Several weeks ago, the Township Trustees requested an opinion from the Ohio Attorney General's office to address several issues that we felt were unclear with regard to the merger commission. Today, we received Opinion No. 2008-035. Below is a direct copy of their conclusions:
Volume #77, Report #208, Article #12--Monday, October 27, 2008
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION
No. 2008-035. Requested by Sylvania Township Law Director Truman A. Greenwood. SYLLABUS:
1. If a person is named as a candidate for township representative in a petition for a merger study commission that is submitted to the electors under R.C. 709.45 and, prior to the election, the candidate ceases to be a resident of the unincorporated area of the township, the candidate lacks the residency qualification required to serve in the position of township member of the merger study commission if the creation of the commission is approved by the electors. The board of township trustees has no authority to appoint a replacement candidate prior to the election, but if the creation of a commission is approved by the electors, the election of a township candidate who does not reside in the unincorporated area of the township will automatically create a vacancy on the commission to be filled by the board of township trustees under R.C. 709.46(B).
2. A community improvement corporation that is established under R.C. Chapter 1724 and receives financial support from a municipal corporation and a township does not have authority to contribute funds or other resources to an entity established to support or oppose a ballot issue relating to the proposed merger of the municipal corporation and township.
So, we now know how Mr. Steinman, the commissioner who has been annexed from the township to the city, will be replaced if the commission is approved by voters of the city and township. That helps clarify this process going forward. While many people thought this would be the process for replacement, the law was not clear as to these specific circumstances, so I am glad we asked the opinion and now have clear direction.
For a bit of background on item 2 above, there was a lot of concern among residents and my fellow trustees about the Sylvania Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) making significant contributions to OneSylvania. The CIC is funded in part by membership fees of the city, township and Sylvania schools. While the CIC has been a neutral facilitator and financial supporter during the last few years of 'studying' the potential tax affects and efficiencies of a merger, I raised objections when OneSylvania came to the CIC and requested funding for the campaign itself. But my objections were overruled by a majority of the executive committee and board. Okay, actually, everyone but me supported giving OneSylvania up to $15,000 for the campaign.
Now we have an Attorney General opinion which clearly states that this campaign contribution was not an authorized expenditure of the CIC. The reasoning is pretty logical, in my opinion. Townships are restricted in where and how we can make expenditures; we can only spend money where we have clear authority to do so. We can only contribute money to a CIC to defray the administrative expenses of the CIC. Townships do not have the authority to expend funds to support or oppose a ballot issue pertaining to a merger, and we are not allowed to use the CIC as our agent for this purpose. The AG Opinion concluded that because township funds are commingled with other funds of the CIC, the CIC is unable to use any of its funds for this purpose.
