Mollettes refile suit against the city
By JEFF BARRON
PDT Staff Writer
Friday, January 19, 2007 10:52 PM EST
Portsmouth City Councilman Jerrold Albrecht was not on the Council in 2002 when the city bought the former Marting’s Department Store building from the Richard D. Marting Foundation.
Yet he, and other current Councilmen Mike Mearan, David Malone and Marty Mohr are defendants in a suit filed on Jan. 12 by Councilman Bob Mollette and his wife, Teresa, against the city regarding the purchase.
The Mollettes want the city to pay their legal fees regarding the suit to void the purchase and forbid City Council from meeting in executive session, among other things.
The fees were originally about $18,000. But Teresa Mollette has said they are now about $30,000.
“I’m mystified,” Albrecht said. “I don’t know what I’ve got to do with it. Her (Teresa Mollette) husband is on City Council. Why is he not named?”
Teresa Mollette said Bob Mollette was not named in the suit because people cannot sue themselves.
In 2004, Scioto County Common Pleas Court Judge William Marshall voided the building sale because City Council met in two groups of three with foundation members.
Marshall also banned Council from meeting in executive session until voters approve a city charter change to do so. That means its members cannot meet privately to discuss issues like property purchases and personnel issues.
But the Ohio 4th District Court of Appeals last year sent the case back to Marshall, ruling that City Council could not be sued as a body.
Therefore, the Mollettes named Albrecht, Malone, Mohr and Mearan as defendants, along with those on City Council who voted on the purchase.
They are: Mayor Jim Kalb, President Howard Baughman, Carol Caudill, Ann Syndor, Barbara Halcomb and Ray Pyles.
The sale led to the recalls of Caudill, Sydnor and former mayor Greg Bauer.
Teresa Mollette said the current members were named partly to prevent City Council from meeting in executive session. After the appeals court ruling, Solicitor David Kuhn said Council could meet in executive session. It has not, however.
“David Kuhn said they could meet in executive session, but I’m saying they cannot,” Teresa Mollette said.
Albrecht said he has contacted Kuhn for advice on what to do regarding the suit.
Mearan said he also may seek legal help. Mearan is an attorney, but he said he’s not experienced in matters such as the Mollette suit.
Mearan said he has been busy with a court case he’s working on and has not been able to devote any time to the Mollette case.
“But since I wasn’t on City Council then, I wouldn’t have any knowledge of the facts,” he said. “But I guess I’m being sued because I’m a figurehead on City Council. I’d like to see all this end, because the city has better things to do than address this. But everybody has a right to their day in court.”
Malone said he didn’t know what legal recourse the Mollettes may have because the four current members did not vote on the sale.
Mohr agreed.
“I’m surprised,” he said. “On May 29, 2002, the four of us were not on City Council.”
Like Albrecht, Mohr also wondered why Bob Mollette is not part of the suit.
“If he’s excluded, everyone has to be excluded,” Mohr said. “He has to be on it.”
JEFF BARRON can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 236.
The 4th District Court of Appeal’s choice to reverse Judge Marshall’s decision, in my opinion, was counterproductive to the citizens of Portsmouth, Ohio. For the 4th District Court of Appeals to construe Council to be non-sui juris delivers a message to the ordinary citizen that the judicial system does not agree and support accountability in our government and with our government officials.
The 4th District Court of Appeals interpretation of Council being non-sui juris is ludicrous. The law is pretty explicit when defining who can and cannot be sued through the process of Injunctive Relief.
The “Sunshine Laws” define the “public body” and provide the specific guidelines for individuals to hold public bodies accountable through Injunctive Relief. By definition Council does meet the definition criteria for a public body and the option for being held accountable through the Injunctive Relief process.
Through the Courts and the Injunctive Relief process the law provides if a Plaintiff is awarded Injunctive Relief reasonable attorney fees are granted along with the $500.00 filing fee. This requirement for reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and the $500.00 forfeiture will ensure the common citizen can hold their government officials accountable.
Bob and I have both attended and testified at several HB 9 subcommittee hearings in Columbus, Ohio. The majority of law makers, I’m glad to say, encouraged the section of payment for reasonable attorney fees upon the courts award of a writ of mandamus to the Plaintiff. This bill has now been signed by the Governor and will go into effect approximately Oct. 1, 2007.
Without you, the taxpayers, getting involved and holding public officials accountable more unscrupulous individuals will be encouraged to seek public office.
Remember, Bob and I were the ones who made it possible for the citizens to recoup monies illegally spent on the purchase of the Marting Building, and present Council members were the public officials that decided not once but twice to expend additional taxpayer dollars to appeal Judge Marshall’s decision. Also, these same Council members voted to allow the Mayor to negotiate and to enter into a second contract, which forgave the Marting Foundation from the beginning of the world, accepted liability of the Marting Building, and placed unreasonable strings attached before the citizens could collect their $1.4 million dollars of hard earned taxpayer dollars. Where is the accountability?
Get involved before it’s too late.
Teresa
