By Aaron Christopher Knapp | LorainPoliticsUnplugged.com

I. The Reimbursement Admission That Opened a Door They Cannot Close

The recent discussion over individual credit cards for the Lorain County Commissioners should have been a simple administrative matter, but instead it revealed much more about how this board conducts itself when it believes no one is paying attention. As the commissioners discussed the resolutions, all three freely talked about an “event” they attended in 2024, which Commissioner Marty Gallagher described as a trade show, and each one acknowledged being reimbursed with county funds for traveling there. That might seem routine at first glance until one recalls that in 2024 Gallagher was not a commissioner, not a county employee, and not a public representative in any capacity. He was a civilian, yet according to his own words and those of the other commissioners, he received reimbursement for county travel.

This situation also invites a larger concern about how often this board has reimbursed individuals for travel or expenses without verifying whether the person was legally authorized to incur them. Reimbursement is not discretionary generosity; it must follow guidelines, statutory definitions, and internal controls intended to limit abuse. When officials openly admit on the record that reimbursements were issued to someone who did not yet hold public office, it signals that the internal processes meant to ensure integrity either do not exist or are not being followed. Their own words created the grounds for investigation, not because anyone is “out to get them,” but because the law leaves no room for this kind of casual approach to public money. Once an elected body shows comfort with reimbursing a private citizen for county travel, it becomes impossible to trust that every other reimbursement issued in that period met lawful standards. The commissioners told on themselves, and that is what makes this event so significant.

II. The Self-Benefiting Vote That Exposed Their Ethical Blind Spot

During the same meeting, the commissioners voted to approve individual credit cards in their own names, each voting affirmatively on resolutions that conferred financial authority and personal benefit directly upon themselves. In many governmental bodies, ethics officers would immediately flag this conduct as inappropriate because public officials are expected to abstain from votes where the outcome yields personal authority, privileges, or direct benefit. This principle is not subtle or obscure but one of the basic pillars of Ohio ethics guidance. Officials should not use their own vote to expand their personal access to public funds, yet here it was done openly and without hesitation. The commissioners treated the matter as procedural rather than ethical, which shows a profound misunderstanding of the standards expected of public officeholders.

The ease with which this vote occurred reflects a deeper issue that has defined this board’s conduct for years. Dave Moore previously voted yes for himself when confronted with his own rental assistance scandal, where federal funds were accepted, the tenant was evicted anyway, and the properties were sold after Job and Family Services discovered the problem. When that scandal emerged, a letter from former Prosecutor Burge attempted to diffuse the situation, but sources familiar with the ethics review later explained that the Ohio Ethics Commission actually wanted prosecution and that former Prosecutor Tomlinson refused to act. That refusal shielded Moore at the time, but those protective arrangements no longer exist now that Prosecutor Cillo and a special prosecutor are involved. This history matters because it shows that the board has long seen itself as exempt from standard restrictions on self-interested actions, and the credit card vote is just the latest expression of that mindset. The problem is not the credit cards themselves but the way the commissioners treat public authority as a personal entitlement rather than a public duty.

III. The Habit of Speaking Without Research and the Misinformation It Produces

Another revealing moment occurred when Moore publicly questioned whether rewards points or travel benefits generated through government credit cards would be taxable income or even illegal. The issue might seem technical, yet it underscores a troubling pattern.

They give the appearance of authority without doing the necessary preparation, and as a result, misinformation repeatedly enters the public record.

This is not merely a matter of poor communication but a failure of governance. When public officials speak on issues they have not researched, they distort public understanding and mislead employees, partners, and the public. The commissioners routinely present themselves as confident authorities even when their statements conflict with established law or real-world conditions. This habit affects more than credit card policies; it has influenced discussions of federal grants, public safety systems, fiscal projections, and legal obligations. Their frequent misstatements are not accidents but symptoms of a governing body that makes decisions based on convenience rather than accuracy. This behavior undermines public trust because every confident declaration that proves untrue weakens the credibility of all their other claims.

