October 14, 2026 · Ohio Election Integrity Commission · 7,017 words · 3 speakers · 192 segments
We're back on the record. The record should reflect that all commission members are present. Case 2017-S-007, Enray James Rippenhoff et al., reconsideration. Do we have a motion?
Yes, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move to approve the motion for reconsideration in the Rippenhoff matter.
Do we have a second?
Second. Second.
All right. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed, same sign.
Aye.
Excuse me?
Aye. No.
Motion carries. All right, the next case would be 2018-R-494, N. Ray William Hafer et al. Reconsideration. Do we have a motion?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and I will make a motion on case number 201A R494, William Hafer, that we grant the motion for reconsideration
and accept the proposed offer compromise.
Is there a second to that motion?
Second. Further discussion on the motion?
All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay.
Motion carries. Case 2018-S-003, Rick Walker et al., reconsideration. Do we have a motion?
I move that we deny the request for reconsideration.
Okay. Is there a second to the motion?
I'll second.
All right. Thank you. Further discussion on the motion to deny? All in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, discussion regarding county failure to prosecute on OEC, OEIC referrals.
Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Sorry. Thank you for having denied the reconsideration. Can you please advise what you would like to see happen hereafter then for that matter? Is there some action or is it just leave the amount outstanding owed to the gentleman? I can tell you why I made the motion. I don't know if that would be helpful. But unlike the other two, he gave no reasons as to why it should be compromised. So if there are no reasons given, I felt we didn't have any basis to grant it. I guess he could always come back and ask for re-reconsideration if he set forth reasons and I guess from my perspective dealt with it in a rather perfunctory fashion. Any other comments in response?
Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, again, the discussion regarding county failure to prosecute an OECOEIC referral.
Ms. Taylor? Thank you, sir. I'm going to speak in general terms on this because the parties are not here. This case was from Trumbull County. In 2024, the OEC received two complaints regarding several entities. The alleged violations included a public complaint and a BOE referral, two separate cases. The first one, the public complaint is case number 2024G-028. The second one, which was the BOE referral, was 2024R-386. The complaints were identical. The first complaint was 351710, failure to complete an accurate statement, 351711. same thing 3517107 federal political committee registration and the fourth complaint was 351720H improper fictitious fraudulent name in making or issuing a publication or communication. So the same violations were alleged in the public complaint as was in the BOE.
When was this?
I'm sorry?
When did these complaints come in?
In 2024. The case was heard before the OEC on 10-30 of 25 as a consolidated matter. After much deliberation, a commissioner moved to find a violation and referred the matter for prosecution to the Trumbull County prosecutor. After a vote, the motion was tied 3-3. The commission then resumed further deliberations. A different commissioner then moved to fine violations and to impose a $20,000 fine. The motion was tied 3-3. After much additional deliberation, it was decided 6-0 to have the matter submitted to the Trumbull County Prosecutor for prosecution pursuant to revise Code 3517-155A1C. The Trumbull County prosecutor responded essentially saying that the Trumbull County, that Trumbull County should not prosecute this case for two independent reasons, one jurisdiction and two conflict of interest. He contends that the alleged violations involving a PAC required to file with the Secretary of State are the responsibility of the Franklin County prosecutor under Ohio campaign finance law. Separately, he asserted that the PAC's alleged connection to a sitting Trumbull County judge created an institutional conflict that made local prosecution problematic. Because the commission initially split votes before ultimately referring to case for prosecution, he asked the commission to revisit the evidence and determine whether the evidence warrants referral. If prosecution remains appropriate, he requests that all alleged offenses be consolidated and referred to Franklin County, which he said would eliminate the conflict, promote judicial economy, and prevent respondents from defending related allegations in separate jurisdiction. It's to be noted, currently the commission is not being asked to reconsider the case, but to rather determine what next steps are appropriate in response to the prosecutor's request. That action would be taken at a subsequent meeting. Thank you.
Questions and comments from Ms. Taylor?
What you're saying, we can expect we're going to receive a case on this maybe at the next meeting or something?
Basically, we're asking what steps you think should be taken. Should it be referred to Franklin County or should the case be reconsidered?
Was there any written opinion given by the prosecutor with respect to his two positions?
Absolutely, yes.
I guess I'd like to see what he said in writing before thinking about what we should do.
I think the intent...
