Ohio Atty. Gen. Marc Dann: No Public Funds Can Be Used In Tax Campaigns

COLUMBUS (TDB) -- Ohio's Democratic Atty. Gen. Marc Dann has issued an opinion that declares state law clearly bans any expenditure of "public funds to publish, distribute, or otherwise communicate information that supports or opposes the passage of a levy or bond issue . . ." Dann's office released the opinion Oct. 23 in response to a request from the prosecutor in Putnam County, who said the local health district wanted to solicit financial donations from townships in order to promote a campaign aimed at increasing property taxes. Dann said government entities are supposed to be neutral.

Officials are free to express opinions and campaign, but they can't use public money to push their views on voters.

His opinion comes at the same times as a major blow up in Hamilton County, where Republican Sheriff Simon Leis sent letters in the pay envelopes of 1,072 employees urging them to vote for a half-cent sales tax increase on Nov. 6. About $736 million would be raised for a new jail, drug treatment and rehab programs, and police patrols in high crime areas. Opponents of the tax hike said the sheriff had campaigned on the public dime. They sued in state court and lost, but obtained a settlement in federal court Wednesday that requires the sheriff to send anti-tax literature to county workers. The settlement appears to contradict Dann's view of Ohio law, which points out it is equally improper to use public facilities to distribute literature against the levy -- which is what the court settlement calls for.

Dann's opinion relies upon an Ohio statute, R.C. 9.03, that in so many words says the government must adhere to a policy of strict neutrality. The law states that public funds cannot be used on electioneering that "supports or opposes the nomination or election of a candidate for public office, the investigation, prosecution, or recall of a public official, or the passage of a levy or bond issue."

Dann said government agencies can disseminate information, but that it must simply explain the facts, not stray into promotion. An opinion issued by former Republican Attorney General Betty Montgomery explained the distinction.

"The general authority to expend funds and administer public programs, however, does not permit a public body or a public official to expend public funds specifically to attempt to persuade people to voter a particular way on a ballot issue -- that is, to say '"Vote Yes on Issue X.'

The full-text of Dann's 12-page opinion is here. And while it addresses Putnam County alone, it recaps what the rules are in Ohio.

Ohio AG Marc Dann's Outside Counsel: 3 GOPers Spotted On Panel To Map Reforms

COLUMBUS (TDB) -- Former Republican Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro got beat up in the newspapers over the hiring and fees outside lawyers received when they landed juicy state contracts to represent government agencies. His Democratic successor, Marc Dann, promised reform. Today, it looks like Dann has taken a serious step to clean up the contracting process by seeking advice from three notable Republicans, including a retired U.S. judge who was put on the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan.

Dann has appointed a six-member advisory panel to develop "procedures for selecting outside counsel in order to insure transparency, accountability, and objectivity in the selection process." Deals with outside lawyers traditionally have been a source of patronage and fundraising cash for the attorney general's office. The state contracts also have been a lucrative source of income for lawyers, with big fees paid by the taxpayers of Ohio.

Bios of the six advisers are online. Perhaps the most surprising person to turn up on the list is former U.S. District Judge Albert I. Krenzler, who served in Cleveland. The late and legendary Republican Gov. Jim Rhodes put Krenzler on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in 1968. Reagan gave him the federal appointment in 1981. Krenzler turned 71 in 1992 and quit, saying he wanted to "do something else, whether it will be to relax and play golf or ride my motorcycle or go back to work."

Ads On Ohio Sheriff's Cars: Censored In 2003

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Glass City Jungle in Toledo has broken word that officials are considering plastering corporate advertisements on city police cruisers, a plan that would open a fresh revenue stream for a Northern Ohio municipality apparently desperate for lucre. The idea isn't original and a similar scheme by a rural sheriff in Meigs County on the Ohio River was declared illegal in 2003. One of the reasons it failed: The probability of confusion. A law enforcement patrol car festooned with ads might be mistaken for a commercial vehicle. In other words: Is it a pizza delivery man or the sheriff?

Sensible lawyers saw interesting court cases developing, with judges having to sort through testimony that a motorist didn't stop because he thought a Dominoes driver wanted to hand him a ticket. A lengthy opinion by former Attorney General Jim Petro NIXED the Meigs County ads on a number of legal grounds, including a state law that specifies how Ohio's sheriff's cars must be marked.

Later that year, Petro issued another ruling about township police cars that found they could legally DISPLAY corporate insignia or decals. The same marking rules that cover sheriffs didn't apply to townships, a loophole that now looks big enough for the Goodyear blimp to float through. But Petro's opinion involving a Youngstown-area community did not endorse the scheme. Instead, it went out of its way to denounce the plan.

"Nonetheless, I must reiterate the problems . . . that such markings pose for law enforcement. Statutes like R.C. 311.28, R.C. 4549.13, and R.C. 2913.441, which makes it a criminal violation for any person who is not a law enforcement officer to display on a vehicle an emblem of a law enforcement agency, all serve the same underlying public purpose -- to ensure 'that law enforcement vehicles are immediately and easily recognizable as such.' This assurance serves to protect the safety of the public and promote effective and professional law enforcement," Petro's opinion declared.

Again, there was the confusion angle, but this time Petro emphasized the hazards to the public -- "a citizen followed or stopped by a vehicle with extraneous markings, unrelated to law enforcement, may be as easily misled, with the attendant dangers, as one who is stopped by a vehicle with no markings at all."

Bottomline: Police cars should be easily recognizable. They should be distinctive. They should not be revenue generating billboards on wheels. The flashing lights and sirens should be going off at the Statehouse, where the Ohio General Assembly needs to step on the gas stop this nonsense immediately.