Hot News!
• Best restaurant in town closes
• Republican Hypocrisy, You Just Can’t Make This Sh!t Up!
• Today is international women’s day and it’s women’s history month
Tweets!
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Behind-the-scenes of Clark Montessori’s Opposition (2009)•Jeff Berding’s Democratic Credits (2008)
•Camped Out for Ikea? (2008)
•Health Care: A National Security Issue! (2007)
•Mayor Mark Mallory: 100-Day’s of Leadership (2006)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Judge Nadel: Sheriff’s Jail Campaign is Like United Way
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
The Cincinnati Beacon has obtained a copy of the transcripts for the hearing and decision for a temporary restraining order against Sheriff Leis to prevent him from further campaigning using county funds and equipment. As seen in the transcript for the hearing, Judge Nadel states that he is a friend of Sheriff Leis, but he said that he could decide the case in an unbiased manner. Unsurprisingly, he ultimately decided in favor of the sheriff, comparing his campaign for the jail to a United Way campaign.
There are two transcripts. One is for the hearing itself, the other is for the decision on the next day.
As the hearing transcript shows, Judge Nadel twice referred to Sheriff Leis’s solicitation of his employees as similar to a solicitation from United Way. (The sheriff’s jail letter mentioned the threat of layoffs—apparently his United Way appeals also threaten layoffs if one does not contribute.) The judge also pointed out that the parade season is over, so there is no real risk of the sheriff once again using county vehicles as a platform for signs in a parade until next year.
Judge Nadel also argued for the sheriff that he (Nadel) makes personal phone calls using the county’s phones, and one should not be overly strict in enforcing any regulations prohibiting public equipment being used.
Per the hearing transcript, the sheriff has stated that the letter was typed and put into his employees’ pay envelopes. This seems to be at variance with the Beacon’s copy of the letter, which was composed in an electronic format and had electronic attachments to it. It appears per the decision transcript that this aspect will be investigated further.
Although Judge Nadel stated that he has heard cases in the past involving the sheriff in his official capacity and that therefore he could hear this one, there is a large difference. This case involves the sheriff in a very public way—in a parade, no less—that the other cases did not. The actions of the sheriff are central to this case, not just incidental. Therefore, this writer agrees with the plaintiff that the judge should have recused himself since he is a friend of the sheriff and should not have heard the case.
There will be another hearing on the 16th to determine if there should be a preliminary injunction against the sheriff. Once again, Judge Nadel will preside.
Update: Transcripts are now available online:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/387665/Shrive-v-Leis1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/387666/Shrive-v-Leis2
• 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.
09 Oct 2007 at 10:32 am | #
Anyone who follows courthouse doings over the past decade or so knows Judge Nadel is a joke. He is biased and unprofessional on many cases, but this one seems particularly egregious.
It’s time for Nadel to retire.
09 Oct 2007 at 12:46 pm | #
It’s way better than the United Way, where the employers, arm twist their employees to make donations of an approved size (with their career advancement on the line if they don’t); in that the sales tax, will cost each employee of the County much less.
09 Oct 2007 at 04:34 pm | #
Simon Lies is not the only person who uses strong arm methods to get employees to donate to United Appeal. All of the corporations with headquarters in downtown are well known for this tatic. Not only do you give, you are told what your fair share is in many instances.
The big soap company is a major offender. Close in second place is the big utility company. The phone company is bad too.
09 Oct 2007 at 10:05 pm | #
To: Residents of Hamilton County
We at the Deane Institution of Justice believe that the Institute of Justice’s report is out of date and at the time were full of bogusousities and were a waste of money to the people of Hamilton County.
The Deane Institution of Justice and Fairness also has done a report for free in Hamilton County and has concluded that Hamilton County and the citizens of Hamilton County do not need a new jail. The biggest problem to the justice system in Hamilton County is that it has to many laws on the books and is locking non-violent offenders away.
One of Hamilton County’s biggest problem is the law that has made possession of marijuana a felony. We also do believe that the justice system of Hamilton County needs a night court to keep the system running in a fluid manner.
