Your City & You: When Euclid Councilman Steps Down, Will DOJ Step In?

Ward 1 Councilman Gilliham resigned effective July 1. He was first elected in 2009.

On May 8, Ward 1 Councilman David Gilliham submitted his letter of resignation to Mayor Bill Cervenik. It read in part, “After a careful assessment of personal and private priorities, I have decided to resign…. My last day will be June 30th…. I would like to thank the voters of the City of Euclid for their support in the past and I wish Euclid the best in the future. It was an honor and a privilege to serve this city….”

According to the Euclid Charter, City Council has 30 days to fill the vacancy. If it does not, the authority to fill the position moves to the Mayor. It gets a little dicey at this point for two reasons. First, there may not be anyone both qualified AND interested enough to apply for the position. Second, Ward 1 was specifically drawn to favor African-American representation on Council. That may pose a problem for Council. If you are new to Euclid, here is the background.   

Ward 1 sits in the southwest corner of Euclid. It along with the entire 8-ward system was created in 2007 to comply with the Remedial Order issued by Judge Kathleen O’Malley in the Dept of Justice lawsuit against the City of Euclid. Prior to 2007,Euclid had 4 Wards and 4 At-Large seats plus an At-Large Council President.

On August 21, 2007, after a lengthy trial, the Court found that the City of Euclid’s method of electing its City Council violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Remedial Order replaced the 4 at-large seats with 4 additional wards. Specifically the Court determined that the 4 At-Large Slot System, “‘operates’ to minimize or cancel [minorities’] ability to elect their preferred candidate…” The Court ordered the City to come up with an 8-ward plan.

The approved Plan provided for two majority-minority districts with effective voting-age majorities of 60% or greater. Under the Plan, the south side’s Ward 4 was broken into 3 wards (1, 2 & 3). Ward 1 and Ward 3 (on the southeast side), were drawn specifically to provide opportunity for African-Americans (the focus of the suit) “to elect representatives of their choice.”

The first election under the Plan pitted two African-American women - Kandace Jones and Kim Sims - against each other in Ward 3. Jones won. In Ward 1, the ‘old Ward 4’ Councilman Chris Gruber won in a 3-way race against David Gilliham and Victor Goodman. In 2009 only Wards 2 and 7 had opposition. In 2011, only Wards 4 and 5 had opposition. Aside from that first election under the 8 ward system in which every ward had competition, it appears that the 2007 order reduced rather than increased interest in public office.

Back to the vacancy. Does Council have to obtain approval from the Dept of Justice before appointing a replacement? According to Law Director Chris Frey, “We are not operating under any pre-condition order from the federal court and do not need to inform the DOJ of the impending vacancy, but Council would do well to consider the racial make-up of the ward in selecting a replacement member.” Frey continued, “If the DOJ believes the process used to select a replacement member of Council is flawed or done with a racial animus or improper motives, I believe they could move to stop the appointment through the court.” 

Now I’m fairly confident Council will act with sound judgment in its selection of a replacement, provided there’s enough interest. What disturbs me is that if the DOJ doesn’t agree, it has the power to stop the appointment. Of course, if the 2006 Council’s fight against the DOJ lawsuit had been successful, this all would be moot.