October 27, 2026 · Ohio Election Integrity Commission · 10,586 words · 11 speakers · 273 segments
I'm the Ohio Secretary of State's appointed chairman of the Ohio Election Integrity Commission. Good morning and welcome to the meeting of the Ohio Election Integrity Commission. Court reporter will create a record of these proceedings in the Ohio Channel, streaming this meeting live on its website where it will be archived. To determine whether a quorum of the Ohio Election Integrity Commission is present,
I'll now ask Ms. Riggins, who is serving as secretary, to call the roll. Thank you, Michael Kreitz.
Present.
Carl Kirshner.
Present.
Matthew Brown, here.
Evans, Sandy McNair, here.
John Lyle, present.
Let the record reflect that a quorum is present. First item would be the adoption of the agenda.
If we obtain a motion, we adopt the agenda.
So moved.
Thank you.
We have a second.
Second.
Further discussion?
All in favor, aye. Aye.
Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. The agenda is adopted. Next item would be approval of the minutes from the October 14, 2026 meeting. Everyone should have received a copy of those minutes and an opportunity to review them. Thank you, Mr. Lyle. Do we have a second?
Thank you, Mr. Brown. We've mostly been duly seconded
to approve the minutes from the October 14, 2026 meeting. All in favor, aye. Go ahead, sir.
Just too small. I thought the minutes were done very well. There's a lot here. It was really very accurate. I just wanted to note the bottom of page one, where it's in bold in the very last RC3517.17, paren A, close paren, paren 5. There should be a paren after the five, perhaps a little bit more substantively on the bottom of page two, the last entry about review administrative codes. Mr. McNair moved to amend the higher rise code, et cetera, to read. So this was an addition. what's been deleted here is what's in the current code that needs to stay so it needs to include the two original sentences requesting parties may submit a memorandum in support of the request period such memorandum shall be no more than 10 12 pages I guess period. So with those two amendments
Thank you Mr. Arsena Any other comments? All clear for the motion to approve.
Indicator saying aye. Aye.
Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Then it says revised or approved. Okay. Moving on to old business. further discussion regarding amending of revised code 3517.17 pertaining to the hearing officer
appointments. Mr. McNair has some comments and I have some as well. So go ahead, Mr. McNair. Well, I guess you have my proposal. We got the email from Council Merriman. with three other departments between, I guess, $110 and $95 an hour to, I think, support the Secretary of State's current rate at $95 an hour. I could not find anything on the behavioral health or the agriculture. I did find the document for the commerce at an hour but that was back in 2019 So I guess I again think we should think about raising that I don't know if there are any other rates that the Secretary of State's office reviewed that we don't have. I mean, my recollection is when we had a discussion, I think Justice O'Donnell at least floated the idea that he might become a hearing officer. and I thought there was discussion about up to $130 an hour. Director Katz, do I misrecollect that? I shouldn't call on Director Katz? No? Well, okay.
So what are you requesting, Mr. McBarrant?
Well, I think everybody has my proposal. I think we should take over the appointment process as opposed to Secretary of State's office. We currently have two applicants. I don't know what the status of those. That is, we sent an email on behalf of our subcommittee like two weeks ago and still don't have a response. so I feel like the process is like completely not in our control at all and this would amend that situation so we'd have more control of the people we're actually appointing.
Questions? Mr. McNair? Well, I certainly appreciate Mr. McNair the effort that you've made looking into this and I just think it's a bit premature at this stage of the game. We've only been a committee or commission for about 10 months now. We only had a handful of hearing officers have been selected. I personally have been satisfied with the hearing officers that have been reviewed and selected by the Secretary of State. I guess maybe down the road I would be more interested in the change, but it seems to me the system is working well now. I propose that we continue to go ahead and continue to use the Secretary of State's office to go ahead and do the interviews and make recommendations to us as we've been doing it. One of the things I think we can't lose sight of is that we're not an independent agency. I mean, when we were the High Elections Commission, we were in fact that. We stood on our own. We had our own executive director and we had our own budget. Today we don't. We're an appellate body as part of the Secretary of State's office. and I think to the extent that we can we need to work collegially with them and I think that the system that we have in place is working well and I would propose that we continue to support that.
Okay, so I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I simply think it's not proper that the Secretary of State can unilaterally terminate a contract when it's that very hearing officer that's reviewing the Secretary of State. I think that's a fundamentally, structurally wrong place to be and for us to support that. I guess that's number one. Number two, I don't think the process is working all that well. As I said, we have this subcommittee. We sent an email a couple of weeks ago just to ask about what the status of the two people that are put in applications We haven gotten a response So I respectfully disagree with your assessment Are there any comments thoughts by other commission members
If I may, Mr. Chairman. I concur with Chairman Kreutz's assessment of the situation as it's currently constituted. We've been here for, as he notes, 10 months. I think the system is working well. We have three very strong hearing officers available to us. I don't know that we need more at the moment, and I think that the body that would be best situated to understand the needs would be the Secretary of State's office, as the procedure allows for cases to go to the Ohio Election Integrity Unit, and they know that the number of cases that are coming through. So I think that they're the body that would be well-suited to make assessments as to what the needs are for more hearing officers. As I understand it, the Secretary of State's office is certainly open to it, accepting comments from the subcommittee, which is, of course, Commissioner McNair and myself. And we're happy to opine on those candidates as they're presented to us, happy to do so. But at this point, I don't know that it would be necessary to restructure the hiring or retention of independent contractors by the Secretary of State's office to this commission. I don't see that that's a necessity at this point.
Anyone else?
Mr. Chair, if I could.
