Village Of Valleyview

In the auditor's Management Letter for 2002 - 2003 states that Ordinance 731.13 doubling the mayor's salary in 1995 broke the law.

They neglected to say that the clerk's salary was also increased. At that time the clerk was an elective office. The clerks had been Laura Hunt and Debbie Cain. Between Russolillo and the two, they collected almost $100,000 of your money, illegally. They also had not been paying the bills, Internal Revenue and the pension funds. Where did all the revenue from the state go? Did it go to pay their illegal salaries instead of the bills and taxes?

Isn't it ironic that they are suing the Village? The auditor should have found where the money went, as they stated to the Columbus Dispatch, ''It is money due back.'' I still have the article.

The Management Letter doesn't state that I took the money as Tom Watkins stated on the internet, but it does state that the salaries where illegal.
And I wasn't on council when this happened.

I will not stop until these people pay. Is the auditor ashamed to refer this to the attorney general because they screwed up?

Why is the Village council afraid to ask for an audit? Will too many of their friends be indicted?

Who benefited from the money Mark Bartel scammed from the residents?

Please read the auditor's reports from the last five audits. Make up your own mind. See where the money went for public projects.

I care and I no longer live there. But wrong is wrong!

Mayor's Salary

Text from the 2002-2003 Management Letter:

''Mayor?’s Salary

Ohio Rev. Code Section 731.13 states that the legislative authority shall, in the case of elective officers,
fix their compensation for the ensuing term of office at a meeting held not later than five days prior to the
last day fixed by law for filing as a candidate for such office.

Per review of Ordinance No. 75-466, it was found that the Mayor?’s salary was not properly approved within the required time period as set forth by law. The Ordinance was passed two weeks past the required date. The election date was on November 7, 1995, but the Ordinance was not passed until
September 11, 1995. For the Ordinance to have been timely, it needed to be approved and filed with the Board of Elections seventy-five days before the election, or prior to August 24, 1995.
We recommend that the Village Council properly set the Mayor?’s compensation within the time period of the required filing date of the Board of Elections and Ohio law.''

First, the Ordinance to raise the salaries of the Mayor and Clerk/Treasurer is not an illegal Ordinance. It was inacted illegally, but it is not an illegal ordinance. As to the amount that Ms. White is claiming the Mayor and Clerk collected illegally; $100,000 that amount would be wrong. It is a total of $44,000 that they were over paid. Because the Ordinance is not illegal, the Mayor and Clerk would be entitled to the full salary during the following term beginning in 2000. The extra pay that they received during the 1996-1999 term should not have been granted. The Mayor during that term received $24,000 too much in salary and the Clerk/Treasurer recieved $20,000 too much.

The question now is why is the Village not taking action to recover the over payment? First, the overpayments were not discovered until almost 7 years later. The Council and Solicitor in 1995 failed to do their job properly and insure that the Ordinance was passed in the proper timeframe.

Second, unless it can be proven that the Council, Solicitor, Mayor and Clerk/Treasurer all KNOWINGLY enacted the Ordinance illegally there is little the Village can do. If the Council, Mayor and Clerk/Treasurer all believed that the Ordinance was legal and they performed their duties as required and provided a service to the Village then they are not required to give the money back to the Village.

Third, because those that received the overpayments are no longer in office the Village cannot return them to their original positions and original salaries.

The Attorney General's Office has provided an opinion covering this exact question 67-016. I can provide a copy of the opinion to anyone that would like a copy or you may request one through the Attorney General's Office. Below is the syllabus of the opinion.

''Where a village official has performed his duties pursuant to what both he and the village council believed to be a valid ordinance, where he cannot be returned to his status quo, where he has conferred a benefit upon the village by performing his official duties, and where there is no showing of fraud, duress, or unfairness, he is entitled to retain the compensation he received prior to the time that the ordinance authorizing the payment of his compensation is declared invalid.''

This may answer the question Ms. White has posed as to why the Auditor's Office has not turned it over to the Attorney General's Office.

Mistakes Made

The Management Letter states

''Public Meetings- Finance Committee*

Ohio Rev. Code Section 121.22. states that all meetings of any public body are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times and that every public body, by rule, shall establish a reasonable method whereby any person may determine the time and place of all regularly scheduled meetings and the time, place, and purpose of all special meetings. Moreover, a public body shall not hold a special meeting unless it gives at least twenty-four hours advance notice to the news media that have requested
notification, except in the event of an emergency requiring immediate official action.

The Finance Committee failed to provide proper notice of three meetings held by in 2003.

We recommend the Village establish monitoring procedures to ensure the public is properly and timely informed all Committee meetings.''

The Management Letter is partially correct with this statement. The Finance Committee held ONE meeting that notices were not posted. The reason for the notices not being posted was that I was out of town for a job project and when I returned there was not time to place the notices. That is not an excuse, but that is why the posting were not put in place. ALL other finance committee meetings were properly noticed. The Auditor's Office was in error in the Management Letter.

Why was it not corrected in the Management Letter? The Audit has cost the Village over $12,000. For it to be corrected the Auditors would have had to charge the Village more money and I felt that it was not worth the expense to the Village. The Village Council was given approximately 3 hours to respond to the claims made in the Management Letter. There was not enough time and it was not worth the added expense to the Village. This audit has cost the Village entirely too much. Normally the audits cost around $5,000. The question is where do we draw the line. The more money spent on the audit is less money for the needs of the Village.

Answer: Mayor's Salary

The problem with your statement is, The ordinance is for the incoming mayor and clerk for 1996. You are double talking. It was illegal because it violated the time line. That make the Ordinance illegal.

You cannot take an illegal ordinance to raise salaries for 1996 and then say, without benefit of a new timely ordinance, it was illegal but we will start it in 2000.

The Letter states,''the mayor's salary ''WAS NOT APPROVED''.'' A revised code is a LAW that was broken. This means it is illegal.

I think you should check your math on how much Russolillo, Hunt and Cain owe the Village.

I beg to differ about the discovery of the ''overpayments''. I know for a fact that the auditor's knew when they did the 1994-1995 audit. They ALWAYS check resolutions and ordinances passed.

When Raylene Graves made the statement that she did not know ordinance 75-466 was illegal, Russoillo was quick to cover himself by stating, ''you voted for it.'' It would seem that he and Kirk probably knew. Was this the ''BIG ONE'' Russolillo was afraid that I would find out? And why was the ordinance not passed until September 11, 1995? Because it wasn't until August that Russolillo knew he was running un-opposed. His opponent ''dropped out''. You should ask, the people in the know, why he did this.

Considering the Village got ripped off, wouldn't it be far to say that these people did not do a service for them? I don't think a court will back the attorney general's opinion under these circumstances.
They didn't pay bills, Income tax, and pension funds. Where did the money go?