IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel., LUCAS COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CASE NUMBER 2014-1123
RELATOR, Original Action in Mandamus
es.
JON M. HUSTED, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE
RESPONDENT.
EVIDENCE - Volume III
DEPOSITION OF JON M. HUSTED
WILLIAM M. TODD (#0023061) MICHAEL DEWINE ( 0009181) Law Offices of William M. Todd, Ltd Ohio Attorney General 137 East State Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 TIFFANY L. CARWILE ( 0082522)* Phone No.: (614) 545-6311 *Counsel of Record Fax No.: (614) 545-6356 E-mail: wtodd ,williammtodd.com RYAN L. RICHARDSON (0090382) Assistant Attorneys General Counsel for Relator Constitutional Offices Section Lucas County Republican Party 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Tel: 614-466-2872 Fax: 614-728-7592
y's^?;z ,'^•; -^%;2 :1. Counsel for Relator Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted ^%/^ iiwi ^-r^ :.i s.S;^°z.: ^s^'%r^• i;s^i., ..z../',i ''.^:/:i^i:^^^i: i.,j%^':G%4.% '.,i^^ %% ^410 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
State of Ohio, ex rel. Lucas County Republican Party,
Relator,
VS. ; Case No. 14-1123
Jon M. Husted, Ohio Secretary of State,
Defendant.
VIDEOTAPED L1.E.P€J SITIC3N OF JON M. HUSTED
Taken at Law Offices of William M. Todd, Ltd. 137 East State Street Colum.bus, OH 43215 November 7, 2014, 10:04 a.m.
Spectrum Reporting LLC 333 Stewart Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43206 614-444-1000 or 800-635-9071 wv,rw. spectrugxareportincg. com
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 2
A :p P E A R A N C E S
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Law Offices of William M. Todd, Ltd. 4 137 East State Street Columbus, OH 43215 C By William M. Todd, Esq-
E ON BEHALF OF OE F ENDAN'1' 7 At-L-osrney Oereral' s Oi'-fice, 8 Corxst.itutional. Offices Section 30 East Broad Street, 16th Fl. 9 Columbus, OH 432:-5 By Ryan L. Richardson, Esq. 10 Tiffany L. Carwile, Esq. Jordan S. Burman, Esq. 11
12 ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
13 Secretary c>4F State's Office 180 East Ercaa.cl. Street, 15Lh Floor 14 Columbus, OH 43215 By Ntat^ `^yalsh, Esa. 15 David. W. Bowling, Esq. u -e+el Fleeman, Esq. 16
17 ALSO PRESENi : 18 Samuel Mattern -- Videographer :^9 ion Stainbrook Meghan Ga. l l^ghe r 20 Kel" y Bensman Benjamin Rcakaer^.s 21
22
23
24
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ] Friday Morning Sessiors.
^ November 7, 2014, 10:04 a.m.
4 S T I P L: L, A T ^ 0 N S
It is stipulated by oounsel. in attendance that
7 the depositiori of Jon M. Husted, the Deferrdanit
8 herein, ca1led. by the Pla.intif.r" for
9 cross-oxaniinat.ion., may be t.akeri at this time by
10 the notary pursuan'^^ to notice an.d subsequent
11 agreer;ao:x-zt raf` counsel, that said deposition. may be
12 reduced to writing :iri stenotypy by the rrota:r-y,
13 ^laose notes may thereafter be transcx-iloed out of
14 the presence of the witness; that. proof of t:li.e
15 o:F f.i cz u,. l s:. ha ra o t o:r and g.ua1 ifi. o a t4on. of t h e not a; y
16 is waived.
17
18
19
20
23.
22
23
24
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ^-
1 iV D E X
Examination By Page
Mr. Todd - Cross 5
Relator ° s Exhibits Page
Exhibit A Personal Service Contract, Ruvox.o 23
Exhibit E3 Pei-sonail Service Contract, 25 Carpenter, Lipps Leland
^ Exhibit C Personal Se.r-vi-ce Contract, 3 8 Ey-unner Quinn 0 J
Exhibit D Request For S}s^ci-al Counsel 41 1-0 Assignment
^l Exhibit E Letter ^roni Husted, 4--7-14 42
12 Exhibit F - Letter from Husted, 5--20-_14 S4
13 Exh-i-bit G Hearing ^^f iceif- ° s 59 Report & FZecom.menda-Lions 14 Exhibit I-I Letter fraTn Stainbrook, 6---18--14 81 1s Exhibi.t i" - Letter from Husted, 6--24 - x.4 99 16 Exhibit J 3Sfl1.07 101 17 Exhibit K K-8 - Blade articles 133 18
Exhibit L Blade article Elections 169 19 Director resign post
20 Exhibit M - Regional Liaisons Maps 187
21 Exhibit N -- Blade article Lucas County 196 Democratic Party experience 22 another family feud
23 (Original exhibits returned to Mr. Todd.) 24
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC s
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record
t at 10:04. Would counsel please announce their
presence for the record.
4 MR. TODD: Would you please swear the
c witness .
6
7 JON M. HUSTEL?
8 being first duly swor-n, testifies arid says as
9 foilowss
10 CRC3S S---EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. TODD:
12 Q. Secretary, good morning. My name is
13 Ei1^. Todd and I°m here as -- as counsel for thc,
14 Lucas County Republican Party in connection with a
15 lawsuit that' s been brought agra.inst you in your
16 official ca-oacity as the Secretary of the State of
17 Ohio. I assume you've heen, in depositions before
18 and you know how this process works.
19 Well, one thing that they haven' t told
20 you, then, is you have to answer orally because
21. ultimately the sec --- the ---- the poor court
22 reporter here won' t be able to interpret head
23 nods.
24 A. I dicin' t know that was a question.
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 6
1 But, yes, _[. do.
2 Q- Dkay _ Grca.t.
3 Let' s talk a 1itt.lc, bit about your
4 background. Why don ° t we start with your
5 undergraduate education _
6 A. I -- I was a student who graduated from
7 the Univarsity of Dayton.
8 Q. And in what year were you graduated?
9 A. . 1989.
10 Q. After graduation from the University of
11 Dayton, what did you do?
12 A. I went to graduate school and coached
13 f oothal. A. .
14 Q. Where did you attend graduate school?
15 A. University of Dayton.
16 Q. Did you receive a degree?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. Okay. And what was that degree in?
19 A. Communication.
20 Q. Okay. And in what year were you
21 graduated from the -- the graduate school?
22 A. I believe 1992.
23 Q. Okay. After receiving your degree
24 assume it was a master" s degree? ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC A . It was.
Q What did you do?
A. I worked hr-ief7--y for a congressional
campaign and then for a public relations firm and
E then for the Montgomery County Commissioners.
E Q. Did you work at any time for the
t Chamber of Commerce in Montgomery county?
8 A. :E: l a ter d id , yes.
9 Q. Okay. So after you left uhe county
10 commissioners, what did you do?
11 A. I went to wcark at the Daytcan. Area
12 Chainkaer o.f_. CcaExmierce.
13 Q. Ah, okay. So :l: got to -L-he next gar ^ of
14 your resurn.e.
15 And after workinQ at the Chamber of
16 Commerce, what did you do?
17 A. :1: theii was elected to the legislature
18 where I sey-ved a distr -c:.t in Mcsntgortiery County
19 which is near -- -- which is the county that Dayton
20 is in.
21 Q_ Okay. And I believe you served four
22 te-ms from that district?
23 A. ^ served four terms in the House of
24 Representatives. During that tenure, I served
Realtime -- Videoconferer_c4ng - Trial Presentation - VLdao Spectrum Reporting LLC rs
four years as speaker of the hoiise.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. And t hen was el ^ ct-ed to the E;+h 40 Senate
in which I served two terms or I two ^ears6
half a term. And then was elected Sec^^etax~y of
E State.
,t Q. And you were just elected to your
8 second 'term as Secretary of State this week?
9 A. I wa s .
10 Q. And congratulations.
11 A. Thank you.
12 Q. i think everyone in this room is very
13 pleased with that.
14 A. Thank you.
I s Q. Let's turn a little bit to your
16 involvement with the circumstances ir3. Lucas
^. 7 County. When did i-t first come to your attention
18 as Secretary of State that there were issues that
19 had arisen iz^. Lucas County regard^n.g the
20 administration of the Board of Elections?
2 i A. The administration of the Board of
22 Elections in Lucas County became an issue almost
23 4mmedia.te1.y.
24 Q. And why was that? ------
Realti.me - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ri
A. Because the Chairxn.an, ion Stainb.r_ook,
° wanted to be appointed to the Board o.f_. Elections
there.
Q. Chairman being Chairman of tho Lucas
County Ro^1.:^bl^oan Party?
^ A. That' s correct.
Q. Okay. And that ° s not unusual, is it?
^ A. No, not at a'_l.
P Q. And why was that a problem then?
10 A. Well, because there were complaints
11 that he was raising about the operation of the
12 Board of El-octions. So you asked mne wliat I became
_3 aware of it.
14 Q . Ah.
15 A. It was that's when Ibecamc. aware
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. of it from that perspective.
18 Q. And so you became aware from Jon
19 Stainbrook when he wanted to become a member o.t
20 the Board that there were problems vv.i.th the
21 administration of the Board?
22 A. That was his contention, yes.
23 Q. All right. And that was your first
24 knowledge of any issues arising out of the
Realtime - viLdeoconferenci.ng - `1ria^ PresentatLon -- Video Spectrum P.epor t ing LLC 1C
adEt^inist:Y-ation of the Local Board there?
A. The -- the first i.n. my capacity as
Secretary of State, yes.
4 Q. Correct. Correct. Did you have any
prior knowledae of it?
^ A. Woll_, I believe that there was some
7 quest^.on about a 11 ocal. -ra.ce up there -i_n terms of
8 how that was handled that existed pri.o= to my
9 becoming Secretary of State, but T- .1 cara 9 t off
10 the top o¢ my head remer;:bor exactly what the issue
1-. wa s.
12 Q. And since you can' t remember what 4-t
13 was, Iassumo it d.idn.' tplay any role in the
14 events over the last yc a-r of two?
.^ 5 MS. RTCHARI^SON : Objection.
16 MR. TODD: You can answer the question.
17 MS. RICHARDSON: You can answer.
18 A. Okay. No, it played no role.
19 Q. You mentioned earlier that
20 Mr. .Staanbrook wanted to be appointed to the Lucas
21 County Board of Elections. And so he so
22 appointed?
23 A. He was.
24 Q. Okay. And do you know roughly whora. ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC I 1
that was?
A. I don' t. But I think it was -- I think
it was part, of the normal process o-P.. either a
2-es:.gn"ation or a new appointment that came about.
G Q. And that is the normal process, i sn ' t
^ it, that -- that the two county parties, t"he two
f maj or.ity county parties will recommend people to
2i the Secretary of State' s office for a.ppt"az"ritmentE, to
9 the Board. Arid in the ordinary course, the
10 Secretary w3_i.l. re4a":^ew that process -Y- r°view t-hcase
11 nominees axid then ed"ther appoint or not appoi_rxt,
12 correct?
13 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can
:14 answer.
^. 5 A. Traditionally, t-hat is, yes.
16 Q. Aiyd ge.nera1-i-y s'^eaking, it' s x-iot a very
17 contentious process, is it?
18 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. And -- and
19 just in general, I will let you know, I will
20 instruct you not to answer if there i s a privilege
21 or other issue. Otherwise I will just make my
22 objection for the record and y©u can go ahead and
23 answer.
24 A. Okay.
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 12
Q. That' s how defense counsel n:ake their
^ mcaraey is ohjeet-ing for t1i.e record.
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
4 MR. TODD: Sustained.
E A. Could you -repeat your question?
ro Q. Absolutely.
7 MR. TODD: Could you read it back
8 -olease.
9 TrIE E'E}=OR`b'ER : S-LA:+_'e .
10 (The record is read as 'Lollowsa "Axad
1- 1. generally speaking, it's not a very contentious
12 process, is it?")
13 A. Generally, no. on occasion, we will
14 come up with -- -v with evidence of criminal history
15 that ---- that will --- that could potentially
16 d^.squalify people. And in Mr. Stainbbocak' s case,
17 there was some criminal history, but at the time
18 it was limited in sco-pe and we decided to overlook
19 it and go ahead and appoint him anyway.
20 Q. Do you -reca11 whaW that was?
2 :^ A. It had there was a police report
22 having to do with I - - I cl.can' t -- I dor ° t
23 recal1- exactly what it was o-ff the top of my head.
24 But there was a -- there was a police report on ------
Realtime - Vide©conberencirzq - "'ria1. Prese:^tatior. - Video 8pectrurn Reporting LLC 13
the matter. .^'m su.re that's a public record that
i:F yQLi were interested that we -- that either we
can find or you could find.
Q_ My only question is do you recall
E whether it had anythinQ to do with the Board of
6 Elections or was it an unrelated matter?
7 M6? .RIRICHARDSON: Ohj ect. ion. Go ahea.d.
8 A. There are no criminal background issues
9 that are raot unrelated to a public office.
10 Q. Understood.
11 But my q--lle stior:. really went to the- __ -
_2 th^ circumstances that generated the police
13 report. Was it -- did it ari^^ out of scmethA.nc:f
:1.4 that happened in conr:ect 3_on with the Board of
15 Elections or
16 A. :1 believe it was a personal c+^iiduct
17 matter.
18 Q. Okay. Thank you.
19 So Mr. Stainbrook is appointed to the
20 Board. Were there any other issues that came to
21 your attention after Mr. Stainbrook was appointed?
22 A. Yes, of course there were.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. I mean it -- -- it was - we -- - we really ------
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC :l. 4
tried to coach him in helping him resolve the
issues . Iviewed him as somebody who was
erc.rgetic, that wanted to solve the problems, that
4 needed some gui dance as to how to do so, and we
put a"i ot of energy and eftort into helping him
E succeed.
7 Q. Okay. Can you -- can you exDI.ain for
8 us some of the specific issues that you can recall
9 that you helped him with in terms of the guidance
10 a r± d --- -
11 .^ . Just on -- -- on generally how to run a
12 board of elections, helping to organize staff,
13 helping them understand the practices and
14 procedures that are incumbent upon one of -- I
1s mean it was the nuts and bolts. It was the -- i t
16 was the basics of running a board of elections and
17 understanding that you need to hire a good
18 professional sta.-Ef and -- and to work together in
19 a collaborative, bipartisan fashion which is
20 necessary for the operation of a board of
2- elections.
22 Q. Do you reca1.l any specific problems or
23 was this just a general tencz-r of events that was
24 leading to the friction or the need for guidance
Realtime - Videocon-ferencing - Trial Presentation -- VJ-decs Spectrum Reporting LL%C- in Lucas County?
A. I mean, you know, it was many years ago
that, that sn,ras.
Q. Okay.
c A. So I oari 9 t -- - I dorz' t--- putting things
E :irr a chroiaology of ovei-its
Q. 'in.clorstood.
^ A. -- is kind of difficult.
9 Q_ Understood perfectly.
10 A. But it was my instruction to my staff
11 to help him out and help him succeed.
12 Q. Okay. And was there anyone who was
W3 primarily placed in a position of responsibility
14 for helping Lucas County to succeed?
15 A. Igavo that guidance to my chief of
16 staff a L. tho timo So.ot-t; Borgemenke.
17 Q. Okay. And anyone else that you recall?
18 A. Scott was in charge of implementing the
19 the direction.
20 Q. Okay. Did he check with you regularly
21 on progress that was being ma.de or lack of
22 progress a-r3. Lucas County?
23 A. Yeah. He would give us -- -- he would
24 give, you know --- he would tell me things or, you ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC know , how they' re going, how they w^ren' t goinge
Yeah, he would definitely do that.
Q. I'7o you have a.ny recollection as to the
types of problems that arose -i_r.a connection with
e7_ecti.on administration there?
E A. The types of proh=E_ems that arose were
-- were ^iast very basic in ^iatare, that rules and
^ regulati.^^^s weren't being fol_3_^^eds that there --
^ actuallyD that the Board actua1.ly wasn' teven
10 establ_:ishi.r3g a set of :rules and regulations to
1:L follow and thus weren' tfol lowing th-amo Just the
12 general protocols of what --- of what it takes to
operate a:i. organizat_i.©n was not -- was not
14 happeniaig. There was a - - there was a lot of
1. 5 animosity. There were a lot of fig-hting between
16 the staff and the board members and -- and j tast
17 genera1.-E-y a sense of fear or 3_ .ratim:idatiox-F, that
18 ex^sted in the culture of the Boax-d that just
19 didn' tseeni to be getting resolved.
20 Q. Was it yoizr understa.ndx.nq that th-i_s
21 cultural issiie of fear and. intimidation and so on
22 had arisen before Mr. Stainbrook was appointed to
23 the Board?
24 A . I don't - - I don't know what existed
RWa'-time - Videoconferencing - .^ria1 Pr_esentati.ur. - Video SpeW t.b urn Reporting LLC i'7
because he was appointed fairly - - fairly early in
my term, so I dan't have a -- the ability to know
what the history was prior to that circumstance.
Q. You were -- so you were -- --
A. And, again, even through that --
Q • 11-:;cz ahead. I ' m sorry.
t A. - - we were. - - we were trying to help
3 solve that problem. At that point we were still
9 hoper.-Lzl that this couWd be resolved.
10 Q. And a^parent ly it was not and. that :^ed
1_ i. you to take f-L-irthe.r_ steps to try to :intervene or
12 supervise or give guidance?
13 A. Well
14 MS. RICHARDSON: Obj ection. Go ahead.
L5 A. Okay. What it led -- what it led us to
16 do is to say, okay, trying to coach them from
17 sending staff up there and to givc them that
-.8 gU4c3.arce wa.sn' t working. The cu-tur e was
19 dysfunctional. The operations of the Board was
20 dysfunctional. So we said, okay, let's try
21 something new now. So we sent a former Board
22 member and afcrmer Deputy Secretary of State, Jim
23 Ruvolo from the Democratic side; ior Allison from
24 the Republican side, to go up, do a.n assessment, ------
Rea'.time •- Videoconferencing - Trial Preser:tatior3. - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC make arecammendatisan so that we --- so that they
had a chance for input into the process. And then
once that occurred, then we would have something
4 tangible that we hoped that there would be buy-in
C on because they got a chance to tell us what the
^ problems were, not just from a leadership point of
7 view but from the -- - from the bottom of -- from
^ throughout the orgarzi zat ior3. 6 you kraow, ,what is it
9 that needs to change, what are the problems,
10 here's our assessment, let's sta-t over and let's
11 get this done. And that's what Jim Ruvolo and Jon
12 Allison's responsibilities were and that's what
13 that report was all about.
14 Q. Okay. And that was roughly at the --
is towards the end of 2013?
16 A. Ido.^^.' t:^eca:l.'' the time fi-arrie for it.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. B .zt
19 Q. You mentioned that Mr. Ruvolo had been
20 a former Board member, correct?
21 A. Ocarrect.
22 Q_ Okay. And how recently had he been on
23 the Board, do you remember?
24 A. Recently.
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 19
Q. So during your first term as Secretary
of State, Mr. Ruvolo had been on the Board of
EI^ct ioz?.,?
A. He had been.
Q. Okay. And he had been the -- -- one of
the Derriocrata_c members of the Board?
A. A Democrat-i-c m^^^^er.
8 Q. And Mr. Ruvolo, former state .€D€vmocratic
9 chairman?
10 A. Uh - huh .
11 Q. I'm assuming that --
12 A: Yes.
13 Q. -- your uh - huh is a yes?
14 A. Yes.
1s Q- Thank you.
16 And had hc, been part of this culture
17 of, as you put it, fear, intirgtldation and
18 dyS f11nct1 on?
19 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead.
20 A. My staff had reported to me that from
21 their experience of being in Lucas County, that
22 Jim Ruvolo was somebody who was professional, that
23 he was trying to be part of the solution to many
24 of the problems, that he had grown frustrated with ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 1 0
J 'the inability of the other Board members and the
staff to r ^ ^ ol-e.^e their i s su e-s and 1-ie resigned frorri
the Board. At no ^^^e did the staff that I sent
^ :a.p there believe that Yae was anything -- -- try-i-:^.s^ to
do anytha.i-ig- but be constructive in the process.
^ And as you know, a^^y time you. do something through
7 the o.f-:Fice of Secretary of B°^atey it has L.o have a
8 par t^ san balan.ce to i t.
9 Q. Correct.
10 A. `_€71-3.e DerEtocr-ats we needed to have a
11 Democrat who was knowledgeable and had
12 credibility. And he was the person -- __ he was one
13 of -- as we r-eached c^-ut as I reca11 the situation,
14 he was one of those folks who was willing to do
15 it. And obviously, ican Allison is a former Deputy
16 Secretary of State, former chief of stalFf for a
17 governor, widely resDected. They were the kind of
18 high profile, credible people that we wan--ed to
19 send up there to do this analysis.
20 Q. But Mr. Allison had no direct knowledge
21 and had not been directly involved in anything
22 that happen.ed in Lucas County before, had he?
23 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can
24 answer.
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 21
A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
^ Q. Okay. At the time that Mr. Ruvolo was
asked to become more deeply involved in this, was
4 he serving in any capacity as an o^fi.cer of the
5 Democratic party?
6 A. I don 9 t know.
7 Q. All right. When Mr. Ruvolo resigned,
8 do you know whether he was the person who -- who
9 c h o s e his :Y- e pla c e rc3. e rz t?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Okay. You ment i oned that Mr. .Ruvolo
12 resigned from his position on the Board because he
^3 had grown frustrated with an inability to
14 accomplish things, correct?
15 A. Uh-huh. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you.
1? And you saw that as a positive thing
18 L.hat he had res.i.g:r3.ed because he couldn't get the
19 r;-ght things accomplished, correct?
20 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
21 Mischaracter.izes the t.est-imony.
22 MR. TODD: It's a question.
23 MS. RICHARDSON: You can answer.
24 A. I didn't see it as a positive or a
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 2;f
negative. It was just the fact.
Q. Okay. So the fact that somebody would
resign when they were fr °:..a.stratc d with an i rzabil.ity
to accomplish aprod.uctivc. outcome is not a
pcasiti-cre or negative in your opinion?
MS_ RICHARDSON: Objection. You can
f ariswer.
8 A. As :r rcc.all th° circumstance, in
9 getting advice from my staff who' d been up there
_Q working, they believed that he was apc..rsc>n of
ii goodwill who wanted to try to solve the problem.
12 Q. And we ' ra spc.a.kincr of Mr. Ruvolo now?
13 A. Of Mr. Ruvo lo.
14 Q. Okay. But my question was: You said
15 with regard to Mr. Ruvolo' s resignation that you
16 did not see it as a positive or a negative in
17 asking him to become involved again in the Board?
.^ 8 A. His resignation was not a factor in --
19 I mean other than the fact that that made him
20 eligibl.e, I will -- I will -- I think it 9s worth
21 noting that there weren' ta lot of people who were
22 interested in actually participating in trying to
23 solve the problems at the Lucas County Board of
24 Elections. We had a very difficult time finding
Rea' twme - Videoconferencing -- Tr^.a1. Presentation - Video Spectrum Reportiric LLC 2 .l
people who wo-ald be willing to give up their time
who had the kind of credibility that those two
gentlemen have to spend the time and the effort to
^ do this.
Q. And is that because this -- -- again, from
^ your knowledge, t.L,,3.is had been an intractable set
7 of problems as you9 vo described?
8 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead.
9 A. 1t's hard for me to know why people
10 woul.dn' t do it. I can' t say that I know why
11 people said no to us. But I do know that it --
12 that talented people, you9 ro askinig thein to
13 sacrifi.ce a great deal. of time for something. And
the fact that we were ah1.e to get people of that
ls, capacity to do it was somothirag 1.f-.e'-t very good
1.6 aboi:it.
17
1.8 'I'hcreupon, Rolator' s .Exhi.hi.t A is marked
19 foy purposes of identification.
20
21 Q. Mr. Secretary, I"m going to hand you
22 what ° s been marked for purposes of identification
23 as Exhibit A, it' s Rolator' s Exhibit A, and ask
24 you if you can recognize that document. Can you
Realtime - STideoconferencinc-^ - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 24
te:L'" us what this document is?
^ A. It's a statement of --- it' s a Personal
Service Cont:e-act.
Q- Between y our office and Mr. Ru-vc1o?
E A. Thau' s correct.
^ Q. And was this in connection with the
t pa-oj ect that you mentioned to take a look at the
^ fur.ctio-ns of the Lucas County Board o-f Elections?
9 A. I believe it is.
Wti Q. If we look at paragra.Dh 1.01 on the
first page, we see that Mr. Ruvolo was being asked
12 ^o prots^cle ^rnanac^emer^.w and elections cc^^.s^a^.ti^.^-
services regarding the operation and management of
14 Lucas County Board of Elections under your
15 direction. Again, is this -- this is the contract
that you entered into with Mr. Ruvolo to perform
17 the functions that we were just discussing?
18 A . I be l ieve t h atp s wha tth is is.
19 Q. Okay. nnd Mr . Ruvolo was not a
20 volunteer in doing this function, was he?
21. N!S. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can
22 answer.
23 A. According to the personal services
24 contract set before us, I think one could conclude
Realtime - VideaconT e^encincs - Trial Pres®nta^-iora - Video Spectrum Repc^rt^.ng LT.- ! .%
that is not the case, yes.
Q . Yeah.
lx-A other words , he was beiiac-_^-
^ompensated as set forth in the contract for h.^.^
^ services?
^ A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Mr . Secretary f I F m going to hand
8 you valiat 9s been marked for purposes of
9 identWficat-ior as Relator P s Exhibit B. And see if
you could take a look at that and identify what
11 that document is? And could you tell us what that
12 document is?
13
14 Thereupon, Relatorps Exhibit B-is marked
1s for -our^-s..oses of identification.
16
m7 A. W t says it e s a Personal Service
18 Contract.
19 Q. Okay. And Personal Service Contract
20 between --- between your office and whom?
21 A. Jon Allison.
22 Q. Okay. And again this ---- was this the
23 contract that Mr. Allison entered into with your
24 office in order to provide the services that we ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 26-
have talked about in connection with reviewing
management and ele ct4ons operations at the Lucas
County Board of Elections?
4 A. I bel ^ eve it 1. s, yes.
Q. And as in- the case of Mr. Ruvolo,
^ Mr. Allisor. was not a volunteer Yiere; he was being
r compensated for his services, co.r_ rec3.t?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Mr. .Secretaryf the process that
10 Mr. Ruvolo and Mr. Allison went through was what
11 to your understanding?
12 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can
:t. 3 ax-iswer .
14 A. They were to go up and do an as:^^^smexFt
15 of tl_e Lticas County Board of .Electioris and come up
16 with a recommendation for a path. forward that
1"? would improve ^^he operations at the Luc-as Courity
Board of Elections.
19 Q. And did they generate some type of
20 report as a result of that?
21 A. They did.
22 Q. Okay. And what happexred with that
23 report?
24 A. It was presented to me and the Board ------
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial. Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 27
members and to the public as a way for the Lucas
^ County Board of Elections to reform itself.
Q. And was this a mandatory set of
4 recommen¢^ati-Lor_s or were these two cons-ultanL.s
5 siEnply asked to -o-rovide the.i.r-. ^-Liggest:i.oiis and.
6 opinions?
7 A. Well, i' m not sur-e exactly what you're
8 -- - you°re asking for. But when you say
9 "mardatory, °t what does that mean?
-.Q Q. Well, you know, in your capacity as
11 Secretary of State, you have certain directory
12 authority over the board of elections; in other
13 words, you can direct them as you do commonly with
14 directives. Was the report of that nature or was
15 it simply a management consulting ^eport- as we
116 typically think of it ;,ah-ich presents a set of
17 recommendations and possible --- and possible
18 sources of future change?
19 MS. RICHARDSON: Object to the form.
20 But you can answer the question.
21 A. At this point their g©al was --- the
22 goal that I established for them is to come up, to
23 do an assessment, just as a management consulting
24 group might do, to say, here, take a look at
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation. - Video Spectrum. Reporting LLC 28
^ yourselff, all rightt. Here are you-- problems, here
are some suggestions that - that they would
recommend based on their -- -- their experience and,
4 their review of the circumstances, that if
5 adopted, they believed would 27osol_vo many of the
6 issues at the Lucas County Board of Elections. So
7 it was our hope and it was my strong hope that we
8 would take the recommendations, implemen^ them so
9 that we could move forward in a constructive way.
10 I was hoping at that point it was be a new day at
11 the Lucas County Board of Elections, that -- that
12 the people there would understand that ohancre was
13 necessary, that the dysfunctional direction that
14 the Eoard, had been going in the past had to oha.nge
is and that they had -- because in the history of our
16 interactions, there was a lot of passing of the
17 buck. Everybody was doing a lot of this where
is they would say, well, it's this person's fault,
19 it's this person's fault. Well, this was the
20 this was the day where the buck should no longer
21 have been passed because they had adocurn.en.t in
22 which the leadership of the Lucas County Board of
23 Elections could have implemented and resolved many
24 of those unresolvod issues.
Realtime _- Videoconferencing -_Tr.ial Presentation - Vi.den Spectru?r; }?Fporting LLC ------29
Q. And to your recollection, were the
recommendations in the report adopted?
A. Largely, no.
Q. And do you know why?
G MS. R1CHARDB.^ON. Objection.
E A. Yeah. 1-- - I don't know why.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. Because they were ---- they were pretty
9 simpWe.
10 Q. You know, like cooperate?
11 A. Well, you know, have rules; follow the
12 rules.
13 Q. Set meetings?
14 A. Set meetings. Have regular - --- have a
15 set of guidelines so that everybody knows what the
16 rules are and follow those ruies y and. that didn ° t
1 'l haDpen.
18 Q. Okay. And, again, do you -- -- da you
19 remember roughly when that report was issued?
20 A. I dran ° t off the top of my head know.
21 But it was a very pub1-i'-c process.
22 Q. After the report was issued, I take it
23 that there were continuing problems at the Lucas
24 County Board of Elections?
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial. Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC .) C)
There were.
And what type of problems do yoi,a.
.r- ecal l?
A. The problems - - the prob1-ems that 1
recall happening at the Board of Elections ranged
E from Board nietnkaer^ calling us to complain about
7 other Board members, no regular public meetin-gs,
8 staf f members calling ak:^o-LLt i nt.im.-id.at.ion, all^ged
9 theft of computer records by staff from other -- -- I
10 r^iean, from other staff, staff accusing other staff
11- of breaking in-, stealing information. It --.. it
12 was dy sT. unct i c5nal :t^eyoaYd d^ script i on.
13 Q. You menti.oz^ed that you had Board
14 members calling you to complain about the actinns
is of other Board members. Do you have any specir.a.c
16 recollections as to -- -as to what those calls
17 i nvcs 1-ved?
18 A . 'l:'he calls were3ar t to rtie, or at least I
19 didnit field the calls. The staff were the people
20 that actually took the calls, the pecaple who had
21 been working with the issues directly at the Board
22 of Elections, so they would be ^-aetter able to
23 explain it specifically what the calls were.
24 Q. And you don't .emember specifically ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC J L !
^ having discussions about any of those calls?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can
answer.
4 A. Just the ones t:.h.at were the most
egregious where staff felt like they were being
^ threatened or that Board members were suggesting
,r that otY_or Board menibers were threatening them.
8 Q. Tb-loso are very serious accusations.
9 Did you -- do you have any spOc-if3-o rocollection
10 j u s t of any of t r oso _i. n. c:i. der3. ts?
11 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can
12 answer.
13 A. The -- Ikrxow that you're deposing many
14 of the otInor pooiDlo, that were involved. I° rci sure
15 they can fi-11 in the spocific dotails since they
16 were on the phone calls.
17 Q. I d-- I was not able to get that
18 information from either Mr. Damsohroder or
19 Mr. Borgemenke, so, no.
20 A. -3-t was -- -- wol' r yes, it was serious.
21 That's what --- that ' s why we couldn't just do
22 nothing.
23 Q. Correct. I ...... I agree wi t h you. I
24 think that you're identifying a very serious ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum. Reporting LLC ''J` .^
p--olalc.m here. And that' s why it 's so impor tant to
get to the specifics if we can as to who was
int imidat ing whom.
4 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. I think
it's been asked --
^ Q- ?f you know.
7 MS. RICHARDSON: --- asked and answered
8 but --
9 A. T don't b omomher . 1-- you asked mc, to
10 do my best L.o recall __ -
11 Q . Absolutely.
12 A. the conversations. And. to the best
13 of my knowledge, 1' m -- - I'm trying to reoall those
14 conversations. I wouldn't want to say someth-ing
1s that T didn' tspeoifi.oally know for sure.
16 Q. Thank you. I appreciate that.
17 Would your recollection have been any
18 better ^n June of 2014?
19 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. He's
20 tc.stifi-od that he -- to what he can rooal'L, He's
21 indicated that he has giv-ori you the answer to the
22 question that you've now asked ^^TDeza.todly. So I
23 will object that it ° s boori asked and answered.
24 MR. TODD: Thank you for your ------
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------
33
1 obj ect ion.
2 Q. But my question is really,
3 Mr. Secretary --
4 A. I would notknovr whether 1cc>u l d have
remembered better then or not.
6 Q. Okay. Thank you.
7 Go ahead.
8 A. The conversations were in passing. The
9 culture that was being created was that my staff
10 was continuing to let me know that, look, things
are going -- getting out of control. And, again,
12 you know, the continuum of this, we engaged, we
13 appointed the people that the Lucas County party
14 wanted to be appointed, Mr. L3eG-idi.c and.
15 Mr. Stainbrook. At a point in time Mr. DeGidio
16 and Mr. Stainbrook both called and complained
17 about each other. There are very public
18 allegations between the two of them about how th^^
19 coiildrz e t get along.
20 There were -- along the line we sent u-p
21 the consultants, a couple of consultants to try to
22 solve the issue. They made recommendations; those
23 recommendations weren 9 t fcal.lowed. Subsequent to
24 that, there were a whole l4-tan.y of issues that had
Realtime - Videoconferencling - Tr^Lal Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 34
gone wrong that are very well publically
documented in the report that was later issued by
the transparency committee. Th.ere' s a you
4 know, that p s the large body of evidence of -- that
E I used to make the determination.
6 Q. When compi-aints were made about
7 Mr. DeG^i dio, for example, in this time period
8 before the transparency committee regort rwere
9 they of the nature of the fact that he had been
10 suspended as an attorney in the State of Ohio?
11 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
12 Q. Do you recall?
13 A. There were ---- there were a number of
14 complaints flying around about Mr. DeCidio from
15 Mr. Stainbrook, from Mr. DeGidio about
16 Mr. Stainbrook. And I believe that was among
17 them.
18 Q. At the time that that occurred when
19 Mr. DeGidio was sanctioned by the Ohio Supreme
20 Court, did you exercise your Dower as Secretary of
21 State to consider his reano-srai immediately as a
22 Board member?
23 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
24 Well, he was ultimately removed.
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation W Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ^ Q. But at the time that the complaints
2 came up, which is almost a year earlier, was
3 action taken on those complaints?
4 A. They certainly --
5 MS. RICHARDSON: Obj ecti.on .
6 A. They cert - -
7 MS . RICHARDSON: Objection. G_cj ahead.
8 A. They certainly were troubling. Ancl. it
9 was a component that ultimately led to the body of
10 work that ended up resulting in his removal.
11 Q. You'd mentioned several occasions that
12 -- that there were complaints about intimidation
13 at the Board. Do you have any spec.l f lc
14 recol^.eetion as to the -- what the circumstances
^. 5 were that generated complaints of intimidation?
16 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
17 A. 1-- look, I don' t-- 1can' t -- -- I
18 can't name names or tell you specifically. 1can
19 just tell you that the sta ^ f that I sent uP there,
20 the Deputy Secretaries of State, former Secretary
21 of State, foririer Democratic Party Chairman that --!"
22 sent to look into this i-eported that that was part
23 of the culture. Those issues r-egarding
24 lntimidat '-orb have been c€-ocizmented. in the
Realtime -- Vi.d°or_oz^^^^^i-icirg -- Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum ^^^^rtAiig LLC newspaper. Can 1; name names and tell you exactly
as we sit here who those people were? I cannot.
^ But it was all part of the very publ-ic reports
4 that came out regarding tbc. Lucas County Board of
5 E'1.ccti.ons.
6 Q. You also mentioned another spcci-fac
'P ma.tter that had come to your a ttention. and t.Yaa.t
8 was the -- the theft of I"!" records inside the
9 Board. Do yo,z .^h.a.ve any spccific rccol.A.ectiona as
10 to what that ibicidcnt was about?
11 A. I believe it had to do -- I don' t know
12 about tbe snccitica, but I believe it had to do
13 with the animosity that existed between the
_4 director and the deputy director.
1s Q. A:a.d was this apa.rt iaan confrontation?
16 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
17 A . I l7a-v-c no - -
18 MS. R:ICHARDS ON . Go ahead.
19 A. Iha,.vc no idoa what tbc naturc of the
20 objcction was, whether it was partisan or
21 personal. But it -- the conflict existed.
22 Q. Okay. Sometime after the Ru-vo1.o and
23 Allison report, there was an ctfoa:^t made by your
24 office to respond to the continu-ing problema w.it:n.
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -_ V; dec Spectrum Reporting LLC_ 3 1
^ the creation of a g--oup that was called the
2 transparency committee. And can you tell us what
3 the facts and circumstances were that led you to
4 oreate the transparency committee?
5 A. Well, the report the earlier report
6 that was initiated oz- issued was not being
7 followed. Reports of probloEris continued to
8 persist out of staff and .Eoard, members from the
9 Lucas County Board of El-oci:iozis to my staff. And
10 after ossentiall-y three years, we had rfiado no
1.1 proaro^^ collectively in r-esolvi.ng those issues,
12 ard. in fact, it contiria.ed to get woz-se. There was
13 so mach finger-poWnL.is^g between it was their
14 pA obA.em, it was their problem, nobody would t-ake
15 TDe-sona.l responsibility for any of these matters.
16 E7_octiorz:^ are akso-ut tho, public trust, and so the
17 tran^,parency c:omaEi'ttoo was created. for th^ purpose
1.8 of making sure that in the opori â :^n the l_i-ght of
19 day, the facts o.ou1d be placed on the table so
20 that: conc^.iisio^s could be drawn about what the
21 fu.t-uro of the Lucas County Board of Elections
22 should be.
23 Q. Okay. And based on that,what did you
24 do?
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 38
7 A. I sent a former Secretary of State, a
former Lucas County Board member. Secretary of
Statc ^:Tonnif e:e- Brunner and. Ruvolo who had been
4 inY,rolv-cd -in initiating the earlier report, a
5 former Deputy Secretary of State in Jon Allison,
6 and a former DcputV Secretary of State -i-n Scott
7 Borgemenke, who had also beeii my chief of staff
8 durirag much of this, to go up and conduct a public
9 hearing process where the _i.ssucs coul-d be put on
10 thc tab1c. I asked thcrn to -- -- we - -- to collect
11 all of the information that they could in that
12 public process and then wanted to hear what their
13 recommendations were for what we should do Qoing
I^ forward.
MR. TODD: Okay. If I forget - -- cver..
16 forget to gi-v-c you one, Ryan, let me kraow hecau.so
17 I `ve got copies for you.
18 MS. RICHARDSON: I will. Thank you.
19
20 Thc^-eupon., Re1-ator°s Exhibit C is marked
21 for purposes of identification.
22
23 Q. M-r. Secretary, :i: ° ve handed you wha.t ' s
24 been marked for purposes of identification as ------
R®a1.ti.me - Videoconieres^cing - Tria1 Presentation - Video Spectrum Report-Lng LL*%- 39
1 Rela.tor' s Exhibit C and ask you to take a minute,
^ take a look at that document and see if you can
3 tell us what that is.?
4 A. It's a Personal Service Contx-act
5 outlining the scope of work for a oar-t:icipant i.z-E
6 the transparency coa^,mittee. And in : '?lis
7 particular cEisea that participant was former
8 Secretary of State uenra:ifer FrSa.nner.
9 Q. Okay. And if we look a-L
10 A. :1 think 1ar^swered the way you v,ranted.
11 it to be answered, right?
12 Q. That's exactly right. Thank you so
13 much.
14 A . Okay.
1s Q. If wet d take a look at pa.ragra.-Dh 1.01
16 of that and. Article I of the agreement, can you
17 tell us what the ^^oDe of work was as described in
18 yoiaA - -- the contract entered into between yoii.r-
19 office and Ms. Brta.nner?
20 A.. Undertake - - i t, says that the
21 p3^epresentative Jennifer Br,zz-3..^.-i.er . . . shall undertake
22 the work a.nd°E ^iich 'fa.ct.i-v-ities set forth helow°' in
'3 11(the ' Se^ vices' ): To ^rov_s-de l€^gal services an.d
24 advice to The . . . Secreta.ry of State regarding the ------
Realt.ime T Videocanfare.r:c3-zzg - Trial Presentation - Video 8pecLrun: Repart~.ng 1:,LC 4
1 operation and management of the Lucas County Board.
2 of Elections. Fe
3 Q. So Ms. Br-ur3.ner' s contract here is for
4 lecxal services and ad-va-ce to your office?
5 A. Tha.t 's what it -- - that °s wha t-v - how
6 it 9 s described in this statement of work.
7 Q. Okay. And if we look at page 2,
8 Article IV, paragraph 4.01 (a), which is some -- --
9 about halfway -- two-thirds of the way down the
10 page. The second page. Sorry.
11 A. Socond TDago.
12 Q. Yeah. I gave you too many numbers all
13 at once. Seo:ond page, Article IV, paragraph
14 4. 01 (a). That --- that, appears to be the
_ 5 described compensation for Ms. B.r_unner" s legal
16 services to your office, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And it says $350 per hour, correct?
19 A. yos. Excuse me.
20 Q. Do you want to take a break or --
21 A, No. No. No. I"m good.
22 Q. Okay. Mr. Secretary, I'm going to hand
23 you what " s been marked for purposes of
24 identification as Relator"s Exhibit D and ask you
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 41-
it you oar^. identify what that document is?
L MR. TODD: He's got the originaa..
^ So.x'ry.
4
5 Thereupon, Relator's Exli.ibit D is marked
6 for purposes of identification.
7
^ A. Well, it readti at the top Requ.est Eor-
^ Special Counse1. Assignment.
10 Q. And have you ever seen that document
11 before?
12 A- I have not.
13 Q. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. 1 ' m giving
14 the court reporter the original so we don't lose
1s them.
16 Has -i-t your -- -- been in your experience
17 as Secretary that special ass-Wgnments of counsel
1-8 are appz•oved by the. Attorney Oener-al ° s Office?
19 MS. RICHARDSON: Obj eotion . You --- you
20 can answer if you know.
21. A. 1-- I actually don't know exaetly the
22 process for which that occurs.
23 Q. Do you know what the --- what the law is
24 on that point, Ohio law?
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 42
MS. hICHARDSOM: Objectirn.
^ A. I d©n't know off the top of my head.
^ But one of the things that we always do in my
4 office is follow the law.
s- MR. TODD: Okay. Let me give you the
6 original.
7 Q. Mr. SecretaAy --
8 MR. TODD : I' m sorry. I° m making you
a do two things at once.
10 Q. 1' m going to hand you wh.at 's been
11 marked form purposes ot ic7.erxti-fication as -- and I
12 apoiog; zc , but the sickar actually came off, but
?3 i t' s Relator' s Exhibit E as on the original. Can
14 you identify for us what that is?
15
16 'I'hereuponF R.elator's Exhibit E is marked
:€. 7 for purposes o.f_. J_dentifit:.ation.
18
19 A. :St is a directive to the Lucas County
20 .Eoa.r_.d. of Elections establishirag the tr^.^tip^r^r^t y
21. committee.
'2 Q. And tha.t 's the transparency committee
23 that we talked about earl_ier in --
24 A. Correct.
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------43
Q. And much like we had discussed a little
bit earlier, this is actually a mandatory
directive from your office; in other words, you
4 were .irstruct-ng the :E3oard of Elections what to do
5 in this case?
6 A . It .i. s .
7 Q. Okay. And i.t ° s you-- under-sta.n.d^nca that
8 based on this that the transparency committee went
9 forward, was formed in accordance with your
10 directive and ---- and ae:t-u.ally cordut^ted.
11 proceedings earlier this year?
12 A. I believe that's exactly wi-iat, they d:i-d.
13 Q. Okay. In this directive I not.ice -thz:.t
:€. 41: t.h.ar e are no par ^ icular instructions on how this
15 process is to be cond-Lict.ed by '^^he Chairman,
16 Mr. Borgemenke?
17 MS. R.:TCHAFDSONo Qbj ecti.on.
18 Q. In other words, for example, there are
19 no ins^. ruct i. orz ss are there -- -ycau can tell us if
20 there are --- as to whether this was to be
21 conducted as a process in which witnesses were to
22 testify under oath or documents would be available
23 to be subpoenaed? Did you have any intention at
24 that time that you issued the directive as to how
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 4: 1:
the process was to move forward?
MS. RICHARDSON: Qksjeetien. You can
^ answer.
4 A. ..: have a high ievel. of trulst. in Scott
5 Bergemenke o He is a former deputy secretary o-f
6 state , former chief of staff for a governor,
7 former chief of staff fczr the Ohio Senate. He is
8 ta^ented ai-id skil^ed. And I was confident that he
9 woU"_d ce^iduct the -- the transparency committee
10 preeesS ; 1-1 a. ma.rbx7er that was the most productive
11 possible.
12 Q. Mr. Borgemenke descrWbed the process as
:3_ 3 aii airing of gri_€:vanees0 Is that w1lat you
14 expected it to be?
15 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
16 Q. We'll get his transcripts if you want.
_7 MS. R 1 CHARD ^ ON: I - -
18 Q. But go ahead.
19 MS. RICHARDSON: 1' m going to object to
20 the question. You can go ahead and answer.
21 A. W've not heard --- I've not hea.r_. d. that
22 specifically said before. But I do know that as I
23 recai 1 iny conversations post process with
24 Mr. Borgemenke, he was frustrated that in many
V Realtime 4 -.deoconfereri,cing ¢ Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Revorting T LC ------45
cases that the testimony from the participants was
more -focused on blaming others than solving
problems.
4 Q. Well, and that is one of the specii'-ic
5 auestions I wanted to get to, Mr. Secretary, and
6 that is: is it your andersta.rdi.rag that any of
7 thaU testimony was taken under oath?
8 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can
9 answer.
10 A. T'm not aware that it was.
_1 Q. You will reca1.l at the beginning of
12 this deposition we put you under oath, correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And we' ve agreed, ha,.renf t we, that this
15 i-9 a matter -- the a3-legat;:ioris that you. °^.re
16 discussed li.ere regarding the goi.ngs-osi at the
17 Board of Elections are ^^-ez-y serious ones, correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. W®uldn' t it be appropriate in a matter
20 of such se-rious nature to have asked people to
21 express their their opinions, their beliefs and
22 their observations under penalty of perjury?
23 MS. RICHARDSON: flbj ectican . You can
24 answer.
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------46
1 A. The goal of the transparency committee
2 -- the transparency committee is not a court. If
3 there are any criminal vioiaticaz-3.s, that would be
4 up to the prosecutor in Lucas County, as you well
5 know, to address. We are not the prosecutor; we
6 are the Secretary of State. We administer
7 elections.
8 "€-he c:fcsal of the transparency ccammittee
9 was to firid inf€^rmation and. ai-r_ -i_t in a public
10 forum so that we might corrie up znrit^-^± a pl-an. that
11 could resolve the intractable d.ysfunct.ion that
12 exi st ed at L. he Ltx csx s County E cy ard of E 1 ect ions.
