Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Portune Alleges Leis Showed Integrity by Turning Over Documents
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
Yesterday, this Beacon contributor spoke in front of the Hamilton County Commissioners at their meeting and stated that Sheriff Simon Leis, by his use of county money to campaign for the jail tax, was engaged in unethical behavior and requested that the commissioners do something about it. I also mentioned his threat to sue another critic, as reported in The Cincinnati Enquirer. Mr. Portune said Sheriff Leis believes he has behaved legally and that by turning over documents to the prosecutor the sheriff demonstrated that he is a man of integrity. When I started to ask if that meant that the sheriff would continue to campaign in the manner he has been, Mr. Portune sharply cut me off and said that my two minutes were up.
Since the letters were electronic, “turning over” means just giving the prosecutor a copy. Indeed, a check of the official sheriff’s website just a few minutes ago (time now is 1:40 p.m. on Sept. 12) shows that that letter is still posted.
Mr. Portune’s standard for integrity—that one provide copies of campaign materials that were intended for wide distribution anyways—is extraordinarily low for the chief law enforcement official of the county. It appears that we can expect more of Sheriff Leis’s style of campaigning, at least for a while.
• Share This Article! | Listen to this article |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
13 Sep 2007 at 11:01 am | #
The Sheriff is on record saying he will continue doing what he is doing because this is too big of an issue not to. He believes he’s above the law.
13 Sep 2007 at 02:54 pm | #
I assume the commision has a two-minute limit for speakers in order for Portune to cut someone off. If not, Portune violated your First Amendment rights.
I also assume he applies the two-minute rule equally to ALL speakers regardless of the subject of their comments. If not, Portune violated your First Amendment rights,
In other words, if he lets some people go beyond two minutes and not others the rule is not being applied equally. Time limit rules are allowed but they must be content neutral.
13 Sep 2007 at 05:59 pm | #
You people are the buzzing of flies, to our fair Sheriff!
13 Sep 2007 at 08:46 pm | #
Could Todd Portune possibly look any worse? All of us who worked hard to get him elected have a sinking feeling watching him kowtow to Leis. Whatever Leis has on everyone, it must be strong stuff. Leis and his jail plan are like a wrecking crew that detsroys politicians, regardless of party affiliation.
13 Sep 2007 at 10:30 pm | #
While you’re on campaign irregularities, is anyone going after Joan Kaup? As I understand it, her husband used Fine Arts Fund (not-for-profit) letterhead to solicit for Joan.
What’s goes for one, goes for all.
13 Sep 2007 at 10:43 pm | #
I didn’t think of the fact that the 2-minute rule must be applied equally, but that is exactly what happened. There were several speakers before me talking about kinship care providers and Portune let them go far beyond the 2-minute limit. He basically let them talk without any cut-off.
(I may also write an article for the Beacon on that subject. There is information there that should be publicized.)
14 Sep 2007 at 12:58 am | #
There has been since I can remember a 2-minute rule,and the discretion of the bocc president to allow it to extend further. my belief would be that as long as each citizen’s right to their 2-minutes without bias and as long as the citizen has obeyed other rules (no cussing, no personal attacks, etc) you can’t get them on violation of free speech.
I believe there are also some special rules on those given person to address the BOCC longer - putit might saimply be “at the discretion’ of the presiding officer—i don’t know, haven’t read them in a while.
I was at a public meeting the other night, and when i started speaking i was lambasted that they weren’t going to allow me to speak, then inquired as to my political intentions, whether i paid taxes, what my address was… it was incredible—- i’ve never seen another citizen be publicly attacked andmaligned like that at a public forum
14 Sep 2007 at 04:06 am | #
And now I suppose you jolly fellows will ask for an injunction against Portune for cutting Patton off a second or two too soon.
When do you guys grow up?
Of course the more troubling thing here is that Michael Earl Patton, a candidate for council seat, is stooping to such juvenilia in order to promote himself.
This tells as a great deal about the character and maturity of the man.
Honestly, I would have hoped we counter culture people would be above such puerile behavior once we had access to the media.
And it’s not just Patton; Smitherman, Jeffre, Livingston, et al, all do the same thing—demonize their perceived opponents, promote the notion that people like Leis, Pepper, Portune, Judge Heather Russell, are part of an evil cabel waiting in the wings to drink the blood of our children.
Why is this kind of crap necessary?
If you’re against the jail tax why not simply present the facts without all the drama, subterfuge, and witch trials?
Influence voters using facts, not by demonizing your opponents.
ricland
14 Sep 2007 at 05:14 am | #
Heck, Portune merely admires the fact that—- unlike Brinkman and the 3 stooges Heimlich, DaWhine and Fink, he is willing to subject himself voluntarily and cooperatively, to the scrutiny of a possible adverse legal opinion and take responsiblity for his actions—
I agree with Portune, YES AGAIN, because the worse kind of politician is the ass who thinks so highly of himself (which how could Least be above anyone here? but it appears he is)and is soooo arrogant that he would think he’s beyond reproach.
