AUCTION OF KLAN ITEMS

STIRS DEBATE IN MICHIGAN

HOWELL, Mich. (AP) -- Gary Gray says he will be offering pieces of history today when he sells seven Ku Klux Klan robes and other KKK paraphernalia at his auction house.

But the uniforms, knives, books and buttons are reminders of a past some people in this nearly all-white Michigan town, about 55 miles west of Detroit, would rather forget.

"This goes against everything we've tried to accomplish,'' said Victor Lopez, a Latino accountant from Howell and president of Livingston 2001 Diversity Council, a group aimed at promoting tolerance.

Howell leaders say the town's racist reputation is undeserved, and they have been trying to shake it for years. They trace it to Robert Miles, a KKK leader who lived on a farm outside Howell until his death in 1992.

Miles was convicted of conspiring to burn school buses during an integration fight and was found guilty in the tarring and feathering of a school principal.

Gray, a white man and owner of the Ole' Gray Nash Auction Gallery, said the auction is not about promoting racism. He said it is about education and business -- a potentially lucrative departure from his more standard auction fare of antiques, coins and books.

Howell, in Livingston County, is a growing city of more than 9,000 people. About 97 percent of the county's 157,000 residents in the is a growing city of more than 9,000 people. About 97 percent of the county's 157,000 residents in the 2000 census were white. Only a half-percent -- fewer than 800 people -- were black. In Howell, only 29 blacks were counted.

The above article was copied from the Columbus Dispatch 7 February 2005 by Austin Leedom

Ku Klux Klan is alive. A rally was held here in Portsmouth, Ohio in 1995. It is believed that members of the Klan are still living here. – Austin Leedom

History: In 1973, the Ohio General Assembly created the Ohio Ethics Commission as part of the Ethics Law. The law, effective January 1, 1974, created new ethical standards for public officials and employees by: requiring personal financial disclosure; creating new restrictions upon unethical conduct with criminal sanctions; and, establishing uniform review of ethics issues by state-wide commissions of the three branches of government.

Authority: The Ohio Ethics Commission administers the Ohio Ethics Law and related statutes for all public officials and employees at the state and local levels of government, except for state legislators and their employees, and judges and their employees. For legislators and their employees, the law is administered by the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee. For judges and their employees, the law is administered by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Ohio Supreme Court.

Members: The Ethics Commission is a bipartisan commission comprised of six members who are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Ohio Senate. The Commission members, who serve staggered, six-year terms, are:

• Prof. Josiah Blackmore, Columbus - Term expires: 01-01-2009
• Merom Brachman, Chair, Bexley - Term expires: 01-01-2005
• Sarah M. Brown, Vice Chair, Alliance - Term expires: 01-01-2008
• Dr. Robert Browning, Worthington - Term expires: 01-01-2007
• Prof. Ann Marie Tracey, Cincinnati - Term expires: 01-01-2010
• Rev. Leon Troy, Sr., Columbus - Term expires: 01-01-2006

Duties: The Commission has four major responsibilities: public information; advisory opinions; investigations and referrals for prosecution; and financial disclosure.

Public Information The Commission provides free ethics education and informational materials, and recommends legislation relating to ethics, conflicts of interest, and financial disclosure.

Advisory Opinions The Commission possesses the unique authority to interpret the Ohio Ethics Law and related statutes, which are found in Chapter 102. and Sections 2921.42, 2921.421, and 2921.43 of the Ohio Revised Code. The Commission issues both formal and staff advisory opinions on ethics statutes. Formal opinions are issued on novel questions or questions of statewide interest. Staff opinions are responses to more routine questions, and follow Commission precedent. Both formal and staff opinions fully insulate the person making the request, and others similarly situated, if they comply with the opinion before they act, from criminal prosecution, civil actions, and actions for removal from office based on the facts presented. The Commission is also available by telephone to provide assistance.

