Meet the guys who tape Trump's papers back together

From Politico

Solomon Lartey spent the first five months of the Trump administration working in the Old Executive Office Building, standing over a desk with scraps of paper spread out in front of him.

Lartey, who earned an annual salary of $65,969 as a records management analyst, was a career government official with close to 30 years under his belt. But he had never seen anything like this in any previous administration he had worked for. He had never had to tape the president’s papers back together again.

Armed with rolls of clear Scotch tape, Lartey and his colleagues would sift through large piles of shredded paper and put them back together, he said, “like a jigsaw puzzle.” Sometimes the papers would just be split down the middle, but other times they would be torn into pieces so small they looked like confetti.

It was a painstaking process that was the result of a clash between legal requirements to preserve White House records and President Donald Trump’s odd and enduring habit of ripping up papers when he’s done with them — what some people described as his unofficial “filing system.”

Under the Presidential Records Act, the White House must preserve all memos, letters, emails and papers that the president touches, sending them to the National Archives for safekeeping as historical records.

Continue Reading>>

Audit confirms improper no-bid contract scheme at Ohio's Department of Administrative Services

From The Columbus Dispatch

It’s old news, but state information technology officials ignored bidding requirements for years to hand out millions of dollars in no-bid consulting contracts, according to a “public interest report” by the office of Ohio Auditor Dave Yost.

The audit, prompted by an investigation by The Dispatch published in April 2017, confirmed the newspaper’s finding of at least $15 million in unbid work while noting that “numerous policy safeguards to prevent waste and abuse do not exist.”

Controls over purchasing at the Department of Administrative Services were so weak that “it’s impossible to verify whether the state overpaid for services” through the improper no-bid contracts, Yost’s office said in its report released early Thursday.

“Because key information and documentation is lacking, it’s impossible to know exactly what happened in these contracts,” Yost said in a statement. “One thing we do know is that the process at place at DAS is not even close to being considered a ‘best practice.’ They can, and must, do better.”

The Dispatch reported last year that top state information technology officials improperly failed to seek bids or price quotes and sidestepped approval of the Controlling Board — a bipartisan spending watchdog panel — in routing unbid work costing more than $200 an hour to two favored contractors. Lower-ranking state purchasing analysts, meanwhile, had warned that the contracts were improper and might be overpriced.

Continue Reading>>

Bill would allow auditor to look over shoulder of JobsOhio

From The Columbus Dispatch

Although JobsOhio objects — and Gov. John Kasich is likely to do so as well — the Ohio Senate on Wednesday unanimously passed a measure sought by state Auditor Dave Yost that would authorize his office to look over the shoulder of the privatized economic-development entity.

An amendment incorporated into a bill Wednesday would permit the auditor’s office to play a role in outlining the scope of performance audits and give it access to the work papers produced by private accounting firms conducting the audits of the nonprofit.

Republican Yost long has lobbied for increased accountability from and oversight of JobsOhio. The entity was exempted from public-records laws and government oversight when it was created to supplant the state Development Department in 2015 and was granted a lease of the state’s liquor-sales operation to finance its operations.

“JobsOhio is a quasi-public agency that exists to serve a public purpose for Ohioans,” Yost said. “The people of Ohio deserve a seat at the table. This amendment ensures that any performance audit of JobsOhio is completely independent.”

The language, which advances to the House for consideration, would require performance audits of JobsOhio every four years beginning in 2021 under written agreements to include the auditor’s office.

Continue Reading>>

Supreme Court to hear OCOG-supported case on secret ballot voting

This morning the Ohio Supreme Court accepted our appeal from a Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals case questioning whether Ohio’s Open Meetings Act permits public bodies to vote by secret ballot.

A 2011 Ohio Attorney General’s Opinion Letter says no, as does a 2011 Hamilton County Common Pleas Court decision. But to date, the Ohio Supreme Court has not addressed this question. But the Cuyahoga County Courts disagreed.

This is an important case, meriting an amicus brief in support of jurisdiction from the Ohio Coalition for Open Government. Learn more about OCOG here.

The Ohio Supreme Court now has an opportunity to declare once and for all that secret ballot voting is not consistent with the demands of open government.

Case documents in State of Ohio ex rel. More Bratenahl et al. v. Village of Bratenahl et al.  are available on the Ohio Supreme Court’s website, here.