13 ^^id I believe that the goa-1 of the committee and
:L 4 the way that Mr. E^^^^emenke set it up was to have ls niaxi.mum partic _i-pation, in licspes of fi.rid:iri^r.^.
A.6 constructiv-e solutions for problems.
17 Q. But you' ll agree witli- rtie, will you. not,
1s that the matters that were u.-n.der discussion were
19 very serious mat t-ers irrvoi-sring the administration
20 of elections in Lucas Countye
21 MS. RICHARDSON: C3bj ection. You can go
22 aYaead and answer.
23 A. They were serious matters. They
24 wererx' t -- but they snreren' tcrimirgal matters.
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 47
They were not a subject of a lawsuit.
Q. F-av^ ^oti ever conducited hearings or
been irvolved wi.-Lh hearings Lha-t d.i.d 3-iot .in-v-o:Lve a
4 :l.a^sui.t where wi-^iaesses gave t^^ sti.mox-iy under oa'^^h?
A. Every day in the legislature. When I
^ was in the legislature, rit7body there gives
testimony in. legislation where they're under oa, h
^ for __ - ^ or- perj ury b as:i s. So ^tir e:r. t: :i ^^ ^ ^ ^ st^ m
9 our eritix-e systern of where we pass laws in Ohio is
10 based on testimony that is not given under oath.
11. Q. But when we deal with legal matters
12 such as removal of a member from the board of
13 e1ections, those are very __
14 Ae That's a -- -- thaT ' s a due p roce ss
1s hearing.
16 Q. C`orrect.
17 A. That's not what the transparency
18 committee was.
19 Q. Okay. The transparency committee "Chen
20 to your mind -- --
21 A. That's a different process.
22 Q. _ _ was not a due process.
23 Okay. And you would agree with me that
24 a due process hearing for rem®va1. of a member of a ------
Realtime - Videoconferencinc-^ - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------48
1 be a rd of ele cti ens sheuldbe c en-due t e d with
^ witnesses under° oath?
3 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can
4 answer.
5 A. I believe that's how we conduct them.
6 Q. Do you know?
7 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You
8 Q. In this particular case, do you know
9 wzhe the r the --
10 A. I I don't recall -- -- I desift recal1-
11 exactly what I don't attend the hearings.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. S e I - -
14 Q. Well, I -___.
15 A. Basically
16 Q. We'll get
17 A. The Yaeari.ng officer makes those
18 re.eeminendations.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MS. RICHARDSON: And just for purposes
21 of the record, we're talking about multi.pi-e
22 different proceedings here. We were talking about
23 the transparency committee meeting, now you're
24 mentioning removal, so if we can specify what ------
Realticne - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 49
1 pi^ecise1 y - -
2 MRvTC+DU : Right. L,et as sort that out.
3 Ys3up re absolutely right, Ms. Richardson.
4 Q. L,et 9 s sort that out a little bit. The
5 transparency committee with the four members that
6 you selected met and had a public hearing, if you
7 will, where people could come in and express their
^ -- their beliefs or opinions?
9 A. `I'o gather information, correct.
1. W Q. So this four-member __ __ this four-member
11 committee, th.€vr.x.s was desigr^ed to just gather
^2 informat-ican, correct, not make any deci sioais?
13 A. "i"hey were grairig to gather information
14 and make reccammerxdations to me on the basis of is the-ir .r_e-^,-i^^ of the circumstances, how we ^ould
16 best go forward in Lucas County.
^7 Q. They were making recommendations,
18 however, on very serious matters such as removal
19 of people from a board of elections, correct r
20 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can
21 answer.
22 A. Ultimately, that may be what they did.
23 But they were sent up there to have a nublic
24 corzversa t ion. about how we resol-ve i ^sues at the
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial- Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC `3 0
L Board of Elections. What ---- what their
recommendations were ultimately going to be, they
si dicin e t know at the onset.
Q . okay.
A. Clearly.
Q. As^.d isn` t that the reason. that, we
structure matters like this where those types of
rP-.f`ot1.1ETFendat-i_oli,,a t-[1ay occur in a manner such t'l.at
peop-el.J due process rights are protected?
1 Q MS. RICHARDSON^ Object-i_ono TYi.er-e are
sev^eral. l.e3a1 cc;i-iclusic,n.s ax-Ed. characterj_zati^.;rzs
_2 built i. ri . =L ' l1 object to the que s t i on . You can
13 go ahead answer.
14 Q. Go ahead and answer.
Is A. I have a history of working in a body
16 call the Ohio General Assembly where we make the
'L 7 laws of the State of Ohio 'Ln a public hearing
18 process and nobody is asked to give testimony
19 under oa.th. That is the tradition of a public
20 hearing on many important matters that come out of
21 the history of how I°-.re been involved in public
22 s ers,r ice. And it da dn9 t seem to me that this - -
23 the na ^ ^re of this, because it was -- - it was
24 neither legal nor criminal in nature, that -- that
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- VIde^ Spectrum Reporting TLC s I
1 that was a necessary component. However, if the
2 transparency committee had chosen to do so, they
3 could have. But that ' s not -- that was not what
4 they chose to do.
5 Q. And I understand tli.at .in the
6 ^ egis1. at ^ ^e arena that we t Ypi c a:L ^^ y wi. l l allow
7 people to speak their pi_ecc, articulate their
8 -ocsi tions wi_thc=,zt bcix-ig placed under penalty of
9 perjury, but that Fs not very common in the
10 Executive Branch, is it?
11 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can
12 answer.
13 A. I dcan°t know what is common in the
14 Executive Bx^anch . But --- but :€: believe t.hat the
15 way that the Oovc:rnorgs committees all operate,
16 they have boards and commissions and none of them
to the best of my -- maybe some of thei:: do, but
18 for the most part those operate the same way,
19 people come in, they give their public testimony.
20 I think there' s a great deal of operation of
21 public hearings in the Executiv-e Branch that don°t
22 involve people providing sworn testimony. -1 mean
23 literally the vcry laws here we' re discussing
24 today were establ.i-shc.d ander a -orccess that didn' t
Realtime -- Videocan-ferencinq - Trial ?resentatiar_ - Video SDectb um Reporting LLC 52
i roa-uiro the participants to ha-v-e a -- to be -Lind.er
2 oath.
3 Q. Understand. And we' ll talk about the
4 laws in a h it .
5 But, aga A.n, what we°ro trying to
6 determine here what a factual basis _i.s or is riot
7 for very serious matters S'Lloh as romova:1 of
8 someone from apositi.on on aboa.r_d of elections.
9 Would you agree with me t-hat it is proba:ol_y a
10 betto.r_ practice to require tA-i.em to give their
11 testimony ,zndor penalty of perjury?
:L 2 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. It °s been
asked and a:lswerad soveral times.
14 Q. Yes or no?
1s A. I don;t beli-ov-e so, no.
16 Q. Okay.
_'7 A. And let me -v - let me add something to
18 that.
19 Q. You are certainly most welcome to do
20 So.
21 A. That 9s not what the transparency
22 committee was sent to do. They were sent to do an
23 assessment of the Lucas County Board of Elections
24 and to make rooomirnendations. It was not a -- it
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 53
was not a removal process for anybody.
Q. But in fact they made recommendations
^ for remova.l..
4 MS. RICHARDSON: Obj ecti.on .
5 Q . Correct?
6 A. 1'm -- I'm sharing --- ^.'ve answered
7 your question - -
8 Q. Ya s , you have.
9 A. -- many t z mes.
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. I'm just trying to make the point that
12 that's riot what they were sent there to do.
13 Removal. process is an entirely different process
2.4 -From what the transparency committee was assigned
15 to do.
16 Q. Okay. And you would agree with me that
17 a removal process, a hearing for aramoval is one
18 that should be replete wi.th d-Lie process
19 protect.:ionss cor.r_ c:ct ?
2!! MS. R1CE-HARI7SJN. Objection.
21 A. A removal process should be done in
22 accordance with the 1-aw.
23 Q. 9:'hank you.
24 Excuse me. I'm sorry. ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Tra.a'L Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 54
Mr. .^ecretary, 1' r^ going to hand you
znrhat' s been r-iarked for purposes of
4denti^^cat.i.on --- ^^-ain I apo7-og.ize, the exIndbit
4- sticker is a little bit off but it -i-s Relator' s
E Exhibit F. Can you identify what that document
6 is?
7
8 Thereupcarx, Relator' s Exhibit F is marked
9 t©r purposes of 1-denti-fi.cat A.oz-E .
10
11 A. :l: L. is a letter to the Board member s of
12 the Lucas County Board of Flectio-ns outlining the
13 responsibilities for certifica.tiora ca.-E the 2014
14 primary elect:i-onv 1t. iridicates that the hearing
15 ca.^ficer wa aworking on. a report regarding the
:€.6 potential removal o° the members and the director
17 of the Lucas County Board of Elections. And
18 and indicates that, two former ^ud^^s wil1 provide
19 ^ipartisas7 oversight, Judge Peter 1-31andwork of
20 Oh:io° s 6th. Da.strict Court of Appeals and t.€^,j.^ge
21 Char l es Wittenberg who served under Lucas County
22 Common PI-eas Court; one ^e-i-ne-^. a Republican, the
23 other a Democrat.
24 Q. And that ° ^ a letter from you to the
Realtime - Videoconieren;.irg - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LL\-- ^f^
t. Lucas Cc7iinty Board of Elections?
^ A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. From May 20th of this year?
A. Yes, it is.
i Q . Okay. Did it coricern you at all- in
appointing two active judges on the Siipreme
Court' s list of at tive j-Lldr..^xes to this would be
somewhat of a coni^lict of interest?
^ MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
1 C A. I did not believe at all it would be a
1i conflict of interest. I thought it would help
^2 -oreserve the public trust to have p®^Dle of their
13 stature prov-i din^ oversight r.e_ar the Board of
14 F= A. ec t ions .
15 Q. Even though they they had competing
16 reSporzSibilities w.ith. members of t1ae J-u.diCia7_
17 Branch and here the Executive Eraiich?
18 A. I believ- they sought clearance for
19 that before they ^r-iga^ed in their services.
20 Q. C;l-,:ay. And wheri you say cleara^.ce5
21 w1a€vre did they --- do yo;a. think they received
22 t:.1 ea ra:l-ce?
23 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
24 A. I believe that it was discussed with ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC S 6
^ the -- with the app=cpriete people at the Ohio
^ Supreme Court.
^ Q. Okay. How did it happen that you chose
4 ^7uc3.ge Handwork and aTudgeW=t tenberg as the two
rZ people to do the supervisory tun.ct:iorz here?
6 A. They came hi^.-^-hl.y recommended.
7 Q. By whom?
8 A. I don " t know .. ... I mean, .€. can a t name
9 anybody speciiica.:Lly. I know that theii:^ names
10 were a.ir-ed in the iie5rsspaper as peop3_e that would
11 serve cr edibly. I bel ieved that there were a l.ct
1.2 of -- as we f7_oated their names in the process
13 mostly froErE the staff to people that we trTa.st. _i.rt.
1.4 Lucas County, they said that they were of credible
15 na..ture.
16 Q. Now, it °s not customary, is it, for the
17 Secretary of State to pic3-, namea out of the
18 newspa.per and rely on that as a so°',_a.z-ce of cred.i.ble
19 aut ho ri ty, i. sit?
20 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
21 A. When yov. °:re the chi_e.f- elections officer
22 and you oversee 88 counties, 'oerticuIar1y a county
23 that you don ° t live in, you consult averi.ety of
24 sources to determine credibility in a community ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 5'7
^ with which you °re not familiar with all of the
participants. And the body of the discussions
^j that we Ybad. led me to belie'a.re that these people
4 laad broad ^iippcrt. within the community on a
5 bipartisan basis and would se:r-v-e as credible
6 overseers s^f a process that people had 'Lcast
7 cor.f ideaYce in.
8 Q. Who had lost confidence?
9 A. The public.
10 Q. How do you know that?
11 A. Well, one of the things that I do as a
12 -publi.c o.`ficial is I assess circumstarit:.es on. the
31 3 grFaus-id.. There are -- --- ax-id you talk to people in a
14 com.mu.nity, you listen to media. reports, you. learn
1Js tb, I e -- --- you learn abFaut tkae fr-._istx-at _i-c;n that people
16 have with azi insti.tiati-on. 1t, was we11-d.oc-Limented
17 over the course of three years at 1-east that I had
18 been there, more tha:71 three years that the
19 credibility of tli-e Lucas County Board of Eiections
20 was in quest i or.x- .
21 As-id here we are under a process where
22 the ^eadersri-p of tha`^^ Eis i-ndicated. in this lettex-
23 w^^ go.ii-ig- through apr^cess with a hearing officer
24 that could have potentially led to the, removal and
Realtime - v-Ldeoc^nferencialg - Trial Presentation - Video 8pectrurn Reporting L-ijC to ---- to not have that process provided. with
oversiQ11t I felt would have been irresponsible.
And I tried to fi_ nd pec-pl e va it h cra d_i.bi:1 it y iri the
4 community to provide that oversight. on a
5 biDarti.san bas_i.s. And we believed t.^'lat Judge
6 Peter Handwork and Judge Wittenberg were the two
most- qua;l.i. fied people to -p.^ovi-de that ser-v-ica.
^ Q. Caii you recall any soecitic individuals
9 that you spoke with in securing this body of
_0 di.scussiczn that you maz:ti_oned?
11 A. =€: -- I cari°t remember exactly who I
12 spoke with.
13 Q. Do you remember anyone you spoke with?
14 I can.' t-- Icouldn' t say that I
15 ramam-ber specifically the people Ispoka with
16 about it.
17 Q. Do you remember per aos-ial ly condu.ct x.ng
18 those discussions or were ^^emb^^s of your staff
19 doing it?
20 A. Mostly it was done by my staff.
21 Q. Okay. Did you have any prior
22 background or information regarding Judge Handwork
23 before the appc7-intmerxt exuressed in this letter of
24 May 20th, 2014?
Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 59
Never met him before to the best of my
knowledge.
3 Q. Have you ever met him?
4 A. Only after I appointed him.
5 Q. After you appointed him to the Boardo
6 A. Uh-huh.
7 Q. Okay. Same thing with Judge
8 Wittenberg, had you ever had any background or
9 experience with him before the appointment letter
10 of May 20th, 2014?
11 A. I ha dno t. E-ut as a public off ici z:1 ,
1-2 you know, I think i.t' s also important to know that
13 these people were elected by the p-ublic to sorve
14. in capacities of makin.g judgmex-it. They were aia
15 appeals courL. j-udge arid a common p1-oa.s court
16 j udge. The public 13.ad alroady rondered their
17 opinion that 'L---hey were c:rodi:o7_e in their eyes.
18 Q. Mr. .SocreL.ary, I'fn going to hand you
19 rEow what has been marked for purposes of
20 ic^ent i fi. r^ at.3- on as Ro 1 ato r' s Exh --'L^ i-L-. G and ask you
2 1- to take a nioment and. look that- over and see i f you
22 can ident -"-fy wh^^ +- that doc-ument -is for the record.
23
24 Thereupon, Relator' s Exhibit G is marked
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 60
- I for -purposes of ide?-7.tif _i.z;ation..
MS. RICHARDSON: Mr. Todd, before we go
into a new series of question, is now a good time
to take a brief break?
^ MR. TODD: Y-ou know, 1 was going to
t suggest that. Why don ° t we just have the.
8 Secretary identify the document if he can and then
9 we ' l1 take a break.
10 THE WITNESS: Okay.
11 MS. EICHAR:^^ON. Sure. Thank you.
12 A. It' s the Hearing Otfioer `s Report ^
'. 3 Recommendations that were issued to me on June
14 4th, 2014 in the matter of removal of Ron
1a Rothenbuhl-er, ion Stainbrook, Anthony EeG-dio as
16 members of the Lucas County Board of Elections and
17 Gina Kaczala and Dan DeAngelis as director and
18 deputy director of the Lucas County Board o-F
19 Elections.
20 Q. Thank you. And why don't we take a
21 break right now.
22 MS. RICHARDSON: Just a few moments.
23 A°HE VIUEOGRAPHER: All i-ight. We were
24 off th.e record at 11 0 12 .
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 6I
1 (A short recess is taken.)
2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the
3 record at 11- : 2 9.
4 Mh _ TClEI) ; Thank you. Would you mind
5 reading back the last question?
6 iHE REPORTER: ":"here wasri° t a quest-ic;n
7 perzding.
8 Q. Oh, okay. Well, good.
9 A. What youp d asked last was for me to
10 identify the document, which I did. And so now
11 FFJ ^..-' ' r e - -_
12 Q. Ready to talk about the document.
13 A. -- ready to talk about the document.
14 Q. But before we get to that,
i5 Mr. Secretary, let °s -- I want to go back on one
16 comment you made before we identified the
17 document, and that 4-s you mentioned that you°d had
18 conversations after the transparency committee
19 hearing with Mr. Borgemenke. And I was going to
20 ask you to rel;^'L--.e for us what those conversations
21- involved.
22 MS.RICHAEL>SON s Objection. I° m not
23 sure that that was the testimony. But you can
24 answer if you understand that, cjta-estic>n. ------
Realti.me - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------
A. Just the experience that he had in the
process of ^onductinc-^ the transpaxai-icy committee.
Q. Do you remt:m:oer any specifics of that
4 eonversation.?
A. I d.on' t .
6 Q. Did ycu talk to h.im a^o-ut the f act that
^ he had made recommendations for reen^val of -- of
^ board members at that time?
9 A. Ican9 t remember the timing of the
10 coiiversat 3-ons. I mean I certainly know that I
mean he werat there with the expectation of issuing
12 a report and and I ------you know, I' rn -- -- I don' t
^- ^ know if I talked. with him before the report was
14 issued or after t-'he report was issued.
1-5 Q. Did the transparency actually iasx:ia a
16 report or did they simp'-y gei-ierate a transci-ipt
1'? tror^i what they had dorier do yo,a recall?
18 A. I t h.i. nk -- :1= t h. ink they did -- :l= t h ink
19 that they made an oral recommendation and issued
20 the transcript. I.f-. _€: recall, I think that tl;s what
21 they did.
22 Q. Okay. In other words -- - because I have
23 not seen ase-para.te written report from the
24 transparency committee, I was wondering if we ------
-. V, deoconferencing - Tri al g=esen+-.ation - Video Spectrum F?egort1ng ^:^LC 6 3 ;
1 if we were missing something.
2 A. To the best of my knowledge, that"s how
3 they werat about their iDroc;o ss.
4 Q. Okay. Thank you.
s Well, then if we could turn our
6 attention back to what° s been marked as purposes
7 of id^^iti.ficati.on as Relator ° s Exhihi L. a-r yo;a. f ve
8 identified that as tho report of the hearing
9 officer, correct?
10 A. Hearing Qffir:or°s Report &
11 Recommendations.
12 Q. Okay. And who is that hearing officer
-8 who made the report?
14 A. Matthew Damschroder.
15 Q. And is Mr. Damschroder part of the-
16 Secrotu,.r'y of Stato 's of.f-.d-co ?
17 A. He is. He is he heads tho Elections
18 Division o^` the C.^^fioo, of the Secretary of State.
19 Q. Axid as tho head of the Elections
20 Divisions, what are his responsibilities?
2 :t. A. 0-vorsight of olot^t-i-or^s J-i-l the State of
22 Oh.i o .
23 Q. Does he become involved in -- in
24 mat-te-Y-s that arise regarding problems such as the
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Tri.;-al ?resenLation - Video 8pecirum Reporting LT:.C eS, 4
] ones we'v^ been discussing with the Lucas County
Board of Elections?
A. Well., Lucas County is one of the 88
4 counties that he' s in charge o- overseeing, so,
^ yes, he is.
6 Q. Okay. Thank you.
7 So the types of i^su.es th-at we are
8 talking about here and that we that you' ve
9 described earlier this morning are matters that
10 would be within his p-u.r-.^^ew as director of
11 elections?
12 A. Some of the matters, yes.
13 Q. Okay. How d-id i-t happen that you chose
14 Mr. .Damschroder to serve as the hearing officer in
1s this part icular case?
16 Ae I don" t know why we se t t 1 e d on Matt
17 Damschroder as the hearing officer. But he is -
18 he is a former director of the Franklin County
19 Board of Elect-icans which is one of the largest
20 counties in the state. He is a nationally
21 recognized election official, he has worked in the
22 .`ield- of e1-ections for a career, and is the person
23 that I ent.ru-st in overseeing that process on my
24 staff. So he certainly would be an appropriate ------I ------
Realtime - Lr-Ldeoconferencing - Tria1. Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting T:^^ 65
choice.
Q - He certainly would be knowledgeable
about the election process ycor.r_.ect ''
4 A. Intimately.
5 Q. Yes.
6 Cdn the other hand, Mr. I:3amsch.roder is
7 not an attorney, is he?
8 A. I don't believe he is.
9 Q. And do you know whether he had ever
10 conducted any hearings before?
7. 7_ A. :1: -- I °ni not sure whether he has or
12 whether he hasn't.
1.3 Q. Okay. Do you know whether he made any
efforts to oondi-ict this particular li.earing with
15 due process standards applied?
16 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
17 A. I do know --
18 MS. RICHARDSON: You can answer.
19 Q. Uh-huh.
20 A. All right. .l do know that he received
21 the guidance of our lega.l. tea.a-: on the matter and
22 that they conducted this in accordance with Ohio
23 law.
24 Q. And it's your opinion that they ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 6 6
conducted it in accordance with Ohio law, correct?
A. it is my opinion that they conducted
th-i_ s in accordance with Oh-.o law.
Q. Did you know that they did not ask any
wi_tnesses to be sworn at this hearing?
A. Yes, I did.
! Q. Did you know that much of the testimony
3 came in through secondhand hearsay by -d through
9 memhe r s of the, tra.nsparenoy committee?
10 MS. RICHARDSON: Qbje.o t ion . You can
11 ans we r - -
12 Q• You can answer.
13 MS. RICHARDSON: if you understand.
14 A. I don' t--- I don' t- I don't know °hat
15 what you're saying is true or not true.
Q. Do you recal.l whether or not any of the
17 transparency committee members had been directly
18 involved in the events that occurred in Lucas
19 County?
20 A. I was not involved in the hearing
21 process.
22 4- ®kay.
23 A. So I would have no knowledge of that.
24 Q- Well, when ---- I'm not referring to what ------
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 6 7
happened at the transparency committee. -. ' m
talking ^pecific^ll-y about the underlying events
we're discussing.
A. Are we talking ahoxxt the heaxing?
Q. Yes. We're talking about at the
6 hearing. Because my under-sL.anding from the
7 report , that th.e hearing basically p-roceeried. with
8 each transparency committee meeting member
9 providirr^ sort of the:ir vers3_on of what happened
10 at the hearirig --
11 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
12 '^.,.^. . -- -- transparency committee.
13 MS. RICHARDSON: I'm sorry. Objection.
14 A. I was not at the hearing.
1s Q. Okay. But did you rely on the hearing
16 committee report in making decisions in your
17 capacity as Secre tary of State?
18 A. The -- the hearing officer's report was
19 certainly relevant in that.
20 Q. And was it important in your
21 decision-making process in rem«ving certain
22 members of the Board of Elections?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And since you weren' tat the hearing ------
R€, ;ltime - ''Ji^^oconferer^C 4 -.ng - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Report ; ng LLC ^ fr.3
1 .i.tselT, in fact did you have any other independent
2 knowledge of whether it was appropriate to remove
3 those three board members other than what was
4 contained in the -- in the report?
5 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
6 A. I have the hearing cf-ficerf s repcrt.
7 Q. U'h -- huh .
8 A. I ha.ve the transparency committee
9 report and transcrilDt. I have the recommendations
10 that wej^-e offered by Mr. Ruvolo and Mr. Allison
11 that weren°t followed. I have three and a half
12 years of experience of trying to deal with the
13 matters at the Lucas County Board of Elections.
14 It is in total all of that experience that went is into my conclus-ions to make the removal.
16 Q. Okay. And. ? et' s talk a little bit
1"1 about some of the things that happened here is -
18 again, it ° s your understanding that this hearing
19 to remove people from the Board of Elections in
20 Lucas County was conducted in accordance with Ohio
21 law, correct?
22 A. Yes .
23 Q. Okay.
24
Realtime - Videoconferencing - I'r ia1 Presentation - Video Spectrum Repcrt--ng LLC 69
^ that the hearing officer was aware of aDpare-rztl.y
^ before this process were certain things that
.^ happened in connection with Lucas County, and one
4 of them being the management report that we9ve
5 tal-ked about by Mr. Allison and Mr. Ruvolo?
6 A. Where is that?
7 Q. If you look at the top of the page.
8 A. Okay..
9 Q. And he describes that as an
10 "interventionP9 by Mr. Allison and Mr. Ruvolo.
1W A. Okay.
12 Q. Do you see that?
13 And the other thing he talks about _
the hearing o.f_ .f..icar 6 again, was Mr. L3aEnst:.hroder
is is the appointment of twc, experienced local
16 election administrators, Mr. C-Li.nnir3.gham and
17 Mr. Kimbrew, for special masters for t.^-le 201112
18 presidential election. Do you see thaw?
19 A. Yeah. Yes.
20 Q. Which raises a very interesting
21 question here, Mr. Secretary, and that is: Is it
22 fair to say that prior to undertaking this
23 r espcansihidity as an independent hearing officer
24 -- and I assume he was to be an independent
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Sgec-trum Reporting LLC •^ r^
] Ii.ea. r ing. off i t. e.r_ ?
MS. RICHARDSON: dbjection. What --
what is the question?
4 Q. Go ahead and answer that. Is - __ -"_ , - -
5 was Mr. Damschroder to be an independent,
6 impartial hearing officer here?
7 MS. RICIIARDSCN : Objection.
8 A. Mr. Damschifoder was chosen for the role
9 and conducted it accordance with Ohio law.
10 Q. Okay. And -- but it wasn' t because he
11 was a blank slate, as you were; in other words, he
12 had prior information about circumstances at the
13 Lucas County Board of Elections before this
14 heaying bcgar,didr). t t he?
15 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead.
16 A. Well, it was a public process, so the
17 whole world had information about the problems at
is the Lucas County Board of Elections.
19 ^'`^ . And in fact as the Director of
20 Elections, he was directly responsible for
21 supE'--rvisirg many matters that had been occurring
22 at the Lucas County Board of Elections prior to
23 this hearing, correct?
24 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead.
Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentatian. - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ^ A. He was not - he was not in charge of
2 supervising them. 'I'here were special masters that
3 were sent that included. Keith Cunnincgham and. Arch
4 Kimbrew. But as you well know, the Lucas County
5 Board of Elections operates with the -- the two
6 Democrats and two Republicans that are on the
7 board in conjunction with the directives that are
8 issued through my of f ice . And in cases where they
9 cannot resolve those matters, I am the person
10 '^^ ha t -
Q. Uh - huh .
12 A. --- -- has o-versi 13 Q. Understood. 14 But again as ---- as director of i 5 elections, Mr. Damschroder would have been 16 intimately familiar with many of the things that 17 had happened at the Lucas County Board of 18 Elections before com.mencing this hearing process 19 in May or June of 2014? 20 A. I would hope he would be, yes. 21 Q. Okay. So it is fair to say, is it not, 22 that he was not someone who came to this hearing 23 process without prior information? 24 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 72 A. He was an informed part ieiparat . :(: would want peop'' e tam3_ l A. ar with the operation of a board of elections to oversee any hearing process. 4 So that would be important to nie to have sorriebody that uraderstood. elec:tir.ane be-i.n.g in '^^he role of a 6 hearing officer, so, yes. 7 Q. It - - ax-id in fact it ° s irnport.ant, i ,s-i' t 8 it, that you have some knowledge and exDerience 9 about a board of elections before you serve as a 10 mem..her of a board of eleeti.ons, correct? 1. 1 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead. 12 A. It's preferable. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. Tt' spreferable . And I guess I would 15 also add but not requi.red under the law. 16 Q e Right. In fact, the law only requires 17 that someone be a qualified elector, correct? 18 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 19 A. With additional standa rds. 20 Q. With additional standards. 21 Have you had oecasi_on to review this 22 hear .irg o.r= f ioer report? 23 A. Not recently. 24 Q. Have you ever? Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 73 L A. Well, it was issued to me and I'm sure t: h at I .r_ e vi ewe d it. 3 Q. Did you read it? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Was it part of your £ decieion-rn.aki-n.g process as you considered whether or not to remove certain members of the Board of Elections in Lucas County? ^ A. 1: answered that question earlier, but 1a I'111 answer it aga.i.n. 11 Q. `=['ha.n k you. 12 A. it was a component of it, as well was 13 the traneparencv committee report, the repcr-t 14 i^^-Lied by Mr. :Ru.vol.o ,a.nd. Mr. Allison, and t-he ^5 three and a half years of experie.-n.ce that we had 16 in trying to .r_.e sol.ve the dysfunc-tiona.J_ cul t ure at 17 'the Lu.cas County Eoard of Elections. 18 Q. Okay. Let ' s go to the -- paQe 25 of 19 the hearing officer report. 20 :T-fwe look at -- about k-i.al. fway down the 21- page, we see recommendations were made by 22 Mr. Do.m.schrodex-, ctaxr-ect:? 23 A. Cor.r e c t. 24 Q. And the first one was he found that it ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 7 4 was in:aDroDer, and by a11 agreed that -- -- to adespt and follow a policy for holding regular meetings was a. problem on t'lle part of three board members that are identified trei:-e in the report, correct? A. That 9s what it says, correct. c Q. Okay. The next finding I ' m somewhat 7 unclear on and th.a.t is sort of the generic 8 statement that there was a failure to f-.ile or late 9 f 3-li^g carnpai.qn finance ^-eiDorts and referrals to 10 the Ohio Elections Commission. Do you have any -t- --- 4-dea what that's referr-ing to? 12 A. I believe the Lucas County Board of 13 Elections had not. been auditine-^. and refsr:-rir.ag 14 their couxity party .f_ A.nance -- -- campaign :^i^^^^e A.^ reports. 16 Q. So this was not ---- this was not 17 i candidate matters, this was just the two county 18 I parties? 19 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 20 Q. I: f you know? 21 A. I -- 22 Q. I can't tell. 23 A. I -- that -.-. I'm -- I'm familiar that 24 that was the case. There may be more beyond that ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------75 1 than I'm not fami l iar sari th . But I do know --- I do know the first Enatter. 3 Q. And do you know whether there were any 4 real -- there were any problems with those reports 5 that require referral? 6 A. Well, other than that they weren9 t 7 fi 1 e d in accor dar ce wi t h the ' aza , no. 8 Q. So it's your ---- your conclusion from 9 this recommera.cl.ation that the county parties were 10 not filing with the County Board of Elections? 1.1 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. :l-2 Q. I can' t -. I" m --. --- and I ap o l a g izc. if I 13 seem a little unclear on this. I'm just very 14 unclear as to what this whole topic is about. I 1s have no idea. 16 A. Well, as I read the report, it says "I 17 conclude that the failure of the Lucas County 18 Board of Elections to refer candidate committees 19 to the Ohio Elections Commission for failure te, 20 file and 1.a.te filing o-F campaign finance reports 21 constitutes nonfeasance on the part of 22 Mr. Rothen.btxh--er, Mr. . S tainbrook . . , . 11 23 Ai-id =€: believe that you have deposed 24 Mr. Damschroder and he would be much more able to Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 7 6 1 answer what qiiesti_on tht:a.ri I would since he wrote 2 the report. But to the best of my kxaowledge, J_t 3 involves noncompliance at the Board of Elections 4 for the proper handling of ^ampaigb7 finance 5 repo:rts. 6 Q. He was not able to shed any more light 7 on it, so I __ - but thank you for telling me what 8 you know. 9 MS. RICHARDSO1LT : Csbj ectican. 10 Q. Third -- third recommendation is that 11 Mr. Damschroder concludes that the failure to 12 implement the Allison-Ruvolo recommendations was a 13 neglect of duty on the part of three board 14 members, correct? 15 A. That' s what. it says, correct. 16 Q. Aiad we' ve di scuss ed the AllA. sczn- Ruvoi o 17 recommendatirans. And that was really more of a. 18 nianagement consulting type set o.f_. ^^^^ommendat,ions 19 x at he2^7 than a directive from the Sec~ret ary' , 20 office, correct? 21 MS. RICHARDSON: C}kaj ection. 22 A. It was abl1.ac.print to fix the problems 23 at the Lucas County Board of Elections. So 24 essentially, there were problems that weren't Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC r'! ! fixed. That was a recommendation to fix them, ^ which means that the failure to implement it --- so that tho failure to -4mplo^te^zt it means that the 4 problems that were there still remained. ^ Q. There were other ways that the problems 6 could have been fixed other than the 7 Allison-Ruvolo recommendations, correct? 8 MS. R1CHA1?.DSON: Objection. 9 Q. In other words, that was not the only 10 choice that you were giving the Board of Elections 11 at t^ic ti^no t^-a t report was prepared by the 12 consultants? 13 A. I d.o?-z' tknow what other ways eoul-d have 14 been done. You could ---- you could identify them 15 and I guess we could conclude that there miaht be 16 another way to do it. But these were ways that 17 the Board that had pre-viously not fixed its own 18 problems had a blueprint to fix them and then 19 chose not to. 20 Q. So the -- the roal issue was, the 21 conclusion that Mr. Damschroder reaches, that 22 problems had not been fixed rather than the 23 failure to adopt specific manaQomont consulting 24 recommendations from Allison and Ruvolo -- Realtime - Videocon¢ar©n--ing - Tr^al Presentation -- Video Sneetrum Reportinq LLC 78 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Q. -- is that right? 3 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 4 A. I'm -- I don't -.-- I don't know what the S, underpinning for the recommendation is, hut :[: ' m 6 jus;C. drawing the conc.lusion that I have ',-a-pobi 7 reading it. 8 Q. Okay. The skip down to the eighth 9 recommendation. Do you see the eighth 10 recommendation is that the hearing officer, 1j. Mr. Damschroder, recommends the discharge of both 12 the director and deputy director of the Lucas L 3 County Board of Elections. 14 A. 'ahat's correct. Is Q. Have they been removed? 16 A. I believe one of them has and one of 17 them has not. 18 Q. And the one that has been removed, was 19 that the gentleman deputy director who resigned? 20 A. Yeah. I believe he resigned under his 21 own -- - in his own choosing. 22 Q. And the director, Ms. -- is it Kaczala, 23 is still there? 24 A. Yes. At the time period in which ------ Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC `l.9 ] the Board has explained to me under the time ^ Deri-od in which they had to prepare for the election that we had on Tuesday, they didr-9t -- 4 that they did not ha.-v-e time to do a full overhaul 5 of the staff prior to the commencement of that 6 election but they ful-..y intend on doing so upon 7 its completion. So they have -- and we left the 8 decision on the removal to the Board rather than 9 ^or the Secretary of State to remove them. 10 Because as I tried to go in every elreurnstarxoe to 11 allow the Board to make the-ir own choices whenever 12 we can - - 13 Q. You would 14 A. -- but in this part.icular case, tneY ls have reassured ine that they wil-l. 16 Q. And you -- it' s because you wauld 17 prefer not to have to micromanage the I3oa.rd' s 18 actlviti.es? 19 A. Amen. 20 Q. And one last question from the hearing 2y- o-f-.f_.icer report, and that is I note that the 22 recommendations were made here to remove three 23 board members and not the fourth, a gentleman by 24 the name of John. Irish. Has that actually Realtime - V4.deoeflnferericirg - Trial PresenL ation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ^5C3 , 1 happened here? We had three board members 2 removed: Two Republicans, one Democrat, but not 3 the other Democrat, correct? 4 A. Has shrha. te 5 Q . The -- -- my understanding is that --- that 6 the recommendations coming from the hearing 7 officer were to remove Mr. DeGi-dio, 8 Mr. Stainbrook, Mr. --- I believe 4t' S 9 RoWherbuhler? 10 A. Rothenbuhler. W1 Q. Rothenbuhler and to retain Mr. Irish as 12 a member of the Board. 13 A. That. was what the transparency 14 cc.m.mittee recommended, and I and. I accepted - 5 their recomrn.endat,icn. 16 Q. Okay. And that was despite the fact 17 that apparently there was some alterc:at-i.c :^. tha^^^ 18 Mr. Irish was in on the primary night on. May thc. 19 6th, 2014? 20 MS. RICHARDSON: (3bj ection. 21 A. I believe that was the case, yes. 22 Q. Okay. Letps go back again to page 2 of 23 your report. And that is apparently you had 24 supervisors or special masters to provide direct Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------8^ operational oversight of the 2012 presidential 2 election, Mr. .Cunni.ngham and Mr. Kimbrew? 3 A. That's correct. Keith Cunningham is 4 the former director of the Allen County Board of 5 Elections and a previous officer in the Ohio 6 Association of Election Officials. And Arch 7 Kimbrew and he, and a Republ ican , And Arch 8 Kimbrew, former director of the Geauga County 9 Board of Elections who also has -- had a stellar 10 record in service in his community. 11 Q. Did that special master oversight .^2 prooess go well? 13 A. Did it go well? Well, it -- -- there were 14 aspects of it t.l^zat I felt did and there were 1s aspect sthat I that I fe1-t did not.. 16 Q. Were there probl.ems that arose with 1.7 Mr. CYtxnningham' s behavior on the night of the 18 election of 2012? 19 A. I'm unaware of tha°t . 20 Q. You're not aware of that at all? 21 A. No. 22 MS. RICHARDSON: Obj ection. 23 24 Thereupon, Relator's Exhibit H is marked Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 82 1 for purposes of identification. 2 3 Q. Mr^. Secretary, I° ve Yiarrded you what ' s 4 been marked for purposes of identi_ficatirarr as 5 RPlator° s Exhibit 1S . Again I apo1.ogi. ze . "€7he 6 copying for some reason has c-ut off the sticker, 7 bu. tit is H. 8 Can you t^l'L us what that document is? 9 A. It is a letter to the Secretary of 10 State° s officc, Elections Divisiorr to the attention .^ 1 of Myra Hawkins from i^^ Stainbrook, the Chairman 12 of the Republican Party of Lucas County. 13 Q. And did you ever have occasion to 1 4 review this letter? 15 A. have not. 16 Q. Okay. I notice that it was copied to 17 you but yc3u did not review it? .^ 8 A. I doxi' ^reca' l seeing uhe letter. 19 Q. Okay. Did you ever review the contents 20 of --he letter? 21 A. I d id not __ __ I don' ^ recall doing so. 22 Q. One of the things that° s in there, for 23 example, is the -- the b^^ume of Kelly Bensman, 24 who is one of the suggested appointees from the Real-time -v Videoconferencing -- Tr4 a' FresentatWon - V_-1cieo Spectrum Reporting LLC S3 Lucas County Republican Party. Do you ever recall re4„T.i.ew-ing her resurci6? A. I recall being bri.ofod. by staff on the 4 recommendation, but I don't roo.all personally roviowing the resum^--. Q. Okay. Do you recall reviewing the rosum6 of Mr. Ben Roberts who is also a 8 recommendod. person for the Lucas County Board of ^ Elections? 10 A. Similarly, I -- I don't recall ^1 specifically reviewing the rc-su.m4-. But I do 12 recall being in a staff briefing. And obviously 13 he was a grev.ious employee during my torzure as 14 Secretary of State as the Lucas County Board of is Elections, so I am famili.ar with him. W^ Q. Have you. ever met him? 17 A. :l: probably have. But I c3.ori' t-.-- you 18 know, I don't recall specifically having a--- you 19 know, a conversation with him. 20 Q. Would you be able to recognize him? 21 A. Maybe. 22 Q. Do you realize he's sitting here in thc- 23 room? 24 A. No. Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 64 7 Q. Have you ever me WKelly Bensman? A. I have. Q. You have? 4 A. Uh-huh. Q. Arid under what eirc:umsL.anc:es? ^ A. At a. -- at aii event sometime 1° ErE sur-e. ^ Q. Like apcsl.itica1. event of some kir3.d or 8 other? 9 A. Sure. 10 Q. Okay. Other than that, did you have 11 any personal information regarding Ms. Bensman? 12 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead 13 and answer. 14 A. Persor_al information? 1. 5 Q. Yes. Have --- have you ever had arry 16 personal eneo-uraters with Ms. BerismasY? 117 A. Other thaxi casual aequa-intance hellor I 18 dorz' t recall ever -- - 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. -- having much of a conversation, no. 21 Q. When the letter was received by your 22 office recommending the appointment of Ms. Bensmaxa 23 and Mr. Roberts to the Board of Education of Lucas 24 County, as I understand your testimony it is that ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 85 ; i you did not review the letter and its contents 2 personally? 3 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can 4 answer. 5 A. I - - I was briefed on it as is , customary in our, office. We receive lo-ts of 7 information. I : 9 s my job of .the - - i.t° s the job 8 of the st-;a:Ef aW^o collect that information, condense 9 it, yand give me a :cepor W^ on the relavai-zt ma W ters 10 at hand. 11 Q. Okay. And in this case who provided 12 you that briefing report? 13 A. Probably would have come through my 14 chief of staff Halle Pelger. .^ 5 Q. Other than Halle Pelger f would you have 16 spoken to anyone else regarding these 17 recommendations? 18 A. I would imagine that perhaps 1egal 19 ccaunsel- would have been insrolved. Because when 20 it9s dealing with most rtiattersswe would US-Lially 21 have somebody from the I_egal staff in the room. 22 MS. RICHARDSON: And. I would instruct 23 you at that point not to reveal any 24 attorney/ client privileged communications. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation . Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 86 Q. And I -- -- and, Mr. Secretary, :1 would not ask you to give us any advic-e that you received froni counsel. 1'm simply trying to find 4 out the ident-ities of inciivi.duall-s with whom you may have discussed these proposed recommendations. ^ A. There could have been others, but I 7 I dor ° t recall specifically. Most ---- most of the 8 gi:7ocess that goes on in our office is to have a 9 central point of contact. The chie-f of staff is 10 the central po-i_nL. of contact :i_n my office and - - 1j ancF. the chief of staff will make sure that anybody 12 that needs to be in on the conversation is in the 13 room at the t^.m.e we have them. Anci. 1don' t 14 remember specifEically if anybody else was in the 15 room, although usually my chief elections ^ourse1- 16 Jack Christopher would be. 17 Q Okay. 18 A. Because heys in eha^^ge of c^nduct:irig 19 any background checks or rc views. 20 ^ . Do you know whether any background 21 checks or reviews were done in this case for Mr. 22 - - Ms. Bensman or Mr. Roberts? 23 A. I presume. 1Dresume they were. But I 24 dczn ' t -- - I dcan°t recall off the top of my head ------ Rea1.time a Videocc^n-Lerenci.rg - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 87 1 whethc-- Zwas told that there were. And again, I 2 think we' re getting into the legal area here. 3 MS. h1CHARUSC+N: And, again, to the 4 extent that an answer wouid recruire you to reveal 5 advice or information from your counsel, I would 6 instruct you not to answer. 7 Q. And I agree with that. And 1' m not 8 asking you that. I want to know what facts you 9 had before you as you reviewed and entered into 10 the decision-making process to reject these two 11 nominations. A. Y^^el1r the relevant i-nattersi i.-f ycu. are 13 asking about 7-cj ectiox-3. - - 14 Q. LTh - huh . I am. 15 A. -- which is the point you're trying t^ 16 get to. 17 Q. Cox- r ec ^., , 18 A. In the matter of Mr. Roberts, in his 19 own resignation letter p^evicausiy he had indicated 20 that he was not up to the job of essentially 21 changing the culture at the Lucas County Board of 22 Elections. 23 Q. As director? 24 A. And by his own admission of not being Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 8 S ] able to do so, that was a primary factor in that he had been involved 4-n the culture of dysfu.nct^or 3 in the p a. st and that he had i ndicat e d in his own 4 resignat-ion that he did not reeW that he had the 5 capacity to o ha nge i. f ; . 6 Q. You were referring to Mr. Roberts' 7 brief terixxre as the ex -- as the director of '^^he 8 Lucas County Board of Electionse' 9 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 10 A. 1'm referring to his -- --- his letter that 11. he sent. 12 Q. When he resigned from that position? 13 A. When he resigned from the position. 14 Q. Right. And you would agree with me 1-5 that being in the pa^iti-oxa of the employed 16 di. re^toris very dif.f- er ent -t; hu.ri serving as a board 17 member, correct? 18 MS. RIC:HARDSONo Oka-;ection. 19 A. It is a differPnt position, but again, 20 the relevant matter here was changl-nq the cu1wure, 21 the dys:F^nct:ioria1 ctjltiz.r-.e at the Lucas ^o-un^y 22 Board of .Elect d-ora.s. Arid by hl.s own admission, ~ie 23 had _i. ridi^ ated that he did ^^ ot feel he coul- d. do s ra . 24 Q. As executive director takine-^ orders ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Sgectrum. Reporting LLC 1 from the Board of Eleetions rcorrect? 2 MS. RICHARDSON: Objeet.ion: 3 A. His capacity was that of a -- as the 4 director of the Board of Elections. In his letter 5 he said that he did not feel he could impact it or 6 change it. He didn' t say if only ? were the Board 7 ohairma:-l, :S: could o.hange it. He just sa.-Ld that he 8 di-dn' t feel he could change it. 9 Q. Do you have any idea what Mr. Roberts ' 10 professional background is? 11 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 12 A. I'm sure I was briefed on it, but :l: 13 don't recall it. It's right here in -- in the 14 records, so -_. - 15 Q. But you don't remember ever looking at 16 his resumP, f:or exaniple? 17 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. That Is mischaracterizes the testimony. 19 MR. TODD: I'm asking him if he 20 recalls. 21 A. :l: was briefed on his background and on 22 his history. And obviously :l= knew of his tenure 23 in his role at the Eyoard of Elections. So his -- 24 his work was not unfamiliar to me. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectruan. Reporting LLC ^''3 0 1 Q. But other than that brief encounter 2 during his time period as executive director or 3 director of the Board of Elections, you can't 4 recall any other specifics of his baekgroundr 5 A. Well, those were the relevant matters 6 in terms of the Board of Elections, and so that's 7 what I was most focused on. 8 Q. So you we r e most .r=. ocuse d oi-i the 9 language of his letter of resignation when. he 10 resigned as director of zhe. :^:,^.^..e^a.s Count.y Board of 11 Elections? 12 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 13 Q. Is that -- is that fair? ^4 MS. RICHARDSON: You can answer. 15 A. His tenure, the experience that my 16 staff had with his tenure at the Board of 17 E1.ections. And by his own admission, an inability 18 to change the dysfunctional culture. And by his 19 own admission, that he did not feel he could 20 impact that change. 21 Q. Okay. Were there any other factors 22 that came to your attention regarding Mr. Roberts 23 other than what you've already described that 24 influenced your decision to re1ect the appointment Realtime Videoec^n^eren; Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum 1.eporting LLC 1 of Mr. Roberts to the Lucas County Board of 2 E1.ect4-or.zs? 3 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 4 A. What I described was my primary reason 5 for doing so. 6 Q. Okay. Did you have any knowledge of 7 hiecompp e tence as a p+ rcz fe^siona l 7 8 MS. R I CF-^:A.RDSON . Ob je c t i ozx . Go ahe ad. 9 A. His experience at the Lucas County 10 Board of Elections . And his failure under his own 11 admission to be unable to change the culture, the 12 dysfunctional cu:lture at the Board was -- -- was very 13 .i-mportant. in making that decision . 'I'he se were riot 14 words that were put -- these were his own words, 15 it was his own admission. 1. 6 Q. Did you have any reason to question his 17 integrity? 18 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 19 A. I - I don't reca.ll integrity being a 20 comoonent of the decision-making process. 21 Q. Did you know that his expertise is in 22 high 1-evel infar-ination systems man.e..gement°? 23 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 24 A. I was aware he had ars. IT background. ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 92 ^ Q. Okay. But did you have any idea what level he had performed at before this particular 3 appointment in June of 2014? 4 A. I was not -- again, t.he process that we ^ go through is to focus on the Lucas County Board 6 of E-lc.ctWons and people -- and appointing people 7 to that job that could change the culture of 8 dysfunction that existed at the Board. And I did 9 not feel based czn the body of experience that we 10 had with Mr. Roberts and by his own admission in I1 his own resignation letter that he could be a 12 positive change agent, and therefore lacked the 13 c=patency to do what we were attempting to 14 achieve. 15 Q. Would you agree with me that that's 16 somewhat speculative on your part to make that - - 17 to jump to that conclusion? 18 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 19 A. I would not believe it ps siDecula.t.i-sre. 20 Q. Okay. Let °s talk a little bit about 21 Ms.Bensm.an.. You mentioned t.hau you had met her 22 perhaps at apcalitical event at one time or 23 another. ilave had no other encounters with her I 24 take it, other than -- Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 93 1 A. To the best of I knowledge. 2 Q. Understood. Understood. 3 A. I Eneet thousands and thousands of 4 people, and I don ' t. remember -- 5 Q. All over the state. 6 A. I do.n. ° t remember every J_1171teractZon that I have. 8 Q . R-ight. 9 But you di.d. not have occasion to 10 specifically review her resum6_ and her background 11 and experience at __ - did you, as a part of this ^. 2 appointment process or rejection process? 13 A. I -- 14 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead. 1.5 A. I received a",oriefing on her 16 background. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. But she was not unfamiliar to me in 19 terms of -_-- of the matter of the Board of 20 Elections because she had been intimately a.nvolved in many meetings with my staff and she was part of 22 the public testimony in the transparency 23 committee. 24 Q. And what do you recall she was involved ------ Realti.me -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 94 1 -- what kind of meetings was she invc3l-vec3 in with 2 your sta-Ef? 3 A. I know that ---- that Mr. Stainbrook 4 would refuse to meet with my staff unless Kelly 5 was allowed to be in the meetings with him. 6 Q. Okay. And how is that a factor that 7 would weigh either positively or negatively in 8 Ms. Bensman.' sfitness to serve as a^ember of the 9 Lucas t"'eaunty Board of Elections? 10 MS. RICHARP}SON. Objection. 1.A A. Well, Qn. -- on its own, it's a 12 component of the fact that she was involved in the 13 ope r a t i. on s as e_i. t he::^ in afe; rErt.a l or i nf-orma.l. 14 a.dv-i.ser, I don' tknow if there was afi.narici.al 15 relationship or not, of the operation of the Board 16 of 5=,1_ect.io:r3.s and in terms of that capacity. Whe:n. 17 you are having official rneeti.nqs and a person is :t. 8 in the rooTris they' r^ part of the process. 