VietVet wrote: Apply to Middletown perhaps? Should this town and it's leaders be included in this and the lawyers contacted? Dunno I believe that some on this forum have brought up Sunshine Law instances in the past where this applied, right?

Vet: The short answer is “YES!!!”

However, in Middletown’s City Council’s case, the mostegregious violations of the Sunshine Law occur during their illegal “executivesessions”.

Take, for example, the innumerable executive sessions heldduring the last year:

“To consider the purchase ofproperty for public purposes, or for the sale of property at competitivebidding, if premature disclosure of information would give an unfaircompetitive or bargaining advantage”.

First, the stated purpose is “to consider the purchase…ORfor the sale…”.  Which is it???  Unless they truly are considering both the “purchase”of a property AND the “sale” of a property in the same executive session, thisviolates the “laundry list” prohibition in Ohio’s Sunshine Law.

Next, since they are negotiating in a closed session with asingle, privately selected entity this whole deal is in violation of both CityOrdinance §220.09 (SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY), and ORC Chapter 721 (SALE OR LEASE OFMUNICIPAL PROPERTY)!!!  Both of theselaws mandate the advertisement of municipal real property for sale for a periodof weeks, the taking of sealed bids, and the acceptance of the highest bid.

Consider the sale of the properties purported to be used for Cincinnati State.  By “pre-selecting” a successful bidder andnegotiating the sale terms and price in executive session, the City is not onlyviolating the terms of both City Ordinance § 220.09 and ORC Chapter 721, butalso doing exactly what their “executive session disclaimer” warns against: Itgives their pre-selected successful bidder “an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage”!!!

In effect, our CityCouncil scores a sort of TRI-FECTA!!! Theyviolate the Sunshine law, a city ordinance, and a state law all in one act!!!

The City LawDirector must either be asleep or in collusion not to be aware of this.

Clearcreek trustees named in suits

They are among others statewide targeted by pro-tax cutting groups.

By Lawrence Budd, Staff Writer Updated 2:56 PM Sunday, December 25, 2011

    CLEARCREEK TWP., Warren County — Trustees of this Warren County township are among a growing list of government leaders in Ohio named in lawsuits brought by lawyers known for their work on behalf of conservative efforts to limit local government and cut taxes.
    Chris Finney and Curt Hartman have sued municipalities from Ashtabula in northeastern Ohio to Mansfield in central Ohio to Lebanon, Liberty Twp. and Mason in suburban Cincinnati. Many of the lawsuits claim public records and public meetings violations.
    Finney and Hartman were retained by former Clearcreek Twp. trustee candidate Jack Chrisman in a lawsuit filed in July in Warren County Common Pleas Court. The suit claims township trustees routinely hold illegal “pre-meetings” and violated Ohio Sunshine Laws to coerce Trustee Dale Lamb to retire early so they could appoint a former trustee.
    “I think they’re going to pay out the wazoo and learn a lesson,” said Chrisman, who is known as “No Tax Jack” for his anti-tax activism.
    Township officials said no laws were broken. “There’s an awful lot of falsehoods,” Trustee Ed Wade said, while declining to comment specifically on the claims.

    Finney and Hartman joined forces over a decade ago in political and legal battles in the Cincinnati area brought by the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, or COAST. Since then, Finney and Hartman have taken cases against municipalities and school districts around Ohio involving issues including public records and public meetings.
    If successful in the lawsuits, Finney said judges award as much as $25,000 to $50,000 in legal fees.
    Media organizations, including the Dayton Daily News, have long fought governments over public information in an effort to improve accountability and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. What separates this effort is that it is not part of a media organization but a group of private citizens, aligned with the Tea Party movement, that specifically want less government spending.
    Ironically, the legal campaign — at least in the short run — forces local governments to pay legal fees to defend the lawsuits.
    “It certainly is a business niche. A lot of attorneys didn’t know there was money to be had. It’s pretty unique,” said attorney Rob Scott, a Kettering councilman and president of the Dayton Tea Party.
    Governments’ legal costs are difficult to track in cases involving communities such as Clearcreek Twp., where representation and other costs are covered through policies insuring officials against liability.
    According to school records through this month, Lebanon City Schools paid Ennis, Roberts, Fischer Inc. more than $12,000 in a lawsuit filed in April by Hartman and Finney on behalf of Christine Young, a parent who claimed the board violated public meetings and public records laws.
    Finney acknowledged the lawsuits added costs for the local governments.
    However, he claimed the litigation also prevents other governments from withholding records or illegally meeting.
    “These people live in fear of being sued by COAST. That’s what we want,” said Finney, partner in the law firm Finney, Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson in Cincinnati.
    Hartman was one of the lawyers who represented Scott and the Dayton Tea Party in an unsuccessful lawsuit seeking records from the Ohio Municipal League and Ohio Township Association.
    The Ohio Supreme Court ruled the groups were not subject to Ohio Sunshine Law, which requires local governments follow laws for holding and publicizing meetings, as well as providing records upon requests from the public.
    Finney and Hartman said they sue municipalities and school districts subject to Ohio Sunshine Law. Finney and Hartman are currently involved in Sunshine Law actions against Fairfield Twp. in Butler County, as well as the Clermont County Board of Elections. They have sued officials in Hamilton, Mahoning and Lawrence counties.
    In addition they have claimed violations of the First Amendment by local municipalities from Richland Twp. in Ashtabula County, east of Cleveland, to Liberty Twp. in Butler County.
    “There are dozens of these. We do them all over the state,” Finney said.

