Neighbors for a Positive North Royalton

Disclaimer

The following analysis is not legal advice.

If Issue 25 passes and you are a public employee wishing to seek elected office, you should consult an attorney about whether or not you will be eligible to serve if elected.

Ultimately, if Issue 25 passes, a court of law would be the final arbiter of exactly what this language means and its effect on potential candidates who win election.

For the complete, official proposed amendment, see Ordinance 25-80 here (page 7-8)

Current Law

Under current law, our charter prohibits councilmembers from holding "any other elected public office or be employed by the Municipality." In other words, a councilmember cannot also be a state senator nor can they work for the city of North Royalton. This makes sense, as a North Royalton City employee's position could be impacted by every single budgetary vote.

Proposed Amendment

Issue 25 would add to these prohibitions, by prohibiting councilmembers from holding "any other elected or appointed public office - defined as any position in federal, state, county, municipal, or school district government to which a person is chosen by election or appointed by a public official or body.”

On its face, this language bans public employees in "any position" at any level of government from serving on our city council, from teachers to professors to police and more.

But some councilmembers are telling you that it does not ban those people, and only bans a very tiny subset of public employees. So let's address this in two parts: (1) analyzing the language as is, and (2) responding to misinformation

What does this language mean?

"Appointed public office"

Issue 25 changes the charter from banning "any other elected public office" to banning "any other elected or appointed public office." So what is an "appointed public office"? If this phrase stood alone, there could be a lot of debate about what it means. But the charter amendment eliminates any debate by specifically defining the term for us in the text of the amendment.

The proposed charter language explicitly states that the term "appointed public office" is "defined as any position in federal, state, county, municipal, or school district government to which a person is chosen by election or appointed by a public official or body." 

So the real question becomes: what is "any position...appointed by a public official or body"?

"Any position"

"Any position" means "any position." By these words alone, Issue 25 bans ALL government employees in "federal, state, county, municipal, or school district government."

Is there a limit on "any position"?

Maybe? The limitation is that the position must be "appointed by a public official or body."

Who is a "public official"?

A "public official" is virtually every government employee.

Numerous provisions in the Ohio Revised Code define a "public official."

Ohio Revised Code section 2921.01 defines a "public official" as "any elected or appointed officer, or employee, or agent of the state or any political subdivision, whether in a temporary or permanent capacity." And section 3501.054 similarly defines "public official" as "any elected or appointed officer, employee, or agent of the state or any political subdivision, board, commission, bureau, or other public body established by law."

In fact, during the one committee meeting that actually discussed this specific language, the Assistant Law Director stated: "There is some case law that says, a public official could be somebody who works for the jail, somebody who works for the public hospital, school district, things of that nature."

What is a "public body"?

This one is easy - entities like school boards, boards of trustees, county councils, etc. would be public bodies.

But it says it only applies to people who are "appointed." What does that mean??

"Appoint" is not a magic word.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "to choose someone officially for a job or responsibility."

One legal dictionary defines it as "a process where a person is formally chosen for a specific role."

There appears to be no definition in the Ohio Revised Code defining "appoint" as anything special.

In fact, the words "appoint" and "employ" are used interchangeably throughout the Ohio Revised Code.

One great example of how "appoint" and "employ" are synonymous is in the Ohio Revised Code's treatment of superintendent hiring and teacher hiring. You will notice that both sections use the terms "employ" and "appoint" interchangeably. And both sections are titled "Employment of teachers" and "Employment of superintendents." Yet some councilmembers are trying to convince you that superintendents fall into some special category of appointees covered by this amendment, while teachers do not. But the charter language they are proposing makes no such distinction.

Ok, so you say "appoint" is the same as "employ," but what if it is only limited to people for whom the word "appoint" was specifically used at the time they were hired?

That's a lot of people too!

Every single employee of the North Royalton School District, including part time summer help, is "appointed" by the school board.