19 Q. And part of the process d.oesn' t 20 disqualify someone from being appointed to a board 21 of elections, though? 22 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 23 Q. I -- 24 A. That's a statement, not a question. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 95 1 Q. Well, the question is: What about the ^ fact- that she was inrol.ved in meetings regarding 3 the Lucas County Board of Elections in your mind 4 became a d.isqual.a.fying factor for her to be dis -V -- 5 to be appointed? 6 MS.RICHARL7SJNo Chj ec tican_ And I 7 think it assumes facts ncat. in evidence and 8 mischaracterizes the testimony. 9 A. It -- on its own, it wouldn ° t. 10 Q. ®kay. 11 A. It would be - - it was in the end a 12 contributing factor. Because, understand, what is 13 not in auesti..3n from -- from years and the public 14 testimony is that the culture of the Lucas County 15 Board of Elections was tcxic fwas dysfunctional. 16 There had been numerous efforts made, and we 17 needed to have a clean start to make sure that we 18 cleaned up the Board of Elections. And 19 Ms. Bensman was involved in that process at the 20 Lucas County Board of Elections from the very 21 kaegiinnirxg from meetings that she was involved in 22 with my staff, the public testimony indicating her 23 in-vt.a1^^emc.r.t at the Board, and the part of the rec 24 --- and that was made very clear from the public ------ Realtime 5,74deoconf©rercWzxg - Tri al Presentation - vldea 8pect-rum Reporting LLC 3 6 1 testimony and the report that L.he transparency 2 committee provic3.ed. 3 Q. I see nothing in what yonx' vo said that 4 would make -- that constit-utos either a au.a1.A..f_.yis-).sT 5 or disqualifying factor. Am I wrong here? You 6 7 A . You are wrong there. 8 Q. Okay. Well, and why? I ' m trying to 9 find out why. I'm trying to find out what 10 concrete facts - -_ 11 A. My j ob - -- 12 Q. -- and circumstances - - 13 A. My job as the Soorotary of State and 14 the body of work that occurred, three and a half 15 years of complete and utter failure at the Lucas 16 County Board of Elections; a dysfunctional 17 oul t;are . And -- and Kelly Bensman according to my 18 staff on a number of meetings that she was 19 involved in, aocor ding to the transparency 20 committee report, was an intimate participant in 21 the culture and creating the dysfunctional culture 22 at the Lucas County Board of Elections. And that 23 is the basis on which we disqualified her as 24 competent to serve in that capacity as a board Realii:re -- Videoconferer:cinc^ - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum ^.eportizzg LLC 77 ^ n ^ Q. And you.'v-e repeated that a number of 3 times. I'm sti^.l lookincg for a specific set of 4 circumstances that you relied on to reach that 5 conclusion. Not just a generic, you know, she was 6 part of a culture of dysfunction. _-- you know, 7 you left people on the Board who are allegedly 8 part of this culture of dysfunction. 9 MS. RICHARDSON: O:ojec t ion to the 10 characterization and the testimony. I'm not sure -. l what the question is. 1.2 Q. I -- well, I'm looking for a specific 13 set of facts and circumstances that upon which 14 this decision-making process was based. i5 A. I've described the body of work under 16 which I made the decision. 17 Q. Okay. But there ---- you cannot recall 18 any specific facts or circumstances? 19 MS. RICHARDSON: Ohj ection . 20 A. There is -- - there are a number of 21 specific facts and ci.rcurr;stances that remain in 22 the public reeord on t.he matter that you can 23 consult. 24 Q- Okay. Do you know whether any Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 9Ei 1 background report or investigation was done on ^ es t her Mr. -- Ms. Bensman or Mr. Roberts prior to 3 you reached the conclusion on not appointing them 4 to the 'Uucas County Board of Elections? 5 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 6 A. That would be a legal matter. 7 Q. Well, I' zn. not asking for a legal 8 opinion. I'm asking for facts. 9 A. I don9t know about the timing of it. I 10 couldn' t---- I coul-dn 9 t validate it one way or the 11 other. 12 Q. Okay. So you don"t know whether or not 13 anything like that was done? 14 MS. RICHARDSON: Ob-Ject ion.. :1_ 5 A. It's -- I can describe our cust.oniary 16 -orocedure. 17 Q. That would be helpful. 18 A. Which is -- which is 19 Q. That would be helpful. 20 A. Which is to do a review of the 21 participants and of that includes background 22 check. 23 Q. Okay. And do you know whether that was 24 done in this case? Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 99 1 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Asked and 2 answered. 3 Q. Well, just to clear up the record. Do 4 you know whether that was done in this case or 5 not? 6 A. I bel:ieve it was. 7 Q. Okay. Was there anything that res -alted 8 from the background check that played a role in 9 your decision not to confirm the appointments of 10 Mr. Robert s or Ms _ Bensman to the __ - to the Lucas 11 County Board of Elections? 12 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You car^i 13 an swer . 14 THE WITNESS: I can? 15 Q. Yeah. 16 A. I° m not aware of anything off of the 17 top of my head that were in the background checks 18 that would have disqualified it on its own. 19 Q. Okay. Mr. Secretary, I' m going to hand 20 to you vahat' sbeen marked for purposes of 21. identification as Relator°s Exhibit I and ask you 22 to identify what that document is if you can. 23 24 Thereupon, Relator's Exhibit I is marked Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC a. 00 1 for, purposes of identification. 2 3 A. It's a letter to ^.Ton Stainbrook, the 4 Chair of the Lucas County Republ-ioan Party, signed 5 by me with i7ospe-ct to the Lucas County Republican 6 Party Executive Committee's recommendations to 7 appoint Kelly Bensman and Benjamin Roberts. 8 Q. Mr. Secretary, did you prepare this 9 letter? 10 A. I did not prepare it. But I reviewed 11 it, found it to be accurate and signed it. 12 Q. W0 l. l. , lc: t ' s -- -- l et ' s t a lk ab o;.x t t h i s 13 letter then. The ---- it begins with. the rec.itat:ion 14 of a part of Ohio Revised Code 3501.06 a.nd. .07. 1.5 'S':ti.o se are the statutes pursuant to which the 16 aiDpoir?tment process to a board of elections occurs 17 under Ohio law, correct? 18 A. Uh-huh. ^9 Q. And as T understand it, the statute 20 that we're talking about specifically -- let me 2= gi.-vo it to you so you have it in front of you 22 while we talk about this. Ae3.d. aTDo7_ogizo if it's 23 confusing to have two exhibits in front of you at 24 once, but I think it' s-- it's helpful to do so Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------10^. 1 that you can have it. I'm going hand you wha.t ' e 2 been marked previously as Relator's Exhibit J. 3 1t' s the entire statute. 4 I think this is probably a good time to 5 talk a little bit about this appointment process. 6 As Iunderstarzd it, that this statute proVicl.es and 7 has for many years now, correct, this is this 8 statue has not been changed in many, many years in 9 any material way; is that correct? 10 11 Thereupon, Relator's Exhibit J is marked for p,zrposes of identification. 13 14 MS. RI CI-iARDSON : Okay. I ' m - - 1> A. I don't know when the law was enacted. 16 Q. Well, we know i t was effective at least 17 in March of 1972, ccarrect -- 18 A. I don't know th.at. But 19 Q . Well -- 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. - if you look at Exhibit J, that tells 22 us. 23 MS. RICHARDSON: Object.ion. 24 A. Well, according to the document you Realtime - Videoconferencing - Tria3. Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------W 1 provided, that wcaul-d be the case. 2 Q. okay. The iarocess is set up such that 3 the county executive committee of each major 4 pol-Ji.tica.l pa-rty is entitled to the appoisitTnerit of 5 -- to members to vacancies :iri a braard of 6 electiorxsy icarrect7 7 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 8 A. Well, you -- as you know as an 9 attorney, you have to take the statute in total 10 not in par-ses. 11 Q. agree. :L 2 But the --- in the f irst instance as the 13 process begins, the way the sta.tutoxy scheme is A. 4 constructed is that the two major pol i t icai 15 parties -i-n a cUui-ity are enti.tled, as it says 16 expressly in t h e st a t ut e - - 17 A. That' s the process for the parties. 18 Q. Correct. 19 A. The process that I have to follow deals 20 with thc. Secretary of State's authority. 21 Q. Right. And the first thing it says in 22 the statate is that you shall appoint unless you 23 have reason to believe that they would not be a 24 competent member of the Board, correct? Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------103 1 A. Tha.tts -- 2 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. And the 3 d.oc uEnent is in the record and speaks fox- itsolf. 4 A. I La s -- -- 5 MS. RICHARDSON: But - - 6 A. Exactly. Shall -_.- _i-t says "secretary 7 of state shal.l- appoint such an elector, unless the 8 sooratary . . .has reason to believe that the a"ootor 9 would not be acompotent rnombez of s-uc:t-3. board. °F 10 Q. Okay. That somewhat ambiguous phrase 11 of "competent member of the board" is a littlo 12 opaque. Do you havc, any specific standards or any 13 kind of guidelines or framework in your office 14 that would tell you when soineone is a coFnpet-ent 15 member or not? 16 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can 17 answer. 18 A. In this -- in this discussion that ..- 9 wP ° re h,a.vinaF it Fs not amatt.er of whether 20 somobodyys a. c:omp^'Lont po rson . paop A.e -- plenty 21 of ppeopl^.^ can be oompetont people. It f s a matter 22 of in the course of serving as a board of 23 elections member, the person is competent in 24 oxPro A.sing -those duties. Realtime - videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 104 1 In Mr. Roberts" case, by his c3wn- admi-ssion he did not have the competency level to do this. And by -srirtue of the three and a hallf 4 years of experience that we had with the Lucas ^r- County Board of Elections and the interactions 6 with my staff at the. Lucas County Board and the 7 interactions and the information that we had from 8 the transparency committee, it was c]_ear that 9 during that time Kelly Bensman had been intimately 10 involved in the operations at thc. Lucas County 11 Board of Elections through her i.bY-volvement and 1. 2 presence at the Board. And it was the ^^^iclusion that she was a con-tr-ibut i.nQ :Eactor i-n the 14 dysfan.cti.onal_ culture at the Board. And I believe 15 t]-3.at on that basis that her conipetency was not[-, 16 adequate for what. we ^^ede-d to do to serve the 17 public trust at the Lucas County Board. of 18 Elect3_^ns. 1.9 Q. Mr. Secretary, I take A.t that -- -- from 20 your answer that there are no written guidelines 21 or prcacedii.r_.es in your o.^fi.ce for aacertairiing 22 W^I.ether sorriecane is competent or nc}t? 23 MS. P1CI-TARDSON^ ob-; ect:i.oxi. 24 A. The Revised Code. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 105 1 Q. The Revised Code. 2 And you've -- you'v-e told us on several 3 occasions here that you scrupulously adhere to 4 Ohio law in terms of this process, correct? 5 A. rl"he.t ' e oo.r_ rect . 6 Q. Arad are you aware of the fact that 7 there is a. etatement of what oor..,:petenoe means in 0 this context as articulated by the Ohio Supreme 9 Court? 10 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 11 A. Could I reeite, it to you at the moment, 12 no. Would T -v- would my legal team be aware of 13 it, yes. 4 Q. Are you aware of it, what it is? ^5 MS. RICHARDSON: Obq ection . And I' m 16 going to object generally. I' m not sure what you 17 are asking. Are you asking him to recite and 18 interpret lega1. opinions that are out there 19 regarding this statute? 20 MR. TODD: No. I' m asking him whether 21 he knows that the Ohio Supreme Court has announced 22 a standard. 23 MS. RICHARDSON: Well, I'm going to 24 disagree with that characterization, first of all, Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 106 1 and object to this 1Wne of questioning. MR. TODD : That ' s fine. 3 MS. RICHARDSON: And - - 4 MR . TODD : You can go ahead and answer. 5 MS. RICHARDSON: I'm not sure what the 6 question is for him to answer. I f we -- 7 Q. ='=.f_ he is awar^e whether -v- excuse me, 8 and I apologize for in.terrupting. 9 7:t' s very sirrEple. It is whetli.€vr the Secretary is aware that the Ohio Suprerrie Court has er_uncLatPd a standard at what determines 12 corn.pet.eiiGy under 3502.. 07 of the Ohio Revised Code? 13 MS. RICHARDSON: And again. I'm going to 14 disagree to this line of questioning. If we want L5 to go off the record and havc, alega1 discussion 16 about what the Supreme Court interpretation 17 entai1sfwe can d? scuss that. But there' s no 18 sense in taking up Mr. .Secretary' s time to discuss W 9 t, h. i s. 20 MR. TODD : I simply want to know 21 whet.her he is aware of tha.t fact , that it has in 22 fact been addressed. 23 A. :[: believe that's what we're here to do 24 today is to take a case to the. Supreme Court to Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 107 1 determine whether we complied with this. 2 Q. But are you aware of the fact that this 3 issue had already been decided by the Supreme 4 Court? 5 A. Ther e are - - there are -- -- there are a 6 r-i-urnber of court cases that provide gui.dax:.ce i.n 7 this r. n.at ter. 8 Q. Would you agree with me that the ------the 9 appropriate definition of cornpetence to apply is 10 whether the person possess the intelligence, 11 capability, and experience to discharge the duties 12 of a member of a county bc>ard of elections? 13 MS. RICHARDSON: Objecti.on. You can -- i4 Q. Would you agree or disagree that that 15 is the standard for competence to be used? 16 A. Ycau' re reading through something I 17 casi pt see. 18 Q. I'll be happy to share it s,,rith you in a 19 minute. But would you agree with me that that is 20 the defi.b7ition of competence to be appl-^ed? 21 MS.RICHARD^ONe And if we' re going to 22 ask for interpretations of the Supreme Court -- 23 MR. TODD: I ' m not asking for 24 interpretati.ons. I'm just asking for what it is Realtime -Videocanferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ... :.^ ^^ 1 says. 2 MS. RICHARDSON: And you' ve handed him 3 a document without entering it into the record or 4 providing us with a copy, so I-- 5 A. Well, Iaskod him for it. Iaskod. him 6 f or it. 7 Q. IIo asked me for i.t. 8 A. He can have it back. 9 Q. And you can have it 10 MS. RICHARDSON: Arad '-f I could ask you 11 what we' re looking at? 12 MR. TODD : Absolutoiyr You coi-taiazly 1. 3 may. We ar-o looking at t.he oon.ourrin.g opinion of 14 Jus'L-:ice Cupp i.n the case of State ex re1. Summit 1.a County Repuhlican. Party Executive CoMmittoe versus 16 Jennifer ErS.znner, Secretary of State. It is case 17 No. 1W8 Ohio St . 3rd 515. This happens to be i8 paragraph 72 of that opinion i_n which Justice Cu.pp 19 enunciates the standard of c^^npetency to be 20 appl.ied. by the Secretary of State in determining 21 the circumstances under 3501.07 of the Ohio 22 Revised Code. 23 MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you. I'm well 24 aware of the opinion. And I'm going to continue Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC W09 1 my obj octio:e3. to the oxt,orat th^-:it we are aska..ng the 2 Secretary for :Logall intorprotat-i_ons of a 3 corcurri-A-Eg opinion that, ^gair_9 we as c:ou:e3.sol can 4 discuss off the record to the extent you firid it 5 rzooessa.r_.y- 6 MR. TODD: No. 7 MS. RICHARDSON: It's an ira.ppropria.to 8 l'i-no of deposition quPstA.oz-a=g. 9 MR. TODD: Thank you for your opinion. 10 I am not a^k-ing him for a legal opinion. I. am 11 asking him whether he is factually aware of the 12 fao.t that the Siipprom€= Oourt in aii a1most identical :t. 3 case has already enunciated a. st^i-idard for 14 competency ari.d whiothor or s-iot: that standard is -i_n 1_ 5 fa.ct in effect at the Secretary's office. 16 MS. RICHARDSON: Could we go off the 17 record for a moment, please. 18 MR. TODD: No. 19 MS. RICHARDSON: Okay. That's fine. 20 Again, we are now talking about legal 21 intorprotat i_ons. You have offerod your 22 characterization of this case, including your 23 opinion that it is identical. Obviously these are 24 legal 4-ssuos that we will discuss on the merits in Realtime - Videoconferencing - Triam Presentation - Video Spectrum. Reporting LLC 1 this matter and about which we will disagree. 2 This is an inappropriate line of questioning. If 3 you are -- - if you ° re asking him what his 4 uxider-stand.lng of competence is * then I object to 5 t1i.at because -it ; s been asked and answered. 6 MR.'S'C'^DD: Wel.l , I' m asking him whether 7 he agrees that this i-s the standard of o.orrtpetence 8 to be applied. "Z'hat° s all. 9 MS. RICHARDSON: I° m going to continue 10 my objection. 1.1 MR. TQDD : That ° s fine. ?2 Q. Do you zagi-ee, Mr. Secretary, that the -1.3 d.ef:i.nition that we ax-e talking about is a sta2-:.dard 14 to be applied in determining whether someorie is 15 coErLpetent as a member of a county board of 16 e:^.e^t3-ons? 17 A. The process that our legal team goes 1€3 through is to read the law -- 19 MS. RICHARDSON: And - - 20 p . To read -- read. - - 21 MS. RICHARDSON: Let me just interject 22 here, that to the extent we start getting into the 23 process of the legal team, that would be 24 privileged and I will instruct you not to answer. Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentat-LQn - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 1_€. _.- ^ MR. TODD: And I agree with that. 2 Q. I Pm not asking about any ad.vice yoaa " re 3 getting legally. But as the decision-maker who 4 has to make this decision, I want to know what 5 practi.cal standard you are appplyirig in determining 6 competency. 7 A. Mr. Todd, I was attempting to answer 8 that question when you cut me off. 9 Q. Your counsel cut you off, but -- 10 A. No. You di. d . 11 What I was describing to you is that we 12 review tho. Revised Code as our guidance. As you 13 know you, you pointed out this has been 14 established since 1972. The Supreme Court has 15 woi.ghed in on this matter numerous times. There 16 are a variety of opinions within that history that 17 lecsal counsel I' r: sure uses to come to the 18 conclusions for the recommendations they provide 19 me. I outlined for you earlier my determination 20 of what corrup of" the staradard that Iusod. to 21 make my determination on compo:tc:nc y o We are hoi-o 22 in a case that ;s going -- that' s a m.a.ttor beforo 23 t.he Supreme Court and they will dotor-Tniiio whothor 24 or not I used the right standax-d. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------11. 2 1 Q Q. That F ^ correot. .i. agxoo ^,.y3_th that. 2 Thank you. 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Excuse me, counsel. 4 I'm sorry. 5 MR. TODD: Okay. 6 THE VIEEGGRAPHER This cli sk is out of 7 space. I have to change, if that' s okay. 8 MR. TODD: Oh. Can we take a:oreak? 9 Ho' ;^ going to have to chango, 1-i.is tape. 10 THE WITNESS: Sure. 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: All right. Thank 12 you. We' re off the record at 12:26. 13 (A short recess is taken.) 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Wo' re back on the 15 record at 12 ; 40 . 16 Q. Mr. Secretary, before we took the break 17 to change our vi.dootapo F we were talking about the 18 process as i.t' s outlined in the Ohio Revised Code L9 for appointment of members to a county board of 20 elections. I think it°s -- it's pretty obviously 21 a -- designed to be a bipartisan process. Would 22 you agree srrri_th tha.t.? 23 A. The Ohio system of operations of board 24 of elections is designed to operate in a Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation W Video Spectrum Reporting LLC .^. .^. .:5 ] bipartisan maniyer with the aecretary of State as ^ the tiebreaker when those issues cannot be 3 reso lved. . 4 Q. And that t s why we haYre provisions, for ^ example, that each one of the two major pol.it.ica'- 6 part.ies recommends who shall ser-ve on the board of 7 elections? MS. RICHARDSON: okajection. P A. I believe that that is -- was likely 10 part of the motivation for passing this statute as 11 it is. 12 Q. And you would agree with me that it ° s 13 important to preserve that bipartisan na.ture of 14 the systern, to make sure ths.t the interests of both 15 major political parties are properly represented 16 as we admi:a.ister elections? 1.7 A. Yes. ig Q. And that -- again, tha.t ° s part of a 19 process of ensur--ng p^L..;olic confidence in. the 20 system., that both parties are adequately 21 represented in the ...... in the execution and the 22 administration of an election? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. The decision as it is set forth in the Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------1i4 1 -- in the Revised Code to either appoint or not 2 appoint a recommended potential board member, is 3 that that you in your capacity as Secretary of 4 State must make, correct? 5 MS. RICHARDSON: Obj ectiorz. '^.'^©u can 6 answer if you understand. 7 A. Can you re - - repeat the - - 8 Q. Yeah. Let me rephrase it, too. 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. You know, we've talked a little bit 11 about this, but the -- as the process works, the 12 -- let's take one party to make it simple. A 13 party wil'L recommend an individ;zai for a vacancy 14 on a board of elections and the Secretary shall 1E; appoint unless you have reason to believe that 16 that individual is not a competent -- will not be 17 a competent member of the board, correct? 18 A. That' s how the statute reads, correct. 19 Q. Okay. And then if the pa.rty doesn't 20 agree with the decision, we wind up in a case like 21 this where the Supreme Court gets to break that 22 t i e if you w-i I le' 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Okay. Let ' s go back to what we had Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 1 previously marked as Exhibit I. And Ibeli.eve you 2 told us that this -- this is the letter that you 3 directed to Mr. Stai nbrook as the Chairman of the 4 Republican party in Lucas County, signaling or 5 re-vealing that you had rejected Kelly Bensman and ^ Mr. Roberts to fs.ll- the vacancies in the Lucas 7 County Board of Elections, correct? 8 A. 'I'hat ° s cor.r ect . 9 Q. One of the things that you have 10 testified about and in fact you specifically say 11 in the letter, and. Iern referring now to paragraph 12 4 on the first page of the letter, that you di.dn°t 13 want to appo.i.nt anyonie "connected with. the 14 problems of the past that have ied to these 15 vacanc.l.es.;° And you' ve applied those criteria to 16 Mr. Roberts and. Ms. Bensman, but there are st3_l.A. 17 people on the Board who I think we would fairly be 18 able to say, such as Mr. Irish, who are connected 19 to the problems of the past? 20 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 21 C2 . Correct? 22 MS. RICHARDSON: Gbj ection . Go ahead. 23 A. The transparency committ.ee ` s 24 recommendation was that Mr. Irish was a new Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 116 1 appointee, at least newest of aI.l of the -- the 2 persons on the Board, and that^ he had made efforts 3 to irripiernent the Ruvolo-Allison report. And it 4 was their recommendation that he should be 5 reprimanded but not removed, of which he was 6 reprimanded and not removed. 7 Q. Okay. But he nevertheless was 8 connected with the problems of the past? 9 MS_ RICHARDSON: Objection. You can 10 answer. 11 A. It was -- aga-i_n, he had not been there 12 for very long, at least he was the newest 13 appo^.ntee to the Board. And he had indiceted to 14 the transparency committee that he wanted to be a L 5 change agent for the good to implement the 16 recommendations of the reo.3rt. And that they 17 believed that while some of his conduct was 18 unbecoming, and they believed that he should have 19 been reprimanded for it 4which he was reprimanded 20 for it and he was suspended from the Board, they 21 believed that he also was somebody of goodwill and 22 that was capable of being a positive influence on 23 the board for making the changes that were 24 necessary. That was what the transparency Rea' t i-rne - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Repc-ting LLu ------117 1 committee recommended to me. 2 Q. Going back to the transparency 3 committee again, ono of the members there was 4 Mr. Ruvolo? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. And ho had just recently rnsi.qnod. from 7 the Lucas Cotzrlty Boa.r_.d. o.f.. E, ootion^ before 8 becoming a member of the Al:i.ison-Ruvolo report, 9 correct, team, management team? 10 A. I don't know what his tenure was at the 11 timing of that, but he was on the Lucas County W2 Board of Elections for a brief period of t imo . 13 Q. He was on - - co:r-ta-x^ly oi-i tYie Board of 14 Elections whi" eyou werc. Secretary of State? 15 A. He was. 16 Q. Okay. And so Mr. Ruvolo then was W7 connected with the problemis of the past, was he 18 no t ? 19 MS. RICHARDSON: objocta.on. 20 A. My staff indicated to me that during 21 their -- -- during his tenure on the board, that he 22 was a very constructive voice who was trying to 23 resolve problems at the Lucas County Board of 24 .E1ecti-ons, but that he ultimately decided to Realtime - Videoconferencing - Triai Preserbtatior: -- Video 8iDectrum Report-ir3.g LLC I re^^gn .67rom the Lucas County Board of Elections. ^ But it was of their opinion that he was somebody 3 that had both knowledge of the Board and a desire I to solve the problems th.at existed at the Board. Q. Even though he resigned from the Board because he was unable to change the culture of dysfunction, you still sought him out as both a management consultant with Mr. Allison and then { .ater aga^ra as the i-nerctber of the trar:sparer^^^ 3 c committee, corret:.t? 11 MS. RICHARDSON: Ob-;ect ion. 12 A. Well, you ° re ascr4bi.ng the motivation 13 for why he resigned. I did not --- I did not in my 14 remarks say that that was why he resigned. I just 15 acknowledged that he did resign. 16 Q. You don' t know why he resianed? " 7 A. :L don' t . 18 Q. Okay. if you knew that it was because 19 he was unable to change the culture of the Board, 20 would that change your opinion as to whether or 21 riot, you could rely on his judgment? 22 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 23 A. The basis for my judgment as it relates 24 to Mr. Ruvolo is that the staff that I -- the Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------1 1-9 L professional staff who is in charge of running ? eleotioras -- -^ who are in charge of running 3 elections in the State of Ohio __ __. Q. Uh-huh. A. - -- indicated to me, as I ° ve said I E think at least twice now, that he was the person of goodwill who they believed wanted to solve the problems at the Lucas County Foard of Elections c and he understood -- he ur,±derstood the operations 1C there and that he would be a constructive voice in 1:1. that proz;e s, . 12 Q. Well, it -- you referred several times 13 iri you.r_ earlier test.inioriy, though, that 14 Mr. Roberts res.iqned as the direotor after a. brief I' S tenure at the .G,u.cas County Board of Elections in 16 2011 kaecause of a oau.st.i.c environment at tl-i.e 17 Board? 18 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 19 A. I believe what I said was that his 20 resignation letter, that he did not believe he was 2^ canahle of changing the environment at the Lucas 22 County Board of Elections. 23 Q. And if we look at page 2 of Exhibit I 24 there under Mr. Roberts and second paragraph under ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 1. 2 0 Mr. Roberts, we see the words F'caustic e-Yvi-ronmento 11 A. Okay. L Q. You know, i-sr ' t it a fact that c Mr. Ruvolo was one of the people who created that E caustic environment as a member of the Board of .+ Elections at Lucas County? ^ MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 9 Q. Because he was on the Board of 10 Elections during the time peri_od Mr. Roberts had J his brief tenure as director? I2 MS. RICHARDSON: 7:s there a question? 13 MR. TODD: There was one. Do you want 14 me to read it all back -- have her read it all 15 back? 16 MS. RICHARDSON: I'm not sure that I 17 understand that there is a question. 18 MR.TCSDD: I'm not sure that there is 19 now that you ask the question. 20 Do we h.a-^7e a question or 11ave I failed 21 in articulating a questior.? 22 (The reccard is read as follows: "Isn' t 23 it a fact that Mr. Ruvolo was one of the people 24 who created that caustic environment as a member Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation. -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------ L of the Board of Elections at Lucas County?" ,; "Because he was" -- there was an objection. "Because he was on the Board of Elections during L the time period Mr. Roberts had his brief tenure C as director?" } E A. Agaip-, I° ll come back and say that the peo-ole that I have hired that are in my employ, the people whose opinions I trust, that :1 have to ^ trust to do the work as a Secretary of State, h.ad 10 confidence thaW he would make a good member -- -- a 11 gcrad addition to the bipartisan process as you 2 indicated ear1_i_ero 13 Q. Correct. 14 A. That a bipartisan process is very is J_mraortant to having public trust. We felt that we 16 needed to have balance on - - a balanced, cred-ib1.e 17 source for the reeo^^:mendations. And they 18 recommended Mr. Ruvolo fc^2^, that process. .a Q. Iaet's go up a little bit higher in -- 20 on the Dage 2 of Exhibit I and - - and the entries 21. under Kelly Bensman. 22 A. And -- 23 Q. Go ahead. 24 A. And -- it wasr ° t a recommendation for Realtime - VideUconferenC4 -.ng - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Re3Dorting L?,u 1.22 Mr. Ruvolo to be on the board. It was a recommendation fc3-r Mr. Ruvolo to be on transparency committee and on the recommendation 4 for improvement. So there is a - -- therc ' s a distinct difference between the two. ^ Q. So there' s a distinct difference 7 between being a ---- j u. st as t. her e' s a. da. st i rz ct 8 dj-f.f-erenc;e between beirag the d3-rec;t-or and being a 9 board member, correct? 10 MS. RIC I I ARDSON; O. b j e c t i on. 11 A. Orrly in the sense that one is governed 12 by the law and. t.he other i.sr3.' t. 13 Q. I ' m going to have to ask you to explain 1. 4 that. Z ' m not sure I understood your answer. 15 A. In. - - you wex-e asking me - - you were 16 asking me about *L--he context for the de^i- siors.---^nakir-Eg process. And. that I was poj-ntir-ig. 18 out that Mr. Ruvolo was reconirnended by by my 19 staff for the transparency c^mmi'^^tee or and for 20 the - -- the Ruvolo-Allison report. 2 _fi. Q. Even though Mr. Ruvolo was a board 22 member dur=irig the time period that many of t.i-3.e 23 everits descr-W:3aed in the hearing comm-ittee report ^4 were occurring, such as the failure to file ReaItAr:1e - Videucox3.fe.r-enc.ii7g -- Trial PA ese:^tat.iori - Vi.d.eo Spectrum Repo.r. tine.^ LLC _! ? :.^^ camga.igr finance reporWs? MS. RI:CT-3.AR3^^ON^ ^bjectioia, A. AQa i r_ 9 the reason M:r- , Ruvol- o was -- -- was appointed, we needed abi-partisan. appboachfhe had experi.en.ce in Enatter^ related 't;o elections, and ^ the staff kael.^.e-^ed t}-iat he was a person of 7 goodwill t.l-iat would be a p^si-Live influence in 8 What -process. 9 Q. I1et° s go back then to looking at 10 Exhibit I here, and the description of --_ specifi.cally of Ms. Bensman. And before that, 12 let' s go to the par=agra-oh immediately prior to the 13 entry for Ms. Bensman. It ° s where you describe 3-14 that both Mr. , Roberts and Ms, Bensman were 15 unconstructive and potentially destructive in 16 their involvement with the Lucas County Board of _7 Elections. Can you tell us what you meant by that 18 sentence? And what facts 4-t was based upon? 19 A. Well, again, the decision was based on 20 the transparency committee report, the hearing, 21 the environment at the Lucas County Board of 22 Elections as described by my staff and the staff 23 at the Lucas County Board of Elections. It was 24 the total of three and a half years of experience ------ Rea1.ta.me - Videoconferencing - Trial P-resenvation - Video Spectrum Reporting T:^^ ^2 4: under which those conclusions were drawn. Q. Were there a lot of partisan coinplaints, Mr. Secretary, emanating from the Lucas County Board of Elections? C A. q'here were so many complaints of ^^ll ^ nature that. Iwou'_dntl t characterj_ze theErt as partisan. :€: would say they were partisan, they ^ were personal, they were constaiat. 9 Q. Well, let' s -- -1_et.' s talk about 10 Mr. Roberts in particular and your ---- your 1. x representat iorz here that his involvement was 12 uncons tructive and potent^.ally destructive. CaiY 1. 3 you tell, us what you m^ant, by that? 14 A. Essentially that by his own admission 15 he wasn't getting the job done. 16 Q. Anything else? 17 A. Not that I can thi.r±k of specifically of tharid. 19 Q. And same question with regard to 20 Ms. DensaxEan, and that is unconstructive and 21 potentially destructive in-v©1-vement with the 22 county board of elections. Can you tell us what 23 facts yrau, were considering when ycau. made that 24 representation in your correspondence? Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 125 L A. Again, I' l A. go back through the record on t.his. We had -- - in my staff interactions at i the Board of Elections, they had. -1_nd:icated to me that she -- -- that Mr. Stainbrook would r.zot sneet ^ wi.t-h them on rriany eccasWrar^s unless ,he was in 'L---he meel-_-ings that she was not a Evenstructive presence in those discussions. There was a report issued of things that needed to hap,peri. That presence ^ and that role continued to pers-i_ st. beyond the 10 report. There was a transparency committee in ^.1 whi.ch these issues were aired and these 12 conclusions were validated. - -- well, they were 13 exposed and then. 3_ater va.li.dated, and then a 14 hear:i.ng process of which they were fur'^-her ls val.i.dated. It' s aprot:.ess t.ha.t, occurred e-v-er- the 16 ccsurse of three and a ha1f years of --- of problems 17 I a. i. d end to e nd. t. ha *.-: i n. total d r ew -- led ine to 18 that conclusion. 19 Q. I'm trying to ^ind' out ^1aat the facts 20 a=e that ---- that I_ead you to the conclusion t:hat. 21 Kelly Bensman led to an environment of dysfunction 22 and distrust at the Lucas County Beerd. of 23 Elec'ui.ons. 24 A. I just described Wt. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------12 6 Q. But you don' t have any specific -facts t ha t you can poi. r^ t to? MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Asked and { a^^ swered. ^ MR. TODD: Generically, yes, but not ^ specifically. 1 A. The process -that ocr ,z.r_.^^d was that we 8 sent two deputy secretaries of state, a .f_ornier' 9 sec.xetary of state, what I wcsul.darc^^e the best 10 elections staff in the country 'Lo oversee the 11 prob3_ems at the :€:jur-a a County Doar-d of Elections, 12 and it was the:im- professional t:.or^clias:ion that this 13 was the case. 14 Q. I don' t think anybody disagrees with 15 you that the Lucas County Board of Elections has 16 been dysT xnction.al. since Tom Noe was the 17 Republican chairman in Lucas County. The question 18 is how does that relate to Kelly Bensman? 19 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Asked and 20 answered. 21 A. I cari give you the same answer again ;_f 22 srou' d like it. 23 Q. No. I-- i-F Y-rau don 't have arly other 24 spec;. i fi. c facts, tha t ' s a 7_ l. I ' m asking. ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------127 A . It ' s all part of the publ. -i-c: record. Q. Okay. Wol l , then let me go to the next paragra-oh who-r-^.^ you describe her boi-ng a primary E fi.gure in an alteroat-ion or ix:.ci.dont. What was that, do you know? A. It was in the ---- -it was in the transparoncy committee report. 8 Q. She was invoivod in an altercation at 9 i ;'1 the trans^°'..^aY-ency Co[11ETEittE?°? 10 A. No. The transparency committee -- - it 11 was testimony g.ivoi-z before the transparency 12 committee. 13 Q. So you. believe that there is testimony 14 to that point in the transparorac:y oomm_i-ttoo, 15 correct? °a. 6 A. It was rolatod to nio via the 17 investig-ation of the transparency oorrirnittPe. 18 Q. Okay. But you have no idea what i.t 19 was? 20 MS. RICHARDSON: Gahj ootion . 21 A. Again -- -- again, I roviowed -- - there was 22 a lot of information involved with this. We 23 reviewed that information and those are the 24 conclusions that we drew. You can disagree with ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial. Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------128 the conclusions, krut for three and a half years this is what we experienic;.ed. Q. :T' m just asking now to follow up on 4- your representations in the transparency committee ^ report is t ha t-- ^ A. In the transcriTD'^^s and in the report __ __ 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. -- -- the oral re-port that was provided by 9 the members of the committee. 10 Q. So if it's in t-herer we°_L3_ see it €. 1. because it' s in the report, correct? If it's rrotr 12 it' s rio$:? 13 A. Zt's in the public domain. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. So, yes, yc3t3.' l1 be able to see it. L 6 Q. Okay. And one of the -- -or3.e of the 17 more specific statements here is a statement that 18 you make that she was involved in an altercation _9 leading to her removal from the gcvernmerat center. 20 That' sa pretty serious allegation. Do yc>u have 21 any specific facts on which you basc, that? 22 MS. RICHARDSON: Can I just ask 23 specifically where you are reading from? 24 MR. TODD: Yes. I am reading from ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC a. 2 9 L paragraph 2 urd.er Kelly Bensman on page 2 of Exhibit I which we have b^^^i d.i^^iassa.ng. A. The piece that says "As recently as the - May Primary Blectioair Ms. Bensman. was allegedly to t-xa-ire tauiited, ye^.led* and intimidated board employees. The Toledo Blade went so fax• as to des^x°ibe Ms. B^^sma.n as e sta1.ki.ng . . . like p:e-ey, ^ board staff on Election Ni3:E:.t. f9 'A'hat piece? ^ Q. Yes, s,vher-e did t ha t------and .i mmedia t ely 10 before tli.at where it says an "ea7_tercat.i.ort, leading 1^ to her removal tr,3in the Government Centaro " I 9 xn. 12 just ^^iidem-i.n^ ^laere those facts came from. You 13 think it came froin - - 14 A- They came from either - ^5 Q. transparency committee? 16 A. the report of the staff or frean: the 1'f tr-ari sparency committee. I can't - - I. can't say 18 offhand exact_E_y wliere they originated. 19 Q. But you - -- other than what would be in 20 the transparency committee repc7rt, you would have 21 no other facts that would lead you to that 22 conclusion, correct? 23 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 24 A. Or -- - or an eyewitness account. I ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 130 don°t Q. From whom? A. Tdon' t know the origin of this 4 particular contponerF.t. C Q. And you don ` t know who the al l eged. 6 person was to have seen .it, this --- you know, for 7 example, it says all.egation. "A1l.eged to have 8 taunted, yelled, and intimidated.. . . '° But we have 9 no facts to support that and we d.on°t know who it 10 was? 11 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 12 A. We have --- - we have --- again, we have 13 p-rofessi.onal staff, peopl.e at the Lucas Cou.nty 14 Board of Elections, a transpare?-7.cy romm.ittoe 15 report, three and a half years of experience of I^ all o-f these th_i-ngse There ; s so much :ix-sforma t .i.on 17 of the dysfunction at the Lucas County Board of '8 Elections that -.= cannot tell you right off the 19 top _ __ 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. -- of my head where e-very piece and 22 c;o¢TEponc:r.t of these -- of this caErie from. 23 Q. Okay. I -understan.d. 24 The -- -- other than the facts that you ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC set forth -i^.-^. your letter of June 24th, 2014, did you have aiiy other speo:i.fic basis for not approving the appoiritmont of Kelly Bensman to tho. E Lucas County Board of Elections? E MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Asked and E answered. You can answer. i Q. You can answer. ^ A. Are you referring to the June 24th ^ ^ettor? 10 Q Yes. 11 A. Well, tho vo3_uminous jinformation that 12 wo gat.horod over the course of three and a. half ^:3 years .r_.a:n.gis-ig f'rom on-site staff observations, the 14 proserio.o of Mr. Allison, Mr. Ruvolo, Secretary 1s Brunner and former deputy secretary Borgemenke and 16 the iiitorvi_ewti and the discussions that -- that 17 came froFp. their interactions, my staff intei^-act _i.ons, in total that ' s where we came to the 19 conclusions that we came to. 20 Q. Well, but I'm asking -- 21 A. We're, not on site every day to -- to 22 witness these things. We have to gather the best 23 information we can and make judgments. 24 Q. I understand that perfectly. Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC _3 2 L Bu°^ iny que s t ion i.s : Other than the s;0ec3_:Eio facts that you set for'Lh in your letter, do you recall ariy other specific reasons that you elected to not appoint Kelly Bensrnan to the Lucas County Board of Elections? MS. RICHARDSON: Same oh; oction. A. Iy3r. .Todd9 1 've answered this q-uestW cara many tirctes. .l. ti s the co 1_ "_ €^ ction of ax. l. of the events over the cou.r_. se of the previous three and a hal_f years, including a due process hoaririgY _L. .A ,rit:.ludd_s'l.^ a tran^parenoy oommi_tteo report, Wt -2 included professional st,aff on site and observing 13 the activity at the Lucas County Board of 14 E=€. ^ ctions. is Q. And I take it then your answer would be 16 the same t.hi.ng regarding Mr. Robe.r_ t.s,:i -F ^^skod 17 you the question if there were any other speci.r.ic: 18 facts other than as you'vo described hero in your 19 letter that would d.isqualify him from being 20 appointed to the Lucas County Board of Elections? 21 A . That' s correct. 22 MR. TODD: Okay. Lot' ss eo. 1:08. 23 You know, this might be a good time to break for 24 lunch. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 1:3 3 MS. RICHARDSQIV : How much longer do you have? MR. TODD: I expect that we ' 3-1 be done before 5:00 p.m. MS. RICHARDSON: I mean what are you E thinking in terms of a lunch break? I think from 7 8 MR. TODD: 45 minutes. 9 THE WIT'NESS Can we plow through for a 10 littl.e bit longer and - 1-. MR. "'CDD : I t' s up to you. 12 THE WITNESS: ^et' s go for 15 more 13 mi-na^^s and we' i1 -- 14 MR. LODD : Okay. Yeah, tha.t' s fine. W ^ yeah. . 16 Q . That a s to you. 17 Mr. . ^ecreL.aryE I' m going to harad y^-Li 18 whatp s been marked for purposes of identification 19 a pack^-L of exhibits that begR-.^ s wi *L---h R-1 and goes 20 or K:, ^xc-use me, and goes thrtaijgh K.- 8 . 21 22 Thereupon, Re1.atcar' s ExIldbi.t- K is marked 23 for purposes of :iderati-f3-^ation. 24 Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 134 A. 1 object to my photo. Q. Thoy' ro terrible, aron.' t they? I don' t know what happened there in the -- --- everybody looks ^ awf u l, Have you had a chance to look at that? ^ A. I glanced over it, sure. 'J Q. Okay. Let's look at the t-irst page, ^ which is Exhibit K. And your counsel or you have 9 placed this in the record of the -- this case, and 10 ^ want to ask you some questions about Exhibit K. 11 One of the first things I' d like to ask 12 you about appears at the bottom of the first paae 13 there of Exhibit K. And that is that there is a 14 statement -in there that °' , . .:Mr . 5talnbrook' s 15 associate Kelly Bensrn.an followed her l4-ko sharks 16 stalking praye F' Do you see that? -7 A. I do. 1.8 Q. '°:.'-ou' ro famiA.iar I know w-ith the process 19 of appointing o:.^ser-v-ors for elections in -- in our 20 system? 21 A. Uh-huh. 22 MS. RICHARDSON: Go ahead. 23 Q. Are there limitations placed on 24 observers that they're not allowed to observe an Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------135 MS. RICHARDSON: ®hj ecta©n . A. 1don9 t, know off the top of my head. G Q. Would you find that surprising that you ^ could as a county board of elections prohibit r observers from - - 8 xk. I dc3n' tknow what the rules are off the 9 top of r;:gr head. 10 Q. Okay. Suffice it to say that you wotal.d. 11 ezz^o"Li..r.age that -- that Ei county board cai elections 12 would follow t^he rules on observers 3-n terE-rEs of 13 thej-r access and ability to be inval°tred .^.n h^Ei:e-ing 1.4 what 's going ori in the election, cox-.r-ect? 15 A. They should follow the rules. 16 Q. 'I"hei-e are discussions 11-3.e.r-e on the 17 second page of this article regarding a number of 18 missing cards, data cai:^dss in the Lucas County 1-9 Board of Elections for the primary election that 20 was occurring the day be:cyre t1a.3-s artit:.le- a.s 21 written o:l. May 7th, 201.4. To your knowledge, have 22 those issues ever laee-n resolved by the ctz.r-.rent 23 hr.^a3_^d members and the director of the Board? 24 ?^ v =€_ do:r.3 t kncaw off the t^^ of my head. ------ Real.tirle -- Videoco.r:ferex;cing - TriaA Prese:^Cation - Video 8pectrun, .[^ep©'rt1nq LLC 7.36 Q. Okay. Has that election ever been certi-f.ic.d to your knowledge? A. I boA..:LeVe --- I believe it lias, but I 9 don't -- Q. You don' t know? ^ A. I mean, again, I -- - you' re asking me 7 things that other people havc, --- are involved in 8 and I would need to ask them. 9 Q. Right. So -- but you wouldn' t have any 10 specific knowledge --- you'vo got an awful lot of 11 elections to observe. I°m sure you doxa a t remember 12 a specific one. 13 A. I would believe tha t. it ° s been 14 certified. i5 Q. Okay. Is this particular article the 16 one that -- again Exhibit K, that led to you 17 including in your letter of June 24th, 2014 the 18 comment that Ms. Bensman was stalking someone like 19 prey? 20 A. Like I said, I did not draft the 21 letter. I reviewed the letter and found the 22 letter to be satisfactory, so I dora B t know if that 23 was the particular article that it was chosen 24 from. In this online era, there are always ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------13 7 ] different versions of different articles that are oiat there. ^ Q. Undorstood. Understood. 4 But that ' s a - - that ' s a coincidental 5 phrase, isn't it, sYiark stalking prey? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. ok.ay. But, again, as a duly appointed 8 observer, observers are all-owed to be observing, 9 correct? 10 A. T^ias the title, yes. lI Q. Let's turn to Exhibit K--1 . And. this 12 appears to be an editorial from the Toledo Blade 13 dated May the 13th, 2014. Do you recall reviewing 14 this particular editorial? 15 A. I bolli.ovP I reca1i- seeing it, yeah. 1.6 Q. "Fhis -- t hi s ed it o A :i a l speci. fi. ca. l7- y 17 suggests that The Blade would like to see 18 well-respected retired judges of both parties i 9 serve as election board members. Do you see that 20 in the -- let's see, one, two, three, fourth 21 paragraph from the bottom? 22 A. Yes, I see it. 23 Q. Okay. Did you speak to anybody at The 24 Blade about this editorial? Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC A. I speak to people at The Blade quite often. Idon' t know if I spoke with them specificall-y about this editorial. ^ Q. Did you spea.k to them about the situation at the Lucas County Board of Elections ^ this yea.r-? f A. Often. 8 Q. Okay. And who did you speak to? 9 A. The people that I normally speak with 10 at the -- -- at the Toledo Blade would be Tom Troy 11 who is a reporter, Dave Kushma who is an editorial 12 writer, and on rare occasions, John Block who is 13 the publisher of the newspaper. 14 Q. Okay. i 5 A. Not that that doesn' tmean there s.ren ° t 16 people I talk with. But those are -- those are 17 the ones that I would recall discussing the 1 8 matters at the Lucas County Board of Elections. 19 Q. This ecE.itorial follows the -- let me be 20 sure about this, so I don' t-- 21 ^ol1ows the e:reat:ioii and beginning 22 process at least of the transparency committee but 23 i.s ;_ s suod apparently before it was --- the re'oort 24 was finalized. Realtime u- Videoconferencing - Triai Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------13: ^ A. What ' s that? 2 Q. The editorial -__ the date of the 3 editorial. on May the 13th, 20I4, it indicates that 4 it was published after the transparency committee 5 begin its work but before the transparency 6 oorn.mittee reported its recommendations. 7 A. Okay. 8 Q. Did this editori.al play a.riy role i-n the 9 reo.om.mendatio:ls of the transparency committee to 10 your understanding? 11 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 12 A. I---- I don't know what influenced the 13 transparency committee. They -- they made their 14 report, therc:' s public testimony, and I would 15 assume that that' s what their -- they based their _ 6 decisions on. But you wou? d have to ask them 17 d.i:reotly. 18 Q. Okay. Did you discuss with any of the 19 individuals that you mentioned at The Blade their 20 their -i-dea that we:Ll-respected. retired judges 21 of both parties be selected to serve as election 22 board members? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And who did you speak to about that? ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------1.4: ? A. I spoke with -- I don ° t remember specifically who Ispoke with. But I do remember having the discussion at The Blade. 4 Q . Yeah. A. Or with "€II-I.e Blade via phone. I can' t 6 remeniber ^l-i.a I specifically talked to about i , . 7 Q. But it was one of tYae indivi.duals that 8 you' ve already mentioned? 9 A. Yeah, it would have been. 10 Q. More 1-ikely to be somebody frcrn the 11 editorial si-de? 12 A. More on the editorial side than it :€. 3 would be the reporter side, yes. 14 Q. So either Mr. Kushma or Mr. Block? 15 A. One of those two is likely, yes. 16 Q. Okay. And what was your reaction to 17 their suggestion? 18 A. Well, as a ^ub1.ic official, any time I 19 ha-ve a-- good press, I guess trat's a n.-ice thing, 20 that we9 re wcarkirzc.^ on tryirgg to so1ve, problems, 21 and so I --- I^elt l z. ke it was a ni c e era.dorse r[3.eri t, 22 that we were on the riaht track. 23 Q. They -- 24 A. Because they talk to a lot more people ------ Realtime W Videoconferencinc-^ - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC :l. 4 1. 1 in Toledo than 1" do. 2 Q. Understood. Understood. 3 Let's l.ook at Exhibit K-2, which is the 4 next exhibit in this little packet -- " put all 5 The Blade stuff together because that's 6 technically 7 A. Okay. 8 Q. -- --- easier to keep track of. 9 This is a column issued on May the -- 10 or published on May the 15th, 2014 by a reporter 11. by the name of Keith Burri s. And again there's 1. 2 the recommendation from th^.^ Toledo Blade is that 13 the Board be reconstituted and retired 4judges be 1.4 appointed, correct? 15 A. That's what it says here. 16 Q. Okay. And this was after you 17 apparently had notified Mr. Rothenbuhler and 18 Mr. Stainbrook and Mr. ..IaeGidio and -- -- and the 19 actual officials that you intended to remove them 20 because of a culture of dysfunction? 21 A. I don't remember the timing, but I'll 22 -- I'm assuming that you're correct and -- great. 23 Q. Or that Mr. Burris is correct? 24 A. Yeah, I don't. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------142 Q. It's his article refers to th.at action. Ono of" the things :l= think tlYat we 3 talked about be.f-.orefand I'm not suro that it 4 b ec am.e as cl o s:a. r from this ar t i01 e is that this - -- 5 cur system really is a bipartisan system tb.at. 6 relies in the L"irst insta-n.ce on the two county 7 parties for the appoWntme-nt of ---- or 8 recommondat-ion of the two -- or L.ho four poop7-o to 9 be appointed to the board of eloot:i-ons, correct? 10 MS. RICHARDSON: Objoction. 11 Q. Correct? 12 MS. RICHARDSON; I'm sorry. Objection. 13 Go ahead. 