THE RECORD IS THE ROAD MAP P2
WHAT THE COUNTY SAID UNDER THE LIGHT AND WHAT THE DOCUMENTS MUST SHOW
Aaron Christopher Knapp
Investigative Journalist | Licensed Social Worker
Editor in Chief, Lorain Politics Unplugged
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC
There is a point in every public investigation where the story stops being about what officials say and becomes about what the record proves. That point does not arrive because someone accuses anyone of wrongdoing. It arrives because officials themselves describe their process in enough detail that the underlying records become identifiable. Once that happens, the story is no longer about interpretation. It becomes about verification. Every statement that was made in that meeting created a paper trail that either exists or does not. Either outcome matters.
This is where the work shifts. The meeting is no longer the story. The meeting is the roadmap.
THE BLUE STAR PAGE
A DOCUMENT DESCRIBED IN PUBLIC MUST EXIST IN RECORDS
There are moments in public meetings where officials speak loosely and there are moments where they speak precisely. The description of the blue star page was not loose language. It was structured. It referenced formatting, classification, and decision making.
“With a blue star in the left hand column… those are the stars that we feel that if we cannot work things out that’s where the cuts are all going to be.”
That is not an idea. That is a document.
It is described as a page. It is described as having a left hand column. It is described as containing markings that identify where reductions are expected. That means someone created it, someone reviewed it, and someone used it as part of a budgeting discussion that was presented to the public.
When a document is described with that level of specificity, the question is no longer whether it is relevant. The question is whether it exists. If it exists, it is a public record that reflects how financial decisions are being evaluated. If it does not exist, then the public has been told that a framework for cuts exists without any corresponding documentation, which raises an entirely different set of concerns about how decisions are being made and tracked.
There is no neutral outcome. The record will either confirm what was said or it will contradict it. Both outcomes carry weight.
THE CLIFF NOTES VERSION
SUMMARIES REQUIRE SOURCE DATA
The meeting did not just reference numbers. It referenced structure. It referenced a summary. It referenced a larger dataset. It referenced a compilation that goes back multiple years.
“This is a… I would call it a cliffnotes version of what we’re voting on… and what the actual ask was…”
“What we do have… we did receive 37 pages… to show you… at least since 2020… what we’re projected out.”
A summary is never the full picture. A summary exists because the full picture is too large to present in one place. It is an interpretation layer that sits on top of raw data.
That means it cannot be accepted in isolation.
If there are thirty seven pages, then there are underlying submissions, calculations, and internal decisions about how those numbers were organized. There are revenue assumptions, expenditure projections, and departmental requests that fed into that summary. There are judgments about what to highlight and what to compress.
The summary is the last step. The work that matters is in the steps that came before it.
The only way to evaluate whether that summary is accurate is to compare it to the full record. That is not an opinion exercise. That is a document comparison exercise.
THE BASELINE SHIFT
WHEN ACCOUNTING CHANGES THE STORY CHANGES
Some of the most significant statements in public meetings are delivered as technical clarifications. They are often treated as routine, but they have the power to redefine how the entire budget must be understood.
“This was the first year that in the general fund all the hospitalization expenses were allocated by department… So 25 to 26, we should be able to get an apples to apples comparison.”
That statement is not minor. It changes the baseline.
If prior years did not allocate health care costs at the department level, then those years are not directly comparable to the current budget. Any increase that appears may not reflect an increase in spending. It may reflect a change in how costs are assigned.
That distinction matters because narratives are built on comparisons. If a department appears to have grown, the assumption is that spending increased. But if the accounting changed, the numbers may be reflecting a redistribution of costs, not a change in activity.
The only way to understand that difference is to examine how those costs were recorded in prior years, when the change occurred, and how it was implemented.
Without that context, the public is not comparing like to like. They are comparing two different systems and calling it a trend.
THE DEFICIT FRAMEWORK
FROM REQUEST TO REDUCTION
The meeting outlined the financial gap in clear terms and described the process that will be used to address it.
“If you take a look at the ask for 2026 from everybody, it’s $97 million. We’re voting today for the non-binding budget of 86.7…”
“The projected deficit for 26 based on everybody’s ask… is $15 million.”
“The projected revenue is at 81 million… you’re going to see a projected deficit of $5.1 million.”
