MICHAEL DEWINE ( - Supreme Court of Ohio and the … COUNTY REPUBLICAN PART^.' EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel.,LUCAS COUNTY REPUBLICANPART^.' EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

ItI.LATOR,

vs.

JON M. I-IUSTED,OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE

RESPONDENT.

CASE NUMBER 2014-1123

Original Action in Mandamus

EVIDENCE - Volume I

DEPOSITION OF SCOTT P. BORGEMENKE

WILLIAM M. TODD (#0023061)Law Offices of William M. Todd, Ltd.137 East State StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215Phone No.: (614) 545-6311Fax No.: (614) 545-6356E-mail: wtodd('&dvilliamnitodd.com

Counsel for RelatorLucas County Republican Party

f.. . . ^;.,1 ,. . . .

f l : S :. ._....^'i h J

? Y :• S : ^ .! -; i`^ ^^.i •^ : S ^ _, t . ..;.'^% ^ ^_11-1 N - J u"l . .

MICHAEL DEWINE (0009181)

Ohio Attorney General

TIFFANY L. CARWILE (0082522)*

* Counsel of Record

RYAN L. RICHARDSON (0090382)Assistant Attorneys GeneralConstitutional Offices Section30 East Broad Street, l6th FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Tel: 614-466-2872Fax: 614-728-7592tiffan,,7 caruile(&,ohioattornevg^ncraLôvryan.richardsonnohiaattor^êyêneral. ôv

Counsel for RelatorOhio Secretary of State Jon Husted

CERTIFI:CATE C?F SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 10th day of October, 2014, a copy of the foregoing Relator's

Evidence Volume I- Deposition of Scott P. Borgemenke was served via hand delivery upon:

Tiffany L. Carwile (0082522)Counsel of RecordAssistant Attorney GeneralConstitutional Offices Section30 East Broad Street, 16t}' Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215

By: /s/ William M. ToddCounselfor RelatorLucas County Republican Party

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

- - - - -

State of Ohio, ex rel.

Lucas County

Republican Party, •

Relator,Case No. 14-1123

VS.

Jon M. Husted, Ohio

Secretary of State,

Defendant.

- - - - -

DEPOSITION OF SCOTT P. BORGEMENKE

Taken at Law Offices of William M. Todd

137 East State Street

Columbus, OH 43215

September 5, 2014, 10:16 a.m.

Spectrum Reporting LLC

333 Stewart Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43206

614-444-1000 or 800-635-9071

www.spectrumreporting.com

Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - VideoSpectrum Reporting LLC

2 ^

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A P P E A R A N C E S

ON BEHALF OF RELATOR:

Law Offices of William M. Todd, Ltd.

137 East State Street

Columbus, OH 43215

By William M. Todd, Esq.

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:

Attorney General's Office

Constitutional Offices Section

30 East Broad Street, 16th Fl.

Columbus, OH 43215

By Ryan L. Richardson, Esq.

Jordan S. Berman, Esq.

Tiffany L. Carwile, Esq.

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:

Ohio Secretary of State

180 East Broad Street, 15th Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

By David W. Bowling, Esq.

Matt Walsh, Esq.

ALSO PRESENT:

Kelly Bensman

Jon. Stainbrook

Meghan Gallagher

Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation -VideoSpectrum Reporting LLC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2a

21

22

23

24

3

Friday Morning Session

September 5, 2014, 10:16 a.m.

S T I P U L A T I O N S

It is stipulated by counsel in attendance that

the deposition of Scott P. Borgemenke, a witness

herein, called by the Relator for

cross-examination, may be taken at this time by

the notary pursuant to notice and subsequent

agreement of counsel, that said deposition may be

reduced to writing in stenotypy by the notary,

whose notes may thereafter be transcribed out of

thepresence of the witness; that proof of the

official character and qualification of the notary

is waived.


4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

I N D E X

Examination By

Mr. Todd - Cross

Ms. Richardson - Cross

Mr. Todd - Further Cross

Relator Exhibits referred to

Exhibit - Hearing Officer' s Report &Recommendati.ons, 6-4-14

Exhib;t B- Letter to Stainbrook from Husted,

6-24-14

(No exhibits were marked.)

Page

5

159

160

Page

138

149


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

5 ^

SCOTT P. BORGEMENKE

being first duly sworn, testifies and says as

follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. TODD°.

Q. Good morning, Mr. Borgemenke. Do you

mind if I call you Scott? Your last name is so

long it takes her --

A. It is. It is.

Q. Is that all right?

A. Well, let's start with Mr. Borgemenke

for a while.

Q. Okay. That sounds good.

Can you tell us, Mr. Borgemenke, your

full name?

A. Scott Patrick Borgemenke.

Q. Okay.

A. B, as in boy, O-R-G-E-M-E-N-K-E.

Q. And where do you live, Mr. Borgemenke?

A. 8830 Birgham Court, Dublin, Ohio 43017.

Q. Okay. And where are you employed?

A. The Ohio Hospital Association.

Q. And what is your position there?

A. I am the senior vice president for

Realtime - Vicleoconferenci.ng - Trial Presentation - VideoSpectrum Reporting LLC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

aa

6

advocacy and communications.

Q. And how long have you been in that

position?

A. 18 months.

Q. Roughly when would that have been,

sometime in the middle of --

A. I think April -- May 1st. Let's use

May lst. It might have been a week before, but

May 1st.

Q. May lst, 2013?

A. Yeah, last year.

Q. Okay. Let ' s go back a few years and

ask where did you receive your undergraduate

education?

