Editorial: Lopez error costly

Lucas County Commissioner Anita Lopez concludes her executive assistant Andrew Urrutia “was in over his head” in the taxpayer-funded position. By the way she handled it, it is fair to conclude Ms. Lopez is also out of her depth as a county commissioner. (“Probe finds Lopez acted improperly,” Sunday)

Since March 12, Mr. Urrutia has been paid $1,149 a week on administrative leave following complaints Commissioner Lopez created a hostile work environment. An investigation by employment law specialist Amy Natyshak concluded Ms. Lopez had indeed violated the commission’s harassment-free work environment policy.

Read more Blade editorials

Commissioner Lopez has agreed to take a voluntary workplace behavior program, and Ms. Natyshak concludes no laws regarding use of a public worker as a political operative or coercion of campaign contributions were violated, so it’s case closed.

The waste of tax money paying an employee not to work and the legal fees to document major abuse from Ms. Lopez is just the start of our disgust with these events and our suspicion that Ohio ethics laws have been stretched if not broken.

Commissioner Lopez ordered Mr. Urrutia not to work in the county office for reasons that make it very clear she regarded him as a campaign operative, and that also reveal paranoia on Ms. Lopez’s part. She indicated in the report that she didn’t want him interacting with other people in the commissioners’ office.

The five instances of abuse described in the county investigation summary released late Friday afternoon revolve around campaign issues. Mr. Urrutia testified that his campaign duties often overlapped county time.

Ms. Natyshak concludes that because Commissioner Lopez told Mr. Urrutia where the lines on legal activity were and not to cross over into illegal activity, there’s no cause for a referral to the Ohio Ethics Commission.

But Ms. Lopez structured the job to blend legal county duties with illegal, taxpayer-funded, campaign work. Requiring work at the early voting center, placement of campaign literature on cars, and serving as a designated driver when the commissioner was drinking at political events must be voluntary.

Ms. Lopez compounds the public’s concern for her fitness with admitted discussions with Mr. Urrutia regarding campaign contributions from his family. Ms. Lopez taunted her employee with harangues on how much other families would have contributed to her campaign if she had selected their son.

Ms. Lopez put estimates on how much she could have raised with a different personnel decision at between $10,000 and $50,000. She made that point while angry with Mr. Urrutia late on a Friday night of drinking with donors because he appeared upset that Commissioner Lopez “was intruding on his personal life.”

That doesn’t sound like “voluntary” campaign work. And discussing the job in the context of the dollars it could bring in political donations is not how public servants should conduct themselves.

Mr. Urrutia’s father and Commissioner Lopez both say there was no quid pro quo agreed to when he and Ms. Lopez discussed Andrew Urrutia as a candidate for the job. But would Ms. Lopez have been abusive if the large family campaign contribution she indicated others would have made actually came from the Urrutias?

Lucas County taxpayers may have a big expense simply because Commissioner Lopez was trying to push Mr. Urrutia into resignation so she could cash in on a large campaign contribution connected to the job.

It’s against Ohio law to coerce, intimidate, or threaten to cause harm over lack of a political contribution. Except to coerce a campaign contribution or push Mr. Urrutia into resigning, what motive did Ms. Lopez have for discussing specific dollar amounts?

There are questions raised by the activities detailed by Ms. Natyshak that deserve deeper investigation, among them Ms. Lopez’s unseemly discussion of how much a job applicant’s family might pay for the job Mr. Urrutia had been given.

Also unclear is how this situation ends for Mr. Urrutia. The Natyshak report is supposed to be the final word, but yet Mr. Urrutia, who has his ruling, continues to get paid for not working.

The Ohio Ethics Commission should not hesitate to step into this mess as their findings create precedents and offer guidance to governments across the state.