Those numbers establish the scale of the issue. But the numbers alone are not the full story.
A gap requires a response. A response requires decisions. Decisions require documentation.
Department requests exist in writing. Internal evaluations exist in drafts and communications. Adjustments are made based on criteria that must be applied consistently or explained when they are not.
The meeting describes the problem. The records will show how that problem is being addressed.
Because there is a difference between stating that reductions are necessary and demonstrating how those reductions are chosen.
THE NO MIRACLE NARRATIVE
CLAIMS ABOUT DATA CAN BE VERIFIED
The discussion included a clear message that no unexpected revenue increase is coming to resolve the budget gap.
“There’s no miracle like something’s going to happen that’ll solve this problem.”
“Our sales tax revenue is actually fairly flat… people are spending the same amount of money, but they’re buying less stuff.”
“Even though real estate housing is up… there are less transfers… the net result is… steady, but they’re not growing.”
These are statements about measurable data.
Sales tax is reported monthly. Real estate transfers are recorded individually. Revenue projections are based on historical patterns and current performance.
That means these statements are testable. They can be compared to actual receipts, prior year data, and multi year trends.
Verification is not adversarial. It is foundational to transparency. Public statements about revenue are not meant to be accepted without question. They are meant to be supported by data.
The data exists. The question is whether it supports the narrative that has been presented.
PAYROLL AS THE CENTER OF THE STORY
WHEN MOST OF THE BUDGET IS FIXED
One of the most direct acknowledgments in the meeting defined where the pressure in the budget actually exists.
“Out of the 86 million… 68.8% of that… is salaries… employees.”
“If you’re going to balance the budget, you don’t focus on the 10% part. You focus on the 68% part.”
That is not just a statistic. It is a constraint.
If nearly seventy percent of the budget is tied to payroll, then the ability to reduce spending without affecting personnel is limited. The remaining portion of the budget cannot absorb large reductions without impacting services or operations.
This shifts the conversation from general efficiency to specific tradeoffs. Staffing levels, compensation structures, and contractual obligations become central to the discussion.
And those elements are documented. Payroll data, staffing rosters, union agreements, and benefit structures all exist in records.
When payroll is identified as the primary driver, the analysis must follow the documentation that defines it.
THE UNION CONTRACTS
WHERE DISCUSSION MEETS OBLIGATION
There was a moment in the meeting that confirmed the existence of detailed contractual documents.
“There’s two copies… one’s red line, one’s not.”
That statement reflects more than procedure. It reflects negotiation. Changes proposed, changes accepted, and terms finalized.
Those documents define what is required, not what is preferred.
When officials speak about holding budgets steady or finding efficiencies, those statements must be understood alongside the contractual obligations that govern wages and benefits. Those obligations are not flexible once they are agreed upon.
This is where the conversation about cuts meets the reality of commitments.
Understanding that distinction requires access to the agreements themselves. The language, the changes, and the financial impact of those terms are all part of the public record.
Without that context, discussions about flexibility are incomplete.
THE SHERIFF ADJUSTMENTS
WHEN CORRECTIONS BECOME A RECORD
The meeting included a direct acknowledgment of repeated adjustments.
“This is probably the seventh or eighth adjustment… to get the books… into compliance.”
“There evidently had been a habit of paying for things out of whatever account was convenient instead of the more appropriate account.”
That is not a one time correction. That is a series.
A series of adjustments suggests that prior entries were not aligned with the intended use of funds. It suggests that corrections are being made to bring the records into compliance.
That raises questions about how those expenditures were initially approved, what controls were in place, and how the discrepancies were identified.
A timeline of those adjustments will show whether this is a closed issue or an ongoing process. Dates, amounts, accounts, and purposes can be documented and reviewed.
Because when adjustments are repeated, the focus shifts from the individual correction to the system that required correction.
WHAT TRANSPARENCY LOOKS LIKE
WHEN A PROJECT IS CLEAR
In contrast to broader budget discussions, one portion of the meeting demonstrated what clarity looks like when a project is defined in concrete terms.
“There are going to be 285 locations… 28.8 fiber miles… the estimated build cost is approximately $1.6 million… the project has to be completed by December of 2026.”
That statement includes scope, cost, deliverables, and a deadline. It provides a framework for accountability that can be measured.
