The following editorial appeared in the November 2000 issue of Toledo Business Journal. Permission to reproduce this editorial can be obtained by contacting the Editorial Department of Toledo Business Journal at (419) 865-0972.

 

 

 

Wrongdoings allegedly committed by Chabler

Scheme uncovered to plant false news
in the Blade

 

As our readers know, we published an editorial in the September issue of the Toledo Business Journal titled: Personal "Vendetta" exposed. The editorial outlined a number of actions which John Robinson Block, with the help of several others, has undertaken against the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority and select members of its management and board of directors. This Personal "Vendetta" began as a result of the board's rejection of Block's attempt in 1997 to prevent Grand Aire from relocating to Toledo Express Airport. This editorial can be found at www.toledobiz.com.

New information involving this Personal "Vendetta" against the Port has surfaced. This information concerns allegations of wrongdoing that raises issues of possible criminal violation of Ohio law involving Jerry Chabler, a member of the Port Authority board of directors. Chabler was appointed to the Port board by Mayor Carty Finkbeiner. We have learned that Chabler's appointment occurred with the "influence" of John Robinson Block.

Following a heated and emotional Port Authority board meeting on September 15th, Jerry Chabler conducted a press interview with Joe Mahr of the Toledo Blade. Chabler claimed in his report given to the Blade that James Hartung, president of the Port Authority, pressured developer Frank Kass to hire the architectural firm SSOE, Inc. to work on the proposed Marina District project. Chabler further charged that Hartung pressured Frank Kass to use SSOE because he claimed that SSOE has ties to the Lathrop Company which employs Ray Medlin, chairman of the board of the Port Authority. The Blade article containing this interview with Jerry Chabler then stated, "Mr. Chabler described Mr. Hartung's action as a 'very serious appearance of impropriety.'" The Blade article was published on September 16th.

Three days later on September 19th, the Blade published an editorial blasting the Port which included the following statements: "Second, board members must, to be above reproach, see to it that none of their members or employees, including Mr. Hartung, appear to solicit business for any firm in which any of them has even a peripheral interest. Mr. Chabler claims that Mr. Hartung urged the developer of the proposed Marina District on the east bank of the Maumee to hire SSOE, Inc., which has ties to the Lathrop Corp., Mr. Medlin's employer. That should never happen."

The Blade then followed this editorial by printing a letter to the editor that accused Ray Medlin of having "delusions of grandeur and a conflict of interest."

We felt the serious nature of Chabler's charges against James Hartung and Ray Medlin and the high visibility given to them by the Blade required further examination.

We contacted Frank Kass directly to learn if James Hartung or SSOE or Ray Medlin or anyone else had placed pressure on him or his employees to use any company to do work on the Marina District project. Frank Kass advised that he spoke to a reporter from the Blade about this same question. He further confirmed that the Blade article on September 16th which followed his conversation with the Blade reporter accurately reflected his comments as follows: (from the Blade article) "Mr. Kass said he didn't feel any pressure to use SSOE. 'There's been nobody recommending that we use anybody,' Kass said. 'To date, we have met with three engineering firms, two or three local architectural firms, and two construction firms.'"

Kass talked to us in detail and assured us that the comments he made to the Toledo Blade - that no one applied any type of pressure for his company to use any area firm - were completely accurate.

We then contacted James Hartung, president of the Port Authority. Hartung assured us that he had not "pushed" Frank Kass or anyone in his organization to use any firm to do any work on the Marina District project. Instead, Frank Kass has encouraged an identification of area firms that could provide local participation in this project according to both Hartung and Kass.

So why had Jerry Chabler conducted a press interview with a Toledo Blade reporter to announce that James Hartung had attempted to pressure Frank Kass into using SSOE for construction work?

According to information from Frank Kass's conversation with both the Toledo Blade reporter and also from his in depth discussion with the Toledo Business Journal, Jerry Chabler's charges that James Hartung pressured Kass to use SSOE are not truthful. Had Jerry Chabler simply fabricated the charges against James Hartung and Ray Medlin?

We contacted Jerry Chabler and asked him to explain the basis of his charges. Chabler was reluctant at first to talk to us, but he advised that he had gotten a call from a "concerned citizen" alerting him to this issue.

We asked for the name of this individual in order to confirm any information this individual might have and to also be able to include such information in this editorial. However, Jerry Chabler has chosen not to disclose this name.

We asked Chabler if the anonymous caller had provided any information that indicated James Hartung had pressured Frank Kass to hire SSOE. Chabler advised that this caller had no knowledge of any such conversation.

We questioned whether Chabler had spoken to Kass to obtain the information behind his charges. Chabler responded, "I don't know Frank Kass. I never met Frank Kass in my life. Why would I call Frank Kass?"

We asked Chabler if James Hartung had indicated to him in any way that he (Hartung) "pushed" Kass to use SSOE and Lathrop. Chabler admitted that Hartung had never made such a statement.

We asked Chabler if the Blade had misquoted him concerning his charges that Hartung had pressured Frank Kass and he responded that he had not been misquoted.

