Senator Dann: "Petro may have perfected the exploitation of special counsel for campaign fundraising but Betty Montgomery invented it."
From: John Curry
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006
Subject: Strong words re. former STRS Board members from Sen. Dann -"Petro may have perfected it but Betty invented it!"
"My concerns are not with the details of that particular transaction but with the pattern of behavior over the past decade. Petro may have perfected the exploitation of special counsel for campaign fundraising but Betty Montgomery invented it."
by Sen. Dann from his blog site
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Yesterday's Plain Dealer details alleged pay to play decisionmaking in the award of special counsel contracts. Tomorrow I am sending the following public records requests to Universities in Ohio and the Attorney General's Office to determine the breadth and extent of questionable decisionmaking in the award of special counsel contracts by recent Ohio Attorneys General.
Here is the letter I plan to send:
I am writing to formally request paper copies of the following records:
· All communications, reports, statements, memorandums or records from January 1, 1995 to the present relating to requests for or the selection of special counsel from --University, including, but not limited to, communications from or to -- and the Office of Attorney General.
Allegations have been made in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Akron Beacon Journal that decisions surrounding the award of special counsel contracts by the Attorney General were influenced by campaign contributions and/or at the urging of local political party bosses. I seek these records to determine the extent of such activity so that I can propose appropriate legislation or other action make sure that lawyers for the state are selected based on their qualifications, not sole on their political activities.
As I am sure you will agree, government works best under the bright light of public scrutiny.
I applaud the University of Akron’s decision to waive any potential attorney-client privilege issues to make some records available to the public. I hope that your institution will follow their lead.
In responding to this request, please note that any record kept by a public office is considered a public record. R.C. 149.43(A)(1). A “record” includes any item that: 1) contains information stored on a fixed medium, including, but not limited to, paper, computers or film; 2) is created, received, or sent under the jurisdiction of a public office; and 3) documents the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office. R.C. 149.011(G).
In addition, upon receiving a public records request, copies must be made available within a reasonable amount of time. These copies must be made available in the medium specified. R.C. 149.43(B)(2). The foregoing provisions must be interpreted liberally in favor of disclosure. State ex rel. Warren Newspapers v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St. 3d 619 (1994).
I would appreciate a status response to this request by 5:00 P.M. on Friday, March 17, 2006.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
My concerns are not with the details of that particular transaction but with the pattern of behavior over the past decade. Petro may have perfected the exploitation of special counsel for campaign fundraising but Betty Montgomery invented it.
It is not wrong to hire the best available lawyers for the state some of whom might have contributed to the Attorney General's campaign. What is wrong is the systematic fundraising that creates a quid pro quo relationship between the two.
I am confident that I can balance the need to fundraise with the responsibilities of the office.
Sincerely,
Marc Dann
State Senator
32nd District
Here is the letter I plan to send:
I am writing to formally request paper copies of the following records:
· All communications, reports, statements, memorandums or records from January 1, 1995 to the present relating to requests for or the selection of special counsel from --University, including, but not limited to, communications from or to -- and the Office of Attorney General.
Allegations have been made in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Akron Beacon Journal that decisions surrounding the award of special counsel contracts by the Attorney General were influenced by campaign contributions and/or at the urging of local political party bosses. I seek these records to determine the extent of such activity so that I can propose appropriate legislation or other action make sure that lawyers for the state are selected based on their qualifications, not sole on their political activities.
As I am sure you will agree, government works best under the bright light of public scrutiny.
I applaud the University of Akron’s decision to waive any potential attorney-client privilege issues to make some records available to the public. I hope that your institution will follow their lead.
In responding to this request, please note that any record kept by a public office is considered a public record. R.C. 149.43(A)(1). A “record” includes any item that: 1) contains information stored on a fixed medium, including, but not limited to, paper, computers or film; 2) is created, received, or sent under the jurisdiction of a public office; and 3) documents the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office. R.C. 149.011(G).
In addition, upon receiving a public records request, copies must be made available within a reasonable amount of time. These copies must be made available in the medium specified. R.C. 149.43(B)(2). The foregoing provisions must be interpreted liberally in favor of disclosure. State ex rel. Warren Newspapers v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St. 3d 619 (1994).
I would appreciate a status response to this request by 5:00 P.M. on Friday, March 17, 2006.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
My concerns are not with the details of that particular transaction but with the pattern of behavior over the past decade. Petro may have perfected the exploitation of special counsel for campaign fundraising but Betty Montgomery invented it.
It is not wrong to hire the best available lawyers for the state some of whom might have contributed to the Attorney General's campaign. What is wrong is the systematic fundraising that creates a quid pro quo relationship between the two.
I am confident that I can balance the need to fundraise with the responsibilities of the office.
Sincerely,
Marc Dann
State Senator
32nd District
posted by Kathie Bracy at 11:49 PM
<< Home