The Akron Legal News

Plan would establish procedures to fire fiscal officers

TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 23, 2014

Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, is continuing to stump for a bill that would establish a uniform removal procedure for fiscal officers of townships and municipal corporations.

The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 6, unanimously cleared the Senate and is before the House State and Local Government Committee.

The measure was crafted in response to a situation in Stark County where the deputy county treasurer stole about $2.8 million in taxpayer funds to feed a gambling addiction.

“So, why do we need this bill? First, let me emphasize that we owe a great deal of respect and gratitude to those fiscal officers who work very hard, get paid very little and keep our local governments running smoothly,” Schaffer said.

“However, once in a while on rare occasion, we see one who either doesn’t know how to do their job properly, or worse, is stealing money from the taxpayer.”

Schaffer said his bill offers local citizens a way to identify and resolve such problems through a civil court process, as well as restore lost taxpayer money.

“SB 6 came about as the result of a currently unconstitutional removal process for a county fiscal officer. SB 6 creates a separate civil removal system, with multiple steps of due process, which will allow for reckless fiscal officers to be expediently removed from office,” he said.

After the situation was uncovered in Stark County, the County Commissioners held the treasurer responsible for the actions of the deputy treasurer and removed him from office without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court of Ohio later ruled the removal was unconstitutional because it lacked due process, and they reinstated the treasurer.

“With concern to the initiation of removal proceedings, the removal process set up by SB 6 differs depending on the type of office holder being removed,” Schaffer said.

When attempting to remove a county treasurer, the process would be initiated by the county auditor or a county commissioner submitting a written affidavit to the state auditor.

An attempt to remove a county auditor would be led by the county treasurer or a county commissioner submitting a written affidavit to the state auditor.

To initiate the process of removing a township fiscal officer, four township residents must submit a written affidavit to the state auditor.

In seeking to remove an elected municipal fiscal officer from office, a member of the legislative authority of the municipal corporation could initiate the process by submitting a written affidavit to the state auditor.

“In all of the aforementioned cases, evidence must be submitted along with the affidavit to support the allegation that the fiscal officer in question purposely, knowingly or recklessly ... failed to perform a duty expressly imposed by law with respect to the office or committed any act expressly prohibited by law with respect to that office,” Schaffer said.

“After the initiating action, the process for the different types of offices proceeds in a uniform fashion.”

In the second step of the process, the state auditor would have to examine an affidavit within 10 days.

If the auditor finds grounds for misconduct, he or she would submit written findings to the attorney general for review.

The attorney general would have 10 days to review the findings.

If the attorney general agrees with the auditor’s decision, notification would be sent to the fiscal officer in question and the individual(s) who initiated the complaint.

“Next, the AG files a complaint for removal of the fiscal officer with the Court of Common Pleas in the county in which the fiscal officer serves,” Schaffer said. “The court will then decide if there is evidence supporting the affidavit’s accusations using the clear and convincing burden of proof. If so, the court will issue the order to remove the officer from office.”

Schaffer noted that if removal occurs under this procedure, the official would be ineligible to hold office for a four-year period following the date of final judgment.

With regard to protections for individuals who are not liable and to combat potential witch hunts, the bill provides that court decisions may be appealed, it would carve out a felony penalty for falsifying an affidavit and a county, township or municipality would be responsible for the legal fees of the fiscal officer.

If the fiscal officer is found liable, the court shall order the fiscal officer to reimburse the county, township or municipality for legal fees.

If enacted, SB 6 also would establish continuing education requirements for fiscal officers.

“This bill provides training requirements for township fiscal officers because they currently have no training required by law,” Schaffer said. “Under SB 6, 24 hours of training are to be completed at any point during the fiscal officer’s first four-year term.”

Six of those hours would have to be completed in the first year in office. Bookkeeping, accounting and ethics would be required topics.

“The purpose of the training requirement is not to place an added burden on township fiscal officers, but rather to provide them with the training so they know how to do the bookkeeping and accounting required for the job,” Schaffer said.

“Just because someone is an excellent politician and can get elected doesn’t mean he or she knows how to maintain complex township books.”

[Back]