If I could, I think there's a legal and a practical issue here that we have faced in the past. The legal issue, and I would like to get an understanding of this, you don't need to provide it now, just ultimately, is whether the appropriate jurisdiction is within Franklin County or not. The practical issue is prosecutorial discretion and the lack of traction that I think we've experienced historically. There's a distinction between referring the matter to prosecution and having the prosecutors pursue the matter. My concern is that if Franklin County is appropriate, then of course it should be referred there, whether then it's ultimately prosecuted. I don't think that these matters have been given high priority historically. That was my understanding just anecdotally from the prior commission. I don't know if you have any experience with that. I can't speak to that. I don't know. John, was that your experience with the prior commission as well? It was. As you will recall, Mr. Richter, we asked, because we had these discussions about fines and it kept going, and remember we were saying a certain amount we should send to the prosecutors because that's the next step by code, right? He then, as I recall, Mr. Richter had a meeting with the County Prosecutors Association and explained the issue and he came back to us and basically said, look, they don't want these cases. They're dealing with murders. They're dealing with robberies. You can list anything you want, kidnappings. But basically that was the signal we got that don't refer them because they're just going to sit. But anyway, that was my recollection of it. So legally I think the issue is then whether Franklin County is the appropriate jurisdiction. And practically I'd like to have some understanding as it relates to the prosecutorial willingness to take on these matters. And it's not helpful if we refer them and no action is taken. Well, I mean, the legislature established that we have the authority to refer for a prosecutor for criminal prosecution. But that's as far as it goes. And what happens when the prosecution says, doesn't matter, we're not going to touch it. Yes, and if I may, I do know that prosecutors' offices, if the basis is a conflict, then that's usually resolved amongst or between the prosecutor's offices with making a referral. If, you know, like how Columbus police in Franklin County, usually it's investigated by BCI just to avoid that. So I'll get more information and see if that was one of the bases. But if that's the case, then that has to be done between that county prosecutor's office and finding another prosecutor's office that would take that on for that to avoid that conflict. The prosecutor thinks he's got a conflict. He can always appoint a special prosecutor. Special prosecutor, have another county handle it. Thank you.
So I would say I think the purpose of bringing it and putting it on the agenda today was not to address this particular case today. That would be at the next meeting, but to get input from all of you as to how you would like to see this proceed the next time. If the parties will be given notice, if they want to appear, they can if they want to present. Not to rehash the case, but I guess, again, looking for input from you as commissioners of what you would want to be presented with in knowing that you're going to be considering this question specifically on a specific case next meeting.
Mr. Kusher, if I may.
Sure.
Okay, so we have the authority to refer for criminal prosecution, but under this hypothetical example where the prosecutor's office does not want to take action, do we then have the ability to bring a mandamus action in the Supreme Court to enforce prosecution, to get a prosecutor appointed and move forward? Can we do that? There is case law that because of prosecutorial discretion that mandamus typically does not lie to compel the prosecutor's office to proceed with the case. But that could be different if there's a finding here. But if you'd like me to look into that as well, that's something I can do. I would like an answer to that. I really don't know, obviously. I'm a civil litigation attorney, so I don't deal with criminal prosecutions. But where you have statutory authority that says that this body can refer for criminal prosecution, the legislature clearly is indicating that we have the ability to do something But if then it just dies on the vine because of prosecutorial discretion then it becomes a toothless mechanism and maybe it is toothless and maybe that the answer. I don't know, but I would like to know the answer if we could force that if that were the case, just as an idea. But, Council Williams, you're going to look into why the prosecutor didn't do what is normally done here, right, in terms of it has a conflict, referring it out, getting another prosecutor from a different county? I was speaking more generally. It sounded like that was potentially one of the bases, so depending on what the actual basis is will determine the outcome of the question of, you know. Yeah, I thought it was the judge. What was the issue? What was the first reason for the conflict? For the local judge, I think. Well, one was a judge. Right. He asserts that the PAC's alleged connection to a sitting Trumbull County judge creates an institutional conflict that makes local prosecution problematic. Because the commission initially split votes before ultimately referring the case for prosecution, he asks the commission to revisit the evidence and determine whether the evidence warrants referral. So normally in that situation, at least in the county I come from, the prosecutor finds another prosecutor, as you were saying. Or a DJ. Sorry? Or a visiting judge. To handle a prosecution? To hear the case. Oh, to hear the case. But I thought we were talking about the prosecutor. Well, it could go either direction. Right. Well, okay. But that appears that this prosecutor didn't do that. The prosecutor didn't do his job because he thinks it's going to be a conflict on several levels. Okay, but he didn't then go find another normal circumstance. So we're going to figure out why that didn't happen. Okay.
