Posted by Media Release

This time by misrepresenting Ohio law… Following last Tuesday’s defeat of the Super-Sized Jail Tax, the Commission majority and Sheriff Leis have shown every inclination to retaliate against the voters for rejecting their tax, and to resist all attempts at fiscal and criminal justice reform.  Monday, we saw that they will attempt to hide behind non-existent legal obstacles to block reform demands. 

On Monday, the WeDemand coalition that organized the petition drive to force the tax proposal on the ballot and the campaign that defeated it proposed a 14-point plan to reduce jail overcrowding.  On of the more significant proposals was to divert at least one-half of the $6.5 million in drug and asset forfeiture funds presently held by the Sheriff to the cost of housing inmates to assure that dangerous criminals would not be released onto the streets.  Presently, this $6.5 million in such funds are held and spent at the discretion of the Sheriff.  In the past, he has spent that money on a variety of items, including teddy bears and coloring books, but not the Sheriff’s declared priority of funding inmate housing.

Before analyzing the law of the merits of the proposal, Commissioner David Pepper rejected the proposed reform, saying: “Ohio law does not allow drug forfeiture funds to be used for that purpose.” (Cincinnati Enquirer, online edition, November 12, 2007.)

Fortunately for the taxpayers, Pepper is wrong, again.  Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 2981.13(c)(2)(a)(v), the uses to which funds within the Sheriff’s Law Enforcement Trust Fund may be spent include “for other law enforcement purposes that the . . . county sheriff . . . determines to be appropriate.” Clearly, Ohio law allows these excess funds to be spent for housing dangerous inmates, rather than allowing them to roam the streets.

WeDemandABetterPlan.Com Chairman Jason Gloyd said “David, instead of rejecting all attempts to solve this problem without a huge tax increase, we suggest you actually read the law.  Really, reform is possible if you just open up and try.”

Gloyd also suggested that if it was too much for Pepper to actually read the law before rejecting the reform proposal, he might have consulted with his colleague Commissioner Todd Portune.  Portune, last year, initiated a motion to ask the sheriff for a contribution from his asset forfeiture funds to help pay for new jail construction, but abandoned his own proposal this year after endorsing the now-rejected super size jail sales tax. 

Thank you for reading (and printing from) The Cincinnati Beacon.