PERSPECTIVE: Did AG scandal redefine impeachment?

By JULIE CARR SMYTH

AP Statehouse Correspondent

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The articles of impeachment against then-Attorney General Marc Dann earlier this year played a pivotal role in getting the scandal-scarred Democrat to resign.

They also left a legal legacy that has some Constitution watchers worried.

The government watchdog group Common Cause urged lawmakers in a letter last week to pass a resolution rejecting the standards for impeachment established in the Dann case.

They argued that such acts as "neglect of duty" or "failure to exercise due care" are far too vague and amorphous to serve as standards for removing a statewide elected official from office.

After all, argued Common Cause governing board chairman William K. Woods, legislators didn't impeach former Gov. Bob Taft after four misdemeanor convictions -- suggesting that an official's conduct needed to be worse than that to qualify.

Impeaching Dann would have required a Senate trial on each of the charges leveled against him, as well as Republican support. Ohio hasn't impeached and convicted anyone since 1808.

"The removal (of Dann) appeared to be carried out in a rash and reckless manner containing little concern about the rights of over 2 million Ohioans who voted for Dann, the requirements of the laws, and basic principles of fairness," wrote William K. Woods, chair of the Common Cause governing board. "Instead, the process was apparently driven by strong concerns about the condition of one political party's 'house."'

That political party was Dann's fellow Democrats, led by Gov. Ted Strickland. Not only did Strickland and nearly every other state-level Democrat line up against Dann publicly (saying they were willing to "clean their own house" in a manner they contrasted to Ohio Republicans) but the party took the extra step of taking back Dann's 2006 endorsement.

Woods pointed out in his letter that Dann wasn't the Democrats' responsibility. He was hired by the voters -- many Democrats, plenty of Republicans and lots of Independents.

"Because the right of the people to elect their public officials is fundamental and sacrosanct under our system of government, the issue of whether to remove an elected official should be approached with extreme caution and deliberation," Woods wrote. "It must be decided with utmost respect for the right of the people to choose their elected officials."

The fact is there was concern in many corners over the impeachment standards laid out against Dann. Newspapers across the state questioned the legal ramifications. Lawmakers themselves, recognizing the historic moment, were nervous. Some, fearing Dann's admitted affair with an employee would be cited, were petrified.

As Dann's friend and ally, veteran lawmaker Bob Hagan, pithily remarked at the time: "I seriously believe that we have to move very carefully in this chamber and to show respect, because if it is only infidelity (that can get someone impeached), we'd be here a long time."

Documents have since revealed that Strickland's lawyers were prepared to argue that Ohio law would allow an impeachment for misconduct -- even though Dann maintained he broke no laws. They were also prepared to outline what they called a "gross neglect of duty."

The situation was escalated when the Republican-led Legislature authorized Inspector General Tom Charles to launch an investigation into Dann's office, an unprecedented expansion of the watchdog's powers.

Woods said Ohio needs a better, more impartial system for addressing misconduct in office. He noted in his letter that Charles is appointed by Strickland, who was pursuing the political agenda of cleaning the Democrats' house in removing Dann.

It was clear at the time that the looming hammer of impeachment was necessary to the Democrats' goal of forcing Dann from office. Without it, and the ensuing investigation, he may not have gone. Even with it, he held on for 12 awkward and agonizing days after internal investigative findings against two close allies and the admission of the affair.

Early reaction to Woods' letter last week was underwhelming. It appears neither party is much interested in bringing up Dann, Taft or everyone's respective scandals this close to the Nov. 4 election.

Woods hopes the legal issue, at least, will be addressed sometime before the next state official does something wrong.

"If a future legislature were to treat the resolution as controlling precedent for impeachment proceedings, the stability of Ohio's state government could, at least in theory, be no better than that of a banana republic," he surmised.

"For example," he wrote, "a legislature controlled by powerful special interests could use the lower standards to remove a populist officeholder for relatively minor errors in judgment."

--------

On the Net:

Common Cause-Ohio: www.commoncause.org/ohio