Anything else?
I have a way of feedback.
Well, Councilor Williams wants some direction, I guess, from us. I would propose that we get what the prosecutor's written. I propose that Councilor Williams talk to the prosecutor about why it wasn't, he didn't refer it out or she didn't refer it out to some other person and have him back here next meeting. I would also like to know what authority we have to do something after the referral. This is quite a clarification.
When I said about the conflict, I just wanted to clarify with the Secretary of State's office what they had received, not reach out independently and do research. That would go beyond my role, I believe, in advising the commission to start investigating how another office is acting. So that's all I meant by getting the basis, to clarify the basis. That was all.
Thank you.
I'd also be interested in knowing if there's any potential criminal violations of a federal nature so that the United States Attorney in Cleveland could arguably be brought in too. That's not an uncommon practice where there's a concurrent jurisdiction. I'm just not sure that it rises to the level of a federal violation, but it may be something to look at.
Anything else?
Yes, sir. Thank you again. You asked about why this is in front of you or what ability you have to move forward. That is what our office is seeking at the moment, is a determination on. The Ohio Elections Commission made a decision that was for a referral that went to a county prosecutor. A county prosecutor has now sent you back what they labeled a motion to transfer jurisdiction, and then within the document it's remanded for further action. And so knowing that there is a county prosecutor who is seeking to move jurisdiction of the outcome of your case and or have it remanded back for further action, we believed it was appropriate for the commission to make the determination what to do next, whether that's write a letter back to him telling him that it is within his jurisdiction to hear this case and explaining how to get a special prosecutor assigned and that not all of the judges will get off all of your prosecutorial cases going forward. or to consider whether or not alternate jurisdiction is appropriate or the underlying circumstance of the case, in which case we need to contact the parties to get them present. Today was a question of just a letter has come to our office on your behalf. We need to present it to you and see what should we do with that going forward. So you are going to get the letter to us? I will get that to you, Jim. Great. There was a motion to transfer? That is what he saved the document as. And then within the document itself, it says remanded for further action.
Would not the Secretary of State's office provide a memorandum contra or in favor of the motion?
We, at the moment, are not making a determination what to do based on this, and so we are bringing it in front of you.
Does it take, do you take a position, though, as to what ought to be done?
It seems to me it's a motion impacting one of the cases, and the Secretary of State's office would have a vested interest. I definitely have an opinion on what the outcome of the case should be, which would not be for prosecution. The underlying offense does not seem to warrant that, but not trying to debate whether or not the outcome of the case today,
as much as just find out, do you want us to call the parties to be here to discuss fully the case? Is there some other information that you need? Is there something you would like us to send back to the prosecutor? Or just how would you like us to proceed on this matter?
where a county prosecutor has tried to put the ball back in your court, trying to make sure that we don't make that decision for you.
Thank you.
Where was this motion filed? Looks like it was received June 15th. It was filed with the integrity unit? Yes.
Okay, okay. Do you have any questions?
You're going to send us a copy of that letter? Yes, sir.
Okay. Any other discussion on the issue right now? Okay. Moving on.
So just to clarify, do you want us to send notice and have the parties have notice that they can be here for the next meeting?
Can we get that letter first and then can we let you know? I mean, you tentatively could put it on the November, what, 16th agenda?
It's the, I think it's.
I mean, we have some time. I think it's not the 16th.
It's the 17th, sir.
17th?
Yes, sir.
All right. Let's plan on having it on the agenda on the 17th, okay, David, get all the information out to us.
Yes, sir.
And then we'll convey to you whether or not to continue that or cancel it or go forward with it. Just as a matter of, you know, because this will be making a decision, the commission couldn't make the decision to have parties appear in November unless it was right now an open meeting. So if this is just going to be on the agenda to make that decision for how to proceed next on November, that on the November date that's how it would have to operate.
What kind of decision are you talking about? Just to put it on the agenda or not to put it on the agenda? I thought that there was going to be a decision about what steps to take.
So just as a point of clarification, if the information is provided to the commissioners and the decision about what next step to take or who to email or what to do, that would have to be made at the November meeting for a future date for the parties or for the action to happen, the decision for what steps to take could not be made outside of the open meeting, if that makes sense.
