City Again Violates Open Meetings Laws

[Bridget Conant]

A brief filed in the Scott vs Lakewood case alleges that the City of Lakewood violated city and state law regarding open meetings and hearings when it banned the public from the breed determination hearing it conducted regarding the dog, Charlie, owned by Scott.

You may recall that many people were interested in this hearing, and sought to attend, but they were removed and the hearing conducted behind closed doors.

What is it with this city?

Why does it hold meetings and hearings in violation of state Sunshine laws?

Why does it refuse to release public records?

How can you trust a government that behaves this way?

[Mark Kindt]

My impression is that the city administration takes the view that compliance with the law is only a discretionary obligation.

I'm sure other lawyers who reside in Lakewood would concur with this statement, particularly Mr. Essi and his legal counsel.

I simply do not know why this would be a closed hearing.

Most likely, to prevent citizen exercise of First Amendment rights to protest the ordinance, but justified with health and safety concerns.

[Jim O'Bryan]

My impression is that the city administration takes the view that compliance with the law is only a discretionary obligation.

I'm sure other lawyers who reside in Lakewood would concur with this statement, particularly Mr. Essi and his legal counsel.

I simply do not know why this would be a closed hearing.

Most likely, to prevent citizen exercise of First Amendment rights to protest the ordinance, but justified with health and safety concerns.

Bridget

They would rather take the chance of a resident suing them over sunshine laws, than even care if they appear to be doing the right thing.

But the First Amendment stuff is a whole different critter. Not only is it despicable, there are no small fines.

.

[Mark Kindt]

The new Third Amended Charter establishes a citizen expectation of openness in government:

Article 8.1(a) "Expectations of Government. The citizens of Lakewood rightfully expect their government of elected and appointed officials, and their employees, to behave legally and ethically following principles of open government."

The principles of open government have been codified in the Ohio Revised Code.

The Ohio Sunshine Law Manual 2017 is available for free here:

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/YellowBook

The city administration has an obligation to comply with these ethical and legal standards as well as its own internal written guidelines.

Since 2015, public interest lawyers have spent thousands of hours both in and out of court with the City attempting to achieve compliance with Ohio sunshine laws.

Municipal reform must come from continued citizen pressure in terms of advocacy and the ballot box.

[Dan Alaimo]

When does the new charter become effective?
I can look it up later, but I'm wondering if anyone here knows offhand.

[Mark Kindt]

I just had to post a copy of this.

The idea that the City of Lakewood has had to hire an outside lawyer to mount its pointless defense of this ordinance is borderline ridiculous.

I'm rolling my eyes just reading about this.

The City of Lakewood actually engages in something as absurd as a "breed determination hearing" that does not permit actual scientific evidence. A mere opinion is sufficient!

I'm with that dog, Charlie!

[Mark Kindt]

Here is the open meetings violation argument extracted from Ms. Scott's finely-argued brief.

At the time this violation allegedly occurred, the City of Lakewood was a defendant in a major open meetings violation case. (Skindell v. Madigan)

Again, I make my point that the City of Lakewood proceeds as if compliance with law is at its sole discretion.

My compliments to Ms. Scott and her legal team for an excellent and compelling legal presentation! It's a winner!

[Mark Kindt]

I previously wrote:

"The City of Lakewood actually engages in something as absurd as a "breed determination hearing" that does not permit actual scientific evidence. A mere opinion is sufficient!"

CORRECTION: The ordinance does permit DNA testing as evidence. However, mere opinion evidence is sufficient to make an adverse finding against a dog, as appears to have occurred with Charlie.

This is a "If it walks like a duck, it's a duck" evidence approach.

[Stan Austin]

But when she first got Charlie he relieved an OK from the animal warden. At the very least this shows sloppy and inconsistent procedure.

[Mark Kindt]

While there is a relatively low standard of evidence for the establishment of breed "identity", the hearing officer did review other documentary evidence related to breed "identity" contained in documents associated with Charlie and wrote a substantial and competent opinion consistent with the existing ordinance.

[Mark Kindt]

As we can see, the city administration went out of its way to aggressively enforce its pit-bull restriction with a lot of time and effort.

The sad irony to all of this is that when it comes to the big things, like enforcing its major contracts....well, no, not so much....just let them walk...no problem...no need to bother....you can have the assets and the money...tell us what to say to cover you...happy to oblige....we needed that land anyway to give to somebody else....yeah, he's one of our cronies....

Now, in my best John Belushi voice:

But, when it comes to dogs...NO...you're out of here!

[Mark Kindt]

The Attached Brief from Journalist Brian Bardwell is MUST reading!

The City of Lakewood is now the preferred target of Ohio's public interest lawyers!

This also raises the First Amendment Issues associated with the Lakewood Community facebook group moderated (in part) by a city employee.

[Mark Kindt]

Only in Lakewood could we have secret hearings to deprive citizens of their rights to have pets reside with them.

Only in Lakewood could we have secret meetings to deprive citizens of their public assets.

[Bridget Conant]

I thought the Amicus brief was spot on. Along with the initial pleadings it’s going to be tough for the city to win.

With new council members pledging to end the ordinance, what exactly is the point of pursuing this lawsuit?

Does the mayor have to always be right? Is he Lakewood’s version of Donald Trump?

God, let’s hope he never takes to Twitter!