1-4 A. That ' s correct. is Q. And there is nothing in the Code or -- 16 or trankly in -- t1lore's nothing in the Revised 17 Code that suggests that -- that our boards of 18 elections are nonpartWsan? 19 A. I'll take your word for that, yeah. 20 Q. I mean you would agree -- we've already 2 1- agreed that they're bipartisan? 22 A. Yeah. Hipartisan. 23 Q. Yeah. 24 A. I just don' tknow if the entire Revised Realwime - VI.deocon--fFerene.ing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC Code and there's no reference to that word but -- ^ Q. You don't know of any? A. I will I will assume you're correct. 4 Q. Okay. is this thought that naming ^ retired judges consistent with. the idea that this 6 3_s a bipartisan proce ss and a creative tension 7 between tli.e two oartiee? 8 .A. You'd have to ask the editorial people. 9 You'd have to ask Mr. Burris. 10 Q. No. :(: 'm asking whether you agree with ?1 that. 12 A. There are lots of times that peoole 13 want me to do things that I'm -- I'm not -- I'm 14 not able to do for them because the law does not 15 al. x.taw for it. 16 Q. L,orrect . 17 A. And - - and so they ' re but t:tre 18 genesis for any of this, I don't know that I've 19 ever spoken with Mr. Burris in my 1-ife. 20 Q. Did the -- the name Mr. Handwork, 21 though ---- or Judge Handwork come from the Toledo 22 Blade? 23 MS. RICHARDSON: Ohj ect.ion . 24 A. Clearly -- clearly his name was ------ Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 144 mentioned in all of these articles. Tt's not the ^ first time I heard his name, though, or read his name. 4 Q. Did he have any background or 5 experience in election administration to your 6 knowledge? 7 MS. R1 CHAR.DSON: And I'm sorry. By Yi he II 8 9 Q. °FHe'° being Judge Peter Handwork. 10 A. He had '^-o the best of my -- -- I mean, 11 look, he was a judge on the appeals court. That's 1. 2 a pretty ---- he was elected.. by the public. He is a 13 pretty credible source of fairness. I don't know 14 that anyone ever questioned his capacity to serve. 15 _€: don't see that questioned: 16 Q. Let's look at Exhibit K-3. And this 17 article follows on your determination to appo.int 18 J-ud.ge P.andwork and Judge Wittenberg as we talked 19 about earlier in your letter o f May 20th to in 20 ef_.fect, provide oversight to the Board of Electi-Lons 21 to compl_e:te the work for the -- it' s Exhibit F, 22 which would be in front of you, your letter. 23 A. Yes. Yes. Yeah, I recall now. 24 C2 Right. ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------14 5 And this particular article referring to you-- action hcr-e indicates that Judge Handwork has never had any el-c.ctican--rcla.ted jobs; is that 4 correct? 5 A. I I don 3 t know off the top of my 6 head if you you use a term 1-ikc °"ncvcr, °' 7 meaning that he never did. I don ° t -- I don F t 8 know the answer to that question. Most recently W 9 was aware that he was an elected appeals court 10 j u.dgc- __ - 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. ---- that v^af^, -hi nl-il ,; community. 14 Q. And both. he and -- -- it says li.ore in this 1Z:^ article that Judgc Handwork "believes he can help 1.6 the boardr " even t"thoug-h he has never" held --- 17 n.cvcr "had any clcction-.r_. cl_ated jobs." And you 18 don' t have any rcasox-i to disagree with that? 19 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead. 20 A. I will trust the man" s opinion of 21 himsclf. 22 Q. Okay. And same thing with Judge 23 Wittenberg who said he had never worked for a 24 board of elections, you don't have any reason to ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------I46 di.sagr-ee with that s'^-atement -1-ther? A. I don't have any reason to disagree with that. 4- Q. If we look at the second page of Exhibit K-3, we see that there is -- I'm going to 6 take you to it's one, two three, fourth 7 paragraph from the bottom, where :i.t. indicates that 8 although the supervisory function -- that is a 9 te-rr:ib'' e picture of you, by the way. 10 A. Yeah, :): know. Cut my head off. 11 Q. And you're sideways. ^2 It' s the ---- there's a partial sentence 13 :right und.er ya-ur terrible picture, and then the 14 f i.:r' s., aW^ iJ A R ight . 16 Q e -_ -_- ~ ulI paragraph _i- s "`I'his appo.intment 17 is short---term, but there's been talk of both judges being appo:inted to vacancies on the 19 boardv ... F' The -- Wt -- I'm a little perplexed 20 why there's talk of .^udges being appointed to the 21 Board when we don' te-sren have a decision yet to 22 remove board ar_embers. Just a little curious if 23 you can shed any light on that. 24 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ?4? A. I can'tshed any l-igh.t on that. I dozz 9 t know where it came from. Q. So you weren't involved in any of that 4 talk? A. To the best of my kn.ow^.e,dge6 I didn't E have that conversation with anybody. 7 Q. Okay. So if we read that sentence or 8 partial sentence that there has been ta3_k of 9 judges be:i_r.x.g appointed to the vacancies, that is 10 not -- that didn ° t come from you? 11 A. Well, if you say talk, when there's a 12 vacancy for anything in the political world 13 there's lots of talk about who will fill the 14 vacancies. And so it didn't -- so I'm sure that 15 there was much talk that probably would have 16 included many people. But ^ can't -- I can't -- - 17 and surely I talked about these gentleman. _ 18 can't tel1you exactly when the first conversation 19 I ever had a.boat them was. 20 Q. I understand that per-Fectly. 21 Igu.ess my question and concern here is 22 that the article goes on to relate that you 23 already had formed a tentative decision to remove 24 three laoar-d membez^s before you had the hearing ------ Realt.irr:e - irideoconferencing - "'-i.al. Preser:tatiox3. - V-,deo Spectrum Reporting LLC ------148 report? MS. RICHARDSON: A. There was a -- there was a recommendation frorn the transparency commi-tt.ee to c remove them and we were following t:h.e process for ^ t.h.e -rerticval, which allows for a hearing. But traa.t ---° but 7-t was no sec-rE L. that thc?3:'P-. was the ^ p©teriti.a-3 for removal of three board members at J that ti-me. It was part. of the public dialogue. 1-0 Q. All right. And I am just focused here on the -- on the statement that you had made a 12 tentati-irc, decision, you had made a tentative 13 decision to remove them before you had the hearing 14 report. And I'm just asking you if that' s 1s accurate. 16 A. I clcan't know the time frame for wh--'Lch I 17 made the decision. But when the transparency 18 committee report came back and oftered the W^ recommendations, we have to commence a hearing 20 process on the basi-s that they' ^^ being considered 21. for remoiral. 22 Q. And one one ordinarily waits until 23 the end of the hearing committee -- or hearing 24 report beJEore you make a decision, correct? Realtime - VideoconTerencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reportir_a- LLC ------^43 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. And I'm going to object ^en.era11y to the corati.nued 1_ir^^ of ^ues'L-:-irarxing on a newspaper ar-tic'' e that he has testified he hasx-E' t-- he didn' tau thor t.his. So to the extent that if there' s continu.eei questioning on what this r^pcrt^i^7 reported, i'm going to obj ect . 8 A. I--Te -- __ 9 Q- I' m asking the Secretary whether ox^ not 10 that was accurately ....-h.e accurately reported that ^. A he had made a tentative decision? 12 A. Here is -- -- here is tri-e situation and 13 here Iwi,^.l explain it to you so we don' thave to 14 parse this a.i.l out. is Q. Yeah. 16 A. The transparency committee made a 17 recommendati.cn that the deputy director and 18 director be removed and the three board members be 19 removed and that one board member be suspended and 20 sancticaneri. That was part of the public d iaZogue 21 at that poi.n.t. It was -- and so immediately there 22 is always going to be speculation about what will 23 foll-ow. And people who want to try to influence 24 the process certainly will discuss it. I would -- Rea" time -- Videoconferencing -- T-ria1. Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------1S0 and that disc;..xssi.on. is valuable in the political process because nanies of people ^niergef conversatloris emeA ge5 issues that you° ve never ^ thouc-^-ht abo.zt emerge, and that. dialogue helps one form an op:irii.on about making a^o-und choice for ^ whatever decision comes next. i Q. Uh - huh . ^ A. And without knowinc.^ sDeci.f.i.ca.lly the 9 time frame, I imagine that this is the -- that 10 this characterizes that process and that was the 11 process. 12 Q. And the reporter had some knowledge or. 13 :i t ? 14 A. I don't -- E dara9t - .^ mean, again, 1s there was already a public reccm^endation that 16 they be reaTEev-ed. 17 Q . Right. 18 A. And our office was commencing the 19 process of a he-aring. 20 Q . Right. 21 A. That is the due process whereby theyrre 22 given a chance to defend themselves - -- 23 Q Right. 24 A. - - from removal. Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------151 Q. Right. We:^1, and :l: guess that ° s the A. But there would be -- -but there would have to be new information that would ccai::e at that c point that would change the outcome of that pr e^cess. 6 Q. And that's really what -- what I was 7 getting to here, is that, you know, we typically 8 wait until after the due process hearing before we 9 make decisions, correct? 10 MS. RIC14ARbSdNo ^"Jhjecti.on. ^I A. But no decision had been made. 12 Q. okay. Saet y ;^ turn to Exhibit K-- 4 . And 13 frankly, Mr. Secretary, I'm going to ask you about 14 this only because you put this in the record and I 1s have no idea why. 16 But one of t..he things hare that .1: do 17 want to ask about is in this this ^^emis-ig. 18 drumbeat of p:ra ssure from the Toledo Blade to 19 appoint retired judges, you were obv_Lous1y aware 20 that they were constantly editorializing and 21 writing articles to try to influence this process, 22 right? 23 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead. 24 I kael.ie-ve that' s the whole purpose of Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 15 f an editorial page. Q. And what we learned from this is that's really what they we.r-. e forced -- -- pu sh i r. x.g W h is process towards was putting retired judges o.r... the Boa.r-. d.? A. I meara you can read it. just as cl.early > as can. ^ Q. Jkay. 9 A. I mean, yeah, that a s -._- that's what 10 they would like to see. 11 Q. But tli.e Toledo Blade under Ohio law 12 doesn't have the powex- to make appointments to the y.3 Board or recomxn.en^atiransy correct? 14 MS. RICIARDSONo Ob-4ecti.on. 15 A. They don p t. But these two judges as 16 you indicated earlier in your Ex.hibi-L. F s,vhen you 17 were -- I thi r3.k i-L was F. 18 Q. Uh-huh. 19 A. You ta'Lked about do they have any 20 experience. Well, you know, they were people that 21 had -- again, had the trust of the community as 22 elected judges. So when you have -- when you have 23 a long period where you have sewn the seeds of 24 distrust and incompetexace and dysfunction, you try ------ Realtime -- Videoconferera^'-ng - Trial Presentation -- Video Sp^cIC-rum ReiDorting LLC 1 El 3 to draw from the community people of stature that will help to restore trust in this public institutiorr. And it was iny conclusic3n that pe^-Dle of this riaturef a DeEr:ocrati^ judge and a Republican judge, would be good people to oveA ^ee E that process of certification or t.1le -- the ultimate cert:if icat io.n. of that elections process ^ whi7_e this whole thin<.^ was going on. Idon°t kriow 9 if that was th^.a gent;s3_s for the emergeriCe of their 10 names or not. I czorz' t know where it all came -1. 1 f:rom. But -Wra the end, these are peE^ple who had 12 been elected by the puhlic or had a W;.de range of W 3 public trust fand ultimately t hat a:s what the 14 politiual process is, p^^ple^ ty-y to in.f_luenc:.e the 15 dec isi_ orx of t .he .i. :r.- el ect ed of f A. ci al so "I'h at t s 16 called ^emacracy. And. they ha,sre the freedom in 17 the First Ameiidment to do those kinds of things AS and we welcome that. And I :Listex: to people 19 voices, I consider the facts, h u t in the exid the 20 decision was mine and that's the judgment I made. 21 Q. Did you discuss this topic with 22 Mr. Stairik:>rook about the appointment of retired 23 judges to the board? 24 A. I believe I had aconversati.on with him Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC about the need to appoint people that would restore credibility for the Lucas County Board of Elections. And that i thought -- - and I may very well have brought up this kind of person, a judge, as the kind of person that would make sense to do E that. Because the authority -- at that point, the 7 appointment authority was vested with him. 8 Q. The recommendation authority? 9 A. Yeah. 10 Q. The appointment is with you. 11 A. Yeah the recommerndatiori authorit 12 Q• Right. Right. Right. 13 A . Excuse me. 14 Q. L,et' s 1ook. -- take a look at 15 Exhibit K-5, which is yet another article from the 16 Toledo Blade on this topic. Are you familiar with " 7 this editoria^..^ 18 A. Yeah. I believe 1reca.1..l. reading it. 19 Q. Clearly, this ed-itor.ial reflects a -- - 20 an attitude that is at odds with our system where 21 the two county chairs actually do make 22 recommendations as to who' s going to serve on the 23 board of elections. 24 A. As I say, there are lots of times Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ^5-5 whether you're a newspaper or just a citizen who would A.ike to soe an ou'^^ corrt:e that doesn' tfollow the pr-ot:.oss. so without reading tho whole thing, I wilJ.. -- you know, as it says h.orer Wt says t""€".he actions of Mr. Hustedy Ohio's chief election E official, are onti-re1.y appropriate, o-vordue -- and, :i:E anything, too loniont. o " ^ Q. It also tiriays "So Mr. .Hlusted needs to c mean it whon he says he won' tal1ow the parties to 10 name new hacks to replace the old hacks.°' But 11 that's not really what happened here, is it? 12 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 13 A. Actually, a..t' s-- -- it's exactly what 14 happened in the sense -- well, in the sense that is the party made a reoorn.mendati.on to appoint two 11 L6 people, okay? 17 Q. Uh-huh. 18 A. 'The people that they made a 19 recommendation for I deemed not to be competent 20 for the rea,oris proviously discussed 21 Q. Correct. 22 A. -- -- ad r.au. soam in t h is diso ussi on. 23 Q. Corr ect . 24 A. Okay. The party then was -- -- had. the ------ Realtirr:e - Videoconfex:en.uing - Trial WresPZZtation - Vi-d.^^ Spectrum Reportizxg LLC capacx.ty to make riew appointmex-Et , f it didr3. ° t. lt chose r3ot to make appointments. The time ran out, and so ther^fort at that point I had ara obl A.gation to mEike those appointmerxts. So it was ne-ver taken away by me from the party to have the ability to do that. T.h.e^.r chose not to -- they chose riot to i take adv-aritage of their oppo.r_-turbi.ty to make appointments after the first twca were deeErEed J unaccep t e ik a l e. 10 Q. They chose their option to contest your 11 determination by filing a writ of mandamus action 12 in the Ohio Supreme Court. 13 A. It° s what they C:h.oae. 14 Q Right. 15 A. My only point being is it Bs not what I 16 chose, i.t ' s what they chose. 17 Q. Understood perfectly. 18 A. Y"ea:t-:.. 19 Q. And let ° s take a quick look at 20 Exhibit K-6 here. And we're back again on the 21. themc, from The Blade .in this article now frcarn. 22 Mr. Burris following up on the editorial that, you 23 know, The Blade is not happy about the fact that 24 the parties are allowed to name replacements, and Realtime W Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC C5 `r that it '°should be fil1.ed by partisan --- party hacks, i_ f you wil 1 . °' But that ' s not what our s ys tem i. s , i-s it? 4 MS. RICHARESOI3 : Jbj ection. You can answer. 6 A. No, it' s not. our system allows the 7 parties to make the recommendation. 8 Q. Okay. And let' ^ turn to Exhibit K-7 9 which again is here because you have included thJs 10 in the record. And yet another editorial 'Lrom the 11 Toledo Blade urging you to --- to move towards 12 their thought of agpo4rxt-ng ^^oTDle such as Peter 13 Handwork to the Board of Elections and not 14 accepting recommendations from the -V - the - -- at 15 least the Lucas County Republican Party. I guess 16 the theme here seems to be pretty clearly that the 17 Toledo Blade doesn' t like the Lucas County -L£3 Eepubl i can Party. 19 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 20 A. That's -- if that's your opinion, I 21 guess that's your opinion. I don't -- -- I d©n 9 f- -- -- 22 Q. Well -- 23 A. I mean -- 24 Q. -- you identified -- Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum. Reporting LLC 1{7 8 A. We have - - ^ Q. -- this as something put in the record, so :t: ' m trying to find out why you thought this was ^ iinpertant to put in the record. MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. And that's ro not the question that was asked. To the extent 7 that we're characterizing the documents, they 8 speak for themselves. But I' m not sure what the 9 question that was posed to Mr. Secretary. 10 Q. Why is this -- why did you choose to 11 put this in the record? 12 MS. RICHARDSON: Are you asking him 13 t.he.t. question? 14 MR. TODD: Ye s . is MS. RICHARDSON: l. " m going to object. 16 You can --- you can answer. 17 A. Again, I don' t-- I don't know why the 18 attorneys from our team put this in the record. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. But I have no problem with it being in 21 the record. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. Okay. Because the bottom line is as 24 you see from these articles, they have been ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC €. S 9 recommending several ^ udgos of which we had made a ^ reooinmenda.tion on to oversee this process previously in May- 9 Q Q. Correc3 t. ^ A_ And -- - and :A: think their f'ru,tration ^ for what went oi-3. at the Lucas County Board of 7 Elections is consistent wit.h tho people that I 8 talk with in ]:Jucas County. "i".heir frustration had 9 gone -- they wor-o embarrassed. They we_r^ ^i-nba^rasaed as people from. -- as residents of Lucas County anc',^. what their board had become and 12 they wanted people to take action. They wanted 13 their public officials to take action. IJ 4 As :it p s been well-discussed, there are 15 limits to what action aSocrotary of State can 16 take in these matters. We bent over backwards to 17 try to help reform the Board with the appointees 18 from tho. Democratic and the Republican partic s. 19 We had the Ruvolo-Allison report that laid out a 20 path forward. We had thousands of houz ^spent by 21- competent professional staff on site at the Lucas 22 County Boaj^-d of Elections to -- to try to fix that 23 dysfunctional organization. It then led after 24 years of frustration to the transparency ------ Rea'.t^.me -- Videoconfe-encing -- Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC corn.rLt.itteo, the transparency oommiuteo made. recommendations for goi ^3r forward. It - -- it was a -- --- it was a po i nt U ha : :t: believe that many peop^o in the cor^r^u^^ i^^*d including t.:Eao newspaper said enough :i s enough. ^ They expected change. We worked t.hrc;ugh the process in accordance with t.ho law to try to get ^ +C.hat change. And what I hold-ove these editori.a:^s 9 and ^ rti. ci. e , :e-o flo o t are a co 1 lo o tio n of 10 sentiments that had been bu-ilt up over the course 7- l of that time and are captured in this. 12 As you can see when you' re 'the 13 Secretary of State, there are a lot of poople who 'L 4 wou l d 1 ikeyou to do a lot of things to ---- to 1s solve the Droblom. As you noted, even many of the 16 recommendations they provided we could n.o- follow 17 because we did not have the authority to do that. 18 We ----- the parties make the recommendations. The 19 parties made reeoinmondati.ons in this partWcular 20 case. We deemed the recommendations as inadequate 21 because the people that were recommended were not 22 competent. They had an opportunity to go back and 23 then make a set of new recoinmoncl.ations; they did 24 not do that. As you -- as you pointed out, they ------ Fea1time -- Videocon--^erencing - Tria1 Presentation - VWde^ ^^^ctrum Rep^rtina LLC ------16;€. ^ chose a different cou^sl- o.t. action. Q. Uh-huh. ^ A. Arid it ' s only at: that point dl.d any of 4 the appointments that now aiTe there were they ^ initiated froTri our off:ice. 6 Q. Iaet's look at Exhibit K-8 which is the 7 last exhibit in thi.s packacge of the Toledo Blade 8 exhibits. And :E' l l. ask you if you.' ve had occasion. 9 to review that little negative canipai.gn or 10 editorial -- excuse rnes let me w-i_thdraw that and. 11 rep^-ira^e it. 12 Have you had r^ccasion. to review that '' 3 very negative and disparaging editorial. cartoon 14 i-rom the 'S'czled^ Blade? 15 MS. RICHARDSON: Obj ect ion. You can 16 anssr^e-r the question. 17 A. I: ' ve nev-ez- been the su.b; ect of a 18 disparaging ed.ltorial. cartoon. 19 Q. Like that? Did you see, this? 20 A. I d i d . 21 Q. Okay. Why don't -- since we went 22 through all of that, why dcan' twe take 23 A. That 9 s fine. 24 Q. -- a break now. Off the record. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 1_62 THE V1DEC3GRAPHEE : We9 re ofFf the record ^ at 1: 42. 4 Thes.`e-u.ponr a "_iar.^cheon recess is taken at 1:42 p.m. E ^ 8 9 10 1 W 12 13 14 is W^ 17 18 ^^ 20 21 22 23 24 Realtime - Videoconferencing - 1'rial. Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------163 Friday Afternoon Session : November 7, 2014, 2 : 31 p.m. 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record at 2:31. 0 BY MR. TO3DD: 7 Q. `''hank you. Mr. Secretary, before we 8 went off the record, we were talking about the 9 various facts and circumstances in this case. And 10 one of the things that you had mentioned in your 11 testimony was that you had more or less taken the 12 pulse of peopi-e in "°'ol.edo regarding the proposed 13 appointments to the Lucas County Board of 14 Elections and said that you had gotten some input. 15 And my question to you is ; Who did you talk to? 16 A. I talked to public officials from the area. T talked to community leaders from the 18 area. I obviously did a number -- had a number of 19 media interviews on the topi.o and listened to what 20 everybody had to say. 21 Q. Okay. You mentioned public officials. 22 Can you remember any one specifically that you 23 sDoke to? 24 A. I remember speaking to Bob Latta who is ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------164 a cong.r_. e ^ sman . Q. Uh-huh. A. I reniemher speak'_ng to Re.ndy Gardner 4 who i.e a e te.te senator. ^ Q. Anybody else? 6 A. Not that I recall specifically having 7 conversations wi.th., but it didn't mean that I 8 didn't. 9 Q. Okay. How about community leaders, who 10 did you speak to as a community leader? 11 A. People that would fall into that 12 category would be J4mBrennan wli.ose fe.t.her was a. 1_ 3 former Republican chairman. 14 Q. In Lucas County? 15 A. In Lucas County. 16 I would have put on that list -- l.et's 17 see. Who else would I have talked to? I spoke to 18 -- I spoke to a -- a local municipal judge, I 19 think he was a mun 4 cipal judge, whose name escapes 20 me right now - - 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. -- that had experience working on a 23 board of elections in the past. 24 Q. Okay. Anyone else you can think of? ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------16 s A. I spoke with -- 1: also spoke with Bob Reichert who is an Oakwood -- - or Oakwood - - - a -- a council zraemkaer in Ottawa Hills and a former party chairman to get their sense on what they felt C people were saying in Lucas County - _ E Q. Okay. t A. -- about the issues. 8 Q. Did you speak to anyone who is 9 currently in the :^ucas County Republican Party in 10 terms of a member of the central committee? 11 A. I don' t know who the members of the 12 central comFnittoe are. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know how Lucas County is 14 structured in terms of the Republican Party? 15 A. I don't. 16 Q. Assuming it' s structured according to 17 to Ohio law, it' s done by precincts. Do you know 18 how many people are members of the Lucas County 19 Republican Party Central Committee? 20 A. I don't. 21 Q. Do have any idea how many people are 22 niomi'^^^ s of the Liacas County Ropublica:a. Party 23 Executive Committee? 24 A. I don't. Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting L,LC 7.C, U Q. Do you know whether there are any public officials who are members of that body? A. I don' t know. I ciora-' t know anything 4 about the structure of the :Lu.cas CountY Republican Party other than who the chai,?~man is. Q. Ok.a.ye And as we °-.re talked abou.t this 1 process that fs outlined :i.xi the Revised Code, we 8 know that it is the task of the party Executive 9 Committee to make aprpcintriients or reco3nmendaticyns 10 to you as Secretary of the proposed nominees for 11 the Board, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And in this case were you aware -- 14 befcre 1' ask that quest-ion, Wet me strike that. is Men-^bers of a party Central Cr.ammittee 16 and are alI elected., are they n.ot'? 1.7 A. :'hey a.r e . 18 Q. So they're all in effect public 19 officials? 20 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can 21 answer. 22 A. They are elected, yes. 23 Q. And were you aware of the fact in this 24 case that both Mr. Roberts and Ms. Bensman were Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------16-7 1 unanimously recomimon.ded by the entire body of the 2 Lucas County Executi-^rc. Committee? 3 A. I was aware that they were recommended. 4 I -- whethor it was un.anA.mous or noL.9 1 was not 5 aware of. But I was clearly aware that tli.oy were 6 ro com:dondec;l . 7 Q. And it would be important, wouldn't iU, 8 in trying to take the pulso, of the community in 9 this b.igartisan system to consider thc. -- the 10 ii-itorosts of the Executive Committee of the pa:xty, 11 wouldn ° t. it? 12 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can 13 ar.xswor. 14 A. Of which I did. is Q Q. And nevertheless did not approve their 16 selection? 17 A. When you asked for opinions of people, 18 you want to know what everybody thinks. I knew I 19 was going to find out what that body thought 20 because they were in charge of making the 21 recommera.datioizs. 22 Q. Wel l , other than the three or four 23 people that you talked to here, how did you weigh 24 that in asoalo that you had three or four people ------ Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial. Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------168 who were apparont7_y not ha^py with the recommendations versus an entire county pa.rty that was? MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can answer. ^ Q. You know 1 em just trying to figure that i out here. 3 A. To go back to the decision-making 9 process, it is a three-and-a-half-year -- 10 throo-ax-u.d-a-hai f-yoar process. You °re focused in 11 on avory, very small component o'L a 12 thifoo-an.d-a--half-yoar experience that I had as 13 Secretary of State. And we can go back through 14 that again but - - 15 Q. Ch, no. No. :): don.' t think any of us 16 want to do that. 17 A. We' ve gone through that. 18 Q_ But .1 ' rn. going back again to the 19 specific reoommen.dations that are the --- you know, 20 the fulcrum in this case, and that is the 21 appointment -- the recommendations of Mr. Roberts 22 and Ms.Bonsman to the Board. As wo ° ve discussed, 23 the statute says the Executive Committee shall 24 make the recommendations and you sha.ll appoint ------ Realtime -- V-Ldeoconferer_cing - Tria1. Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------169 L unless you' ve got areascan. on competency grounds 3 nottoF correct? MS. RICHARDSON: C)bjection. You can k answer. A. Yes. 4 • Okay. A. And I -- and I did not accept the recommendation based on competency grounds. c Q. Okay. Let me hand you vJhat. ' s been 1C marked f or purposes of identification as Rel-ator = s 11 Exhibit L. Excuse me. Let me give her the 12 original. 13 MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you. 14 is Thereu^on6 Relator ° ^ Exhibit L i^ marked 16 for purposes of identification. 17 18 A. Is there something s-peci'Lic you'd like 1_9 me to review in the matter? 20 Q. Well, it's -- you've ---- or you or your 21 counsel have added this to the record. And I'm 22 going to ask you a few questions about it and just 23 ask you if you -- if you have, had a chance to 24 familiarize yourself with this? Realtime •- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC A. "The director of the Lucas County Board of Elections resigned Friday evening after just five months on the job for what he called the L i-n.aka? li.ty to change the 'caustic environment' of that office." ^ Q. And that's what we were talking about 7 earl-_z-er S A. Which we were discussing earli.er. 9 Q . -- today. Yes. 10 A. So I. presume -- I presume that it was 11 submitted to vai.idate that. 12 Q. And in fact the -- I noticed as we get 13 down the page there that one of the problems that 14 Mr. Roberts specifically identifies here is that 15 he was unable to hire or fire employees at the 16 Board. That would make it very difficult to 17 change a-- an environment, wouldn't it? 18 MS. RICHARDSON: Oh ; ect ion. 19 A. Whcre are you -zc:ferr-ing to? 20 Q. The secoxYd-to--the-last sentence on the 21 f ix^st page of .E.,xhibit 22 A. Yeah. It's not i_n quotes, but I will 23 assume that he said that. 24 Q. Did you have this particular article ------ Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------1 71. availak:r1o to you as you were considering whether or not to appoint Mr. .Roberts to the Lucas County Board of Elections? 4 A. I don' tre^a7_ l. it as being part of - 5 of -- specifically being part of --- of that 6 convo rsat ion.. 7 Q. It would be important to be the 8 director of tho board of e1octions and have the 9 ability to hire and fir-e os;:p1-oyees, wouldn' tit ? 10 MS. RICKARDSON: Objection. You can. 11 12 A. It would be important to have the 13 ability to manage the operations, yes. 14 Q. Now, again, as we discussed this 1s morning, apparently Mr. Ruvolo, your consultant, 16 was one of the members of the Board of Elections 17 at this time that was preventing Mr. Roberts from 18 b.irina and firing employees? 19 MS. RICHARDSON: Ok.aj eot.ion . 20 A. He may have been a member of the Board 21 at the time. I'm unaware that he was preventing 22 Mr. Roberts from hiring and firing employees 23 because one board member alone does not have that 24 authority. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------172 Q. The other thing that is :^^^^^^-red to in this artA.cle is this questieax^ of what happeaYed in terms of Mr. Roberts' corriptatPr a.t the time he left. And is it - - well, l et rr e ask it a.gai. ra . Were you --- you. did not have this article 1-i-i -Erort E o :^ y^,^. apparently irt^. ^,une at i.he time that you 7 made the decision on Mr. Roberts' caridi.dacy, 8 correct? 9 A. I was aware of this back in -- I dc3r3.'t 10 know the time --- the date is scrubbed out in the :f. a. copy that I have. I was aware of the 12 circumstances regard'Lng his resignation at the 13 time that it occurred. 14 Q. Okay. Let me - -- the - - the date of the 15 article -_- 16 A. I see. 17 Q. - -- is actually there below - 18 A. Yeah. Iri 2011. 19 Q. 2011, okay. 20 A. W was aware of these circumstances in 21 20:3-1. 22 Q. Okay. Is t h^ re -- after t ak.inc.^ a 23 minute to rev3 ew this article, and I encourage you 24 to do so, anything else in here about Mr. Roberts' Realtime - Vi.deocon-ferencing - '^rial. Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 173 conduct that would have been a basis for you not ^ to appoint him to thc. Lucas County Board of Elections? : MS. R.ICHAR13SON. ohj ectican. E Q. :l:t you want, I'll make the question 6 cncare sDecific. 7 A. Well, I'll read the whole thing. 8 Q. C+lf.ay- 9 A. :I guess I'll read. it for the record, 10 since we're -- 11 ^ _ Well, we can you know, why don't you 12 -- irxstead of reading the whole thing into the 13 ^^^cord., because the - - 14 A. Yeah. "The director of the Lucas 15 Cotanty Board of Elections" Friday "resigned Friday 16 evening after -just -five months on the job for what 17 he called the inability to cha^ae the 'caustic 18 environment' of that office. Director Ben 19 Roherts, a Rep,zhl:i_can, submitted his letter of 20 resignation effective at the end o-f the ksiasi_n^^s 22. day, stating" that. "he could not make a difference 22 at the board of eiectio.n. s . . . . 11 23 Q. And wouldn't it be consistent 24 with that -- Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------174 A. We l 1, no,p1 o aso-- Q. I " m not asking you A. You asked me - - Q. No, I did not ask you to read the ent i.r_. e do curnen t on the r o c o r d. ^ A. We°ro not going to do this parse -- 7 this parsir:tg, 8 Q. You can read the whole thing if you 9 want. 10 A. °' In an odd twist shortly after the 11 r^s-ignations Election Manager Meghan Gallagher, a 12 Rop-u.b:^..i.ca.nf called po, ico to the elections office 13 Sti'riday night to report that Democrat Daniel 14 DeAngelis, the deputy director, had gained access -1. 5 to Mr. Roberta° office an.d rontovod his computer. 16 '0Pol3_ce responded and took an incident " 'l repo r t biz tcha r act e rizPd 4-t as a dispute r-s:a. t.. l3 o r 18 than a burg'Lary. Ms. Gallaghor;° doniod - 19 '°d.oclinc,d to comment. 20 9Cr7etnocratio board member Jim Ruvolo 21 said Mr. DeAngel.i_s is now the acting director, but 22 Republican board member Jon Stainbrook, who is 23 also the county Republican party chairman, said 24 that is not the case. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC "Mr. DeAngelis confirmed that Ms. Gallagher -- who was then the highest --ra.rzking Republican in the office --- denied him the key to Mr. Rcaherts ; corner of"fice. So h.e then called building security to open the door. "The cor,.dputer^ was removed F to sec-u.r_.e t it, E he said, and none of the paper files were 8 removed. c J '° -Lhere was no F2epuhl.ican. prc.se-rit when Wf? the computer was taken. 11 "The office was locked by the time the 12 two uninformed cff i cers arrived at the" -- at the 'L 3 "board of elections ca-Ffice at One Government 14 Ceriter Friday night. 15 geMx:-n Roberts9 resig.nation is another in 16 a long 1-ine of strtAggles for the board thaL. 17 culrniriated earlier this year ir.af" a supervisory 18 oversight -- -- in ;° s-upervisory oversight of the 1.9 office by the Ohio secretary of state. 20 "Mr. Rc,berts told The Slade Friday 21. night: 22 "1:1: am not confident in the way things 23 are being run and, as a private citi^en, I am 24 concerned about the partisan division of the Re.a"Ltime -- VideoconTerencing - Tria'L Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------176 e^f -i_ce. ^ oe End qtzete. Continuing in quote "' No one there cares about doing a good joIa, ' he centinued. ^ ' Everycane case about doing things' " the way 'p ' they have been done. That is not what I think the board of elections deeerves. ' r "Part of -the problem was the i.nah-i'_ity ^ to hire and fire employees, Mr. Roberts eaid. °° So 9 there were -- so when that - - so there were -'- - so 10 when the -- - so there were Enany things -- so 11 "' 'I`here are so many things there that I think the 12 voting public, the citizens of Lucas Coun-Lyd wi].l. 13 be shecked abe:aL., ' he sai-Ld, refer-ring to the 14 J_seu.es he addressed .ixy his letter of 15 resignC'l..ione P tlF 16 'Looking back over the past fi-ve . . . 17 years, tl' ' it has been made abundantly ^i ear. '" 18 Q. 1 ' m sorry. That was months, right? 19 A. 1 ' m sorry. . . . menths it has been 20 made abundantly clear that my experience and 21 expertise in strategy, operations, policy, 22 procedure, and project management is not welcomed 23 at the [Lucas County Board of E^.ectiene] f the 24 preference continues to be partisan politics as Realtime - srideocQn-ferencing - brial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ,. '3 7 usual, ' Mr. Roberts wrote in his letter. "He also said: 'The [Lucas County < Board of Elections] is a caustic environment and 4 not the norm across the 88 counties of Ohio. ' 5 "Mr. Stainbr-ook said that Ms. C-allaghe^ 6 was right to deny Mr. DeAngelis access to the 7 Republican director's office and said that she was 8 not permitted to comment to the media because" the 9 board ---- "of a board policy." 10 b^3hen the director ...... the director of the board, who is a R^publican resigns, there is ^2 [s_i.z;l an equal balance. "The board is set ur) for 13 Republi.ca:.73.s and Democrats to maintain balanre, ' 14 M.r_.. Stainbrook said. i 5 °° ' These people acted caverzealc^^^sly and 16 oiae of the p^opl_€v w}io did that is already under 17 investigation for e-mail hae:k.irag of that very 18 coFnputer . . . . °° and all -- -- ,F . . . ax-F.d. they ax-e al1. 19 Eemocrat , ,@ Mr. Stainbrook said, in reference to 20 the pend;_ng ir3.vestir^ation 3_nto the alleged hacki.n^c-^ 21 of a Republican board . . o" iriember' s "emails 22 account last rncant h . 23 "He also said Mr. DeAngelis should have 24 consulted the board as a whole before doing ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Pbesentati-on - Video Spectrum RePort?^g T-:LC 178 1 anything with Mr. Roberts' "-- with Mr. Roberts' 2 ot o Qffice a re 3 "The other R.c.publ.a.carx board member, 4 Tony DPGia A.o, sa.ia there was no rati.onalo to 5 remove Mr. .Roborts' computer from a locked office 6 where 1_^ was already secure. 7 "Democrat Ron Rothenbuhler, the board's 8 chairman, did not return request for comment. 9 "Mr. Ruvolo, the other L+ernocrat on the 10 four-person board, said he was surprised by the 11 resignation and did not know the details 12 concerning the r emoving of Mr. Roberts' coniguter.. 13 '° ' 1 know there was a -flap. I do not 14 know any do tai1. s9 he sa i. d. ' 'EversWno o I got on 1F, the board, it has been obvious that there are 16 oert-a:in nieinbers of the board who orea-t;e o.haos and 17 enjoy _i_t. '{JnfortUnatoly that may be what is going 18 on.' 19 "Mr. Ruvolo said he was referring to 20 Mr. Stainbrook. 21 "Mr. Ruvolo also questioned accusations 22 of Mr. Roberts ° resignation letter -- and a terse 23 e-mail that accompanied it --- to the board 24 members. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------179 ] ``I'horo are no facts thoro. ° Mr. Ruvolo ""lhore are some accusations'° anc-#,. ^ _ - 4 °F ° arzd all I have ever heard are acc;Usations. If 5 there are things we need to look at, we will look 6 at thom., but. I am. frustrated. that we bYOvor get 7 anythi_ig that approaches a f aot we got 0 aoousat ions. ° 9 "In his e-mail, Mr. Roberts wrote that 10 one of the things he was frustrated about was "Not 11 only the fact that one side (D) had both sets of 12 keys and full access to the areas that are to be ^3 under e °' the bipart -- -- under " : ba.partisan oontrol , 14 but that the approDr.iate remedy o-f rekeying was 15 unilaterally blocked without notioe, F 1-6 "Mr. Roberts also questioned how a 17 newspaper advertisement was placed lra The Blade 18 outside of the boa r ci of o l o c: t i. ons pro c: oss5 and why 19 there is ta.xpayor_Paid. parking for" board. 20 eE^ployeos -- riboard of elections employees." 21. "He fia.rther said" -- -- that he has bc;orl 22 unrelenting -- "He further sa-i-d there has boon 23 unrelenting partisan div-ls:ion, alleged. i.mpropor 24 oom^iit€vr server access and orasis-ig of log files; Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial. €^^^^e-ritatiori - Video Spec:t x-.a.^: ^eport.il7^ T 1-:C ------120 not allowing to hire for open...'° -- -- open 1' . . . Republ.iean positions; and 'no accountability for violations of the rules that do exist.' 9 "Mr. Roberts of Maumee was appointed director on July 18th. E "He and Mr. DeAngelis of Toledo, as 7 deputy director, were brought on board to replaee 8 former director Linda. Howe, a Democrat, and Deputy 9 Director Jeremy Demagall, a Republican, who were 10 dismissed in Merch for their roles in the i.mpropc.r 11 counting of provisional ballots. "Before ale was hired, Mr. R.obert swas a 13 parliamentarian of t ll.e Republican Party urzder 14 Mr. Stainbrook. ^-5 "He is a :Eornier business aiaa.lyst for 16 Dana Corp. and was a director of cs.trE.pus 17 consolidation for Westside Monte ssorl Center 18 scliool, according to In1s resurriCS. °' There we go. 19 Q. The article seems to desir-:ibe a series 20 o-ic problems that arose with the Democratic members 21. of the Board, doesn't it? 22 A. 'TYae s.rt _i.ele to me descrA.be s ari 23 environment where nobody can get along and solve 24 problems. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 1 Q. Which is why Mr. Roberts chose to 2 absent himself until changes could be made on the 3 Board, eorrect? a MS.RIC: F I A RDSC) No Q b j ection. 5 A. We9 lI let his resignation letter stand 6 for itself. 7 Q. And the article goes along with it, 8 correct? 9 A. Cr.arrect. _0 Q. I' ve noticed that there are repeated 11 references in here to Mr. Ruvcalcs' s role as a board 12 member at this time, correct? 13 A. There are references to his work as a. 14 board member . 15 Q. And the, fact that he had an ongoing 16 series of disiDutc s with Mr. Stainbrook? 17 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 18 A. I dcan' tknow that it says that. But 19 there certainly was a dispute in this particular 20 case. 21 Q. Given this information, do you really 22 believe that Mr. Ruvolo was a fair, independent 23 observer who could be relied upon to give you 24 independent advi-ce regarding operations at the Reabt , rne -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LL%"'------:€.82 ^ :€:,ucas County Hoard of 1-2:lections? 2 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 3 A. I believe he was an informed observer. 4 Q. But not independent? 5 MS. RICHAR.:DSON: Objection. 6 A. I believe he was an in.ro.r_.med observer 7 who represented the partisan balance that you need 8 to look into the oversight of s. board of 9 elections, 10 Q. And when you put together the 1-. Allison-Ruvolo coritimittee, you only gave it the 12 balance of one person who was informed and that 13 was Mr. Ruvolo? 14 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 1s Q. Correct? .A. 6 A. It was s. balance of Dernocrats and 17 Republicans of people who had experience workinq 1s in election matters, as ion Allison is a former 19 deputy Secretary of State. 20 Q. But Mr. Allison had no background in 21 the specific matters involving Lucas County, did 22 he? 23 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 24 A. He did not, no. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------?83 Q. And in fact if Mr. Fcu-vol-c} was involved 2 in creating this culture of dysfunction, he°s 3 exactly the wrong person you would put on the 4 commi,ttee to make management recommendations, 5 isn°t he? 6 MS. RICHARDSON: Ubj ection. 7 A. It was our experience in working with 8 Mr. Ruvolo that he was a person of gocadwiIl that 9 was trying to solve problems and that he would 10 serve as a good counterbalance to Mr. Allison so ^1 that we would have partisan balance in the 12 oversight and the recommendations coming forward 13 as to how to solve the problems at the Lucas 14 County Board of Elections. 15 Q. Well, apparently one of the problems 16 was caused by a former director Linda Howell who 17 i. sre ^erenc e d here in the -_ -in one of the last 1. 8 oages of the article -- last paragraphs of the 19 article who -- 20 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Is that 2:t. the question? 22 Q. Yes. `I'hat ° s a quest _i. on. 23 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can go z -4 ah^ad. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 13 ©L A. What are you asking about Linda Howell? ^ Q. Apparently shc, was dismissed for a role in i.rri-propor counting of ballots? ^ A. That' s oor roct . ^ Q. And wasn't Ms. FAowoll the personal 6 selection of former Secretary Jennifer Brunner to 7 be that director, even though she didn ° t live in 8 Lucas County? 9 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 10 A. I don ° t know how that -- I don ° t know 11 how that worked. 12 Q. She was appointed dur.inr.^ Secretary 13 Brunner's term as secretary of state, though, 14 wasn't she? 15 A. I don't know the answer to that 16 question. 17 Q. Okay. Isn't the picture that emerges 18 from this story that Mr. Roberts is someone who 19 wants to be part of the solution and not part of 20 the problem and he was blocked from being able to 21 do that by the conduct of the then-members of the 22 hoard of elections, including Mr. Ruvolo? 23 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 24 ,A. It -- again, Mr. Todd, we've gone ------ Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 185 through this, Yeiz seerri to srra.ai.t to parse out every 2 single issue and not look at the ^iili. picture. 3 have the responsibility to look aw the full i picture. I have iie - - _€. have no reason to believe theit Mr. Roberts is ro-L a fJ-^-3.e person, that'e --- - but based on ezur- expex--i-enee, he seemed to be u.r3.Cikale to eflec; change e.nd. did not eeei-n prepared to effect the ihancfe that was neeessary, and ^ therefo:r-e by that st.a^nda,?~d, he was not e.em-peIC-er.zt 1 c i3a our minds to do the job. 11 Q. Mr. Secretary, I've handed you wha.t " s J_ 2 been marked for purposes of identification 13 Exhibits M--1 through M-3. Do you recognize what 1^'^ those are? A. Well, it says here L-.h^t they, are the 16 regi.ena1- liaisons 3-nap for the Ohio Secretary ol' 17 State. 18 Q. Okay. And what is a regional liaison? 19 A. W t° e a person that when they do their 20 jobs correctly is our eyes and ears on the ground 21 at the local level that -- that can both 22 communicate information from our office and take 23 back information from the local boards to our 24 office. Rea_E.time -- Vi.d.eoconfe=en.cirg - ^.f.ial Presenta'_-:ior - Video ape^^^ ^m R^porti-na LLC Q. Sa it °s rea^ly the eyes and ears for E your office in a local board of elections? A. In terms of physical Dresen.ce cn the ground there, yes. Q. Okay. And - - ^ A. It' s not the only one, but it' s part of that process. 8 Q. And clearly si3ace they°rc each given a 9 fairly sizca..h:Le regi_ons it's not someth.irig that 10 they can be in a board offA.cc every day all the 11 tLme? 12 A. They cannot, no. 13 Q. Lucas County appears to fall in what is 14 designated on the maps as Region 1? 1s A. Yes. 16 Q. During the time period that wc ' re 17 talking about, the relevant time period roughly 18 2012 to 2014, do you know who the regional liaison 19 is frcm your office to -- or was to Lucas County? 20 A. Between the 2000 what? 21 Q. Let me withdraw that question. I 22 apologize for being so sloppy in asking it. 23 Between 2012 and the present time, the 24 period of time covered by these three maps, who is ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spe c t ruin Reporting LLC the individual who is assigr3.ed as the regionaJ.- l-iai.s^n? A. I believe - -- I believe -i-t --- it's Tim 4 Monaco. E Q. Okay. Is that why it 3s designated as 6 Region 2. there on the maps? He° s - - 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- down -in the lower right-hand corner. Q A. Yes. It would seem to indicate that he 10 was the regional liaison during that period. Q_ Okay. And one thing that strikes me as 12 a little pecal? ar when I look at these maDs is 13 although that it shows us in April of 2012, which 14 is Exhibit M-1, that Lucas County is part of 15 Region 1, i.-E we look to map M- 3. , dated October 16 21st, 2013sans^ then the iast map from Septembex- 17 of this year, it appears that Lucas County has 18 fallen out of Region 1 somehow. 19 20 Thereupon, Rela.tor°s Exhibit M is marked 21 ^^^ pur-ooses of identification. 22 23 A. Well, we -- we sent people during most 24 of that period to actza.al.ly be there on a regular ------ Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Renobting LLI\'------18S basis from my c;ffice in Columbus or durin.g that time we had also appointed Keith Cunningham and Arch Kiinhrew to be there. There have been -- it ' s 4 not that Lucas County ever fell out of eur- 5 attent.ion. As a matter of .f act 6 they consumed 6 most of our attention and we had a number ef staff 7 people assigned to make sure things were working 8 in Lucas County. 9 Q. So that's why Tim Monaco is no longer 10 assigned to Lucas County as of sometime in 2013? 11 Is that your -- - is that your answer? I'm just 12 trying to find out why he was no longer the 13 regional liaison assigned to Lucas County? 14 A. We assigned other people to take charge 1S of the events in Lucas County because it was 16 requiring more than what 7-im could handle. 17 Q. Okay. When you spoke to the community 18 leaders, and you menticaned a couple of people and 19 a couple of public officials, and we know from 20 earlier testimony that you had spoken to people at 21 the Toledo Blade. Did any of them tell you that 22 they wanted you to appoint retired judges tc, the 23 Lucas County Board of Elections? 24 A. Did they tell me that they wanted me ------ Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 1 89 ; I I to? Q. Correct. A. I don ° t know that any conversation I 4 had was one where somebody told me that they 5 wanted me to. I think --- as I rec ai i, any 6 conversati.on I had about the matter, it was more 7 along the lines of explaining the process: That I 8 don' tmake the appointments, that the Lucas County 9 Board of Elections made the appointments, and that 10 they should -- -- and that they should come up with a -- a good list of people and make those 12 recommendations to --- to the party. 13 Q. In other words, the individual you 14 spoke to, you directed them back to the parties so 1s that they could help fashion a list of folks who 16 would be appropriate candidates? 17 A. Anybody who came to me with 18 suggestions, W explained the process that they 19 should go through to seek to put in pl.ace peopl.e 20 that they feit would be helpful to the reform of 21 the Lucas County Board of Elections. 22 Q. My understanding is that as of the time 23 that Ms. :F3ensntan and Mr. Roberts' appointments 24 were rejected and others were appointed, Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------:l_ 90 Mr. Wagoner and Judge Handwork, that Democrats L also made ro.coniFnonciati.on at that time for appointment t-o another vacant slot; is that 4 correct? C A. They did. c- Q. And that person was Brenda Hill, the 7 then troasurer of the Lucas County Democratic 8 Party? 9 A. That was. That is who was ultimately 1i3 appointed. 11 Q. And you didr_ ° t have any concern about 12 her being amomhor of the Board as someone who had 13 been previously i.nvolved in the events of the 14 p as tt--- ? 15 MS. RICHARDSON: C 16 A. Yes, 1d.iet., but as I would have been 17 conuernod about anybody who was being appointed at 18 that time the problems wore so bad in Lucas 19 County. But upon review, we decided that she 20 would serve we l-1 in that capacity. 21 Q. Even though she was the c;i-io who was 22 likely responsible for fad_l_ixxg to fillo the proper 23 ca3:npaigii finance reports that yotz mentioned were a 24 pr-oh 1 om7 Realtime -- Videoconferencing - 'rria1 Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC .^. ^^ .^. MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead. i A. I don't --- I did not come to that conclusion, no. 9 Q. Who else would have been responsible other than the treasurer of the party? ^ MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. You can 7 answer. 8 A. I don't know what the inner workings of 9 the party ai:7e. 10 Q. Is i.t your belief that you simply 17.. didn' twant anyone under Jon Sta .inbrook' s control 12 to be on ttl-o Board of :E^,1.oot.ions? 13 A. It was not ---- not my belief, no. 14 Q. And you never expressed that to anyone? 