Every single "assistant attorney general" (like former councilman Dan Kasaris) is "appointed" by the Attorney General with that term specifically used in Ohio Revised Code section 109.03.

The list goes on and on, from libraries to Tri-C employees to federal employees. And this is only if we limit the term "appoint" to those whose paperwork specifically says "appoint." An ordinary dictionary definition does not contemplate such a limit.

So then what does this language mean???

It means what it clearly says it means: a person may not serve as our councilmember if they hold an "appointed public office" which is "defined as any position in federal, state, county, municipal, or school district government to which a person is chosen by election or appointed by a public official or body."

And if you don't believe us, just look at the title of the language submitted to the Board of Elections by our city: "Shall the Charter of North Royalton be amended to prohibit any other public employment as a qualification for election to city council?" (See page 8 here for the final language as adopted). The language is clear. Teachers, police, prosecutors, service workers, nurses, and so many other public servants will be excluded from serving us on city council.

But my councilmember said...

Myth 1: This doesn't apply to teachers because they are hired under routine hiring practices.

Response: Do you see any limitation in this charter language about routine hiring practices?

Where is the term "appoint" defined in such a way as to not apply to teachers who are hired by public officials and formally "appointed" by a public body?

Just look at the June 12, 2025 minutes from the North Royalton Board of Education and check out all of the "appointments" this public body approved: NRSD June 12 Minutes

Where in this charter amendment does it say that "appointments" does not mean "appointments"?

Remember, this amendment specifically says that an "appointed public office" is "defined as any position...appointed by a public official or body."

Myth 2: This only applies to public employees who are managers, so it would not apply to regular police officers.

Response: Point to the language that creates that limitation.

It bans "any position", not "any managerial position."

All police officers and firefighters are "appointed" by an "appointing authority" as stated in Ohio Revised Code section 124.41 and 124.42. The term "appoint" does not magically change from one rank to the next. See also State ex rel Brenders v. Hall, 71 Ohio St.3d 632 (1995) (holding all police officers occupy a public office).

Myth 3: But my councilmember keeps talking about "conflicts of interest"

Response: Issue 25 does not address conflicts of interest.

It simply bans an entire category of people without actually exploring if they have more inherent conflicts than any other category of people.

We could spend hours discussing the endless potential conflicts for people employed by private employers, or who run a business, or own stocks, or sell real estate, or take campaign donations from private interests, and on and on. There is nothing special about public employees that makes them any more conflicted than anyone else. In fact, public employees are required to have ethics training and their work is public record. And when conflicts do occur, there are already ethics laws in place to deal with conflicts of interest, whether an elected official has private, public, or no employment.

So, ask yourself, why exactly are we banning public employees, but no one else?

Why would we ban former Ward 2 Councilman Gary Petrusky (a Nordonia police officer) but not Ward 1 Councilman John Nickell (a realtor who votes on whether property gets developed into homes)? Why would we ban former Ward 6 Councilman Dan Kasaris (a prosecutor) but not current Ward 6 Councilman Michael Wos (who works for a bank and votes on the city's banking contracts)?

The answer, sadly, is that this is not about conflicts of interest at all. It is the result of political games to eliminate a political opponent who happens to be a public employee.

The Harsh Truth: this could ban all public employees from serving on council

After nine months of repeated, sloppy changes to the wording of this amendment, this is the language they settled on at a single meeting where no public comment was permitted.

They could have included a clause limiting it to managers (still a bad idea).

They could have included a clause making an exception for school employees (still a bad idea)

They could have included many different clauses limiting which public employees it targets (still a bad idea)

But they didn't.

They banned "any position" that is "appointed by a public official or body."

This amendment would stop thousands of viable candidates from even considering running to serve us on our city council. That means residents have fewer choices while longtime councilmembers have less competition. So who benefits from this in North Royalton?

Vote NO on Issue 25 - it is anti-teacher, anti-police, and anti-North Royalton