O’Grady, council still at odds
By Jeff Gallatin
North Olmsted
Published March 29, 2006

City council members are preparing to challenge Mayor Thomas O’Grady’s veto of council’s placement of an additional correctional officer in this year’s budget.

As he indicated last week after learning of council’s insertion of the additional police position into the budget while he was attending a National League of Cities meeting in Washington D.C. two weeks ago, O’Grady Monday vetoed the portions of the budget pertaining to council’s adding the correctional officer to the budget. It is his first veto since he took office nearly one year ago after Norman T. Musial retired for family family health reasons. O’Grady has called for a 7 p.m. council meeting tomorrow to consider the final budget. The city is required to have its budget ready by Friday. To override O’Grady’s veto, council would need a super majority vote of at least 5-2.

Both O’Grady and members of council maintained their differences about the correctional officer during the last budget hearing. Council passed the budget that way at its March 21 meeting.

“My objections are based upon the fact that this addition was done without the request of the administration and without any consultation with the administration,” O’Grady said in the veto message. “Additionally, since there was no discussion of adding this position during the open committee meetings, it is clear that the finance committee’s decision to recommend an amendment to ordinance 2006-50 (the budget ordinance) to provide funding for this additional position was initiated outside of the committee process. Such action is contrary to the idea of open government, and it is unfortunate that the Committee chose secrecy over open discussion on this matter.”

Finance Committee Chairman Ron Tallon said he’s not surprised by O’Grady’s move.

“He said he was going to veto it,” Tallon said. “We expected it at this point since he’s indicated he didn’t like the correctional officer going in.”

Tallon and several other council members said they still believe they took the right action.

“We’re in a very tight budget, and there was concern about our being down the one correctional officer right now and how it is a problem with potential liability,” Tallon said. “We tried to take a little each from several departments.”

O’Grady said later that he still believes several council members acted secretly outside the budget sessions to decide on adding the correctional officer.

“They did it without talking to the administration and they did it in secrecy,” O’Grady said. “Secrecy is not good government and it serves no one well.”

Several council members said there was open discussion of their concerns about the correctional officer during the budget sessions.

“We talked about whether it was a problem, about the overtime and about how police officers have to fill in as a correctional officer at times,” said Larry Orlowski, chairman of council’s safety committee. “We didn’t think it was a good situation and asked questions. So I support the budget as we passed it.”

Councilman-at-large Paul Miller, who has differed with O’Grady on other occasions, noted he had asked questions about the police department and the correctional officer situation. He also said he wasn’t surprised by the veto or O’Grady’s criticism.

“Now, we’ll have to see what happens at the council meeting,” Miller said.

Ward 1 Councilman Dan Ryan said he thought the overall budget was a good one.

“Overall, we only made a few changes to it,” Ryan said. “I thought the administration and council did good jobs with what they did.”

Ryan also said he supports the budget as passed.

O’Grady said he, Safety Director Tom Terbrack and Police Chief George Ruple are all on record as opposing the additional correctional officer and the reductions made in other areas to fund the new position. He also said that Ward 3 Councilwoman Nicole Dailey-Jones had asked the city legal department to review whether there was potential liability with the current staffing levels in the police department and jail.

“You have the mayor and the two top safety officials opposing this addition” O’Grady said. “And the law department has found there is no liability. I don’t think council should be opposing the veto. If  the members of council uphold the veto, I will quickly go back to council to make those reduced line items whole again.”

Dailey-Jones said she is still reviewing the information pertaining to the matter.

Councilman-at-large Michael Gareau Jr. said he supports the overall budget process while noting he thinks the administration has the right to put together its own proposal.