Elected-sheriff measure misses Cuyahoga ballot as sheriff-control fight heads to court

The Cuyahoga County Council left an elected-sheriff amendment off the November 3 ballot after the measure fell short of the eight votes needed to reach voters. As Euclid residents lose that say, Sheriff Harold Pretel and County Executive Chris Ronayne are fighting in court over who actually controls the department's deputy training and day-to-day operations.

The amendment, sponsored by County Council member Martin J. Sweeney, would have required the sheriff to be elected every four years starting with the 2028 countywide election. Putting a charter amendment on the ballot required eight of the council's 11 members — a supermajority — and only six publicly backed it. Sweeney withdrew the proposal before a final vote, saying he lacked the council support to place it before voters. Because the measure was withdrawn, the sheriff remains appointed by the county executive, subject to County Council approval — the system adopted in the 2009 county-government overhaul.

A courthouse fight over who's in charge

Pretel — appointed by Ronayne and sworn in on July 18, 2023 — sued Ronayne in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in February. In Pretel v. Ronayne, the sheriff asks for a declaration and injunction establishing that he controls the department's personnel, payroll, finances, and daily operations, alleging Ronayne exceeded his authority by trying to take on those functions.

Ronayne's lawyers moved to dismiss, arguing the county charter places the Sheriff's Department under the county executive's administrative supervision and that the administration was overseeing fiscal, human-resources, and operational-support work rather than directing the jail or day-to-day law enforcement. "The sheriff... is a county department established under the supervision of the county executive as mandated by the charter," Ronayne's attorneys wrote.

Emails filed in the case made the standoff concrete. County administrators repeatedly denied training requested for sheriff's deputies, according to the filings. Another email questioned why sheriff's employees were reporting outside their chain of command — the sheriff's position that department staff should answer through Pretel rather than county administrators.

Chief Deputy Aaron Reese, who filed an affidavit supporting the sheriff, said the county administration had "routinely undermined" the department's authority, "interfering with the use of funds... training... and second-guessing... fundamental law enforcement operations."

Pretel said the fight is broader than any single management dispute: "Just to make this a single thing about mismanagement or management deficiencies is really misrepresenting what the bigger problem is which number one independence to run the department and number two appropriate staffing for all those mandatory functions we have to staff."

Ronayne offered a competing account, describing the county's checks on the office as ineffective: "And we have a system of checks and balances that is actually a rubber stamp, literally and figuratively, and no signature of management authority approval. We've got a problem."

What's at stake in Euclid

The Sheriff's Office runs the county jail — including the Corrections Center, where people arrested in Euclid are held — and also provides court security, serves warrants and subpoenas, and assists local police departments. The fight over who decides deputy training and who holds day-to-day operational authority is, in practice, a fight over how those deputies are prepared and who is running those functions.

The court has not settled who controls deputy training and day-to-day operations. Under the appointed-sheriff system, that accountability runs through the county executive and the County Council — offices county voters do elect. The question that remains as election day nears: who do Euclid residents hold responsible for how the department is trained and run?