Lucas County Republican Party did report legal fees disbursed from Restricted Fund
This is the second time a Blade article referencing campaign finance concerning the Lucas County Republican Party has been incorrect. Jon Stainbrook had claimed there was no evidence of loans made to former Lucas County Republican Chair Bob Reichert and that they were done just prior to the switch in party power. That was not correct. The loans were documented and easily located for anyone who bothered to go to the Ohio Secretary of State’s website and look at the Restricted Funds, that is where those reports are filed and kept.
Flash forward to today, where Tom Troy writes Audit questions GOP spending and Lucas County Party Chairman Jon Stainbrook is quoted:
He said if the debts were legitimate, they should have appeared on the party’s campaign finance reports filed with the Lucas County Board of Elections.
The legal expenses were reported — since they were paid out of the Restricted Fund they would be reported as a part of the expenditures there to the Secretary of State, you don’t report the Restricted Fund to the Lucas County BOE and I just went this morning and looked, both of those expenses are listed…
$2,035.90 03/10/2008 ROBISON, CURPHEY & O’CONNELL, LLCC
$1,000.00 04/01/2008 ISAAC, BRANT, LEDMAN, TEETOR, LLPP
These legal fees were paid months before Stainbrook won the party power struggle. Not to mention there was a host of payments made after the last legal fee payout – to things like Maumee City Taxes, Toledo City Taxes, Columbia Gas, Toledo Edison, Buckeye Telesystem, the IRS with the last check for $1,258.32 on 06/06/2008 written to Bob Reichert.
Stainbrook should understand how the Restricted Fund works, he has received money from it as well as several others, it’s reported in the most recent filing for the Lucas County Republican Party under the category of Political operations expenses:
$419.76 02/04/2009 KELLY BENSMAN
$388.12 01/11/2009 JON STAINBROOK
$1,600.00 02/16/2009 HORN HI YO
$800.00 03/10/2009 BILL HAWKINS
$499.06 01/11/2009 MEGHAN GALLAGHER
This is not rocket science, it’s simple campaign finance reporting – since the Restricted Fund is reported to the Secretary of State? They are the ones who have that information on their website – campaign finance reports that have to be made to the Lucas County BOE are collected and shared through the Lucas County BOE. While the average person may not know this, anyone connected to politics or political writing should and if there really is an interest in being accurate? Easily accessible public records information that directly relates to a story’s factualness should be included…Like the last article when it stated that Stainbrook deposited two new donors’ checks totaling $2,250 “days after” he became the Party Chairperson. That’s not true, one donor check was deposited and that was not days after – it wasn’t even a week after.
If the former party paid it from the wrong account? They paid it from the wrong account but it’s clear they didn’t try to hide it and it was reported exactly as it was supposed to be.
Gee, Lisa,
I don’t read it that way at all.
To me it seems to be a (for lack of a better term) non-covered item. I think its presumptious to expect the LCRP to pick up one’s legal fees.
After all if one’s employer pays for one’s lawyer when you screw up, exactly why am I paying malpractice inusrance? Would Mr. Pounds pay your legal fees if you were sued while working for the TFP??
And what exactly does “it stated that Stainbrook deposited two new donors’ checks totaling $2,250 “days after” he became the Party Chairperson.” have to do with sticking the party for one’s legal fees? If I didn’t know better and was a tad more cynical…I’d swear you just don’t like Jon.
Oh well…more for another day!
Be well.
mj
October 7th, 2009 at 1:29 pmIt’s simple Mindy – it’s facts – they are simple and easy to determine and it has nothing to do with who I like or don’t like. It’s wrong to state information wasn’t recorded when it was recorded, it’s wrong to state information was recorded when it wasn’t.
The documentation for the restricted fund is online, it was reported for both the loans and the legal fees. The documentation as to when the one donation was made is also reported and is online.
It’s one thing to state something was paid from an account it was not supposed to be paid from, it’s another to imply that it wasn’t reported…
October 7th, 2009 at 1:40 pmI think it is hillarious that they paid $1600 to Horn Hi Yo….which is a gambling term related to a craps bet. Maybe it was an early contribution to Issue 3????
October 7th, 2009 at 3:11 pmOh my no, let’s not let the facts get in the way of a story the publisher and his henchman Jon wish to portray in their editorial styled depiction of the ficticious stories they tell. We can’t have that!
