Editor’s note: We accept letters from the public. Jorge Pla sent us a letter to the editor. Since this letter is about Issue 3, we feel the need to tell both sides of the story. What follows is a letter from Jorge Pla and a letter from Mark Guidetti Director of Law, City of Macedonia
If you would like to send us a letter to the editor, please submit via email to juliedaloiso@gmail.com
From Jorge Pla
At the March 23, 2017 Council meeting Mayor Joseph Migliorini disclosed that he spent $49,700 of the taxpayer’s money on Issue 3; another attempt to pass an income tax levy that has previously been rejected by Macedonia residents on two separate occasions. The Mayor accepted “full responsibility” for the expenditure of these funds and said it was for public “education.” Migliorini said, “It’s incumbent upon this Mayor and Administration to educate the general public about the issues.”
Although the Mayor’s intent behind expending the monies is debatable, what is not in dispute is that it is illegal for Mayor Migliorini to use public funds to support the passage of Issue 3. Given the Mayor’s public stance on the matter, lack of neutrality on information being released, and altogether failure to address opposing views, it is doubtful anyone would see the Mayor’s campaign as anything other than propaganda intended to pass Issue 3.
Further, Ohio law and the Macedonia Charter prohibit the spending of the public’s money except in pursuance of an appropriation made by the City’s Council. In this instance, it is undisputed City Council did not debate or pass an ordinance that authorized Mayor Migliorini to spend almost $50,000 for the passage of Issue 3.
When the Mayor committed these funds in early March 2017, the City of Macedonia was operating under a temporary three month appropriation passed during December 2016. This temporary budget did not appropriate $49,700 or authorize the Mayor to “educate” or “market” Issue 3 to Macedonia residents.
When Macedonia’s City Council passed its final 2017 budget on March 23, 2017 after almost three months of discussions, the budget did not appropriate funds to “educate” or promote passage of the Issue 3 levy. In summary, there is no evidence that the expenditure was part of Macedonia’s 2017 annual budget.
Still, Mayor Migliorini took it upon himself to spend the money without authority and in violation of state law. In my opinion, Ohio law requires the Clerk of Council to report the Mayor’s actions on this matter to the Ohio’s Auditor Office and to the Treasurer of State so that an investigation of these expenditures can take place. However, I am under no delusion that such action shall actually occur.
Jorge Luis Pla, Esq.
RaslanPla & Company, LLC
Dear Mr. Pla,
I am in receipt of your correspondence dated April 12, 2017 in which you make an allegation that there has somehow been an improper expenditure of public funds. To support your position, you say that “it is doubtful anyone would see the Mayor’s campaign as anything other than propaganda intended to pass Issue 3,” particularly in light of the Mayor’s “public stance,” according to you.
Notably, you cite no authority in support of your allegation, likely because none exists. Regardless, allow me to provide the following for your information so that you may retract your baseless allegations. First, municipalities are permitted to expend public funds to provide information to taxpayers regarding a levy on which they will vote at an upcoming election. This is part of the purpose of the total expenditure. Second, the expenditure is also for the purpose of gathering information from residents regarding their needs and wants, and to continue providing information to residents throughout the year. Third, public officials do not lose their I st Amendment right to free speech by virtue of their taking public office. As such, while certain municipalities may be prohibited from expending public funds to support or oppose a levy, public officials remain free to speak publicly in support of or opposition to a levy. Certainly, the Mayor, the members of Council, as well as members of the administration have publicly spoken both in support of and against Issue 3. Such public statements are proper, and attempting to bootstrap an allegation of improper expenditure of public funds via such statements is simply improper and ignores (and would be in contradiction to) rights guaranteed by the United States and Ohio Constitutions.
You also make an allegation that funds were not appropriated “in pursuance of an appropriation” by City Council. However, the City does not operate on a line item budget. Moreover, the funds were appropriately accounted for via the temporary and subsequently the annual appropriation measure out of funds allocated to the administration/Finance, the expenditure of which are, generally, within the administration’s discretion. You make reference to the $50,000 competitive bidding threshold in your letter which, as I’m sure you realize, this expenditure is below and therefore no legislation approving competitive bidding for the contract was necessary.
I should also note that it is interesting, to say the least, that you are now apparently concerned about the expenditure of City funds despite the lawsuit in which you sought over $1,000,000.00 from the defendants, which included the City, and then recently appeared at a Council meeting at which you spoke about how much the Farnhurst lawsuit cost the City, such that the City didn’t actually “win” the lawsuit, but rather your clients (despite the fact that, as outlined in my prior correspondence to you, the plaintiffs’ claims evaluated by the Court were determined to be baseless). You can surely see the discrepancy in now attacking a proper expenditure of funds to provide information to residents of the City, while previously demanding the City “pay out” on baseless claims levied against it.
I hope the foregoing has been of assistance.
Mark Guidetti
Director of Law, City of Macedonia
These are the options of the authors and not necessary opinions of the staff at NordoniaHills.News.
