A recent appellate decision has reopened a legal dispute over how a city mayor can be removed from office, raising questions about the balance between state law and municipal charters. The case centers on whether residents may use state procedures to seek the removal of their mayor or if only city council holds that authority under local rules.
The appeal was filed by Gerald W. Phillips, William Zimmerman, Mike Wallace, Beth Wallace, Melissa Seljan, Nick Dorman, and Kaye Palacios in the Ninth Judicial District Court of Appeals for Lorain County on March 30, 2026. The defendants are Mark Spaetzel, Mayor of Avon Lake, along with other city officials.
According to court documents, the appellants sought to remove Mayor Spaetzel from office for alleged “malfeasance and/or misfeasance” by filing a complaint under Ohio Revised Code Section 733.72. This statute allows any elector of a municipality to file such a complaint with the county probate judge if it is signed by four other electors. The law requires the judge to issue a citation for the accused’s appearance within ten days and provides an avenue for removal if misfeasance or malfeasance is proven.
However, Avon Lake operates as a home rule charter municipality under Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution. Its own charter specifies that only city council may remove the mayor for misconduct or related reasons and outlines its own procedure: “Such removal shall not take place without the concurrence of five (5) members of Council… [and] until he or his counsel shall have been given an opportunity to be heard, present evidence and examine witnesses appearing in support of such charge.”
The legal conflict began when Gary Ebert, Law Director for Avon Lake, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Civil Rule 12(B)(1). Ebert argued that because Avon Lake’s charter assigns this authority solely to city council, complaints seeking removal must be heard there rather than in probate court. He also stated that if jurisdiction were found proper in probate court, he would dismiss the complaint with prejudice based on prosecutorial discretion.
The appellants countered that neither home rule powers nor local charters can override state law regarding judicial jurisdiction or procedures for removing public officials. They argued that both R.C. 733.72 and Avon Lake’s charter could coexist as concurrent methods: “Appellants argued that those sections do not conflict and, therefore, concurrent authority exists for the removal of public officials under those sections.”
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas granted Ebert’s motion to dismiss on grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction: “[T]he mayoral removal provisions in the Avon Lake charter… take precedence over removal proceedings located in R.C. 733.72.” The trial court cited State ex rel. Hackley v. Edmonds as precedent supporting its view that selection—and by extension removal—of municipal officers is purely a local concern.
On appeal, however, Judge Jill Flagg Lanzinger wrote that while home rule municipalities have broad self-government powers regarding local matters—including officer selection—courts must first determine whether an actual conflict exists between local charters and state law before deciding which takes precedence: “While the probate court concluded that the removal provisions of Avon Lake’s Charter ‘take precedence’ over… R.C. 733.72, it reached this conclusion without first analyzing whether an actual conflict exists between those provisions.” The appellate decision emphasized that issues not addressed by lower courts should not be decided at this stage: “This Court will not analyze whether a conflict exists between the two removal provisions—nor Appellants’ argument that… provide alternative mechanisms—in the first instance.”
As a result, assignments of error raised by appellants were sustained except one deemed moot due to resolution of earlier points. The judgment was reversed and remanded: “The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas… is reversed and… remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
Judge Sutton dissented from this view, arguing instead that when voters adopt specific charter provisions governing mayoral removal—as occurred in Avon Lake—those provisions should override conflicting state statutes: “I would conclude as a matter of law that the charter and R.C. 733.72 are in direct conflict… therefore the charter takes precedence over R.C. 733.72.”
Representing themselves were Gerald W. Phillips (pro se) for appellants; Gary A. Ebert (Law Director), Jeffrey S. Moeller (Attorney at Law), and Kevin M. Butler (Attorney at Law) appeared for appellees Mark Spaetzel et al., under case number 25CA012224.
Source: 2026Ohio1104_City_of_Avon_Lake_v_Spaetzel_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
