Defense spending and 'public officials'

After watching recent congressional hearings regarding defense sequestration, I couldn't help but think that President Obama is taking a page from the President Clinton playbook; i.e., attempt to "balance" the federal budget on the backs of the Defense Department.

During this particular Capitol Hill hearing, televised on C-SPAN, a number of private-sector businesses which support the nation's defense said layoffs are imminent if the cuts in defense spending go through.

Today, I read the following from Marcus Weisgerber at www.federaltimes.com:

"Increasingly concerned that time is running out for Congress to avoid $500 billion in automatic defense cuts, the Pentagon is assessing all options, including the possible implications of a one-year, $100 billion, governmentwide “mini-sequester” deficit-reduction deal, Defense Department and industry sources said.

"Obama administration officials are adamant they are not planning for sequestration and continue to urge lawmakers to pass a long-term debt-reduction deal that would avoid automatic cuts entirely, but worries are mounting that lawmakers will be unable to strike a deal to cut revenues while increasing taxes before the November elections. …

"The four scenarios they’re considering are:

• Congress does not act and sequestration happens.

• During the lame-duck session of Congress after the November elections, a plan is constructed to thwart sequestration.

• Members of Congress come up with a $1.2 trillion-cut to avert sequestration before the election.

• Congress inserts language into a continuing resolution that delays sequestration another year or two when there is a less-heated political environment, but the government implements the first and perhaps second year of cuts, which some refer to as the “mini-sequester.”

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but three of the four aforementioned scenarios make reference to partisan politics and/or the Nov. 6 presidential and congressional elections.

Why?

At the risk of being (yet again) more than a little obtuse, I can't help but wonder why our national "leaders" are focusing on political reaction when they are employed by American taxpayers to focus on national security.

From The Heritage Foundation, we read: "President Obama’s unrelenting demand for defense budget cuts will ultimately lead to a severely hollow military. His unwillingness to deal with the current ramifications of sequestration, despite the advice of senior level government and military officials, is an example of the administration’s disregard for a legitimate defense policy."

Former President Clinton employed a similar tack on defense. We all know how that worked out with two separate terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (etc).

Jim Kouri writes at www.conservativecrusader.com, "Obama and his administration – filled with retreads from President Clinton's administration – believes in allowing the United Nations and the European Union to dictate U.S. defense policy and strategy. His faith in these two entities will result less protection for Americans."

I'm afraid he's right. And that's not good.

* * *

On a more local matter of government, I have had a number of friends forward information to me in which the executive director of the Highland County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Mr. Bob Lambert, insists he is not a public official.

Of course, Mr. Lambert did seem to acknowledge in June on the HCP website that he was a public official, based on Section 102.01 of the Revised Code: "Public official or employee means any person who is elected or appointed to an elective office or employed by any public agency."

The last time I asked the Ohio state auditor if the CVB were a public agency, the answer was yes. But if I have learned nothing else in two decades of dealing with the state of Ohio on legal questions, I have learned this: rarely does one get a simple "yes" or "no" answer to any question.

As I corresponded with Paul M. Nick, executive director of the Ohio Ethics Commission, today in search of clarification on the definition of "public official," specifically to its application in the position of executive director of the Highland County Convention and Visitors Bureau: In first defining whether the Highland County Convention and Visitors Bureau is, itself, a public entity, I previously questioned the Ohio Auditor of State Office. The reply from the Auditor's Office was simple and direct: "If we audit it, it is a public office." The Highland County Convention and Visitors Bureau is, in fact, audited by the state.

See: www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/Reports/2010/Highland_County_Conven…

With that said, in the matter of the Highland County CVB's current executive director, his services are contracted. According to one board member, he does not receive PERS nor is he required to submit the ethics disclosure form.

Thus, by contracting the executive director's services, does the CVB Board exempt him from status as a "public official," as defined by 102.01 (B) – “Public official or employee” means any person who is elected or appointed to an office or is an employee of any public agency?

As of this writing, after three separate requests to the Ohio Attorney General, the Ohio Auditor and the Ohio Ethics Commission, the only response has been this from the AG's office:

Dear Rory,

Thank you for contacting the Ohio Attorney General's Office regarding the definition of "public official" as related to the position of Executive Director of the Highland County Convention and Visitors Bureau. You may be able to obtain clarification for this definition by contacting the Law Director for the City of Hillsboro. Their office is located at 130 North High Street, Hillsboro, Ohio 45133 and can also be reached by calling 937-393-5219.

The Attorney General's office is the legal representative for the state and all its departments, boards and commissions under R.C.109.02.

Again, thank you for contacting our office. If we can ever be of assistance to you in the future, feel free to contact us.

Very respectfully yours,

Simone Morgen
Constituent Liaison
Constituent Services

My response was:

"I am familiar with the city law director. This is a county office, however. The county prosecutor believes it is a public position. I would like the state's opinion."

Simone Morgen has yet to respond.

However, in 2010, as reported by this newspaper, Highland County Commissioner Shane Wilkin said he contacted a Convention and Visitors Bureau board member and suggested a meeting be scheduled as soon as possible to address the vacancy (in the position of executive director).

The Convention and Visitors Bureau receives tax dollars through the local hotel/motel "bed" tax, Wilkin said.

The Ohio Auditor of State said: "The (CVB) Bureau is responsible for disbursing lodging taxes for allowable purposes."

In March 2011, the CVB Board met in executive session to discuss "the hiring of an executive director."

Now, I'm just an old Ridgerunner. If Mr. Lambert insists he is not a public official, well, he's a nice man and I believe him – regardless of what the state auditor says or what the local CVB does in executive session.

In all fairness, the issue that started this mess was nothing more than the headline on a recent letter to the editor, which referenced Mr. Lambert as a "public official."

I'm not sure why Mr. Lambert so vehemently objects to being a Highland County public official, but I will respect his wishes.

The headline in question in our letters to the editor section has been edited from "Festival of the Bells committee member addresses inaccurate comments by public official," to "Festival of the Bells committee member addresses inaccurate comments by executive director of Highland County Convention and Visitors' Bureau."

It's time we all just get along. Welcome back to the private sector, Bob!

Rory Ryan is publisher of The Highland County Press.