In My Opinion
Ms. White wrote:
''The ORC concernig increases in salary of public officails, Parrish put on the Home page. He has stated before that this ORC does not have to be upheld in Valleyview because Jim Petro said so. I have never seen that the State legislature annuled this law or changed it to exclude Valleyview.''
Ms. white is correct that the Ohio House and Senate have not repealed the law concerning when the salaries for elected officials can be set. The Opinion from the Attorney General's Office (Available on the front page of the website under the community pages) states that once a person has left office you cannot go back after them for the overpayment of their salary if they have provided a service.
If the former Mayor was still in office the Village could have recovered the overpayment. If the Council at the time and Village Solicitor had been doing their job the former Mayor would have never been overpaid. Ms. White wants to blame the former Mayor who did not vote on the Ordinance to change his salary and he did not write the checks to pay himself.
Yes, conceivably the Village could sue the former Mayor for the overpayments, but the Village would have to rely that the Courts would rule in its favor and it could potential cost the Village thousands of dollars to pursue the matter in the courts. If the Village were to lose, and based on the opinion from the AGO which is based on current case law the Village would lose the case, the Village would still be out the Money and then you would add to it the money lost by taking it to court. Does that make sense when the Village has a limited budget to waste the funds pursuing a lawsuit that they would mostly likely lose?
I do not believe that I screw up my supporting Tom Watkins for Mayor. As I have stated time and time again, there were three candidates and of the three Tom Watkins was the best choice to help get the Village back on the right track. I did not believe and still believe that the other two candidates could not get the job done.
In reviewing the finances of the Village the Money that should have gone to the IRS and PERS never went in to anyone's pockets. It should have been sent to the IRS and PERS, but the Village Clerk/Treasurers at the time did not send in the Money. That money was used to pay the other expenses of the Village and it should not have been used that way. No one stole the money, they jsut did not do their jobs and it cost those Clerk/Treasurers thousands of dollars each to cover the costs of the penalties and interest the Village incurred. People made mistakes, but they were because the Clerk/Treasurers never learned their jobs and the Councils never did the oversight that they should have. Honest mistakes were made and unforunately it cost two people thousands of dollars because they did not learn their jobs.
Ms. White wrote:
''The ORC concernig increases in salary of public officails, Parrish put on the Home page. He has stated before that this ORC does not have to be upheld in Valleyview because Jim Petro said so. I have never seen that the State legislature annuled this law or changed it to exclude Valleyview.''
Ms. white is correct that the Ohio House and Senate have not repealed the law concerning when the salaries for elected officials can be set. The Opinion from the Attorney General's Office (Available on the front page of the website under the community pages) states that once a person has left office you cannot go back after them for the overpayment of their salary if they have provided a service.
If the former Mayor was still in office the Village could have recovered the overpayment. If the Council at the time and Village Solicitor had been doing their job the former Mayor would have never been overpaid. Ms. White wants to blame the former Mayor who did not vote on the Ordinance to change his salary and he did not write the checks to pay himself.
Yes, conceivably the Village could sue the former Mayor for the overpayments, but the Village would have to rely that the Courts would rule in its favor and it could potential cost the Village thousands of dollars to pursue the matter in the courts. If the Village were to lose, and based on the opinion from the AGO which is based on current case law the Village would lose the case, the Village would still be out the Money and then you would add to it the money lost by taking it to court. Does that make sense when the Village has a limited budget to waste the funds pursuing a lawsuit that they would mostly likely lose?
I do not believe that I screw up my supporting Tom Watkins for Mayor. As I have stated time and time again, there were three candidates and of the three Tom Watkins was the best choice to help get the Village back on the right track. I did not believe and still believe that the other two candidates could not get the job done.
In reviewing the finances of the Village the Money that should have gone to the IRS and PERS never went in to anyone's pockets. It should have been sent to the IRS and PERS, but the Village Clerk/Treasurers at the time did not send in the Money. That money was used to pay the other expenses of the Village and it should not have been used that way. No one stole the money, they jsut did not do their jobs and it cost those Clerk/Treasurers thousands of dollars each to cover the costs of the penalties and interest the Village incurred. People made mistakes, but they were because the Clerk/Treasurers never learned their jobs and the Councils never did the oversight that they should have. Honest mistakes were made and unforunately it cost two people thousands of dollars because they did not learn their jobs.