Yes, Mr. Kirshner.
I do appreciate Mr. McNair's concern. I think we all did from the outset in some respect. I believe, as I believe the majority of the body believes, that the subcommittee that we establish rectifies that issue in many senses, provides a nice check and balance, and gives the commission some input. So I might be somewhat reiterating my fellow commission members, but I would say that I think that the subcommittee is helpful, and that addresses in large part the concern. I will also say that I've seen nothing but quality work from the current hearing officers and the process as it has proceeded.
Anything else? I'm happy to move on. Do we have a motion?
I think this doesn't have majority support. I'm not inclined to make a motion. Make everybody vote.
I appreciate everybody's comments. We appreciate the research and the work that you've done.
Mr. Chairman?
Yes, Mr. Lyle.
If I may, so you did mention in your remarks that you would be willing to look at it at a later date if so needed.
Yeah, I think it's one of those things. We're 10 months, Mr. Lyle, and we've had just a handful of hearings. So down the road, I would be willing to take a look at it again. That doesn't mean I'll change my mind. But I think we need to be open to look at those things as a new commission. So yes, a long way around saying yes, I guess.
Mr. Chair, if I could add to that, I would fully expect and appreciate the subcommittee reporting to us on a regular basis as to how they view things are going. I think that would be helpful to the commission.
Okay. All right. Next item would be further discussion regarding the OEIC operational policies. Again, Mr. McNair.
So this is a draft edition I put forward at the last meeting and asked to table it because it was a very long meeting and it not an urgent matter but here it is And apparently we have you see we have an additional document we got this morning.
Is this a proposal?
Alternative proposal. It's a proposal.
If I can just cut in here. Yes, please. I'll be glad to back away and let you respond. Yeah, and taking a look at meeting agendas, it's been an issue. I think we need to have some language in our operational policy, so I've gone ahead and printed out for you meeting agendas. Chairperson shall set the agenda for each commission meeting after considering agenda requests submitted by commission members and consulting with relevant Secretary of State staff. A commissioner requesting an agenda item will submit the request to the chairperson. at least 10 calendar days before the meeting. The chairperson shall determine whether to include the requested item on the agenda. If the requested item is not included, the requesting commissioner may move at the meeting to add the item to the agenda. If the motion receives the required second and majority approval of the commission, the item shall be added to the agenda. The bottom line here is I think that the chairperson, whoever that might be, we're not just talking about me we're talking about the future of the organization should have control over the agenda should be receiving input and I think the general rule is you know at least the way I I'm going to conduct the chairmanship is if somebody wants something of a commissioner wants it on the agenda it's going to be on the agenda but down the road there could be an issue and where a commissioner decides it's not to be placed on the agenda I think we have to have you know a fail-safe way to go ahead and make sure that that commissioner has the opportunity to put that item on the agenda so that's why I have the language of the motions a second to amend the agenda to make sure it gets on the agenda so I think it's pretty straightforward I've had a chance to talk to mr. McNair about it and he expressed some some reluctance also had a chance to talk with miss Riggins who's legal counsel for the secretary of state as to whether or not we would have any public meeting law issue with this policy and she's indicated that she did not believe that we did. So I submit this for your consideration. I think it's a good way to go ahead and handle the meeting agendas. I think it's relatively short. It's simple and it's sweet and allows us to accomplish what we want to accomplish.
So I think what you've proposed is different in three respects to what I've proposed. In both instances, we have kind of a 10-day trigger. Yours is absolute. Mine has a little bit of wiggle room in it. 10 days is the expectation, but if there is some reason why it would be shorter, that would be at the chair's discretion would be okay. So that's one difference. The second difference is, under my proposal, and I think probably the most substantive difference, is that it would be put on the agenda. Even the commissioner would have the right to have it on the agenda, even if the chair thought it should not be on the agenda, but then would explain at the meeting why there is that difference. And then finally, if it is on the agenda and the commissioner who's put the issue on the agenda has kind of given a rationale with respect to concerns for the public records that there would be, it's stated in our rule that any language or rationale a chairperson provides will not be discussed between or among the commissioners except at a public meeting or as permitted an executive session, which yours does not happen. maybe it doesn't need it. I'm really kind of restating the law in that regard. So I think that's a fair summary of our differences.
Comments by the commission?
I think, Mr. Chair, if I could, it might be helpful for those following at home to understand what we're looking at from a meeting agenda perspective. The update that we have in front of us, and I think Sandy in some respects addresses your concerns. The update that Chairman Kreitz has presented says under meeting agenda, the chairman shall set the agenda for each commission meeting after considering agenda requests submitted by commission members and consulting with relevant Secretary of State staff. So I think in that sense, there's the opportunity to coordinate with other commission members and with the staff. four sentences. The second one says, a commissioner requesting an agenda item will submit the request to the chairperson at least 10 calendar days before the meeting. This was a concern of mine, Sandy, and it's nice to see that we do have the opportunity to propose those items. Third sentence, the chairperson shall determine whether to include the requested item on the agenda. I think that provides a nice control mechanism for the chairperson. I believe the chair, whoever it may be, should be able to control the meeting. Next sentence, if the requested item is not included, the requesting commissioner may move at the meeting to add the item to the agenda. And finally, if the motion receives the required second and majority approval of the commission, the item shall be added to the agenda. I've reviewed this in detail for the first time this morning, but I do think that it provides a nice check and balance in addition to providing good structure and giving the chairperson control. They're giving each of us, you know, I may certainly have items as well that need to be added to the agenda, the flexibility to bring those items up at the meeting. So I think it's reasonable. I do think it provides the wiggle room, as you mentioned, for commissioners to be able to add things if they need to, but also puts control where it ought to be with the chairperson. So that's my general review of things. And Chairman Kreitz, thanks for kind of leading that process.
