LOVELAND, OHIO – A complaint was logged with the Loveland Police Department on February 9, 2006 that Loveland City Manager Tom Carroll violated the law by issuing a press release on October 14, 2005 that contained the personal tax information of a Loveland resident. If found guilty, Loveland law says Carroll must
be removed from office. Cincinnati resident Carrie Davis asked Loveland Police Chief Dennis Rees to investigate and Rees assigned the case to his detective, Sgt Hugh Bomskey.
Bomske had previously been asked by Loveland Magazine if he was doing the investigation. Bomske said, "No, I'm not doing the investigating. I'm the liaison, and the case has been referred to the Clermont County Prosecutor." Bomskey was asked the question twice. He said, “I've gathered some information. I've passed it on to the Prosecutor and obviously I'm not to do the investigation - for obvious reasons." Bomskey was referring to the fact that Carroll is ultimately his boss, being the Director of Safety, and it being a be a conflict of interest to do the investigation.
It now appears that the Loveland Police Department did a cursory investigation and that it was Loveland Chief of Police, Dennis Rees who cleared Carroll of the charges. Rees works directly for Carroll, who's responsibilities include the hiring and firing the Chief of Police.
Tony Brock, a Cermont's County Assistant Prosecuter has now told Loveland Magazine that they did not in fact investigate the complaint. Brock said that their office has no investigative staff at all, and does not conduct investigations. Brock said, “We don't investigate. Loveland did the investigation.”
Brock also said that there was no written report and that he was not going to release or disclose any information about the matter.
Loveland Magazine was however able to obtain a transcript of a letter on the subject sent to Carrie Davis from the Prosecutor's office. Davis is a rights advocate who has helped Loveland women who have been charged with crimes for owning minuscule amounts of income tax money. It was Davis who first suggested that Carroll had violated the law by releasing the personal tax records of a Loveland citizen. In the letter, Clermont County Prosecuter Don White (Brock's boss) said, “I have reviewed your email of March 2, 2006. While I appreciate your input, I nevertheless remain convinced that it would not be appropriate for this office to pursue criminal charges against any Loveland official at this time. County prosecutors in the State of Ohio are vested with a great deal of discretions in determining whether to bring charges. Last year, approximately 33,000 traffic and criminal cases were filed in this county. Given these numbers, it should be obvious that prosecutorial discretion must be exercised judiciously. In my opinion, the Loveland case is not one that merits pursuing.”
Davis said discretion is usually exercised when the laws haven't caught up with the 
norms of society like the old sex crime laws, or when the case isn't strong enough to go forward, or when filing charges too early or without sufficient evidence would jeopardize the ability to later obtain a conviction. Davis said, “This appears to be an abuse of prosecutorial discretion or selective prosecution to protect a political ally from answering for his conduct and to avoid the mandatory removal from office.”
In a memo to the Loveland Solicitor dated February 28, 2006, Loveland Police Chief Dennis Rees said that, “Tony Brock indicated they would not pursue any charges.”
According to Brock, the Loveland Police Department had sent him the press release issued by Carroll that was the subject of the complaint, and some news stories they had downloaded from the Internet from newspapers and TV stations. Brock refused to provide the documents to Loveland Magazine.
Brock also said that in any case, they would not prosecute violations of Loveland's Code of Ordinances. He did say that he looked at portions of the Ohio Revised Code sent to him by a citizen that he would not name, but that it would only be the Loveland Solicitor who could prosecute a violation of Loveland's laws. He said that the Loveland Solicitor would have to bring the case to the Loveland Mayor's Court. He said, “Loveland enforces their own Municipal Code.”
From documents Loveland Magazine has since obtained, and conversations with the Prosecutors office it appears that the only role Cermont's County played was to review the limited documents provided by Bomskey. Brock was asked how he new if Bomskey provided all of the pertinent documents and why did Bomskey provide press stories, when it wasn't the press who was being investigated for releasing information – it was Carroll. Brock said that they wanted to know if any of the information in the press release was already in the public domain. Brock provided no explanation when asked that if Carroll's press release confirmed or denied information in news stories, would 't that be a violation of the law? Wasn't that the same as if Carrol had released the information himself? Brock was also asked how the public could be assured of an independent investigation if the Loveland Police Department had asked an agency that doesn't even do investigations, to investigate. Brock said that the Prosecutors office could review investigations, but does not do investigations.
In an article published by the Community Press on March 8, 2006: PROSECUTOR CLEARS CARROLL, CITY, Carrol is quoted as saying, “"I'm pleased Chief Rees took the matter seriously and had it investigated by an outside party," Carroll said. "I'm glad there was a thorough investigation done and the allegations had no merit.”
However, in a memo to Prosecuter Brock from Sgt. Bomskey dated February 10, 2006 Bomskey says, “Greetings, I have been formally requested by my supervisor, Chief Dennis Rees to explore the possibility of Ohio Revised Code being breached possibly by our now current City of Loveland City Manager – Tom Carroll.” In the memo, Bomskey only asks for “assistance” from Brock.
Also, in the memo sent by Chief Rees to the City Solicitor, Rees says, “Detective Sargent Bomskey further reviewed the Loveland Municipal Code and determined no specific information was presented in the media release in question that was not
already made available in the local print media, radio, and television by (resident) and her attorneys. No charges will be pursued by the Loveland Police Division.”
Brock was asked just who should do this type of investigation if the the public demanded a impartial and independent inquiry into violations of the Ohio Revised Code by the chief officer of a city like Loveland, and to avoid employees investigating their boss. He said that he wasn't quite sure, but perhaps it should have been done by the County Sheriff.
At the Loveland City Council meeting of March 14, 2006, Mayor Rob Weisgerber said he had asked City Solicitor Frank Klaine whether or not the City could pay Carrol's personal legal bills since he had been cleared of charges in the matter. Weisgerber reported that Klaine told him they could, and he asked council to approve a motion to reimburse Carroll. Council voted for the motion with Paul Elliott voting, “No.” Neither the cost of the legal bill or the attorney to be paid, was discussed before or after the vote. Elliott later chastised the Mayor for “blindsiding” him at the very end of the council meeting with the request.
For more information see: CITY MANAGER INVESTIGATED FOR RELEASE OF PERSONAL TAX INFORMATION published on Friday, February 24, 2006
Recent Comments