15 A. I expressed that we needed to have 16 good, credible people who could do the job of 17 reforming the Board of Elections, and that's 18 always been my goal. I didn't want to spend a 1J single minute of my time or the secretary of 20 state's o-Ffi.ces' resources on micromanaging any 21 local board of elections. They work best when 22 thoy work well at the local level. I had no 23 desire to be engaged in that process. But, again, 24 when you get three and a half years into your term ------ Realtime - euideoconTerer3.cing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reportina- LLC '3 9i', and the problems only seem to be getting worse and ^ problems continue to persist and there begins to be an outcry from acominunity for you to do 4 somethi-ng about it, we used all of the legally E allowable tools to try to first raform the Board, ^ and then when the Board ---- when it became clear 7 that it wasn' t going to be fixed, then we fo'Llowed 8 the process for fi:xirag it. 9 Q. Those are really two different things, 10 though, are they not? I mean, the first thinq is 11 addressing whothex- board rrio^nbors have failed in 12 their respo.n.sibilitios in exo.cut:i.ng the 13 appropriate removal process. That ' s one funct.a.on. 14 of your office, correct? ^5 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 16 Q. Yeah. Let me restate that, too. That 17 was -very poorly worded. Sorry. 18 1mean one of the things that you .have 19 the responsibility for and the authority to do 4-s 20 to look at a board of elections and say a member 21 or members are not fulfilling their 22 responsibilities under the law ana you can 23 institute a formal process to have them removed 24 from t-ho board, correct7 Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 7_93 A. Yes . Q. And that' s exactly what happened here 3 with regard to the hearing process t.hat 4 Mr. D^rnsc.hrcsder conducted in the spring of this 5 year? 6 A. And we let the process go in Lucas 7 County long -- a long, lont-^. time. There were 8 prablems -- --- look, you see the article tha-t goes 9 back to 2011. There were clearly serious problems 1{3 in 2011. We invested an untold amount of time in ii t^yjing to resolve the problems before concluding 12 that there was no way to constructively resca' ve 13 those. Once we had exhausted what we felt were 14 every reasonable o-ptican, we were le:ft with removal is as our only other choice. 16 Q. Okay. Arad that. ° s ::^ea' ly one of the 17 responsibilities your zaff`s-c:,e has and the au-thority 18 to undcx°ta^e ar-i appropriate formal ^^^ocess to 19 reT:^^^e members of a board of electi-s^ns, correct? 20 A. Thates correct. 21 Q. And that ' s what happened here? 22 A. Uh-huh. 23 Q. And we can maybe disagree as to whether 24 4t was a correct way to dc:, it or not, b..a.t t.hat' s ------ Rea1time - Vicieocanferencing - Trial Preserit.ation - Video 8g^ctrum. Reporting Ij:ILC: ------.194 ^ what you did is you exercised your power A. That' s correct. Q. -- to .reino,sred the board members. 4 That's a separate issue, is it not, from 5 determining whether someone who has not served on 6 the board of elections is acom.petent me^iber of 7 the board, correct? 8 A. -t's not entirely separate. 9 Q. Aren' twe looking at the individual 10 characteristics of a person when they're a-pgointed 11 to determine whether or not they're competent? 12 A. Well, at the poir-t we have three and a 13 hal^ ^ea.rs of history to look at the root causes 14 of the problem. And if those root causes will 1s still be .in'Ct=.a.ct by fu.t-u:a^e decisions that you make, 1-6 then they ax:-e intertwined with one another. 17 Q. Well, bu.t it does not permit the fact 18 that there has been a hi.story of dysf-^inction in a 19 board, whether it's Lucas County or anyplace else, 20 doesn' t give the Secretary's office not ---- and I 2 1- won' tspeak to you as an individual -- _ 22 A. Uh--huh. 23 Q. -- as a public official power to just 24 unilaterally override any recommendations that are Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC :l. made by a county party? 2 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead. 3 A. It does not. It -- -- there is a process 4 as we 9ve disricussed already several time s 5 Q Q. Ye a h . 6 A. -- that' s outlined in the law. We 7 followed that process. And, again, I p il 8 re.iterate: The initial recommendations from the 9 Republican. Party were rejected on the basis of 10 competency. The Republican Party had a chance 11 then to make new appointments. They did not 12 choose the path of making new appointments. And 13 so at that point I had the responsibility under :1-4 the law to name people to fill those roles. 15 Q. One of the concerns that -- that I 16 think has arieen in this circumstance is that -- 17 that there is some sort of a personal disagreement 18 between you and Mr. Stainbrook. And that that in 19 fact had influenced your decision making process 20 here. Would you agree that that is what happened 21 or not? 22 A. That is not what happened. 23 Q. So would you deny ever saying to anyone 24 that Mr. Stainbrook was dead to you? Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 196 A. I don't recall ever saying that. Q. Do you recall ever saying that ^ Ms.Bersmar3, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Stainbrook, if 4 they challenge your decision, were going to be 5 made unemployable by you throughout thc, State of 6 Ohio? 7 A. That's absurd. 8 Q. Z t we oould have a couple minutes, I 9 think we're at the end. 10 MS. RICHARDSON: Great. 1.1 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We 9 re off the record 13 at 3:10. 14 (A short recess is taken.) 15 'S'HE VIDEOORAPIIER: We are back on the 16 record at 3:21. 17 Q. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, just a few 18 more questions. The first thing I'll have you 19 identify, take a look at a document tha.t' sbeorz 2i, marked for p-Li.rposos of identification as Relator's 21 Exhibit N, which is the last exhibit, lpromise. 22 Take am.inute and take a.look through that, if you 23 would. 24 Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC :I- 9'; i 'S`heroupon, Relator' s Exhibit N is n:arkod 2 for purposes of identification. 3 4 A. Is thore anything in particular you 5 want me to look at? 6 Q. Yes. Yos. Wliy don F t we fooiis on if 7 you look right at the picture or a guy named Kest €3 there on the lo.^t. Do you see that? 9 A. Uh -- huh . 10 Q. `-"he paragraph right under that pi-oturo . 11 And before I ask you anything about that, let me 12 just kind of go back over what we talked about. 13 And that is it' s really important, isn ° t it, that 14 the public in a county have confidence that 15 members of the board of elections are good, 16 oareful stewards of the publio moneys and also are 17 the type of people that can that you can rely on 18 to be a good competent public servants, righ.t, 19 would you agree? 20 A. Yes. 2'L Q. Were yo-u aware of the fact whon you 22 appointed Mr. Ir:i-sh to the Board that hn' s been 23 apparently accused i n the past of sexual 24 harassment and had to use public funds or pay ------ Realtime -- Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 19^ 1 or at least the issue came up as to whether public ^: funds were going to be pai-d out because he had 3 been harassing employees of the county treasta.rer' s 4 office when he was an officer in that office? 5 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 6 Q. Just are you aware of that? 7 A. I-- I was not aware of it. And I-- 8 an.d " presume that because he was never convicted, 9 at least according to this article, that it 10 wouldn't have come up in our background search. 11 Q. Do you remember the allegations that 12 came up with Mr. Irish that we have referred to 13 repeatedly in the Toledo area about Strippergate? 14 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 15 A. I don't. No. 16 Q. Mr. Irish had hired strippors for a 17 Democratic Party f und-raisez- and they we:ce o-Lit on 18 some piiblic golf cours- and caused al1 sorts of 19 constornat i.o:E:. . 20 A. That' s why you should vote Republican. 21 Q. Exactly . But you weren p t aware of 22 that? 23 A. No, I was not. 24 Q. Okay. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC ------l99 7 A. Look, Mr. =€:r:ish. Ws --- Mr. iri.sh was sanctioned. Mr. Irish was suspended. Mr. Irish was not with -- not a perfect board member. But 4 it was the transparency commattee' s conclusion 5 that he remain because they felt in their opinion 6 that he would have ---- that he could be a posit-ive 7 -- have apcasit-izTc. impact on the operations and 8 that he had shown ac^dwi.ll i-n wanting to implement 9 the recommendations that came out of the 10 R,av-c3lca-AlI..i.son report. But by no means was he w'tho;xt error in his role and -- and he was 12 appropriately, I believe, reprimanded for that. 13 Q. And looking aaai.n at this article, I4 Exhibit N, many references i.n here to Mr. Ruvol-oF s 15 longstanding friendship with Mr. Irish? 16 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 17 Q. Were you aware of that? 18 A. Not specifically. But I do know that 19 people in the Democratic Party are fr4 ends with 20 people in thc. Democratic Party and people in the 21 E.epub1ican. Party are friends with people in the 22 Republican Party. And it would not surprise me 23 that if euerybead.y in this particular world of 24 politics didn ° t know one another. Realtime - Videoconferencing - Tria-L Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 200 ] Q. I suspect yc>La.' re right in can.e way or another. If we could turn back to what 's in 9 front of you, it should be Exhibits M p-- M-1 through 3. And I' an glad we found out that you 6 have a vacancy that we have to get filled. 7 A. Yeah. 8 Q. ADparenti-y Mr. Monaco is a regional 9 1 ia iscz n in 2 J 12 . I t's iny understanding that he 10 was either asked or simply did resign from --- from 11 your office sometime in the latter part of 2012; 12 is that right? 13 A. I bel.:'L.eve so. 14 Q. And that was because he had been 15 convicted of aggravated menacing with a shotgun? 16 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. 17 A. I-- I dori ' t know. I don. ° t know :i_ T 18 that was the case. But I do know that he had gone 19 through some personal problems that he needed to 20 resolve and he could not remain in our employ 21 while those issues were unresolved. And when he 22 had demonstrated a sufficient personal capacity to 23 overcome the demons that were troubling him, we 24 gave him a second chance here. Realtime -- Videoconferencing -- Trial Presentation -- Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 201 Q. Okay. And was that in connection with a -- -- were the c ha. rges in co n.n.ecti on w i t h an election-related matter involving McCain campaign 9 --- or excuse me, not the McCain campaign, the Romney campaign. McCain was like four years earlier. A. Yeah, I -- 8 MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Go ahead. 9 A. 7: dc3n' t know all of the circumstances. 10 It was clear that he acted in a way that was ^i inappropriate, that --- that as it was exp1-ained to 12 me, had been a result of a drink.ing problem. And 13 I °,sre been. sufficiently persuaded that he has 14 a ddresse d tho ^ e -i- sstxe s ar-id is --. .- has been d.o i ng a is good job sixyce he came back. °fi. 6 Q. Thank you. 17 One last set of quesUioras and that 18 relates to Exhibit I in the little stack Wrz front i. 9 of you. A.nd that' syour letter to Mr. Stainbrook 20 of ju.rae 24th, 201-4. ^ believe you to.Ld us you did 21 not write this letter? 22 A. That is correct. 23 Q. And do you know who did write the 24 letter? Rea-'tirne - Videoooniere-noing - Triab Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 202 A. I c-lon' t. It was presented to me by my chief of staff, Halle Pe:^gex^, aaid I reviewed it. I asked her, as I c;.ustomarii.y do with these, we L share all our facts ix:, he.r- e , are you confident in wliat' s in hex-es this reflects accurately the ^ discizssions. And once I. reviewed it and. was sufficiently ^onfident- of tha^., : signed it. ^ Q. Okay. I don't believe I have anything 9 further. You will have the right to review and 10 this transcript, although we are required to ti le .^ 1 the original with the Ohio Supreme Court on 12 Monday. So if you' d like to make any changes and 13 so on, :i: '^ sure that the Court wil laccept that. 14 And we would have no objection to. is A. Okay. Thank you. 16 Q. Thank you so much. Thank you taking I7 the time to do this. 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER This concludes the 19 deposition. We are off the record at 3:29. 20 (Signature not waived.) 21 22 Ther-eupozz, the foreg oing proceedings 23 concluded at 3:29 p.m. 24 Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 203 1 State of Ohio . C E R T I F I C A T E County of Franklin: SS 2 I, Stacy M. Upp, a Notary Public in and for 3 the State of Ohio, do hereby certify the within-named Jon M. Husted was by me first duly 4 sworn to testify to the whole truth in the cause aforesaid; testimony then given was by me reduced 5 to stenotypy in the presence of said witness, afterwards transcribed by me; the foregoing is a 6 true record of the testimony so given; and this deposition was taken at the time and place as 7 specified on the title page. 8 I do further certify I am not a relative, employee or attorney of any of the parties hereto, 9 and further I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties 10 hereto, or financially interested in the action. 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office at Columbus, 12 Ohio, on November 10, 2014. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 116k------.---.--- - - _ ------^--_------ 21 S'tacy M. Upp, Notary Public - State of Ohio My commission expires August 6, 2016. 22 23 24 Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video Spectrum Reporting LLC 204 Witness Errata and Siqnati-a.re Sheet Correction ox- Change Reason Code 1--Misspelling 2-Word Omitted 3--Wrong Word 4-Clarification 5--0t:tier (Please explain) Page/Line Correction or C7iange Reason Code I, Jon M. Husted, have :cead the entire t^'anscri.pt of rciy deposition taken in th:is rriatterr, or the same has been. read to me. Iif,equest that the changes noted on my errata sheet (s) be entered into the record for the reasons 4-ndicatedo Date . ------Sigraature The witness has failed to sign the depc^sit_i.c;n within the time allowed. Date Sign.ature : ST11'101 £3L;T4 2-W Realti¢ne - Videocon.rF.r.encing - Tr:ia? PresentalC.i^n - Vxd^^ Spectrum Repcarting L:il:IC" PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACT Contract Number 2013-05 September 19, 2012 This Personal Service Contract ("Contract") is between the Ohio Secretary of State (hereinaffer the "Secretary of State"), located at 180 E. Broad Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215, and James Ruvolo (hereinafter the "Contractor"), 74 Canterbury Court, Ottawa Hills, Ohio 43606. Article 1. STATEMENT OF WORK 1.01 The Contractor shall undertake tlte work and activities set forth below (the "Services"): To provide managenaent and electio»s consulting services regarding the operation and manageinent of the Lucas County Board of Elections under the direction of the Ohio Secretary of State. The Contractor will provide regular reports and infor►nation to the Secretary of State's designee upon request. 1.02 Timeliness of Performance. Contractor understands that prompt performance of all services hereunder is required by the Secretary of State to allow the Secretary of State to meet his statutory obligations and deadlines. 1.03 This Contract shall be the complete and exclusive statement between the parties and shall supersede all proposals, oral or written, and all other communications between the parties related to the subject matter of this Contract, unless otherwise provided herein or amended and attached to this Contract. 1.04 The Contractor shall furnish professional services in accordance with professional standards necessary for satisfactory performance and pursuant to the term of this Contract or as extended by the Secretary of State. 1.05 The Contractor shall furiiish his own support staff necessary for the satisfactory performance of the work hereunder. 1.06 The Contractor shall consult with the personnel of the Secretary of State and the Ohio Attorney General and other appropriate persons, agencies and instrumentalities as designated by the Secretary of State and/or as necessary to assure understanding of the work and timely and satisfactory conipletion thereof. Article 11. TERM 2.01 This Contract is effective as of the date set forth above and as evidenced by the signatures of both parties. This Contract will expire by its ternis on December 31, 2012, unless the Secretary of State renews it in writing by written or electronic notice tendered at least 7 days prior to its expiration for a period specified by the Secretary of State. If a rencwal is contemplated to coinmence or extend beyond the end of a state fiscal biennium, a written or electronic notice of intent to renew FJC!'lllsl f ^ $^l E shall suffice to satisfy the Secretary of State's obligation to renew in writing. Article 111. CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS 3.01 It is expressly understood by the parties that none of the rights, duties or obligations described in this Contract shall be binding on either party until all statutory provisions under the Ohio Revised Code, including but not limited to Section 126.07 of the Ohio Revised Code, have been complied with and until such tinie as all necessary funds are made available and forthcoming from the state legislature and/or appropriate state agencies, and when required, such expenditure of funds is approved by the Controlling Board of the State of Ohio. Article IV. COMPENSATION 4.01 In consideration for the promises and performance of the Contractor as set forth herein, the Secretary of State agrees to: Pay the Contractor, upon submission of iteniized statements of time spent in providing Services under this Contract, containing a description of services performed, and dates on which such services were perfornied. a. Payment for such services shall consist of three (3) monthly payments of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND 00/100 CENTS each, beginning with a payment on October 19, 2012, and continuing for two (2) months thereafter on the 19`" of each month. b. Total Compensation, including reimbursenients for lodging and mileage, shall be no more than SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE IIUNDRED DOI.,I.ARS AND 00/100 CENTS. 4.02 T'he Secretary of State shall notify the Contractor within ten (10) days, in writing, if any itemized stateinent of time spent and/or costs and expenses related to Services performed by the Contractor is inadequate to allow for payment. The Secretary of State shall detemiine whether an itemized statement is inadequate according e to standards for payment of invoices established by the Ohio Department of Administrative Services and/or the Office of Budget and Management of the State of Ohio. Contractor shall have ten (10) days to amend such itemized statement of time spent and/or costs and expenses to enable the Secretary of State to pay the fees and expenses billed in the itemized statement. 4.03 Section 126.30 of the Ohio Revised Code is applicable to this Contract and requires payment of interest on overdue payments. The interest rate shall be at the rate per calendar month, which equals one twelfth of the rate per annum prescribed in Section 5703.47 of the Ohio Revised Code. 4.04 Contractor shall first fonvard all Invoices for review and approval to either [email protected] or the following location: Secretary of State of Ohio Attn: Veronica Shennan, Chief Financial Officer PO Box 16366 Columbus, Ohio 43216 4.05 The Secretary of State is exempt from any sales. use, excise and property tax. To the extent sales, use, excise or any similar tax is imposed on the Contractor in connection with the Services, such will be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the C.ontractor, and the Contractor will pay "such taxes (togrther with atiy inten:st and penalties not disputed with the appr®prlate taxing authority) whether they are impm3 at the time the services are rendered or a later time. Article V. RELATgD CONTRACTS 5.01 7'he Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for the Services of this Contract without prior written approval by the Secretary of State. Article VI. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 6.01 Contractor shall examine its current client list, if applicable, to determine that no conflict of interest exists concerning the Services to be perfotmed under the Contract and existing clients of Contractor. Contractor is responsible for continuing to examine its client list to determine that no conflict of interest exists and shall immediately notify the Secretary of State if a conflict has been identified. In the event a conflict is identified. Contractor and the Secrgtary of State shall jointly determine whethet such conflict can be waived, whether Contractor can continue to perform the Services and whcther this Confract should be terminated or modified. 6.02 Contractor agrees to abide by the Code of Professional Conduct as published by the Suprente Court of Ohio and as modified from time to time by the Court. Article `'ll. SUSPENSION AND TEIPAiiNATION PROVISIONS 7.01 `f lte Secretary of State may terminate this Contract for his _convenience and without cause or if the Ohio General Assembly fails to appropriate funds for aey part of the Scrvices. If a third party is providing funding for the Services, the Secretary of State may also terminate this Contract should that third party fail to rclease any Services funds. 7.02 11se notice of termination, whether for cause or without cause, will be effcctive as soOn as the Contractor receives it. Upon reccipt of the noticc of termination. the Contractor will immediately dease all work on the Services and tak-e all steps necessary to minimize any costs the Contractor will inc-ur related to this Contract. The Contractor will_ also immediately prepare a report and deliver it to-the Secretary of State. The report must detail the work completed at the date of termination, a statement of the Services' completion. any costs incurred in doing the Services to that date, and a statement ®f any mattcrs completed or partially completed at the time of termination. The Contractor shall also deliver all work completed and partially completed work product with its report. 7.03 If the termination is for the convenience of the Secretary of State, the Contractor will be entitled to compensation for any work on the Services that the Contractor has performed before the termination. Such compensation will be tlte Contractor's exclusive reniedy in the case of termination for convenience and will be available to the Contractor only once the Contractor has submitted a proper invoice for such, with the invoice reflecting the aniount determined by the Secretary of State to be owing to the Contractor. The Secretary of State will make that determination based on the lesser of the percentage of the Services completed or the hours of work performed in relation to the estimated total hours required to perform the entire Services. 7.04 The Secretary of State will ltave the option of suspending rather than tenninating the Services where the Secretary of State believes that doing so would better serve public interest. In the event of a suspension as determined by the Secretary of State, the Contractor will be entitled to receive payment for Services performed before the stispension. In the case of suspension of the Services in lieu of termination for cause, the Contractor will not be entitled to any compensation for any work performed. [f the Secretary of State reinstates the Services after suspension for cause, rather than terminating this Contract after the suspension, the Contractor may be entitled to compensation for work performed before the suspension, less any damage to the Secretary of State resulting from the Contractor's breach of this Contract or other fault. 7.05 Any notice of suspension, whether with or without cause, will be effective immedaately on the Contractor's receipt of the notice. And the Contractor will prepare a report concerning the Services just as is required by this section in the case of termination. After suspension of the Services, the Contractor will perform no work without the consent of the Secretary of State and will resutne work only upon receipt of a written or electronic notice from the Secretary of State to do so. In any case of suspension, the Secretary of State retains it right to terminate this Contract rather than to continue the suspension or resume the Services. If the suspension is for the convenience of the Secretary of State, then termination of the Contract will be a termination for convenience. If the suspension is with cause, the termination will also be for cause. 7.06 The Secretary of State will not suspend the Services for its convenience more than once during the term of this Contract, and any suspension for the Secretary of State's convenience will not continue for more than thirty (30) calendar days. If the Contractor does not receive notice to resume or terminate the Services within the thirty (30) calendar day period, then this Contract will terminate automatically for the Secretary of State's convenience at the end of the thirty (30) calendar day period. Article !'IIl. WARRANTIES Contractor hereby warrants and represents to Secretary of State as follows: 8.01 Each of Contractor's employees assigned to perform services under this Contract shall have the proper skill, training and background so as to be able to perform in a competent and professional manner and that all work will be performed in accordance with this Contract. 8.02 Secretary of State shall receive free, good and clear title to all materials and work product devcloped under this Contract. Article IX. INDEMNITY 9.01 Contractor agrees to hold the Secretary of State harmless from any and all claims for injury resulting from activities in furtlierance of the work hereunder. Article X. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW 10.01 The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws in the conduct of the work hereunder. Contractor accepts full responsibility for payment of all taxes including without limitation, unemploynient compensation insurance premiums, all income tax deductions, social security deductions and any and all other taxes or payroll deductions required for all employees engaged by Contractor in the performance of the work authorized by this Contract. The Secretarv of State shall not be liable for any taxes under this Contract. Article XI. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 11.01 The Contractor's and the Secretary of State's liability for damages, whether in contract or in tort, shall not exceed the total amount of compensation payable by the Secretary of State or to Contractor under Article IV, or the amount of direct damages incurred by the Secretary of State or the Contractor, whichever is less. The Secretary of State's and the Contractor's sole and exclusive remedies for the Contractor's or the Secretary of State's failure to perform under the Contract shall be as set forth in this Article. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CONTRACTOR OR THE SECRETARY OF STATE BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOSS OF PROFITS, EVEN IF THE CONTRACTOR OR THE SECRETARY OF STATE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. Article XII. CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS 12.01 Any clianges or modifications to this Contract shall be made and agreed to by both parties, in writing, and in advance. No amendment or modification to this contract shall be valid unless and until accepted and signed by the Secretary of State, the Assistant Secretary of State or an authenticating officer appointed by the Secretary pursuant to Revised Code § 111.06, No other person has authority, express or implied, to accept any amendment or modification. Article XIII. GOVERNING LAW; VENUE AND JURISDICTION 13.01 This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted and the rights of the parties determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Oliio, without reference to the clioiee of law provisions thereof. 13.02 The parties hereto hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the Ohio Court of Claims for any action that may be brought in connection with this Agreenient. Article XIV. COUNTERPARTS; TRANSMITTED COPIES 14.01 This Contract may be executed in two or niore counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. To expedite the process of entering into this Contract, the parties acknowledge that Transmitted Copies of the Contract will be equivalent to original documents until such time as original documents are completely executed and delivered. "Transmitted Copies" will mean copies that are reproduced or transmitted via photocopy, facsimile or other process of complete and accurate reproduction and transmission. Article XV. RELAT[ONSI3IP OF PARTIES 15.01 The relationship between the Contractor and Secretary of State under this Contract shall be that of independent contractors. Nothing in this Contract shall be construed to create the relationship of employer and employee, a joint venture, a partnership, or association between Contractor and Secretary of State. Article XVI. REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PARTIES 16.01 Each party to this Contract represents to the other party that it has full power and authority to enter into this Contract, and the execution, delivery and performance of this Contract do not violate the terms of any other Contract to which it is a party or any law or regulation to which it is subject. Article XVII. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH OHIO ETHICS, ELECTION LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCOMPETITIVE BID CONTRACTS AND OHIO HOMELAND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS 17.01 Contractor by signature on this Contract certifies that Contractor is currently in compliance and will continue to adhere to the requirements of Ohio Ethics Laws as provided by Sections 102.03 and 102.04 of the Ohio Revised Code. 17.02 Contractor by signature on this Contract certifies that all applicable parties and entities listed in Division (I) or (J) of Ohio Revised Code Section 3517.13 are in full compliance with that statute. Contractor is ineligible to be awarded this contract if any person or entity listed in R.C. 3517.13(I) or (J) has made campaign contributions to , the Husted for Ohio Committee in excess of the amounts specified. 17.03 This Contract shall be immediately null and void and any ainounts paid to Contractor shall be fully recoverable by the Secretary of State if, on or after the date the parties enter into this Contract, Contractor, or any person identified in Division (1) or (J) of Section 3517.13 of the Revised Code, has made or makes campaign contributions to the Husted for Ohio Committee, a campaign committee as de6ned in Oliio Revised Code §3517.01 of the Revised Code, in excess of the amounts specified in Ohio Revised Code §3517.13. 17.04 Contractor has not given anything of value or the promise of anything of value to Secretary, or any of Secretaries employees, which would manifest substantial and improper influence upon the public official or employee. Article XVIlI. MISCELLANEOUS 18.01 The rights and responsibilities arising under this Contract niay not be assigned or delegated by either party hereto in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of the other party hereto. 18.02 If any provision of this Contract is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisd'action, the invalidity of such provision shall not affect any other provision of this Contract. 18.03 The parties agree that this Contract is for the benefit of the parties hereto and is not intended to confer any rights or benefits on any third party, including any employee, vendor, or customer of either party, and that there are no third party beneficiaries as to this Contract or any part or specific provision of this Contract. 18.04 This Contract shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. 18.05 No waiver of any breach or of any of the terms or provisions of this Contract shall be, or be construed to be, a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the sanle or any other provision hereof. 18.06 Any notices required or permitted by this Contract shall be sent by courier facsiniile, or by registered or certified niail with return receipt requested. Notices shall be deemed given upon personal delivery to the addressee, or three days after the date of mailing if sent by registered or certified mail. Notices to Secretary of State shall be sent to: The Office of the Ohio Secretary of State General Counsel 180 East Broad Street, l5'h Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Notices to Contractor shall be sent to: James Ruvolo r ...... r1^^ . , .... rr . .. . ,. s f^^ .. r r...... r. .....: y- ,..,.:...^.,.._ ...... ,. .,. ...,..,...... rr^r% PI';RS(DNAL SERVICE CONTI!tAC'I' Contract Nttmber 2013-06 Septeenber 19, 2012 1'his Petsonal Service Contract ("Contract") is between the Ohio Secretary of State (her-einafter the "Secretary of State"). located at 180 E. 13road Street, 16th Floor. Columbus. Oliio 43215, and Carpenter Lipps Leland LLP (liereinafter the "Contractur''), with offices at 280 North liigh Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Article 1. STATEMENT OF WORK 1.01 'I'hc Contractor, through its designated representative Jon nllison, shall undertakc the work and activities set f(irth below (the "Services"): l'o provide management and elections consufting services regarding the operation and management of the Lucas County 13oard of' Ellections under the direction of the Ohio Secretary uf State. The Contractor will provide regular r-eports and information to the Secretarv of State's designee upon request. 1.02 "(imelincss of Perfiorniance. Contractor- understancts that prompt perfot-ruance of all scrvices hercundcr- is required by the Secrctary of State to allow the Secretary of State to nicet Iiis statutory obligations and deadiines. 1.03 Tltis Cont.ract shall be the complete and exclusive statcment between the parties and shall superscde all proposals, oral or written, and all other communications between the parties relatcd to the subject matter• of'this Contract, unless otherv.-ise provided herein or amendcd and attached to this Contract. 1.04 The Contractor shall furnish professional services in accordance with professional standards necessar•v for satisfactory performance ancl pursuant to the term of this Contract or as extertded by the Secretary of State. 1.05 1'he Contractor shall furnisli his own support staff nccessary for the satisfactory performance of'the work hereunder. 1.06 '1'he Contractor shall consult with the personnel of the Secretar;y of State and the Ohio Attorney C;eneral and other, appropriate persons, agencies and instrumentalities as designated by the Secretary of State and/or as necessai-y to assure understanding of the ivork and timely and satisfaclory complction thereof. Article 11. TERM 2.01 This Contract is effective as of the date set forth above and as evidenced by the signatures of botlt pai-tics. "I'his Contract will expirc by its teims on December 31, 2012, unless the Secretar-y of State renews it in wr-iting by written or electronic notice tendcred at least 7 davs prior to its expiration for a period specified by the Secretary of State. If a renewal is contemplated to cumtnence or extend beyond the cnd of a state fiscal biennium, a written or electronic notice ot' intent to renew IY6B EXHIBIT ^ - - shall suftice to satisfy the Secretary ot'State's obligation to i-enew in writing. Article III. CERTIFICA'f1ON OF FUNDS 3.01 it is espi-essiy understood by the parties that uone o1' the rights, duties or obligations described in this ('ontract shall be binding on cither party until all statutory provisions under the Uhio Revised Code, including but not limited to Section 126.07 oi' thc C)hio Rcvised Code, havc been complicd with anct until such time as all neccssary funds are niade availahle and tiorthconting ti-oni the state legislatut-e and/or appropriate state ageticies. and whcn required, such expenditure of funds is approved by the Corrtrolling f3oard of the State of Ohio. Article IV. COMPENSATION 4.01 In consideration for the promises and perfot-niance of the Contractur as set forth herein, the Secretary of State agrees to: Pay the C'ontractor, upon subtnission ot' itemized statements of'time spent in providing Services undcr this Contract, containinb a description of sen-ices pcrfornicd, and dates on which such services wcre pei-fcmned. a. Payment for such services shall consist ot'three (3) monthly payments of TWO'THn[ISAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLI.AI2S AND 00/100 CLNTS each, beginning wiQl a paymertt on October 11, 2012, and continuing f'or two (2) months thei-eaf'ter on the 1 1`h of' caclt month. b. Total Compensation, including reimbursenients for lodging and mileage, shall be no more tltan EIGI-11' 7'II®tISAND FIVE HUNDREI) DOLLARS AND 00/100 CENTS. Costs for secretarial services or paralegal ser-vices for C;ontractor shall be borne by the Contractor. Contractor shall be responsible for- and assumc all office and business expenses that are incurred as a result. of the performance of this C:ontract. c. If dircct billing cannot be arranged by the Secretary of State at a location acceptable to the Contractor, lodging reirnbursement of not ntore than SEVENTY SEVEN DOLLARS ANI) 00/100 CEN'I'S per night plus any and all taxes for actual expenses incurred for onc overnight lodging for each in per:son day spent in Lucas County pfus one niglit will be reitnburseci by the Sect-etary of State; ancl d. Mileage expenses incurrcd in connection with the Services shall be reimbursed by the Secretary of State at the rate of 45 CEN7'S per mile. 4.02 'I'he Secretary of State shall notify the Contractor within ten (10) days, in writing, if any itemized staternent of time spent and/or costs and expenscs related to Services perf 4.03 Section 126.30 of the Ohio FZcvised C'ode is applicable to this Contract and requires payment of interest on overcfue payments. '1'he interest rate shall bc at the rate pcr calendar nionth, which equals one twelifh of the rate per annum prescribed in Section 5703.47 of the Ohio Revised Code. 4.04 Contractor shall first lut-ward all invoices for review and approval to cithcr l'ay:rblesC-&OhioSecretaryofState.gov or thc Rtllowing iocalion: Secretary of State of'Oliio Attn: Veronica Sherman, ChiefFirtancial Officer PO F3ox 16366 Coltunbus, Uhio 43216 4.05 "I'he Secretary of State is exempt Pi-om any sales, use, excise and property tax. 'I'o the extcnt sales, use, excise or any similar tax is imposed on the C.ontractor in connection with the Services, such will he the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Contractor, and the C'untractor will pay such taxes (tobether with any interest and penalties not disputed with the appropriate taxing authority) whetller they are imposcd at the time the services are rendered or a later titne. Article V. RE'.I.,ATED CON'TRACTy 5.01 'I'hc C'ontractor shall not enter into subcontracts for the Services of'this Contr•act without prior written approval by the Secretary of' State. Artiele Vi. CONFLICTS OF INT;EREST 6.01 Contractor shall examine its current clicnt list, if applicable, to determine that no conflict of interest exists concerning the Services to be perfcu-med under the Contract and existing clients of' Contractor. Contractor is responsible for continuing to examine its client list to deterniine that no conflict of interest exists and shali irnmediately notify the Secretary of State if a conf7ict has been identified. In the event a conflict is identifierl, Contractor and the Secretary of State shall jointly determine whether such contliet can be waivcd, whether Contractor can continue to perform the Services and whether this Contract should be terminated or modified. 6.02 Contractor agrces to abide by the Code of Professional Condttet as publislted by the Suprenie Court of Ohio and as modifiied fivm time to time by the Court. Article VII. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION PROVISIONS 7.01 The Secretary of State mav tenninate this Contract fOr I11s convenience and withotrt cause or if the Ohio General Assembly fails to appropriate f'unds for any part of the Services. If' a third party is providing funding for the Services, the Secretary of State may also terntinate this Contract should that third party fail to rclease any Services funds. 7.02 The notice of termination, whether for cause or without cause, will be effective as soon as the Contractor receivcs it. Upon receipt oftlie notice of tcrrnination. the Contractor will immediatcly cease all work on (he Services and lake all steps necessary to mininii/e any costs the Contractor will inctir related to this Contract. 'I'he Contractor will also immediately prepare a report and deliver it to the Secretary ot' State. The-reporl must detail the work completed at the date of ter-mination, a statement of the Services' conipletion, any costs incurred in doinc.) the Services to that date. and a statement ol' any matters completed or partially contpleted at the time of ternlination. The Contractor shall also deliver all work conlpleted and partially complcted work product with its report. 7.03 ll'the termination is for the convenience of'the Secretary oi'State, the Contractor will be entitled to compensation for any work on thc Services that the C.ontractor has performed before the termination. Sucli compensation will be t}he Contractor's exclusive remedv in the case of termination for convenience and will be available to the <:ontractor only once the Contractor has submitted a proper invoic.e for sttch, with the invoice reflecting the amount dctermined by the Secretary of State to be owing to the Contractor. 'I'he Secrctary of State will make that determinatiort based on the lesser of the percentage of the Services conipleted or the hours of work perfornied in relation to t'he estimatcd total hours required to perform the entire Services. 7.04 The Secretary of State will have the option of suspending rather than terminating the Services wliere the Sect-etary of State believes that doing so wotrld better serve public interest. In the event of a suspension as determined by the Secretary of State, the Contractor will be entitled to receive payment for Scrvices performed befo•e the suspension. In the case of' suspension of the Set-vices in lieu of' termination for cause, tite Contractor will not be entitlcd to any compensation for any work performed. If the Secretary of State reinstates the Services after suspension for cause, rather than terniinating this Contract after the suspension. the Contractor may be entitled to compensation for work perfortned before the suspension. less any damage to the Secretary of State resulting from the Contractor's bt-each of this C;ontract or othct• fault. 7.05 Any notice of suspensicm, whether with or without cause, wilf be effective imnediately on the Contractor s receipt of the notice. And the Contractor will prepare a report ctmcerning the Scrvices just as is required by this section in the case of tertnination_ After suspension of the Services, the C'ontractor will pcrforrn no work without the consent of'the Secretary of State and will resutne work only upon receipt of a written or electronic notice from the Secretary of State to do so. In any case of suspension, the Secretary of State t-ctains it right to tertninate this Contract r•ather than to continue the suspension or resume the Services. It' the suspension is for the convenience of the Secretary of' State, then termination of the Contract will be a termination for convenience. If the suspension is with cause, the termination will also be l'or cause. 7.06 The Secretat-y of'State v\ ill not suspencl the Services for its convenience more than oncc during the terni of' this Contract. and any suspension for the Secretary of State's convenicncc will not contirtue for tnore tltan thirt}• (30) calendar days. If the Contractot- does not receive notiee to resunie or tei-niinate the Services within the thirty (30) calendat- day period, then this Contract will tern7inate autotnatically for the Secretary of State's conveniencc at thc end of the thirty (30) calendar day period. Article VIII. WARRAN'I'IES Contractor hereby warrants and represetris to Secretary nf State as follows: 8.01 Each of Contractor•'s eniployces assigned to perti>rm services under this C:ontract sltall have the proper skill, training and background so as to be able to pet-form in a competent and professional ttianner and that 911 wot-k will be performed in accor(lancc with this Contract. 8.02 Secretary of State sliall receive free. good and clear title to all niaterials and work ptroduct developed under this Contract. Article IX. INDEMNITY 9.01 Contractor agrees to hold the Secretary of Statc harniless 1Tont any and all claims f'or injury resulting trom activities in furtherance of the work hereunder. Article X. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW 10.01 The Contractor agrees to cotnply with all applicable tederal, state and local laws in the conciuct of the work hereunder- Contractor accepts full responsibility for paynient of all taxes including without limitation, unemployment compensation insurance premiums. all income tax deductions, social security deductions and anv and all otlier taxes or payroll deductions required for all emplovees engaged by Contractor in the pert2n•manec of the work authorized by this Contract. 'I'he Secretary of State shall not be liable flor any taxes uncfer this Contract. Article XI. LIMITATION OF LIABILI'I'Y 11.01 The Contractor's and thc Secretary of State's liability for clamages, whethcr in conit-act or in tort, shall not exceed thc total aniount of conipensation payabie by the Secretary of State ot• to Contractor under Article IV, or the amount of dircct damages incurrcd by the Secretary of State or the Corttractor, whicltcver is less. The Seca-etaty of State's and'the Contractor's sole and exclusive remedies for the Contractor's or the Secretary of' State's failurc to perform rnider the Contract shall he as set I'orth in this Article. IN NO EV1:N'1' SI-IALL 'l'IIF CON'1'RAC'1'OR OIt TTiF, SECRCTARY OF S"I'AT'E BE I,IABLL•' FOR ANY INDIRECT OR C.C}NSt;C1UC;NTIAL DAMAGFS, INCLUDINC3 Lt)SS OF PROFITS, FVCN TF 7'HT; CONTRAC"I'C)R OR '1'f IF? ST;CRk,TARY OF STA'f'F.; KNEW OR SI-IOUT,I) FIAVF KNOWN Oh'l'I-lE Yt)SSII3ILITY OF SUCaI I)AMAC.iFS. Article XIL CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS 12.01 Any changes or modifications to this C'ontract shall be made and agreed to by both parties, in writirig, and in aclvancc. No amendmcnt or modi/ication to this contract sliall be valid unless and until accepted and signed by the Secretary of State. the Assistant Secretary of State or an autltenticating officer appointed by tlic Sceretairy ptnsuant to Revised Code §111.06. No other person has authority. express or implied, to accept any aniendment or moditication. Article XIII. C;OVE;IZNING LAW; VENUE AND JURISDICTION 13.01 This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted and the rig-hts of the pat-[ies determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio, withottt rcference to the choice of law provisions t:hercof. 13.02 The parties hei-eto hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and vcnue of the Ohio Court ol' C'laims for any action that may be brought in connection with this Agreement. Articlc XIV. COU;VTrRPARTS; TRANSMITTED COI'IES 14.01 This Contract may be cxecuted in two or more cottnterparts, each of which shall be deemcd an orikinal, and all of which together shall constitttte one and the same insn•unient. 'I'o expedite the process of' cntet•ing into this Cuntract, the pai2ies acknowledge that Transmitled Copies of' the Contract will be equivalent to original documents until such time as original documents are completely executed and ctelivered. "'1'ransmittect C'opies" will mean copies that are reproduced or transmltted via photocopy, facsimile or otlicr process of conipletc and accurate reproduction anti transmission. Article XV. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES 15.01 "t'hc relationship between thc Contractor and Secretary of State under this C:ontract sliall be that ol' independent contraetors. Nothing in this Contract shall be coiistrued to create the rclationship of eniployer and en-tpioyee, a joint venture. a pannership, or associaticin between Contractor and Sccretary of State. Article XVI, Riil'RESENTA7'InNS OF THE PARTIES 16.01 Each party to this Contract represents to the othcr party that it jtas tull powei- and authority 1.0 entei- into thiti C'ontract, and the exec.ution, delivcry and performancc of (his Crnitract do not violate the tcrms o1' any otlter Contract to wiiich it is a party or any law or regulation to which it is subjeet. Article XVII. CER'TIFICAI'ION OF COMPLIANCE WITH 01110 ETHICS, ELECTION LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCUMI'ETITIVE BII) CONTRACTS AND nIIIO IiOMELANI) SECURITY REQUIREMENTS 17.01 Contractor by signature on this Contract cenifies that Contractor is currcntly in compliance and will continue to adhcre to the requirenients of Ohio Ethics I,aws as provided by Sections 102.0.3 and 102.04 of the Ohio Kevised Code. 17.02 Contractor by signature on this Contract cer-tities that all applicable parties and entities listed in Division (1) or (J) of' C)hio Revised Code Section 3517.13 are in fuU compliance with that statute. Contractor is incligible to be awarded this contract if' any person or entit,y listed in R.C. 3517.13(t) or (J) has made campainn contributions to the 1-lusted for Ohio Conmiittee in excess o1' thc amounts specified. 17.03 This Contract shall be immediately null and void and any amounts paid to C:ontractor shall be fully recoverable by the Secretary ol' State if'. on or atter the date the parties enter into this Contract, Contractor, or any person identified in f)ivisiort (1) or (J) of Section 35 17.13 of ihe Re^-ised Code, has made or malces campai-n contributiuns to the Husted for Ohio Committee, a campaign coirunittee as detined in C)hio Revised C'ocie §3517.01 of thc Revised Code, in excess ot'thc amounts specitied in C)hio Revised Code §3517.11 17.04 C'ontractor )tas not given anything of value or the promise ot' anything of value to Secretary, or any of Secrctarics employec.s, which tvould manifcst substantial and improper influence upon the public oflicial or employee. Article XVIII. MISCELLANEOUS 18_01 The riglits and responsibilities arising under this C:ontract niay not hc assigned or delcgated hy either party hcreto in whole or in part, withoat the prior written approval ofthe ot.iher party hereto. 18_02 it' any provision of this Contract is held to be invalid by any cour•t of competent ,jurisdiction, the invalidiry of'such provision shall not af'fect any other provision of this C:ontt-act. 18.03 The parties agree that this Contract is for thc benefit of the parties hereto and is not itttended to confcr any rights or- bettetits on any third party, including any cmployee_ vcrtdor, or custonier of either party, and that there are no th'rrd party beneficiaries as to this Contract or any part or specific provision of'this Contract. 18.04 This Contraet shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties her•eto and their respective succcssors and permitted assigns. 18.05 No waiver of any breach or of any of'the terms or provisions of this Contract shall be, or be cottstt-ued to bc, a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of thc same or any other provision hercof. 