Thank you. Any other comments? Do we have a motion?
I'll move to adopt it. And that would be the meeting agenda section set in front of us that would be added to page two of the overall policies and procedures, commission operational policies.
Is there a second?
I'll second.
All right. Further discussion on the motion?
Yeah, I do have some. So the last sentence is, it seems to be a problem to me, because you have, so you can make a motion, you can have a second, but you have to have a majority approval for the commission, right? So, you know, theoretically you could have a commissioner who wanted to put an item on that never could get to the table because we make a motion to have the agenda have this item on the agenda whatever it would be say it everybody gets coffee
All right.
And so there's a motion, there's a second, and if the majority does not approve of that, it's not ever on the agenda. So any commissioner going forward could totally be blocked from trying to get some item on the agenda that may be very legitimate to this commission and to the citizens of Ohio. So for that reason, I'm not for it. If we took out a majority approval, I'd be fine with it. But I think that, and I can see a commissioner or a chairperson wanting to control it. If somebody brings it up, I think it should be discussed and talked about. This is really not being discussed because it says it requires a second and a majority approval. So there's really no discussion on it. And for those reasons, I would say I would vote no.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Lyle. Anyone else? Any other commissioners want to be heard on it? All right, we'll go ahead and proceed to the vote then. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Opposed. Motion carries by a vote of 3-2. All right. All right. Moving on to item C of old business, discussion regarding county failure to prosecute an OEC, OEIC referral.
Ms. Taylor. Thank you, sir. As we discussed in the last meeting, in 2024, the OEC received two complaints, one from the Trumbull County Board of Elections and another from an individual on behalf of the Trumbull County Republican Party. The complaints were against several entities arising from matters related to the 2024 primary election. Two entities were originally named but were later dismissed. The complaints alleged campaign finance violations listed, as I'll mention, involved the completeness, accuracy of required filings, federal political committee registration, and alleged use of improper, fictitious, or fraudulent names. making or issuing a public publication or communication. These violations included 351710, failure to complete accurate reports, 351711, failure to complete accurate reports, 3517107, federal federal political committee registration in 351720H, improper, fictitious, fraudulent name in making or issuing a publication or communication. The consolidated matter came before the OEC in October of 25. Following lengthy deliberations, the OEC Commission moved to find violations against three entities pursuant to former revised code 3517155A1C and ultimately referred the matter to the Trumbull County Prosecutor for Prosecution. The prosecutor has raised two independent reasons why his office should not prosecute the matter, jurisdiction and conflict of interest. His rationale was explained in the letter you have been provided Currently the Commission is not being asked to reconsider the underlying case rather the immediate question is how the Commission should proceed in response to the Trumbull County Prosecutor request. The Commission is again being asked to determine the next appropriate steps with any resulting action be taken at a subsequent meeting, sir.
Thank you. So, Ms. Taylor, the Trumbull County Prosecutor has refused to go ahead and handle the
prosecution for the reasons that were set within the letter? That is correct.
All right so it's now back here before us? Yes sir. We have the option of also referring to the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office? Yes sir. Questions, comments, thoughts by the Commission? How would we like to handle this?
I would suggest we follow our legal counsel's counsel, which is to refer it to the Franklin County prosecutors, so I understand the legal method.
You're recommending we refer to the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office?
Well, it's an opening position until I hear from other folks.
I understand, of course.
So I've looked into the, I've read the correspondence from the prosecutor's office and read the statutes. With regard to the, probably the easier question on a conflict of interest, that does not cause me a lot of concern because there's certainly protocols in place that can accommodate, whether it be the appointment of a special prosecutor or visiting judge to address matters of political nature in various counties. Those options are available and I think that can certainly mitigate any concerns of conflict of interest so I'm not particularly concerned on that issue. However, looking Looking at the statute, in my reading of the statute, there is jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office under 3517.11 . In fact, it has to go there under 3517.11 .
Yeah, that's correct.
Anything else, you have two options. You could go to the county prosecutor or you could refer to the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office.
But my understanding and reading of the statute, it does seem as though any violations is under 3517.11a, it has to go to the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office. So I don't know if we have discretion to refer it to the county in which the violation occurred or the candidate or party is located. And I think concurrent jurisdiction would apply, so the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office would then also have jurisdiction on the other violation allegations. So I don't know that we have discretion on it.
No, I concur with that. I hate to bring up the old commission all the time, but I know this was Mr. Richter's position also, that in these situations that have no time to come.
Any other thoughts? Do we need to go ahead and set this down for a hearing?
Go ahead and make that decision I think that would be appropriate I mean if the determination is if there going to be discussion where the rights of the parties may be involved, it would be appropriate to go ahead and set this over for the next meeting.
Notice would be provided to the parties if they would like to appear, and they could give input if they wanted to be very clear. This is not relitigation of the underlying. This is just what do we do with it now.
I think that's the appropriate course of action. Thank you, Ms. Reyes. Does anybody on the commission object to this handling of that way, having said to help for a hearing at the next meeting? Any objection? See none?
Just a question. As I recall, this is a rather complicated case. I'm just throwing that out. I'm not saying anything about it, but it may take some time for us. It's not, as I recall, this was not that easy of a case.
For purposes of clarification, I don't believe we're re-litigating or re-addressing any of the facts or merits of the case. It's a matter of here's where we are, what do we do now?