Tea Party influence

    The Clearcreek Twp. lawsuit was filed after Finney gave a presentation to Educate Ohio, a group formed earlier this year by Ohio school board members, including Kelly Kohls, a Springboro board member and president of the Warren County Tea Party.
    “We go out to try and educate the public. That’s how we get our name out there too,” said Hartman, who also has a private practice in the Village of Amelia in Clermont County.
    Finney has spoken also on public records and “legal tools for advocates of limited government” at seminars set up by Empower U., a citizen advocacy education group established by Cincinnati-area Tea Party groups.
    “By empowering these activists with new tools, they will be better able to monitor fiscal responsibility and limit the growth of government,” according to the Empower U. website.

Page 2 of 2

    Finney also serves on board for other conservative groups, including the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, “a public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse,” according to its website.
     Hartman worked with Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center in the Dayton Tea Party lawsuit.
     “We have a network of people we work with throughout the state,” Finney said.
     While acknowledging their conservative leanings, Finney said COAST formed coalitions, sometimes with liberal groups, to affect change in government.
     For example, in 2007 COAST joined with the NAACP, ACORN and the Green and Libertarian parties to collect 56,000 signatures to force a vote on a jail tax in Hamilton County.
    “There are some things I wouldn’t do,” Finney said.

Officials split in lawsuit

    In the Clearcreek Twp. lawsuit, John Smith, a Springboro lawyer, represents two trustees: Wade, a trustee for more than 30 years, and Dale Lamb, who is retiring Dec. 31 after serving 23 years on the board.
    The lawsuit claims Wade and Dr. Gregory McDonald, a former trustee, met with Lamb in November 2009 and February 2010 without notifying the public. The meetings were held to convince Lamb to resign before the end of his term, opening the seat for McDonald’s appointment, according to the lawsuit.
    The lawsuit claims Wade and then-trustee candidate Jason Gabbard, met with Lamb in February 2011. Chrisman claims this meeting should have been publicized since Wade, along with Gabbard, attempted to get Lamb to resign. Gabbard, who was elected Nov. 8 to replace Lamb, has denied involvement. But Chrisman claims the meeting was arranged to set the stage for Gabbard to be appointed if Lamb retired before Dec. 31, according to the lawsuit.
    Smith said the claims were “baseless.”
    In addition, Smith said the lawsuit was wrong to claim Ohio law required trustees to advertise whenever they spoke of government business.
     “These people don’t walk around in cocoons,” Smith said. “That’s not what the open meetings law’s for. It requires them to conduct the business of the township in the open. They’ve always done that.”
    Finney agreed some public bodies can discuss public business outside advertised meetings, provided a minority of the membership participates. However Finney said three-member boards, like the Clearcreek Twp. trustees, must advertise meetings whenever at least two of members discuss public business.
    The third trustee, Cathy Anspach, is represented by Mason lawyer Lawrence Barbiere. Anspach defeated McDonald two years ago and has not been named in the allegations raised by Chrisman.
    Anspach declined to discuss her concerns about the lawsuit and allegations of illegal meetings, but added: “When we go to court, I’m telling the truth.”

Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2261 or lbudd@Dayton
DailyNews.com.