I think the Chair's point is very good, which is if we're going to be asked to consider a motion, we have to see the motion. I don't understand why it's on the agenda without us having been provided a copy of the motion. Response, would it come? That's not it. I don't have an answer to that one. I think the Council's point is we can't, we, this meeting, we either have to put it on the agenda or not put it on the agenda. We can't provisionally put it on the agenda and then get together between now and then and say, no, take it off the agenda. That would be a violation of the Sunshine Law, which to me makes sense. I guess my sense is I don't think we have enough information to put it on the agenda. And I would ask that staff get us all the documents they have relating to this issue to us soon, and we can then put on the agenda the same issue for dealing with it substantively. Yeah, I agree.
But don't invite the parties. Yet. Yet. Right. Anybody disagree with that approach?
No. Agreed.
Okay, let's go ahead and do it that way then. Did you get everything you need on that, Lisa?
Yes, sir.
Okay, ma'am.
Thank you.
All right, moving on to a website reconstruction update.
So it is still ongoing. I received word at the end of September that our office have received proofs, a site map. Our leadership is reviewing to make sure that they include our request and the commissioners. There was a two-week delay getting materials from the existing site, so the new delivery date for the site is somewhere around the beginning of January. But I was assured that all of the recommendations were received, and they're moving forward, sir.
Go ahead, sir. So thank you for that.
Yes, sir.
Are we going to be able to look at our website before it goes public?
That I don't know, but I can find out.
Well, I would ask that the commissioners be permitted to look at their website before it goes public.
Yes, sir.
Thank you. Any other comments? If not, we'll move on to the next item. which would be OEIC pending cases update.
Yes, sir. I am prepared to give you three updates on pending cases. First, the householder case. Finally, regarding the householder case, we're in the final stages before the case comes before the commission. I'm sorry.
I believe the chair. Yeah, all right. You got a little. You should probably go.
Yeah, if we're going to discuss that.
I'd just like to make the record that I've accused myself from the household of cases, so I'm going to step outside into the conference room while this discussion is going on. It doesn't need to.
It's just where you're both. It might be back when household is over. It'll be two seconds. Okay.
Okay, finally regarding the Householder case, we're in the final stages before the case comes before the Commission There were two days of hearings The parties submitted post briefs last Friday with reply briefs due on the 19th The hearing officer is working to complete a report and recommendation in time for the commissioner November 17th meeting
Okay. As a matter of process, so we will clearly get the report and recommendation. What if we want the briefs? Is that appropriate for us to, from your guys' perspective, to get the briefs and look at the briefs? Or is that something you want to think about?
No, you would get the report and the recommendation. You'd get any exhibits that were admitted into evidence. I don't believe the briefs are going to qualify as evidence, but we can further look into that.
Okay. Thanks for that response. If you would, just let us know, or if you think we're limited to the report and recommendation. Now, clearly, the respondents can file their response to the report and recommendation. We would get that, right?
I mean, that's clear under the code that they can have 10 days or whatever.
File an objection? Is that what you're talking about?
I thought that they can file a response with us under the administrative code. I forget which provision that is. But if they can, then we would get that.
I mean, you would get a copy of an objection if an objection is filed.
Yes.
And then... Anything that followed the report and the recommendation we would receive?
Yes.
I mean, do you foresee? I mean, I'm not sure what else that would be other than an objection. What would be the action items at the November 17 meeting? How far in advance of the November 17 meeting will we get the report and recommendation?
That depends on when it's filed. I mean, R&R has not been filed yet. So theoretically, it may not even be at the November meeting.
Well, here's my concern. My concern, as it was at the previous meetings, was that we have it well in advance of the meeting so that we can review, digest, and consider it. And I think the rule had been five days. So we would want to receive at least five days in advance of the meeting.
In the packet is what you're talking about.
Correct.
And again, we're making every effort to get that to you. Yes.
Conversely, we would think it would be unreasonable to send it to us, you know, like the day before. So we want to have plenty of time to review, consider, and digest it. And then would it be up for our consideration for adoption at that November 17 meeting?
Would that be the purpose? It would depend on when the R&R was filed, if when the respondent is served, whether or not the 10 days that the respondent has to object has come up. So I can't tell you that it will be.
You don't know at this point what the procedural posture would be on November 17th.
As to what can go before you?
Correct.
Yes.