And the prior commission, I apologize. No, but we don't have the authority now just to say we want to send it to Frank McKenna. I mean, we already heard it. Is that what we're going to be doing? I think we would have the authority to do that today if we want to,
but I think out of an abundance of caution and fairness to the parties, we're going to give them an opportunity at least to be heard before we make that determination.
I think that's what Ms. Riggins was saying.
Is that correct, ma'am? Yes.
I'm just trying to figure out what their positions would be. I mean, the judge says he doesn't want to hear it, right? in Youngstown. Trumbull County. Trumbull County. Youngstown area. But you're right. More correct. More accurate. So I don't know what's going to change. I just... I could be wrong, but I... I mean, I'm fine. If you guys want to hear it, that's fine. But it... I think it would be easier just to send it to prosecution. But that's fine. I'll do whatever you want.
I don't disagree with you. Yeah. And I would say another option could be for a post-fine. So kind of just keep that... Well, I think for considering a position of a fine, we need to have everybody present, or at least have the opportunity to be heard.
The same course is that, again, we set it over, get the parties notice, and an opportunity to be heard on it. They may show, they may not.
At least our bases are covered as far as allowing them I certainly have no objection to hearing from the parties as to the issue, limited issue, of whether or not this can be referred to the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office. I mean, my reading of the statute is what it is, but I'm open to hearing what the parties have to say on the matter. If they wish to address that, I don't believe we would be called upon, don't want to be called upon to relitigate the issue, the case. I don't think that would be a problem. But I'm open to hearing what the parties say with regard to the jurisdiction.
Any other thoughts from the commission? Let's go ahead and set it down then on the agenda for the next meeting. Thank you. All right. I believe that concludes everything under old business, so I'll now go ahead and proceed to new business. would be case 26-C-04-64, Richard Wheeler et al.
Ms. Taylor, do you have a presentation? I do, sir. Thank you.
Before we start, and I apologize, are the respondents present by teams?
I believe so. Yes, they are present. They are on teams.
Thank you very much.
Go ahead, Ms. Taylor. Thank you, sir. case 26C-0464 dealt with a Fairfield County trustee Butler County issue involving the Richard Wheeler et al. campaign the Butler County Board of Election alleged that Richard Wheeler et al. campaign failed to file the following campaign finance reports for 2025 by the specified deadlines the pre-general campaign finance report the post-general if the allegations were accurate Failure to do so violated Revised Code 3517.13b as campaign committees are required to file pre-election statements, contributions, and expenditures by the 12th day prior to an election. Additionally, it allegedly failed to file the required post-general campaign finance report in violation of Revised Code 3517.13c. campaign committees must submit a post-election statement of contributions and expenditures by the 38th day after an election. The election integrity unit investigation revealed that although the campaign failed to file the required post-general, it was not required to file the pre-general campaign finance report because according to Revised Code 351710A4, there were no expenditures or contributions of $1,000 or more. The respondents were issued a $100 fine, which was objected to. A hearing officer was assigned, and a hearing was held on 9-28-26. During the hearing, the respondent, Richard Wheeler, indicated that he thought he had entered the form, but due to a misunderstanding of the recalculate function, the report apparently wasn't uploaded to the website. The hearing officer's report and recommendation were submitted on 10-2, and it adopted the Secretary of State's determination. The Wheelers are attending today via Teams. This is their first offense. Bank accounts were never opened, and there was no money in the account.
Thank you. Thank you. Would the Secretary of State's office or their counsel like to make a statement at this time?
I'm seeking no.
All right, then we'll move on. Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler, Richard Wheeler and June Ellen Wheeler, would you like to make a statement, either or both of you?
Thank you. Yeah. I appreciate you all hearing the case. Like she read, we thought I had submitted it, but the buttons that we copy, not submit. So, hence I didn't understand my first time out trying to do anything like this. And as co-treasurer, I was the one who did work. Other than that, that's it.
He said that he didn't recalculate because there were no funds and it came up zero, and so didn't feel he needed to do the recalculate, not realizing that we were told in the previous meeting that you have to hit recalculate in order for it to actually be submitted And that the only reason he didn hit recalculate was because there was a problem trying to establish a bank account And he couldn't receive any funds or do anything because he had to have a special bank account. And there wasn't an opportunity to get that bank account set up. So there weren't any funds submitted. That's all that happened.
When was that?
It wasn't anything to say submit, and that's one of the questions he had for the people with setting up that program.
What was the question you had about them,
about the submit button or something? The recalculate, not to recalculate, the submit button didn't show up until you pressed recalculate. You really could click submit. But it was hidden until you click recalculate. And you have all zeroes, once you recalculate, that's my thinking. I tend to be a literal thinker, so I couldn't see any need to click recalculate. So I assumed by adding the report that was the actual submission. Like I said, it was my first time. I didn't know how the system worked and didn't see any training. When they informed me that it hadn't been submitted, I was very surprised. So I contacted the local election office and asked them, how do you submit the darn thing then?
I think you got the letter in April, wasn't it?
Yeah, it was in April. Yeah, it was like four months later when he got notified. So that's not what happened. It wasn't deliberate or intentional. It was just not understanding. He had a recalculate button.
Sir, when did you, because I don't see in the report a date as to when you attempted that first attempt to fill it out online and then you had this problem with the recalculation.
When was that? When did you? December before the due date.
Do you recall in the hearing that you had before the hearing officer, did you make that clear that you tried to do it? You did.
