Councilmember clarifies position on proposed ordinance

by Dan Holland

Oct. 7 Rules, Ordinances and Franchises Committee meeting & city council meeting

During an Oct. 7 meeting of the Rules, Ordinances and Franchises Committee, Ward 3 Council Representative Brian Dunlap clarified his position for a proposed ordinance he introduced to city council Sept. 23.

The ordinance would prohibit the use of city facilities by private organizations and would also prohibit the city from sponsoring such events. It is sponsored by council’s Rules, Ordinances and Franchises Committee, which is comprised of Dunlap and Councilpersons Glenn Goodwin and Joe Price.

The proposal raised concerns from some who believed the ordinance could unfairly target certain organizations from holding events on city grounds.

A number of public meetings drew heated debate among residents last spring when Pride Fest was scheduled to be held at the city amphitheater on June 8. The event, which was sponsored by BBH Pride and Metro Health, received support from The Cleveland Guardians and Sherwin Williams. The city was a co-sponsor of the event.

In a Sept. 30 letter issued by BBH Pride, written in response to the proposed ordinance, Jennifer Speer, president of the non-profit LGBTQ+ advocacy organization group, stated “Residents need to ask why a public servant would throw the city into such chaos and suggest limiting community access to city spaces used by ethnic associations, performing arts groups, charitable organizations, and nonprofit groups. Unfortunately, we know that the reason lies in Mr. Dunlap’s opposition to Pride Fest held on city grounds.”

Dunlap responded during the Oct. 7 meeting.

“Any nonprofit, and I’ll specifically point out the Pride group, because that’s an area of concern – and I understand that people are cautious and afraid – but you are not included in this,” Dunlap said. “You will be exempt from this, and you have my word on this. I never intended to identify any one specific nonprofit group.”

Dunlap added that any nonprofit group can still approach the city administration and make a request for a city-held event. “The same goes for sponsoring private events; this was intended for private organizations; not nonprofit charitable foundations,” he said. “This wasn’t covered at the council meeting two weeks ago, because there really wasn’t a chance to have any discussion on it.”

“When you get into private organizations, you start to get into a slippery slope on who wants to use the property,” Dunlap continued. “But nonprofits, I wouldn’t deny. Every group in the past year that was put in front of me and council – just speaking for myself – we would vote in favor of it. The organization is not the problem.”

Dunlap added that his intent is not to change the manner in which the city administration handles the hosting of city events. ”I’m not looking to change what the mayor does because it’s glaringly apparent that [the process] works,” he said. “But we as legislators have to do our job now. Now that all the stones have been thrown and rocks have been tossed, and names have been called, we as legislators have to do our job.

“The residents have asked us what these events cost us, and what are we putting our name on? What are we sponsoring?” Dunlap continued. “Quite frankly, the best thing to do is not to pick and choose who to sponsor, but to basically say that we as a city don’t sponsor anything. We can host an event – and we’re glad to do that – but when you sponsor an event is when you get into problems.”

During the Sept. 23 work session, a resident questioned how much additional funding is necessary to provide first responders and service department personnel to a city event of which the city is a sponsor or co-sponsor.

Dunlap suggested Oct. 7 that the administration provide a list of proposed city-held events in 2025 and allow council to review the list to determine any associated additional costs by a Jan. 15 deadline.

“If we have 10 events that are going to happen next year, put it in front of council,” said Dunlap. “And as long as there are checks and balances and the money is there, and it doesn’t cost us any extra money, then we can answer the question to all the residents. And then we’ve done our job and are being fiscally responsible. If an event is costing us extra money or more in-kind contributions than what seems right, that maybe needs to be identified by council.”

One of council’s primary responsibilities, Goodwin commented, is to “hold the purse strings for the city.”

“And when a resident comes to us and wants to know what anything costs – and when it’s something we can’t exactly define – we can tell them what a police car costs, but we haven’t been able to define what those specific costs are for events here at the city. But we are responsible for our stewardship of the residents’ tax dollars.”

Dunlap concluded by saying that he would like to see someone other than himself come up with a motion to go back to council, and at a minimum, suggest that council will get to approve events and their associated costs to make sure they are in line with each other.

Committee members unanimously passed a motion to be forwarded to city council for a full discussion regarding councilmembers being made aware of 2025 events to be held in the city, and their associated costs, by Jan. 15.

During the regular city council meeting that followed, council approved:

• An agreement with Pro-Tech Sales for police equipment at a total cost of $19,032.
• An agreement with the city of Parma for prisoner housing services.
• A resolution authorizing the mayor to participate in the Target Master Settlement Agreement with respect to opioid litigation in the city.
• A resolution authorizing the mayor to participate in the Henry Schein Inc. and Henry Schein Medical Systems Inc., settlement agreement with respect to opioid litigation in the city. ∞