Mayor still pursuing Springvale records
By Jeff Gallatin
North Olmsted
Published March 23, 2005

What officials recently hoped would be the end of the battle instead turned out to be only a truce in the legal fight which began last year when Mayor Norman T. Musial sought the confidential police records of the Springvale investigation.

Officials from both sides said the apparent settlement they thought had been reached in February has fallen through, thus placing the case back before the Ohio Supreme Court.

"We were unable to reach an agreement when we met in mediation this week (March 15), so the case will go forward before the Supreme Court," said Gary Ebert, who has been one of Musial's attorneys since the case was before the 8th District Court of Appeals in February 2004. Ebert did say that Jon Musial, a son of the mayor and like his father an attorney, would be taking over the bulk of the legal work.

"I will still be involved but Jon Musial will be serving as lead attorney on the case now," Ebert said.

Norman Musial said there were items still to be settled in the appeal.

"There are some important legal issues which need to be decided," said the elder Musial, who declined further comment because the case is still pending.

Jon Musial could not be reached for comment.

On Jan 7, the appeals court ruled that the bulk of the police department investigatory records sought by Musial should remain confidential. Musial and Ebert did say the court ruling required the release of some of the records sought by the mayor.

An appeal was filed with the state supreme court, but shortly afterward both Ebert and North Olmsted Law Director Jim Dubelko said discussions between the two sides had led them close to a settlement.

"Prior to the mediation, the mayor's attorney, on or about Feb. 11, proposed a settlement of the appeal," Dubelko said. "I instructed the city's outside counsel (Todd Hunt and Fred Whatley of Walter and Haverfeld) to settle the appeal on the terms proposed by the mayor, because the settlement, as it was proposed, would have both preserved the city's privilege to keep confidential the records of police department investigations, where no suspect was ever arrested or charged with a crime, and would have saved the city thousands of dollars in outside counsel fees that will be incurred in defending the appeal."

Dubelko said the city's outside counsel sent a written settlement proposal Feb. 14 to the mayor's attorney which reflected the settlement terms proposed by Musial's attorneys. But the document was never signed or returned with any request for modifications, he said.

Both Ebert and Dubelko declined to discuss the mediation, citing court rules that it shall remain confidential. They said the case has been returned to the Ohio Supreme Court's docket for establishment of a briefing schedule.

"At this point in time, I anticipate that the mayor's appeal will go forward in accordance with the rules of the Ohio Supreme Court," Dubelko said. "The city will be required to defend the appeal and that the Ohio Supreme Court will ultimately decide the merits of the mayor's appeal either in late 2005 or early 2006."

Councilman-at-large Michael Gareau Jr. said he's disappointed the matter has not been settled.

"I had hoped this would be done by now," Gareau said. "It's costing the city money and I wouldn't think the mayor would want to leave this as part of his legacy."

Gareau said he was also unhappy that the mayor's proposed budget for the city did not include funds for defending itself against the mayor's case. He noted the costs for it have already exceeded $20,000.

"Now council has to go into the budget and decide what city service or need of citizens doesn't get fulfilled because we have to find money to deal with this."