IV. The Simple, Lawful Solution They Ignored Because It Offered No Personal Advantage

The county already maintains a credit card through LorMet, with authorized users listed and established oversight mechanisms in place. If the commissioners genuinely needed more flexibility, they could have requested a higher limit on the existing card, a standard administrative adjustment that complies with ORC 301.27 and maintains transparent oversight. Instead, they pushed for three entirely new cards issued to themselves individually. They referenced a “policy” that supposedly governed the use of these cards, yet that policy had never been passed by resolution or published for public view. Any policy not enacted through formal action cannot be considered binding, and referencing it as if it exists only adds to the confusion surrounding their claims.

The explanation offered by Riddell that a new card was needed because of inefficiencies in the county’s bill payment process does not withstand scrutiny. Government entities do not pay late fees or interest charges on properly approved bills, and they are exempt from sales tax.

V. The MARCS Radio System: A Web of Delays, Contradictions, and Convenience

When conversation shifted to the MARCS radio system, the commissioners once again presented timelines and claims that do not align with on-the-ground conditions. For months they had stated that MARCS would be tested by fall 2025, yet fall has come and gone without testing, and the system remains offline. They previously insisted that all towers would be built and operational by now, but a contact with the fair board confirmed that no fiber has even been installed at the fairgrounds tower site, contradicting statements made by county officials including Karen Perkins. The board has never provided a clear explanation for this discrepancy, nor have they reconciled the timeline they promoted with the work that has actually been completed. The public hears confident assurances, but independent verification tells a different story.

This problem becomes more significant when viewed alongside the fact that the Harris 700/800 Phase II network already functions across ninety percent of the county, and agencies remain firmly committed to it. Even if MARCS were activated tomorrow, no agency would willingly switch unless pressured or unless the Harris network were dismantled, which mirrors the commissioners’ earlier attempt to dismantle the Five-City radio network as a strategy to force adoption of MARCS. That strategy became the subject of litigation, and a federal judge saw through it clearly enough to allow CCI’s Second Amended Complaint to move forward. Ironically, much of CCI’s argument was constructed from statements the commissioners themselves made publicly during open meetings. Their tendency to speak loosely without verifying facts once again created legal exposure, reinforcing the larger theme of a board that repeatedly harms itself through its own words.

VI. The Necessity of Civilian Oversight Because the Board Cannot Police Its Own Narrative

When the Harris system underwent testing, the fire chiefs chose to include civilian observers to ensure that results were not manipulated and that the process reflected real-world conditions from the perspective of those who rely on the network. Such oversight is essential because when a system affects public safety, transparency must be part of the process. The commissioners have already shown through contradictory statements and shifting narratives that they cannot be the sole source of truth regarding MARCS testing. If MARCS testing finally occurs, independent observers must be present, the 9-1-1 commission must be involved, and the results must be documented by people who are not politically invested in the outcome. The commissioners have forfeited the benefit of the doubt because their history shows a repeated disregard for accuracy.

Civilian oversight is not about disrespect or distrust of government; it is about ensuring accountability in jurisdictions where officials have shown they will not provide it voluntarily. The commissioners have contradicted themselves too many times and have made claims that did not match observable facts too often to expect the public to accept their word without verification. Oversight protects the integrity of the process and protects the public from misinformation. It also protects the commissioners from being accused of manipulation, which should matter to them if they truly care about public confidence.

VII. The Four-Hundred-Thousand-Dollar Grant That Contradicted Their Own Newsletters

During discussion of funding, Moore stated that a four-hundred-thousand-dollar grant would replenish the General Fund for spending that had already occurred. This statement sharply contradicts the commissioners’ prior assertions, both verbal and printed, claiming that the radio system project had used no General Fund dollars whatsoever. Their newsletters repeated this phrase multiple times, and it appeared frequently during public hearings. If the grant truly replenishes spending that came from the General Fund, then their newsletters were false. If no General Fund money was used, then Moore’s statement was false. These two positions cannot be reconciled, and yet both have been presented to the public as fact. This contradiction is not a minor confusion but another instance where the board appears to shift its narrative depending on what argument is most convenient in the moment.

