When the Oath Is Missing, Authority Is Not Assumed
A Statutory Examination of the Clerk of Council, Public Office, and the Question the City Has Not Answered
By Aaron Christopher Knapp
Investigative Journalist
Lorain Politics Unplugged
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC
Introduction
This Is Not a Technicality. This Is the Legal Foundation of Authority
There is a point in government where process stops being procedural and becomes constitutional. The oath of office is that point. It is the moment at which an individual is legally permitted to exercise the authority of the State. Without it, the exercise of that authority is not merely irregular. It is legally incomplete. This story is not about paperwork, oversight, or clerical error. It is about whether individuals exercising governmental authority satisfied the mandatory legal conditions required before they were permitted to act. It is about whether those conditions were documented, filed, and preserved as required by statute. And it is about whether the City of Lorain can identify where those records are, or whether they exist at all.
Because under Ohio law, this is not optional. Article XV, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution provides that every person chosen or appointed to any office must take an oath before entering upon the duties of that office. Ohio Revised Code 3.23 and 3.24 require that oath to be taken and subscribed. Ohio Revised Code 705.28 requires that it be filed and kept. These are not internal policies. They are binding legal requirements that attach to the exercise of public power.
What makes this issue more significant is not simply the absence of records. It is the position now being advanced within the City that the oath itself is not required, a conclusion for which no statutory authority has been identified. That position, if maintained, is not a clerical interpretation. It is a direct contradiction of the constitutional and statutory framework governing public office in Ohio. The law does not leave room for assumption on this point. Authority is not presumed. It is conferred, and it is conditioned. The oath is one of those conditions. Without it, the question is no longer administrative. It becomes structural.
The Constitutional Requirement
Ohio Does Not Leave This Optional
The starting point is not municipal ordinance, internal policy, or administrative practice. The starting point is the Ohio Constitution. That is the highest source of authority governing the structure and operation of public office in this State, and it establishes the baseline requirements that no political subdivision may waive, modify, or ignore.
Article XV, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution provides: “Every person chosen or appointed to any office under this state, before entering upon the discharge of its duties, shall take an oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution of the United States, and of this state…”
That language is not aspirational. It is mandatory. The Constitution does not suggest that an oath should be taken. It does not provide discretion to determine whether an oath is appropriate in a particular case. It does not allow a municipality, a law director, or an administrative office to decide that certain positions are exempt. It establishes a condition that must be satisfied before authority may be exercised.
The scope of the provision is equally clear. It applies to “every person chosen or appointed to any office under this state.” The phrase is intentionally broad. It does not limit its application to elected officials. It does not distinguish between policy makers and administrative staff. It does not create categories of “minor” or “non sworn” offices. If a person has been chosen or appointed to a position that constitutes an office under the authority of the State of Ohio, the constitutional requirement attaches.
The timing requirement is also explicit. The oath must be taken “before entering upon the discharge of its duties.” That is not a formality that can be satisfied after the fact. It is a prerequisite. The authority to act does not vest first, with the oath to follow. The oath is the legal step that must occur before any official act is lawfully performed. Until that step is completed, the individual has not satisfied the constitutional condition required to exercise the powers of the office. This is not a procedural technicality that can be cured through informal practice or later documentation. It is a structural requirement tied directly to the legitimacy of governmental authority. The oath is the mechanism through which the individual binds themselves to constitutional obligations before acting on behalf of the State. Without it, there is no formal acceptance of those obligations, and no lawful basis for exercising the authority of the office.
For that reason, the question is not whether the oath is customary or whether it is routinely enforced. The question is whether it was taken, when it was taken, and where the official record of that oath is maintained. If the oath was not taken prior to the discharge of duties, the issue is not merely administrative compliance. It goes to the validity of the authority exercised during that period. The Constitution leaves no gap on this point. The requirement exists. It applies broadly. It must be satisfied before authority is exercised. Any claim that it does not apply to a particular office must identify a clear and specific legal exemption. Absent that, the constitutional requirement controls.
The Statutory Framework
The Legislature Reinforced What the Constitution Requires
The Ohio Constitution establishes the obligation. The Ohio General Assembly did not leave that obligation to implication or informal practice. It codified, implemented, and reinforced it through statutory law that governs how public offices are entered and exercised across the State.
