Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3


Christopher P.Finney, Esq. Jeffrey G. Stagnaro, Esq.f Peter A. Saba,Esq.'t PaulT. Saba,Esq. ' William J. Patterson,Esq. IsaacT. Heintz, Esq. Sean P.Donovan, Esq.*
* Also admitted inKentucky
f Also admitted in Florida


Office Locations

Sharon J. Sobers, Esq.A

Hyde Park
2623 Eric Avenue

James K. Keller, Esq. Patrick R. Veith, Esq. * Jeffrey M. Nye, Esq. # Tricia G.Tomich, Esq. Bradley M. Gibson,Esq. Megan K. Meyer,Esq.
Of Counsel

Cincinnati OH 45208

7373 Bcechmont Avenue Suite 100

Cincinnati OH 45230

TerrenceM. Veith, Esq.'

Also admitted in Michigan

it Also admitted in Indiana

(513)533-2700 (513)533-2999 fax


A Certified Labor & Employment Law Specialist

September 3, 2013
Christopher P. Finney, Esq.

E-Mail Address: cfinney@fssp-law.com

Direct Dial: (513) 533-2980 Direct Fas: (513) 533-2990


Joseph T. Deters. Esq. Hamilton County Prosecutor

230 E. Ninth Street, Suite 4000 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Dear Joe:

Illegal campaigning; bv Oak Hills Board of Education

As you are aware, this firm represents COAST, the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes. One of the issues that COAST is most keenly focused upon is the use of taxpayer resources to campaign for higher taxes.
In the case of Boards of Education, this is expressly illegal, being a violation of O.R.C 3315.07 (C)(1) which provides:

Except as provided in division (C)(2) of this section, no board of education shall use public funds to support or oppose the passage of a school levy or bond issue or to compensate any school district employee for time spent on any activity
intended to influence the outcome of a school levy or bond issue election.
We have become aware of numerous instances wherein the Oak Hills Board of Education is

engaging in campaign activities on the taxpayer dime. The most blatant of these instances occurred recently wherein the School District's website asks folks to turn in pro-levy signs to "any school building or to district office for them to be recycled." We are certain this means "used in the next prolevy campaign," which of course is a direct violation of O.R.C 3315.07 (C)(1).