When the Paper Trail Refuses to Lie
The Velocity Benefits Audit, County Power, and a Record That Will Not Close
By Aaron Knapp
Unplugged with Aaron Knapp
Introduction: This Is Not a Political Dispute. This Is a Records Problem With Consequences.
This story is not about ideology. It is not about party affiliation. It is not about personalities in the abstract. It is about paper. It is about what Lorain County formally authorized, what it paid or was invoiced for, what it can and cannot now produce, and what Ohio law requires when public money changes hands.
It is also about why unresolved records do not stay buried. The immediate trigger for this examination was not a routine audit review. It was recent reporting from within a Lorain County Republican caucus describing discussions of appointments, succession planning, and political liability. In those discussions, one prior county contract surfaced repeatedly as a problem that could not be explained away. That contract was the 2021 Velocity Benefits Audit.
At the center of this matter is a dependent eligibility audit approved by the Lorain County Board of Commissioners in March 2021, a contractor known as Velocity Benefits Audit, LLC, and a set of documents that, when read together, show a transaction that never fully closed in the public record. The unresolved status of that transaction now matters because the same officials who approved it, including Commissioner Jeff Riddell, continue to exercise appointment power, caucus authority, and influence over who fills public office.
This is not a hindsight exercise. Under Ohio law, unresolved documentation problems do not age out. When a public office cannot demonstrate that a contingency based contract was satisfied as authorized, that failure follows the officials who approved it into later decisions involving trust, discretion, and appointment authority.
Commissioner Riddell’s role is not incidental. He was a sitting commissioner at the time the Velocity audit was approved. He remains a sitting commissioner today. He participates in party caucuses that fill vacancies under Ohio Revised Code 305.02. And according to multiple sources, he has been actively involved in discussions about future appointments and succession planning that depend on credibility, clean records, and the absence of unresolved financial questions.
This article therefore examines the Velocity Benefits Audit not as an isolated transaction, but as a live governance issue that continues to shape political behavior inside Lorain County. It does so using primary documents only. The County’s own resolution. The contractor’s own written correspondence. Internal memoranda. Public meeting transcripts. Where conclusions are drawn, they are grounded in those documents and in Ohio Revised Code. Where questions remain unanswered, they are identified as such.
This is not rumor. It is not inference piled on inference. It is a record that never closed, now colliding with officials who want the public to trust them with the power to appoint the next generation of county leadership. And under Ohio law, trust does not substitute for proof.
What the Board Approved and What It Did Not
Resolution 21-216 Was Narrow by Design and Broad in Responsibility
On March 31, 2021, the Lorain County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 21-216 authorizing an agreement with Velocity Advisors for a dependent eligibility audit of the County health plan. The resolution is notable not for its ambition, but for its restraint. It authorizes a three thousand dollar setup fee for a secure portal and contingency compensation equal to twenty percent of savings, capped at thirty thousand dollars, for the identification of non qualified participants reported to the Board of Commissioners.
The resolution then states, without qualification, that these are the only fees to which Velocity is entitled. That sentence is not boilerplate. It is the controlling limitation on the entire transaction. This was not a flat fee professional services contract. It was not an open ended consulting engagement. It was a contingency based agreement tied to a specific outcome and tied explicitly to reporting to the Board itself. Payment was not authorized for effort, time, or partial work. It was authorized only upon satisfaction of the defined contingency.
The voting record on the resolution fixes responsibility in time and place. Commissioners Hung and Moore voted in favor. Commissioner Lundy voted no. Commissioner Jeff Riddell was not the motion maker, but he was a sitting member of the Board at the time and part of the governing body that authorized the contract and retained oversight authority over its execution, documentation, and closure.
That distinction matters. Under Ohio law, responsibility for a public contract does not end at the moment of authorization. Sitting commissioners have a continuing obligation to ensure that expenditures made under their authority comply with the terms they approved and that the public record reflects that compliance. This obligation applies equally to commissioners who voted for a resolution and to those who did not, once the resolution becomes an act of the Board.
Under Ohio Revised Code 117.11 and 117.38, a public office must maintain records that fully and accurately disclose the expenditure of public funds and support audit review. When a contract is contingency based, the public office must be able to demonstrate, through records in its custody, that the contingency occurred as defined. This is not a matter of discretion or political judgment. It is a statutory duty.