Investigations The Commission confidentially investigates complaints and may investigate charges of alleged violations under the Ohio Ethics Law. The Commission’s authority is analogous to the role of a grand jury. At the conclusion of an investigation, the Commission may refer the matter for prosecution to the appropriate prosecuting authority or may settle or compromise a charge with the accused person. The settlement methods used may include: mediation; restitution; rescission of affected contracts; forfeiture of any benefits resulting from a violation of the law; and resignation of the accused. The Commission has no authority to prosecute public officials or employees independently. The Commission has discretion to publicly comment that a complaint has been referred to a prosecutor if no action has been taken on the complaint within 90 days of the referral.

Financial Disclosure The law requires elected state, county, and city officials, candidates for these offices, and certain high-ranking state officials and employees to file financial disclosure statements about their previous year’s finances in order to remind them and inform the public of potential conflicts of interest. The law also requires school board members and candidates for school board member in school districts with more than 12,000 students, and superintendents, treasurers, and business managers in all school districts to file. The general filing deadline is April 15, although some forms are due before then. Most forms filed with the Commission are available for public inspection. For more details about the requirements of financial disclosure, please refer to the "Financial Disclosure Fact Sheet," available from the Commission.

General Prohibitions: The Ohio Ethics Law contains provisions restricting conflicts of interest that involve nepotism, post-employment, representation, influence-peddling, confidentiality, and supplemental compensation. Among other restrictions, the law provides that each public official and employee is prohibited from:

• Authorizing, or using his position to secure authorization of, a contract, for himself, a family member, or a business associate;

• Authorizing, or using her position to secure the authorization of, the investment of public funds in any kind of security to benefit herself, a family member, or a business associate;

• Receiving any benefit from a contract entered into by his public entity;

• Hiring or securing any contract benefits for her spouse, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, or siblings, or any other relatives living with her;

• Soliciting or accepting substantial and improper things of value, including gifts, or travel, meals, and lodging;

• Participating in matters where something of value will result for the public official or employee himself, his family, his business associates, or others with whom the public servant has a close tie that could impair his objectivity;

• Disclosing or using information deemed confidential by law;

• Representing parties, before any public agency, in a matter in which she was involved as a public servant, both during and for one year after leaving public service.

The Commission provides free advice and assistance to public officials and employees, and to the public and press, in the state of Ohio. If you have any questions about this information sheet, or about the Ethics Law in general, please contact us.

Note:  The article below was copied from the COLUMBUS DISPATCH.   You can read the Columbus Dispatch everyday on the internet.  For only $4.95 a month you can have access to hundreds of thousands of articles, many of the stories are available at no extra charge.  This is a great bargain; for $59.40 a year you can read a real newspaper everyday of the year and their Archives will let you search for any subject or name and go back over many years.  Compare this news bargain to any publication available in the Scioto County area.

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

ETHICS FILING SAYS VILLAGE DID REPAIRS FOR TWO ON COUNCIL

Dismissed zoning officer in Shawnee Hills lodges complaints with state commission

Published: Friday, January 7, 2005

NEWS 06D

By Jane Hawes

FOR THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

SHAWNEE HILLS, Ohio -- Two complaints were filed this week alleging that two elected officials have directed a village employee to perform work for them on the village tab.

Village records show that between January and September, Councilwoman Linda Lazar had nearly $4,000 worth of drainage work done on her property paid for by the village.

Former village zoning officer Robin Fellure detailed that and other allegations in two complaints filed on Tuesday with the Ohio Ethics Commission.

Fellure said the council approved the work by CPS Consulting Group president Mark Cameron, but did so as part of a larger package of other drainage work.

"There are some things that the village has had to pay for,'' Fellure said in an interview this week, ''but this is not one of those problems.''

When the Delaware county village of Shawnee Hills converted to a new sewer system in 2003, some property owners reported related drainage problems.

Fellure said Lazar had threatened the village with a lawsuit about her drainage problem before taking her elected position on the council last January.

Cameron submitted a bill to the village that indicates he began work on Lazar's property on Jan. 12.

Lazar did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Records show that Cameron also drew up a drainage plan for Councilwoman Judy Stephenson last January. Stephenson defended the work, which cost the village $85, as something done for all new homes built in the village.