If I may, I'm very concerned about limiting the amount of information that's being provided to the commissioners in advance of the hearing. I mean, if we're provided with a report or recommendation, that's all well and good. but we don't get the briefs that have been filed. There's no essentially transcript. There's no record that's being submitted to us. You're asking the commissioners to fly blind going into a hearing where all we have is very limited information available to us. That causes me concern. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't be entitled entitled to whatever's been presented to the hearing officer for us to review. Yeah, I mean, I would agree. Obviously, we're serving as the interim chair for that hearing. I would say, and, you know, correct us if we're wrong, I would want to have access to any and all documents relating to the case unless there was some statutory reason that it wasn't permissible. So, to me, we would be entitled as commissioners to review the entire record unless we could be pointed to some statutory reason that that was impermissible.
And I guess my response back would be, number one, you would not be having the hearing. It would be a meeting. You would be deciding whether you want to accept, reject, modify what the hearing officer has provided. you would be making a determination as to whether or not the Secretary of State Attorney General has proven by a preponderance of the evidence, whatever the allegations are. What I would refer you to is under 3517.17.3. Upon receiving the recommendation of the attorney or hearing officer, the commission shall review the hearing officer's report and recommendation, and she'll do one of the following. And that's...
We don't need to go over the entirety of the statutes now. I'm simply saying, you know, from my perspective, that we would want to get any and all information relating to the case that we're entitled to review in advance of the hearing. If that's just the report and recommendation, then we want to know that. If it's additional information, we'd want to know that as well.
So, Council Riggins, I guess there's a question. It's a legal question about what is it that we're entitled to get, and is that something we should be referring to, Counsel Williams, for a legal opinion on, or you, or do you guys want to talk about that and let us know? But I think there's at least some interest among some of us to at least have the opportunity to get as much as we possibly can beyond the report and recommendation.
And let me supplement that. I mean, my concern here is we've got respondents who are going to be presenting their, they're going to be presenting briefs, and they're going to have documents that are going to file with the hearing officer for raising their issues. If we don't have access to that, we're just going to have a report and recommendation. Maybe there's an objection, maybe not, that we'll have a detailed explanation. I don't know. then we're going to give them 10 minutes to talk without having their briefs. Unless there's a statutory prohibition on documents that we may not review, I want it. I'm not sure why we can't have whatever's been submitted to the hearing officer.
And again, I guess, as A.G. Williams has said, we have our statutes, and then we're also under Revised Code Chapter 119, which basically sets out, you know, you get the hearing officers, the report and recommendation, any evidence that's been admitted. I mean, that's just the nature of the 119 process. I mean, the hearing has already been held with the hearing officer. Basically, what you all are doing, you're not having a hearing. You're basically reviewing what the hearing officer has found. Again, information should be included in that hearing officer's report and recommendation of how he or she came to whatever conclusion.
All right, that's helpful. Ms. Williams, would you be able to get us a legal opinion as to what the commission is entitled to receive in advance of the hearing?
Sure.
We would appreciate that.
Just to clarify, language-wise, what comes before the commission would not be a hearing. It would be a review. So just to clarify, you're asking for what materials the commission gets before reviewing the report and recommendation?
Correct.
Okay.
Thank you. What we're entitled to. Yeah. Okay. Good.
I have a practical question, and it's obviously driven by the householder case. We're going to get a report and recommendation, and I assume that there will be some reference to exhibits in that report and recommendation, and those exhibits will be part of the report and recommendation, and at least as to that document, we all agree we're entitled to get that. What I'm concerned about is it's a 300-page document between the report and recommendation and the documents, And what I don't want is being sent this stuff electronically, and I have to print out 300 pages. So I'm requesting if it's substantial, and I won't define substantial at this point, but that you guys print it out and overnight it to us where we direct you to overnight it. Because I have a home printer and I don't want to print off 300 pages or 200 pages or whatever the substantial document may be. And the same goes for the objections to the report and recommendation. That could be a pretty substantial document as well in a situation like the household case. I think that's reasonable.
So, Ms. Taylor, as we approach November 17, we don't know what's going to occur at this point. You wanted to give us a heads up as to the status. Anything else to report on the householder matter?
That's all I know right now.
Okay. Any other questions?
No, I don't.
I was going to say Kristen.
Okay.
Wait, wait, wait. I just, could you just, when are the reply briefs due?
The 19th, sir.
