Schloemer resigns as Norwalk's safety-service director

Anyone interested in the position should send or drop off an application at city hall within the next 10 days.
Scott Seitz2
May 17, 2013


Norwalk Mayor Rob Duncan announced Thursday that safety-service director Mark Schloemer will resign, effective June 19.

Schloemer has held the safety-service position since being appointed by Duncan in January 2012.

Anyone interested in the position should send or drop off an application at city hall within the next 10 days.

"I'd like to have someone in place as soon as possible," Duncan said.

A story with more details about Schloemer's resignation was published on the front page of Friday's Norwalk Reflector. So you don't miss stories such as these, sign up for home delivery by calling 419-668-3771 or subscribe to the e-paper (a complete digital replica of each issue) for less than $1 per week and read the full-version of the stories online.



From a great government job to insurance??? Will this mean that the mayor will have to get more involve with the day to day business of the city?


@ NR:

A VERY incomplete story in the hard copy.

What are Mr. Schloemer's reasons for leaving after only 1.5 yrs?

Mayor Duncan uses political capital opposing naysayers due to Mr. Schloemer's lack of experience and then he leaves after approx. 1.5 yrs? Sumpthin' ain't right.

A "job" with an insurance co.? Doing what?

Is this an indication (tip o' the iceberg) of other MAJOR issues brewing in the Mayor's office?

Cliff Cannon

@ Contango: I nominate you for this position. After all with your business experience, your understanding of the financial markets and your well known ability to tell people who are buggin' you to hit the bricks. I should think you'd be a natural.

Of course,there is one,er,ah, 'slight' drawback to the job. The hours. Because it sounds to me like a 24/7/365 type job. So when would you have time to debate me on the blogs ?

P.S. I join you and no doubt, the rest of the city in wondering " the real reason" for Mr. Schloemer's departure. Still, sometimes even in politics what they say, is what they mean


@ CC:

Thanks for the vote of confidence, however -

To paraphrase LBJ: If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.

I'm not one to waste personal mental and physical resources on 'unsolvable problems,' and I see the city's future fiscal situation as being in that camp.

Reminds me also of when Mayor Lesch likened her job to that of the myth of Sisyphus.

Many politicians upon leaving office will give the reason as: To spend more time with family. (It is seldom, if ever, the REAL reason.)

The fact that the NR wrote that he was leaving to take a "job" (not a 'position') and no description of said "job" was IMO 'telling.' Reads perhaps like a hurried decision?

And the timing in itself is ODD.


What does a safety service director do?

believe it

So people aren't allowed to take other jobs? Contango must think that people stay at the same job for their whole life.


In what reality does leaving after only 1.5 yrs. make sense to you?

Where's the NR interview with Mr. Schloemer?

Sometimes, a resignation is given in lieu of firing.

As I recall; Mr. Schloemer had no experience and was a relation of a political friend of Mayor Duncan's.

believe it

People leaving for other jobs, whether it's after one year or 10 years, is not uncommon at all. Open your eyes. I work in HR and am always having to do job postings because of people leaving for other jobs. I've had people leave as early as 6 months into the job, you're making something out of nothing.


This is politics: It 'may' be something, it 'may' be nothing.

And in your position of HR, you do not do exit interviews to find out WHY someone is leaving?

Did you actually read the article or just this highly truncated version of the story?

believe it

I've read the story my friend. And no, not all jobs require exit interviews. Some, but not all.


@ believe it:

Reading like a circle game.

I've never met an owner/manager who would not want to know the reasons behind the unexpected departure of a valued high-level employee.

And for the caliber of the position in question, wouldn't you think that an exit interview was in order?

IMO, there are two reasons for this resignation:

The 'given' reason and the 'real' reason. The taxpayers have been provided NEITHER.

The taxpayers of Norwalk who funded the salary and benefits of this 'temporary' political appointee have the right to be provided answers.


@Contango- You are correct. There is more to the story without a doubt. Duncan hires a Republican aide to be his right hand man, and he resigns a year and a half in? There is something not right about that. Personally, I believe he was in way over his head. @Matt882- The Safety Service Director oversees all departments and reports only to the mayor. He handles many issues that would otherwise fall to the mayor. If you have competent department heads, you shouldn't even need a safety service director, but I believe the position is required and outlined per the Ohio revised code. Evidently hanging out at the Republican headquarters is all the experience you need for the job.


IMO, perhaps the Mayor should assume the majority of the responsibilities of the office and save the taxpayers some money?


Not sure you've had much interaction with the city because from what I've seen the young man has done a good job. Perhaps you were originally passed over for the job and now have some kind of axe to grind?


@ Truckstop:

Your assumption is ludicrous.

So 1.5 yrs and out?

Merely asking questions bothers you?

So just trust authority because they're obviously smarter than you eh?


@contango: comment was directed at @thomasjefferson. Defensive much? But since you feel the need to be the authority on all things pompous, I'll bite.

First, as I indicated I've heard that the young man has indeed done a good job. However, that doesn't seem to have stopped you from being critical from the start. So shouldn't you be happy that he's leaving? Is your circular logic lost on you?

