State of the Union

Brunner Brags about Her Timely Settling of a Lawsuit She Sought to Deal with Over Two Years Ago

On Tuesday, June 16, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner settled a 4-year old lawsuit with the Ohio League of Women Voters.  The lawsuit stemmed from issues raised during the 2004 election.

In a display of joy and jubilation, all-around, League President Meg Flack joined Brunner in bragging about the money they saved the state, because the litigation “could have cost as much as $5 million.” 

"[Ohio League of Women Voters] President Meg Flack said the state will pay $450,000 as part of the settlement, but that was a savings considering that continued litigation could have cost as much as $5 million. Brunner also boasted about the savings to the state …”

In their elation of this “truly insulting” lawsuit settlement, and the fact that things were settled amicably (only costing taxpayer’s half-a-million dollars), Brunner somehow failed to mention that upon taking office in 2007, one of her very first initiatives was to settle this specific lawsuit:

"Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Attorney General Marc Dann want to resolve election-related lawsuits filed against former Secretary J. Kenneth Blackwell, a move Brunner said yesterday could cost the state ‘large sums’ in attorneys' fees.

"The 20 pending lawsuits include a sweeping complaint filed in 2005 by a group of advocates led by the League of Women Voters of Ohio that says Blackwell, former Gov. Bob Taft and their predecessors failed to ensure Ohioans' right to vote.” [Columbus Dispatch, 1/18/07]

Brunner and her good friend, then-Attorney General Marc Dann, stated that their reasoning for wanting to settle the lawsuit was, “in part because … they agree with some of the claims.”

"Brunner and Dann said they're seeking to resolve the cases in part because some date back to the 2004 election, but also because they agree with some of the claims." [Columbus Dispatch, 1/18/07]

So the questions remaining, why if Brunner sought to settle this case in January 2007, are we just seeing resolution now in June 2009, two-and-a-half years after their claim to resolve this case?  And, how much money could Brunner have saved Ohio taxpayers if she settled this in way back in 2007?

Obama vs. Strickland

According the AP, President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats wants to tax your income, your alcohol consumption, soda and sugary drink consumption as well as establish a national sales tax, entitled the “value-added tax.”

“House Democrats have lots of potential targets for higher taxes as they aim to expand health care coverage to reach the roughly 50 million that experts say are uninsured.

[…]

“[U]nder consideration are higher alcohol taxes, increases to the Medicare payroll tax and a value-added tax, a sort of national sales tax, of up to 1.5 percent or more.

[…]

“The tax options include:
• Increasing the price of soda and other sugary drinks by 10 cents a can.

• Applying a potential 2 percent income tax increase to single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000.

• A new employer payroll tax could target 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures.

• Taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels — a less likely option but one that still is in the running.”

Meanwhile, back here in Ohio, Governor Ted Strickland speaks adamantly against a tax increase, saying repeatedly that it would be “counterproductive” in this economy.

“When asked whether that could include a tax increase, the governor replied, ‘A tax hike under these [economic] circumstances would be, in my judgment, counterproductive.’” [Columbus Dispatch, 11/12/08]

“Asked whether it was time to consider a tax increase, Strickland responded, ‘No. Because I think a tax hike, under these circumstances, could be counterproductive. And, so, I have maintained and continue to maintain that position.’” [Daily Record (Wooster), 12/2/08]

“Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, said he did not put any tax increases into his budget proposal because they would make the economic recession worse. He did, however, put dozens of new fees and fee increases into the plan.” [Associated Press, 2/25/09]

“‘The governor does not believe a tax increase would be productive at a time that so many Ohioans are struggling,’ said Strickland spokeswoman Amanda Wurst.” [Associated Press, 2/25/09]

Strickland’s Fiscal Policy – Ask for forgiveness rather than permission

The Columbus Dispatch reported that Gov. Ted Strickland exercised his right to spend money that he doesn’t have, when he gave the OK for a law firm, working outside the realm of public records requests, to help develop his “top-secret” education plan. 

Strickland hired the law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (whose employees donated $29,525 to Strickland in ‘05 and ‘06) to serve as special counsel for the development of his evidence-based education plan.  The problem was that Strickland put the cart before the horse, and hired the firm BEFORE the Attorney General made the hiring official.