Ohio Revised Code Section 3.23 provides, in direct and unqualified terms: “Each officer shall take an oath of office…”
That language is not conditional. It does not invite interpretation based on job title, internal classification, or local custom. It applies to “each officer,” and it uses mandatory language that mirrors the constitutional requirement. The statute does not create the obligation. It assumes the obligation already exists and makes clear that compliance is required in every instance. Ohio Revised Code Section 3.24 further defines when that obligation must be satisfied. It provides that the oath must be taken and subscribed before the individual enters upon the duties of the office. This provision removes any argument that the oath can be treated as a later administrative step or a formality that can be completed after authority is already being exercised. The statute tracks the Constitution by making the oath a condition precedent to lawful action. Until the oath is taken and subscribed, the individual has not completed the legal steps required to act in an official capacity.
These provisions are not independent requirements. They operate together with Article XV, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution to establish a single, consistent rule. A person chosen or appointed to an office must take the oath, and they must do so before performing the duties of that office. There is no statutory language that narrows that requirement, and there is no provision that allows a municipal entity to exempt particular positions from compliance. The statutory framework becomes even more specific in the context of municipal government.
Ohio Revised Code Section 705.28 governs cities operating under statutory law, including the City of Lorain. That statute provides: “Each officer of a municipal corporation shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, take an oath… which shall be filed with the clerk of the municipal corporation.”
This provision does not merely repeat the requirement that an oath must be taken. It imposes an additional, equally important obligation. It requires that the oath be filed, and it specifies where that record must be kept. The oath is not simply administered and forgotten. It must be reduced to a record, preserved, and maintained within the official records of the municipal corporation. The structure of the statute is deliberate. It imposes two separate and mandatory duties. First, the officer must take the oath before entering the duties of the office. Second, that oath must be filed with the clerk of the municipal corporation. The use of the word “shall” in both contexts removes discretion. The oath is not optional, and the record of the oath is not optional.
That statutory requirement has direct implications for any public records inquiry. If the law requires that the oath be taken and filed, then there must be a corresponding record reflecting that compliance. The absence of such a record does not eliminate the requirement. It raises a question as to whether the requirement was satisfied, whether the record was properly created, and whether it has been maintained in accordance with the law. The filing requirement also resolves the issue of custody. Ohio Revised Code Section 705.28 identifies the office responsible for maintaining the record. The oath is to be filed with the clerk of the municipal corporation. That is not a vague directive. It designates a specific location within the structure of municipal government where the record must be kept. It prevents the type of administrative ambiguity in which one office claims not to possess the record while another disclaims responsibility for maintaining it. When read together, these provisions form a coherent legal framework. The Constitution requires the oath. The statutes require that it be taken before any duties are performed. And the municipal statute requires that it be filed and preserved in a specific office. The result is not a procedural formality. It is a documented, traceable requirement that produces a record by design. That is why the existence of the record is not incidental. It is the expected and necessary outcome of compliance with the law. If the statutory process has been followed, there will be a record. If there is no record, the issue is not whether the record can be located. The issue is whether the statutory requirements were satisfied at all, and if not, why not.
The Role of the Clerk of Council
This Is Not a Passive Position
The position of Clerk of Council is often described in administrative terms, but the law does not evaluate an office based on its title. It evaluates an office based on the nature of the authority exercised, the duties assigned, and the legal significance of the actions taken in that role. When those factors are examined, the Clerk of Council is not a passive or purely clerical position. It is a statutory office embedded within the legislative structure of municipal government. The City of Lorain itself identifies the Clerk of Council as part of its legislative authority. That placement is not incidental. Legislative authority in a municipal corporation is governed by statute, and the functions carried out within that branch are part of the exercise of public power. The Clerk of Council is responsible for maintaining the official record of legislative proceedings, preserving the permanent records of Council actions, and ensuring that the acts of the legislative body are properly documented and certified.
The legal significance of that role is made clear in the City’s own codified ordinances. In the official certification of the municipal code, the following language appears: “We, Jack Bradley, Mayor and Breanna Dull, Clerk of Council… hereby certify that the general and permanent ordinances of the City of Lorain… constitute the Codified Ordinances…”
That certification is not symbolic. It is not a courtesy signature. It is a formal act that carries legal consequence. Under Ohio Revised Code 731.23 and 731.42, the codification and certification of municipal ordinances is part of the official legislative record of the municipality. The Clerk’s certification affirms that the codified ordinances are accurate, complete, and authoritative as the legislative enactments of the City. When a public official certifies the law of a municipality, that act is an exercise of governmental authority. It is a representation to the public, to the courts, and to other governmental bodies that the ordinances have been properly enacted and are being accurately maintained. That is not a ministerial function in the sense of a routine administrative task. It is a core component of the legislative process itself, because it defines and preserves the legal framework under which the municipality operates.
