State: Tax wording on ballot ‘accurate’

The sheriff will continue his criminal investigation into sales-tax-issue language.

By David Skolnick

YOUNGSTOWN — Despite accusations by Mahoning County officials of improper — and potentially illegal — activity by the board of elections over ballot language for a half-percent sales tax, the Ohio Secretary of State’s office says nothing improper happened.

“A review by this office indicates the ballot language accurately reflects the resolution” approved by county commissioners to place the tax on the Nov. 3 ballot, said Jeff Ortega, a secretary of state spokesman.

“It appears the board of elections did nothing wrong.”

Even so, the board placed Danielle O’Neill, a 20-year employee who’s responsibilities include preparing ballot language, on paid administrative leave Thursday. She’s paid about $36,000 annually.

The board will meet at 8 a.m. Monday to discuss potential disciplinary action against her.

Her punishment “could be anywhere from a suspension to a termination,” said Robert Wasko, the board’s chairman.

The problem is one of procedure and protocol, said Wasko and Thomas McCabe, the elections board’s director.

Wasko and McCabe said O’Neill failed to send the ballot language of the half-percent sales tax to county commissioners and the county prosecutor for review. The elections board sends ballot language to political entities proposing a tax for review as a matter of courtesy, McCabe said.

McCabe had initially said Wednesday that providing the language was required by state law, but both McCabe and Ortega said Thursday that is a not a legal requirement.

O’Neill sent tax-issue language to every political entity with an issue on the Nov. 3 ballot except for Mahoning County — which has the sales-tax proposal, McCabe said.

The issue is, the language of the half-percent sales tax states it would provide “additional general revenues.”

The tax is for a continuous period. It’s been on the ballot before as a five-year renewal.

The tax raises about $14 million annually for the county’s general fund.

That tax and another half-percent sales tax, which also raises $14 million a year, are the largest sources of general-fund revenue for the county.

The ballot language misleads voters because it states it would provide additional revenue rather than being a continuation of an existing county tax, said Commissioners Anthony Traficanti and David Ludt.

The commissioners said they would have sought a change in the ballot language if they knew about it.

“What went wrong? This is such an egregious error,” Traficanti said. “What happened? Was it a mistake and who made it? It infers we’re asking for more money. It misleads the public.”

The commissioners asked Sheriff Randall Wellington to conduct an investigation into the issue to determine if criminal activity occurred.

Despite assurances by elections board officials that it was just a mistake and nothing criminal happened, Ludt and Traficanti said the sheriff department’s investigation will proceed.

“Whatever happens, so be it,” Ludt said of the investigation, adding there’s no reason to stop it from continuing.

Regarding the investigation, Wellington said, “The investigation will follow the path to wherever it leads us. It’s unfortunate the actions of the [elections] board has misled our voters about an issue so vital to our community.”

But Mark Munroe, the elections board’s vice chairman, says the investigation is a waste of time and is drawing bad publicity for the sales-tax issue.

“If they’re worried about the ballot language hurting the chance of the sales tax passing, what they are doing is exactly the wrong thing,” he said. “Calling attention to it may cause some voters to vote against it.”

Munroe also points out that the secretary of state found nothing wrong with the sales-tax ballot language.

As for O’Neill, Munroe said, “She made a mistake, and that will be handled administratively. How anyone can suggest a criminal act occurred is baffling.”

The elections board should have just used the same language from the county’s other half-percent sales tax, approved in 2007 by voters from a five-year time frame to a continuous period, Traficanti and Ludt said.

Elections board employees used that language based on Sections 1 and 3 of the Aug. 1 resolution from the commissioners for the tax, McCabe said.

The body of the resolution never mentions the tax is a continuation, so McCabe said elections employees couldn’t use that word.

The title of the resolution uses “the continuation of an existing” sales tax twice.

The board is supposed to use the body of the resolution — and not the title — to write the ballot language for a tax issue, Ortega said.

The elections board has received requests from about 6,500 voters for absentee ballots, McCabe said. To date, none has called the elections board to ask about the sales-tax language, he said.

Only one person has contacted the commissioner’s office about the language, Ludt said.

skolnick@vindy.com