Well, okay. My reaction is we're not going to be able to hear this on November 17th. I mean, if the reply briefs are due on the 19th and whenever the report and recommendation comes out and then there's an additional 10 days for them to object and then we need time to look at that, I just don't see the November 17th date happening as getting before us. If it's all right, I'll work with the Secretary of State's office on timeline, but I think that there's going to be some resistance to placing it on the November agenda unless we can at least have that final report at least five days in advance. Well, son, the final, what do you mean, the report recommendation? Correct. But then they have ten days to respond. That's right. That's what I'm concerned about. It's probably not going to proceed. Okay. All right. I'll keep everybody. Thanks. Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
. . Okay Moving on to the next item on the agenda under other business I think it will be case update number two Okay. I'm sorry. I appreciate it. Case update number two, please.
Yes, sir. Thank you. This is the Melanie Lennon in case 26C0628. The Secretary of State received a complaint from the Delaware County Board of Election on 4-14-26. alleging that on 2-10 of 25, Melanie Linehan registered to vote, listing 11-33 Rambling Brook Way, Delaware, Ohio, as her voting residence. She voted in the 5-6-25 special election and the 11-4-25 general election from that address. However, at a hearing on 4-10-26 before the Delaware County Board of Elections, Melanie Linehan testified under oath that she never moved into the 1133 Rambling Brookway address or even spent a night there. On 6-11-26, the Election Integrity Unit investigation confirmed that the BOE's complaint concluded from 1-1-2025 to late-11-2025. There was no evidence of Linehan having a fixed habitation of any kind in Delaware County for purposes of establishing a voting residence. And that, in fact, did vote in the 2025 special and general elections. This was supported also by an Ohio Supreme Court decision. She was notified of the findings on 7-22-26. Her attorney indicated she objected. and then in September 9-22-26, her attorney notified the Attorney General's office that Ms. Lenahan was submitting a notice to withdraw and vacate the hearing. She has since been referred for prosecution. Okay, questions?
The Board of Elections had already referred her to prosecution way back when that was part of their decision. So now she's been referred again? Is that right? Is that what I conclude from what you're saying? That's probably a question better suited for Director Katz. Director Katz?
Okay, Ms. Williams.
So this is my case that I handled so I can answer this question. During the settlement negotiations on this matter, Part of the concern was... Just give us a little bit better reference. The settlement negotiations, when? Once this matter was referred. The Linehan matter was set for a hearing. Okay, on our case. For a hearing officer, yes. Yeah, okay. So I spoke with opposing counsel, and there was a concern about the outstanding potential for prosecution independent of any settlement agreement with the Secretary of State's office and the Elections Integrity Unit. So Counsel for Lenahan reached out to the Delaware County Prosecutor's Office, and that led to that initial referral being unearthed and pursued. So it wasn't a new referral. It was the rediscovery of the initial referral. Okay, so I don't quite understand this. The case is now before us. It is not. It was before us. It was before the commission and set for a hearing. And the chair assigned a hearing officer for that. And then on whose behalf did you settle the case? On behalf of, well, I didn't settle the case. The case did not settle. the objection to the letter of determination and the complaint was withdrawn by counsel for Lenahan. Okay, I guess I feel, though, that we should know about that while it's happening rather than after the fact. No? Once it's put to a hearing, then it becomes kind of the Attorney General's office that takes control of the case and in consultation with the Secretary of State's office as the drafter of the letter of determination. So we speak with them about the next steps and whether there's going to be a settlement or how things are going to proceed. In this case, there was no settlement. The counsel for Melanie Linehan withdrew the objection, so there is no hearing. There's nothing pending before the commission, and it's just going through the prosecution phase. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Thank you, ma'am. So there's nothing in front of the commission? There's nothing in front of the commission. It's done. It's just an update, sir. Okay. No, I appreciate it. I just want to know what we're expecting, if anything.
All right, go ahead, Ms. Taylor.
And one final update to the Richard Wheeler et al, case 26C0464. The Butler County Board of Election alleged that Mr. Wheeler's campaign failed to file the pre-general, post-general campaign finance reports for 2025 by the specified deadlines. The investigation revealed he only needed to file the pre-general report because under 351710A4, there were no expenditures or contributions of $1,000 or more. Respondents were assessed a $100 fine, which they objected to. A hearing officer was assigned, and the hearing was later held on September 28, 2026. The hearing officer heard the case, submitted a report and recommendation, and adopted the Secretary of State's determination. This case was going to be before you today rather than an update, but we're still in the 10-day objection period for Mr. Wheeler. so we assume that's going to be on the next agenda.