Yes, and I asked them if they investigated the website at that point, whatever release it is, to see if that button is like that. I didn't do screenshots at the time because I didn't think I needed to. Otherwise, I would have had the screenshot of it. But it clearly said recalculate and it said submit. So it just confused me when I went through it the first time with all zero values. If I had actual values in it, I would have clicked recalculate. Then I would have seen the submit button. So it's just a misunderstanding of how that system worked. And if the buddy said recalculate slash submit, then I would have understood I still had to click it. This simply said recalculate. Zero values.
What's there to recalculate? She said they did not check that website, right? Yeah, they did not investigate the website. That was his question, and they said that wasn't part of the complaint. But the issue was with the website and how to use the website and instructions with the website. but they said they had not investigated that at all. I have a question now for the Secretary of State's office or the Attorney General's office. Is there any dispute that at the hearing, the Weavers testified that this attempt that they tried, that occurred prior to the deadline? He just said that he testified at the hearing that he tried to do it before the deadline. Is that issue in dispute
Hello. Good morning. Oh, yes, sure. It's Beth Flickner, and I work for the Attorney General's office. I just wanted to clarify my role here today. I am here in representing the commission in and of itself and not as a prosecutor of this matter. So if there's a question regarding the presentation or what occurred during the hearing, the assistant attorney general who was at the hearing is not here right now. And what you have before you is the report recommendation.
Well, okay, so just one thing I'm trying to understand is at the top of page...
So I won't be able to answer any questions other than procedurally if you run into any issues. I just want to make that clear that there's definitive rules, and I'm here on that aspect.
Okay, at the top of page three, the report and recommendation says the Wheelers did not present any evidence to support their claim that Mr. Wheeler attempted to complete the report prior to the deadline. Now, he's just told us that that's not true. Then it goes on to say, well, it says, however, based upon their testimony under oath, there is no reason for this hearing officer to conclude otherwise. I don't understand what that sentence means. So I guess I'm going to assume, unless there's something that somebody can point me to, that what the Wheeler's just told us is accurate, that he testified at the hearing under oath that he attempted to complete the form prior to the deadline. Should we entertain a motion to enter into quasi-judicial deliberations at this point in time so that we can have discussions? Is anyone prepared to make that motion? Well, I have a couple of legal questions. So the motion is going to be made and will be seconded. So I want to know who's going to be in that room with us. The commissioners. Yes. Ms. Fligner, I believe, will be as well.
She is not the assistant attorney general who tried the case, so there's no issue with her being in there as well and the commission.
So do you guys have a Chinese wall on this issue?
Well, yes. I am here today merely to advise you.
Okay. Well, I guess next time when we do these, I would like whoever it is that prosecuted this case to be here so that if we have questions about what happened at the hearing, there's somebody that can answer them.
Okay, I guess what I would say in response to that is you have the hearing officer's report and recommendation. You have the exhibits that were admitted. that's what you are to use in your determinations. We not here for the AG that tried the case to give you additional information that kind of thing Basically the hearing officer held the hearing and at this stage the commission adopts modifies disapproves could send back for further information, that kind of thing. But this is not a relitigation of what the hearing officer has already heard.
Well, I'm trying to understand this report and recommendation. The Wheelers did not present any evidence to support their claim that Mr. Wheeler attempted to complete the report prior to the deadline. That seems to me to be a false statement. And then it goes on to say, however, based upon their testimony under oath, there's no reason for this hearing officer to conclude otherwise. So I assume that when they testified under oath, they testified that they did try to do the report on time and that perhaps the hearing officer is mistaken about what constitutes evidence. But it's not clear to me from the report. And nobody can clarify that here, I guess.
And my response to that would be the hearing officer has made their report and recommendation based on what they heard, the evidence admitted, their ability to judge credibility. They were the one that was actually in the hearing. And that, I mean, that's what, I mean, the report is what it is at this point.
I agree with you. It is what it is. the problem is that it's not clear or it's indeed itself contradictory in my view. And I guess I'm a little – so, Counsel Ritten, talk a little bit about your situation. I understand the Attorney General's situation because the Secretary of State Office was litigating this case, right? And I guess I'm a little nervous about a member who was litigating going in kind of like ex parte with us.
You mean as far as me being president?
Yes.
I mean, my role is I do not represent you in litigation, but I do provide administrative, legal support to the commission.
I'm not sure what your concern is. Well, there were people from the Secretary of State's office that prosecuted this case against the wheelers. So you're in a kind of a Chinese wall situation as well with the Secretary of State's office?
I mean, that's my role is to advise, assist the commission in hearing out your duties. So, I mean, I'm not, I mean, there's not a conflict if that's what you're asking.
Yes, I guess it is what I'm asking.
There is no conflict.
But it's your office that is recommending that we find these people, right? And you're at that office. Why isn't that a conflict?
Keep in mind that this is also a 119 process, so that is a little bit different.
Well, but your original, the Secretary, they brought this case.
I just wanted, I was just about to say this, just for advice, Mr. McNair. yes this is 119 hearing so those would be the rules that you would abide by what occurred during this hearing and We have our assistant attorney general. They do the prosecution of those matters, and we have separate attorneys doing different roles throughout our office.
So you're okay with her coming in? You don't see a problem with that?
I do.
You?
I do not.
Good. Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair. May I ask the wheelers a question?