We will post updates as briefing is completed. Read more about this case here.

'Bigfoot on the Strip' lawsuit illustrates need for anti-SLAPP laws

By Jack Greiner

A Branson, Missouri attraction called “Bigfoot on the Strip” is suing a Kansas farmer and his daughter over an unflattering review the farmer posted on TripAdvisor.  According to its website,  Bigfoot on the Strip is an amusement park that a “variety of attractions, all themed around Bigfoot (as in Sasquatch).”  It includes a working Scottish Highland Cattle Farm, through which patrons can ride on a Safari vehicle.

Randy Winchester and his daughter visited the attraction while in Branson. Upon returning home to Kansas, Mr. Winchester posted this review on TripAdviser:

“We did the Bigfoot Safari tour as part of a large group. The $10 price tag is about right for what we got. Basically a tour through some pretty rugged country on some pretty narrow roads. They promote the fact they have the largest herd of Highland cows in the Midwest. You spend about 5-10 minutes feeding them range cubes at the beginning of the tour, and see maybe 10 of the cows. Then it’s off into the hills you go with a guide telling some pretty fanciful tales along the way. All in all a decent experience but had we paid more than the $10 I would have been disappointed.

All in all, not too bad.  I don’t have immediate plans to visit Branson, but if I did, this review wouldn’t make me avoid Bigfoot on the Strip.  (Although, I am more of Dinosaur Golf guy myself).  But it appears the folk at Bigfoot have pretty thin skin.  According to an updated review from Mr. Winchester, his original posting led to calls and e-mails from the Bigfoot folks:

“Since posting the above review, a person identifying himself as an owner of Bigfoot on the Strip has called my daughter on her cellphone repeatedly, has contacted my daughter by email, has tried to call my home phone at 8:30 p.m. on a Saturday, has attempted to contact me by email, and has contacted the person who coordinated our tour, to complain about my original review. The ‘owner’ has also advised my daughter by email that he and his partners would likely be suing both of us.

“I have significant reservations regarding any business run by someone who seems to think it is an acceptable business practice to contact family members and associates of a reviewer because they seem to be unhappy with a review. Consequently, I am changing my three-star review to one star.”

Quite honestly, one star seems generous under the circumstances.  But in keeping with their hyper sensitive approach, the Bigfoot folks have now filed a defamation lawsuit in Taney County, Missouri.  It claims Winchester’s review was a product of “evil motive” and exposed the park to “contempt and ridicule.”  The Bigfoot folks are making the mistake that a lot of defamation plaintiffs make – assuming that being mad about a review gives them a cause of action.   It doesn’t.  And unless the Bigfoot folks can prove that Winchester made a false statement of fact, as opposed to merely sharing an opinion, the big foot of the law is likely to boot their case out of court.

As well it should.  But that isn’t enough. The Bigfoot case is exactly the kind of pleading that anti-SLAPP legislation would help deter.  Anti-SLAPP laws address SLAPP suits – “Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.”  The law gives victims of defamation suits that get filed for no reason other than to shut down legitimate criticism a tool for getting the case dismissed before the costs start escalating.  And it gives the victim the right to recover the lawyer fees incurred in doing so.  Currently, the Ohio Senate is considering Senate Bill 206,which would give Ohio citizens this type of relief.  I testified in support of the bill yesterday.  You can read my testimony and the testimony of several others here.

The anti-SLAPP bill is well written and long overdue.  If you happen to talk to a state legislator, urge them to pass it.

Ohio looks to decide what police body, dashboard video is public

From The Dayton Daily News

An Ohio House panel passed a bill Tuesday that would change which dashboard camera and police body camera videos are public and when police can withhold them from release.

“This bill protects privacy rights, while also providing transparency and accountability for those involved. As new technology is utilized, we must continue to protect our citizens and my bill takes measures to ensure that privacy rights are prioritized,” state Rep. Niraj Antani, R-Miamisburg, said in a release Tuesday.

House Bill 425 passed the Government Accountability and Oversight Committee.

Body camera video is generally a public record, according to the bill, except if it’s taken in a private home or business, involves the victim of a sex crime or is part of a confidential ongoing investigation.

Continue Reading>>

More transparency sought for convention, visitors bureaus

From Gongwer

Witnesses warned lawmakers Wednesday that, without transparency, local public officials serving on convention and visitors bureau boards could create incentives for improper behavior.

