Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Councilman denies conflict of interest in Diley Road project



By Kirk D . Richards THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH




Pickerington City Councilman Mike Sabatino last night fought a charge from a colleague that he had been concealing a conflict of interest.
Councilman Brian Wisniewski?’s questions to Sabatino concerned his promoting an effort to reverse the council?’s decision to widen Diley Road to five lanes.
Wisniewski asked whether Sabatino has relatives who would be affected by the project. Sabatino said ''yes,?’?’ but said he saw no conflict of interest.
Sabatino?’s mother, Joanne Pavlic, lives on Diley; stepdaughter Teresa Meno lives nearby on North Starr Drive.
Councilman Mitch O?’Brien said Sabatino?’s previous votes on the issue could violate ethics laws. Mayor David Shaver advised Sabatino to consult the Ohio Ethics Commission.
To help make his point, Wisniewski asked Sabatino why he supported a project on Rt. 256 last year that affected 19 homes.
''You have the expectation that if you live on a state route that it would be expanded,?’?’ Sabatino responded. Another difference, he said, is Diley Road residents and others sought a referendum, which the city declined to approve.
''I don?’t think we should ignore what their concerns are,?’?’ Sabatino said.
The uproar started when Sabatino asked clerk Lynda Yartin to read a proposed ordinance he had prepared that would ask voters to ''acknowledge the concerns of over 500 voters?’?’ who last year had signed a referendum petition to overturn the Diley Road work. It also asked the city to ''consider additional options?’?’ for Diley Road.
The council voted down the motion 4-2, with one member abstaining. Councilman William Wright joined Sabatino in support.
Shaver said Sabatino?’s ordinance didn?’t have a clear objective. His ordinance was in response to the city?’s decision to not allow the referendum petition on the ballot despite it having enough valid signatures.
But legal counsel had said the Sept. 7 ordinance targeted by the referendum petition was follow-up legislation, which can?’t be reversed by the voters.
After the meeting, Sabatino said he would work with legal counsel to draft a clearer ordinance. He said he was trying to ''expedite the process?’?’ to get the issue on the May ballot.
Sabatino shrugged off concerns about relatives being affected by some of his council decisions.
''People have to live somewhere,?’?’ he said, describing Wisniewski?’s complaints as politically driven. ''They?’re trying to intimidate me to not proceed with this.?’?’

You gonna pay for that ballot is

So Mike Sabatino wants to put what amounts to a non-binding ballot issue on the ballot in May. Hey Councilman, ballot issues are not free. Your temper tantrum will do nothing but cost the city money.

Ohio Ethics Commission

http://www.ethics.ohio.gov/opinions/88-004.html

Go here to read some of what has been written on the subject of councilmen voting on issues that have a potential financial impact on them or their family.

Now, let's have a little history lesson. Last year Pickerington became the first city in Ohio to legislate ethics. Others comply with ethics laws, but Pickerington made it a law that you WILL comply.

Council scheduled several sessions over various days, evenings and even over the weekend to accommodate any person, elected or employed by public entities wishing to attend state-sponsored ethics training given by a lawyer from the ethics commission. Well over 100 city employees as well as firemen, policemen, Trustees, school board members attended. City Council, given that they enacted the law, was also expected to attend and from what I can find out from city hall, all of them signed up.

Some of the elected officials are state or federal employees in their real life and at least one of the elected officials is a member of the bar. These people take annual mandated ethics training by their sponsoring entities. So this training from the city was purely voluntary and redundant.

So guess which city councilman signed up to attend but never did. That?’s right, the coffee man and subject of the preceding article. So why, you may ask, didn?’t he attend after voting FOR the ethics legislation and signing up to attend? Well, don?’t ask me. Ask him. Demand an answer!

Isn?’t it just possible that he was fully aware of the conflict of interest (at least two counts) that he was embedding in because he had already cast votes on the Diley project? Isn?’t it just possible that he didn?’t think that any other councilmen had the cajones to call him out on it?

Well, THANKS BRIAN AND MITCH for having the nads to tell it like it is.

Coffee boy, you should be ashamed of yourself. Didn?’t you even remotely think this wouldn?’t come out? Can you now look those Diley residents in the eye and tell them that you are going to save them? Can you continue to manipulate the system and sympathies of people for the personal financial gain of your Mom and Daughter?

Resign you sorry unethical excuse for a coffee boy. You screwed up. Admit your mistake, resign and move on. Stop wasting our time.

Now to the rest of Pickerington. Will you always agree with all that the team 4 change is doing? No, you won?’t, but walk a mile in their shoes. Don?’t condemn them until you talk to them. Realize that there are decisions they have to make that are a result of all the madness and mayhem that Joyce and ?“her boys?” set them up for?

Save your contempt and outrage for blatant crooks that sell coffee.


By Just the facts, ma'am

Price of coffee going up?

Let me see I was just looking around some web sites for case law on violations of the Ohio Ethics Law. It seems if Mike's admission is on public record and he had the opportunity to know better after two years on this council and this being his second time in public office then good luck Mike.

Mike say hello to Don McAuliffe for Maxey will you?

By Switching to TEA