Truth? Facts? Journalistic integrity? What??? Here in Toledo? How would we cope??
October 7th, 2009 at 3:15 pmI think that’s the guy who is the landlord of the building they rent downtown. I didn’t know the guy was named after a gambling term though…
October 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pmSo…we should all expect our employers to pay for our legal issues?
I ain’t buying it…that’s BS…if one needs “lawyer insurance” one should pay for it.
Its not the employer’s responsibility to get the employee out of legal trouble that some could make the argument was brought on by the employee’s inappropriate action. I hope that the LCRP gets their monies back or sues the appropriate individuals to do so. Charging your employer for personal legal issues is in my opinion just soooo cheesy.
mj
October 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pmMindy where did I or anyone state a position on employers paying legal fees? That’s not what I wrote either, what I focused on is the facts. Facts missing from a previous article and one missing from this one that easily accessible public record information states.
Considering the audit is not finished, we don’t know what it states, will it state it was paid from the wrong fund or will it state that party funds can’t be used from any fund isn’t known. What is known is that this was reported and was reported for quite some time.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:11 pmAnd if you are going to write about me, I’m not an employee of the Toledo Free Press – I’m not paid a salary, I will be 1099′d as an independent contractor.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:18 pmSeeing I’m not privy to the behind-the-scenes goings-on, why are there lawyers listed pre-Stainbrook and self-payment to those in the “inner circle” from the same fund post-Stainbrook?
October 7th, 2009 at 4:58 pmWhy LIsa Renee, you seem to think the Blade does not participate in fair and accurate reporting standards. Why that is just shocking! The Blade is happy to bestow favorable reporting on those they control.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:15 pmI know this is a off topic, but did anyone see the article in the blade online, about the candidate for Sylvania Twp trustee? He put tombstones of all his opponents in his front yard. Kevin Eff and Dee Dee Liedel are two of the 6 or 7 tombstones on his lawn. Barber is the guy who did this and is the endorsed Republican. Where does Stainbrook find these people????
Also, I know Eff is a Republican, isn’t Liedel too? Why didn’t she get the endorsement.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:19 pmStainbrook needs to worry about elections. I here that some candidates are upset with his obsessions overriding the elections. I’m sure the auditors are happy with his story,especially if the audit is not done.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:55 pmChad, I wasn’t aware they had endorsed any of the township spots, but hopefully those more knowledgeable in the affairs of the local Republican party can answer that for you.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:14 pm“So…we should all expect our employers to pay for our legal issues?”
That’s right Mindy. If you are sued for a work related matter, your employer would indeed pay your legal fees, since the employer is liable for the acts of his her employees that are work related.
I’ve collected many a legal fee from an employer to defend his/her employees.
October 8th, 2009 at 6:39 amJenny, Does this mean I can drop my privately- paid malpractice insurance?? Granted, its not a lot of money, but every bit helps.
Lisa, I was using you and your position as an example…I have no interst in your tax status with your employers. Nor would I really condiser that blurb “writing”…but that’s not my profession, so what do I know.
Thanks for the discourse.
flowers, bunnies, love…
mj
October 8th, 2009 at 9:12 amLisa-
While there is ‘chance’ that the landlords name is Horn Hi Yo, it is common knowledge that Stainbrook and his girls practically LIVE in the casinos up North.
NOTHING would surprise me. He’s slimier than those he points his skinny little finger at.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:38 amI do not believe that any township trustees have been officially endorsed by the Republican party, however I may have missed a few things. Pretty sad that you have two successful Republican sitting trustees for re-election, Lidell and Hanley, whom both have done an outstanding job to bring fiscal accountablity to the township; however, Jon wants to endorse a nut job like Royal Barber. The ONLY thing Barber has is the same name as his father and their accounting firm…which is marginal at best.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:19 pmHenri,
“While there is ‘chance’ that the landlords name is Horn Hi Yo, it is common knowledge that Stainbrook and his girls practically LIVE in the casinos up North”
I just knew you could be counted on to begin the mud slinging…! Let’s review…when you walk into the room Jon and the Girls nearly chew their paws off to get away from you, how you know anything at all about their social calendar is way byond me!
“He’s slimier than those he points his skinny little finger at.” Don’t sell yourself so short!
