Commissioner's interest in Greenfield position poses no more conflict than other recent activity

Well, as predicted, the early returns are in.

After The Highland County Press reported last week that county commissioner Jeremy Shaffer has applied for the Greenfield city/village manager position, a number of responses quickly followed.

Some of the early opinions are published on our website; others are not.

The initial feedback seems to be overwhelmingly unfavorable for a sitting county commissioner to seek another public office, while insisting that he can perform both roles adequately and without conflict.

Commissioner Shaffer is among several possible candidates for the position of Greenfield city (village) manager. Current city manager Betty Bishop previously announced her plans to retire at the end of this year.

Shaffer, who was elected county commissioner in the 2010 general election, said he has no plans to resign as commissioner. "Right now, I don't know that I am a candidate for the position," Shaffer told The HCP on Sept. 28. "I did apply."

When I asked the commissioner if there were any potential conflicts of interest in serving as both village manager and county commissioner, he said he had contacted the County Commissioners' Association of Ohio.

"Larry Long (CCAO executive director) said he doesn't think the two positions are incompatible," Shaffer said.

As of last Thursday, Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins said Shaffer "has not asked me if it is a conflict" to serve simultaneously as county commissioner and as a Greenfield administrator.

To Shaffer's credit, he did not involve local taxpayers' expense in his pursuit of the Greenfield job. That's commendable.

However, after observing some fairly recent public official maneuverings in Highland County, why should any of us be surprised by this?

We have, in Highland County, at least one public official who stands to profit from entering into a recent private-public property agreement. Maybe this was negotiated at arm's length. I don't know.

We have, in Highland County, current and former public officials who have – or had – private business partnerships with one another while serving as public officials.

In some instances, these partnerships were not publicly disclosed on the local level prior to public votes involving one or more private business partners who happen to be public officials. (Granted, their respective Financial Disclosure Statements are available as public record through the Ohio Ethics Commission.)

Still, the more honorable approach would be to follow the lead of Highland County Common Pleas Court/Juvenile and Probate Division Judge Kevin Greer.

In a court proceeding earlier this year to determine if an infant child would be allowed to attend the funeral of her great-great-grandmother, Judge Greer, upon reading the obituary, realized a relationship with a surviving family member.

The judge announced this information before hearing the case and offered attorneys for both parties to voice any objections. (There were no objections.)

The fact of the matter is this: Judge Greer disclosed even the "appearance" of any potential conflicts of interest beforehand.

The Ohio Ethics Commission has this as its "underlying principle," according to Merom Brachman, chair of the Ethics Commission:

"The underlying principle - for all functions of the Ethics Law - is to uphold straight-forward standards of conduct that maintain integrity and propriety in connection with decisions and policy involving public funds.

"Particularly, the law prohibits conflict of interest or personal gain in making and implementing public decisions."

That last sentence is a good one.

"The law prohibits conflict of interest or personal gain in making and implementing public decisions," Mr. Brachman said.

By the way, Mr. Brachman received his bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from Harvard University. He also served in the United States Air Force.

"We who have followed the law's history, and the responsiveness of so many in public service in Ohio, have seen the benefit of raising overall confidence in the work of public offices, officials, and agencies operating all across the state. Thus, for all who interact with government in Ohio, the Ethics Commission wants no mystery about the purposes served by the law," Mr. Brachman said.

Nevertheless, there are "mysteries" about the law itself and, of similar significance, the spirit of law.

In fact, we've been down this road not that long ago when we reminded our readers of Divisions (D) and (E) of Ohio Revised Code Section 102.03, which provide: 

(D) No public official or employee shall use or authorize the use of the authority or influence of his office or employment to secure anything of value or the promise or offer of anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon him with respect to his duties.  

(E) No public official or employee shall solicit or accept anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon him with respect to his duties. 

To be clear, there's no implication here that anyone is in violation of the "letter of the law."

There is, perhaps, an inference that the spirit of the law has been tested.

Given some of what has transpired in Highland County government in the past few years, some might say the local spirit of the law is in need of a good exorcism.

But that's up to you, the voters, of Highland County.

Didn't Einstein once say, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Rory Ryan is publisher of The Highland County Press.