LOVELAND MAGAZINE

News and Events from the Loveland, Ohio Area

Without fear or favor
Since 2004

Tag: House Speaker

  • Ohio House Speaker says no primary election legislation coming soon

    Ohio House Speaker says no primary election legislation coming soon

    Speaker of the House Bob Cupp addresses the chamber.

    BY: SUSAN TEBBEN – Ohio Capital Journal

    Ohio’s House Speaker said Wednesday legislation is not coming to change the May primary date.

    Speaker Bob Cupp said the process was “in the hands of the federal court,” despite various court documents in which he argued that the election is a legislative issue and any changes should be made in the General Assembly.

    The Ohio Capital Journal asked Cupp directly to confirm the House had no plans for legislation to set a new primary date in the next two weeks.

    “That is correct, we’re not in session,” Cupp said during a gaggle after Wednesday’s House session.

    He was asked about potential changes to the election earlier in the press gathering, and he deferred the job.

    “We’ll let the federal court process proceed,” Cupp said.

    A federal lawsuit was filed by GOP voters earlier this year, claiming voters are losing their right to vote with the chaos surrounding redistricting. Originally, the plaintiffs, including Ohio Right to Life leader Michael Gonidakis, asked for the third map adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission to be forced into use by a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court.

    That map was rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court before the federal lawsuit was filed, but the process of adopting a fourth version of legislative districts had not come to fruition.

    The fourth map ended up being a near-copy of the third, rejected version, with Senate President Matt Huffman acknowledging as he moved for its approval that the map had “97%” similarity to the third version.

    Because the process, which started in September, has taken so long, the Secretary of State’s Office was forced to remove legislative races from ballots for the May 3 primary, all but assuring a split primary.

    Lawsuits have been filed with the Ohio Supreme Court asking for the fourth map to be invalidated for many of the same reasons the third map was, and map challengers have also asked the court to hold GOP commission members in contempt for violating court orders.

    Cupp and Senate President Matt Huffman argued in previous court filings that the power for elections and drawing maps lies solely with the redistricting commission and legislators, seemingly contrary to Cupp’s Wednesday statements.

    “It is the commission and the general assembly who solely possess the legislative authority to create legislative and congressional districts,” attorneys for the legislative leaders wrote in a court filing for lawsuits on congressional districts.

    Secretary of State Frank LaRose in more recent court filings urged the judicial system to stay out of the process. In his filing countering objections to the most recent maps, he posited that the Ohio Redistricting Commission has more time to figure out legislative maps.

    “More importantly, there is still time for the legislature to take steps to extend the time within which such a decision must be made,” LaRose said. “This court should not give up on the constitutional process even if the petitioners have.”

    The federal court has chosen twice not to intervene in the state process to give it time to come to a resolution. The first time the court withheld judgment was just before the March 28 deadline for the commission to complete new maps.

    At a hearing before Chief Judge Algenon Marbley, Judge Benjamin Beaton and Judge Amul Thapar last Wednesday, parties from the Secretary of State’s Office gave Aug. 2 as a potential date for a second primary to include the legislative races.

    The judges entertained the idea of not just the third map, but also the map drawn by independent mapmakers during the latest redistricting commission hearings, and also debated whether or not the 2010 map could be used for one more year.

    They decided to give the state until April 20 to come up with an official map and to give the state’s highest court time to make its rulings. A status conference was scheduled for April 11.

    Jake Zuckerman contributed to this report.

  • Consumer advocate wants to know where utility got $60M from in alleged bribery scandal

    Consumer advocate wants to know where utility got $60M from in alleged bribery scandal

    By Marty Schladen – Ohio Capital Journal

    cccc

    Ohio’s official utility watchdog wants to know where Akron-based FirstEnergy got the $60 million that federal prosecutors say fueled the largest bribery scandal in Ohio history.

    The Office of Ohio Consumers’ Counsel on Tuesday evening filed several motions with the Ohio Public Utilities Commission: 

    • A request for an investigation and a management audit of FirstEnergy.
    • A requirement that the company show that it hadn’t misused consumer money to support the passage of a nuclear bailout. 
    • And that the regulator reopen a probe into how FirstEnergy spent money intended to upgrade the electricity grid.

    In July, the U.S. Attorney’s office charged then-House Speaker, Larry Householder, R-Glenford, in an alleged scheme to funnel FirstEnergy money through 509(c)(4) “dark money” groups in a corrupt effort to elect supportive lawmakers and make Householder speaker. 

    The feds say the goal was to pass House Bill 6, a $1.3 billion bailout that went primarily to two failing nuclear power plants, but also subsidized two failing coal-powered generators. In addition, the money was used to fund a xenophobic campaign to stop a voter repeal of HB 6 and to line the pockets of Householder and his alleged conspirators, federal officials said.

    Also charged were Matt Borges, a lobbyist who was formerly chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, Neil Clark, a lobbyist who owns Grant Street Consulting, Juan Cespedes, also a lobbyist, and Householder’s aide, Jeffrey Longstreth.

    In its filing, the consumers’ counsel said it was asking the utilities commission to do its job.

    “The (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio) has the right and duty to regulate public utilities, for the protection of the public,” it said. “The PUCO should require FirstEnergy to show that money it collected from consumers, including the distribution modernization charge money, was not improperly used regarding House Bill 6 and that it did not violate any utility regulatory laws or PUCO orders regarding House Bill 6.”

    A FirstEnergy spokeswoman said her company will comment through official channels.

    “We are unable to comment on pending litigation, but we will respond to the motion by September 23 as required,” External Communications Manager Jennifer M. Young said in an email.

    In its filings, the consumers’ counsel noted that “Long before the House Bill 6 subsidies, FirstEnergy was authorized to charge its consumers nearly $7 billion for these and other FirstEnergy power plants as part of the transition to power plant competition (and a supposed end to future power plant subsidies) under Ohio’s 1999 electric deregulation law.”

    The documents also focused on $465 million FirstEnergy was allowed to collect from Ohio ratepayers in 2017 and 2018 as a “distribution modernization rider.” In other words, the charge was meant to fund improvements to the lines and poles and other equipment needed to efficiently deliver electricity in Ohio.

    The consumers’ counsel pointed to an independent audit showing that at least some of the money was used for other purposes. For example, it was placed in FirstEnergy’s “Regulated Utility Money Pool,” where its out-of-state utilities could borrow from it.

    The dividends FirstEnergy paid shareholders also took a big jump once the company started collecting more from ratepayers, supposedly to improve the power grid. The money for dividends from FirstEnergy’s Ohio utilities went from $141 million in 2016 to $350 million in 2017 — the first year of the subsidy — to $400 million in 2018.

    The Ohio Supreme Court subsequently declared the charge to be unlawful, but the money wasn’t refunded to ratepayers. 

    After the court ruling, the utilities commission shut down an investigation into the extra charge and how the money was used. But now the consumers’ counsel says it “should be reopened in light of the new information alleged in the U.S. Criminal Complaint about FirstEnergy’s use of extraordinary amounts of money in its efforts for the passage of House Bill 6.”

    After other interested parties have a chance to respond to the consumers’ counsel motions the utilities commission will decide whether to approve them.

    Marty Schladen

    Marty Schladen has been a reporter for decades, working in Indiana, Texas and other places before returning to his native Ohio to work at The Columbus Dispatch in 2017. He’s won state and national journalism awards for investigations into utility regulation, public corruption, the environment, prescription drug spending and other matters.