Flowers, bunnies, love,
Mindy
October 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pmMindy, Mindy, Mindy…
No mud being slung, just a statement of the facts. I suggest you take Reading 101.
As I said “…it is common knowledge…”.
Chew their paws off do they? Never noticed. Maybe they fear I’ll overhear more of their maniacal BS that could put them on the wrong side of their legal briefs!!
BTW, good luck with that placeholding gig for Jon! Another example of his ‘qualified’ candidates!
October 8th, 2009 at 2:26 pmKevin Eff is not a Republican. He is running for Sylvania Township Trustee as an independent. I believe his last prior registration was as a Democrat.
To “Tax Time” who thinks Liedel and Hanley are successful trustees, the only thing successful about them is their arrogance and distain towards township and city taxpayers who are not their special friends. By attending every township trustee meeting for the past 3 years, I’ve seen them in action and the sight isn’t pretty.
Ask the 2 township police officers who they castigated and disciplined in public late last year.
The officers filed grievances and the officers were just awarded full back pay and the township was ordered to clear their personnel records. Those are only 2 of many labor issues the township has been on the losing side of.
State Employment Relations Board ordered the township to “Cease and desist from interfering, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in ORC Chapter 4117 by repeatedly refusing union representation to a bargaining-unit employee during a grievance meeting, and from otherwise violating ORC section 4117.11.” The trustee must also post this notice for 60 sixty days in appropriate locations and notify SERB in writing within 20 calendar days from the date the order becomes final of the steps that have been taken to comply with the order.
They have wasted many thousands of taxpayer dollars hiring labor attorneys from Cleveland to defend them against litigation that would be totally unnecessary if they weren’t trying to impose their
power and show the unions who’s boss. Do you think it was coincidence that the two cleared polic officers just happen to be heads of their respective unions?
I’ll be voting for anyone but Liedel or Hanley.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:46 pmGee, Henri,
“good luck with that placeholding gig for Jon! Another example of his ‘qualified’ candidates!” That’s just too dang funny! And to think people say you have no sense of humor!
Funny you mentioned slimey, c’mon you and I know it wasn’t Jon I was doing any favor for…but Jon has honored his obligation, which is more than I can say about someone else. I think its safe for you to share that I will not be purchasing robo calls
mj
ps…gotta tell ya, life is better when you are inside looking out than vice-versa. Best of luck to you also on your new endevor, you’ll need it!
Bunnise, flowers, love
mj
October 8th, 2009 at 3:46 pmCarol-
You hit the nail on the head about Liedel and Hanley. Arrogance and disdain are two perfect ways to describe their demeanor.
Maybe Tax Time knows something about them we don’t, but that won’t change my opinion of those two…
Mindy-
October 8th, 2009 at 4:09 pmWow. You crack me up. But then again, I’m not surprised at your lame attempts to sling arrows at others.
How sad. Must be lonely on that inside looking out…
“Does this mean I can drop my privately- paid malpractice insurance?? Granted, its not a lot of money, but every bit helps.”
Mindy-not sure what you are carrying mlpractice insurance for, but if you are sued for a work related matter, your employer will defend you, because they are responsible for your work related actions. It’s called respondeat superior
October 8th, 2009 at 5:23 pmJenny- Just tryin’ to pin things down. Is your husband also a lawyer?
October 8th, 2009 at 6:11 pmGood thing the Dog warden can’t pickup cats, this cat fight going on is entertaining. What was this story about, I got lost after the first sentence.
October 8th, 2009 at 6:44 pmCarol…
Eff was a Republican at one point. He was a Bush phone bank captain. I know cause i saw him there numerous times in 2004. He also was vetted by the Executive Committee for the GOP Chairman after Bernadette left. I was at that meeting. But he is running as an Independent. So correction on my part. And thanks for clearing it up! Royal whatever his name is was on Fox and Friends this morning and said he was an Indy.
Joanne Wack is in trouble again I see. She has it coming!
Sylvania Township is a huge Republican stronghold, so i expect the two GOP incumbents to hold their jobs!
