David Engle

Macedonia Councilman David Engle says he was sent an intimidating letter before voting on a heated personnel issue last month.

(John Harper, Northeast Ohio Media Group)

MACEDONIA, Ohio -- City Councilman David Engle says the city law director, Joseph Diemert, sent an email intimidating him before a recent vote to reinstate the city's finance director.

Diemert wrote Engle in a May 27 email to question his decision to retain Finance Director Scott Svab, who has been a source of controversy since Diemert presented a report alleging incompetence in attempt to have him fired in September. City council overruled the first attempt and has since refused two more times to terminate the finance director.

"I certainly hope that you saw something that will allow you to act reasonably and fairly in voting on his removal," Diemert wrote. "You are not supporting the mayor by doing so, you are not supporting me, you are doing what the evidence would require any fair and impartial person to do after reviewing the facts and law."

Diemert and Svab had sparred in a series of emails last spring after city council voted to cut Diemert's retainer salary. Diemert ordered Svab to continue to pay the salary, while Svab refused.

Engle, along with council members Sylvia Hanneken and Rita Darrow, hired an investigator to look into Diemert's allegations against Svab. That report, released last month, characterized the attempt to fire Svab as a witch hunt.

The day before he wrote the May 27 email to Engle, Diemert peppered the author of that report, Tim Dimoff, with questions during a special city council session.

On May 28, council voted for the third time to overrule the Mayor's decision to fire Svab. Engle was one of three councilman who voted to retain the finance director.

In his email, Diemert used an analogy to compare the financing of the report, which also raised questions about other employees in Mayor Don Kuchta's office, to financed terrorism.

"I am very disappointed that you were part of the group to finance this hired character assassin. Homeland security looks at the financiers of terrorism as being more guilty than the suicide bombers themselves. I feel as though that is

what you have participated in," Diemert wrote.

Engle said that Dimoff's report did not change his decision that Scott Svab was a good employee and that he was fired for political reasons.

"I felt that the allegations (against Svab) raised some pretty small and insignificant issues that did not warrant a termination," Engle said Wednesday. "The fact that the mayor then chose to proceed to terminate Mr. Svab even though council at the time said we would like more information ... only added to my original opinion that this was a political firing, not a firing for cause."

Diemert defended the email by saying he was trying to open a line of communication with Engle.

"I thought it was a nice endearing letter saying, hey Dave we've been frinds and client and lawyer for a long time, why would you do something like this," Diemert said Wednesday. "I just wanted him to say, you're right Joe, he (Dimoff) was wrong and off base, or to tell me something I didn't know."

Engle said he didn't take it that way, and hasn't spoken to Diemert since receiving the email.

Hanneken, who has voted with Engle and Council President Rita Darrow to retain Svab, said the tone of the email didn't surprise her.

"That's Joe endearing? That's how he looks at it? Unless that's meant as humor I think it's consistent with the way that Joe Diemert addresses council when he doesn't like what they do," Hanneken said. "He threatens them, calls them names and demands what he wants done."

Diemert fired back Wednesday saying that Hanneken and Darrow have engaged in a political war in an attempt to oust him and Mayor Kuchta.

"I know their motive is to bring those people down. I know that's their game and I know that's what they do," Diemert said. "Dave, I thought, was somebody who perhaps would be capable of being fair."

Read Diemert's full email, preceded by Engle's reply, below:

From: Engle, David C

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:10 AM

To: 'Joseph Diemert'

Subject: RE: Dimoff report



Joe,



It is difficult to respond to your email, after reading you second

paragraph and personal attach on my character in a respectful and

professional manner. If you wish to have meaningful discussion you need

to back down the emotions and personal attaches.



That being said, I will anticipate seeing you tonight and will of course

continue to deal with you in a professional manner, as I have always

done. In order to maintain civility and professional decorum I think it

is beat that I not address the your outrageous comments and attaches.

Merely because to preference you email with, This is just between you

and me. does not justify either your email s tone or demeanor.



Good day.



Dave



-------------



From: Joseph Diemert [mailto:jwdiemert@diemertlaw.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:56 AM

To: Engle, David C

Subject: Dimoff report





Dave. This is just between you and me. We have worked together for many

years, and most always had mutual respect for each other and our

respective abilities. I always looked at you as the kind of lawyer that

people could rely on as being fair, honest, and supportive through

whatever difficulties your client may have. Even in the worst of times,

for the most part we could always be civil with each other. I hope that

will continue in the future, but now I have some serious doubts.



After seeing and hearing the nonexistent support for your investigator s

"accusations", "questions", and "theories", I am very disappointed that

you were part of the group to finance this hired character assassin.

Homeland security looks at the financiers of terrorism as being more

guilty than the suicide bombers themselves. I feel as though that is

what you have participated in. "Bombing" the good character of Mike, and

Jim, and myself. None of us deserved that from you. We have come to

expect that from Scott in our years of dealing with him, and we have

come to expect that from Sylvia and Rita because of their irresponsible

ambitions and animosities towards Kuchta. I cannot comprehend how you

let that spillover onto good people? How could you be a part of that?



As you could tell, I prepared thoroughly for that cross-examination,

knowing full well that because of the fee cap you and I agreed to, I

will not be paid for it. If the work I put into that helps convince you

that the administration has more than sufficient evidence to justify the

termination of Scott, then it was worthwhile. I would hope that you with

your "judicial" demeanor can separate the allegations against everyone

else, and just focus on the issue at hand relative to Scott. Did he

breach a trust? Did he cause dissension within the administration? Is

there anyone within the employee staff that supports him? Does his own

staff support him? Why would you insist on thrusting him back into a

position that he did not carry out within the law, or within any

semblance of responsible behavior?



Your investigator nor Scott can justify the personal use of computers

for personal use to such an extensive degree. Tammy was let go years ago

for much less use of her city computer. We're not looking to charge him

with a crime, but that alone should be enough to justify any fair-minded

judge in approving his termination. He has been financially supported

for many months, to his benefit and gain, at taxpayer expense, and that

should end.



Your investigator nor Scott can justify his lying to the administration

and council about what the state officials told him to do. That alone

should be enough to support his termination.



It was clear to the objective observers in the audience, including the

polygraph person who came up to me afterwards, that there seems to be

ample justification for his removal. It was also clear that Sylvia and

Scott provided Dimoff all of his opinions, and the direction of his

investigation against the mayor and other members of the administration

for the sole purpose of justifying the continuation of Scott in office.

I certainly hope that you saw something that will allow you to act

reasonably and fairly in voting on his removal. You are not supporting

the mayor by doing so, you are not supporting me, you are doing what the

evidence would require any fair and impartial person to do after

reviewing the facts and law. Judge O'Donnell had the courage to make the

right decision despite political pressures all around him on the Brelo

case this past Saturday. I hope you can muster the same courage.



Assuming that will not happen, rest assured it is unlikely he will

return to work. Since the last termination, which is now pending before

Council, even more evidence of his costly errors in office has surfaced.

This time in the police department relative to a department of justice

federal grant program for which Scott neglected to file reports in 2013

and 2014, disregarding reminders and emails from the DOJ. I will try and

nail down the amount that our taxpayers lost in grant money, due to his

neglect, and that will be the next round of charges. You weren't

impressed by his failure to get the reimbursement money for the Route 82

project, and let taxpayer money sit out there for months, so I'm not

sure that this new charge will be important to you as well. However,

coming from the police department, Sylvia and Mr. Dimoff will have to

manufacture some reason why the police department is now biased against

Scott, like every other one of us department heads.





Diemert and Associate Attorneys



1360 SOM Center



Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124