The Clerk’s responsibilities extend beyond certification. The office maintains the official journal of Council proceedings, records votes, preserves resolutions and ordinances, and serves as the repository of legislative records. Those functions are essential to transparency, accountability, and the legal validity of Council action. Without an official record, there is no reliable way to verify what was enacted, when it was enacted, or how it was adopted. Ohio law consistently recognizes that positions exercising these types of duties are not merely employees performing support functions. They are officers or individuals performing official functions within the structure of government. The distinction matters because the law attaches specific obligations to those who exercise public authority, including the requirement to take an oath before entering upon the duties of the office. A public office is generally defined by several characteristics. It is created or recognized by law. It involves the exercise of a portion of the sovereign authority of the state. It carries duties that are continuing and defined by statute or ordinance. And it requires the holder to perform those duties in the public interest. The Clerk of Council meets each of those criteria. The position exists within the statutory framework governing municipal corporations. It performs functions that are essential to the legislative process. And it exercises authority that affects the legal rights and obligations of the public.
When the Clerk certifies ordinances, maintains official records, and administers legislative processes, those actions are not private or internal matters. They are acts performed under color of law. They carry legal weight, and they are relied upon by courts, agencies, and the public. That is the defining characteristic of an office rather than a purely administrative position. For that reason, the Clerk of Council cannot be reduced to a clerical employee whose duties fall outside the scope of constitutional and statutory requirements governing public officers. The position is part of the machinery of government. It is entrusted with official responsibilities that have legal consequence. And it operates within the legislative branch of the municipality. That is why the oath requirement matters in this context. The oath is not tied to job titles or internal classifications. It is tied to the exercise of public authority. Where an individual performs functions that are integral to the operation of government and carries out duties that affect the public, the law treats that role as an office for purposes of constitutional and statutory compliance.
The Clerk of Council is not simply maintaining paperwork. The Clerk is maintaining the official record of the law itself. That is not a passive function. It is a central component of municipal governance, and it is precisely the type of role the Constitution and statutes were designed to address when they required that every person entering public office take an oath before exercising that authority.
The Timeline That Matters
This Is Not a Single Event
The legal analysis does not begin and end with a single appointment. It requires an examination of when an individual entered into a position that carries public authority, what duties were assumed at that time, and whether the statutory prerequisites to exercising that authority were satisfied at each point of entry. The timeline is not a background detail. It is central to the question of compliance.
Based on the City’s own publicly available information, Breanna Dull served as Deputy Clerk of Council beginning in or about September 2014. She was later appointed Clerk of Council in or about February 2022. Those are not interchangeable roles. They are distinct positions within the legislative structure of the municipality, each carrying its own responsibilities and authority.
That distinction matters because Ohio law does not treat public service as a single continuous status for purposes of the oath requirement. It focuses on entry into an office. The constitutional and statutory language is explicit. The obligation arises “before entering upon the discharge of the duties” of the office. That language is tied to the assumption of a specific role, not to general employment with a governmental entity. When an individual moves from one position to another within the structure of government, particularly when that movement involves a change in authority, responsibility, or statutory role, the law recognizes that as a separate entry into office. The fact that both positions exist within the same municipal entity does not collapse them into a single appointment. Each office stands on its own legal footing.
The position of Deputy Clerk carries its own set of duties related to the functioning of the legislative branch. The position of Clerk of Council carries additional authority, including certification of official records, management of legislative documentation, and direct responsibility for the integrity of the City’s codified ordinances and proceedings. The transition from Deputy Clerk to Clerk is not a continuation of the same role. It is an elevation into a different office with expanded authority. Under Article XV, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution, the obligation is triggered when a person is “chosen or appointed to any office under this state.” That language does not limit the requirement to the first time an individual enters public service. It applies each time a person is appointed to an office. The same principle is reflected in Ohio Revised Code 3.23 and 3.24, which require that an officer take and subscribe an oath before performing the duties of the office. The statute does not provide an exception for individuals who have previously held a different position within the same governmental body.