J Cooper

Bottom line is that the safety service director works for and at the pleasure of the mayor, in the end only the mayor has to know the reason for this young man leaving. The taxpayers has the final judgement on the mayor's actions at election time, good or bad.


Probably not prudent for those 'footin' the bill' or the local press to ask too many questions; it tends to sometimes make bureaucrats feel uncomfortable.

Usually just better to pay one's taxes and shut up.

Cliff Cannon

@ Contango : The word on the street is that Mr. Schloemers new opportunity is just to good for him to pass. I'll also add this, by all accounts the young man is an up and comer worth watching. So here's hoping he returns to public service in the near future.

I also really like your idea of having the Mayor assume more of the role of service director as a money saver for the city. However, since the Mayor is asking for applicants, I guess it will be our next Mayor or the one after that takes that bold step


@ CC:

Kind of a very localized version of the Wall St./DC 'revolving door' eh?

So according to the 'rumor,' its more confirmatory data for the observation that the "best and brightest" continue to leave?

Ya just get the guy trained and he leaves - waste of precious resources.

Maybe you should pen a gossip column with the potential title: “Norwalk Whispers”? :)


@Contango: Not sure you understand what a 'revolving door' is, so here's a free lesson for you. The next one will cost you.

The revolving door is often meant to describe the departure of government officials to private sector jobs which will engage in business with that official's former employer. A good example would be a recently-defeated Congressman obtaining a lobbying position lobbying his former colleagues.

A young man who leaves Norwalk for a job with an insurance company that is 1. Not located near Norwalk, and 2. Apparently does no business with the city, comes nowhere near the definition of revolving door.

I'm glad you're able to throw around big words to confuse your fellow readers, but I went to college too!


@ Truckstop:

Defensive much?

My comment was directed at Cliff.

It's unfortunate that questions bother your delicate sensibilities.

Have a nice day.


@contago: more of a "disher" than a "taker" I see? It's not the questions that bother my delicate sensibilities, it's the intentionally misleading red herring comments you make on a regular basis.


@ Truckstop:

Again: Obviously speculation and questions disturb you. Sorting your sock drawer should give you some comfort.

BTW: U.S. Treasury Sec'y Lew, like Rubin and Paulson before him, as well as Senators like Corzine, et al. previous worked on WS and later returned to WS. Lobbying is ONLY a fraction of the "revolving door."

Mr. Cannon suggested that Mr. Schloemer might someday return to public office, hence my "kind of" qualifier. Reading comprehension also not a strong suit of yours?


@Contango: Here's the definition of "Revolving Door" for you. Maybe don't let your arrogance get in the way of your comprehension.

In politics, the "revolving door" is the movement of personnel between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation.[note 1]
In some cases the roles are performed in sequence but in certain circumstances may be performed at the same time. Political analysts claim that an unhealthy relationship can develop between the private sector and government, based on the granting of reciprocated privileges to the detriment of the nation and can lead to regulatory capture.

I go back to my previous statement, "A young man who leaves Norwalk for a job with an insurance company that is 1. Not located near Norwalk, and 2. Apparently does no business with the city, comes nowhere near the definition of revolving door."

Perhaps it's time for you to fade back into obscurity.

Cliff Cannon

@ Contango: " Norwalk whispers " for a gossip column ? Certainly, an idea, as of course, folks love to share what they know, particularly if it is 'juicy'

However, I might not be the person for the job as I ---as much as possible-- look for the 'good' in 'bad people' rather than seeking the 'bad' in 'good people' that is obviously, so common in the world of gossip.

Of course, the other thing that would seriously hamper the success of a " Norwalk whispers " column is right here in blogville. As personally, I find tons of information here. Information, I might add that quite often, I find creditable. Given by people in 'the know'.

Obviously, if ' Norwalk whispers ' sought only juicy dirt, it, alas, would also arrive in way to many of these blogs as well. Which means it is back to the drawing board on this idea:)

swiss family

if I recall correctly, when Mayor Duncan was running for the position, he clearly told everyone, and it was overwhelmingly praised at the time, tht he would allow his department heads to do their jobs, without having to look over their \shoulders all the time....Now, the same people who really liked that idea are saying that the Mayor should do just the opposite.. Please make up your mind.. I also think that it is probably NOT everyone's business why he is deciding to leave his position and move to a different field altogether.. If he feels the need to say why, he will, and if not he won't I think that he probably discussed his reasons with the Mayor, and that is between them.. if you are not happy about it, just like JCooper said.. decide if the Mayor is doing the job that is in the best interest for the citizens at election time.. I also find that Mr Schloemer's decision to continue to live in Norwalk , a tribute to how well he likes and still cares about Norwalk..


I hope to see someone with experience hired this time, but I wouldn't count on it.


@thomasjefferson: Again, from what I've heard he did a good job, so not sure that you've actually had interaction with the city. Maybe you should put your name in the hat? Would your experience stack up?


That family name has always been with out reproach. He is moving fwd. I urge Mr. Know- it-all to take that spot.