Cuyahoga County Leaders Clash Over Legal Authority and Contracts

A significant dispute has emerged within Cuyahoga County government regarding authority over contracts and legal advice. This conflict pits County Prosecutor Michael O’Malley against County Executive Chris Ronayne, with potential implications for governance that may need resolution through legal channels or a public vote.

The core issue lies in whether the county prosecutor or the county law director should oversee the drafting, review, and negotiation of county contracts, in addition to providing legal guidance to various departments. O’Malley asserts these responsibilities fall under his jurisdiction, referencing a recent opinion from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost that indicates state law assigns significant legal duties to the prosecutor in commissioner-led counties. In contrast, Ronayne argues that the county charter created a law department specifically to support the executive’s functions, which include managing departments and negotiating contracts.

Initially, both officials aimed to resolve the matter amicably. However, tensions escalated after a recent email exchange, wherein Ronayne perceived O’Malley’s response as a legal threat. Ronayne had requested a framework for transitioning responsibilities between their offices, but O’Malley referred only to past attorney general opinions. In an email dated October 21, 2023, O’Malley stated, “If it is not resolved this week, I will direct my staff to move forthwith to bring the county into compliance with the county charter and state law.”

Ronayne quickly rejected O’Malley’s ultimatum, labeling it as “unreasonable” and “dangerous.” He expressed concerns that such a decision could disrupt nearly fifteen years of established governance practices and ultimately burden taxpayers. Instead, he proposed a charter amendment to allow voters to clarify the responsibilities of both offices, a suggestion previously considered but never acted upon in 2013.

The ongoing debate has roots in the confusion surrounding legal responsibilities since the charter reform in 2009. A series of memorandums of understanding between the prosecutor and law department have historically divided legal duties. The most recent agreement allocated all litigation responsibilities to O’Malley’s office while allowing the law department to advise the executive and manage collective bargaining.

This year, O’Malley indicated that he believes the existing division is ineffective and cited issues over the years that have compromised the integrity of legal advice provided by the law department, which is appointed by the executive. He stated, “The county needs an impartial legal adviser,” emphasizing his belief that the current structure has led to increased litigation against the county.

In response, Ronayne’s Chief of Staff Erik Janas dismissed O’Malley’s criticisms, describing them as a “false narrative.” Janas emphasized that the law department routinely consults the prosecutor’s office on complex cases and is fully capable of handling legal matters independently. He defended the law department’s expansion, which has become necessary to manage a growing workload that includes thousands of public records requests and numerous labor negotiations.

Beyond the legal implications, the dispute appears to encompass resource allocation. O’Malley’s office has accused the law department of overstaffing, highlighting that it comprises 19 attorneys compared to O’Malley’s 17. Additionally, some law department attorneys earn higher salaries than O’Malley himself, raising questions about equity and efficiency within county operations.

Ultimately, both officials maintain a commitment to finding a resolution, yet a pivotal disagreement persists over which office should manage contracts for county departments. David Lambert, chief of the civil division for the county prosecutor’s office, noted that discussions have been strained, with Ronayne’s team resisting Yost’s opinion.

Ronayne reiterated that the law director is meant to provide legal guidance to the executive and council, while O’Malley has insisted on the necessity of legal clarity and compliance with state law. As the conflict unfolds, the potential for a court ruling or a referendum looms, with both sides showing no immediate signs of backing down. The outcome of this legal turf war could reshape the governance landscape in Cuyahoga County for years to come.