10/28/2026
UPDATE: We have obtained documents. More to come pending review.
PUBLIC RECORDS, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AND TWO CONTESTED JUDICIAL RACES: WHAT IS GOING ON IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY?
On October 26, 2026, the City of Dayton responded to my public records request, No. 26-6351, concerning Dayton Police Department Report No. 261-020-0034.
This police report directly concerns the theft of campaign signs belonging to sitting Common Pleas Judge Steven Abshire.
I requested the reports, incident logs, call logs, witness statements, interviews, body-camera footage, dash-camera footage, and related investigative materials associated with that specifically identified police report.
Rather than producing the records, identifying applicable exemptions, or explaining its recordkeeping procedures, the City instructed me to be more specific.
There is a significant problem with that response under Ohio law.
Under R.C. 149.43(B)(1), public offices must promptly prepare public records for inspection and provide copies within a reasonable period, subject to lawful exemptions.
Under R.C. 149.43(B)(2), when a public office determines that a request is ambiguous or overly broad, it must explain how its records are maintained and accessed so the requester can meaningfully revise the request.
The City's response contains no such explanation.
Under R.C. 149.43(B)(3), a public office denying a request in whole or in part must provide an explanation, including the legal authority supporting its denial.
Now consider the political circumstances.
Two prosecutors employed by Mat Heck's office are currently seeking judicial office:
Richard Glennon is challenging sitting Common Pleas Judge Steven Abshire.
Kelly Madzey is challenging sitting Common Pleas Judge Michele S.H. Henne.
And the police report at issue concerns the theft of campaign signs belonging to Judge Abshire: The very judge whom a prosecutor from Mat Heck's office is attempting to unseat.
That is precisely why transparency and safeguards against potential conflicts of interest matter.
Who reviewed this particular request? What screening procedures exist? Was anyone associated with either judicial campaign involved in the review? And why did the City fail to provide the explanation required by R.C. 149.43(B)(2)?
These are legitimate questions that deserve documented answers.
I am not claiming that the existence of a potential conflict proves improper interference. But the public should not have to speculate about whether politically sensitive records requests receive independent review.
The Ohio Public Records Act exists to protect the public's right to know—not to shield politically inconvenient information from scrutiny.
The City of Dayton should comply with its statutory obligations, identify any lawful exemptions, and release all nonexempt responsive records.
The Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office should explain the procedures used to prevent conflicts when its own employees are candidates in contested judicial elections.
This is bigger than a missing campaign sign. It is about whether the public can trust that government records are handled impartially, regardless of whose political interests may be affected.
Please like, spread, and share this post everywhere. Public scrutiny begins with public awareness.
Transparency should never depend on who is running for office.