Ohio Revised Code 705.28 reinforces this structure in the municipal context by requiring that each officer of a municipal corporation take an oath before entering upon the duties of the office and that the oath be filed with the clerk of the municipal corporation. The language again focuses on entry into the office, not on employment status or prior service.
That means the timeline presents two separate legal moments that must be examined independently. The first is the appointment to Deputy Clerk in 2014. The second is the appointment to Clerk of Council in 2022. Each of those appointments represents an entry into a position that exercises public authority within the legislative branch of the municipality. Each of those entries triggers the constitutional and statutory requirement to take an oath before performing the duties associated with that office. The analysis therefore cannot be satisfied by pointing to general employment or continuous service with the City. The question is more precise. At each point where an individual assumed the duties of a defined office within the municipal structure, was the required oath taken before those duties were performed, and was that oath filed and maintained as required by statute.
If the answer is yes, then there should be a corresponding record reflecting that compliance. If the answer is no, or if no record can be identified, then the issue is not one of administrative oversight. It is a question of whether the statutory and constitutional prerequisites to exercising the authority of the office were satisfied at the time those duties began. This is why the timeline matters. It is not about the length of service or the continuity of employment. It is about the specific moments when authority was assumed and whether the law was followed at each of those moments.
The City’s Position
“Not Required” Without a Statute
The most revealing evidence in this matter is not a formal denial of records, nor is it a carefully drafted legal memorandum. It is a simple internal question that exposes the absence of a statutory foundation for the position the City appears to be relying upon.
In a City email dated February 3, 2026, the Clerk of Council wrote: “Can you please provide me with the legal opinion or section of the ORC that you gave him last year when he asked for the oaths and you found that they are not required?”
Breeanna Dull to Michelle Beko
That single sentence carries significant legal weight because of what it acknowledges and what it fails to establish.
First, it confirms that a determination has already been made within the City’s administrative structure that the Clerk of Council and Deputy Clerk are “not required” to take an oath of office. This is not speculation. It is not an inference. It is an admitted position that has been communicated to the Clerk and is now being relied upon in responding to public records requests.
Second, it confirms that the individual occupying the office of Clerk of Council does not possess the statutory authority supporting that conclusion. The email is not requesting clarification of a known legal standard. It is asking for the legal basis itself. That distinction matters. It indicates that the conclusion was communicated without being accompanied by a cited statute, a written opinion, or an identifiable legal framework.
Third, it confirms that the City is continuing to operate under that conclusion despite the absence of an articulated statutory basis. The request is retrospective. It seeks to locate the authority that should have supported the determination when it was made. In the absence of that authority, the position remains unsupported.
The legal problem created by that sequence is straightforward. In Ohio, the requirements governing public office are not discretionary. They are defined by the Constitution and by statute. A municipal corporation does not have the authority to waive a constitutional prerequisite to holding office, nor does it have the authority to declare that a statutory requirement does not apply without identifying the provision that creates an exemption. Article XV, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution imposes a clear requirement that every person chosen or appointed to an office under the state take an oath before entering upon the duties of that office. Ohio Revised Code 3.23 and 3.24 implement that requirement. Ohio Revised Code 705.28 extends it specifically to officers of municipal corporations and imposes an additional obligation that the oath be filed with the clerk. Those provisions operate together. They establish a rule. They do not contain a general exception for municipal clerks, deputy clerks, or employees of the legislative branch. If an exception exists, it must be identified within the statutory framework itself. It cannot be created by internal practice or administrative interpretation.
The absence of a cited statute is therefore not a minor oversight. It is the central issue. A governmental body asserting that a constitutional and statutory requirement does not apply must be able to identify the authority that supports that conclusion. Without that authority, the position is not a legal interpretation. It is an unsupported assertion. The City’s own internal communication demonstrates that no such authority has been identified, at least not in a manner that can be readily produced or cited. The request for “the legal opinion or section of the ORC” reflects an attempt to locate a justification after the fact, rather than a contemporaneous reliance on clearly established law. That gap has consequences. If the oath requirement applies, then there must be an executed oath taken before the duties of the office were performed. If the statute requires that the oath be filed and kept, then there must be a record reflecting that filing. If no such record exists, then the issue becomes one of compliance, not merely documentation.