We at the Deane Institution would know like to extend our bill to the people of Hamilton County for $150,000. We at the Deane Institution would like to also say that the Vera Institute was paid much higher a price for their report and feels that the people of Hamilton County were again ripped off.
President
Peter A. Deane
Deane Institute
of Justice and Fairness
09 Oct 2007 at 10:56 pm | #
As long as it is true that layoffs are possible without the passage of the levy, then it is not illegal
09 Oct 2007 at 11:59 pm | #
This is not about United Way. It’s about violating state law on elections. How on earth can the Judge draw such an analogy?
10 Oct 2007 at 09:43 am | #
President
Peter A. Deane
Deane Institute
of Justice and Fairness
Peter can be contacted by mail @
The Justice Center
!000 Sycamore
Cinti Ohio
He is currently being held without bail. This is what happens when you work at the Dean Institute and don’t contribute enough.
10 Oct 2007 at 11:11 am | #
What about CPS? I received a letter from my son’s school, signed by Rosa Blackwell, urging parents to pass the new tax levy that’s coming up. Then yesterday, they sent home copies of voter registration forms. Is this legal? Just curious.
10 Oct 2007 at 02:08 pm | #
There was a story about schools campaigning for levies in the Sunday Enquirer. Generally they are not allowed to use public moneys to do so. The letter should have a “disclaimer” at the bottom saying what organization paid for it. It is common for there to be a non-profit group set up in order to campaign for school tax increases, just as COAST often campaigns against them.
Rosa Blackwell is able to do say what she wants on her own time. Maybe, because of her position, she can also lobby for tax increases during working hours—I just don’t know the answer to that. For that matter, I don’t know if she is still on the job or has already resigned.
Getting the mailing list to send out the letter is another question in itself. This question has come up before—who has access to the mailing list? Is it public or private information? But if they made it available for a pro-levy group, then they will have to make it available to an anti-levy group.
10 Oct 2007 at 09:56 pm | #
Dear #8 Anon,
Voter registration is in everyone’s best interest, and is not specific to any particular candidate or levy. Therefore it’s clearly just a public service and not at all illegal.
Rosa Blackwell’s letter involves splitting some hairs. As an individual with free speech rights, she can legally express her opinion about the levy and even advocate for it. But only as an individual.
What she cannot do is use the office of School Superintendent to play partisan politics. That office is owned and funded by the taxpayers. We do so for the purpose of providing education services to children. Any dollar of funds or minute of personnel time spent on a levy campaign comes at the expense of the organization’s mission. It therefore, strictly speaking, becomes a theft of funds or dereliction of duty.
Furthermore, the office has certain inherent powers that give the superintendent influence and control over subordinates. Using those powers to strong-arm teachers, administrators or staff to vote a certain way is unduly coercive and certainly bad management. Elections are supposed to be free in America.
If the schools are simply passing out a flyer from a individual on a matter of public interest, then that is OK. It’s not much different than notifying parents of an off-campus sporting event. Sending notices home with kids is then a communication forum, like a great big community bulletin board.
However, once schools use that venue for pro-levy communication, they also have to make it available to anti-levy folks upon request. Denying equal access would be oppression of free speech, opening them up to big monetary damages.
Perhaps Leslie Ghiz will read this and take the obvious next step.
11 Oct 2007 at 10:40 am | #
MEP and Mark Miller,
Thanks for the comments. I find all of these campaigning efforts borderline unethical.
I also failed to mention that in one of my son’s monthly newsletters, which is written by the teachers, they were also urging parents to pass the tax levy. Granted I understand teachers campaigning, but that is not their “job” while utilizing school property and funds. Where should the line be drawn and who’s holding them accountable?
11 Oct 2007 at 07:55 pm | #
Dear 8 & 11 Anon,
I’m curious whether the line has been crossed or not. I would like to see Blackwell’s letter and the teachers’ newsletter if you don’t mind. You can remain “Anon”.
Please contact me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or phone me at 513-842-1144. Thanks.