The Columbus law firm helping to develop Gov. Ted Strickland's school-funding proposal had already run up a bill of $49,275 before it received written authorization to do the job.

But, as they say in the infomercials, “wait there’s more…”.  The billing came just shy of the $50,000 threshold to trigger the public approval of the State Controlling Board.  Not to mention that $40,000 of the bill was billed late… after the December approval had been signed-off on.

Then-Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers signed the paperwork officially hiring Squire, Sanders & Dempsey as special counsel on the governor's proposal on Dec. 5 and 31, 2008. By then, the law firm's bills had almost reached the $50,000 threshold that would have required the Strickland administration to obtain approval from the State Controlling Board, a bipartisan legislative spending panel.

[…]

Gregory W. Stype, a lawyer with the firm who performed much of the work, said he recently became aware that the $40,142 bill for November had not been submitted for payment due to an "oversight."

A conspiracy theorist could, by these circumstances, surmise that in Strickland’s crusade to keep the lid on his education plan, he did whatever he could to reduce the paper trail.  Could it be that Strickland purposely kept the billing below the controlling board threshold so as to keep quiet about hiring an outside law firm?  Could it be that Strickland arranged with the law firm to wait until after the signed approval to submit their billing? 

Much like the quandary of the number of licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop, “the world may never know.”

Brunner’s Slushie

As the Ohio legislature is considering regulations for the transition accounts used by statewide officeholders, one has to wonder how Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner feels about the issue?

These unregulated accounts led in part to the fall of former Attorney General Marc Dann.  Dann was using his transition account as a “slush fund” according to Ohio Inspector General, Tom Charles.

So why should Brunner’s opinion be a factor in all of this?  Brunner had a family affair with setting up Marc Dann’s transition “slush” account.  You may recall this from the Columbus Dispatch:

[Ohio Inspector General Thomas] Charles questioned whether any statewide official except the governor has legal authority to set up a transition fund, although almost all of them have in recent years. Two of the original trustees for Dann's were Brunner's daughter and husband, who also did legal work for Dann's campaign.

Or the Cleveland Plain Dealer who also helped drive-home the point in this editorial:

Gov. Ted Strickland, Dann and other Ohio Democrats won statewide office in November 2006 by railing against scandals during Republican Bob Taft's governorship. So Dann's fellow Democrats forced him to resign. The Democrats even expelled Dann from their party, an action more reminiscent of a Balkan politburo than Ohio politics. Their real goal was to let nothing get in the way of delivering Ohio's presidential vote to a fellow Democrat.

Earlier, however, other Democrats had enabled Dann. One of Inspector General Thomas P. Charles' discoveries was a Dann "transition" fund that amounted to a legal but off-the-books slush fund. Helping Dann create the "transition" fund was Columbus lawyer Rick Brunner, husband of Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner - who just happens to have jurisdiction over Ohio campaign-finance laws.

So does Brunner praise this legislation as another weapon to fight scandal (which she helped create) or does she keep her noise down and try to avoid more mention of her name in connection with this issue?

Strickland’s Experiment-ication

In what sounded like a metaphor for his own education proposal, Gov. Ted Strickland recently told a group of Miami University students of the importance of experimentation in education:

“[Using technology in the classroom is] so needed, but change is threatening,” Strickland said. “It’s safer to conform. It’s safer to not experiment, because you might fail. And you will fail. That idea of conformity ... is deadly to education.”

Surrounded by idealist college students, Strickland was of course able to soften his tone on education reform and utilize terms like “experiment.”  Curious though, how different Strickland’s tone was when addressing the Ohio General Assembly for the 2009 State of the State in which he unveiled his “top-secret” education plan.  Note his emphasis on assuredness in the “best research” and how Strickland sounds as if there are no flaws in his education plan:

I’ve met with parents, educators, researchers, business and community leaders.  I’ve looked at the best research available on what we should teach and how we should teach it.  And in the last few months I’ve benefited from the considerable experience and wisdom of Ohio’s new Superintendent of Public Instruction Deborah Delisle.

[…]

The plan is based on a very simple premise: we should design our education system around what works. I have embraced an evidence-based education approach that harnesses research results and applies those findings to Ohio’s specific circumstances.

Could it be that Strickland’s mask briefly came off and he admitted that his education plan is nothing more than an over-priced experiment?