Petro's pursuit of MVSD case right, regardless of outcome

Nothing will diminish Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro's success in cleaning up the mess that was the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District -- not even a defeat in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
There will always be those, especially former MVSD directors Edward A. Flask of Poland and Frank DeJute of Niles, who will try to denigrate what Petro, former state auditor, has done.
But he retains the gratitude of Mahoning Valley residents who believe that there is nothing more egregious than the violation of public trust.
It was while he was auditor that Petro launched a special audit of the MVSD. He was reacting to concerns from Mahoning County Common Pleas Judge Maureen Cronin and then state Rep. June Lucas, D-Mineral Ridge, among others, about what was taking place with a $50 million capital improvement project at the water purification plant.
The audit brough findings for recovery of $2.4 million from Flask, DeJute, the Gilbane Co. of Rhode Island (the construction manager) and others.
Then-Attorney General Betty Montgomery filed lawsuits against the former directors and the Gilbane Co. to recover the money, but her office suffered legal setbacks.
Despite the losses, we urged the state to pursue the cases because of a cockeyed ruling by federal Judge George C. Smith, who found that while Gilbane did not actually earn all the money it was paid by Flask and DeJute for serving as project manager, it was not liable for repayment. The judge said the problem was in the wording of the contract.
Montgomery appealed Judge Smith's ruling to the 6th U.S. Circuit in Cincinnati, but she was elected state auditor before the case could be heard.
Customers
Petro succeeded her as attorney general and made it clear that he intended to keep fighting for the 300,000 MVSD customers who were the ultimate victims. The MVSD operates on money it receives from Youngstown, Niles and McDonald from the sale of bulk drinking water.
Last week's decision by a three-judge panel of the appeals court said, in effect, that state law does not define "illegal expenditure" and, therefore, the attorney general would have to show specifically what section of the law was violated.
The court did not delve into whether the findings of the special audit were valid.
In reaction to the decision, DeJute suggested that The Vindicator has "egg on its face" for urging the state to vigorously pursue recovery of the money.
What DeJute fails to understand is that for a newspaper to question the squandering of public money or to stand up for the principle of responsible governance is never embarrassing -- or wrong.