October 8th, 2009 at 7:40 pmSYLVANIA TOWNSHIP: 21,094 Total registered voters 7,197 34.1% Democrats, 4,217 20.0% Republicans, 9,073 43.0% No party, 607 2.9% Issues only…as per the last report from the BOE…
October 8th, 2009 at 9:20 pmSpeaking of Sylvania Township…. you have to admit, Royal Barber sure has gotten the attention of many, including Fox And Friends regarding his Halloween display.
I hope his detractors could get a sense of humor, and not let themselves get so twisted up over NOTHING!!! Puh__leeze!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=10479725&referralPlaylistId=playlist&maven_referrer=facebook
October 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pm$419.76 02/04/2009 KELLY BENSMAN
Ya know, the other thing that caught my eye, and yet, I haven’t reviewed ALL 5 of the updated filings, is that Jon Stainbrook made sure to pay his (admin change) “friend” for something that so many of us have done a ‘volunteers’.
What happened to appropriate compensation for the rest of his executive team? There are many within the executive committee who have done as much if not more than Kelly Bensman without any reimbursement from Jon.
There is something that the Board or Auditor may want to look into.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:22 pmKelly Bensman is an Ex-officio member of the executive committee at best.
Ask yourself what makes her worthy of said reimbursement….
Chad,
You’re right that Sylvania is a Republican stronghold, but as LisaRenee points out, the registered numbers for the township favor the Democrats. Still the independents are the majority.
I know many people out here, when it comes to the trustees, care nothing about what party they are.
They care who will do the best job, and the current two have displayed utter distain for the average resident.
I just came from the candidates forum held by the Chamber of Commerce at Lourdes College. Liedel and Hanley did not shine answering the questions asked of all the candidates. Most of their assertions of all the wonderful things they’ve done while in office are easily dismissed when the true facts are put forth. And the other candidates easily put them down tonight with the real facts.
You’re right that Kevin Eff was a Republican earlier on and I’m still trying to bring him back into the fold, but he truly is an independent thinker. He, like myself, votes for who we think is the best qualified person for the job. For me, 95% of the time, that is a Republican. I am ashamed to admit that I voted for Hanley and Liedel last time, but after watching them in action for the last 3 years, that is a mistake I will not make again. I am cheerfully voting for a Democrat, Penny Levine, and an independent, Kevin Eff, this time around. I know them; what they stand for; and they will make excellent trustees and really serve the public interest.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:17 amLisa-
I’ve started doing more homework. What is interesting is in searching thru the many pages of the LCRPs 2009 filing, Jon Stainbrook is making sure to pay himself, Kelly Bensman, and Meghan Gallager out of the General fund as well.
I’d like to see him provide detailed accounts for his $2,534.98 check to himself from 2/27/09.
I’d also like to know about the $600.00 payment to Meghan Gallagher for the same date.
Then there’s the $400.00 for Kelly Bensman from 7/29/09, for services she didn’t perform. (IMHO)
As I said before, he’s slimier than those he points his little finger at. He is pilfering the LCRP General Fund coffers and passing it out to his girls, IMHO.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:17 am“He is pilfering the LCRP General Fund coffers and passing it out to his girls, IMHO.”
Well I bet he makes sure the girls earn it
October 9th, 2009 at 11:00 am“He is pilfering the LCRP General Fund coffers and passing it out to his girls, IMHO.” That’s a pretty LARGE opinion/accusation, from someone on the outside, that wouldn’t have a clue.
So…Detective Henri…just what was done with ALL that money??
At least we know it wasn’t blown on a bar tab at Frix.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:31 amI would recommend making a public records request as to the expenses, but I haven’t had much luck in getting public records requests answered by the LCRP, despite their public stance when it comes to their own problems related to public records information, they are not much different than those they complain about.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:38 amNot Again-
October 9th, 2009 at 11:49 amGood one! LMAO at that!!! How do they declare that ‘income’. Ewww. Ya couldn’t pay me enough.
Lisa,
Just spoke with the peeps, we believe that the information you are requesting is still in litigation, I have been assured that as soon as this dispute is resolved, you wil be provided with all the information you request/need.
Regarding the topic of this post its the Auditor of the State of Ohio that is questioning the validity of the original expendatures pretaining to legal fees. Nothing has been brought up regarding expenses to Stainbrook, Bensman or Gallagher.
My sources tell me that restricted funds cannot be used for electoneering, as you know. Hence the original question.