The relevance to Commissioner Riddell is therefore structural, not rhetorical. He was a sitting commissioner when this contingency based contract was authorized. He remains a sitting commissioner now. He participates in party caucuses that exercise appointment authority under Ohio Revised Code 305.02. And the unresolved status of a contract approved during his tenure is not a historical footnote. It is a live governance issue that follows the officeholder as long as the record remains incomplete.
When commissioners later ask the public to trust their judgment in filling vacancies, appointing successors, or policing ethics, Ohio law requires that trust to be anchored in demonstrable compliance with prior obligations. Resolution 21-216 set clear conditions. Whether those conditions were satisfied is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of records.
The August 6, 2021 Letter That Created the Problem
Velocity’s Own Words and the Admissions They Contain
On August 6, 2021, Velocity Benefits Audit, LLC sent a written correspondence to then Lorain County Administrator Tom Williams. The letter characterizes itself as an invoice in the amount of thirty thousand dollars, issued after what Velocity describes as the County’s cancellation of the dependent eligibility audit.
In the letter, Velocity asserts that it identified plan participants who were ineligible for coverage under the County’s health plan document and that the number of such participants exceeded the contractual fee threshold, thereby triggering entitlement to the maximum contingency payment. Velocity further asserts that the County’s plan document was incorrect and that the plan was not being administered in accordance with its written terms.
Those assertions, standing alone, would require verification through County records and formal reporting to the Board of Commissioners. What makes the letter consequential is not merely what Velocity claims to have found, but what the letter admits about the handling of records and the absence of formal closure.
Velocity states that hard copy documents related to the audit would be destroyed. Velocity further states that correspondence, comments, and recommendations would be retained by Velocity and made available to the County. The letter also states that certain census and audit data were left with County information technology staff. Nowhere in the letter does Velocity state that a final audit report was transmitted to the Board of Commissioners. Nowhere does the letter state that the Board formally received, reviewed, or accepted audit findings. Nowhere does it state that identified participants were adjudicated, removed from coverage, or that verified savings were calculated and documented in the public record.
Under a contingency based contract expressly tied to reporting to the Board, those omissions are not incidental. They are the core of the compliance question.
The most legally significant passage of the letter addresses how the invoiced funds would be distributed. Velocity states in writing that the payment covers expenses, includes a contribution to a not for profit for work performed by Tom Patton, and that the remaining balance would be retained by Andrew McDonnell.
That statement is not characterization. It is not commentary. It is not inference drawn by a third party. It is the contractor’s own description of the disposition of public funds invoiced under a County authorized contract.
For a sitting board of county commissioners, including Commissioner Jeff Riddell at the time, this letter triggered a non discretionary obligation. Once the County was placed on notice that a contractor was seeking the maximum contingency payment while retaining key records and without documenting formal Board reporting or acceptance, the Board had a statutory duty to ensure that payment, if made, was supported by records demonstrating compliance with the authorizing resolution.
The failure to close that loop in the public record is what transformed the Velocity audit from a routine contract into a lingering governance problem.
At the time this letter was sent, Tom Williams was serving as Lorain County Administrator and was the official responsible for receiving contractor correspondence and ensuring that invoices and supporting documentation were properly routed to the Board of Commissioners. Williams was later terminated from his position by the Board. That personnel action did not resolve, and does not excuse, the absence of a documented audit closure. Under Ohio law, administrative turnover does not eliminate a public office’s obligation to retain records demonstrating that a contingency based payment was lawfully triggered. If anything, the termination heightens the importance of producing a complete paper trail showing how the Velocity audit was evaluated, approved, and closed.
Where the Public Record Breaks Down
Payment Without Closure Is Not a Technicality Under Ohio Law
If Lorain County paid the full thirty thousand dollar contingency cap to Velocity Benefits Audit, LLC, or even treated the August 6, 2021 invoice as payable, Ohio law requires the County to be able to show precisely why. That obligation does not arise from best practices or internal policy. It arises from statute.
Ohio Revised Code 117.11 requires every public office to keep books and records that correctly reflect the receipt and expenditure of public money. Ohio Revised Code 117.38 further requires those records to fully disclose the cost of government operations and to support audit review. Together, those provisions impose an affirmative duty on the County to maintain documentation sufficient to demonstrate that any expenditure was lawful, authorized, and supported by the terms of the underlying contract.