18.06 Any notices rcquirad or permitted by this Contract shall be sent by courier facsirnile, or by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested. Notices shall be deetned given upon personal delivery to the addressee, or tltrec days after the date of mailing if'scnt by registered or certitied mail. Notices to Secretarv of' State shall he sent to: `f'hc C)tiicc of thc l3hio Secretary Mf State General Counsel 180 F_=ast 13road Strect, 15'h Floor Columbus, Ohiu 43215 Notices to Contractor shall be sent to: Jonathan A. Allison, Esq. Carpenter Lipps & Leland L.LP 280 N'ortlt Fiigh Street Columbus. Ohio 43215 IN WJ"I'NE;SS W1-IERG(>F, the parties have executed this Contract, as evidence(i by their signatures below: SECkI rA ()it STATE: C()hr'I'1tACT()R: Catpenter l,ipps l,eland LLP t_ 13v;: 13y°_ Scott 13orb enke Joti Alli!,sp `-° Pi.t• nt Namc; k E J^ Z-- Print Namc: ^{^ _ _ i_ f f Itle: i^ Title: `^^^k f PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACT Contract Number 2014-009 April 1, 2014 This Personal Service Contract ("Contract") is between the Ohio Secretary of State (hereinafter the "Secretary of State"), located at 180 E. Broad Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215, and Brunner Quinn (hereinafter the "Contractor"), with offices at 35 N. 41h Street, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Article I. STATEMENT OF WORK 1.01 "I'he Contractor, through its designated representative Jennifer Brunner, Esq., shall undertake the work and activities set forth below (the "Services"): To provide legal services and advice to the Ohio Secretary of State regarding the operation and management of the Lucas County Board of Elections. 1.02 Timeliness of Performancc. Contractor understands that prompt performance of all scrvices hereunder is required by the Secretary of State to allow the Secretary of State to nieet his statutory obligations and deadlines. 1.03 This Contract shall be the complete and exclusive statement between the parties and shall supersede all proposals, oral or written, and all other conimunications betwecn the parties related to the subject matter of this Contract, unless otherwise provided herein or anlended and attached to this Contract. 1.04 The Contractor shall furnish professional legal services in accordance with professional standards necessary for satisfactory performance and pursuant to the term of this Contract, or as extended by the Secretary of State. 1.05 The Contractor shall furnish its own support staff necessary for the satisfactory performance of the work hereunder. 1.06 Contractor may subcontract or otherwise assign any of its duties or obligations under this Contract to any individual or entity, but only with the prior consent of the Secretary of State in each instance. However, the Contractor will remain fully liable and responsible for all Services to be perfornled under this Contract, whether or not subcontracted to or performed by a subcontractor or any other person or entity retained by Contractor. 1.07 The Contractor shall consult with the personnel of the Secretary of State and other appropriate persons, agencies and instrumentalities as designated by the Secretary of State and/or as necessary to assure understanding of the work and tinlely and satisfactory completion thereof. LL ITj Article II. TERM 2.01 This Contract is effective as of the date set forth above and as evidenced by the signatures of both parties. This Contract will expire by its ternis on June 30, 2014, unless the Secretary of State renews it in writing by written or electronic notice tendered at Icast 7 days prior to its expiration for a period specified by the Secretary of State. If a renewal is contemplated to coannience or extend beyond the end of a state fiscal biennium, a written or electronic notice of intent to renew sliall suffice to satisfy the Secretary of State's obligation to renew in writing. Article III. CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS 3.01 It is expressly understood by the parties that none of the rights, duties or obligations described in this Contract shall be binding on either party until all statutory provisions under the Ohio Revised Code, including but not li ►nited to Section 126.07 of the Ohio Revised Code, have been compl.ied with and until such tiine as all necessary funds are made available and forthconiing from the state legislature and/or appropriate state agencies, and when required, such expenditure of funds is approved by the Controlling Board of the State of Ohio. Article IV. COMPENSATION 4.01 In consideration for the promises and performance of the Contractor as set forth herein, the Secretary of State agrees to: (a) Pay the Contractor, upon submission of itemized statements of time spent in providing Services under this Contract, with such time being billed in increments of no greater than 15 minutes and coiitaining a description of services performed, dates on which stich services were perfornied and a designation of who perfonned the services. Compensation for Contractor's Services shall not exceed THREE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS AND 00/100 CENTS ($350.00) per hour. Costs for secretarial services or paralegal services for Contractor shall be borne by the Contractor. (b) In no event shall the fees and expenses to the Secretary of State for Services and expenses under this Contract exceed in the aggregate, whether or not this contract is renewed at any time by the Secretary of State, THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND 00/100 CENTS ($35,000.00). 4.02 The Secretary of State shall notify the Contractor within ten (10) days, in writing, if any itemized statement of time spent aild/or costs and expenses related to Services performed by the Contractor is inadequate to allow for payment. The Secretary of State shall determine wliether an itemized statement is inadequate according to standards for paynlent of invoices established by the Ohio Department of Administrative Services and/or the Office of Budget and Management of the State of Ohio. Contractor shall liave ten (10) days to amend such itemized stateinent of time spent and/or costs and expenses to enable the Secretary of State to pay the fees and expenses billed in the iteniized statement. 4.03 Section 126.30 of the Ohio Revised Code is applicable to this Contract and requires payment of interest on overdue payments. The interest rate shall be at the rate per calendar ►nonth, which equals one twelfth of the rate per annum prescribed in Section 5703.47 of the Ohio Revised Code. 4.04 The Secretary of State is exempt from any sales, use, excise and property tax. To the extent sales, use, excise or any similar tax is imposed o ►i the Contractor in connection with the Services, such will be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Contractor, and the Contractor will pay sucli taxes (together with any interest and penalties not disputed with the appropriate taxing authority) whether they are imposed at the time the services are rendered or a later time. Article V. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 5.01 Contractor shall exanline its current client list to determine that no conflict of interest exists concerning the Services to be performed under the Contract and existing clients of Contractor. Contractor is responsible for continuing to examine its client list to determine that no conflict of interest exists and sliall immediately notify the Secretary of State if a conflict has been identified. In the event a conflict is identified, Contractor and the Secretary of State shall jointly determizie whether such conflict can be waived, whether Contractor can continue to perform the Services and whether this Contract should be terminated or nlodified. The parties recognizc that Brunner Quinn has a long-standing relationship with Fair Elections Ohio, a nonprofit organization, in a matter of litigation involving voting rights of incarcerated persons in the U.S. District Court, S.D.E.C., captioned Fair Elections Ohio, et al. v. Jon Husted, Case no. 1:12cv797. Patrick M. Quinn, a principal of Brunner Quinn, is representing Fair Elections Ohio in that ►natter involving the Secretary of State. Jennifer Brunner has testified in that matter as a witness and as chair of the organization. Jennifer Brunner currently has no further participation in that matter of litigation. Brunner Quinn's dual representation does present a conflict that would prevent Ms. Brunner from nloving forward in representing the Secretary of State on election-related matters without an express waiver of cont7ict. By signing this agree►nent, the Secretary of State expressly waives any conflict and acknowledges, that these two matters do not inherently substantively conflict with one another and that the representation of parties by Brunner Quinn in the two matters will be kept strictly separate from one another, including but not limited to, communications between the attorneys of Brunner Quinn and in interactions and communications between Brunner Quiiin and tlle Secretary of State and his agents, employees, servants and all persons in active concert and participation with them. Consequently, the Secretary of State enters into this agreenient only after having fully and completely discussed this matte►- with and sought all counsel that he may deem appropriate in coniiection with any such representation. The Secretary of State's retainer of Brunner Quinn is a waiver of any and all claimed conflicts of interest now or in the future regarding the joint representation described. Additionally, Brunner Quimi's representation of Fair Elections Ohio shall not disqualify the firm fronl representing either Fair Elections Ohio or the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State waives all present and future conflicts and holds harmless Jennifer Brunner, Patrick M. Quinn, Rick L. Brunner and the law fiml of Brunner Quinn and any agents or subcontractors of their finn from any and all clainis of conflicts ntade by any persons in regard to this representation. The Secretary of State has sought independent legal advice, advising him regarding waiver of conflicts of interest with regard to this representation and agrees that should Brunner Quinn withdraw from his representation that he and his staff will not utilize that fact or circuinstance to disqualify Brunner Quiiui fronl representing Fair Elections Ohio in the future. 5.02 Contractor agrees to abide by the Code of Professional Conduct as published by the Supreme Court of Ohio and as modified from time to time by the Court. Article VI, SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION PROVISIONS 6.01 The Secretary of State may terminate this Contract for his convenience and without cause or if the Ohio General Assembly fails to appropriate fiinds for any part of the Services. If a third party is providing funding for the Services, the Secretary of State may also terminate this Coiltract should that third party fail to release any Services funds. 6.02 If the termination is for the convenience of the Secretary of State, the Contractor will be eittitled to compensation for any work on the Services that the Contractor llas perfornied before the termination. Such compensation will be the Contractor's exclusive remedy in the case of termination for convenience and will be available to the Contractor only once the Contractor has submitted a proper invoice for such, with the invoice reflecting the ainount detennined by the Secretary of State to be owing to the Contractor. The Secretary of State will make that determination based on the lesser of the percentage of the Services completed or the hours of work perfornied in relation to the estimated total hours required to perform the entire Services. 6.03 The Secretary of State will have the optioii of suspending rather than terminating the Services where the Secretary of State believes that doing so would better serve public interest. In the event of a suspension as detennined by the Secretary of State, the Contractor will be entitled to receive paynient for Services perfornied before the suspension. In the case of suspension of the Services in lieu of terniination for cause, the Contractor will not be entitled to any coinpensation for any work performed. If the Secretary of State reinstates the Services after suspension for cause, rather than terminating this Contract after the suspension, the Contractor may be entitled to compensation for work performed before the suspension, less any damage to the Secretary of State resulting from the Contractor's breach of this Contract or other fault. 6.04 Any notice of suspension, whether with or without cause, will be effective immediately on the Contractor's receipt of the notice. And the Contractor will prepare a report concerning the Services just as is required by this section in the case of termination. After suspetision of the Services, the Contractor will perform no work without the consent of the Secretary of State and will resume work only upon receipt of a written or electronic notice from the Secretary of State to do so. In any case of suspension, the Secretary of State retains it right to terminate this Contract rather than to continue the suspeiision or resume the Services. If the suspension is for the convenience of the Secretary of State, then termination of the Contract will be a termitiation for convenience. If the suspension is with cause, the termination will also be for cause. 6.05 The Secretary of State will not suspend the Services for its convenience more than once during the terni of this Contract, and any suspensiozl for the Secretary of State's conveniencc will not continue for more than thirty (30) calendar days. If the Contractor does not receive notice to resume or terminate the Services withiil the thirty (30) calendar day period, then this Contract will terminate automatically for the Secretary of State's convenience at the end of the thirty (30) calendar day period. Article VII. INDEMNITY 7.01 Contractor agrees to hold the Secretary of State harmless from any and all claims for injury resulting from activities in fiirtherance of the work hereunder. Article VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW 8.01 The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws in the conduct of the work hereunder. Contractor accepts full responsibility for payment of all taxes including without liinitation, unemployment compensation insurance premiums, all income tax deductions, social security deductions and any and all other taxes or payroll deductions required for all employees engaged by Contractor in the performance of the work authorized by this Contract. The Secretary of State shall not be liable for any taxes under this Contract. Article IX. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 9.01 The Contractor's and the Secretary of State's liability for damages, whether in contract or in tort, shall not exceed the total amount of compensation payable by the Secretary of State or to Contractor under Article IV, or the amount of direct damages incurred by the Secretary of State or the Contractor, whichever is less. The Secretary of State's and the Contractor's sole and exclusive remedies for the Contractor's or the Secretary of State's failure to perform under the Contract shall be as set foi-th in this Article. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CONTRACTOR OR THE SECRETARY OF STATE BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOSS OF PROFITS, EVEN IF THE CONTRACTOR OR THE SECRETARY OF STATE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE POSSIBILITY OF StJCH DAMAGES. ^. - ^ .. - .. Article X. CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS 10.01 Any changes or modifications to this Contract shall be made and agreed to by botli parties, in writing, and in advance. No amendment or modification to this contract shall be valid unless and until accepted and signed by the Secretary of State, the Assistant Secretary of State or an authenticating officer appointed by the Secretary pursuant to Revised Code § 111.06. No other person has authority, express or implied, to accept any amendment or modification. Article XI. GOVERNING LAW; VENUE AND JURISDICTION 11.01 This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted and the rights of the parties determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio, without reference to the choice of law provisions thereof. 11.02 The parties hereto hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the Ohio Court of Claims for any action that may be brought in connection with this Agreement. Article XII. COUNTERPARTS; TRANSMITTED COPIES 12.01 This Contract may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deenred an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. To expedite the process of entering into this Contract, the parties acknowledge that Transmitted Copies of the Contract will be equivalent to original documents until such time as original documents are completely executed and delivered. "Transmitted Copies" will mean copies that are reproduced or transmitted via photocopy, facsimile or other process of conlplete and accurate reproduction and transmission. Article XIII. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES 13.01 The relationship between the Contractor and Secretary of State under this Contract shall be that of independent contractors. Nothing in this Contract shall be construed to create the relationship of employer and employee, a joint venture, a partnership, or association between Contractor and Secretary of State. Article XIV. REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PARTIES 14.01 Each party to this Contract represents to the other party that it has full power and authority to enter into this Contract, and the execution, delivery and performance of this Contract do not violate the terms of any other Contract to which it is a party or any law or regulation to which it is subject. Article XV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH OHIO ETHICS, ELECTION LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCOMI'ETITIVE BID CONTRACTS AND OHIO HOMELAND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS 15.01 Contractor by signature on this Contract certifies that Contractor is currently in compliance and will continue to adhere to the requirements of Ohio Ethics Laws as provided by Sections 102.03 and 102.04 of the Ohio Revised Code. 15.02 Contractor by signature on this Contract certifies that all applicable parties and entities listed in Division (I) or (J) of Ohio Revised Code Section 3517.13 are in full compliance with that statute. Contractor is ineligible to be awarded this contract if any person or entity listed in R.C. 3517.13(I) or (J) lias made campaign contributions to the Husted for Ohio Comniittee in excess of the aniounts speciticd. 15.03 This Contract shall be immediatcly null and void and any amounts paid to Contractor shall be fully recoverable by the Secretary of State if, on or after the date the parties enter into this Contract, Contractor, or any person identified in Division (1) or (J) of Section 3517.13 of the Revised Code, has inade or inakes campaign contributions to the Husted for Ohio Committee, a canlpaign coimnittee as defiiied in Ohio Revised Code §3517.01 of the Revised Code, in excess of the amounts specified in Ohio Revised Code §3517.13. 15.04 Contractor has not given anything of value or the proinise of anything of value to Secretary, or any of Secretary's employees, which would manifest substantial and iinproper influence upoil the public official or employee. Article XVI. MISCELLANEOUS 16.01 If any provision of this Contract is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of such provision shall not affect any other provision of this Contract. - 16.02 No waiver of any breach or of any of the tenns or provisions of this Contract shall be, or be construed to be, a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any otller provision hereof. 16.03 Any notices recluired or pennitted by this Contract shall be sent by couriet' facsimile, or by registered or certified mail with retuttii receipt requested. Notices shall be deemed given upon personal delivery to the addressee, or tltree days after the date of mailing if sent by registered or certified inail. Notices to Secretary of State shall be sent to: Jack Christopher, General Counsel Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted 180 East Broad Street, 15'h Floor Colunabus, Ohio 43215 Notices to Contractor shall be sent to: Jeruiifer Biunner, Esq. Bruruier Quinn 35 N. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Columbus, Ohio 43215 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract, as evidenced by their signatures below: SECRETARY: CONTRACT'OR: STATE OF OHTO Brunner Quinn By: By: I-ialle Pelger etuiifer Brutiner Asst. Secretary of St'e Outside Counsel Office 614-466-8240 Fax 614-728-2392 O1-iflO A'I'"i'flla.NEY GEI+;EP,AI a 30 E. Btroad St., 171h F1oor Columbus, OH 43215 www.OhioAttomeyGeneral.gov REQUEST_:EOR SPECIAL COUNSEL 'SfGNMENT Client: Client contact and telephone number: Attorney General's Office section contact: Date of request: Significant upcoming deadline(s): Please provide a description of die matter for which the assistance of Special Counsel is requested: Please list any adverse parties relevant to this matter: Previous Special Counsel engaged for this matter or related matters: Estimated duration of assignment: Estimated Special Counsel budget allowance: Additional comments: __^N^^N Y- ^ Jon Husted. Ohio Secretary of State 180 East Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Tel: (877) 767-6446 Fax: (614) 644-0649 www. CjhioSecre taryofSta te. go v DIRECTIVE 2014-11 April 7, 2014 TO: LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Board Menlbers, Director, and Deputy Director RE: Establishing a Transparency Conunittee LACKCR(IUNI.1 Thank you for your cooperation last week in working with former Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, former Assistant Secretary of State Scott Borgemenke and my staff in order to help provide me with information regarding the current state of operations at the Lucas County Board of Elections. As you are well aware, since becoming Secretary of State, my office has supported the Lucas County Board of Elections through various methods of administrative oversight, assigned my employees and elections administrators and brought in consultants to provide assistance. It was my hope that with the knowledge and experience board members and staff received while under oversight, and with the roadmap provided by the report issued to you more than a year ago, you would have the tools needed to get the board of elections on the right track. Unfortunately, it appears there is a severe lack of communication among the board members and between the board and its staff. Further, it is evident from the discussions last week, the right questions aren't being asked. As a result, I am creating a Transparency Committee to force public accountability and open dialog among the board members and staff and to ask the right questions. This committee will bring much needed light to the functions of the board and therefore ensure an open, transparent and effective elections process. The committee will be made up by the following individuals: ^ Scott Borgemenke (Chairman) - Former Assistant Secretary of State ^ Jennifer Brunner - Former Ohio Secretary of State a James Ruvolo - Ruvolo & Associates • Jonathan Allison - Carpenter, Lipps & Leland, LLP INSTRUCTION,S The Lucas County Board of Elections must hold a special meeting on Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. The Director and Deputy Director will arrange for the appropriate meeting space and post the attached notice not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, and provide the notice to E7CHI81"f Directive 2014-1 l Establishing a Trans arenc Committee Pa e2of3 local media and any person who has previously requested to receive notice of meetings of the board of elections. Each member of the Lucas County Board of Elections must attend the meeting. fter calling the meeting of t1ic board of eiections to ordc°r, Cl,airtF,an Rotl,eiibuliler- accept a naotion to recogrIizc the Transparency C'omnlittee and, full^^^tiing a inajority ^tftirmati^e vot df ttie hoard of elections_ the board of electionti \vill 8ive ttio-batanie Transpar•ency Co^nr,^ittee. oithe meeting to tl, Board members and staff must be ready to answer questions and provide information about individual-level and agency-wide policies, procedures and operations, both as they relate to preparations for elections scheduled this year and to the general organization and management of the board of elections. The Transparency Committee has broad discretion to ask board members and staff to provide follow up reports and documentation that may be needed for the committee to get the information it requires. Subsequent meetings with the Transparency Committee will be held at the discretion of that committee's chairperson. Each member of the Lucas County Board of Elections is expected to attend any subsequent meeting of the Transparency Committee. Further instructions will follow. I am disappointed to be in this position yet again. I believe it is your sworn responsibility to provide local solutions to local problems. The voters of Lucas County deserve first-class elections, and I will take whatever action I deenl necessary to make sure that happens. It is my expectation that you will fully cooperate with the Transparency Committee, as they will help you do what you seemingly cannot: Govern yourselves, set aside partisan and personal bickering, and cooperate in the interest of elections administration. Sincerely, ^ 9Jon Husted Direciivg20141I Establishin aTra^s_par_ ^Commitfee ''Tage 3 t^ f ? SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS NVednesdays April 9. 2014 10:00 a,Fn: One Government Center AGENDA Recognition of and Discussion with Secretary of State's Transparency Committee: • Agency & Individual Operational Preparedness • Agency & Individual Elections Preparedness • General Board Management, Policies, and Procedures • Personnel Matters Jon Husted Ohio Secretary of State nh ^ ^ 180 East Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43216 Tel: (8771T67-6446 Fax: (614) 644-0649 www,OhdoSecreteryofStaPe.gov May 20, 2014 Dear Chairman Rothenbuhler, Messrs. Stainbrook, Irish and DeGidio: Timely and accurate certification of the 2014 Primary Election and the Toledo Council District 2 Special Election is essential. While the hearing officer is working on his report and recommendations regarding the potential removal of members and the director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, I am engaging two former judges to provide bipartisan oversight: Judge Peter Handwork, who most recently served Ohio's Sixth District Court of Appeals and now as the head of Handwork Mediation Services, and Judge Charles Wittenberg, who served on the Lucas County Common Pleas Court and now serves as a visiting judge. The judges will work with you as you continue to carry out the duties of board members. Further, staff from my office will be on hand as you complete final certification of the May 6, 2014 elections. I expect you and your staff will cooperate fully with Judges Handwork and Wittenberg and my staff as they fulfill their charge. ^I^o^ rely, Huste cc: Gina Kaczala, Director Dan DeAngelis, Deputy Director EJCHf®iT F HEARING Qr ^`ICER'S REPORT ^ ^ECD1^11°^IE1^f^AT1Gl`=,FS TO: The Honorable Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State DATE: June 4, 2014 RE: The matter of removal of Ron Rothenbuhler, Jon Stainbrook, and Anthony DeGidio as Menlbers of the Lucas County Board of Elections and Gina Kaczala and Dan DeAngelis as Director and Deputy Director, respectively, of the Lucas County Board of Elections. 1^,5'K GRGN' l) Prior to the May 6, 2014 primary election, the Secretary of State established a bipartisan Transparency Committee of experienced and well-respected public officials to bring nzuch needed light to the functions of the Lucas County Board of Elections and therefore ensure an open, transparent and effective elections process. The Transparency Committee was chaired by Scott Borgemenke, fornler Assistant Secretaiy of State to Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted and included former Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Jon Allison, fornier Assistant Secretary of State to Ohio Secretary of State Bob Taft, and Jim Ruvolo, fornler Board Menlber of the Lucas County Board of Elections, The circumstances that precipitated the Transparency Conmlittee's appointment included accusations of iniproper election adniinistration from at least one Board Meniber against his staff, accusations of niisconduct by at least one Board Meniber against at least one other Board Menlber, accusations of malicious interference from Board staff against one of their Board Menlbers, accusations of harassnlent from Board staff against other Board staff, and accusations of election administration irregularities and public records violations froni the public about the agency in general. The Transparency Conlnlittee's work was preceded by at least two other interventions in as many years: a top-to-bottonl management review performed by Mr. Allison and Mr. Ruvolo in 2013,1 and the appointnient of two experienced local election administrators, Keith Cunningham, foimer Director of the Allen County Board of Elections, and Arch Kinlbrew, Jr., fornler Director of the Geauga County Board of Elections, to act as special masters providing direct operational oversight of the 2012 presidential general election. To bring transparency to the Lucas County Board of Elections, to make sure that the iight questions were being asked, and to make sure that questions and allegations were on the record, (Transcript of Apri19, 2014 Meeting, Hearing Exhibit 8, page 4), the Transparency Conmiittee conducted three hearings in Toledo prior to the May 6, 2014 primary election. These hearings were noticed and fully open to the public, including local niedia, and were attended by each of the four members of the Lucas County Board of Elections, its Director, Deputy Director, other essential Board personnel, and each of the four members of-the Transparency Conmlittee.2 Despite these three hearings, where members of the Transparency Committee shed much needed light on the functions of the board to ensure an open, transparent, and effective elections process for the May 6, 2014 priniary election, the agency's adniinistration of that election was troubled, (See, generttlly, DVD of May 9, 2014 Meeting, Hearing Exhibit 11), pronipting the Transparency Con- ►mittee to hold a fourth and final public hearing on May 9, the Fiiday following the election.3 Having heard over twenty-one hours of testimony, the Transparency Comniittee detemlined After conductiug their-inanageuient review of the Lucas County Board of Elections, Mr. Allison and Mr. Ruvolo issued a report. (See, Allison-Ruvolo Report, Hearing Exhibit 3), The transcripts of the Transpareacy Cointnittee's Apri19, 2014, April 15, 2014, and Apri123, 2014 public hearings are inarked Hearing Exhibits 8, 9, and 10, respectively. The video recording of the Transparency Committee's May 9, 2014 public hearing of May 9, 2014 is inarked Hearing Exhibit 11, Mr. Allison was not present for the May 6, 2014 ineeting of the Transparency Coininittee, but participated via phone in the Transparency Coinmittee's deliberations and was "on board with the recoininendations." (DVD of May 9, 2014 Meeting, Hearing Exhibit 11, Disc 3 of 3, at 01;26), that the cancers inherent within the Board of Elections are so advanced, and the long telnl prognosis so severe, that the prospect of this Board of Elections healing itself is siniply not a viable solution fi-oni their perspective. As sucli, the Transparency Con7mittee publicly reconlniended that the Secretary of State terminate the public service of $oard Members Ron Rothenbuhler, Jon Stainbrook, and Anthony DeGidio, Director Gina Kaczala, and Deputy Director Dan DeAngelis. On Monday, May 12, 2014, the Secretary of State sent a letter4 to these five officials notifying theni that he intended to reniove them fi•oni their positions pursuant to R.C. 3501,16, which reads, in relevant part: The secretary of state may sumnlarily remove or suspend any meniber of a board of elections, or the director, deputy director, or any other employee of the board, for neglect of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, for any willful violation of Title XXXV of the Revised Code, or for any other good and sufficient cause.i The notice infornled the aforementioned individuals that they could appear at a hearing scheduled for Thursday, May 15, 2014 to address the question of their removal and could be represented by c.ounsel. In the alternative, the offer of resignation was extended. In response, only Deputy Director Dan DeAngelis tendered his resignation to the Secretary. (The remaining four individuals will be refetred to herein, collectively, as "respondents.") The hearing proceeded in a manner consistent with the precedent of past practice of the Secretaiy of State's Office. The letter was sent electronically aud via United States tnail, and none of the individuals in question dispute tltat they received the letter on May 12, 2014. LAWriter Oltio Laws aud Rules, as found at w«iv.codes.oltio, ov/codes/3501.16 (last accessed by the Heariug Officer on May 23, 2014), otnits the plu•ase "or for any otlier good and sufficient cause" from its recording of R,C, 3501,16. A review of Ain, Sub. H,B. 99 (12151 General Assembly) (effective August 22, 1995), die tnost recetttly enacted legislatiou affectiug this section, cotlfirms that the text of the law, as set fotKli in this Report & Recotnmendations, is a comect and accurate rendering of the statute as it presently exists in state law. THE H E A R Ib`€ G, A. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Secretary's May 12, 2014 letter, this nlatter came before the Hearing Officer at a hearing at Toledo, Ohio's One Government Center on May 15, 2014. The May 15 hearing was approxiniately seven hours in length and a court reporter was present to create a transcript of the proceedings, Eleven Exhibits were accepted into evidence, and are referenced throughout this docunlent. All respondents-Mr. Rothenbuhler, Mr. Stainbrook, Mr. DeGidio, and Ms. Kaczala6-were present at the hearing. Additionally, all four members of the Transparency Conmiittee were present for the hearing in order to state their findings from the approximately twenty-one hours of hearings they had with the Lucas County Board of Elections. At the beginning of the May 15 hearing, the Hearing Officer explained the purpose of the nieeting: "[T]o allow [respondents] the opportunity to be heard as to why each should not be removed fi•oni their respective positions with the Lucas County Board of Elections." (Hearing Transcript, page 4). After calling the hearing to order and explaining the purpose of the meeting, the Hearing Officer explained how the hearing would unfold. (Hearing Transcript, pages 5-7). The hearing staited with a "global statement" fronl the Transparency Conmiittee. This "global statement" provided the Transparency Committee with an opportunity to reiterate their reconiniendations fronl their May 12 hearing. Second, after the "global statement," Mr. Rothenbuhler provided his opening statement of about fifteen minutes. The opening statenient was pernlitted to be used in whatever nZanner Mr. Rothenbuhler found most helpful. Third, the Transparency Conimittee had approxinlately thirty nlinutes to offer 6 As was her right, Ms. Kaczala was represented by counsel, Mr, Paul T. Belazis. information specific to Mr, Rothenbuhler. Fourth, Mr. Rothenbuhler had forty-five minutes to respond to the Transparency Conmlittee. Fifth, the Transparency Committee concluded with a brief closing statenlent. Sixth, and lastly, Mr. Rothenbuhler concluded with his brief closing statement. The process, specifically Steps Two through Six, were repeated for Mr. Stainbrook, Mr. DeGidio, and Ms. Kaczala, respectively,7 except that from tinie to time, the Hearing Officer, in his sole discretion, allowed the Transparency Conimittee the opportunity to rebut statements made by one of the respondents during Step 4 and then allowed the respondent to respond. In addition to stating the process for the hearing, the Hearing Officer reminded the respondents that the hearing was not a fotnial legal proceeding. (Hearing Transcript, page 13). For this reason, the i-ules of procedure and rules of evidence did not apply in the traditional sense for the hearing, (Hearing Transcript, page 13). The Heaiing Officer made clear that any evidence admitted would be given the weight it deseives. (Hearing Transcript, page 14). After concluding the introductory statement, the Hearing Officer turned the matter over to the Transparency Committee for its opening statement, and then followed the aforementioned process for Mr. Rothenbuhler, Mr, Stainbrook, Mr, DeGidio, and Ms. Kaczala. B. OBJECTIONS Prior to discussing the Transparency Conmiittee and respondents' argunients, it is necessaty to address the objections nlade at the hearing. During the course of the hearing, several objections were made. One objection-the matter of admitting the three The order was originally set by the Hearing Officer at the beginning of the hearing to be Mr. Rothenbuhler, Mr, DeGidio, Mr. 5tainbrook, and Ms. Kaczala, (Hearing Transcript, page 6), but following Mr. Rothenbuhler's portion of the hearing, Mr. DeGidio requested a change of order which was granted by the Hearing Officer: Mr. Rotbenbuliler, Mr, Stainbrook, Mr. DeGidio, and Ms. Kaczala. (Hearuig Transcript, page 57). Transparency Conimittee nieeting transcripts and the one Transparency Conlniittee DVD8 from its last meeting-was decided at the hearing itself. Here, Ms, Kaczala, through counsel, and Mr. DeGidio expressed their objection to the Transparency Committee moving to admit the Transparency Committee transcripts and DVD as exhibits on the basis that the transcripts and DVD were not available to them prior to the hearing. At the end of the hearing, after due consideration, the Hearing Officer overruled the objection to the Transparency Comniittee transcripts and DVD being placed in the record. (Hearing Transcript, pages 284-285). As was made clear at the hearing, the objection was overruled because all respondents were present for each of the Transparency Comn-iittee hearings and the transcripts were likewise not available to the Transparency Committee for its preparation at the May 15 hearing. The Hearing Officer, finding that no one was "advantaged or disadvantaged" by the process of the Transparency Committee transcripts and DVD, overruled respondents' objection. (Hearing Transcript, pages 284-285). At the hearing, Mr. DeGidio and Ms. Kaczala, by and through her counsel, also raised objections on due process grounds.9 The due process objections relate to thr•ee complaints Mr. DeGidio and Ms. Kaczala had regarding the hearing. First, both assert that they received no notice of the specific charges brought against theni. Second, both clainl they did not have sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. Third, Mr. DeGidio and Ms. Kaczala believe they were not properly provided with the forniat of the hearing and how it would proceed. 8 For the Transparency Comini.ttee's last heariug, on May 9, the heariug began without a court reporter apparently due to an oversight by the Board staff. (Hearing Transcript, page 225). In lieu of a court reporter, the beginLUng of that hearing was audio-recorded uutil a videographer could at-rive to record a video transcript. (Hearing Transcript, pages 225-226). Mr. Rothenbuliler and Mr. Stainbrook did not object to the hearing on any grounds. However, the same due process analysis applies to all four individuals present at the hearittg, As the Hearing Officer, I find that the due process objections do not have merit, All four individuals present at the hearing received notice of the charges against them from Secretary Husted's May 12, 2014 letter instructing them to appear in person at Toledo's One Government Center building on May 15, 2014 for an opportunity to be heard. The May 12 letter put respondents on notice that the proceedings could result in a detemlination to remove them fi•onl office pursuant to R.C. 3501.16. The letter also enlphasized that the Secretary's action was the result of the Transparency Conln- ►ittee's in-depth inquiry into the Lucas County Board of Elections, as well as the "long-line of inteivention measures that [the Board] has required." In addition to the notice of the charges within Secretaty Husted's letter, the Transparency Coniniittee hearings seived to further inforni respondents of the basis for these renioval proceedings,10 On May 9, 2014, the Transparency Conlnlittee concluded approximately twenty-one hours of work with a list of the "macro issues" leading to its reconlnlendation that the Secretary remove respondents. (See DVD of May 9, 2014 Meeting, Hearing Exhibit 11). The Conmlittee noted that no one disputes that these issues occurred. The "macro issues" included the failure to file can-tpaign finance reports for at least two years, the failure to properly audit precinct election official nunibers and training, the failure to implement a policy of how a Board meeting is run, the failure to properly set an agenda for Board meetings, the failure to follow the agenda when it was set, the failure to have regular Board meetings, the failure to set and/or follow a policy for the hiring, firing, and managenlent of seasonal eniployees, the failure to have a policy regarding nepotism, the 10 The four individuals adinit that they were present for the Transparency Coimnittee hearings, including its fourEh and final ineeting at which the Cominittee presented its recoumiendations. (For Rothenbuhler, see Hearing Transcript, page 46; for Stainbrook, see Hearing Transcript, page 64; for DeGidio, see Hearing Transcript, pages 233•244; for Kaczala, see hearing. Hearbig Transcript, page 283). All were present for the May 15 failure to fill vacant election positions in a proper tiniefi•ame, the failure of proper comniunication between the staff and board, the failure to maintain proper decoi-unl at the Board, and the continued flood of accusations which only further created a "toxic and harmful" atmosphere.l l The Committee niade clear that these findings, as well as the long histoiy of problems with the Lucas County Board of Elections, led to its reconmZendation that Secretary Husted act to reniove respondents. Each of the respondents were present on May 9 for the Transparency Committee's statement of these "macro issues." Finally, the May 15 hearing began with the Transparency Conmlittee fuither eniphasizing the charges against respondents. The Transparency Conmlittee sumniarized at the beginning the sanle "niacro issues" it identified in the May 9 hearing. The Committee stated it believed the Secretary was permitted to remove respondents pursuant to R.C. 3501.16 on all the grounds enunlerated in that statute. In addition, the Hearing Officer nlade clear to Mr. DeGidio that the hearing was proceeding under "the totality of that section of the code [R.C. 3501.16] and not necessarily any one particular phrase or word..." (Hearing Transcript, page 124). The charges laid out in the Secretary's May 12 letter, as well as the Transparency Conimittee's May 9 meeting, lead me to conclude that the objections related to lack of adequate notice are unfounded, and accordingly, to overiule them. Additionally, respondents had sufficient tinie to prepare for the May I S hearing. At the May 9 meeting, the Transparency Comniittee, as detailed above, discussed its findings related to respondents and infornied thenl that its reconlnlendations would be inmlediately submitted to the Secretary and the decision on how to proceed would be his to make. Thus, The Transparency Coinmittee used the following as exainples of accusations leading to concern: the taping of private discussions, itnproper pliysical contact, residency issues, and fuiilier accusations inade in the inultiple police reports. (See, gerrer•ally, DVD of May 9, 2014 Meeting, Hearing Exhibit 11). the May 12 letter-sent in the morning the next business day after the Transparency Committee publicly made its reconmiendations-should not have come as a suiprise. The May 121etter gave the individuals niore than two full business days to prepare for the adniinistrative hearing. Respondents were well prepared and able to speak at length about each topic, at least parfly due to the fact that they had discussed many of the same topics at various times during the past three years and again, in great depth, during the twenty-one hours of Transparency Comniittee hearings. Further evidence of adequate preparation time is that Mr. DeGidio had tinle on the eve of the hearing to write the Secretaty a lengthy e- mail stating that he would resign if certain deniands were met. (See, Eniail of May 13, 2014 at 6:21 PM from Anthony DeGidio to Jon Husted, Hearing Exhibit 4). Additionally, Ms. Kaczala had the opportunity to collect a nunlber of letters of support fronl eniployces at the Lucas County Board of Elections. (See Twelve (12) Letters of Support for Gina Kaczala, Hearing Exhibit 7). Neither Ms. Kaczala, by or through counsel, or Mr. DeGidio asserted that there was any specific evidence or argument they did not have time to obtain, develop, or present. Therefore, I find respondents had sufficient tinie to prepare for the administrative hearing and oveirule the objections. Lastly, I overrule the objections that the individuals did not have infomiation regarding the format of the hearing and how it would proceed. The Secretary's May 12 letter infornled each individual that they would have the right to appear in person at the stated location to receive a hearing. The letter further infornied them that the hearing was to provide respondents with an opportunity to be heard as to why each should not be removed from their respective positions with the Lucas County Board of Elections, (Hearing Transcript, pages 4-5), and that they would be permitted counsel at the hearing. Beyond the letter, at the beginning of the hearing, I detailed the process that was about to unfold for respondents and the Transparency Committee. (Hearing Transcript, pages 5-7). Both the individuals and the Conunittee were on equal footing and received the process at the same time. It is worth noting also that the two individuals specifically raising the objection, Mr. DeGidio and Ms. Kaczala, had their poitions of the hearing after Mr. Rothenbuhler and Mr. Stainbrook. While this was a coincidence and not a factor in overruling their objections, I believe it is noteworthy given that this order of events allowed Mr. DeGidio and Ms. Kaczala to hear their colleagues' arguments and see the actual hearing process play out. I oveirule the objections, as I find that the individuals had sufficient information on the hearing process. C. RON R®THENBiJHLEI2 At the hearing, the Transparency Conlniittee sunimarized its findings from the preceding four public hearings that led to their reconmiendation that Mr. Rothenbuhler be removed froni the Board. Mr. Rothenbuhler had played a role, whether actively or with tacit approval through other actions, in keeping itenls off of the Board's agenda. (Hearing Transcript, page 32). Related to this misconduct involving public nzeetings, the Lucas County Board of Elections, with Mr. Rothenbuhler as its Chaimian, failed to follow the statutory mandate to establish a schedule of regular meetings where any matter could be considered by the Board without notice. (Hearing Transcript, page 32). The Board, instead, treated every meeting as a special meeting, which limited the ability of at least one Board Member, Mr. Stainbrook, to place itenls on the agenda. NVhen Mr. Stainbrook was finally able to place itenls that he believed were inlportant to fulfill his responsibilities on the agenda, the Board adjouined before 10 conipleting its noticed purposes thus limiting Mr. Stainbrook from exercising what he believed were his duties as a Board Menlber. (Hearing Transcript, page 33). Mr. Rothenbuhler, as the member of the Board with the most seniority, took no action to push the other members of the Board to fill inzportant staff positions. (Hearing Transcript, page 35). Further, Mr. Rothenbuhler did "absolutely nothing" in the face of potential physical violence between Board Menlbers and between Board Menibers and agency personnel on more than one election night, (Hearing Ti•anscript, pages 34 and 39- 40), and when presented with the Allison-Ruvolo report in Februaiy 2013, Mr. Rothenbuhler did not provide a second to Board Member Irish's nlotion to iniplement its reconlnZendations. (Hearing Transcript, page 36). Finally, the Transparency Conmlittee presented what "... appear[ed] to be this tacit collusion between the two [political] parties, Mr. Stainbrook, Mr. Rothenbuhler each. being the chair of the part[ies] ..," in the "nonrefei-ral of campaign finance reports to the Elections Conlmission for two-and-a-half years." (Hearing Transcript, page 38). Mr. Rothenbuhler's response, generally, to the Transparency Committee's concerns was that he had done everything he could "to try to promote goodwill and not be a dictator." (Hearing Transcript, page 43). Mr. Rothenbuhler added,".., maybe I failed, but it wasn't because I didn't try and it wasn't because I intentionally was playing partisan, in fact, I think to the opposite, I was less partisan than sonle people thought I should be." (Hearing Transcript, page 44). Specific to the Transparency Conznlittee's concerns that Mr. Rothenbuhler had done little, if anything, to inlplement the Allison-Ruvolo recomniendations, Mr. Rothenbuhler said: "But I did not want to fire somebody, I've told people that I believe that they could have another chance ... I'm also a person that wants to 11 give somebody another chance to do what I thought was an important j ob. By not dissecting it, I see in retrospect that may have been a probleni." (Hearing Transcript, page 42).12 The Transparency Committee noted that "Mr. Rothenbuhler admirably displays conipassion and loyalty to the enlployees at the Board and ... at all times his intentions were good." (Hearing Transcript, page 49). The Comnlittee also made clear that Mr. Rothenbubler 's comment that, "... I wouldn't want niy granddaughter working here because of the unpleasant situation ..." is a concerning indictment of both Mr. Rothenbuble_r and the culture at the Lucas County Board of Elections. (Hearing Transcript, page 22). D. JON STAINBROOK At the hearing, the Transparency Conzmittee provided a sunimary of its findings following four public meetings in a niixed format of statements fi•onl Mr. Stainbrook and a series of questions with answers froni Mr. Stainbrook, In his opening statement, Mr. Stainbrook said "[t]he Lucas County Board of Elections has had problems for decades." (Hearing Transcript, page 60; see also Letter of May 15, 2014 from Jon Stainbrook to Ohio Secretaiy of State Jon Husted, Hearing Exhibit 1, page 2). As follow-up to Mr. Stainbrook's opening remarks, Mr. Borgemenke asked Mr. Stainbrook the following questions, which were answered by Mr. Stainbrook: Q: And you tiied to fix that since you've been on the Board? A: Yes, I truly believe in my heart that both Ron [Rothenbuhler] and I have both tried to fix that. Q: Sure. And you believe that we're in a place that it's fixed? A: No. You'll get no argument on that from me, Scott. 