Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Our immediate reaction upon reading that Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor had ordered a special investigation of Columbiana County Health Commissioner Robert Morehead's spending habits was, "It's about time." The reaction reflects our frustration over the see-no-evil attitude on the part of some individuals who have direct or indirect responsibility for Morehead.
Several years ago, we called for a special prosecutor to investigate the health commissioner's apparent abuse of his public position after The Vindicator uncovered some of his misdeeds. But while that call went unheeded, Taylor's predecessor, Betty Montgomery, conducted a special audit of health department spending for the period Jan. 1, 1999, to Dec. 31, 2002.
The results of that audit were made public in January -- and were so compelling with regard to Morehead's misuse of the county-owned credit card that Montgomery referred the case to county Prosecutor Robert Herron.
Conflict
Herron, however, has a conflict because he represents all county government departments, including the health department. He thus asked Ohio's new auditor, Taylor, to appoint a lawyer from her office to serve as special prosecutor.
Taylor did that last week, assigning James Manken, the assistant chief legal counsel for the auditor's office, to the task.
Manken will work independently of the county prosecutor's office and will delve into every aspect of the Morehead case and the health department's operation.
Herron told The Vindicator that the special prosecutor could find criminal wrongdoing, civil issues or nothing wrong at all.
At the risk of prejudgment, we would be shocked if Manken concluded that the health commissioner did nothing wrong at all.
Indeed, given our long involvement in this matter, we believe there are issues that go beyond Morehead's spending habits that deserve to be investigated. Among the questions we've been asking:
What responsibility did the county board of health have in monitoring the health commissioner's activities? In 2004, the state's regular audit of the health department revealed that 43 percent of the board's spending in 2003 was done without prior authorization required by law. Findings for recovery of 6,313 against some board members and Morehead were included in the report.
The auditor's office "uncovered a pattern of sloppy record keeping, unsubstantiated expenses, and outdated policies that have allowed public funds to be inappropriately used for illegitimate purposes." Has the board of health corrected these glaring shortcomings?
What responsibility does the health advisory council, which appoints the five board of health members, have in monitoring the activities of the board?
There also is the issue of Morehead's using a health district-issued credit card to buy gasoline -- in addition to claiming mileage expenses for reimbursement. Is that not fraud?
Finally, we wonder what the special prosecutor and the state's new auditor -- Taylor took office in January -- think about the health commissioner using public money for many meals at a local restaurant owned by a member of the board of health.
Taylor is to be commended for assigning Manken to delve into the health commissioner's activities and the health department's operation, and we are confident that he will do a thorough job.