Hot News!
• Freestore Foodbank Battle of the Blogs!
• Cincinnati NAACP President shares update on Cincinnati Retirement Plan
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Dear H. Wilkinson: Did you report the facts? (2007)•Two Republican Views of War (2007)
•Commenting Rules for The Cincinnati Beacon (2007)
•Evidence of Injustice (2007)
•Open Letter to Henry Heimlich about SALF (2006)
•The Mayor’s Recommendations to the Proposed Budget (2006)
•Know Theatre of Cincinnati Offers Alternative Holiday Entertainment with Christmas Yet To Come (2006)
•Stop the Proclamations! (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Request for Injunction Against Sheriff Leis
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
A Hamilton County resident has written the county prosecutor and requested that he apply for an injunction against Sheriff Simon Leis to prevent him from again using public money to advocate for a new jail and to recover the money Leis has already spent.
When Sheriff Leis sent his letter to the personnel in his organization requesting them to vote for the jail tax and suggesting there might be layoffs if it fails, he was engaged in campaigning using public monies. His letter was apparently composed by his personnel and it certainly was distributed using a government computer system.
Mr. Brian Shrive, who identifies himself as a taxpayer and resident of Hamilton County, has recently sent a letter about this to Joseph Deters, the Hamilton County prosecutor. Mr. Shrive requests an order of injunction against the sheriff and recovery of the money spent so far the sheriff’s illegal advocacy.
Mr. Shrive’s letter went out before the recent Harvest Home Parade, where the sheriff’s organization used public vehicles—a tractor-trailer, van, boat, and helicopter—to carry signs stating “Support the New Jail.” The Cincinnati Beacon has learned that Mr. Shrive’s letter may be amended to include this last event.
A transcript of the letter appears below (Mr. Shrive’s address has not been included in this transcript).
September 1, 2007
Mr. Joseph T. Deters
Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney
230 E. Ninth Street, Suite 4000
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Re: Request for Initiation of Civil Action Pursuant to R.C. 309.12 et seq.
Mr. Deters:
As a taxpayer and resident of Hamilton County, I am writing to you concerning the use of government resources and computer system to advocate a specific position relative to the forthcoming referendum on the jail-tax increase that will be on the ballot the coming November.
Recently, Sheriff Simon Leis transmitted a letter to all personnel within the Office of the Hamilton County Sheriff wherein Sheriff Leis specifically requested its recipients “to support the proposed sales tax increase,” as well as “encourage[ing] each and every one [of the recipients] to vote YES in November and, between now and November, educate [their] friends, family, associates, and anyone with whom [they] have contact on the absolute necessity to build a new jail.” For your reference a copy of this letter is included with this letter.
It appears that this letter by Sheriff Leis, advocating a position and requesting a specific vote on a pending election matter, was prepared by personnel within the Office of the Hamilton County Sheriff, presumptively on county time, and on computers within the Office of the Hamilton County Sheriff. Additionally, the initial dissemination of the letter, as well as subsequent dissemination by its recipients, appears to have been undertaken utilizing the computer system within the Office of the Hamilton County Sheriff.
Section 9.03(C)(1)(e) of the Ohio Revised Code expressly prohibits a political subdivision from using public funds to communicate information that “[s]upports or opposes the nomination, or recall of a public official, or the passage of a levy or bond issue.” Division (C)(2) of that same section similarly prohibits a political subdivision from using public funds to compensate an employee “for time spent on any activity to influence the outcome of an election for any of the purposes” specified in division (C)(1)(e). And even if Section 9.03 should not be applicable to the advocacy engaged in by Sheriff Leis, there is no statutory authority for a county, or any of its officials, to utilize public funds or resources to advocate for or against any ballot issue or referendum and, thus, such a letter would still constitute an improper use of county funds and resources. See Ohio Att’y Gen’l Opin. 2002-001. For it is well-established that the authority for a public entity to act in financial transactions must be clearly granted, and any doubt must be resolved against a proposed expenditure. See State ex rel. Locher v. Menning, 95 Ohio 97, 99, 115 N.E. 571, 572 (1916).
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 309.12 to 309.13 of the Ohio Revised Code, I hereby request that you, as County Prosecutor, make application to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order of injunction to restrain the misapplication of funds and/or the completion of an illegal contract; to recover for the use of the county, public moneys misapplied or illegally drawn from the county treasury; and/or to recover damages, for the benefit of the county, resulting from the execution of an illegal contract, viz., to estop the use of any county funds or resources to advocate for or against the referendum on the proposed sales tax that will be on the November ballot, as well as to recover any funds already expended through such efforts.
Please examine the legal issues implicated the use of county funds and resources relative to advocating support or opposition to the referendum on the proposed sales tax and respond expeditiously to us as to your intended manner of proceeding in this matter.
Sincerely,
Brian Shrive
• 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.
08 Sep 2007 at 11:35 pm | #
Well, it certainly appears that this gentleman has all his bases covered -
Now, we’ll see if Dirty Deeds Deters upholds the law and does his job
Be specific gentlemen, be specific
09 Sep 2007 at 04:35 pm | #
MEP = Don Quixote
10 Sep 2007 at 09:41 pm | #
Thank you to Mr. Shrive for filing this on our behalf. What disturbs me most about this is the use of non-public information to reach captive employees. I really don’t care if Simon’s sidekicks spend a few minutes checking fantasy football scores, calling the vet to check on their cat, or throwing up a post or two here telling us we’re wrong to question The All Mighty Sheriff, but this is an abuse of power to use the Sheriff’s email system to send a political message to the Sheriff’s employees.