This is what a verifiable public project looks like. It can be tracked from approval to completion. It can be evaluated based on whether the stated goals are met.
That clarity provides a contrast to broader financial discussions that rely on projections and assumptions.
It shows that when information is presented in measurable terms, the public is able to follow the process and assess the outcome.
FINAL THOUGHT
THE END OF THE TRANSCRIPTS AND THE BEGINNING OF THE ANALYSIS
This marks the end of the transcript driven phase of this series.
The first two parts have done one thing and one thing only. They have taken what was said in public meetings and preserved it in full context. Not summarized, not reframed, not interpreted beyond what was stated. The purpose of that approach is simple. Before analysis begins, the record must be established.
These are the last two pieces that rely directly on the transcripts as the primary framework. They exist so that anyone reading this can see exactly what was said, how it was said, and where the statements create questions that must be answered through documentation.
The next step is different.
The next piece will move from record to analysis. It will examine what these statements mean when they are placed next to each other, when the numbers are tested, and when the documents are obtained. That is where conclusions begin to take shape, not from speculation, but from comparison between what was said and what the records show.
There will also be a plain language breakdown. Because not every reader needs to work through budgets, allocations, and statutory requirements in technical terms. There is a need to explain what this means in everyday language, what the stakes are, and how these decisions affect the public in practical terms.
The transcripts have done their job. They have created the roadmap.
What comes next is following it.
LEGAL NOTICE, EDITORIAL STANDARDS, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISCLOSURE
This publication is produced by Knapp Unplugged Media LLC as part of an ongoing series of investigative reporting, public records analysis, and commentary concerning matters of public interest within Lorain County, Ohio and related governmental entities.
Editorial Purpose and Scope
This article is intended for informational, journalistic, and public interest purposes. It is based on publicly available information, official meeting transcripts, recorded proceedings, documents obtained through lawful means, and statements made by public officials during open meetings.
All analysis, interpretation, and commentary contained herein reflect the opinion of the author and are presented in good faith based on the information available at the time of publication. This publication is not a court of law and does not make determinations of guilt, liability, or criminal conduct.
Readers are encouraged to independently verify information and review original source materials when available.
Presumption of Innocence and Fair Reporting
All individuals, entities, and public officials referenced in this publication are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing unless and until proven otherwise in a court of law.
Any discussion of conduct, policy, or decision making is presented as part of a broader examination of public governance, transparency, and accountability. The purpose of this reporting is not to accuse, but to document, analyze, and verify.
Public Records and Accuracy Disclaimer
This publication relies in part on transcripts, video recordings, and public statements made during official meetings. Transcripts may contain minor errors due to audio quality, transcription limitations, or automated processing.
Where direct quotations are used, they are presented as accurately as possible based on the available record. Readers should refer to the original recordings for full context where necessary.
The author makes no representation that all information is complete or final, as ongoing investigations and records requests may supplement or clarify the record.
No Legal, Financial, or Professional Advice
Nothing in this publication should be construed as legal advice, financial advice, or professional consultation of any kind.
This content is intended solely for informational and journalistic purposes. Readers seeking legal or professional guidance should consult a licensed attorney or appropriate professional.
Artificial Intelligence Assistance Disclosure
Portions of this publication may have been prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools for drafting, formatting, or research organization.
All final editorial decisions, analysis, conclusions, and content selection are made by the author. Artificial intelligence is used solely as a tool to assist in structuring and presenting information and does not replace independent judgment, verification, or editorial control.
Copyright and Intellectual Property Notice
This article, including all text, analysis, structure, and presentation, is the original work product of Aaron Christopher Knapp and is the intellectual property of Knapp Unplugged Media LLC.
All rights are reserved.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, republished, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including digital, mechanical, or otherwise, without prior written permission, except for brief quotations used for purposes of commentary, criticism, or fair use as defined under applicable law.
Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution of this content may constitute copyright infringement.
Contact and Licensing
Requests for permission to reproduce or license this content, as well as media or press inquiries, may be directed to:
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC
Lorain County, Ohio
a4xbeaverman@yahoo.com
Closing Statement
Government exists to serve the public, and public records exist so that the public can understand how that service is carried out.
This publication is part of that process.
About The Author