Conversely, if the City maintains that the oath requirement does not apply, then it must identify the specific statutory or constitutional provision that creates that exception. A generalized statement that the oath is “not required” is insufficient. The law demands more than a conclusion. It requires a legal basis. This is why the February 3, 2026 email is significant. It does not resolve the issue. It sharpens it. It shows that the City has adopted a position that appears to conflict with the plain language of the Constitution and the Revised Code, and that the statutory authority for that position has not been identified. At that point, the question is no longer whether the issue exists. The question is whether the City can produce the law it is relying on, or whether the record will show that no such law was ever identified at all.
The Records Problem
When No One Is the Custodian, No Record Exists
A public records request was submitted seeking a narrow and clearly defined category of records: the sworn oaths of office for the Clerk of Council and the Deputy Clerk. The request was grounded in specific statutory provisions that require both the taking of the oath and the filing of that oath within the municipal structure. The expectation under Ohio law is not complicated. If the oath was taken, there must be a record. If the statute requires it to be filed, there must be a custodian. The responses that followed have not addressed those requirements. Instead, they have followed a pattern that is familiar in records disputes but legally significant when viewed in context. The responses state, in substance, that no responsive records exist, that the responding office is not the custodian of the requested records, and that the request has been forwarded elsewhere. Each of those statements, taken in isolation, might be routine. Taken together, they create a structural problem that the law does not permit to exist.
What has not been provided is as important as what has been said. There has been no production of an executed oath. There has been no identification of a specific office that maintains such records. There has been no written legal authority explaining why an oath would not be required for individuals exercising the functions of public office. The absence of all three elements does not resolve the request. It raises a separate and more fundamental question about compliance with statutory obligations. Ohio Revised Code 149.43 does not permit a public office to avoid disclosure by disclaiming custody while failing to identify where the record is kept. The obligation is to conduct a reasonable search and to produce the record or, if it does not exist, to state that fact clearly. When a statute such as R.C. 705.28 requires that a record be filed and maintained within the municipal structure, the existence of the record is not discretionary. The law presumes that the record exists because the law requires that it be created and preserved. When every office disclaims custody, the analysis does not end with the statement that no single department possesses the record. Instead, the focus shifts to the structure of the obligation itself. The statute places responsibility on the municipal corporation to ensure that the oath is taken and filed. That responsibility cannot be avoided through fragmentation. A city cannot comply with R.C. 705.28 in theory while operating in practice in a way that leaves no office accountable for maintaining the required record.
This is where the issue becomes legal rather than administrative. If a record is required by statute and no office can identify where it is maintained, one of three conditions must exist. The first is that the record does exist but has not been located or produced despite the requirement of a reasonable search. The second is that the record was never created or filed, which would raise a direct question of statutory compliance. The third is that the City has failed to designate or recognize the office responsible for maintaining the record, which creates a breakdown in the records system required by law. Each of those outcomes carries consequences. If the record exists but has not been produced, the issue becomes one of incomplete search or improper withholding under R.C. 149.43. If the record was never created, the issue becomes whether the statutory prerequisites for holding office were satisfied at all. If the City cannot identify the custodian, the issue becomes whether the City is complying with its obligations under Ohio law to maintain and produce public records in an organized and accountable manner.
This is not a situation where the absence of a record resolves the inquiry. When the law requires the creation and retention of a record, the absence of that record is itself a fact that requires explanation. The statutory scheme assumes that these records exist and are maintained. When they cannot be produced and no custodian can be identified, the problem is no longer about access. It is about whether the underlying legal requirements have been followed in the first place.
The De Facto Officer Question
Valid Acts Do Not Cure Defective Authority
This is not a new issue, and it is not theoretical. The City of Lorain has already faced a materially similar question when an elected official was permitted to hold two positions that, under Ohio law, could not lawfully be held at the same time. The public was told that the situation did not invalidate the actions taken during that period. That response relied on a doctrine that courts recognize, but often misunderstand in its scope.
Ohio law recognizes what is known as the de facto officer doctrine. It is a doctrine of necessity, not a doctrine of compliance. It exists to protect the public and third parties who rely on the acts of government officials, even where there may be a defect in how those officials obtained or qualified for their positions. Without it, every action taken by a government body could be challenged whenever a technical or procedural defect is later discovered.