In the case of a contingency based contract, that duty is heightened. Payment is not justified by effort, partial performance, or contractor assertion alone. The public office must be able to produce records showing that the defined contingency condition occurred as authorized. Here, that condition was the identification of non qualified participants reported to the Board of Commissioners.
To date, the public record does not reflect that such a closure occurred. There is no publicly produced final audit report identifying non qualified participants. There is no Board agenda item reflecting receipt or review of audit findings. There is no resolution accepting results. There is no documented Board action acknowledging verified savings or authorizing payment based on a reported contingency.
That absence is not a clerical oversight. It is the central compliance failure.
Velocity’s own letter confirms that key materials, including correspondence, comments, and recommendations, were retained by the contractor rather than formally transmitted and incorporated into the County’s records. That fact alone does not establish wrongdoing by Velocity. It does, however, establish a problem for the County. Public records used to justify the expenditure of public funds must be in public custody or, at a minimum, demonstrably relied upon and preserved as part of the transaction of public business.
Under Ohio Revised Code 149.43, records kept by a public office or used to document the transaction of public business are public records. If the County relied on Velocity’s findings to justify payment, those findings are public records and should exist in County custody. If the County did not rely on them, then the legal basis for treating the invoice as payable becomes unclear.
At the time the invoice was issued, the administrative responsibility for routing, documenting, and preserving the transaction rested with then County Administrator Tom Williams. Williams was later terminated by the Board of Commissioners. That personnel change does not resolve the records gap. Under Ohio law, records obligations survive administrative turnover. A public office cannot explain missing documentation by pointing to a fired administrator.
Responsibility therefore returns to the Board itself. Sitting commissioners at the time, including Commissioner Jeff Riddell, retained a continuing duty to ensure that expenditures made under their authority complied with the terms they approved and that the public record reflected that compliance. The failure to produce a closed loop record is not mitigated by time, silence, or personnel changes. It remains a live statutory defect until corrected.
This is why the Velocity audit continues to matter. It is not about hindsight. It is about an expenditure that, on the face of the public record, was never properly closed.
Internal Context and Why This Matters Politically
When a Party Forgets What It Claims to Stand For
I am a Republican. Not a transactional Republican. Not a caucus Republican. A real Republican in the sense that accountability, limited government, stewardship of public funds, and transparency are not slogans but obligations. It is precisely because of that belief that the conduct revealed by the Velocity audit record and by subsequent caucus behavior is offensive.
What is described here is not conservatism. It is not fiscal responsibility. It is not respect for process. It is insider governance dressed up as party loyalty.
An internal document attributed to Commissioner David Moore describes the Velocity audit as part of a broader pattern of steering county work to political allies and donors. It identifies Andrew McDonnell by name and ties his involvement to campaign activity and political relationships. Standing alone, such a document would be allegation. In context, it explains why the Velocity audit never went away. It explains why certain names resurface in caucus conversations. It explains why this contract is treated as radioactive by those who understand the paper trail and the risk it carries.
This is not theoretical. The January 9, 2023 Lorain County Commissioners meeting transcript shows the pattern in public. During that meeting, Commissioners Moore and Riddell repeatedly invoked ethics, legality, and process while being pressed by speakers to identify specific violations and to produce documentation. They were asked to name facts, records, and timelines. Instead, the discussion circled abstractions while concrete questions went unanswered.
That meeting matters because it exposes the governing culture behind the Velocity problem. Process is invoked aggressively when it serves power. Documentation is treated casually when it does not. Ethics language is weaponized outward while internal obligations go unfulfilled.
As a Republican, that behavior is not just disappointing. It is disqualifying.
Republican governance is supposed to mean that public money is handled carefully, that contracts are honored exactly as written, and that records exist to justify every dollar spent. When a caucus instead closes ranks, minimizes unresolved transactions, and treats appointment power as a private asset, it abandons those principles entirely.
What makes this worse is that this conduct is bipartisan in effect. Democrats and Republicans in Lorain County may posture as adversaries in public, but when it comes to protecting insiders, preserving discretion, and insulating themselves from scrutiny, party lines dissolve. They pat each other on the back, trade favors, and present unity when the public asks for records.
