Commissioner gives opinion on contract

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

With Van Wert Law Director John Hatcher set to issue his opinion on the legality of the city’s economic development contract with Ohio State University Extension on Monday, another attorney, County Commissioner Todd Wolfrum, has just released his legal take on the contract.

Wolfrum released a column Thursday evening detailing his own legal research on the issue facing the city. The commissioner notes that, in his mind, the current discussion on the legality of the OSU Extension contract is entirely a city dispute, since the county is no longer a party to the contract.

“The current debate is not ours – it’s the City’s,” he asserted.

Wolfrum first provides some history on the county’s decision to leave the contract before delving into the crux of the matter: his opinion on the legality of the city’s contract with OSU Extension.

The commissioner notes that Ohio State University is a land grant college that was originally organized by state statute, while additional state legislation later created the OSU Extension.

“These ‘enabling statutes’ allow Extension to carry on educational activities throughout the state,” Wolfrum states, while also noting that entities created by enabling statutes are only allowed to do the specific actions allowed them under statute. “They cannot go beyond that authority,” he adds.

Wolfrum then talks about the Ohio Revised Code sections that deal with OSU Extension, and, specifically, its right to conduct economic development activities.

“OSU Extension’s enabling statute for economic development is ORC section 307.07(A)(2),” Wolfrum said, noting that, in his opinion, the law specifically states that a board of county commissioners, but no one else, can enter into an agreement with OSU Extension allowing Extension employees hired under ORC Section 3335.36 to “carry out all the functions and duties of a director of economic development under Division (B) of this section.”

Wolfrum states his opinion that the authority given to OSU Extension is very limited. “So limited, in fact, there has to be a writing that outlines how OSU Extension can gain the approval of the county commissioners to do anything in the realm of economic development,” the county commissioner writes.

Because the county commissioners have withdrawn that approval, Wolfrum concludes, OSU Extension is acting illegally by continuing economic development-related activities.

He also infers that OSU Extension is aware of that fact by agreeing to change the title of OSU Extension Educator Cindy Leis from “economic development director” to “community development director.”

Wolfrum also states his opinion that there is no similar enabling statute that allows a municipality, such as Van Wert, to enter into a contract with OSU Extension for economic development, although he does note that the city, in conjunction with a board of township trustees, could contract with OSU Extension under what is called a Joint Economic Development District.

Wolfrum stresses that no such agreement is in place, though, while also adding that the Van Wert County Township Trustees Association’s executive board recently passed a unanimous resolution supporting the county’s economic development efforts.

“That leaves (Van Wert) Mayor (Don Farmer) trying to enter the City into a contract with an entity that cannot legally contract with it alone,” Wolfrum stated. “To do so, OSU Extension would be clearly acting outside of the authority of its enabling statutes. This is also known as illegal.”

Wolfrum ended his column by noting that the commissioners plan to stay out of the city’s discussion of the issue until they are asked to participate, while also stating that, despite what people may think, the county does not want ultimate control of economic development. He does go on to state, though, his opinion that the county already has that control, by state statute, but said the commissioners prefer a partnership with the city and other entities.

“What we would like to do is bring in partners interested in a new vision not dominated by a few local special interests,” Wolfrum said.

Meanwhile, the city’s law director is poised to state his legal opinion on the issue during Monday’s meeting of Van Wert City Council. Whether that decision clears up the confusion surrounding the issue – or further muddies the waters – will only be known then (click here for Wolfrum’s complete column on the issue).