But that doctrine does not erase the underlying defect. It does not convert noncompliance into compliance. It does not transform an individual who failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites into a properly qualified officer. What it does is preserve the outward validity of acts for the sake of stability, while leaving the underlying legality of the officeholders’ authority open to challenge. That distinction matters here. The constitutional and statutory framework governing oaths of office is not ceremonial. Article XV, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution requires that every person chosen or appointed to any office take an oath before entering upon the duties of that office. Ohio Revised Code 3.23 and 3.24 implement that requirement. Ohio Revised Code 705.28 goes further by requiring that the oath be filed and maintained. These are not optional steps. They are conditions precedent to the lawful exercise of authority.
If those conditions are not satisfied, the individual may still function in the role in a practical sense. Government does not stop. Documents continue to be certified. Meetings continue to be recorded. Ordinances continue to be processed. The machinery of government continues to operate. That is precisely why the de facto officer doctrine exists. But the continued operation of government does not answer the legal question. The question becomes whether the authority being exercised is grounded in lawful qualification or in a defect that has been overlooked, misunderstood, or ignored. The doctrine protects the public from the consequences of that defect. It does not protect the governmental entity from scrutiny, and it does not eliminate the requirement that the law be followed. This is where the issue moves beyond technical compliance and into accountability.
If an oath was required and was not taken, the issue is not whether past actions are automatically void. Courts are generally reluctant to disturb completed governmental acts, particularly where third parties have relied on them. The issue is whether the individual lawfully entered the office in the first place. The issue is whether the statutory prerequisites were satisfied before authority was exercised. The issue is whether the City ensured that its own officials complied with the law. Those questions do not disappear because the doctrine exists. They are the reason the doctrine is limited. The doctrine is not a shield against inquiry. It is a safeguard against chaos. It preserves the validity of actions for the public. It does not validate the process that led to those actions. It does not answer whether the law was followed. It does not excuse a failure to comply with constitutional or statutory requirements. That is the distinction that matters in this situation.
If the required oath exists, it should be produced. If it does not exist, the issue is not resolved by pointing to the continued functioning of government. The issue becomes whether the legal prerequisites for holding the office were satisfied at all, and whether the City has been operating under an assumption of compliance that is not supported by the record. The doctrine ensures that government actions do not unravel. It does not ensure that government actions were lawfully grounded to begin with.
Why This Matters Beyond One Position
This Is About the Structure of Government
This issue cannot be dismissed as a question about a single office or a single individual. It goes to the integrity of the legal framework that allows municipal government to function at all. When the law requires a condition to be satisfied before authority is exercised, that requirement is not decorative. It is structural. It defines who may act, under what authority, and on what legal basis those actions are taken. If the position being advanced is that the Clerk of Council is not required to take an oath of office, then that position must be anchored in identifiable law. It must be supported by statute, by constitutional interpretation, or by binding legal authority. It cannot rest on internal practice, assumption, or convenience. The absence of a requirement must be demonstrated with the same clarity as the existence of one. The reason is straightforward. The oath is not symbolic language recited for tradition. It is the formal act by which an individual accepts the obligations of public office and binds themselves to the constitutional framework that authorizes their authority. Article XV, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution is written as a prerequisite. Ohio Revised Code 3.23 and 3.24 reinforce that the oath must be taken before duties are performed. Ohio Revised Code 705.28 adds a municipal requirement that the oath be filed and maintained. Each of these provisions operates together to create a system in which authority is not assumed. It is conditioned. When that condition is treated as optional, the issue is no longer procedural. It becomes structural.
A system of government is defined by the rules that determine who holds authority and how that authority is lawfully exercised. If those rules are followed, the legitimacy of governmental action rests on a clear legal foundation. If those rules are ignored, misunderstood, or selectively applied, the foundation becomes uncertain. The question shifts from what actions were taken to whether those actions were taken by someone who was properly vested with the authority to act. That is not a technical concern. It is a fundamental one. The oath requirement is one of the few provisions in Ohio law that directly links the individual officeholder to the constitutional framework of the state. It is the moment where private status ends and public authority begins. It is the legal acknowledgment that the power being exercised is not personal, but delegated under law and subject to constitutional limits. Without that step, the transition from private individual to public officer is incomplete under the structure set forth by the Constitution and statutes. The implications extend beyond a single office.