Of course.
okay it's clear if they went back and looked at that time frame and looked at the screens and how they worked and they said no if they put the logs of the server where you put that form in they could see I put the information in
I don't have access to the logs nor do I not even know how to request them so I didn't know how to get that before the hearing maybe I can maybe I can't I don't know I'm not a lawyer But I know, my wife knows, I tried to put it in. No one believed me that we're following the laws when it actually was submitted. And that's the reason why government doesn't work at this. There wouldn't be any proof that he tried because it didn't process. So other than what he's saying, he filled out the form, and there must be something in their site that shows the form was filled out. It just wasn't properly submitted. So there isn't any, since it didn't get submitted, it looks as though it wasn't. And so that's their argument. There really isn't any proof. Well, let's be clear. I know how software works. I'm a IT professional. I had to create the form. So there's a create form on that site that shows that it was created. And it's set there for a couple of months until the actual button was pushed. So there should be evidence there. You have to look at the logs and how it works. to actually curb it. But no one in the office was willing to do that from what I could tell when I asked the question.
So this is the very first time you ever ran for office, is that correct?
That's correct.
And went to...
But I've never ran for office where I hadn't financed stuff before.
Thank you. And so when you finally received the letter from Secretary of State, that would have been April 8th. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Okay.
And then you responded promptly on April 9th to resolve the issue? That's right.
Okay. So I just want to be clear. I know I've gone through it in December. They asked if we called to confirm that it was received. Now, who would do that if you assume that the item was processed? I mean, you know, if you fill out a form somewhere, do you call that office and say, gee, did you get that form? So they were like blaming us for not having called to be sure that it was submitted in December. When you assume it was submitted, why would you who would you call and why would you call to say? Did you get it? any form any of you fill out, give a contact to them and say, did you get my form?
No, because you assume it went through. And so we were kind of criticized for not having contacted to ask if the form was correctly submitted back in December. But like he said, when he went in in April, the form was still there, it was still filled out. Then he just had to push the correct button So once you hit the submit button did you then get a confirmation that the Secretary of State received it Yeah on the screen it said submitted at that point when the submit button finally came up. It doesn't send you any confirmation.
I'm sorry sir can you please answer we can't we're having a hard time hearing you.
When I click to recalculate the submit button then shows up and then I clicked it and it says it was submitted and the form disappears. But there's no email notification saying hey you submitted this or anything like that. So there's no proof other than what the screen says. Once it was submitted the form was gone so I couldn't pull back up to look at it again.
How did you find out you had to hit recalculate? I was just asking him how did he know he had to hit recalculate, and that's when he got the notice.
He called the collection office, and they explained to him he had to hit the recalculate button, and then the submit button would come up. But otherwise, he wouldn't have known that ahead of time. And you don't get an email confirmation. It just says it was submitted, and that's it. It disappears, like he said. So the point was, it just wasn't intentional. It just... And there's no way of proving it other than that's what he was asking. The form was filled out, so when he went back in, he didn't have to refill out the form. He just had to hit the correct button. So it was kind of like, according to the law, right, it wasn't submitted on time, and that's how the determination was made, period. It wasn't submitted in December, and there's no proof that he filled out the form. That's what he was asking. there must be something in their system that shows the form was filled out in December. Since he didn't have to refill it out in April, he just had to hit the correct button. But he said he didn't have access to that information, and they said it's not something that they were investigating. They didn't feel it was part of the investigation, from our understanding of what was said at the meeting.
All right, questions by the commissioners of the Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler? Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions, but not of the Wheeler's. I have a couple questions for the Secretary of State's office.
Yes, please.
First off, the online form that you fill out, are there instructions accessible online that would then provide information to a candidate as to how they work to then fill that form out online. I'm not familiar with that process. I only get involved once an appeal for an objection is made. I can get back with you. Okay. The second question then is, for a candidate that has to submit a post-general campaign finance report or pre-general campaign finance report, is online the only option available to them or can they also submit that by paper? I think the recommended way is online, but I also, I can get the answer to that, but I would suspect that there are folks that don't have internet access, that we have to have other ways of doing that. I would anticipate that to be true. but I don't know the answer. I don't want to assume. Yes, sir. Okay And to Commissioner McNair comments which I take well regarding the report and recommendation I don believe that the two statements that you had read they a little confusing But I interpreted them I think a little bit differently, perhaps, where the hearing officer made a comment that says that the Wheelers did not present any evidence to support their claim, and Mr. Wheeler attempted to complete the report prior to the deadline. However, based upon their testimony under oath, there is no reason for this hearing officer to conclude otherwise. The way I interpreted that was to reflect that the hearing officer did not receive any documentary evidence, but the testimony under oath led the hearing officer to believe that they did in fact try to submit that information timely. That's just how I read that. That being said, and it's something that I think should be considered, is having the hearing officers here to present these cases so that if we have questions as to their intention, we can ask them what they were writing so that we know what exactly we're confronted with here in their report and recommendation. I certainly have no criticism for the report and recommendation and the way it was written, but as a lawyer, I know that sometimes when I write something, somebody reads something else than what I'm thinking. It can happen. and sometimes it would be very, very helpful if the hearing officer were here so that we could then clarify any ambiguities that might exist in the report and recommendation. I would certainly support that going forward. I'll take that back to our leadership.
All right, any other questions?
I have one more.
Go ahead, sir.
Did the wheelers get any notice that they had a right to object to the report and recommendations pursuant to 119.09. Yes, sir.
Sorry? Yes, sir.
Okay, is that in all those documents that were sent to us?
I believe so. Okay. At some point you could just point out which one it was. I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
Mr. and Ms. Willey,
you were aware that you could file a written objection to the report and recommendation?
Yes.
Have you had a notice of that?
I haven't actually seen the recommendation at this point, so I didn't know what to object to.
But given how the hearing went, did you see any desire by the officers there to actually investigate how it worked back in December?