12 Mr. Rotlienbuhler provided the following additional testimony in response to questions from the Hearing Officer about the Allison-Ruvolo report: "..,in regard to Mr. Irish inaking a motion, I was totally unaware that that inotiou was going to be made, cauglit me off guard, so therefore, iny reaction wouldn't liave been any different except for I was a bit shocked that that inotion was going to be made, but my reaction would liave been the same." (Hearing Transcript, pages 45-46), 12 (Hearing Transcript, page 67). Specific to Mr. Stainbrook's time on the Board of Elections, the Transparency Conmiittee alleged a culture of partisanship, which resulted in the list of certified candidates for the May 6, 2014 not being tiniely provided, with an iniputed political advantage to Mr. Stainbrook and his allies who were seeking to retain control of the Lucas County Republican Party. (Hearing Transcript, pages 70-71). The Transparency Comniittee was aware of no evidence that Mr. Stainbrook had worked to undo the canipaign finance referral log-janl. On the contraiy, the Transparency Committee heard allegations that Mr. Stainbrook, as Chairman of the Lucas County Republican Pai-ty, may have personally or politically benefited from the Board's inaction on canipaign finance referrals. (Hearing Transcript, page 77). Additionally, Mr. Stainbrook did not provide a second to Mr. Irish's motion to adopt the Allison-Ruvolo reconlniendations, rejecting the Secretary's effort's to help the Board improve its operations. (Hearing Transcript, page 71). Finally, and certainly most troubling if tn.te, is the allegation that Mr. Stainbrook took deliberate steps via text niessage to persuade Republican-patronage eniployees to slow down the logic and accuracy of the voting machines assigned for use on Election Day and not to report any errors. (Heaiing Transcript, pages 72-74; see also Letter of April 21, 2014 from Eric LaPlante, Hearing Exhibit 2).13 For his part, Mr. Stainbrook said that "the candidates list wasn't posted ... because it wasn't cot-rect, and the prosecutor ... told us not to post it ..." (Hearing Transcript, page 118; see also pages 119-120). Mr. Stainbrook proffered that he had tried to get the campaign finance referrals on the Board's agenda, that he had nlet with Mr. Rothenbuhler twice to "get 13 When given the opportuiuty to object to including the Letter of Apri121, 2014 from Eric LaPlante, as an exhibit to the record of this hearing, Mr. Staiubrook declined to do so. (Hearing Transcript, page 84), 13 this taken care of' with no success, (Hearing Transcript, page 86-87), and that "we tried to get this done but there was never a policy agreed on about how it was going to be referred, that was the sticky wicket, that's the problem." (Hearing Transcript, page 92). As for the Allison-Ruvolo reconmlendations, Mr. Stainbrook "thought it was a great report" and "worked hand in hand with Meghan Gallagher and other staff ... to nlake sure we could try to iniplenlent that, and Ron and I both talked about it. But then it got stuck in internal politics in the office and Ron and I would look at drafts of stuff that needed to be done, sonle things that we did do." (Hearing Transcript, page 90). On the question of the text niessage, Mr, Stainbrook likened its use in the forum of the public hearings (including this hearing) as character assassination, (Hearing Transcript, page 110), and denied having sent any such text, (Hearing Transcript, pages 85-86, 89, 109-111), calling the allegation a "bold- faced lie," (Hearing Transcript, page 87).14 Secretary Biunner explained Mr, Stainbrook's case in part, as follows: Mr. Stainbrook did raise some genuine issues [about the problenis at the board of elections] .,., but doing it in such a way that it really exacerbated the already difficult situation that both he and that, as he put it, that he and Secretary Husted inherited. I would suggest that in Mr. Stainbrook's case, that inheritance was squandered because of the methodology that he used to tiy to make his view known about this. (Hearing Transcript, pages 68-69). 14 As Mr. Allison noted, at tio time did the Transparency Cotninittee act as "critninal investigators." (Hearing Transcript, page 78). For that tnatter, neither is the Hearing Officer acting as a criuunal investigator, According to testimony at the hearing, the Lucas County Board of Electious has, or intends to, set uZto tnotion an investigation into this specific allegation. (Hearing Transcript, pages 218-224), An act of this nature, as alleged, may fall under R.C. 3599.24(A)(3), wliicli prohibits any person fi•om attempting to prevetit an election official frotn perfortning the official's duties. Because of the potentially criniinal nature of the allegation, and the adtninisttutive nature of this forutn, the Heariug Officer will not consider tlus accusation of possible critninal conduct as relevant to the extent tllat it ►nay relate to the "malfeasauce, tuisfeasance, or nonfeasance in office" or "for any ivillful violation of Title XXXV of the Revised Code" standards as justification for retnoval under R.C, 3501,16, The Hearing Officer does, however, consider tlie accusation relevant iuformation as to tlie culture of the Lucas County Board of Elections, as described below under FINDINGS, wliich tnay go to the "any other good aud sufficient cause" portion of the retnoval statute, 14 During the hearing, Mr. Stainbrook made this point clear: "...[I]f renioving me [fi•om] the Board will make it better, I'm all for it, so there's really no argument." (Hearing Transcript, page 87). E. ANTHONY DeGIDIOts At the hearing, the Transparency Con-tmittee sunmlarized its findings froni the preceding four public hearings that led to their recomnlendation that Mr. DeGidio be removed from the Board. Specifically, at its fourth and final hearing, the Transparency Coniniittee described at least eight particular failings that led to the Contniittee's reconiniendation that respondents be relieved of their public service with the Lucas County Board of Elections, aniong which are the failure to file canipaign finance reports for at least two years, and the failure to iniplement the Allison-Ruvolo reconimendations. (See DVD of May 9, 2014 Meeting, Hearing Exhibit 11). During the course of his rebuttal, Mr. DeGidio's defense for himself, relative to the allegations of the Board's iniproper application of Ohio's public meeting laws or the failure to refer violations of campaign finance laws to the Ohio Elections Coniniission, was to deflect the blame to others. (See, e.g., Hearing Transcript, pages 204-205, 210-212 and 233). However, Mr. DeGidio did represent that he woztld have voted to implement the Allison-Ruvolo reconiniendations, but was not permitted to do so as a result of a conflict of interest: "I've checked with a couple of authorities and eveiybody seems to be in agreenient that I would violate my ethical duties as an attotney if I did anything. And so when Irish's 15 Mr. DeGidio is an attorney wltose license to practice law in the State of Oluo is preseirtly under suspension, (Hearing Traiiscript, page 135; see also Order of the Olrio Supreme Court, Case No. 2012-1697, Hearing Exhibit 6), Oluo Secretary of State Directive 2007-35 reads, in relevant part, "inembers ... of the boards of elections who are licensed professionals shall conlply with the codes of professional conduct for their professions" (Sec. II, Paragraph D); "members ... of the boards of elections shall not participate in the consideration of any matter involving ... business associates" (Sec IV, Paragraph A); and "[v]iolations of this ethics policy by a metnber ... of the boards of elections may result in disciplinary action ,., including removal of a board member" (Sec. VII, Paragraph J), (Hearuig Exhibit 5). 15 motion was made ... I couldn't because I was under an ethical duty as an attorney not to vote." (Hearing Transcript, page 131), This conflict of interest was due to his professional relationship with the then-Director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, Meghan Gallagher, as her former legal counsel and the subsequent coniplaints she had filed against him first with the Toledo Bar Association and later with the Ohio Supreme Court. (Hearing Transcript, pages 130-132). Earlier in his tenure, however, Mr. DeGidio had voted to elect Ms. Gallagher as Director despite having the same conflict of interest resulting from their attorney-client relationship. (Hearing Transcript, pages 132-133). As to the May 6, 2014 primary election night, in the course of the hearing, Mr. DeGidio admitted to being absent during the unofficial canvass, "I don't know, I nlight have been in my car sleeping or I might have been down the street getting something to drink." He added that the Board of Elections was ".., on break and ... we're not required to sit there the entire break, especially if it's two hours long." (Hearing Transcript, pages 217-218),16 F. GINA KACZALA The portion of the hearing devoted to Ms. Kaczala took on a different tenor from the previous three segments. In his introduction, Ms, Kaczala's attorney, Mr. Belazis, represented that Ms. Kaczala began working for the Lucas County Board of Elections on Decenlber 13, 2011, that she was elected Director a little over two years later, on March 4, 2014, (Hearing Transcript, page 241), and that during her service prior to being appointed Director she had two basic responsibilities: secretaiy to the Board and assistant to the Director. (Hearing Transcript, page 242). Mr. Belazis represented that since becoming Director, Ms. Kaczala has worked to reniedy a number of the items that the Transparency 16 R, C. 3505.30 requires that Boards of Elections ", ,, sliall remaiu in session fi-om the tiine of the opeiung of the polls, 6oiarinl,ously, until the results of the election are received from every precinct in the county and such results are communicated to the secretary of state." (empliasis added). 16 Conzmittee had noted during their four previous hearings as irregularities or points of concern. She comniunicated to agency personnel upon being nanied Director that "fi•om that point foivaard there would be an atniosphere of respect, courtesy and teamwork." (Hearing Transcript, page 245). According to Mr. Belazis, Ms. Kaczala "inmlediately posted the nanles of the candidates," began referring campaign finance violations to the Ohio Elections Conunlission, and scheduled the GEMS nianager for training. (Hearing Transcript, page 245). And, she "began to make airangements for regular board meetings '... she inmlediately cut through that and somehow got this board, whose menibers you heard from today, to agree to do that. And they're now scheduled for the first Tuesday of every month and there's one scheduled for June." (Hearing Transcript, pages 248-249). These revelations canle to the surprise of the Transparency Committee, with Ms. Kaczala not having brought thenl up duiing the previous four heaiings. (Hearing Transcript, pages 248-249 and 253). For its part, the Transparency Conmlittee expressed some synZpathy for Ms. Kaczala but noted that she "is part of the culture" and "does not ha[ve] the ability and the leadership ... to lead [the] Board of Elections," (Hearing Transcript, page 27). Specifically, the Transparency Committee expressed concei-n about Ms. Kaczala's readiness to fulfill the role of Director of a large county board of elections. For exanlple, on the sanze day she was named Director by the Lucas County Board of Elections, Ms. Kaczala fired Melissa Brogan for insubordination. (Hearing Transcript, pages 255-256). Ms. Brogan was a staff member for the Board, and had a personal relationship and a child with her supervisor, Matt Toepfer. The Transparency Committee believed this inimediate firing of Ms. Brogan may have unnecessarily exposed the Board to legal liability and should have been discussed more prior to action, (Hearing Transcript, pages 255-257). 17 Overall, the Transparency Committee's views on Ms. Kaczala may best be summarized by Mr. Ruvolo's statenient; I think being the director of the Lucas County Board of Elections right now is not the job you should have. I think that for a variety reasons, the most inlportant being that you did come into a toxic environment, and whether it was your fault or not, you were unable to defuse that .... My second reason for reconmlending that you not be retained is I think the new Board, if there is one, ought to be able to pick the new director and deputy director. I think ... that the leadership that conles in has to have the ability to hire the best people they can find and to give those people the autononly to do their job. Now, if you apply for one of those positions and they hire you, I wouldn't have a problem with that but ... if there is one, the new Board ought to have the ability to pick the staff leadership they need to nlove this Board forward. And that's why I move to support your dismissal at this tinie. (Hearing Transcript, pages 274-275). ^DE^l^ I A. GROUP FINDINGS & GENERAL OBSERVATIONS The aforenientioned actions and inactions described by the Transparency Coninlittee, and as discussed by respondents on the record, are specific infi•actions that nlay justify removal of any or all of the respondents from their positions with the Lucas County Board of Elections. However, it is the tranche of individual vignettes that aggregate into a single narrative: the Lucas County Board of Elections is organizationally and operationally dysfunctional to its core, and helplessly so, given its current cast. The challenge for the Hearing Officer in conlpiling the report, and this section in particular, has not been what to include fi•onl the thousand pages that constitute the record of these proceedings, but what not to include. Clearly, there is an ingrained culture of passing the buck at the Lucas County Board of Elections in which everyone has skin in the ganle and an opinion to contribute but no one to take responsibility. According to Mr. Allison, 18 [I]t is not just a Republican problem with this Board of Elections, that eveiybody in many circunistances we found on the record that people wanted to point fingers when problenis arose, that nobody understood, there was no policy, there wasn't a clear line of authority and both sides pointed the fingers at each other and the conclusion was, you know, nobody is in charge so nobody can be held responsible for what happened or didn't happen, and that is a key coniponent of the cultural deficiency that we've discovered. (Hearing Transcript, pages 79-80), Depending on the particular issue, whether it be failing to properly adniinister canipaign finance laws; violations of public meeting iules and procedures; incomplete logic and accuracy testing; unannounced and unapproved absenteeisnl; mission-critical personnel positions going unfilled, including precinct election officials on Election Day; missing nlachine cards; nepotism; physical, verbal, and emotional harassment; tape-recording conversations; uninvited late-night visits to enzployees homes; text niessages; and generally being asleep at the wheel, the individual refrain was the sanie: it's not my fault. Even when the Lucas County Board of Elections was able to make policies and procedures attempting to deal with some of these Board problems, they were often ignored. As Mr. DeGidio described it: "I don't think we need any more policies because we can't enforce them anyway."'(Hearing Transcript, page 197). The fact that policies and procedures were put into place by the Board and then forgotten about is a concern that evidences a severe leadership deficit that touches each of the menibers of the Board. Prior to presenting nly findings on the individual respondents, I find it necessary to address two matters discussed at the hearing, These two matters were not considered in making my final reconmiendations, but I believe I would be doing a disservice in not bringing further light to thenl. First, is the matter of the relationship between Mr. DeGidio and Mr. Stainbrook. According to Mr. DeGidio, the Lucas County Republican Party owed 19 him money from when he was the party's counsel. (Hearing Transcript, pages 142-147). Both before and after Mr. DeGidio was on the Lucas County Board of Elections with Mr. Stainbrook, Mr. DeGidio alleged he and Mr. Stainbrook had discussed an agreenlent where the Lucas County Republican Party would reconiniend him to a judgeship, and in exchange, the legal bills owed by the party would "go away," (Hearing Transcript, 144-147), but, Mr. DeGidio added, "... there wasn't any more talks about it after I indicated that I felt we had to fire Meghan Gallagher." (Hearing Transcript, page 147).17 While not a matter considered in my recommendation, I find it warranted to note this potential agreement between Mr. DeGidio and Mr. Stainbrook because of its troubling nature. Second, is the matter of the alleged text message from Mr. Stainbrook. As noted above, this hearing was not conducted as a criminal investigation. The allegation, albeit in writing, (Letter of April 21, 2014 from Eric LaPlante, Hearing Exhibit 2), was not made as a part of a notarized, sworn statement. Mr. Stainbrook vigorously denies its truthfulness and asserts that opening his personal Verizon cell phone account to unnamed reporters at the region's newspaper of record constitutes iirefutable evidence that no such text message was sent. (Hearing Transcript, page 85). While such a text may oi• may not have been sent, and that matter will be sorted out by the proper authorities in due course, there is an inlportant question here-which may be applied to the matter above also: What is it about the culture of the Lucas County Board of Elections that enables these kinds of accusations to ring true for some? Such an accusation would be universally rejected as preposterous in any of the other 87 boards of elections. I give no weight to the merits of the accusation, or to its 1' As previously noted, this adinuustrative heariug did not constitute a crimiiial investigation. However, the Hearing Officer finds it iinportant to here note for the record that the Board Meinbers, as public officials, should they retain their positions, must be mindful to carefully adhere to •the state's ethics laws and to steer far clear of any appearance of impropriety, 20 rebuttal. I do, however, give credence to the existence of an opprobrious culture in which such an accusation may fester.rather than quickly dissipate. I offer a final point on the environment of the Lucas County Board of Elections. During the May 15 hearing, Mr. Ruvolo engaged Ms. Kaczala in a line of questioning that I find particularly relevant as it relates to the toxic environnlent at the Lucas County Board of Elections. In response to a question, Ms. Kaczala revealed that "Mr. Stainbrook would ask nze to keep an eye out in the office, watch people, report any inforniation to him." (Hearing Transcript, page 271). Mr. Ruvolo asked, and it was confirnied by Ms. Kaczala, that her relationship with Meghan Gallagher, Ms. Kaczala's foi-nier supervisor (and presumably with Mr. Stainbrook), "went south" when "Betsy Schuster [of the Secretary of State's Office] came up" and asked her to speak with representatives of the Secretaiy of State's Office during a managenlent review in 2012. (Hearing Transcript, pages 261-264). The cultural lesson seems clear: if one cooperates with the Secretaiy of State and participates in any meaningful effort to improve the workings of the Board of Elections then there will be consequences to suffer fronl those with a contraiy agenda. The organizational and operational morass, this toxic environment that is at the heart of the problems at the Lucas County Board of Elections, is the worst dynamic I have seen or heard of in my experience as an election administrator in Ohio, The voters and taxpayers of Lucas County deserve better. B. INDIVIDUAL FINDINGS: RON ROTHENBUHLER I find as follows with respect to Mr. Rothenbuhler: 1. During his tenure as a member of the Board of Elections, the Board has failed to refer canipaign finance reports to the Ohio Elections Commission for two 21 and a half years, resulting in the Elections Coniniission having no information on reports from Lucas County to examine for purposes of validation or investigation. 2. During his tenure as a member of the Board of Elections, the Board has consistently failed to have regular meetings. As of May 15, 2014, the Board had not had a regular meeting since October of 2013. 3. During his tenure as a nleniber of the Board of Elections, the Board was placed under administrative oversight and two bipartisan election administration consultants-Jon Allison and Jinl Ruvolo-were sent by Seci•etary Husted into the Lucas County Board of Elections to exanline the Board and deliver a report to the Secretaiy on how the Board should move forward. The resulting Allison-Ruvolo Report was issued in February 2013. Board Meniber John Irish nlade a nlotion at a Lucas County Board of Elections Meeting to accept the report and inZplenient its reconunendations, which was not seconded by Mr. Rothenbuhler. C. INDIVIDUAL FINDINGS: JON STAINBROOK I find as follows with respect to Mr. Stainbrook: 1. During his tenure as a nleniber of the Board of Elections, the Board has failed to refer canlpaign finance reports to the Ohio Elections Conimission for two and a half years, resulting in the Elections Conimission having no infomiation on reports fronl Lucas County to exaniine for purposes of validation or investigation. 22 2, During his tenure as a meniber of the Board of Elections, the Board has consistently failed to have regular meetings. As of May 15, 2014, the Board had not had a regular nieeting since October of 2013, 3. During his tenure as a member of the Board of Elections, the Board was placed under administrative oversight and two bipartisan election administration consultants-Jon Allison and Jim Ruvolo-were sent by Secretary Husted into the Lucas County Board of Elections to examine the Board and deliver a report to the Secretary on how the Board should move foi-ward. The resulting Allison-Ruvolo Report was issued in Febiuary 2013. Board Member John Irish made a motion at a Lucas County Board of Elections Meeting to accept the report and inlplenlent its reconinlendations, which was not seconded by Mr. Stainbrook. D. INDIVIDUAL FINDINGS: ANTHONY DeGIDIO I find as follows with respect to Mr. DeGidio: 1. During his tenure as a member of the Board of Elections, the Board has failed to refer campaign finance repoits to the Ohio Elections Comniission for two and a half years, resulting in the Elections Commission having no information on reports fronl Lucas County to examine for purposes of validation or investigation. 2. During his tenure as a nienlber of the Board of Elections, the Board has consistently failed to have regular meetings. As of May 15, 2014, the Board had not had a regular meeting since October of 2013. 23 3, During his tenure as a nlenlber of the Board of Elections, the Board was placed under administrative oversight and two bipartisan election administi•ation consultants-Jon Allison and Jim Ruvolo-were sent by Secretary Husted into the Lucas County Board of Elections to exanline the Board and deliver a report to the Secretary on how the Board should move foiward. The resulting Allison-Ruvolo Report was issued in February 2013, Board Member John Irish made a motion at a Lucas County Board of Elections Meeting to accept the repoit and inzplement its recommendations, which was not seconded by Mr. DeGidio, 4. While on the Lucas County Board of Elections, Mr. DeGidio represented then current Director of the Board Meghan Gallagher. Mr. DeGidio voted to hire Ms. Gallagher as Director of the Lucas County Board of Elections. Later, Mr. DeGidio used the conflict with Ms. Gallagher to excuse hinlself from being involved in discussions in whether the Lucas County Board of Elections should adopt the Allison-Ruvolo Repoit, 5. On May 6, 2014, when the unofficial canvass at the Lucas County Board of Elections was taking place on prinlaiy election night, Mr. DeGidio was absent for a portion of the canvass, E. INDIVIDUAL TINDINGS; GINA KACZALA I find as follows with respect to Ms. Kaczala: 1. Prior to being Director, Ms. Kaczala had two different positions with the Lucas County Board of Elections - secretary to the Board and assistant to the 24 Director. Ms. Kaczala has been a full-time eniployee of the Board for approximately two and a half years. 2. Since being appointed Director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, Ms. Kaczala has done some important things to try and coirect the problems at the Board; including, beginning to send the canlpaign finance reports to the Ohio Elections Conlmission. On the sanle day Ms. Kaczala was appointed Director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, Ms, Kaczala fired Melissa Brogan. Given Ms. Brogan's personal relationship with her supeivisor, this hasty termination nlay have unnecessarily opened the Board up to legal action. R^t;r`ONIMENP ATIONS Ohio Revised Code § 3501.16 enlpowers the Secretary of State to "sunimarily reniove or suspend any meniber of a board of elections, or the director, deputy director, or any other employee of the board, for neglect of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, for any willful violation of Title XXXV of the Revised Code, or for any other good and sufficient cause." Based on the foregoing report, 1. 1 conclude that the failure to adopt and follow a policy for the holding of regular public meetings of the Lucas County Board of Elections, consistent with Ohio's public nleeting laws, and the related misuse of special meetings, constitutes misfeasance on the part of Mr. Rothenbubler, Mr. Stainbrook, and Mr. DeGidio. 2. I oonclude that the failure of the Lucas County Board of Elections to refer candidate conunittees to the Ohio Elections Comnlission for failure to file and 25 the late filing of canlpaign finance reports constitutes nonfeasance on the part of Mr, Rothenbuhler, Mr. Stainbrook, and Mr. DeGidio. 3. 1 conclude that the failure of the Lucas County Board of Elections to impIenlent the Allison-Ruvolo reconlnlendations constitutes neglect of duty on the pail of Mr. Rothenbuhier, Mr. Stainbrook, and Mr. DeGidio. 4. 1 conclude that the failure to avoid conflicts of interest resulting from his attorney-client relationships with Meghan GaIlagher, in contravention of Secretary of State Directive 2007-35, constitutes nialfeasance on the part of Mr. DeGidio. 5. 1 conclude that being absent during portions of the unofficial canvass constitutes neglect of duty on the part of Mr. DeGidio. 6. I conclude that the abhorrently dysfunctional organizational and operational culture of the Lucas County Board of Elections, as described in my FINDINGS above, constitutes good and sufficient cause for the renloval of Mr. Rothenbuhler, Mr. Stainbrook, and Mr. DeGidio. 7. I conclude that the hasty terniination of Ms. Brogan constitutes niisfeasance on the part of Ms. Kaczala, 8. Finally, assunling that Ivfi•. Rothenbuhler, Mr. Stainbrook, and Mr. DeGidio will be removed from their positions as Menlbers of the Lucas County Board of Elections as reconiniended above, I conclude that it will be necessary and proper for the newly constituted board nienibers, whomever they may be, to enjoy full freedom in selecting their own Director and Deputy Director. As such, I conclude this operational iniperative constitutes good and sufficient cause for the removal 26 of Ms. Kaczata. tf Mt. Rotl^enbul^^et, Ml , St^inblo0k, ^nd M1 , DeG^dio are not to r be renioved, I see no good and sufficient cause for the removal of Ms. Kaczala on this count alone. As such, I recommend that the Secretary of State remove Mr. Ron Rothenbuhler, Mr. Jon Stainbi•ook, and Mr. Anthony DeGidio from their positions as Menibers of the Lucas County Board of Elections and remove Ms. Gina Kaczala as Director of the Lucas County Board of Elections. There remains one personnel iteni that that I wouid like to address, that being the tenure of John Irish, also a Meniber of the Lucas County Board of Elections. The Transparency Conimittee did not reconin.iend that the Secretary renlove hini as a Member of the Board of Elections. Based on the record, I believe this is at least pailly due to the fact that Mr. Ii7sh was the lone vote to inlplement the Allison-Ruvolo recommendations. I ani in agreement with the Transparency Conlmittee's recommendation on this account, However, Mr. Ii7sh, despite being the most junior menibei• of the Board, has nonetheless nlember dur7ng its most recent tumult, and the allegations of his been a 6, 2014 do not compoi-t with behavior becoming of a public o actions on the night of May , he fficial. If Mr. Irish continues as a Member of the Lucas County Board of Elections event he proves to be a stunlbling block, though should be given little latitude in the be an inipedinient to refornl• I have no evidence at this time that he will Respectfully Subnlitted t f /f Matthew M. Damschroder Heal7ng Officer 27 ATTAC ENT NOT SCANNED Jon Husted Ohio Secretary of State 180 East Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Tel: (877) 767-6446 Fax: (614) 644-0649 www.OhioSecretaryofState.gov Via Electronic Mail and Regular Mail June 24, 2014 Jon Stainbrook Chair, Lucas County Republican Party 1758 Meadowlark Ave. Toledo, Ohio 43614 Dear Mr. Stainbrook: I have received the Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee's recommendations to appoint Kelly Bensman and Benjamin Roberts to fill the vacancies on the Lucas County Board of Elections. Under Ohio Revised Code §3501.06, it is my duty as Secretary of State to appoint members of county boards of elections to serve as my representatives. I take this responsibility very seriously. Ohio law provides that, in the case of a vacancy on the board of elections, the county executive committee of the party entitled to the appointment may recommend a qualified elector to serve on the Board, and the Secretary of State "shall appoint such elector, unless [the Secretary] has reason to believe that the elector would not be a competent member of such board." (Ohio Revised Code §3501.07). The Board of Elections is too critical to the function of our democracy to appoint any individuals who are not fit to serve. Accordingly, under my authority and for the reasons outlined below, I will not appoint either Kelly Bensman or Benjamin Roberts to serve on the Lucas County Board of Elections. As you are keenly aware, for three years my office has found itself in the position of regularly having to intervene at the Lucas County Board of Elections in order to ensure the proper administration of elections and board operations. My most recent action resulted in the removal of board members. In taking this action, I laid a framework for all to work within as we move toward a new culture at the Lucas County Board of Elections, consistent with the requirements of state law. As I have in all previous interventions in Lucas County, I provided another path forward by stating that I would not appoint anyone connected with the problems of the past that have led to these vacancies. However, as has been the case time and time again, the guidance has fallen on deaf ears. The removal of board members was not arbitrary, but rather followed a thorough examination of what can only be described as a deep-rooted culture of dysfunction. Further, the purpose of removal was to start anew, not to punish any individual for their behavior - though without a Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee v.liusted Respondent's Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 Exh. C, pl 1 EXIi113ff ^ S jL Page 2 of 3 doubt, none should be proud of their contribution to the devolution of professionalism nor their inability to change the culture. Both my involvement over the course of the last three years and my review of the transparency committee process confirm that because of their unconstructive, and at times potentially destructive involvement with the Lucas County Board of Elections, neither Mr. Benjamin Roberts nor Ms. Kelly Bensman are competent to serve. Kel1y Bensman While Kelly Bensman is not currently and has not been an employee of the board for some time, it is clear to me that she is not only involved, but is a central figure in creating an environment of dysfunction and distrust at the Lucas County Board of Elections. On more than one occasion Ms. Bensman has been a primary figure in an altercation or incident at the Lucas County Board of Elections. Over the course of four meetings of the transparency committee, Ms. Bensman was frequently cited by board members and staff as being a source of intimidation and provocation that would at times escalate to claims of both verbal and physical altercations both by and towards Ms. Bensman, with one of those altercations leading to her removal from the Government Center. As recently as the May Primary Election, Ms. Bensman was alleged to have taunted, yelled, and intimidated board employees. The Toledo Blade went so far as to describe Ms. Bensman as "stalking... like prey" board staff on Election Night. The facts in this matter are clear, Ms. Bensman was and remains part of the dysfunction at the Lucas County Board of Elections. Benjamin Roberts Mr. Benjamin Roberts served as the Director of the Lucas County Board of Elections for approximately five months in 2011. The culture that perpetuated under his leadership, his inability to manage or change what he himself upon his resignation deemed a "caustic environment" make him incompetent to serve on the Lucas County Board of Elections. At the start of Mr. Roberts' tenure, the board of elections was under oversight by my office. In October of 2GI 1, I determined that despite active engagement there was nothing more my offce could provide at that time and it was time for local leadership "to assume complete and total responsibility for the oversight of operations and the duties assigned to them." Just two months after being tasked with fulfilling his duties, Mr. Roberts relinquished his position and in his letter of resignation said he was unable to make a difference. By his own admission he was not the change agent the Board required then, and he cannot be now, During Mr. Roberts' incomplete term of office, accusations among staff of impropriety such as possible email hacking and misuse of time, an absence of policies and procedures and partisan division proliferated. Further, as Director, he presided over confusion surrounding a final vote tally and instructed the cancellation of poll worker training in advance of an election. Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Husted Respondent's Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 Exh. C, p12 Page 3 of 3 Due to the myriad of issues linked to both Ms. Bensman and Mr. Roberts, I find that neither have the requisite or adequate ability or qualities required to be competent members of the Lucas County Board of Elections. Accordingly, under Ohio Revised Code §3501.07, 1 must reject the Executive Committee's recommendation of these appointments. Be advised, consistent with my letter of June 5, 2014, 1 will not let the Board of Elections slip backward into the dysfunction that has brought us here today. Should the Lucas County Republican Executive Committee choose to recommend two other electors to serve, I insist that they be unconnected to the well-documented problems of the past. Of the more than 29,000 registered Republicans in Lucas County, surely there are well-qualified individuals who can serve the voters of Lucas County with competence and integrity. It is my hope that you and your committee will once and for all do the right thing for the voters of Lucas County and advance individuals who will provide the stewardship and fresh perspective the rebuilding of the Lucas County Board of Elections will require. ncerely, Jon Husted cc: Kelly Bensman Benjamin Roberts Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Husted Respondent's Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 Exh. C, p13 Lawriter - ORC - 3501.07 Filling vacancies on county boards of elections. 7/1/14, 11:16 AM 3501.07 Filling vacancies on county boards of elections. At a meeting held not more than sixty nor less than fifteen days before the expiration date of the term of office of a member of the board of elections, or within fifteen days after a vacancy occurs in the board, the county executive committee of the major political party entitled to the appointment may make and file a recommendation with the secretary of state for the appointment of a qualified elector. The secretary of state shall appoint such elector, unless the secretary of state has reason to believe that the elector would not be a competent member of such board. In such cases the secretary of state shall so state in writing to the chairperson of such county executive committee, with the reasons therefor, and such committee may either recommend another elector or may apply for a writ of mandamus to the supreme court to compel the secretary of state to appoint the elector so recommended. In such action the burden of proof to show the qualifications of the person so recommended shall be on the committee making the recommendation. If no such recommendation is made, the secretary of state shall make the appointment. If a vacancy on the board of elections is to be filled by a minor political party, authorized officials of that party may within fifteen days after the vacancy occurs recommend a qualified person to the secretary of state for appointment to such vacancy. Amended by 130th General Assembly File No. 43, SB 193, §1, eff. 2/5/2014. Effective Date: 03-23-1972 ------EXHI131! http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3 501.07 1 Page 1 of I 101fi/207ti Politics - Toledo Blade TtlE BLADE a..^ d eo:..w. <...r 3..o.v r Lucas County elections board plagiied by problems 5/7/2014 ------BY IGNAZIO MESSINA BLADE STAFF WRITER The Lucas County Board of Fiections stayed up all night, through 9 a.nt. today, to n finish tabulating the May 6 election results - pushing through multiple problems that included missing data cards, an accidental deletion of a contputer file containing votes, and tension between two board mentbers that prompted a sheriffs dcputy to intervene. Troublc with the election, which was being tabutated at the board's early vote center, became apparent at I I:30 p.rit. Tuesday. At that point, less than 73 percent of the Daniel DeAngotis, left, Deputy Director oi w,^ results were posted online and had not been updated for about an hour. Board of Elections. and Girta Kac.ata, right. Dtrector, during a Board of Elections niceting at Board mentber Jon Stainbrook told The Blade just before midnight that six data cards ^_--Unc Gavernment ------Center __ on__ Aprit _ 15, _l were missing, which was holding up the cicction count. The board didn't finalize the pritnary election count until 9:28 a.m., after cotnpieting all-night count ofthe votes. Final c►ectioa tuntout was 10.15 percent, with about 31,695 of Lucas County's 312,412 rcgistered voters casting ballots. The tumout in Ohio's last gubematorial primary, in 2010, was about 17 percent in Lucas County. The election was wrought with problems, the most grievous being the tnissing cards. VIEW: 2014 primary election results PRIMARY ELECTION ROUNDUP: Some surprises on election night in Lucas County 13abc.com Toledo {O}I) News, Weathcr and Sports Elections Director Gina Kaczala was pressed by several reporters about the missing six cards. She initially said there were no missing cards but later revised her statement, saying five cards were unaccounted for, but that they did not have votes on them. Ms. Kaczala circled the early vote center area in an attempt to talk with reporters while Mr. Stainbrook, his ally former Elections Director Megan Gallagher, and Mr. Stainbrook's associate Kelly Bensntan followed her like sharks stalking prey. Ms. Kaczala said she wottld not speak tvhile Mr. Stainbroak, Ms. Gallaglter, and Ms. Bensnian were present but could not find a private area to speak with the rcporters. http:Hwww. toledobtade. com/po litics/2014/05/07/Primary-election-resu Its-delaye ddn-Lucas-County. prlnt 1/3 Lucas County Republican Party Executive Respondent's Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 EXNIBlT Exh. U, pll ------1016/2014 Politios - Toledo Blade She eventually said the missing cards were never used in voting machines for the election, but since they had been activated in testing, the election boards computer system showed them as missing. Chad Rowley, an etnployce of Dominion Voting Systems - the company operates the touch screen voting niachines - confirmed just after tnidnight that five cards were in fact missing. Mr. Stainbrook and Ms. Kaczala started trading barbs with eactt other- with Mr. Stainbrook accusing Ms. Kaczafa o1' lying to the media regarding the niissing cards. 'T'he two argued loudly and Ms. Kaczala stepped menacingly toward Mr. Stainbrook before board member John Irish stepped in. The two seemed ready to fight before a deputy on hand to keep the peace split the two up. "She lost five data cards;" Mr. Stainbrook, a Republican, said. "Just shut up. Just shut up," Mr. Irisli, a Democrat, responded. More than an hour later, the elections board reconvened its election night nreeting, which had stood in recess. It viewed and voted on the voter intent of a dozen paper ballots that could not be read by a scanner because voters didn't clearly mark a vote or in some cases, voted twice. After the board recessed at 1:48 a.m., Deputy Diractor Dan DeAngelis announced that the five ntissing cards had been accounted for and the clection tabulation was continuing. "Therc were five that werc never used herc," Mr. DeAngelis said referring to the early votc center. "They weren't used to cast votes here; they were never brought over." The five cards were found locked in the board of elections warehouse, where voting machines are stored, he said. "They showed in the database," Mr. DeAngelis said. "I believe they were used as testing purposes." Ms. Kaczala said the five cards were checked for votes and found to be empty. Mr. Stainbrook called the mishap an "inventory control problem that couid have been avoided." "These cards were found in the warehousc and the election was held up for hours," he said, "I don't feel comfortable with that: ' At 2:04 a.m. another problem blew up at the board of elections that would set release of the results back several tnore hours. "Pan of the election was deleted," Mr. Stainbrook said, referring to a computer file that contained votes. "So now they are trying to recreate it," he said. A clearly frustrated Ms. Kaczala entered that area of the office and said: "now what?" Mr. Rowicy said a stack ol'paper ballots would have to be rescanned. No one could clearly explain what the problem was, what votes had to be rescanned, or why. Mr. DeAngelis sent in a team of elections board employees to rescan the paper ballots. "It appears our potninion technician is telling us'the workspace is unavailable.' I an1 not really sure what that means," Mr. DeAngelis said. At 3:14 a.m., the issue of the five missing cards resurfaced as a niajor problem. Mr. Stainbrook, Ms. Gallagher, Ms. Bensman, and fired elections board employee Noel Flahn asked Mr. Rowley to check the authenticity of the five cards by insening them into a voting machine to check file creation dates. Mr. I lahn was a Republican observer. Three of the cards appeared to have been craated on May 7 while the nvo other cards showed creation dates in April when testing for all cards to be used in the election and early voting occurred. Mr. Stainbrook said the May 7 creation dates prove duplicity and subterfuge. "They said these cards were for testing in April but they were created today," he said, "}{ow is that possible?" Elections board eniployee Tim Reynolds said Mr. Stainbrook was mistaken but he could tiot explain why the three cards stiowed http:lhnwv.tofedoblade.aom/Politicst2014105/07/Primary-elecUon-results-delayed-in-Lucas-County.print 213 Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Husted Respondent's Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 Exh. U, p12 ^o^srzota Politics - Toledo Blade May 7 creation dates. Ms. Kaczala and Mr. DeAngelis attempted to speak privately with Mr. Reynolds but Mr. Stainbrook, Ms, Gallagher, and Ms. 8ensman all objected. "This is an electiort and we are observers," Ms. Bensman said. Mr. DeAngclis responded: "You arc allowed to observe out here," The four-niember elections board reconvened again at 3:23 a.m. to vote on two more paper ballots that could not be properly scanncd. Mr. Stainbrook used the session to call for an emergency nieeting to investigate the "data cards that were created tonight," he said, Mr. DeAngelis responded: "I'tn not sure that's what it's showing. That staff has indicated that is not the ca.se." Board tnensber Anthony DeGidio said he did not see a need for an emergency meetiug. After the board recessed again, Board of Elections chairman Ron Rothenbtthler went to investigate. The matter was left unresolved. Mr. Stainbrook said Mr. Rowley would be able to run a report on voting tnachincs at the warehouse, 546 Southard Avc., to determine if they were used early today to create any cards. The tension antong board tnembers and the staff settled down as the hours dragged on toward dawn. Just after 4 a.m., results were released for Toledo City Council District 2 race, showing incuntbent Matt Cherry as the winner. Results in the race for the South Toledo district council seat were tabulated online until all other elections results were counted and released. Ms. Kaczala said the board of elections had to "create two different databases," The second database is erclusively for the District 2 council race. Voters in District 2 cast paper ballots only because the city's filing deadline did not leave enough time to load the race onto voting machines. Cb:t¢art ignazio Mrss;na at: E nessina n3iheralade.cctt; ot 4i 3-724-617i. COFYdBrM 207f rA6 aeJ9. A!/ rfyyfs rerervetl. 7his mBMMI meY nof Le coplod ordraSyW1led wiNpn(qrmaybn. htip:!/www.totedobtade.comlPoittlcsl2ot4lo5/t)7/Primary-eleetlon-results-delayed-in-Lucas-County.print 3/3 Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Husted Respondent's Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 Exli. U, p13 Editorials - Toledo Blade Page I of 2 ^.., / /.,JF!'^ ^ ..//-.,. EDITORIAL Clean sweep The purge of the Lucas County Board of Elections is a needed first step, but broader reforms must follow 5/13/20I4 Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's overdue plan announced Monday to fire most of the top leaders of the Lucas County Board of Elections is a necessary - but not sufficient - response to the board's chrotric misconduct. The change the board needs is not nierely in the faces of its executives, but more important in its dysfmictional institutional culture. Acting on the proposals of the bipartisan "transparency committee" he named to review the election board's operations, Secretary Husted used his authority as Ohio's chief elections officer to seek to remove board chairman Ron Rothenbuhler, board members Jon Stainbrook and Anthony DeGidio, director Ghia Kaczala, aud deputy director Daniel DeAngelis. Secretary Husted cited the "overall neglect of duty that has endived" at the board. The officials will have the opportunity this week to appeal their dismissals. If they have any respect for the coimty voters whom they have failed to serve competently, they'll go quietly. The fuings followed the board's chaotic performance in last week's primary election. Board employees misplaced data cards and deleted (and had to restore) a computer file of vote records. A candidate for Toledo City CoLmcil claims that improper instructions from poll workers to voters depressed her vote total. Despite a scant tuntout, Lucas County was the last cotmty in Ohio to report its rethvns. The transparency committee cited longer-term board irregularities: constant partisan and personal squabbles, mishandled records, a failure to document violations of state law on campaign fuiance reporting. The panel's case for the dismissals is compelling. Curiously, Mr. Husted's ax spared Democratic board meniber Jolui Irish, who nearly cante to blows with Mr. Stainbrook during last week's vote-counting. Mr. Irish tried previously to ntstitute some of the board reforms Secretary Husted proposed. He cannot be held responsible for the passive response to the board's shoddy performance that his fellow Democrat, Mr. Rothenbtililer, displayed as board chairman. But Mr. Irish's own long record of partisan hackwork hardly offers a model of the professional leadership aud admhiistration the board needs now. He ought to go as well. Mr. Rothenbiililer, the chairman of the Lucas County Democratic Party, and Mr. Stainbrook, the head of the county Republican Party, are in a position to nominate their own successors and Mr. DeGidio's replacenrent. They should not get the opportmtity to resunte partisan warfare at the elections board witlt proxies. Mr. HLi,sted must make clear that he will not tolerate such an effort. A better approacli would be to recruit well-respected retired judges of both parties to serve as election board niembers. The new director and deputy director should be outside professionals. All board employees who remain evidently need to be retrained to perform the inost basic job duties adeqiuately. That nieans, aniong other things, spend'ntg their taxpayer-subsidized work time on direct elections administration - an example that nntst be set at the top. Lucas County residents ntust feel confident that when they vote, the elections board will cotmt their votes accurately, fairly, and promptly. Anything less encourages cynicism about, and mistrust of, goverrtnient. Mr. Husted properly concluded he "camiot jeopardize the integrity of futtve elections in Lucas Cottnty. The citizens and voters deserve better." Secretary Husted frequently has lametited that he has spent more time cleaning up after the Lucas Coiutty board than every other elections board in Ohio combnied. He needs to do what he can now to ensure that he, or a successor, won't have to conduct a similar ptuge in a few years. Copy/!gh! 2014 The Blsde. AII Aghts reeerved. Thls m&te,al mey nof he oopied ord/sfribu(ed wYhoul Peml7881on. EClili3! I http://www.toledoblade.com/Editorials/' ^ ^ ^ ^ he-purge-of-the-l.ucas-... 