Hope this helps.
mj
October 9th, 2009 at 11:52 amMindy, that conflicts with my last written message with the “peeps” since I was told that the litigation had no bearing on my request. It was at the lawyers office and all that had to be done was it had to be picked up, and that was months ago. There was never any indication given that my request hinged on the outcome of their current legal situation and by law if a public information request is not granted, a reason is supposed to be given. All of my documentation on the request never indicates what you are stating.
However, I appreciate you making phone calls on my behalf.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:10 pm“Nothing has been brought up regarding expenses to Stainbrook, Bensman or Gallagher.”
YET
Congratulation, Mindy, on becoming the new mouthpiece to the LCRP.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:28 pmI have 2 questions for LR. I understand the info you are stating is in the public records of Ohio. Understood. But my question is – are you personally acquainted with Lyn Olman’s office assistant? Is she in any way “helping” you with this info. Just curious, since it would be to Olman’s benefit to make Stainbrook look bad.
Again just curious since this appears to be so black and white for you – Old guard good – new guard evil, and the truth to any educated observer lies somewhere between.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:13 pmI’ll try this a 2nd time.
Lisa, are you personally acquainted with Lyn Olman’s office assistant?
October 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pmsorry about that 2nd post – my first one came back with a message to the effect that the website was unavailable, so I jumped the gun, so to speak.
But this question has been on my mind for a long time. What got me wondering this some months ago was the really detailed info you have about all this, coupled with the really personal animus toward Stainbrook. I had a brief acquaintance with Mr. Olman’s assistant’s sister is why the question came up in discussion with friends.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pmLisa,
I shall be most happy to acquire the information that you are requesting. Please don’t hesitate to contact me, off-line, even, if I can be of assistance.
Henri…nothing new on my being a representative of the LCRP…If you really were ‘in the loop’, you would have known that…Sheesh.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:10 pmTruthseeker, I find my information on my own and I do not get it from others for stories like this. That said I have no idea who Lynn Olman’s office assistant is, I’ve never talked with her and I have not spoken with Lynn Olman in years beyond perhaps saying “hi” at a fundraiser we were both at months ago. I don’t know what you are implying but? I don’t have personal animus towards Jon Stainbrook, as an individual, I do have a personal animus towards those who don’t cite facts or attempt to present false impressions and who selectively decide who is a target and who should be given a free pass.
Since Mindy used me as an example in this thread, I’ll borrow her, if as an example something was printed in the Blade or covered by other media about her that was incorrect? I’d point out what was wrong with it…
October 9th, 2009 at 4:11 pmThis thread has gone way off topic.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:11 pmMindy and Henri, keep those claws sharpened, looks like you are gonna need them – but watch the eyes, we don’t want anyone to be maimed here!
“nothing new on my being a representative of the LCRP”
Really? It’s very new.
October 10th, 2009 at 8:03 amMaybe it’s because of those who no longer want to work with Stainbrook that anyone who still wants anything Jon can score for them will allow their names to be tarnished by the affiliation.
It’s those who’ve departed that are smarter than allowing that to happen.
LR, thanks for answer. Some of us conservatives & libertarians had been discussing amongst ourselves for a while now why a Democrat was so interested in a local Republican party argument. Most of us feel that, while any change at all in party politics (as opposed to business as usual for the good ole boys) is always messy – why Stainbrook in particular is such a target puzzles us. If he were indeed so bad, it seems like that would please Democrats, as it would accrue to their advantage. Instead we see dems lining up to help the old guard, who appear to get a pass on anything and everything they do (amongst dems at least). It just doesn’t compute.
October 10th, 2009 at 11:10 amAnyone who’s followed what I’ve been doing for the past five years even minimally should know that I raise issues on both sides. I’ve recently raised issues concerning the Judicial screening process and there are some in my own party as well as the blogosphere that take issue with my rather stubborn belief in “if it’s wrong it’s wrong” and not following/helping to spread the party hype.
Stainbrook ends up being written about because he’s written about in the Blade and when that’s been done, the information shared is not correct. I realize some like to believe there’s some other ulterior motive, but it’s rather simple, if facts are presented, if there is no “other side to the story” then? It wouldn’t be blogged about. In fact, I would have never found the Damas signature questions had Jon not stated incorrect information to the Blade.
October 10th, 2009 at 12:30 pm