Scrutiny forces Dann to pull work from campaign donor

The state had believed that because the attorney switched firms, the rule didn’t apply.

COLUMBUS (AP) — Attorney General Marc Dann, who ran for office on an anti-corruption platform, gave state work to a law office whose partner exceeded contribution limits to Dann’s campaign.

On Friday, amid scrutiny, Dann’s office took away work from Kevin Zeiher, of Dolyk & Zeiher in Sandusky, because it appeared his relationships with the state violated the spirit of a new law aimed at getting money out of state politics.

The law restricts donations by lawyers who wish to qualify for state work, their law partners, spouses and children to $1,000 individually and $2,000 collectively. It took effect in April.

Dann, a Democrat, had taken the extra step of placing the same caps in an affidavit every lawyer was expected to sign before landing a state contract.

But Zeiher altered his affidavit to insert in bold: “On November 1, 2006, I donated a total of $2,500.00 to Dann for Ohio in my name and the name of my spouse, Cathy Grespin Zeiher.” The affidavit was obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request.

Amid questions about the donation, First Assistant Attorney General Tom Winters said Zeiher’s work for the state would end.

He said a contract Zeiher had with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources handling a workers’ compensation case had been briefly extended in June, because he had switched law firms and the state didn’t believe his donation while employed by the old firm needed to be counted toward the cap.

Zeiher was also in line to continue the collections work he did for the state on a contingency basis, Winters said.

“It’s our decision that even though his new firm could get work for 2007, we’re going to make a decision that he can’t get it for the 2-year period,” Winters said. “He could make an argument that he shouldn’t be precluded because he hasn’t given since April, but we see that as kind of beyond the spirit of the law.”

Zeiher, a Democrat who said he has spent years doing outside legal work for the state, said he was honest on the form and didn’t know whether his statement would allow his bid to qualify.

“Was I surprised to see that it was? I suppose I was, but I didn’t know how they were handling it on their end,” he said. “If there’s a violation of law here, whose is it? Mine? I tried to be truthful.”

Dann spokesman Leo Jennings said earlier Friday that after a judge ruled that it was unconstitutional to apply the April law to past contributions, the office believed only contributions to Dann after that point should be counted.

Jennings acknowledged, however, that the wording of the affidavit was never changed to indicate that. In dozens of forms still rolling in this month, lawyers have been asked to certify that they have not given the Dann for Ohio campaign more than $1,000 individually or $2,000 collectively in the previous two calendar years. He said, in the wake of the Zeiher incident, the form is being rewritten.

It is the second incident in a week raising questions about the usefulness of the affidavits Dann requires before validating a contract with an outside lawyer.

Of 194 forms submitted since January, 126 were submitted this month, 50 of them in a single day. That was well after outside lawyer contracts began being awarded.

The form required by Dann is not meaningless, Jennings said, even though lawyers have landed work without it, altered it before signing, and, in Zeiher’s case, received work despite appearing to violate its provisions.

“People are giving us information, that doesn’t make it meaningless,” he said. “If somebody’s giving money, we want to know — and we do know. Our intent is and always will be that no one who receives special counsel work has given more than those limits.”

Jennings said up-to-date language on the campaign finance laws has been contained in the actual contracts lawyers sign, if not in the affidavit.