“Ted Hart reply |> forward |) archive | junk || ect [Media Inquiry] Wurzelbacher v. Jones Kelley, et al 11/20/2009 2:37 1 0 Yous? other actions ~ Jesse, We have followed the process provided by law. The Inspector Genera’ investigation provided some of the facts that the Attomey General considered. There are other facts that were considered in making this decision, however ORC 109.365 establishes that infarmation gathered in the investigation to determine whether to defend an emplayee is privileged. We have determined that there are some records related to the request for counsel that are not subject to the privilege - which have attached. it's worth pointing out that the decision to use staff attorneys to provide legal representation in this case actually limits the financial exposure of taxpayers. The alternative is that these former employees would use considerably more expensive private attomeys and then, if successful in court, seek to recover their expenses from the state. Ted Hart Deputy Director of Media Relations Ofice of the Ohio Attomey General PHONE 614-728-4127 EMAIL ted hert@ohioattorneygeneral.gov From: Jesse Hethaway [maiko: Sent: Nonday, November 30, 2009 11:02 AM To: Holly M. Hollingsworth Cc: Ted Hart; Kimberly Kowelskt ‘Subject: [Media Inquiry] Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kellay, et al To Whom It May Concem: My name is Jesse Hathaway and I am the chief writer at an Ohio webliog called Athens Runaway. You can view my site at hitp:/jesschathaway. blogspot.com! . T am writing to you to ask some questions regarding a casc that Attorney General Cordray took up as part of his duties as Attomey General, Wurzelbacher v. Jones Kelley, et As youmay be aware, in this cil suit, Wurzelbacher is claiming that his tights to privacy were violated by the accused. Inits investigation, the Ohio Inspector General conchuded that Jones-Kelley. et. al. did in fact break the lavr and found "reasonable cause’ to believe that the group are guilty of the acts they are accused of. The OIG also determined that Jones-Kelley was guilty of conducting political activity for thea-Sen. Obama with state resources, and that this activity was in fact ilegal In ight of this OIG report, could you please explain why Attorney General Cordray is acting as the defense's attomey in a civil lwsuit? Could you please comment on why Cordray is choosing to ignore the mandatory exceptions set forth in ORC 109.362(a), namely the clause that states that "any other officer or employee was acting manifestly outside the scope of his employment or official responsbiitis, swith malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner, the attorney general shail not represent and defend the officer or employee"? Thanks, Jesse Hathaway Athens Rimaway