Tuscarawas County commissioners press Board of Elections over $47,500 in staff payouts and hiring flagged as uninsurable

Tuscarawas County commissioners on May 18 questioned the Board of Elections over one-time staff payments totaling $47,500 and asked for documentation after learning the payouts were made without prior approval from the appointing authority.

County Administrator Kris Lowdermilk told the commissioners he had reviewed BOE minutes and payroll records going back to Dec. 8, 2025, and could not find objective criteria or written policy explaining how the payments were allocated among eight staff members. "I do not see where this manual was followed," Lowdermilk said, referring to the BOE personnel manual, and he recommended new payroll forms and additional internal controls so similar payouts would not be issued without the commissioners' approval.

BOE Chairman Thomas Hisrich and board member Jerry Lahmers defended the payments. Lahmers said the board considered staff responsibility for running ‘‘fair and efficient elections’’ and argued the board could not afford to lose experienced workers. "We don’t have the option of failure on election day," Lahmers said, adding the payouts were intended to retain staff after a demanding period.

Commissioner Greg Ress said using leftover salary funds to make discretionary payments was inappropriate without prior discussion with the appointing authority. "Left over money from salaries is not to be distributed to government employees; I feel this is completely wrong," Ress said, urging recovery of the funds and stronger public safeguards.

Commissioner Mitch Pace said the issue was not only legality but public perception: "It is not about being legal, it is what is right in the public eye," he said, and supported exploring ways to return the funds to the general fund. Administrator Lowdermilk proposed that BOE members could waive their $600 monthly stipends for 24 months to recapture the $47,500 and demonstrate good faith to taxpayers.

The BOE said it had sought legal advice after the payments. Lowdermilk noted a written opinion from former Prosecutor Ryan Styer that cited Ohio Revised Code 325 concerning bonus payments but said the legal advice was obtained after the funds were disbursed.

Separately, Lowdermilk raised concerns about a recent BOE hire for an IT-related position who, according to the county’s insurer, was not insurable. Lowdermilk said he had documentation from the insurer’s senior underwriter indicating the individual would not be covered for certain dishonest acts. "If you knowingly or unknowingly hire an individual who has committed dishonest acts under the insurance layer, [they] will not be covered," Lowdermilk said, urging the BOE to address potential liability. BOE members replied that the employee’s responsibilities had been scaled back and that they had not removed the person from duty.

Commissioners pressed whether the BOE would accept financial responsibility if a claim arose; the BOE declined to publicly assume indemnity and said legal counsel would need to weigh in. The board also did not agree to place the employee on administrative leave.

The commissioners requested the BOE provide the written criteria, payroll information forms, and supporting documentation for the December 2025 payments and said similar future payments must be brought to the appropriating authority in a public meeting. No formal action to recover the $47,500 was taken at the May 18 meeting; the BOE expressed that it believed the payments were lawful and within its prerogative.

Votes at a glance: The board approved routine items earlier in the session, including minutes (RES 366-2026 and RES 367-2026), supplemental appropriations (RES 369-2026), an inter-fund transfer from Children Services to Public Assistance (RES 370-2026), a roadway use agreement with EOG Resources (RES 371-2026), payment of listed bills (RES 372-2026) and an out-of-county travel request for EMA (RES 373-2026). Those motions carried with the vote tallies recorded in the meeting journal.