O’Grady alleges obstruction in defeat
Mayor wanted city to sponsor annual ball
By Jeff Gallatin
North Olmsted
Published March 1, 2006

City Council has rejected a proposal by Mayor Thomas O’Grady to make the annual mayor’s ball a city government event twice in the last eight days, prompting the mayor to say some members are obstructing his plans.

Council rejected the proposal initially at its Feb. 21 meeting. Then the finance committee rejected bringing the matter back in a special meeting Feb. 25 after O’Grady and Council President Kevin Kennedy discussed bringing the matter back to council this week in a special meeting in an attempt by the mayor to get the April 1 event held at the city-owned Springvale Ballroom this year.

O’Grady said he wanted to have the meeting at a city-operated facility, which would allow city employess to work on it.

“At this point, I see this as attempts by some members of council to obstruct some proposals by the mayor,” O’Grady said. “They’ve blocked some other proposals, like seeking an administrative assistant  other plans. They’re going against the advice of the city law director on this, who I asked to research it to make it the best possible ordinance. This proposal would make it a city sponsored event and keep it open and above board. I would hope voters in the city see this for what it is. I will continue to seek proposals which will better the city. Some members of council may slow this administration down, but it will not stop it.”

However, Council Finance Committee Chairman Ron Tallon and Councilman-at-large Paul Miller, two of the four council members opposing the measure, disputed O’Grady’s allegations that some council members were obstructing O’Grady’s proposals.

“I just don’t believe the city should be involved in an event like this,” Tallon said. “I will support it personally. I’ll even buy a ticket for it as I have other mayor’s balls. But I don’t believe that it is in the best interests of the city or its citizens for this even to be a city event. The mayor’s got to understand that we just disagree and that we’re not directing this at him personally.”

Miller said O’Grady’s allegation is disappointing.

“I’m disappointed that he believes that,” Miller said. “The mayor has got to learn that just because I disagree with him and vote against him on some issues, it doesn’t mean I’m deliberately obstructing him. It means I disagree. And right now, it looks like a majority of council disagrees with him, but that doesn’t means we’re obstructing him.”

Miller and Ward 4 Councilman Larry Orlowski both advocated having a community organization like the Community Council or something similar control the Mayor’s Ball.

  “I don’t think we should be spending city tax dollars on this,” Orlowski said.

Ward 1 Councilman Dan Ryan was against having city employees being able to work on the event. Ryan expressed concern that employees could be pressured into spending most of their work time on the project and also feel compelled to buy tickets. He also suggested at the Saturday finance committee meeting that the committee hold it until O’Grady could discuss it with them. But Tallon and Miller said with the date for the ball nearing, there wouldn’t be time to discuss it again and voted it down. Miller said he would be willing to discuss it if the mayor came back with a different proposal for next year.

After O’Grady’s proposal was rejected the first time, the mayor sent out a memo directing department directors ensure that no city employee work on the mayor’s ball on city time and that no city equipment or assets be used on it.

Ward 3 Councilwoman Nicole Dailey-Jones said council could support it by passing it with a provision that council have some say into   which charities receive money from the ball. Passing the legislation gives council some control over the matter.

Ward 2 Councilman Paul Barker said he felt Law Director Jim Dubelko had helped craft a strong ordinance which he could support. Councilman-at-large Michael Gareau Jr. was busy with a work commitment and did not attend the committee session but had voted for the ordinance at the full council session.

Prior to that vote, O’Grady had sent out a memo outlining his plan to make it a city event and asking council for support. He asked council to contact him or Dubelko with any questions.

“That’s disappointing to me because none of the people voting no contacted me to discuss it or raise concerns,” O’Grady said.

He said hewill send legislation to council asking it to consider whether the city should be involved in other similar events. He also said he plans to bring the legislation back to council in some form next year. He plans to have this year’s ball at a hall at the Church of St. Clarence.