I experienced that reality firsthand when I ran in Lorain City. I was shunned not because I lacked party loyalty, but because I refused to play the game. That experience does not surprise me now. It explains what we are seeing.
The Velocity audit is therefore not just a contract problem. It is a symptom. It shows how a caucus that should demand clean records instead tolerates unresolved liabilities, then wonders why public trust collapses.
For a party that claims to stand for accountability, that is not a mistake. It is a betrayal. And documentation is the proof.
This Is Not an Opinion Question Under Ohio Law
Ethics and Misuse of Office Are Triggered by Conduct, Not Motive
Ohio law does not ask whether public officials meant well. It asks what they authorized, what they allowed to occur under their authority, and whether the public record supports the lawful expenditure of public funds. Motive is irrelevant where conduct and documentation fail to align with statutory requirements.
Ohio Revised Code 2921.42 prohibits a public official from knowingly authorizing or using the authority of office to secure a contract or benefit in which the official, a family member, or a closely connected party has an interest. Ohio Revised Code 102.03 further prohibits public officials from using their position to confer improper advantages or to influence the expenditure of public funds for private benefit.
This article does not declare that those statutes were violated. It does not assign criminal intent. It does not accuse. What it does establish is that the existing record raises questions that fall squarely within the scope of those statutes and cannot be dismissed as political disagreement or policy debate.
When a contractor states in writing that public funds invoiced under a county authorized contract will be retained by a specifically named political actor, that fact alone triggers scrutiny. When that same transaction lacks a final audit report, documented Board acceptance, or a public record demonstrating that the contingency condition was satisfied, the issue ceases to be theoretical. It becomes a matter of compliance.
At that point, the question is not whether officials intended to benefit anyone improperly. The question is whether the public office can demonstrate, through records in its custody, that the expenditure complied with the terms authorized by resolution and with Ohio law. If the public office cannot do so, the deficiency exists regardless of intent.
Ohio’s ethics and public integrity statutes are designed precisely for this scenario. They exist to prevent public officials from insulating questionable transactions behind discretion, silence, or political loyalty. They do not require proof of motive to justify investigation. They require only a record that does not close.
That is what exists here. A contractor’s written admission of fund distribution. An unresolved contingency based contract. A Board level authorization without documented closure. Those are not opinions. They are conditions that, under Ohio law, demand audit review and ethics scrutiny. Calling that reality offensive or uncomfortable does not make it partisan. It makes it lawful to question.
The Standard Is Not Intent. The Standard Is Proof.
Why This Cannot Be Waved Away or Politicked Into Silence
No showing of malice is required to trigger an audit under Ohio law. No allegation of conspiracy is required to justify an investigation. No proof of personal animus is required to demand oversight. The only question that matters is whether public funds were expended in accordance with the authorizing law and whether the public office can demonstrate that compliance through records in its custody.
That is the standard. It is objective. It is documentary. And it is not negotiable.
At present, Lorain County cannot point the public to a clean, closed, and documented audit outcome for the Velocity Benefits Audit. There is no final report in the public record. There is no documented Board acceptance of findings. There is no resolution acknowledging verified savings. There is no contemporaneous record demonstrating that the contingency condition required by Resolution 21-216 was satisfied.
That failure is not cosmetic. It is substantive. Under Ohio Revised Code, the absence of proof does not create a presumption of compliance. It creates a presumption of deficiency until the record is produced.
Every attempt to reframe this issue as political disagreement, partisan infighting, or personal animus misses the point. Documentation is the entire issue. When a public office cannot produce the records necessary to justify an expenditure, the inquiry does not end because time has passed, because officials have changed, or because the questions are uncomfortable.
The Velocity audit remains unresolved in the public record. That fact alone compels audit review. It compels oversight. It compels inquiry into how public money was authorized, invoiced, processed, and justified. Everything else flows from that failure. Not opinion. Not motive. Not loyalty. Proof.
Conclusion: This Record Demands Oversight, Not Spin
The Velocity Benefits Audit is not a footnote. It is a live, unresolved transaction that exposes how power is exercised in Lorain County when documentation is inconvenient and scrutiny is unwelcome. It shows what happens when a public body authorizes a narrow, contingency based contract, permits an invoice for the maximum amount, and then fails to retain or disclose the records necessary to demonstrate that the contingency was ever satisfied. That failure alone is enough to trigger audit concern. What surrounds it makes the need for oversight unavoidable.