Fellure said Cameron routinely reviews drainage plans submitted by homeowners but that in Stephenson's case, Fellure alleges, he created the plan. Fellure said she learned about the incident when Cameron told her he felt uncomfortable doing the work for Stephenson.

Cameron said he didn't want to comment except to say that he didn't do all the design work, rather that he may have amended a plan created by another firm.

He said his assignments usually come from the Village Council, mayor or the administrator but that Lazar had made direct requests to him.

Ohio Ethics Commission spokeswoman Jennifer Hardin, who wouldn't comment on the specifics of the Shawnee Hills cases, said officials are not barred from using services normally offered to other residents, but may not use their positions "to obtain greater or quicker access to services.''

Shawnee Hills is grappling with other conflicts as well.

In November, Mayor-designate Bob Wood fired Fellure, Police Chief Mark Bossa and village solicitor Eric Burden. Wood took office on Oct. 20, after his predecessor, Pat Monahan resigned, citing increasing conflict within the council.

Fellure, Bossa and Burden have disputed their firings, saying state law endows village councils -- not mayors -- with the authority to terminate employees or contracts.

The Village Council met in executive session last night in part to discuss the firings. Members adjourned at 10:15 p.m. and took no action.

Bossa's attorney, Craig Calcaterra, said an attorney hired to advise the council on the employee firings has asked him and his client to put off filing a lawsuit on the matter.

Fellure said she also has been asked to wait until at least Jan. 31 before filing a lawsuit.

Cameron said he hesitates to comment or take sides because "most of us are just trying to hunker down and avoid getting hit. I'm sure it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.''

JaneEHawes@cs.com

Ohio lawmakers have a chance to put teeth into the state's open-records law, and they should do it.

In a one-day test last June of selected cities and school districts, the law, which requires public officials to make public documents available in a timely manner to anyone who asks, was followed barely half of the time.

Based on that poor performance, Attorney General Jim Petro and Rep. W. Scott Oelslager, R-Canton, have put together a bill to make the open-records law stronger and easier for citizens to use.

No law will work if government officials and employees -- the keepers of the public's documents -- don't understand it, so Petro and Oelslager are wise to include a requirement that officials and employees be taught their duties under the law.

Beyond that, the bill would establish fines of up to $1,000 per day for public offices that fail to comply with reasonable records requests.

That's toothier than the current penalty uncooperative governments face: the possibility of having to pay the legal fees of a plaintiff who sues over improperly withheld records and wins. Having to take a chance on a costly lawsuit is a heavy burden for most people. Consequently, only news organizations that have the money to sue or to publicly embarrass noncompliant officials have tended to receive the cooperation the law requires.

But information about how government offices spend public money and make public policy belongs to all citizens, and the law should ensure that they have access to that information when they ask for it.

Other provisions of the bill would clarify some aspects of the open-records law that have been open to dispute. For example, reporters and others who make formal public-records requests -- often in painstaking detail -- are sometimes turned down out of hand because the request isn't in the form preferred by that particular office, or because the requester didn't use the precise official term in describing the records he wants.

The new bill says that, if a public office finds a request ambiguous, it must tell the requester what the problem is and give him or her a chance to revise the request.

It also would require public officials who remove sensitive information from public documents before releasing them to inform the requester of the deletions and, when denying a records request, to explain the reason for denial, showing legal authority.

Oelslager introduced his bill last month in the dying days of the previous General Assembly, with plans to quickly reintroduce it in the new session.

Ohio Republicans are rightly concerned with restoring trust in their party in the wake of the campaign-finance scandals that paralyzed the House last year.

New House Speaker Jon Husted, R-Kettering, could demonstrate a strong commitment to transparency in government by giving this bill a high priority.   _-End of Dispatch Article-

A STRONGER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT IS DESPERATELY NEEDED HERE IN PORTSMOUTH, AND SCIOTO COUNTY, OHIO 

Written by Austin Leedom at 1:30 p.m. Thursday, January 06, 2005.

Many of the City of Portsmouth Offices and the Office of the Scioto County Sheriff are notorious for hiding public information, and failing to account for public money.  Honest citizens have been kept in the dark too long by corrupt office holders.