If a municipality adopts or operates under the position that certain offices are exempt from this requirement without a statutory basis, that interpretation affects every similarly situated position. It raises questions about how the City defines a public office, how it distinguishes between an officer and an employee, and how it ensures compliance with the conditions imposed by state law. It raises questions about whether other positions have been treated the same way, and whether the same assumptions have been applied elsewhere. It also raises a question of institutional accountability. Government is not permitted to redefine statutory requirements through internal practice. It is not permitted to decide that a condition imposed by the Constitution or the General Assembly does not apply absent clear legal authority. When a requirement exists, compliance is mandatory. When a requirement is believed not to exist, that conclusion must be supported by law that can be identified, cited, and reviewed. This is why the issue cannot be reduced to a dispute over records.
The absence of a record, the inability to identify a custodian, and the lack of a cited statutory exemption all point to a deeper problem. They suggest that the underlying requirement itself may not have been properly addressed. When that occurs, the question is not simply where the document is. The question is whether the legal framework that requires the document has been followed at all. That is a question about the structure of government, not the handling of paperwork. And it is a question that cannot be answered by assumption.
The Current Record Demand
Forcing an Answer the City Cannot Avoid
A new and independent public records request has now been submitted, and it has been drafted in a manner that removes the ambiguity that has defined the responses to date. This request is not a continuation of any prior correspondence, and it does not rely on prior framing. It stands on its own, grounded directly in the constitutional and statutory provisions that govern public office in the State of Ohio. The structure of the request is deliberate. It does not ask generalized questions. It does not invite interpretation. It does not leave room for a response that avoids the central issue. Instead, it identifies specific categories of records that must exist if the statutory framework has been followed, and it requires the City to address each category directly and in writing.
The first category requires production of the executed oath or affirmation for the Clerk of Council and the Deputy Clerk, taken prior to entering upon the duties of their respective offices. This is not a discretionary record. Article XV, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution establishes the requirement. Ohio Revised Code 3.23 and 3.24 implement that requirement. Ohio Revised Code 705.28 imposes an additional obligation that the oath be filed with the clerk of the municipal corporation. The existence of that filing requirement is critical. It means the oath is not only taken, it is reduced to a record and maintained. The second category requires production of any filing records associated with those oaths. This includes the certification, receipt, or any documentation showing where the oath was filed and where it is maintained. The purpose of this request is to address the statutory requirement in R.C. 705.28 directly. If the law requires that the oath be filed, there must be a location where that filing occurs and a record reflecting that filing. The request is structured to identify that location and that record.
The third category requires the production of any legal opinion, memorandum, email, or written determination stating that the oath requirement does not apply to the Clerk of Council or Deputy Clerk. This category is grounded in the City’s own internal communication, which confirms that such a position has been asserted. The request does not accept the conclusion. It requires the legal basis for that conclusion. If the City is operating under a position that a constitutional and statutory requirement does not apply, that position must be supported by identifiable legal authority. The fourth category addresses the issue that has prevented resolution thus far. It requires the City to identify the custodian responsible for these records. The responses to date have created a circular pattern in which each office disclaims responsibility and refers the request elsewhere. That pattern cannot continue under the structure of the current request. If R.C. 705.28 requires that the oath be filed and kept, there must be a defined office responsible for maintaining that record. The City must identify that office by name and by position.
Finally, the request addresses the possibility that the City will claim that no responsive record exists. In that event, the request requires a written statement confirming that a reasonable search was conducted, as required under Ohio Revised Code 149.43, and that no responsive records were found. This is not a formality. A “no records” response carries legal significance. It is a representation that the record does not exist within the custody or control of the public office after a reasonable search. The request requires that representation to be made clearly and explicitly. At that point, the structure of the response is no longer open ended. The City is required to take a position that can be evaluated under law. The options are limited.
The City can produce the record, demonstrating compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirements. The City can identify the law that exempts the position from those requirements, providing a legal basis for the position that no oath is required. Or the City can certify that no such record exists, which raises a separate question regarding compliance with the statutory framework that requires both the oath and its filing. There is no fourth option that allows the issue to remain unresolved. The purpose of the request is not simply to obtain a document. It is to require a definitive position. Once that position is stated in writing, it can be evaluated against the Constitution, the Ohio Revised Code, and the City’s own codified ordinances. Until that point, the issue remains obscured by incomplete responses and undefined responsibility. The current request removes that uncertainty. It requires an answer that the law can address.