The unresolved status of the Velocity audit now intersects with conduct that has nothing to do with the audit itself, but everything to do with credibility. According to multiple sources, recent Republican caucus discussions included an alleged plan involving Commissioner Jeff Riddell, his daughter, and the strategic use of appointment power. The allegation is not that such a plan succeeded. It is that such a plan was discussed at all, in a political environment where unresolved contracts and recordkeeping failures already exist.
That matters because appointment authority under Ohio Revised Code 305.02 is premised on trust. It assumes that those exercising caucus power are doing so free from unresolved financial liabilities, undisclosed record gaps, or lingering questions about how public funds were handled. When the same officials who approved or oversaw an unresolved contract are also involved in succession discussions that would place family members or close political allies into public office, the appearance problem becomes inseparable from the records problem.
The issue does not stop with one commissioner. It extends to the administrative structure that enabled these failures to persist. Jeff Armbruster’s long standing role as a political power broker, fundraiser, and behind the scenes influence has been repeatedly acknowledged but rarely examined in a formal way. Tom Williams, as County Administrator at the time the Velocity invoice was issued, served as the conduit through which documentation should have flowed to the Board. His subsequent termination did not resolve the Velocity matter. It compounded it. Administrative turnover without record closure is not a defense. Under Ohio law, it is a red flag.
Nor can the Board of Commissioners escape collective responsibility. Dave Moore’s internal communications describing contract steering and political funneling, whether ultimately substantiated or not, align disturbingly well with what the Velocity record fails to show. Marty Gallagher’s role cannot be dismissed as peripheral either. Publicly released emails between Gallagher and Councilwoman Mary Springowski demonstrate coordination, shared narratives, and internal discussion that directly reference me by name. Those communications matter because they show how information, influence, and political positioning move laterally across offices, not vertically through transparent processes.
This is why the County cannot argue ethics selectively. It cannot demand strict compliance from political opponents while tolerating unresolved documentation in its own house. It cannot invoke process as a shield while ignoring statutory recordkeeping obligations. And it cannot expect the public to accept assurances, character references, or party loyalty as substitutes for proof.
This conduct warrants formal review. It warrants inquiry by the Ohio Auditor of State into whether public funds were expended in accordance with Resolution 21-216 and whether required records exist. It warrants scrutiny by ethics authorities to determine whether appointment power, contract oversight, and political relationships have been improperly intertwined. It warrants subpoenas if records are being retained outside public custody or were destroyed without lawful authority.
It is what Ohio law requires when a public record does not close and when the public trust is asked to fill the gap left by missing documentation. Public money does not vanish into explanations. It does not disappear into caucus conversations. It does not dissolve because time has passed or administrators have been fired. Ohio law requires proof. And until that proof is produced, the questions raised here do not fade. They remain legitimate, public, and unavoidable.
Reader note: This article is grounded in documentary records. Where a document is referenced, an evidence placeholder appears so the PDF can be added as soon as it is uploaded. If a record is not yet public, the absence is identified as part of the records problem described below.
Evidence Hub
Exhibit A: Resolution No. 21-216 (March 31, 2021)
Exhibit B: Velocity Letter / Invoice to Administrator Tom Williams (August 6, 2021)
Placeholder for the contractor correspondence describing cancellation, invoice amount, alleged findings, record handling, and claimed distribution.
Exhibit C: Internal Memoranda, Emails, or Notes Referencing Velocity Audit
Exhibit D: Lorain County Commissioners Meeting Transcript (January 9, 2023)
Disclosure and Legal Notes
AI and Editing Disclosure
This article may include drafting and formatting assistance from AI tools. All claims are intended to be supported by documentary records or clearly labeled as analysis or unresolved questions. Any quoted language attributed to documents should be verified against the source PDFs once linked in the Evidence Hub above.
Legal Disclaimer
This publication is for informational and journalistic purposes only and is not legal advice. Citations to the Ohio Revised Code are provided for reference and should be reviewed in full context. If you are a public official or records custodian and believe a referenced record is missing, incomplete, or mischaracterized, the appropriate remedy is production of the underlying documentation that closes the public record.
Copyright: © Aaron Knapp, Unplugged with Aaron Knapp. All rights reserved.
About The Author
