Commissioners can't afford to alienate the county's veterans

Lorain County's new county commissioners cannot afford to be perceived as anti-veteran. Anti-Democrat, sure, but not anti-veteran. David Moore and Michelle Hung are Republicans, and the two of them make up a new majority on the three-member Board of Commissioners. Until this year the board had been under Democratic control for decades. Not surprisingly, the change has led to conflict between them and the remaining Democrat, Matt Lundy, some of it substantive, too much of it petty. Last week, though, conflict involving the new majority took on a new dimension when the county Veterans Service Commission accused Moore and Hung of shortchanging veterans. "When it comes to taking care of the veterans of this county, Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Hung seem to believe they can decide what's best for the Veterans of Lorain County without consulting the Lorain County Veterans Service Commission and all veteran community partners," Stephen W. Bansek, the commission's president, and Jacob D. Smith, its executive director, wrote in a letter dated Wednesday to county veterans and organizations that serve them. Specifically, the letter addressed the county commissioners' 2-1 vote March 17, with Lundy in dissent, to rescind a $300,000-plus Veterans Service Fund that the Board of Commissioners, then made up of three Democrats, had established in December. The money was intended "to help veterans, their families, and veteran service organizations around Lorain county (sic) in ways that were not currently available to the Veteran Service Commission," the letter said. Members of the commission, three of them Democrats and the two others Republicans, "had started discussions with veterans in the county to use these funds." Then came the meeting March 17, at which "the two new commissioners conducted what can only be described as a kangaroo court to rescind the Veteran Service Fund," the letter said. It also cited six examples of "misinformation" from them. For example, it said, just because they deemed establishment of the fund "uncommon" did not mean it was unjustified. Further, it said, they did not live up to their promise to maintain an "open door" for communication. Beyond that, though, were technical but perhaps more telling issues having to do with jurisdiction, or who has the authority to do what. Contrary to Moore's statement that the county commissioners had "zero oversight" on spending from the Veterans Service Fund, the letter said, they had the right to approve spending recommendations from the veterans commission. What they have a much more limited right to do, the letter said, is to revise the veterans commission's much larger budget for 2021 of almost $2.9 million. Under a 6-1 state Supreme Court ruling from 1997, the General Assembly gave veterans service commissions authority over their budgets "without discretionary oversight by the boards of county commissioners," the letter said, quoting the decision. Therein exists potential for quarrelsome relations between boards of commissioners and veterans commissions. In fact, the local veterans commission and the former Democratic Board of Commissioners had clashed over the legality of commission spending in the past, although they ultimately resolved the issue. In its ruling the court made clear why county commissioners were not permitted to revise lawful budgets from veterans service commissions: "They are vested with a special public trust to see that those who have served our country receive a decent burial and are remembered with honor, and that they and their families are kept from indigency." Some 25,000 county veterans and their families are involved, according to the veterans commission. That's a huge and revered constituency that no elected official, Republican or Democrat, can afford to alienate. As the veterans commission's letter made clear, though, Moore and Hung are at risk of doing exactly that. No wonder stories about the letter topped the front pages Friday of both local newspapers, The Chronicle-Telegram and The Morning Journal. Hung's response to the letter was less than conciliatory. She called it "a political hit job," said it did a disservice to veterans whom the commission's executive director had been hired to serve and suggested that commission board members "really need to figure out what the heck is going on with this guy." Maybe she didn't notice that the commission president's signature was the first one at the bottom of the letter. Commission members had voted unanimously to send it. Hung and Moore both seem determined to prove their worthiness for office by questioning that of their predecessors and undoing their predecessors' initiatives, and whether by rescinding the Veterans Service Fund and millions in grants to non-profit agencies or even by quibbling over e-mails and dropping the domain name for the county visitors bureau's website, which now redirects searchers to an Indonesian gambling site. Some of that would be funny if it weren't so pathetic, but the spat between the Republican commissioners and the veterans commission is potentially toxic for the voter support that led to their election in November. They can't afford to let it fester. Andy Young is editor emeritus of The Chronicle-Telegram. Contact him at (440) 329-7111 or ayoung@chroniclet.com.