section extends to the legislative authority of the city, and to each board of the city.

Section 733.621
(16) The city director of law may appoint, as an assistant legal officer, prosecutor, clerk, stenographer, or other employee, a person who is an associate or partner of, or who is employed by, the chief legal officer, assistant legal officer, or prosecutor in the private practice of law in a partnership, professional association, or other law business arrangement; and may appoint, as an assistant prosecutor, clerk, stenographer, or other employee, a person who is an associate of, or is employed by, the chief legal officer, the prosecutor, an assistant legal officer, or an assistant prosecutor in the private practice of law in a partnership, professional association, or other law business arrangement.

With this in mind, be advised that you are not permitted to contract with outside legal counsel, for the purpose of conducting City business, without the express written consent of the director of law. In addition, all requests for legal opinions, where the City is concerned, must be addressed to the director of law. Finally, you do not have the authority to hire any personnel for the purpose of acting as an assistant director of law. On this last point, it is my opinion – and my opinion only – that your firing of Kathryn Hapner during your first term and the subsequent hiring (albeit for a limited time) of Laura Curliss to act as assistant law director, may have been an unlawful act.

Be advised that should outside legal counsel be required, it will be the director of law who will make that determination. The Auditor’s office will not issue a purchase order for outside legal counsel without a purchase requisition made by and signed by the director of law. Further, the Auditor’s office will not process employment forms for any employee employed by anyone other than the director of law (and affirmed by City Council if required by law), for the purpose of acting as an assistant law director.

Thank you in advance of your cooperation in this matter.

Gary L. Lewis

• • •

The mayor’s response on Monday, Jan. 11 at 5:04 p.m. is below.

Gary,

I have long touted the need for a spirit of cooperation amongst local elected officials, the business community, and the public at large if we, as a City are going to make any meaningful headway.

It is distraction enough – to impede city business by diverting resources away from serious efforts – when it is caused by a small group of hateful sore losers (the dismissed civil suit) – but when it’s one of our own who jumps on the bandwagon and fans the flames of vigilante politics, I have to respond.

Last Friday you sent me a public document in which you present as your opinion and assertion that 4 years ago, I may have committed an unlawful act by terminating an Asst. Law Director and replacing them with someone else.

What is troubling is that your assertion is one that has no basis in reality. Nobody involved in the matter has ever discussed the termination or had concerns about – in the 4 years since the event – until you wanted to make it a lighting [sic] rod for my detractors.

Your email was an unsolicited legal opinion that neither I, or anyone else, had ever even inquired about. By creating a problem where there was none you have also left the door open for our Law Director to be enmeshed in any dissection of this termination.

What particularly bothers me, Gary, is that you know I have an open door policy – you walk by my office four times a day. You could have easily brought up any concerns or disagreements to me directly.

But you didn’t.

I know that the voters of this city are really tired of “politics as usual” and power plays and “gotcha” which is what the intent of your email was.

As for your edicts that the Administration cannot spend money as it deems fit in the best interest of the taxpayer, well, I’m not going to explain our every administrative decision to you.

Further, your legal opinion that we cannot get legal assistance on specific matters without jumping through hoops of your own creation is invalid. Fred Beery will tell you – that he is a part-time Law director for the city – he represents 4 or 5 other communities – but we are a full time Administration with a rather ambitious schedule. So Fred knows and I’m sure is in agreement that at times the city reaches out to other legal sources if something is, say, time sensitive. I am well aware that Fred has final review of any matter and I believe, thus far we have always complied with that.

The last issue that I will respond to is your decision not to process employment forms for anyone hired in the area of legal assistance.

The result is that you are holding the city hostage by taking the stance that you are the determinating [sic] factor in hiring. The natural question that this begs is: where does this stop with you?

Right now, we have applicants for Randy Barrs’ [sic] replacement as Water/Sewer streets manager and a new code officer that Council approved last month.

Dare I ask what if you decide that you don’t care for our hiring plans or decision in that area? Will I see another email from you containing your “cut & paste” citations and accompanying legal opinion?

I wholeheartedly agree that there should be checks and balances between our Executive, legislative, legal and financial departments.

But there are boundaries to be respected. I think we all agree on that, but I consider much of your effort to be a severe overreaching into administrative affairs.

If there is a legal concern or opinion to be directed at my office it should come from the Law Directors [sic] office.

I hope that we can get past this and continue to have the good working relationship that we enjoyed not long ago.

There is much positive work to be done in this City and I would like to have you on board with the effort.

Thank you,

Drew