Judge Approves Request to Appoint Special Prosecutor
Geauga County Common Pleas Court Judge Forrest Burt has agreed to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and bring charges against an unnamed elected official in the county for alleged ethics violations.
Prosecutor Jim Flaiz made the request Jan. 3 because of potential conflicts of interest that could arise if his office were to proceed with the investigation.
Although his office does not represent the political subdivision — a municipality — that is the subject of the investigation, Flaiz said a large Geauga County-based corporation also is involved in the matter.
“This corporation has numerous past and current contracts with Geauga County that are routinely reviewed by the prosecutor’s office,” Flaiz wrote in his two-page motion.
The municipalities in Geauga County are Aquilla, Burton, Middlefield and South Russell villages, and the City of Chardon.
Flaiz also noted many of the issues in the case, which is pending before the Ohio Ethics Commission, involve state ethics laws.
For that reason, he asked Burt to appoint Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, Assistant Attorney General Christian Sticken and Julie Korte, chief investigative attorney for the ethics commission, as special prosecutors.
“Counsel that are being proposed as special prosecuting attorneys have expertise in the investigation and prosecution of these types of cases,” Flaiz wrote.
On Jan. 4, Burt granted the request, giving them the same power and authority as the county prosecutor, including presentment of the case to the Geauga County grand jury and prosecution of any criminal violations.
Flaiz declined to comment further on the case, citing the pending investigation.
Under state law, Ohio Ethics Commission’s investigations are confidential. As a result, the commission cannot comment on allegations or ongoing investigations.
As a general rule, however, whenever the personal financial or fiduciary interests of a public official or employee, their family or business associates are involved in a situation before the official, there is an ethics issue.
“In a nutshell, the idea of the ethics law is to prevent those of us who go into public service from using our public position to unfairly benefit ourselves, our families, our outside business associates, outside business ventures we have,” OEC spokeswoman Susan Willeke explained.
Having a conflict of interest is not illegal per se, she said.
“The idea of the ethics law is to give people in public service those parameters of when they have to say, ‘I need to step back,’” Willeke added.
With respect to public contracts, Willeke said ethics laws prohibit a public official from taking any action, including voting, discussing, deliberating and formally or informally lobbying, or participating in any fashion, on any matter where something of value is at issue for the public official, his family, business associates or others with whom he has a relationship that would affect his objectivity.
“It sometimes concerns me when I hear people say, ‘We had a township trustee or a county commissioner who had a conflict of interest but he did the right thing because he abstained from the vote,’” she said. “I always say, ‘That’s good that they did that, but did they abstain from the discussion preceding the vote?’”
That would apply to discussions during a public meeting or “behind the scene” and outside a public meeting, she said.
Violations of the ethic laws range from a first-degree misdemeanor to a fourth-degree felony, depending on the nature of the violation.
Generally, conflict of interest violations, receipt of improper gifts or post-employment restrictions are first-degree misdemeanors, Willeke said.
Where a public official uses his position to help secure a public contract either for himself, a relative or for someone with whom he has a business relationship, the violation is more serious and the official could be charged with a fourth-degree felony.
“That evidence isn’t always easy to find,” she said, contrasting activity a public official conducts behind the scene with statements made during a public meeting.
If the ethics commission cannot prove a public official improperly helped secure a public contact, but it looks like the official worked behind the scene to secure a thing of value, the official could be charged with a conflict of interest violation.
Whenever a public official or employee is in doubt about what to do, Willeke’s advice is simple: consult with legal counsel.
