FACT CHECK THE OSWALT ISSUE

The Advocate had done a wonderful job of keeping us informed on the matter of the prosecutors
struggles, which seems to be of great public interest. I chose to dig just a little deeper and thought I would
share some of my research on three key items.

1 In the August !", !#1" press release by $enneth %. &swalt, he stated, I first want to assure the public
that the claims alleged are baseless.

FALSE'
(er the ))&* website, If the charge was not dismissed by the EEOC when it was received, that means
there was some basis for proceeding with further investigation. The complaint was signed April "#, !#1"
and received by the ))&* on +ay ,
th
. The average investigation is appro-imately 1.# days so the
investigation was nearly at the half way mark when the Advocate uncovered the complaint. The ))&* did
not dismiss it when it was received so that means there is some basis, therefore, not baseless.

It should also be noted that *ounty employees, who provided statements of support for &swalt to the
))&*, painted a picture of an out of control employee, yet she received a promotion with pay increase and
raises on a regular basis. If accurate, thats poor management by the prosecutors office and raises
/uestions with respect to good stewardship of ta-payer dollars.

! In that same press release, while listing support, &swalt states *&01A has indicated its willingness to
defend.

MISLEADING:
A copy of the policy was obtained via public records re/uest. The policy provisions afford defense for
))&* hearings so its not a 2willingness3, it is a contractual obligation and the prosecutors attempt to
imply otherwise is disingenuous.

" %hen the prosecutors office monitored and retaliated against 4ames 1nedden for his blog, 4udge
5oover stated Mr. nedden!s letter is not the first demand letter I have sent out and it will not be the
last.

TRUE BUT INCOMPLETE:
It is true that 4udge 5oovers office does demand letters but what isnt shared and was confirmed by public
records re/uest, to the best of the 4udges recollection and he has held this position since 166,, the
1nedden letter was the first and only such demand letter initiated by the prosecutors office. It is highly
unlikely that 4udge 5oover was party to the behaviors of the prosecutors office. 5is office could have
s/uelched the matter with a call to the 1ecretary of 1tates office or by using a simple search in the
database using only +r. 1neddens uni/ue last name.

It is the job of the prosecutor to seek the truth and its fairly clear that the prosecutor has mislead the
public with his press release. The ))&* complaint is not only about se-ual harassment but also alleges
retaliation. %ith that charge pending, was it wise of the prosecutor to so publicly retaliate against +r.
1nedden7 There has been no public apology and no sign of remorse.

$im 8eem
9ew Albany, &hio

+s. 8eem earned a 8.A. in (olitical 1cience from The &hio 1tate :niversity, certification in 0isk
+anagement ; (ublic )ntities from The Insurance Institute of America, and is a past (resident of the
<icking *ounty =oung >emocrats.