So I just kind of wrote it off, asked how I can pay the hundred bucks and move on. It's just the way the laws are set up. They don't care, and that's the way it is. That's what it appeared to us when they said the way the online access thing was set up wasn't, kind of said it wasn't even part of the hearing. The hearing just had to do with not filling out the form on time. So we were just in a catch-22.
Thank you very much, folks.
Appreciate it.
Should I go ahead and file it, too? I don't know.
Are we ready now to entertain a motion to go into quasi-judicial deliberations?
I'll make that motion.
Oh, I'm sorry. That's right.
Just for the record. In our materials to address Sandy's concern, there's an Exhibit A, which is the determination of the Secretary of State that was sent to the Wheelers it appears at their Fairfield Township address via email And within probably the template determination it sets forth the right to object That's not the right I'm referring to. I'm referring to the right. So that's the right to object to what the Secretary of State did.
I'm asking about the right under 119.09 that the wheelers had the right within 10 days of receipt of the report and recommendation to file objections to us about that report and recommendation and and administrator has said that they did get that and will give me the exhibit and and then I'll be satisfied with that that we covered that base if I may it
That may be Exhibit E in the packet, where it refers to pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 119, the above reference case as was scheduled for a hearing before the Ohio Election Integrity Commission, and it provides the information, which I'm happy to share with you.
No, no. I just want to make sure that they got it. That's the August 26th. Okay. Correct.
Okay. I believe that's the correct. And the administrator is relieved of getting me the document.
Thank you. Mr. Brown has made a motion that we enter into quasi-judicial deliberations. Is there a second?
Second.
Thank you, Ms. Blime. All in favor of the motion, aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. We're in quasi-judicial deliberations. We're off the record. Is there a motion?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Commission finds that the state has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that respondents failed to file a 2025 post general election campaign finance report in violation of advice code 3517.13c as alleged in the complaint and that we confirm and approve the hearing officers report recommendation and oppose a fine of 100 and for clarification i'm referring to the matter of in re friends of wheeler campaign at all case number 26 dash c dash 0464 is there a
second to the motion discussion on the motion i'm going to oppose the motion because i think the wheelers did acted in good faith to try and comply and if there was any problem with them trying to comply. It was with the computer system and it wasn't with them. I think there may be a technical violation here assuming that there is. I think any fine should be excused given their conduct in terms of attempting to comply.
Any other discussion? I would just concur with Commissioner McNair.
Thank you, sir. Roll call. Michael Kreitz? Yes.
Carl Kirshner? Yes. Matthew Brown? Yes.
Evan Sandy McNair? No. John Lyle?
No. Okay.
Thank you very much, folks. We appreciate you being with us. All right, moving on to the OIC pending case update. I'm going to turn the gavel over to Mr. Kirshner and I'm going to recuse myself. So. Okay, are we clear?
Sounds like we may have an update on the Householder matter.
Please.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
The update regarding the Friends of Larry Householder complaint is that the parties have submitted their post-hearing briefs and reply briefs. The matter is now with the hearing officer to draft the report and recommendation, and we look forward to that shortly. Sense on timing?
It wouldn't be held to the 180 days anyway, but I think it's going, I think, I will be checking with him today to see if it will be available for the next hearing, for the next meeting.
Any questions for the Secretary's office?
Yes.
There's some, we discussed last time whether we're entitled to get the briefs. There was some discussion about that. My sense of it is that it's now clear that we are entitled to the briefs if we want them. Is that fair to say?
That's my understanding, sir.
Okay. And how big are these documents? Right now we're looking at 3,000-plus pages.
Okay.
Well, there's been some discussion and, I guess, disagreement about my request to have documents, paper documents.
given to us. Yes, sir. Is your office going to be supplying these paper documents to us?
It is my understanding we will have one paper document binder at the office. Otherwise,
we will be sending things to you electronically. Well, I really object to that. I think it's
outrageous that you're going to make us on our home computers print out however many hundreds or thousands of pages. I think that's really petty. I think you are obstructing the work of this commission in taking that position. Frankly, I find it outrageous. I ask you to reconsider.
I have just a couple of items
on that. How are the large documents going to be made available? Do we have a
cloud-based way rather than just through email to get the documents to us, shared file, OneDrive, somewhere? We had some discussion about that today. I'm not sure how that's going to happen. Typically what we do is have our IT section put the documents in their laptops. I also know that you don't take those with you. So they will be electronically sent to you. In what form, I'm not sure. should we be taking? No, sir.
So then you'll be able to create a user-friendly way, and I'm sure that there is, for us to be able to access them in the cloud with instructions to assist Mr. McNair and others.
Yes.
Who's responsible for making that decision? The decision not to provide paper?
Yes.
That was the decision of the office, sir.
Who in the office made that decision? I think that was clear in the email that you were sent earlier this week or last week.
Commissioner Rickner, if I could ask you, are you unable to look at the documents if they were to prepare them in the cloud so you could open them up on your computer rather than printing them off?
I assume I don know about the cloud I don know how that works But when they send me stuff electronically I can look at it If there a problem I talked to the administrator and she's clarified it and sent me the documents that that's not a problem. I just, I can't look at one screen and keep that all in my head and trying to think about appropriately this case. I find it, I find it.
Here's what I wanted to figure out, because I'm sure we can connect If you have access to the document on a screen through username and password access, would that be sufficient or must you have the hard copy?
No, it's not sufficient to have 3,000 documents available only on my computer screen. No, it's not.