Chabler did attempt to explain the basis of his charges. Chabler claims that he called James Hartung and confronted him and, according to Chabler, Hartung told him that he had contacted Frank Kass to assist SSOE in getting an introduction to Kass. Chabler then claims that he told Hartung, "I said can't you see the perception of a possible conflict of interest here. And he (Hartung) indicated to me, yeah, now that I think about it he said, I think that it could be perceived that way." According to Chabler, James Hartung then stated that he (Hartung) probably should not have called Frank Kass because it could have an appearance of impropriety.

We did contact James Hartung again to question him about Chabler's claims. Hartung advised us that Jerry Chabler had called him and that he told Chabler he had called Frank Kass. Hartung stated that he had a general discussion with Frank Kass about Kass's receptivity to using local suppliers. We asked Hartung if he could confirm Jerry Chabler's statement - "Can't you see the perception of a possible conflict of interest here."

Hartung told us that to the best of his recollection Jerry Chabler had made a statement similar to this. Hartung further clarified that if someone tried to take his call to Frank Kass out of the context in which it was made that they could possibly attempt to make it look improper.

We asked Hartung if there was any possible thing he had done that could have provided Jerry Chabler with any credible basis to support his charges concerning soliciting business.

Hartung advised us, in strong terms, that there was no possible way this happened.

During the earlier interview with Jerry Chabler, we attempted to ask him many times to explain the basis of his charges that Hartung pressured Kass to "hire" SSOE.

After repeatedly pressing Chabler during the interview to explain these charges, he revealed that no one had given him this information but he stated - "A reasonable mind would conclude, uh, assume that that certainly was the case."

Then, Chabler admitted that his basis for the serious charges he had raised against James Hartung are his own personal "assumptions" of what he believes Hartung might have said to Frank Kass.

Chabler concluded the interview by stating, "Now wouldn't the reasonable mind conclude that there is something not right here. When two and two doesn't make four, there's usually something wrong."

We did learn that Chabler's charges against Hartung and Medlin given to a Blade reporter occurred immediately after a board meeting at which Chabler and Medlin engaged in an angry and emotional exchange. There has been a significant amount of media coverage of this heated board meeting.

After examining this situation in more detail, we gained greater insight into these actions involving Jerry Chabler and the Toledo Blade.

The Blade's editorial on September 19th blasted James Hartung for "soliciting business" from Frank Kass, based on Chabler's charges. This Blade editorial occurred even though four days earlier the Blade learned information from Kass that raised serious issues concerning the truthfulness of Chabler's charges.

If the Blade contacted Chabler during this four day period to examine in detail the basis of his charges, they learned that the charges were simply Chabler's "assumption" of what he believed Hartung might have said to Kass. We have not been able to find anyone, including Chabler, who can confirm the truthfulness of these serious charges.

The Blade's editorial was attempting to lead the public to believe that there were improprieties involving James Hartung and Ray Medlin as charged by Jerry Chabler's false report to the newspaper.

In Ohio, it is a criminal offense for anyone to "knowingly make a false statement"  to a newspaper "with purpose to incriminate another" or "with purpose to mislead a public official in performing the public official's official function." If there is no truth to the charges raised by Jerry Chabler and if he gave this report to the Blade with such knowledge and during a moment of great anger following the heated and emotional board meeting, would this Port board member be in criminal violation of the law in Ohio?

There appears to have been costs incurred by the Port Authority in wasted management time, at a minimum, to deal with the false charges leveled by Chabler and reported in the Blade along with other misrepresentations.

It seems proper that if Chabler is responsible for wasting tax payers' money, it is appropriate that he reimburse these hard earned funds. As a member of the board of directors of the Port Authority, Jerry Chabler had a fiduciary responsibility to protect tax payer dollars when he engaged in these actions.

The law in Ohio exempts Port board members from legal liability in civil actions unless a board member acted with "malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner."

Jerry Chabler has been engaged in a public and even heated and emotional feud with Ray Medlin.

Have Jerry Chabler's actions, which appear to have a "malicious purpose" and appear to have been committed in a "wanton and reckless manner," made him legally liable for compensatory and punitive damages in any civil law suit initiated by anyone or any organization harmed by his alleged scheme.

Our investigation has exposed allegations of wrongdoing that raises issues of possible criminal violation of Ohio law by Jerry Chabler, alleged violation of fiduciary responsibilities as a member of the Port Authority board of directors, Jerry Chabler's potential legal liability to reimburse wasted tax payer money, and potential liability in any civil litigation for compensatory and punitive damage awards.

Should Jerry Chabler now resign his board position with the Port Authority which is prior to the expiration of his term that ends next year? Alternatively, Mayor Finkbeiner, who made this board appointment, could publicly demand Chabler's reimbursement of wasted tax payer funds and his resignation from the board. However, as we stated before, Chabler's appointment to the Port Board occurred with the "influence" of John Robinson Block.

We believe strongly that any scheme that results in the publication of false or misleading articles in a local newspaper causes serious harm to the trust demanded and deserved by the community.