The comments came as the Senate Ways & Means Committee considered legislation (SB 252) making local officials' right to serve on the boards explicit.

The panel also accepted an amendment that Chairman Sen. John Eklund (R-Chardon) said allows county auditors and municipal fiscal officers to disclose, to a CVB upon request, tax return information of hotels subject to lodging tax.

Micah Derry, state director for Americans for Prosperity - Ohio, said the proposal would "worsen an already perverse set of incentives for politicians to raise taxes to reward special interests" by letting them simultaneously hold positions in government and at visitors' bureaus.

Current law doesn't prevent local officials from serving on the boards of visitors' bureaus that receive tax dollars from hotel taxes, he said. The bureaus can spend that money with little transparency, he added.

"By taking over visitors' bureaus and gaining this ability to spend money without accountability, these local politicians can then direct potentially vast sums of taxpayer money to their political allies and, in a worst case scenario, private business interests, skewing the economic playing field and incentivizing corruption and cronyism," he said.

The proposal doesn't address the problem, and instead protects it as a legal right, he said.

"I urge you to oppose this bill unless it is altered significantly, and to work toward a legislative solution to the nexus of cronyism and unaccountable spending that is enabled by our visitors' bureaus," he said.

Sen. Bill Beagle (R-Tipp City) asked if there are limitations for typical convention bureaus on what they can spend their money on.

Levies are often placed for general purposes, but oversight is often limited, Mr. Derry said.

Sen. Bob Hackett (R-London) said the legislation gives local governments more authority to place additional limitations on local bureaus.

"In some ways the bill is still giving authority to local governments to say, 'We want it to be more restricted,'" he said.

Although Mr. Derry said he believed in providing local flexibility, he said smaller communities with convention and visitors bureaus are often the ones most likely to face perverse incentives for holding both positions.

"This is purely a recognition that a conflict of interest does exist," he said.

In written testimony, Robert "Chip" Hart of Hart Productions in Cincinnati urged lawmakers to bring more transparency to visitors' bureaus.

"I urge this committee to bring about much needed change, transparency, ethics, and above all, honesty by insuring that there is access to allow for oversight of the use of tax money," he wrote. "Therefore, I reassert the request for a convention & visitors bureau to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act for the tax funding it receives when there are board members that are elected officials or their designate or members of a government administration."

Dispatch editorial: Let sun shine when doing the public’s business

Editorial from the Columbus Dispatch

There is a difference between discussion, deliberation and decision — and the distinctions are especially important when it comes to government bodies doing the public’s business.

We hope all manner of public officials in Ohio were paying attention in March when the use of closed sessions poisoned and upended a superintendent search for the Columbus City Schools.

The distinctions can be confusing when a government body — say the Columbus Board of Education — receives conflicting information from different sources, including a membership organization such as the Ohio School Boards Association, which board members and their legal counsel may rely on for advice specific to their responsibilities.

Differences between discussion, deliberation and decision were at the heart of problems that arose in the Columbus school board’s initial search for a superintendent to succeed Dan Good, who retired at the end of December.

That search was scrapped after The Dispatch revealed and State Auditor Dave Yost challenged the board’s use of private executive sessions to consider and cull about two dozen candidates for the job to three finalists before taking official action in an open meeting. The board had announced 19 candidates publicly; and now we know four others were privately considered as well.

As the Columbus school board mounts a new search, we hope any lingering misunderstanding of what Ohio’s Sunshine Laws require for the conduct of public business have now been resolved — and that other Ohio school boards that might have been following similar misguided practices are now on notice as to the law’s demand for public decision-making.

The auditor had advised the school board — just before it planned to name the next superintendent — that decisions made illegally in closed sessions could subject board members to personal financial liability, making it clear the process was tainted.

Conversely, the school boards association had advised its members that weeding out candidates in closed sessions was fine. In fact, that process “is used by many of our members to narrow their lists of candidates,” OSBA Chief Legal Counsel Sara Clark said in a letter to the state auditor, disputing his interpretation of the Sunshine Law restrictions on executive sessions.

The association cited a 1985 case where Tiffin City Council considered candidates for a vacancy in private, then decided between two candidates in open session. Now, Clark said, “we are providing boards that utilize OSBA for their executive searches with information about the position the auditor has taken.”