It's fundamentally wrong. If I may, because I mean, personally, I like paper sometimes too, but 3,000 pages is very voluminous. Even for a litigation attorney, we do like to burn through paper a lot. You know, that's six 500-page binders. That's a lot of documents. However, I understand that it's useful sometimes to have paper as an alternative option, potentially. I'm just asking a question. Would it be viable for any one of us to have the documents sent to us electronically in, say, a share file and have that then provided to a FedEx store who could then buy these copies? the costs then could be expensed back to the Secretary of State's office. Would that be a viable alternative, potentially?
I'd have to take that back to our leadership, sir.
Okay.
I can find out.
Why can't they? They're supposed to be helping us here. They're not helping us. They ought to do it and send it to us. I mean, the statute says they're supposed to be helping us.
If I could suggest, let's work through Commissioner Brown's suggestion, see where that leads us and revisit the issue if necessary. I do know that shipping documents, I mean, I don't know what the cost is for Columbus to St. Cleveland. I do know the cost for shipping a box of documents from Columbus to Miami is, and I ship many of them. It's not inconsequential, so I do appreciate the concern there.
I'm just, as an alternative option, just a proposal. It's not like we have these kinds of cases very often, right? It's going to be one year. We've had this one case. As far as I can tell, it's by far the biggest case that we've had or is in the pipeline. And to not accommodate us, I think, is wrong. All right, let's work with Mr. McNair to see what kind of solutions we can come up with. Any other updates from the Secretary of State's office?
No, sir.
Other questions? All right. Were all of the pending cases coming to the commissioner? Did anything settle? I mean, are we going to have anything to evaluate on the settlement side?
Only once they've objected, but that's the only thing right now. We have some things going through the pipeline right now, but nothing to update you on.
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kirshner, I had one. So I had made a request last time about having S cases and R cases so we could see the difference with the pending cases Are you going to be able to do that I think I lost sight of that but we revisit that soon Okay All right
Chair Kreitz, if you would, please. Thanks for the update.
Yes, sir.
Thank you. Moving on to the next item, other business. Is there any other business?
If I may.
Yes.
While we did address the householder matters on pending case updates in your refusal, I just wanted to follow up to see if there's any other pending case updates.
Okay.
I made a comment earlier along these lines, and maybe now is the best time, or maybe it's other business, if I may.
Of course. Go ahead.
As these cases are presented to us to adjudicate with the report and recommendation from the hearing officers, I think it's really important for us to have the hearing officers available for us, whether in person, which is always by preference, or at least by Zoom, in case there is ambiguity and lack of clarity in the report and recommendation such as we saw earlier today, it would be very helpful to be able to clarify these points and to understand what their decision is. So I think it's very important for us to have access to the analysis.
Yeah, and I'm sure if I could, I think from my perspective, all of these things work in unison. the case status updates, the presence of the hearing officer, and some of the other things that we've been working on just to give us access to the briefs, the underlying briefs in case, just to give us full access to all information, the opportunity to ask questions. I would add to that that I think we saw in the team's meeting this morning, the court reporters' challenges, that sometimes it's not as crisp and doesn't allow for interaction on teams. I would personally prefer that the hearing officer be present in the room so that we could engage, ask questions, fully understand the responses. But I think we need that as a commission and would echo what Mr. Brown said.
And I would echo what both these gentlemen said. I agree. We should have access to the hearing officer.
I agree.
I agree as well.
Is the preference to have them here in person? Certainly my preference as well.
I'm a little bit more fluid, but as Commissioner Kirscher has mentioned, Zoom is not always the most suitable option.
All right, anything else?
Yes. Go ahead If I could just before we leave that item do you think Mr Chair and I fine if it just in the minutes and we make sure that we have the hearing officers present I don't know if we need a motion or it will just be observed on a going-forward basis.
Why don't we just leave it in the minutes as it is right now, and if it becomes an issue, then we'll formalize it with motion. Fair enough. Is that okay?
Yeah, absolutely.
Sorry, Sandy.
It's okay. Where are we on the JCAR review, given that we've made changes, proposed changes to the administrative code? Has that started yet?
I am not aware of what is happening in that process. We can reach out to staff.
Okay. Not a problem. if you could, and then maybe just shoot us a short email about what the status is.
Yes, sir.
Thanks. Next, we have these roughly 1,500 cases that we have to deal with, and I had a concern about our jurisdiction. I just want to thank Heather Williams for her memo and clarifying that, and that was very helpful to me. I assume that staff will be redoing the letter. As we talked about, it's not a reconsideration, but it's a compromise. So any of those documents that you're going to be preparing will have that changed language in it, right?
I will take that back to the office and massage that.
Good. I think that would be a good idea. And then lastly, I got some email about some public records training for staff. Does that apply to us? I mean, I assume we all got it. I believe the agreement was the last training you had to do as well because you're considered employees.
But I can look into that. I'll look into it and let you know.
That would be great. And then if that's the case, I think there was talk about it being in person. So I don't want to do it in person. I want to do it online or whatever it is. You don't drive down from Cleveland?
I do not. I can understand.
In fairness, as Commissioner Lyle has mentioned, we don't even have access to any records to really address anyways.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Any other business?
I have one item, if we have nothing else. The last meeting we talked about moving the December 2nd meeting to December the 10th, and I think we probably need to formalize that with a motion. We'll be able to do that. It's on me over the last meeting.
So I'll entertain a motion, then we go ahead and move the December 2nd meeting. We cancel it, move it to December the 10th, 2026.
I have already moved it on my calendar, so I'll make the motion to move the date to December 10th. Thank you.
All right, thank you, John. for the discussion on the motion all in favor aye aye oh same sign motion carries all right any other business to come before the Commission if not I'll entertain a motion we adjourn move John we have a second second all favor aye aye oh same sign motion carries we're in adjournment thank you very much