Final Thought
Authority Must Be Proven, Not Assumed
Government authority does not exist simply because it is asserted, exercised, or accepted without challenge. It exists only where it has been lawfully conferred and where the conditions imposed by law have been satisfied. That principle is not abstract. It is the foundation upon which every act of government rests. When those conditions are ignored, bypassed, or treated as optional, the question is no longer about compliance with procedure. It is about the legitimacy of the authority itself. The oath of office is not ceremonial language spoken in passing. It is the legal act that binds an individual to the Constitution before they are permitted to exercise public power. It is the point at which a private individual becomes a public officer. It is the moment where authority transitions from assumed to lawful. Without that step, the authority being exercised is no longer grounded in the structure required by the Constitution and the statutes that implement it.
If the City of Lorain cannot produce a record demonstrating that the oath was taken, or cannot identify a statute that removes that requirement, the issue does not resolve itself by silence or internal interpretation. The absence of a record where the law requires one is not neutral. It is a fact that must be explained. Likewise, a claim that the requirement does not apply must be supported by law, not by practice, assumption, or prior informal conclusions. This is not about a missing document in isolation. It is about whether the legal prerequisites for holding and exercising public office were satisfied before that authority was exercised. It is about whether the statutory framework that governs municipal government has been followed. And it is about whether the City can demonstrate compliance with that framework when asked.
Because in the end, authority in government is not self executing. It must be proven. It must be traceable to law. And it must be supported by the records that the law itself requires to exist. When those records cannot be produced, or their existence cannot be explained, the question is no longer administrative. It becomes constitutional.
Independent local journalism exists to do the work that institutions cannot do for themselves.
This investigation is published free and without advertising so that access to information is not conditioned on ability to pay, platform algorithms, or tolerance for distraction. That choice is deliberate. It reflects a belief that public accountability work loses its value the moment it becomes gated, sponsored, or softened to satisfy commercial interests. It is also a choice that carries real cost.
This work requires time, records requests, document review, litigation monitoring, and long-form analysis that cannot be produced on a volunteer basis indefinitely. Filing public records requests is not free. Obtaining transcripts, reviewing filings, preserving evidence, and publishing findings with care and accuracy requires sustained effort and financial support. Doing this work without advertising protects editorial independence, but it removes the revenue streams most media organizations rely upon.
Please consider supporting this reporting.
If this work matters to you, if you believe local government functions best when it is observed rather than trusted blindly, and if you value journalism that documents rather than speculates, your support makes a direct difference. Contributions allow this publication to continue requesting records, reviewing filings, publishing findings, and preserving timelines without pressure to soften conclusions or chase attention.
Transparency is not guaranteed by statute alone. It is guaranteed by people. It is guaranteed by readers who understand that sunlight does not appear automatically, that records do not surface on their own, and that accountability requires sustained, independent effort. When institutions resist scrutiny, the only thing that forces the record into view is persistence backed by public support.
This work remains free because access matters. Its continuation depends on whether the public believes that independent local journalism is worth sustaining.
Legal and Editorial Notice
This publication is an investigative news and public accountability report. All factual assertions are based on publicly available records, government documents, payroll rosters, budget summaries, audit findings, meeting minutes, and other materials obtained through lawful public records processes or directly from official sources. Where interpretation or analysis is offered, it is clearly presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.
All individuals referenced in this reporting are presumed innocent of wrongdoing unless and until proven otherwise in a court of law. The inclusion of names, titles, or compensation data does not constitute an allegation of criminal conduct. The purpose of this publication is to examine public expenditures, statutory compliance, and fiscal management within governmental institutions.
This article does not constitute legal advice. It is published for news, commentary, educational, and public interest purposes only.
Any images used in connection with this publication that are identified as AI generated are artistic renderings created for illustrative or editorial emphasis. AI generated images are not intended to depict real events, actual scenes, or factual representations beyond conceptual illustration. All documentary materials referenced remain grounded in actual public records and source documentation.
All records cited are believed to be authentic copies of official government documents or materials obtained through lawful means. If any party believes factual clarification is warranted, they are invited to provide documentary evidence for review and potential update.
© Knapp Unplugged Media LLC. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction without permission is prohibited.
About The Author
