Homrighausen vetoes ordinances regarding fired employees

Homrighausen vetoes ordinances regarding fired employees
                        

On Thursday, Jan. 13, Dover Mayor Richard Homrighausen vetoed five ordinances passed by council that propose eliminating one position while combining two others and changing the rate of pay.

The move by the mayor was expected by council members, as was Homrighausen’s failure to provide an explanation for the vetoes or for the firing of three employees just before Christmas. Fired were Dave Douglas, service director; Gerry Mroczkowski, safety and HR director; and Eva Newsome, the mayor’s executive assistant.

Ordinance 1-22 said council’s position is the discharge of Douglas, Mroczkowski and Newsome was “retaliation” against the three for testifying during the investigation into the mayor’s fitness to serve and conduct last year. All three said it appeared to them the mayor was experiencing a decline both physically and mentally.

Council must wait 10 days to override the vetoes, which it intends to do, according to Shane Gunnoe, council president. Gunnoe also said the mayor provided no reason either Thursday or Friday. However, on Saturday at 3:45 p.m., the mayor circulated an email to council and members of the local media.

In the email Homrighausen said it was “clear” the ordinances were prepared by the law director “in order to impede the functions of city business as outlined in the Ohio Revised Code.”

Homrighausen also questioned council’s motives by saying, “Furthermore, all council members have always proclaimed that their sole intention is to do what is in the best interests of the city of Dover, and I feel they have failed in that commitment with their passing of these ordinances. Therefore, the ordinances received and passed on Jan. 3, 2022, are vetoed.”

The mayor’s email elicited criticism from council members Justin Perkowski and Sandy Moss.

Perkowski said, “Mr. Mayor, you’re an embarrassment for the city of Dover, a disgrace to the office of mayor and a coward for your actions last month. Your firing of the three people keeping your office running and our city functioning the past couple years is not in the best interests of the city.”

Moss questioned who is really making the mayor’s decisions. “City council has acted in the best interest of the city of Dover,” Moss said. “You or whoever makes your decisions, on the other hand, have not. Firing three of the most important employees of the city and your administration and hiring a family friend with absolutely no experience whatsoever in supervising a municipality is, once again, not in the best interest of the city of Dover or its citizens.”

Moss was referring to the hiring of Aaron Feller as service director immediately after firing Douglas.

Moss ended her email with a reminder to the mayor: “You are the one who is under investigation from state prosecutors, not city council. Please think twice before calling the kettle black.”

A rundown of the vetoed ordinances

Ordinance 1-22 states council’s opposition to the firings, calling them “retaliation” against the three for “truthfully informing council, the law director, the ethics commission, the Ohio auditor of state special investigations” and other authorities about “misconduct of the mayor of Dover.”

The ordinance goes on to accuse the mayor of violations to whistleblower statutes, firing employees who had outstanding qualifications, who had never been disciplined and against whom there was no basis for their discharge. It also calls for the mayor to reinstate the employees to their prior positions.

Included in the same ordinance are allegations that the mayor pocketed wedding fees that should have gone to the city and his hiring of a family member — his son Peter Homrighausen — who later became involved in an accident. Peter Homrighausen admitted he would not pass a drug test but was never tested. The ordinance said the mayor “failed to follow the requirements of the Dover Drug Free Workplace Policy.”

Also included is the fact the mayor allowed Dave Filippi, the much maligned former superintendent of the Dover light plant, to retire after council recommended firing him for substantial, unauthorized cost overruns at the plant.

Ordinance 2-22 merges the positions of service director and safety director into one position and one department. It also limits the position to 20 hours a week, cuts the pay to $10 per hour and provides no benefits.

Ordinance 3-22 eliminates the position of the mayor’s executive assistant. The language beyond the preamble says, “The mayor has worked for very few hours for more than one year, says he is taking care of city business and is paid $100,542 a year, which will increase to $103,056 in 2023.

Ordinances 4-22 and 5-22 basically amend previous ordinances to update compensation and benefits for nonbargaining employees but also cite the mayor’s alleged failure to work for the city other than a few hours a week and said he “can perform the jobs limited, eliminated or abolished” by the previous three ordinances.

All ordinances contain a clause stating they will be repealed upon reinstatement of the three fired employees either by the mayor, the state personnel board or a court order and if “the wrongs committed by the mayor on Dec. 21, 2021, are rectified to council’s satisfaction.”

When asked in a phone call on Saturday if he thought the legislative action could be perceived as retaliatory on the part of council, Gunnoe said, “We expect them to exercise their rights and file litigation to get their jobs back. We feel we are being prudent in defunding these positions pending the outcome of whatever their litigation is.

“The mayor has already restricted normal operations of city government by firing three long-term employees, and he has not replaced them at this point with adequate replacement. And I literally begged him before that meeting not to do it. So he’s already made the decision to affect the functioning of city government, not city council.”

In response to the emailed rationale Homrighausen gave for the firings, Gunnoe said, “Dover City Council does have the best interest of the city at heart, and this legislation is designed to avoid what potentially could be an expensive litigation down the road.”


Loading next article...

End of content

No more pages to load