11/5/2014 K-eith Burris - Toledo Blade Page 1 of 2 {C'4P.Mp;N"I'AId.Y A judicial solution for the elections board fiasco 5/15/2014 BY KEITH C. BURRIS COLUMNIST FOR THE BLADE The Lucas Coimty Board of Elections saga has threatened to go on and on, and under ! k" various scenarios it still could go on forever. f. >•'! But there is a possible remedy. ft is to reconstitute the board and appohit retired judges as members. ' s. This need not necessarily be a permanent arrangement. It inight be put in place only tmtil the board and the fiuictions of the elections board are stabilized. But stability might also be a nice permanent condition. Here is the situation: Secretary of State Jon Husted has notified three members of the board and two adininistrators - board members Ron RothenbLihler, Jon Stainbrook, and Tony DeGidio as well as Director Gina Kaczala and Deputy Director Dan DeAngelis - that he intends to remove them because of a culture of "dysfunction and t^l overall neglect of duty." ___ _p mm _ Those five have a right to an appeal. But if the elections board members are eventually replaced, the law states that their replacements should be suggested by the executive committees of the local Democratic and Republican parties. Two of the people to be replaced are the chairmen of those parties. The one thhtg that everyone can agree on, even the principals, is that there is hideed a culture of dysfunctiou. But can fimctional replacemeuts be chosen by the same people and process that has given us the dysfunction7 We should not add more craziness to the comedy of errors we have already seen. This, I fear the secretary of state might unintentionally do. The only way out of this mess is to establish a process that is at least one step removed from politics. We need a sober and professional Board of Elections. One way would be for the secretary of state to appoint an overseer to manage the board, as former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Andy Douglas has suggested. But another, and better, way would be to appoint retired local judges to the board. And the best path to their appointment is not forcible removal but voluntary acceptance. The rational path is for all members of the Board of Elections to step aside for the good of a competent, fair, and dignified election process. Then the two party chairmen could subntit to the secretary of state a list of retired judges who would constitute a new election board - two nominal Republicatvs and two nominal Democrats who nonetheless would be above reproach and return credibility and civility to the administration of the elections in this county. I am thinkiiig of people like Judge Andy Devinie and Jtidge Peter Handwork, both retired, and of retired state Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick, and of other retired judges such as Charles Doneghy and Charles Wittenberg. That's the type of people who cotdd and should serve, but not the only people. I spoke with Judge Devine, who is 92, and he told me he is too old to serve. But his mind is still keen and he is inspiring rather than etnbarrassing. He thnilcs depoliticizing the board is vital and says he remembers when the two party chairmen ate lunch together at Dyers and worked together on the big stuff. The key, he said, is the character of the people who join the Board of Elections. Judge Handwork is equally positive about the idea. And he told me he is willhtg to serve. He said judges know how to listen and probleni solve. We need reform, he said. Otherwise, we put the election process itself at risk. We mock democracy. ExHIBiT http://www4.toledoblade.con^/Keith- ^ ^ ^ 1a1-solution-for-the-eIectjon,.. 1 1/5120 1 4 Keith Burris - Toledo Blade Page 2 of 2 Mr. Stainbrook told me he thinks the idea is wise and constracfive, and he embraces it with two caveats: that the Democratic chairman is also willing and that the judges serve for one year. This puts the ball in Mr. Rothenbuhler's court. And Mr. Husted's. To restore the election process in Lucas County we need serious people on the Board of Elections - people who are respected, nonpartistan, and above reproach. This is not rocket science. We can do this. Keith C. Burrfs is a columnist for The Blade. Contact him at: kburris@theblade. com or 419-724-6266. CoPy/19ht 2014 TOe Blada_ All dgMs reservaD. Thls melerlg/ msy not he cnp"ied or dIsVIDuled w8had pem11s5bn. http://www4.toledoblade.com/Keith-Burris/2014/05/15/A judicial-solution-for-the-election... 11/5/2014 State - Toledo Blade Page 1 of 2 2 judges to oversee elections board Semiretired officials to lead Lucas County through vote certification 5/21/2014 BY TOM TROY BLADE POLITICS WRITER Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted on Tuesday assigned two partly retired Lucas County judges to oversee the troubled Lucas County Board of Elections as it futishes aertifying the results of the May 6 election. a ^^5 Republican Peter Handwork, 72, formerly of the Ohio 6th District Cotiut of Appeals, and Deniocrat Charles Wittenberg, 67, formerly of Lucas County Common Pleas s,s Coiut - but both still hearing cases as visiting judges - will be the bipartisan oversight team through the May 27 certificafion deadline. They are expected to attend a special board meeting at 3 p.m. today. Mr. Husted said he was engagntg the services of the two judges timtil he can make a fmal decision on the fate of three Lucas Comity board members and the board's director, Gina Kaczala. The secretary of state amiounced last week that he intended to remove Democratic ` board chainnan Ron Rothenbuhler, Republican board members Tony DeGidio and Jon Stainbrook, and Ms. Kaczala, a Republican, pending the outcome of an administrative due process hearing. Ottly Deniocrat John Irish, the ntost recent appointee, would retnain on the board. He also detennined tentatively to remove the deputy director, Democrat Dan DeAngelis. W. DeAngelis resigned and did not appeal his removal to the hearing -- i officer. "The judges will work with you as you complete the fmal certification of the May 6, 2014, elections," Mr. Husted Nvrote in his letter to the board members announcing the >. 74 ti. temporary appointment. 4 Despite behig targeted for removal, the board members and the staffwere still working to fmish certifying the May 6 election. Judge Handwork said he believes he can help the board, thottgh he has never had any election-related jobs. P>.^ t '<^f "When it first canie up, I think I realized this is something that needs to be done that ^ , A'.. doesn't have controversy involved," Mr. Handwork said. He said his trainnig as a .jLUist and ability to listen to competing viewpoints should prove i.isefttl. hA' Judge Wittenberg also said he had never worked for the elections board, but said he was will'nig to help restore lost public tnist in the voting process. "Judge Handwork and I will be there Ra to oversee them, not to supervise them, but jusrt H,i„o k to make suredo a tnte and accurate they and timely comp letion of the vote certification," Judge Wittenberg said. I` Mr. Husted also said in his letter that he would assign staff from his office to help the Lucas County board staff finish the required duties of verifying the election results, ^ i and validating and counting provisional ballots. EXHIBIT http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2014., K-3 -elections-board.print 11/5/2014 ^ ^ Page 2 of 2 State - Toledo Blade Judge Handwork retired last year from the Ohio 6th District Court of Appeals. He contiuues as a visiting jlulge and is the leader of Handwork Mediation Services. He was a Lucas CoLmty Conimon Pleas Court judge from 1977 until he joined the court of appeals in 1983. Judge Wittenberg declined to ruu for re-election to Lucas County Common Pleas Court ut 2006 and has been active as a visithig judge since. Before being elected to the } common pleas court, he was a part-time magistrate in Toledo Municipal Court alyd a Sylvania school board member in the 1980s and 1990s. Both judges notified the Ohio Suprenie Cotut that they have to suspend hearing cases tJ•ey are involvetl "s.n thie board of elections prrwss, Jr.d.g,e Wittenberg sz.id. ^ _ ^ - ^°--- - _ Cot ntJ Cwsthouse #n Tiff= E t*^a 1 H k:resiced over the caf se on de uwlisnittg ihe Seneca The judge ruled in 2011 that the coLutty commissioners had the authority to raze the build'nrg, a rulintg upheld by the appeals court. This appointnient is short-term, but there has been talk of both judges being appointed to vacancies on the board if Mr. Husted follows through with his tentative decision to remove three board members. He said he is waiting for a report front the hearing officer, deputy assistant secretary of state Matt Dantschroder. The recommendations to remove the five elections officials came from a fotv-member bipartisan "transparency contmittee" that Mr. Husted appointed 'nt April 'ni response to complanits from Mr. Stanibrook about misuse of taxpayer dollars, failiag to follow proper electioii procedures, and alleged favoritism toward Deniocrats. Those complaints were made after his ally, former Director Meghan Gallagher, was removed on March 4 aud replaced with Ms. Kaczala. The conimittee held four lengthy hearings, uuearthing anecdotes and allegations of bickering, tamper'vig, sabotage, sick leave abuse, nepotism, and failure by the board to hold regLilar meetings and to refer flawed canipaign finance reports to the Ohio Elections Commission. Contact Tohn Ti•oy: totntroy c^,Dtheblade.corn or 419--724-6058 or an Twitter @ToinFTroy. be wp7ed or A1s6i6utd wphdd Pemdsalon. CopyrVght 2014 The Blnde. A1! rignts reserved. This mMeriel msy m11 http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2014/05/2l/2judges-to-oveisee-elections-board.print 11/5/2014 1or1 p/2ot4 Keith Bums - Toledo Blade THEo....^,..,^,^..,,^. BLADE COMMENTARY Juclges:w®uld help 'cause it's not about them 5l30l2014 • BY KBITH.C: BVYdldiS .COLUMNIST FbR'THE BLADE My brother and his best buddy from high school have a saying that has become their message to the world: "It's not about you, dude." it's widely applicable, these days. For example, I was sitting at an outdoor picnic table at St. Luke's Hospital a few days ago reading a book. A;gay walked'up and sat down. Soon, he,began to tell me his troubles. He had put his:girlfriend on a motorcycle without proper training and she had immedisrtely crashed and bioken numerous bonei. "Now," be said moumfulty, "I will be blatned and have to wait on her hand and foot for weeks." jJ Well, yeah. 2K1'/L 1 Yl V a LZJIl{riLl^ 11 hope so. There's a guy who needs to hear the "It's not about you, dude" mantra, When I think about the members of the Lucas CountyBoard of Elcctions, I think this is the message they need to lrear. It's not about you, dudes, Because this group of individuals - the board and, to a lesser extent, its top staff- long ago ceased to worry prin7arily about counting votes; making voting more accessible to all; or just not being last in Ohio with election results. They-are consumed by petty and personal slights, grudges, and vendettas. If retired'jtidges were appointed to sit on the elections board (not just to supervise the board but to replace it), institutional men would replace narcissistic men. The bench is one profession where the ego is required to be sublintatedto lttrger ttiings - due process, accepted protocols, the law ilself. . Are therejudges-ivho are•exceptions to Ihis norm? Of course, But that is precisely how they come to be known as bad judges, They coine out from behind the role and assert their own petsonalities. When that happens, it is universally recognized as an abuse. Moreover, a judge may be a political animal. But his first allegiance ntust.be to 4he law,:notltis party. It is bizarre to me that the supervision ofetections could ever be a patronage job. This smacks of the old USSR, or of Vladimir Putin's new one. The late Son. Eugene McCarthy used to say that patronage in politics is inevitable, so one of the challenges of good govemment is to contain patronage to governmental enterprises where it can do minimal hann. Hence, he said, when President Franklin Roosevelt appointed the party chairman as postmnster genertil, it was defensible. http;!/wwnv.toledobtade.oom/Keith-BUnis/2014/05/3o/Judpes-would elp-cause-it•s-not-aDOUt-thom.print 1/2 Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Husted Respondenrs Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 Exh. BB, pl I EXHIW K `1 10/10/2014 Kelth Burris - Toledo Blade When John F. Kennedy appointed his campaign manager attomey general, and Richard Nixon did the same, patronage was taken too far. I don't think ninning elections should be a patronage job. I'd like to see the state statutes changed. Meanwhile, the appointment of judges to actually,sit on the Lucas County Board of Eleetions should help to clean things up here. I am hopeful ttiat the Democratic chairman will embrace this proposal. The Republican ehainnan has done so. Judges are not angels, or sages neeessarily. But they are trained in process and decorum. It's not about them. Keith C. Burris is a colunenist for The Blade. Contact him at: kburrisCatheblade.carn or 419-724-6266. aopy*M 1011 rhe Poeda. Mriphta qamved. 7IJa motadMmsy ncr be cnpktla tlhMbu(ed wllhnulpe+NSfbn. http://www.toledoblade.com/Keith-Burtis/2014/05/30/Judges-would-help-cause-iFs-not-about-them,pdnt 2l2 Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Husted Respondent's Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 Exh. BB, p12 Featured Editorial: Home - Toledo Blade Page 1 of2 "s,: i0` f-s o ,..., fy- 1 .^ m ^., if^ ^_ii'',,^J^.`: EDI'I'ORIAL Board game The firings at the Lucas County elections board are just the start of reform; more remains for Husted to do 6/15/2014 Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has properly fired tbree of the fotv members of the Lucas County Board of Electioivs, after they refiised to perform a public service by resigiring. He suspeaded the fourth board member until the rest of the new board can take office. The actions of Mr. Husted, Ohio's chief elections official, are entirely appropriate, overdue- and, if anything, too lenient. But if Mr. Husted is to keep his oft-stated pledge to coiuity voters that the elections board's "culture of dysfunction ... must come to an end once and for all," he will have to do more than merely change the faces at the top. And while it's understandable that the secretary would prefer to wash his hands of the Lucas County mess for good, only he can properly oversee the long-term reforms that the county's elections apparatus needs. Click here to read more Blade editorials. Secretary Husted removed the board's Democratic chaimtan, Ron Rothenbuhler, and its Republican members, Jon Stainbrook and Tony DeGidio, for neglectbig their official duties. These included such basic niatters as failing to schedule regular board meetings attd to forward canipaign-fmance reports to the state. The secretary cited the need for a°clean slate" on the board, and insisted he "will not apponit any person with ties to the problems of the past " Yet he opted to retahi Democratic board member John Irish, who nearly came to blows with Mr. Stainbrook during vote-comtthig for last month's primary election. The secretary also allowed the board's director, Gina Kaczala, to remaini on an interim basis. Reacting to a recent revelation that board employees had incorrectly assigned the registrations of as niany as 167 couuty voters - including several prominent Democratic and GOP officials - to the Green Party, Ms. Kaczala dismissed the snafu as "nothing new." She says she'll fix the mistake. Comtty voters deserve better. Mr. Husted has ntade a good start by recniiting Judges Peter Handwork, a Republican, and Charles W ittenberg, a Democrat, to help oversee the elections board's transition. Both jurists would make excellent members of the reconstituted board. But that won't be enough. What Mr. Husted calls the "systenric issues" that plague the board have arisen from the determiiiatiou of board leaders to purs2te partisan advantage while they were supposed to be rwming elections. How could it have been otherwise, when the two most influential elections board members were the chairmen of the county Democratic and Republican parties? So Mr. Husted needs to mean it when he says he won't allow the parties to name ltew hacks to replace the old hacks. As he aimounced the dismissals, Mr. Husted released the report of a deputy in his office whom he had appointed to examhie the board's recent antics. Much of the report consists of board mentbers telliag tales on one another - he said/he said, did-not/did-too allegations that couldn't be verified 'ntdependently. Even so, the report offers ample evidence of what it calls the "toxic environmenP" at the board. It adds that the prospect that the board will heal itself"is simply not a viable sohition." That's wlty Mr. Husrted's engagement remains critical. The secretary says his office will morvtor - in person as needed - operations at the elections board until the new ntembers are swoni in. The elections board's chronic chaos has caused Lucas County voters to mistrust the process by which their votes are counted. That is intolerable. Mr. Husted has made a good start on reformnig the board so that its members, he says, "will work expeditiously in the best interest of not themselves, but the voters." But that job is far from done. LE-XXHHIBIT http://www.toledoblade.com/Featurt 15/Board-game-1.print 11/5/2014 Keith Burris - Toledo Blade Page 1 of2 ^1' ` i^ COMMENTARY Board of Elections is no place for hacks 6/24/2014 BY KEITH C. BURRIS COLUMNIST FOR THE BLADE Many years ago, as a whippersnapper, I worked briefly in the office of the late Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy. The senator was many things: a writer and poet who could read and play niusic and who also once played semi-professional baseball. A renaissance man, really. 3 Q '7 For 22 years he served in the Cougress. And, as a boy, he grew up on a fami in t x ^ ^ _. Miumesota. I heard him talk once about the "the cockerel step." The rooster, often with great flourish, steps forward, steps backward, steps left, and then steps right. In the } .. e end, his step comes down hi the same place. Mr. McCarthy said politics often worked that way in Washington. So it is with the Lucas Country Board of Elections. ; Small-time partisan politicians have made a mockery of the elections board, and, to a rz ...,,.,..^,.,, . - - -- -• lesser degree, the election process. The hifighting and bickerhig reached a head, and the Ohio secretary of state stepped in. He rentoved three board members and placed judges, temporarily, in their places. Next came the cockerel step: The chairmen of the Lucas Coiuity Democratic and Republican parties were allowed to name one and two replacements, respectively. That's the custom. The new head of the Democrats, Steve Steel, picked the party's treasurer (though she will resign this post if she takes her seat on the Board of Elections). GOP Chairmau Jon Stainbrook nominated two cronies. Sonie people who've followed this soap operetta said: "Well this is more of the folks who caused the problems in the first place," at least on the GOP side. But I think it's more than a matter of personalities at stake here. What's wrong is the very idea that these posts should be filled by partisans - party hacks, if you will. Now. 1 have some respect for party hacks. They are what make political parties go. But I don't think they have an inherent rigltt to control the mechanics of elections. Those mechanics shoLdd be one step removed from politics. And I think the history of the Lucas Coimty Board of Elections shows us why elections slwuld not be in partisan hands. It's a bad idea in concept. It makes me think of Cook Comity, Illinois, back in the day, artd of flte way Mr. Puthi conducts elections today. So the situation in Lucas County is this: The party hacks made a mess and were removed. The choice of their successors has been left in the hands of the sanie party hacks. And they have - surprise - noinbiated other party hacks. That's a cockerel step that need not be tolerated. My hope is that Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted will reject the noniinees of the two party chairman and, again, appoint judges to fill the seats. Ftvther, I hope that a present, or future, member of the legislature, preferably from Lucas County, as a recompense for the mockery that has been made of the electoral process here, will introduce legislation to change state law. The power to appoint members of a county elections board should be taken from local party chairmen and given to the secretary of state, and all appointments should be nonpartisan. Or, elections boards could be abolislted and the electiorts process handled entirely by civil servauts. http://www.toledo K-4 .,. 11/5/2014 Keith Burris - Toledo Blade Fage 2 of 2 Hacks should not have charge of the electoral process. I think we've proven that. Keith C BurrLr is a coZvmnislfor The Blade. Contact him at., [email protected] or 419-724-6266. Ccpyrtght 2014 The B7atle. AIl rigMS researey, Th/s maferlal may nu( be copled or UlaVibated wlfhdrt pemASSlon. http://www. toledoblade.com/Keith-Burris/2014/06/24B oard-of-Elections-is-no-place-for-... 11/5/2014 10/to/2o14 <<^^^^i^ ,. w 'Jjt_^j^ ts....s j '^ Get serious Lucas County's Republican and Democratic parties need to stop playing politics with elections board seats June 26, 2014 at 7:44 AM - AToppings Toledo Blade Editorial As he mucks out the Augean stable known as the Lucas County Board of Elections, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Httsted is doing precisely what he has said he will do to acltieve genuine reform. So it's time for the county's Republican and Democratic parties to take the state's chief elections otTicer seriously, instead of trying to maintain the intolerable status quo on tJte board under new names. This week, Mr. Husted, a Republican, rejected county GOP chairman Jon Stainbrook's effort to place two of his allies on the elections board. The vacancies arose this month after the secretary fired Mr. Stainbrook and two other members of the four- person board for neglecting their official duties, Mr. Stainbook said Mr. Husted's veto of his nominees was unfair, and threatened to take the dispute to the state Supreme C-ourt. But he shouldn't have been surprised: Mr. Husted wamed at the time of the firings that he would "not appoint any person with ties to the problems of the past." When Mr. Stainbrook made his notnittations last week, Mr. Husted said hc was dismayed that the candidates had "ties to the failures of the past." Yet Mr. Stainbrook still refused to take the huge hint. In a letter this week, Mr_ Husted noted that one of the GOP nomiuees he rejected, Benjamin Roberts, was director of the elections board in 2011 before he quit just five months into the job. He said Mr. Stainbrook's other nominee, Kelly Bensman, "on more than one oeoasion .,. has been a primary figure in an altercation or incident" at the board. Mr. Husted implored Mr. Stainbrook to "do the right thing for the voters of Lucas County and advance individuals who will provide the stewardship and fresh peispective the rebuilding" of the elections board requires. The chairman now noeds to respond positively to this appeal to his better instincts. So does the county Deniocratic Party. Mr. Husted muddled his reform message when he kept Democratic operative Jahtt Irish on the elections board, even as he fircd former party leadcr Ron Rothenbuhler as board chairman. But his call for qualified board noininees applies no less to Democrats than to Republicans, The party's new chairman, Toledo City Councilman Steven Steel, has proposed party treasurer Breuda Hill to replace Mr. Rothenbuhler on the elections board. Ms. Hill, a past president of tlte Toledo Board of Education, has nutnerous appealing competencies. It isn't apparent than administering elections leads that list. Both parties continue to ignore their best course: nominating well-respected local retired judges to elections board seats, Party officials say they have discussed the vacancies with Judges Peter Handwork, a Republican, and Charles Wittenberg, a Democrat; both judges have overseen the board's recent transition. In the end, thouglt, the parties gave this option ottly lip service while pursuing discredited business as usual. Mr. Husted correctly observes that "the Board of Elections is too critical to the function of our democracy to appoint any individuals who are not fit to serve." The board's antics in recent years have given Lucas County voters ample cause to wonder whetlter thcir votes are counted fairly and efficiently. That's unacceptable. If the county's two major parties arc as committed to the interests of voters as they claim, they will finally put partisan nonsense aside and nominate candidates to the elections board who will inspire public confidence, not derision. vl Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Husted Respondent's Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 Exh. Z, pl 1 al EXIi18iT K,^ 10/10/2014 Posted in R,,: ^ s I E Tags: 1Q0 ilu-tgd, [.tl03 BQE, at^ A~:nalffil Related posts BBode Etiiteria[ Ohir, SAr,rpta rv nf e Joat HusRed 1.3- 7-rolserly Y^^-d oi the four r f:v } a i 1 r^^r^ «:c: ---- .. s . . x _... irc i niiati Enq ui nrer By Sh arun Coo(i dge xi c,uztaled otke a P k'sf PieSt: Wvt; ii.:fidflkf93e 6..ei0.}EliY ' s^^ ;Akxon Beacon 1Gurnsi By Stephanie VVarsmitri Bea.ron Tournal staf£writer Published: Pviarelb 18, 2014... 2/2 Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Husted Respondenfs Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 Exh. Z, p12 apnl8 opeiol --suoswyt s,400jquiqs :3sejeed a2tuneW ,saa3leM UH - WdSC;K=Z-t+40Z '06 jaqoaao nepla_q ew^ --{: ^ .; IS Lucas County Republican Party Executive Coinmittee v. Husted Respondent's Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 Exh. DD, pl l ------^^^I^^T ,^qK r 1318/2C c Politics - Toledo Blade THE BLADE n., d..r.b.i 6...r .t..y..r.. Elections director resigns post Police called as deputy director moves computer 12/9/2011 BY IGNAZIO MESSINA BLADE STAFF WRITER The director of the Lucas Counry Board of Elections resigned Friday evening atter just five months on the job for what he called an inability to change the "caustic environment" of that office. Director Ben Roberts, a Republican, submitted his letter of resignation cffective at the , } # end ofthe business day, stating he could not make a difference at ttte board of clcctions. In an odd twist shortly after the resignation, Electimt Manager Meghan Gallagher, a Republican, called police to the elections office Friday night to report that Democrat Daniel DeAngelis, the deputy director, had gained access to Mr. Roberts' office and removed his computer. Police responded and took an incident repon but categorized it as a dispute rather than a burglary. Ms. Gallagher declined to coinment. RELATED CONTENT: Copy of Ben Roberts' official letter of resignation Email from Roberts to Lucas County Board of Elections Dentocratic board member Jint Ruvolo said Mr. DeAngelis is now the acting director, but Republican board member Jon Stainbrook, who is also the county Republican Party chainrtan, said that is not the case. Mr. DeAngelis confirmed that Ms. Gallagher -- who was then the highest-ratilcing Republican in the office -- denied him the key to Mr. Roberts' comer office. So he then called building security to open the door. The compttter was renioved "to secure it," he said, and none of the paper files was removed. Therc was no Republican present when the computer was taken. The office was locked by the time two unifotmed officers arrived at the board of elections office at One Govetnment Center Friday night. Mr. Roberts' resignation is another in a long line of stmggles fbr the board that culminated earlier this year in supervisory oversight of the office by the Ohio secretary of state. Mr. Roberts told The Blade on Friday night: "I am not confident in the way things are being run and, as a private citizen, I am eoncemed about the partisan division ofthe office." "No one there cares about doing a good job; "he continued. "Everyone cares about doing things as they have been done. That is not what I think the board of election deserves." Part of the problem was an inabiliry to hire or fire etnployees, Mr. Roberts said. "There are so many things there that I think the vothtg public, the citizens of Lucas Counry, will be shocked about," he said, hnp:t/www.toledoblade.com/Politios/2011/ 12/09/Electlons-director-resigns-post.print 1 /3 Lucas County Republican Party Executive Comniittee Y. Husted Respondent's Evidence Case No, 2014-1123 Exh. J, pll flibir J ----- mi ^0/812u,+, Politics - Toledo Blade I referring to issues he addressed in his letter of resignation. "Looking back over the past five months, it has been made abundantly clear that tny experience and expertise in strategy, operations, policy, procedure, and project management is not welcomed at the [Lucas County Board of Elections]; the preference continues to be panisan politics as usual," Mr. Roberts wrote in his letter. He also said: "Tlte [Lucas County Board of Elections] is a caustic environment attd not the nonn across the 88 counties of Ohio." Mr. Stainbrook said that Ms. Gallagher was right to deny Mr. DeAngelis access to the Republican director's office and said that she was not pennitted to comment to the ntedia because of a board policy. "When the director of the board, who is a Republican resigns, there has to be an equal balance. The board is set up for Republicans and Dcmocrats to maintain balance," Mr. Stainbrook said. "These people acted overz.ealously and one ofthe people who did that is already under investigation for entail hacking ofthat very contputer, and they are all Dentocrats," Mr. Stainbrook said, in reference to the pending investigation into the alleged hacking of a Republican board employee's email account last month. He also said Mr. DeAngelis should have consulted the board as a whole before doing anything with Mr. Roberts' office. The other Republican board mentber, Tony DeGidio, said there was no rationale to remove Mr. Roberts' computer from a loeked office where it was already secure. Democrat Ron Rothenbuhler, the board's chairman, did not return requests for comnient. Mr. Ruvulo, tltc other Detnocrat on the four-person hoard, said he was surprised by the resignation and did not know details conceming the removal of Mr. Roberts' computer. "I know there was flap. I do not have any details," he said. "Ever since I got on the board, it has been obvious there are certain tnembers of the board who create chaos and enjoy it. Unfortunatcly that may be what is going on." Mr. Rttvulo said he was refen-ing to Mr. Stainbrook. Mr. Ruvulo also questioned accusations in Mr. Roberts' resignation letter -- and a terse entail that accompanied it -- to board tnentbers. "There are no facts in there," Mr. Ruvulo said. "'i'here are some accusations attd all I have ever heard are accusations. lf there are things we need to look at, we will look at thetn, but I am frustrated that we never get anything that approaches a fact -- we get accusations." ------ In his eniail, Mr. Roberts wrote that one of the things he was fmstrated about was "Not only the fact that one side (D) had both sets of kcys and full access to areas that arc to be under bipartisan control, but that the appropriate rentedy of rekeying was unilaterally blocked without notice." Mr. Roberts also questioned how a newspaper advertisentent was placcd in The Blade outside of board of elections process, and why there is taxpayer-paid parking for board of elections entployees. He further said there has been unrelenting partisan division, alleged improper computer server access and erasing of log files; not allowing to hire for open Republican positions; and "no accountability for violations of niles that do exist." Mr. Roberts of Mauntee was appointed director on July 18. He and Mr. DeAngelis of Toledo, as deputy director, were brought on board to replace former Director Linda Howe, a Democrat, and Deputy Director Jeremy Demagall, a Republican, who were dismissed in March for their roles in the improper counting of provisional ballots. Before he was hired, Mr. Roberts was a parliatnentarian oftlte Republican Parry under Mr. Stainbrook. He is a fomter busittess analyst for Dana Corp. and was director of campus cottsolidation for Westside Motttessori Ccnter school, according to his resumc. Contact Ignazio Messina at: itnessina®theblade.com or 419-724-6171. http://www.toledoblade.com/Politicsl2ot 1 /l2/q9/Elections-director-resigns-post.print 213 Lucas County Republican Party Executive Cotnmittee v. Husted Respondent's Evidence Case No. 2014-1123 Exh. J, p12 ^^^ ^ ^^^STE :r . ,^. Of^;^ECRE'^°.Rx ^ OF^ ^TAT E "^, _ .'^.'.•^ . . ^r"/+:4flP^f:69lGfHdl145'^Gib'.^ ^,^f. .4dG:)'/+%d^='/.L'r^?f^JU^^Sf'd'X,:i'i^.CH^:^' " .di5^ap'/%^..Yf/^w/,^45?k?.:vY.:Fy`,H,Gyt'r{C•.Y,G ^^ ^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^ p Marilyn Jacobcik Brian Daley Bob Kalish TBD Jan Kelly (effective through 4/9/12) ^----- Keith Corman EXHI®1T Updated: April2,2012 Jim Milliken (SOS 0522) L.. y •^;{f >^ ,,:^ ;^ ,. . ,... • . _. . ., LucasR^W ^f W" x x7 _,,7f ^^.. .x/'^ ...,.^.^ f -•. ".! .$ .:r,.....^^^ ^9^+w,c^:^ y. .3 i rv'}HrcF'Y li.. 7:._ y . • arj;, ^ P ' ' y^i^^^y . .[k...rr ^ `^,^^""^ti ^:^J ^^niw,.-•^.v^.^c^ , . ^. ^., ^ ^Y,N ^V ;i G, t 3 . n ^ ]._; ^4.. ^i.a. . f Tim Monaco b f 1 - Marilyn Jacobcik Brian Daley Bob Kalish , ^.^.^. ^.. Clayton Henson Ohio cretiry of ',` . r .. Stewart Kitchen ,, . Andrew Williams ^.r EXHIBIT Jim Milliken p A - ° ?.. Updated: October 21, 2013 (sos o522) ^ ^ • ^^ ^, . . .. . , ..^. -16 JL^,^ .^. ...... , , ^...N :. ^/^ (, 3 ^ .' ..+wl f . . . rtIbBN9GVOd..! `J -^ N . ^". ` £ .,,w„ _ .,,•` ^ s , „^.,^.^.o.ro. ^ [,,^,g ^, r ^,,,.,,a,,. :,.^^ ^"`^- 4 ! •YQ . 4 M^ ,s.a,..,, ^ ,,^ • ^ .^. . . .^ t ^ } ; ^ ^ ^^ . ^ . ^,.^.,r,^y, . _ e . R ^ 3i4 xp pyy( L.'/.v ^: G ^ y ' `^"""'" *.^«.•F.^,•> w., ^ " ;s ^ ,.^ R ^ ^^^ •:3f%` 'r f ; Si 5 .tv44..^.^^µ R ° b ({•n^,.w.Y^[4h...h^ ^ ^./ ' L^' ' ^ ^ ^% }^C } ^ /^, f..e... ^ ^ ^.4 ^ ){ ft ^ . . 5 ^c.%,.^^' J^ . „ .. .., ." . .. :. i^ ^.>.[,^ t a:^ ^ . 1^° ., r rE p ,,,,.^ •^ ^ ^•,s. ^. : 3t ^'- 5 4 ^S^ f f^" ; ,; • -^w<.^vr^,,.. ,^ ,^ Ti'm Monaco Marilyn Jacobcik Perry Alexandrides Bob Kalish Chelsea Faulkner ea t ; Brian Bauman ^fiio -Sec:^^tary of Statef . 8^^e % TBD ...... tXni^lT ^ Jim Milliken Updated: September 3, 2014 SOS 0522) _3, ( Lucas County Democratic Party experiencing another family feud - Toledo Blade Page 1 of 3 { r-- i t ^ f % s ^ - / J .^.. _...... : r•:i./•M.r. Lucas County Democratic Party experiencing another family feud BY FRITZ WENZEL BLADE POLITICAL WRITER Filing into headquarters one icy night in February, they flashed nervous smiles and made small talk, but there was tension in the air. Like edgy soldiers before a much-anticipated battle, members of the Lucas County Democratic Party executive committee signed in at the front desk and worked their way to the back room, where verbal shots were sure to be fired. The stakes were high - control of the Toledo mayor's office, the most influential elected post in northwest Ohio. Packed shoulder-to-shoulder in the stifling meeting room, the oppressive heat fed tempers already red-hot over an intraparty squabble over who should be the party's standard bearer in the race. Even before the meeting was gaveled to order, Domenic Montalto, a longtime political operative and right-hand man to mayoral candidate Ray Kest, started shouting procedural objections from his lair in a dim corner in the back. Party Chairwoman Paula Ross, a leader of what insiders have begun to call the anybody-but-Kest crowd, held forth at the head table, countering his demands to allow visitors to stay in the members-only meeting. It had never been allowed in the past, she said, and she wasn't going to break with policy now, especially to aid one of her opponents. But the real fight this night was not over who would remain in the room, but over who would win the party's endorsement, a coveted asset to a candidate because of the promise of money and volunteers that results from it. The rancor flared as the pro-and anti-Kest forces fought over his candidacy. Both sides fired several volleys, and having vented some emotional steam, pressure was relieved and cooler heads prevailed. Committee members left the room, wearing uneasy smiles that betrayed the political reality of the year - Democratic factions would agree to disagree in the race for mayor, but the pot may boil again. .Jir. Kest is tiie only announced candidate for the seat being vacated by Carty Finkbeiner. With a long career in public service behind him, Mr. Kest, 51, has made both friends and enemies, even within the Democratic Party. Character questions have dogged him. In 1985, he won the party's endorsement for mayor, but gave it up a month later when it became known he had a personal and business relationship with Paul "Butch" Wilson, who was under federal investigation r;, ( for gambling. Mr. Kest had done Mr. Wilson's business and personal taxes. He vacationed at Mr. Wilson's property in Mexico, prompting some in the local political arena to dub him "Acapulco Ray." Mr. Kest, who has been the Lucas County treasurer since 1985, and assistant John Irish have been accused of sexual harassment by underlings in the treasurer's office. After county commissioners decided to pay $10,000 out of county funds to settle a 1990 case against Mr. Irish, he stepped in and agreed to pay the settlement to an office employee out of his own pocket. A former employee brought a civil lawsuit against Mr. Kest in 1998. He won that lawsuit but not before lurid details about his behavior poured out into the court's public record. Ms. Ross said she opposes Mr. Kest because of concerns about his character. She has said she will resign if he wins the party's endorsement for mayor. She and other leaders in the party have been working to entice other prominent Democrats into the race. James Ruvolo, a former county party chaitman who now works as a political and business consultant, also is working against Mr. Kest. The two men share a dislike for each other that stretches back 25 years. 11 EXHIBiT lattp:'/www•toledoblade°com/PoIitics/2` ^._l emocratic-Party-experie... 11/5/2014 Lucas County Democratic Party experiencing another family feud - Toledo Blade Page 2 of 3 As insiders tell it, the feud einpted during the 1975 campaign for Toledo city council. As Mr. Ruvolo was going about his work as executive director of the Lucas County Democratic Party, Mr. Kest stormed into party headquarters one aftemoon with a boiling temper and a flushed face. He erupted at Mr. Ruvolo, complaining that the executive director had given the party's best lawn-sign locations to Doug DeGood. Mr. Kest, in his first race for Toledo city council, feared that he and Mr. DeGood, both new, young candidates, were in direct competition for one of the eight available seats on council, Mr. Ruvolo denied the charge of favoritism toward Mr. DeGood. As it turned out, both Mr. Kest and Mr. DeGood won council seats that year, but the Kest-Ruvolo encounter has poisoned their relationship - and party politics - for decades. Mr. Ruvolo, an outsider who came to Toledo with the 1972 McGovern presidential campaign and developed a relationship with then-party Chairman Bill Boyle, said at the time he had no intention of re irr^ atled McGovern campaign, he retumed to his home in Connecticut. He was asked to return to Toledo by^Boyle a year Tter after Mr. Boyle suffered a heart attack. P^»p,ea nr pa^^ Mr. Ruvolo eventually took the reigns of power in 1980 when Mr. Boyle stepped aside but not before another clash with the Kest wing of the party. Mr. Ruvolo was challenged for the chairmanship by Mr. Montalto, who named the party factions before retreating in defeat. The Boyle-Ruvolo clan, along with former chairmen Mike Beazley and Keith Wilkowski, became known as the "A team." State Rep. Jack Ford and state Sen. Linda Furney, both Deinocrats, were identified as part of that squad. Mr. Montalto's "B team" included himself, Mr. Kest, Mr. Irish, and other, lesser-known operatives. While the "A team" controlled the levers of power at party headquarters, Mr. Kest and the "B team" members operated largely on their own. The two teams jockeyed for support from the party's rank-and-file. In 1984, Mr. Kest ran and won the race for county treasurer and has served there ever since. Seldom having to worry about a Republican challenge in re-election campaigns, he continued to develop the "B team" into an effective political force. In this year's race for mayor, Mr. Kest has powered his campaign with a fat political war chest of reportedly $200,000. Mr. Finkbeiner, who won the 1993 mayor's race despite his failure to win his party's endorsement, said the current in-fighting could be serious. "I think this one is deeper for two reasons," he said. First, he said it is tough for the party to withhold an endorsement from Mr. Kest on the basis of concerns about his past behavior because he has since won party backing in his race for re-election as treasurer, including last year. He said it could be tough for the party to turn its back on Mr. Kest because his two top assistants, Mr. Irish and Mr. Montalto, have both done extensive work for other Democratic candidates over the years. Mr. Finkbeiner has written a letter to members of the party's executive committee advocating no endorseinent in the race until after the Sept. 11 primary election. At that point, he said, the party can easily see who voters prefer and can confer its endorsement on that candidate. Ms. Ross does not like the idea of leaving the party endorseinent until after the primary because it breaks with the party tradition of granting endorsements based on in-depth interviews by the party screening coinmittee. She said the committee can thoroughly examine a candidate to identify weaknesses that may not otherwise come out. She added that because this year's primary election is nonpartisan, it is possible that two Democrats could survive and enter the fall run-off election. Should that happen, she said, the party would still be faced with a problem identifying which candidate should win the official party endorsement. Democrat Jack Ford, minority leader of the Ohio House, said the intraparty spat is no big deal and is just the latest development in the long-running Kest-Ruvolo feud. "In the context of the inayor's race, I think it's just a little blip," he said. "The fighting between the two forces has been there 20 years, and no matter what happens, it's not going to go away." http://www.toledoblade.corn/Politics/2001 /03/25/Lucas-County-Democratic-Party-experie... 11/5/2014 Lucas County Democratic Party experiencing another family feud - Toledo Blade Page 3 of 3 Mentioned as a possible contender in the mayoral race, Mr. Ford does not demure, but says he is looking at the race with the utmost caution. "I would only run if I had a sense of strong support from the community," he Said, adding that he was "not a stalking horse" for those opposed to the Kest candidacy. He said a poll he commissioned showed he was "competitive" in the race. He declined to release further details. Mr. Boyle, who has long since retired to the Florida sunshine, said such squabbles should be a surprise to no one. The former party chairman, who wielded tight control over the levers of power during his tenure, said times have changed and political parties now mean less than they used to. "There's more individualism than there was," he said. "One of the duties of the parties is to raise money to help candidates, but today, it seems that candidates themselves can raise a lot more money. So what do they need the parties for?" Former Mayor Harry Kessler, who survived his share of Democratic Party fights during his political heyday in the 1970s, said he is "a little bit concemed, very honestly, about what it's going to do to the party." "There are a lot of us who are uncomfortable watching this" play out, the former mayor said. While he said he admires Ms. Ross for her skilled management of the party in recent years, her open opposition to Mr. Kest "puts people in a box" because it forces them to decide whether to embrace her or Mr. Kest. The problem is exacerbated, he said, because the chairwoman has not yet come up with an alternative candidate. Endorsement interviews begin next month. Copyright 2014 The Blade. All rights reserved. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission. http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2001 /03/25/Lucas-County-Democratic-Party-experie... 11/5/2014 Spectrum Reporting LLC 333 Stewart Avenue, Columbus, OH 43206 Phone: 614-444-1000 or 800-635-9071 / Fax: 614-444-3340 [email protected] "The following deposition of Jon M. Husted is being taken on €dovember 7 2014 Deponent's Full Narrie and Title Month, Day, Year at 137 East State Street in the case of State of Ohio, ex rel. Lucas County Republican Party v Location Address Plaintiff Jon M. Husted, Ohio Secretary of State in the Supreme Court of Ohia Defendant Court Name case number 14-1123 The court reporter is Stacy Upp and the Case Number Reporter Name videographer is Samuel Mattern This deposition is being recorded by Spectrum Reporting LLC." Videographer Name "We are on the record at 10:04 Would counsel please announce their presence?" Time Attorney 1:.Ry-ariLRichardson,_-^sq,£=_ ___ Attorney 2: William K Tadd, Esq. ------ Attorney 3: Attorney 4: Attorney 60 Attorney 6: ------t ------'------DE-Di.Qct Exam CE-Cross Exam R#7-Re-Direc4 RC-Re-Cross. ON-On TheiRecord OFF-Off The R.a.cord L3W-ObjectiU¢3 Wp°Wdihc9raw MTS-Move To atrike irr^e '------°------Note B y Page Time Note T------' Page_By 1 i? ` 04 ' 36 CE 2 6 10 36 : 51 OSJ 1 32 10 : 0'g ; 13 OSJ 1 10 10 : 37 ; 1 1 -r ------32 -°------10 ; 10 : 11 OBJ 1 r 11 10 : 39 27 OBJ 1 34 ------'------^ 100 10:21 OBJ 1 11 104000 OBJ ------1 34 --'------^ ------j 3 10 ^ 10 ; 43 OBJ 1 - -12 1{^ e 40 , 10 OSJ ------^ 1011 i60 OSJ 1 13 10`4046 OBJ 1 35 ------^^ 10; 17; 10 OBJ 1 17 104211 OBJ 1 ------10 19 ; 33 OBJ 19 10 ^ 49 ; 09 OBJ 1 41 ------Y ------1 C€ 21 31 OBJ 9 20 10. 49 : 21 OBJ 1 41 ------^^---- 1 10 : 22 0 28 OBJ ^ 21 10 ; 51 ; 51 OBJ 1 ------______- 43 1E^ 22 ; 62 OBJ 1 22 10 , 52 , 24 OBJ------r------44 10 ' 24 ' 17 OBJ 1 23 10 ' 62 ;5`^ OBJ 1 ------10; 26 e6^ OE3J €- 24 10 1; 53 ; 00 OBJ 44 ------^--46 10 : 29 ^ 32 OBJ 26 10 ; 54 , 00 OBJ ------1 ------10 ; 31 • 03 OBJ 1 27 10 , 64 0 3'0 OBJ 1 45 '------10 ^ 33 ; 01 OBJ -1 29 10 : 55 : 58 OBJ 1 46 ------1 48 10 ; 36 0 45 OBJ 1 30 ; 10 , 56 ,59 OSJ -^ I ------10: 3(^;14 OBJ 10,67 ,06 ; OBJ 48 1 -- _j "This concludes the deposition of Jon M. Husted . We are off the record at 03:29pm Deponent's Full Name and Title Time The deponent exercised / wUivecl their right to review the video and exercised / waived their right to review the transcript. (Circle one) (Circle one) Page 1 of 4 Spectrum Reportir^^ LLC 333 Stewart Avenue, CQlumbus, OH 43206 Phone: 614-444-1000 or 800-635-9071 1 Fax: 614-444-3340 irfo@sp+~ctrumreporting.com Attorney 1: Ryan L._Rachardson, Esg ------Attorney 2:Wi€Iiam M. Todd, Esq. Attorney 3: Attorney 4: Attorney Attorney 6: ------^!:*-f^ir..rt^ Exarr3 E CE -Cre^,^.>xam f:RD-Re-Direct RC-'Re-Cr©» L - ON-On The Record OFF-Off The Re-cord d7W-flbjevtiora W^-WtMraw Eu9"E'S-Move 7o Strike ------^ ' ----^ ------Taa^e ^Note y Note PageBy ------r------3- 0 : 58 ; 'I 9oB! OBJ 49 11 48 ; 53 1 77 ------^ ------^ 10 o 58 ; 52 i^^'G.f------50 1`€ e .z2 OBJ 1 78 ------F 1 00 " 01 OBJ ^ 51 11 a 53 : ^^ OBJ 1 80 ------y------`(9 ; 01------e - 10------OBJ 1 52 11 : 57 29 OBJ 1 81 ------1 1 o 01 : 53 ; OBJ 53 `^ 1 e 58 ; 03 OBJ 1 ...... 84 ------11 ; J 2 ; 15 OBJ 53 12, 01 : 31 OBJ 1 85 ------i 1 ; 05 a 04 OBJ 1 55 12 : 01 ^ 47 OBJ 1 88 ------r I------1 ; 05 o ------36 OBJ 1 55 12 , 02 ; 12 OBJ I 88 ------______'!I" " 06 : 56 OBJ 1 56 12 02 ; 38 OBJ 1 89 ______:______- ______------11 , 12 a 15 OFF 60 12 02 ; ^^ OBJ ------___y______^ _____1 89 r-^, kt Cr^ 7l ^S ry,^ ^ ______i 1 , 29 a -c gJ^ 'e1117 U^7 "J OBJ ! _ ^iu 89 Y------!_____ 12 „ ' ------f I " 30 ^2 OPJ 1 61 12 04 ` 10 OBJ 1 90 f------° ------1' ; 34 34 OBJ 1 65 12 ; 04 ;20 ^`3si 1 9 1 ------1€ ; 35 , 21 OBJ f 66 12 ; 04 ; 52 OBJ 1 ------^ ^ ------' 36 : 23 OBJ 67 12 i^" 5 e 17 OBJ 1 ------11 : 36 , 26 OBJ - 67 12 : 06 . 21 OBJ 1 ------99 1 1 37 ; 05 O ^^ -1 68 12 ; 07 E^; 6 OBJ 1 r ^ 92 ------"------11 ^ 39 : 31 OBJ 1 69 12 , 08 " 06 OBJ 1 93 ------_ ------11 " 3=3 ; 41 OBJ I ^ ______70 1 12 o 08 o 48 OBJ 1 94 ______11 e 40 : 13___ OBJ 70 12 : 09 ; 06 OBJ 1 94 ,gpy ^s _ OBy ------___ -______. ---- ______1 ^ ^ 40 : ,3^ ^.dL7 J 1 0 12," q 1i " OB55 ^^,5J 1 95 ,^------______------______11 ; 41 , 35 OBJ 1 71 12e 12 : 17 013J 1 97 ______----- ______I 1 42 , 08 OBJ 172 12 12 46 OBJ 9 97 ,q +^sy{ 72 +y +^}______^n ------^3 p.g______'I o ',*^ : v^G. OB J ______f______f,ee ^6 , `(,Gt^9^u ^ ^^..+ p 98 qq ______E 7 ; 45 " 23 OBJ 1i 74 12 e 13 : 15 i^si 1 98 v---- ______------______'91 " 45 59 OBJ 1 75 12 ; 13 : 40 OBJ 1 98 ------I 1 0 46 ; 50 osi 1 76 12 ; 16 .31 OBJ -- 99 ------11 47 19 OBJ 1 76 12 ; 16 0 44 OBJ ------1 1101 1 1 ; 4 7 e54 OBJ I ; 77 ; 12; €7' €^ OBJ 1 102 ------"Thas COncfL3des the dr~pasatior; of John M. Husted We are off'the record at 03:29prs± ----- f7eprrrent's Full Name and TrBe Time The deponent exercised their right to re;view the video anC c:. ^r€sr- ^ t waived their right to review the transcript. (Cirr,•!e vne) (ti;rrc:le one) Pagr' 2 of 4 Spectrum Reporting LLC 333 Stewart Avenue, Colunibus, OH 43206 Phone: 614-444-1000 or 300-635-9071 / Fax; 614-444-3340 anfo@spec;trumreporting.cam Attorney 1: Ryan € L . Eq^. ------Attorney 2: William M. Todd, ^s_q = Attrrriey Attorney 4: A'ttorney 5: Attorney 6: ------DE-Dire,t Exarr: CE-Cross Exam RD-Re-Direcf RC-Re-Cross ON-On The Record OFF-Off The Record M-Ubj2ctiot7 WD-'fLithdraw MTS-Move ^0 ^St^rike ------'---^ ------y --- Time Note By Page Tame ------Note B Page 12 ; 17 ; 57 OBJ ^ 102 13 i^; 7 ; 53 OBJ 1 `^ 35 ------12 ; 18 ; 36 OBJ 1 103 13 : 13 59 OBJ f 139 ------° ------12 20 ; 10 OBJ1 104 13 ;17 13 142OBJ ------^ ------12 . 20 : 39 OBJ 905 13 ; 17 ; 15 OBJ 1 ` 142 ------12 20 : ^9 OBJ 1 105 13 ; 18 51 CyBi 1 143 ------'------. - . ------^------^ 12 " 21 ° 07 OBJ 1 107 13 , 21 0 47 OBJ 145 ------^ ------^ 12 " 22 ` 22 OBJ 1 108 13 23 05 OBJ 146 ------12 ; 23 : 30 OBJ -^ 108 13 ; 24 ; 1.^ OBJ 1 14.8 ¢ ------`^^ ; 24 ; ^^ a^^! 1 11013,25,`^6 . , OBJ 1 148 -- . ---e ------12 ; 26 , 00 OFF 112 13 ; 27 ; 42 OBJ 1 151 ------'------12 ,40 : 18 ON 112 13 ,28 ,27 OBJ 1 151 ------, ------12 41 ; 07 OBJ 1 -#^3 13 ^ 29 ; 11 OBJ 152 ______f------______12;42 .27 OBJ 1 114 13e33,48 OBJ 1 155 ______------______-----_---f-______1 2 ; 44 ; 42 OBJ ^ 115 13 36 03 OBJ 1 157 ______12 45 :19 OBJ 1 116 13 : 37 00 OBJ e 1 157 ______12 0 46 :58 OBJ 117 13 37 25 OBJ 1 153 ------{. ______------¢ ------12. 47 ^54 OBJ 1 118 13 ; 37 ^ 33 OBJ 1 158 ______12 : 48 ;20 OBJ 1 11€3 13 41 ;52 OBJ E I i61 --- r 12; 49 (} ;9 oOBJ 1 119162 13 ; 42 ; 48 OFF ------:------1 2 ; 49 ; 55 OBJ 1 120 14 ; 31 : 24 ON 1 63 ------i ------12 52 ; 06 OBJ 1 122 14 ; 36 : 06 OBJ 1 1 66 ------1.2 ;52 .56 OBJ 1 122 14 36 ;43 OBJ 1 167 ------12 ; 57 ; 39 OBJ 1 1 26 14 ; 37 22 OBJ 168 ------1 1 2 ; 58 ; 25 OBJ 1 126 14 ` 38 ` 17 OBJ 169 ------12 ; 59 o 20 OBJ 1 127 14 ; 40 ; 18 OBJ 1 170 3 ; 01 09 OBJ 1 129 14 : 41 ; 48 OBJ 1 1 71 ------13 ^ 01 ; 34 OBJ 1 130 14 ; 42 ; 12 OBJ ^1 ------4 ------______1 ______13 :#^ 2 .47 OBJ 1 131 1 4 e 43 3, 8 osi 1 1 73 ------13 : 04 ; 01 OBJ 1 132 14 ; 51 : 49 OBJ f 1 181 "This concludes the deposition of ------Jon M. -Hu-ste,d We are off the record at 03:29pm C}eponenf's Fzt111Wa;ne and TiP(e Time The d>vponerat exercised ; -wa Evew{ itieir right to review the video their right to review It-he transcript. (Cirels or;e) -ircte one} Page 3 of __4 Spectrum Repi:srtir:g LLC 333 Stewart Avenue, ColEirnb€as, OH 43206 Phone: 614-444-1000 or 800-635-9071 f Fax: 614--444-3340 info@spec4rumreporting.>"Om Attorney 1: #3y;^n L. Eighardso-n; Esa. Attorney 2: Willaarn ki. Todd, Esq. Attorney 3: 01:41 :07 Attorney 4: Attorney 5: Attorney ------DE-Direct Exam CE-Cross Exam RD-Re-Direct RC-Re-Cross ON-On The Record OFF-Off The Record OBJ-Objection VVD-VVithdraw MTS-Move To Strike ------'Y"ime Nsste By Page °^ime Note By Page ------V --r -----e ------^^ 52 18 OBJ 1 ------______14 52 ° 4'^ OBJ 1 14 52 49 OBJ 1 ------14 ' 53 ; 09 OBJ 1 182 ------1 4 53 : 33 OBJ 1 182 ------14 ' 53 : 46 OBJ 1 183 ------^ ------' ______^^ 54 36 OBJ, ,1 183, • ° ------1kr ° 54 ' 40 OBJ 1 1 83 ------1 4° 54 ; 59 OBJ 1 184 ------14 ` 55 ; 36 OBJ 1 1 84 ------_____------______15 ° 03 , 08 OBJ 1 1 90 __------______15 ' 03 ° 39 OBJ 1 1 90 ______1 "1 5 {}3 48 OBJ 1 191 ------______15 05 : 42 ON 1 192 ______1 5 , 08 ° 30 OBJ 1 194 -- ______- - ______1> ; 10 .22 OFF 196 ______------______15 ° 21 ' 43 ON 196 _------______15 ° 23 : 17 OBJ 1 ° 198 ______-______1 5 , 23 : 4€5 OBJ 1 198 ---- ______------______------15,, 23 ° 54 OBJ 1 199 ______1a ' 25 ° 13 OBJ 1 200 - ______r______------15, 27 °44 OBJ 1 201 ------15 o 29 " 24 OFF 202 r------^ ------. , . ° ° ------°--- ------, ° . ,------.------ "This concfudes the depositior of Jori T M _--Husl-mqd ------We are off the record at 3:29prri GspnnanE's Fvil A;ame and Title Tirna The deponent exerc;Esed 1v•r Page --- 4 0` 4