Mr. Deters has done a surprisingly fair job as Prosecutor since returning in disgrace from statewide office. We need him now to get Simon Lies in line. The law applies to Leis too.
14 Sep 2007 at 01:53 am | #
I think some other taxpayer should look into Brian Shrive’s employment situation to find out if he has ever made a personal telephone call from his place of business, used a company car to stop and get a cup of coffee, taken home a pen or pencil that didn’t belong to him, or run more water than necessary in the mensroom while washing his hands… assuming he washes his hands.
Also, if the Leis thing goes to court and Leis is found innocent, why not pass on the thousands of dollars in court courts to Shrive for starting the frivolous action?
Of course the more troubling thing here is that Michael Earl Patton, a candidate for council seat, is stooping to such gutter tactics in order to promote himself.
This tells as a great deal about the character of the man, doesn’t it?
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 who share a blood oath to cast misery and sorrow throughout the burg.
Why is this kind of crap necessary?
If you’re against the jail tax why not simply present the facts without all the drama and subterfuge?
Influence voters using facts, not by demonizing your opponents.
ricland
ricland
14 Sep 2007 at 05:44 am | #
There is not a state law prohibiting Shrive from making a telephone call from work, or from using a pencil. In other posts, you talk about logic, yet your false analogies are being used here to dishonestly try to make a propagandistic point.
The law says public funds cannot be used to influence ballot issues. Leis is the head law enforcement figure in Hamilton County. He is not above the law; he is a symbol of law enforcement.
Those are the facts. Stick to them.
14 Sep 2007 at 12:51 pm | #
You obviously know a far more about Mr. Shrive’s employment than I do. I would point out, however, that I merely asked a “taxpayer” to look into whether Shrive has ever taken a pencil or pen from his place of employment without first asking permission.
Granted, I used it as a rhetorical device—one which most people got. You apparently did not, so let me explain it to you, Dean.
Shrive initiated a legal action meant to embarrass Leis. He did this for political gain; that is, to support political goals, not enforcement of our criminal codes.
When he sees someone jaywalking does Shrive dial 911 and report it?
No...?
Why not...?
Now, I know you and the rest of your band of merry pranksters won’t agree with what I’m saying, but that’s not important. What’s important is that no judge in the State of Ohio will take the action seriously and that’s because jurists and the law are not quite as trivial as you jolly fellows have shown yourselves to be.
Also, if you continue antics of this sort, voters won’t take you seriously either as well they shouldn’t.
ricland
14 Sep 2007 at 03:11 pm | #
ric,
Your line of thinking is becoming as silly as your tabloid stories.
I cannot speak for Shrive, but there is an easy reason I do not call police when someone jaywalks: I view jaywalking as a relatively minor crime—one that does not bother me.
I am bothered, however, about people playing games with state laws and politics—since politics is, after all, something in which I take an interest.
Some people get worked up when sports teams trade a player, or lose a game. I don’t watch sports. Election night is my Super Bowl. Call me a dork, or whatever you will, but that’s the long and short of it.
I do not care about pens being taken from someone’s work. I am much more interested in the fact that Leis has spent thousands of dollars of money seized in drug arrests on DARE pens.
14 Sep 2007 at 03:58 pm | #
Please…
Your readers aren’t quite as dumb as you seem to think, Dean. Your moral outrage over Leis’ supposed misuse of government funds is as phony as a three dollar bill.
It’s part of your overall campaign to get Patton and Jeffre on the City Council. And don’t even bother denying it because if you do it will make your dishonesty even more oily.
Every day for the past month you’ve published an article attacking Sheriff Leis. You fellows sit up late at night thinking up new ways to humiliate him and this latest attack is the result of one of those brain-storming sessions.
Stop peeing down our backs and calling it rain, dude.
Your Jihad against Leis started with your camcorder terrorism with Heimlich and continues to this day.
Do you really think readers don’t know what you, Patton, and Jeffre are up to?
Do you really think your readers are that dumb?
ricland
14 Sep 2007 at 04:09 pm | #
By now, it is clear that your emails are just reflections of yourself, misdirected at us.
Justin and Michael are not running against Leis, or Pepper, or Portune. We have made our position clear before we knew these guys were running.
By the way, what does your entire rant above have to do with the quote you presented.
Stay on topic, ricland, or you will be sent to your corner again.
15 Sep 2007 at 08:30 am | #
What is that supposed to mean?
One of my things my emails was about was that Smitherman’s race-baiting goes back to his Council days when he was avowed racist Kabaka Oba’s man on the Council.
Maybe that happened before some of the people you’re supporting for Council were born, but it’s still on-topic.
ricland
15 Sep 2007 at 08:36 am | #
Sorry, I did not mean “email,” I meant “comments.”
26 Sep 2007 at 10:26 pm | #
and what happens when re-electing si leis is a matter of public safety, can he decide to use public resources to influence the public on that issue too? can he lean on his employees to vote for him? donate money? go door to door? put up yard signs? How illegal is too illegal?
We can stand around and gaze at our navels as long as we like, but the simple fact is we cannot allow public resources and public power be used to influence elections. Otherwise what is the point of putting these issues and candidates to the voters to decide?
Too many people sweated in the Summer heat gathering signatures. And even before that, fighting, and killing, and dying to secure our freedoms, so that we can have the right to argue and sue over these issue. All so that Si Leis can piss all over the law?
The lawsuit is bigger than this one issue. It cuts to the heart of the use of public resources and power.