Thank you, Ms. Taylor. Any other questions of Ms. Taylor?
The report recommendation was dated when?
I don't know the date on that.
I know the hearing was held on the 28th.
It was sometime after that.
Okay. Okay. And when was this first, when was the Secretary of State's recommendation objected to, that this was then sent to the commission?
Again, I don't have that right in front of me. Hold on just a minute. I don't have that in front of me, sir.
Is there any concern about the 180-day?
No.
A little bit here on this one. No question. No question.
Anything else for Ms. Taylor? Hearing none, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which would be other business. Just to remind her, next meeting is November the 17th. We have scheduled a December the 2nd meeting, December 2. However, one of our members has a conflict, and so what we're looking at is a possible new date. One of the dates that was floated was December the 16th. I understand that that does not work for everyone. Is that a true statement?
Well, I had said I was going to be out of the state. I would prefer if we could move it up sometime between the 2nd and, I mean, do it the week prior, the week of the 7th. I'm available any time the week of the 7th.
Okay.
I'm also available any day the week of the 7th. I'm good. I can try to make it work, yeah.
Is that something, Ms. Taylor, you're going to have to check the availability of the room and everything else?
Yes, sir, obviously.
Okay. This room is in pretty high demand. Okay. Could you go ahead and do that and maybe send out those dates to the different commission members as soon as possible? So December, the week of December 7th?
Yes, I'm available that week as well.
You are?
I am that week. I'm unavailable the week before. I can make that week work.
Okay.
Move some things around.
Okay. Any other questions, comments, thoughts on that?
Mr. Chair, one item.
Go ahead, sir.
For other business. One of the issues that came up relating to the reconsiderations was the internal process by which those reconsiderations arrived It's our understanding that a number of recovery letters were sent to former respondents, and that kind of spurred some of the reconsideration. So we wanted to get an understanding of where those demand letters are with respect to older Ohio Election Commission cases and the recovery under those. And I understand Mr. McNair has had some discussions with the staff about that issue. I had a brief discussion yesterday, and my understanding is staff is going to see if they can't put together a spreadsheet of these cases so that we can kind of follow them and hopefully whittle them down as to the status. I think that would be helpful to all concerned. So I know staff was just raised yesterday, and they need some bit of time to look at that. So I think they're going to look at that and hopefully get back to us.
Are you referring specifically to the old OEC case?
1,500 cases, whatever that number is. Yeah. And if the commission is in general agreement, I do appreciate a couple of things that have happened at this meeting. The first is we talked about security, and there was a state officer outside, and we do appreciate the security that was provided. So thanks for being responsive to that issue. The second is pending case updates.
Yes, sir.
And so, you know, we appreciate that and please continue. I would ask if it's the will of the body that included in those case updates is the status of those recovery letters. So we understand where we are in the process, how many of the requests for the 1,500 have been sent, what's been the response process, and whether they are termed reconsiderations or offers in compromise in the future, what the status of that is. I think what we're trying to do is clean up all docket matters. that's important to the commission as it is to the Secretary of State's office, so we'd like to understand where that stands as well.
Okay.
Yes, sir.
Any other comments?
Along that line, Mr. Chairman, if you could group them, I know you're going to have the numbering, but if you could group them with respect to S cases and R cases, I think that would be helpful.
Can you do that? Yeah, I can do that. So instead of mixed in between so we know how many were Secretary of State cases and how many were OVC cases. Yes, sir.
Thank you.
He's referencing the Ohio Elections Commission's case numbering system to differentiate what type of complaint it's filed. Sorry. No, that's okay.
He knew what I was talking about.
Okay. All right. Any other business to come before the commission? I think in the short lifetime of the commission, this is our longest meeting thus far. I want to express my appreciation on behalf of the commission to Secretary of State, Attorney General. Very much appreciate your support throughout this. We think we've got a lot accomplished today. Got some things taken care of that have been lingering for a while. And other things that are now on the agenda for the future, but we appreciate your support. And most of all, I appreciate the commissioners for their patience and their understanding and their thoughts and contributions to the state of Ohio. So with that, if there's no other further communications of any kind, I'll entertain a motion. We adjourn.
So move.
Do we have a second?
Second.
All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Safe travels.