A motion was made by Dr. Goetz, seconded by Mr. Brezovec, to pass Ordinance No. 26-95.
Dr. Goetz stated that the City would be better served financially and operationally by an
in-house, full-time City Solicitor, not every avenue was exhausted to advertise for the position
and a Council subcommittee was not formed to review the applications.
Responding to questions from Mr. Brezovec, Mr. Sheridan stated that the cost of a professional
recruiter would be approximately 25 percent of the salary, or $40,000, and that the terms of the
contract would have to be renegotiated if the ordinance passed. Additionally, Mr. Brezovec
acknowledged difficulty in finding applicants for the position and pulling out of an approved
contract would not help the desirability to work in Hudson.
Mr. White felt that Council should support the City Manager and staff's decision and that the
City Manager is always looking out for the City's best interest and cost savings. He further
added that he has had a good experience with Mr. Pitchford and supports his appointment.
Dr. Bird stated that partisanship has influenced the discussions and addressed Mr. Pitchford's
involvement on the board of Ohio Right to Life, however, municipalities like Hudson rarely
address reproductive issues and should one appear, Mr. Pitchford would be asked to recuse
himself. He further noted that some have criticized Mr. Pitchford's involvement in lawsuits
such as the former City Manager and legal action towards a former Councilmember, but that
those were under the direction of the previous Council majority. Dr. Bird cited Hudson's
non-partisan elections and appointments made by Council should be based on the qualifications
of the person, not their political viewpoint.
Dr. Weinstein reiterated her positive working relationship with Mr. Pitchford and if there is
discontent about legislation or lawsuits filed, the blame should be carried by the Council that
approved it, not the person who was directed to work on it.
Dr. Goetz maintained that her comments did not include anything political but that the City did
not find a full-time, in-house City Solicitor as desired.
Further discussion followed regarding the number of hours of legal work, the presence of an
Assistant City Solicitor at City Hall four days a week, and the process that was followed to find
applicants.
A motion was made by Mr. Brezovec, seconded by Dr. Goetz, to amend Section 5 of Ordinance
No. 26-95 to read "All prior resolutions, ordinances, and appointments that relate to or in any
way conflict with this measure are hereby repealed and rescinded."
Mr. Brezovec stated that he offered the amendment to make the language as clean as possible
and asked Mr. Pitchford for his legal opinion. Mr. Pitchford responded and stated he did not
think it was necessary for the goal to be achieved.
The motion to amend Section 5 of Ordinance No. 26-95 failed by the following vote:
Aye:
Nay:
3 - Dr. Goetz, Mr. Sutton and Dr. Weinstein
4 - Dr. Bird, Mr. Brezovec, Ms. D'Eramo and Mr. White
The motion to pass Ordinance No. 26-95 failed by the following vote:
Aye:
Nay:
3 - Ms. D'Eramo, Dr. Goetz and Mr. Sutton
4 - Mr. Brezovec, Dr. Weinstein, Mr. White and Dr. Bird