Such inconsistencies weaken public trust not only in the MARCS project but in every financial representation the board makes. The public has no reason to believe the situation was misunderstood or misspoken because these inconsistencies occur too frequently to be accidental. When leaders adjust facts to suit their current needs rather than maintaining consistent and verified information, the credibility of the entire administration erodes. The county deserves accurate information about how funds are spent, which grants are replacing which expenditures, and whether taxpayer dollars are being used responsibly. Instead, they receive shifting explanations that undermine confidence and hint at mismanagement.

VIII. A Broader Pattern That No Longer Looks Like Coincidence

When viewed together, the issues revealed during the credit card discussion form a pattern that cannot be dismissed as simple oversight or occasional error. The reimbursement to a civilian for county travel, the commissioners voting to grant themselves personal spending authority, the lack of a formally enacted credit card policy, the contradictory statements about grant funding, the inconsistent representations about MARCS progress, the decline in the county’s credit rating due to overspending, and the past record of hidden payouts and disputes over mislabeled expenses such as the Battistelli settlement all fit into a larger narrative of a board that handles public finances with a level of carelessness that borders on recklessness. These issues would be concerning if they occurred occasionally. Taken together, they form a picture of governance in which internal controls either do not operate or are routinely ignored.

This pattern is why the comparison to Cuyahoga County arises so frequently. It is why people speak of indictments moving closer, why concerns about accountability grow louder, and why an independent prosecutor has become necessary. The commissioners have created the conditions for their own scrutiny through years of decisions that conflict with law, ethics guidance, and transparent governance. Their contradictions, misstatements, and self-serving actions are not isolated incidents but evidence of a systemic problem within the administration. The public deserves better, and the situation now requires oversight because the board has shown it will not police itself. The more one examines their conduct, the more it becomes clear that this administration has a transparency problem, a credibility problem, and a legal problem that can no longer be ignored.

IX. Final Thought

Government works best when it remains predictable, stable, and guided by consistent adherence to law and fact. When a board becomes a source of confusion, contradiction, and controversy rather than a stabilizing force, public trust erodes and the legitimacy of the institution itself becomes vulnerable. The credit card debate did not simply reveal differing views about administrative tools. It exposed the deeper fractures under the surface of Lorain County’s leadership. These fractures are the result of years of choices made without proper oversight, without proper research, and without the humility that public office requires. Whether one attributes these problems to incompetence, indifference, or something more intentional, the consequences remain the same. The taxpayers of Lorain County are left with a board whose own statements regularly contradict each other, whose financial management raises significant questions, and whose actions increasingly resemble those that have brought down other county governments in Ohio’s recent history. Only time will reveal how far these issues extend, but the evidence presented in their own words suggests that Lorain County is at a pivotal moment where accountability can no longer be delayed or denied.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER & AI USE NOTICE

This article contains a mixture of documented facts, public records, firsthand observations, and informed opinion. Nothing in this publication should be interpreted as legal advice, financial advice, or professional guidance. Readers are encouraged to independently verify all information and consult qualified legal counsel before drawing conclusions or taking action based on the material presented here. Any references to potential wrongdoing, misconduct, or legal exposure reflect the author’s interpretation of available information and are not assertions of criminal guilt. All individuals discussed are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise through proper legal processes.

Portions of this article were drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The author reviewed, edited, and approved all text to ensure accuracy and alignment with available records. AI tools used in the creation of this content do not provide legal analysis and are not a substitute for independent human judgment, research, or professional consultation. The inclusion of AI generated text does not alter the intent of the author, and the responsibility for all statements and conclusions herein remains solely with the author.

About The Author

Aaron Knapp

See author's posts