COAST supporters, the Brinkman illegal signature crew and the rest of the “cartel” from the anti-reform movement have sooo notoriously done for nearly the last decade when they evaded public scrutiny: having cases fixed so the Drake deal doesn’t get reviewed, secret meetings, Fink on both the tax review committeee and the Drake board at the same time in violation of law, Brinkman “the real criminal here” and all his election law violations!
Integrity? I’d have to say so, at least he isn’t throwing some minimum wage workers under the bus and blaming it on them while he goes free. Integrity, hell yeh integrity, by any one’s standards you goofs.
THERE IS NO SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE - ‘cause it just ain’t convenient anymore,.—- you need to re-discover your fricken integrity folks.
And, again, why are you bringing this to the BOCC - you should have asked for an audience with the Sheriff - the BOCC has NO CONTROL OVER WHAT OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS DO - you guys just are using Portune as your whipping boy because he’s the only politician who gives a crap what you have to say and has been willing to help despite your repeated attacks.
Forgive them, they know not what they do
14 Sep 2007 at 07:42 am | #
Ric,
You may recall that Portune did not direct Si Leis to stand down when he was over his time, engaging in some cowboy stare down with Pat DeWine, even after DeWine asked Portune to bring his meeting to order. And yes, Leis was there speaking on a two minute limit like everyone else. This is simply gross hypocrisy.
Take the advice of your last line, as that is what you do, not us.
14 Sep 2007 at 10:04 am | #
No it’s not, and your penchant for hyperbole doesn’t make it so.
These men are trying to run the county and if they afforded every nut the respect they do the County Sheriff, the hearings would be a three-ring circus with freaks standing in line from here to Kalamazoo.
You clowns are engaging in civil disobedience and I suspect a lot of voters are getting sick and tired of, so much so, they’ll be showing their displeasure in November.
ricland
14 Sep 2007 at 01:33 pm | #
Anon2000-here’s a bit of First Amendment minutae you might find interesting from the firstamendmentcenter.org.
[A two-minute rule] “would qualify as a reasonable time, place and manner restriction on speech. It is a content-neutral provision that on its face does not discriminate against certain types of speech. The question would be whether the government was applying the time limitation evenhandedly. If the government imposed the limitations on speakers with whose views it disagreed, but waived the requirement for those with whom it agreed, there would be a constitutional problem.”
And then a reminder from a less-than-perfect but still quite interesting co-author of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson:
“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone.”
It is our civic duty to challenge our leaders.
14 Sep 2007 at 04:07 pm | #
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the budgets for the other departments. From section 302.13(L) of the Ohio Revised Code, dealing with the powers and duties of the board: “(L) Exercise control over expenditures by all county officials and promulgate and execute an allotment schedule allocating annual appropriations for any county government purpose by item on either a monthly or quarterly basis; ...”
Also, the Board of County Commissioners may establish a Department of Detention and Correction, removing those functions from the sheriff’s organization. See sections 302.13 and 302.203 of the Ohio Revised Code.
The Board of County Commissioners has enormous authority over the sheriff. Portune and Pepper refuse to use it.
14 Sep 2007 at 09:51 pm | #
Janis & MEP,
Thanks both posts have valid points to consider. I particularly like MEP’s first citation.
The only argument I could make might be : has anyone checked to see if the Kinship care people had advance permission to be on the agenda, and maybe that’s why they were allowed to proceed uninterrupted? Or maybe because the Kinship issue is a direct responsiblity of the BOCC, where the Leist issues weren’t on the agenda?
?????
15 Sep 2007 at 10:26 am | #
The kinship people were not on the agenda. At the beginning of their comments Portune said that the 2-minute rule per speaker would apply to them. But when speakers went over he let them continue.
The issue is not a direct responsibility of the BOCC. The kinshp people were trying to get the commissioners to endorse a change in the current Ohio practices. The sheriff’s expenditures, by contrast, ARE a direct responsibility of the BOCC.
The commissioners have not yet endorsed a change to the kinship rules.
16 Sep 2007 at 04:22 am | #
MEP - every time I read it, I just love that first citation - it almost sounds like the BOCC could actually direct the most minute details of another elected officials budget.
My guess is, and correct me if I’m wrong, but “county officials” might that be limited to the departments controlled by the commissioners and not the independently elected officials who,I thought, created their own budgets?
Also, I think you might have a problem in the free speech comparison because it was two different issues. If you caught them giving two people on the same issue, one pro and one con - I think you’d have ‘em. But 2 different issues, it might be apples and oranges because you couldn’t prove the intent to support one agenda or the other.
And Janis, do you know what court that came out of? If it wasn’t here it isn’t a binding opinion(we in Cincinnati don’t have to do what the courts in LA do).
16 Sep 2007 at 11:32 pm | #
Well, gee whiz Anon2000, I didn’t read the fine print in the US Constitution that exempts Hamilton County, Ohio. But then, since people tend to ignore the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments around here (and in the context of this blog topic the Eighth), why bother with the First?
Dayton v Esrati is quoted in the essay from www. firstamendmentcenter, org I quoted from above.
The courts HAVE ruled that the First Amendment does apply in Cincinnati. Fountain Square comes to mind. If you think non-Ohio court decisions don’t apply to us try yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.