Cincinnati attorney John C. “Jack” Greiner, considered a Sunshine Law expert by the Ohio News Media Association, agrees that case does not support anything more than deliberation in executive sessions. And Webster’s defines deliberation as “consideration and discussion of alternatives before reaching a decision.”

These distinctions are important as the Columbus school board begins a new search for superintendent.

We hope the Groveport Madison Board of Education and the school board for Westerville City Schools are also paying attention. Groveport is seeking a new superintendent to succeed Bruce Hoover, who resigned in February. Westerville needs a new school treasurer with January’s retirement of Bart Griffith. Thankfully, there has been no indication those districts made decisions in closed sessions.

Yorkville mayor claims village did not break Sunshine Laws

From The Herald-Star

The mayor here said his village is not in violation of the Ohio meeting laws after a village meeting started 30 minutes before its scheduled time and reconvened with a quorum after it passed a motion to adjourn.

Council’s regular meeting was scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at the village’s municipal building, 139 Market St., Yorkville.

However, the meeting actually began at 6 p.m. Tuesday. It adjourned at about 7 p.m. Four council members — Ron Emerson, Jennifer Murray, Karen Vargo and Linda Mayhugh — and Mayor Blair Closser then drove to attend a council meeting for the village of Tiltonsville at 222 Grandview Ave., Tiltonsville.

According to “Ohio Sunshine Laws 2018: An Open Government Resource Manual,” published by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, a public meeting is defined as “(1) a prearranged gathering of (2) a majority of the members of a public body (3) for the purpose of discussing public business.”

Also, village council meetings — which are subject to the Ohio Open Meetings Act — “must establish, by rule, a reasonable method that allows the public to determine the time and place of regular meetings,” according to the manual.

The village’s website, www.villageofyorkville.org, indicates all municipal meetings — including the one held Tuesday — start at 6:30 p.m.

Still, the mayor said, the village didn’t change the time or location of the meeting with the intent of violating the law.

“We didn’t do it to hide anything,” said Closser. “We didn’t pass anything until (a newspaper reporter) got there at 6:30.

“I think (the time change) was posted on the front door,” said the mayor.

“I’m not sure if the clerk called The Times Leader to say the time changed. Next time, I will be sure to shoot an e-mail to (the newspaper reporter) or the editor.”

The Ohio Sunshine Law manual also says, “Although the Open Meetings Act does not specifically address where a public body must hold meetings, some authority suggests that a public body must hold meetings in a public meeting place that is within the geographical jurisdiction of the public body.”

But the mayor said the gathering of the majority of the members of Yorkville Council at the Tiltonsville meeting did not violate the law.

“I told council members that if they wanted to, they could head over to Tiltonsville to hear about the plans with Chuck Better,” said Closser after the meeting. “I think it was addressed at the end of the meeting after executive session. Maybe before, but I’m not sure.”

Better, who works with Yorkville Intermodal Terminals LLC, was at the Tiltonsville meeting to discuss plans for building a barging facility that would affect Yorkville and Tiltonsville. But that was after council members had ended their meeting for the night.

“I need a motion to adjourn so that we can get up there to the Tiltonsville meeting,” said Closser during the meeting in Yorkville before a motion and second, followed by a unanimous vote, brought that meeting to a close.

Justices refuse to reconsider Pike County autopsy secrecy ruling

From The Columbus Dispatch

The Ohio Supreme Court has declined to reconsider its decision holding that The Dispatch and The Cincinnati Enquirer are not entitled to copies of the full autopsy reports in the slayings of eight relatives in Pike County.

The court refused to again examine the case by a 5-2 vote, with Justices Terrence O’Donnell and Sharon Kennedy dissenting, in a ruling issued Wednesday.

The court voted 4-3 on Dec. 14 that much of the information in the autopsy reports of eight Pike County slaying victims is not yet public record and cannot be released since the case remains unsolved more than two years after the killings.

The county coroner, with the support of Attorney General Mike DeWine, refused to release unredacted copies of the autopsies, saying their release would harm the investigation.

The newspapers had insisted that public records law contained no provisions shielding the complete autopsy reports from release. Officials had released heavily redacted copies two months after the legal actions were filed.

The legal fight stemmed from the April 22, 2016, shooting deaths of eight people in three trailers and a camper in Pike County.

The majority ruled that the unreleased portions of the autopsy reports could be withheld as confidential law enforcement investigatory documents.