A. Ohio University.

Q. And did you receive a degree there?

A. Yes,

Q. And in what year was that?

A. 1991.

Q. And what degree was that?

A. Bachelor of Arts in economics.

Q. Following receipt of the Bachelor of

Arts in economics in 1991, did you go on for any

further education?


--77 I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A. I started grad school, Ohio University

economics, that I didn't complete. And I took a

job at the Statehouse.

Q. Okay. And about what time would that

have been, roughly? I know it's a long time ago.

A. March '92.

Q. And when you took a job at the

Statehouse, what were you doing?

A. Hold on a sec. I was special assistant

to the senate president, Stan Aronoff. Primarily

budget work.

Q. Okay. And how long were you in that

position?

A. Two years, three years. Three years.

I'm trying to think when Aronoff -- whenever

Aronoff's term limited is when I left.

Q. So roughly three or four years?

A. Yeah.

Q. What did you do after that?

A. I went to work for the Cincinnati

Business Committee.

Q. Which is what?

A. It is a group of -- it's a CEO

organization in Cincinnati focused primarily on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

8

Cincinnati Public Schools and economic development

in downtown. Very similar to the group here in

Columbus.

Q. Similar to the Columbus Partnership?

A. The Partnership group, yeah, yeah.

Q. And how long were you there?

A. A couple years.

Q. And how about after that?

A. Bob Taft, chief policy advisor.

Q. And what was Bob's elected office at

that time?

A. He was Governor Taft. I'm sorry.

Q. Okay. He was a lot of things.

A. No. That's fair enough. Fair enough.

Q. And what year were you with Governor

Taft's office?

A. '98 to the end of '99.

Q. Following your work with Governor Taft,

what did you do?

A. Political consult -- political lobbying

consulting business.

Q. And one that you owned?

A. Yes.

Q. And operated?


1

1

1

l

1

1

l

1

l

2

2

2

2.

2

9

A. Yeah.

Q. And how long did you do that?

A. Four years.

Q. Following that, what did you do?

A. Left, became chief of staff for Jon

Husted when he became Speaker of the House.

Q. Roughly what year was that?

A. I don't know. But the fact book has

it.

Q. Would have been easier if we just got

your resume. I didn't know you did --

A. Yeah.

Q. You just don't seem to be able to hold

a job.

A. I cannot hold a job. I cannot hold a

job.

Q. Do you remember roughly --

A. When was he elected -- he would have

been -- Householder would have been term limited

out.

Q. '6 -- that would have been '6, '7

maybe?

A. Sure.

Q. Somewhere around there?


10

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A. And if it's not correct, then I can get

you the resume if that would be fine.

Q. Yeah. Because I think Speaker

Householder's term limited out at the end of 2006.

A. Yeah.

Q. And how long did you stay there?

A. Four years.

Q. And what you did do at that point?

A. I went -- actually had a special

opportunity to run the Preakness. My father was a

jockey, so I got to run the Preakness Stakes in

2001.

Q. That's very cool.

A. I got to --

Q. 2001 or 2011?

A. I guess it would have been 20 -_ I

don't know. Big Brown won the race, so we can

figure that out, too.

Q. Okay. And after that, what did you do?

A. I came back to Ohio, restarted my

political consulting business.

Q. Okay. And how long did you do that?

A. A couple years. And then when Husted

became -- well, that's while Husted was in the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

f 11

Senate. And then I became his Chief of Staff and

Assistant Secretary of State when he became

elected Secretary of State.

Q. Okay. Let me go back and ask you to

clarify. When Secretary Husted took office, you

joined the administration?

A. Secretary of State's -- just like Bob

Taft.

Q. Yeah. Yes.

A. Yes, I joined his administration.

Correct.

Q. Okay. And that would have been 2011?

A. Led the transition team, so it would

have been --

Q. Late 2010, early 2011?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. And when you were withSecretary

Husted's office, what was your -- what was your

position?

A. I was the Chief of Staff.

Q. Chief of Staff?

A. And the Assistant Secretary of State,

which is established in Code.

Q. Okay. What were your responsibilities


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

12

in that position?

A. You know, run the day-to-day -- run the

day-to-day staff, run the day-to-day office,

oversee the legislative communications, oversee

press operations, oversee the business services

operations, along with the statutory requirement

when the Secretary is out of state.

Q. You would step in?

A. Sometimes things happen and you have to

sign papers. Every once in a while things happen.

I think it happened a couple times.

Q. I remember when we did that with Monty

Lobe when

A. Yeah. Monty would have been in the

same role. Except he actually made him the

Secretary of State I think for a period of time.

Q. I think we had recommended that he do

that for several months.

A. Yeah. I think that's right.

^. Off the record.

(A short recess is taken.)

Q. Okay. Let's talk a little bit about

Lucas County. When you came into office in --

with the administration with Secretary Husted in


13

]

^

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2011, were there issues that had arisen with

regard to Lucas County Board of Elections?

A. There have been issues arisen with

Lucas County Board of Elections for -- since 2002.

And so it's just -- it's constant. It's a

cultural issue up there. it's unfortunate, but

it's something --

Q. Goes all the way back to Bernadette Noe

if I remember correctly.

A. Yeah. And it may go back -- depending

on who you talk to, it may go back to World

War II. But, yeah, there have always been issues

up there. There were issues brought forward, I

think some from Mr. Stainbrook, some from the

Republican Party, some from -- I mean just about

everybody up there had a complaint about the Lucas

County Board of Elections.

Q. And if I remember correctly, that --

right at the time when you came in, in early 2011,

there was a need to replace the then director.

A. Yeah. I think what happened was we

were hearing -- you know, it's interesting.

Eighty eight county boards, there were really

three that we hear from on a regular basis: Lucas


14

]

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

County, Summit County and Putnam County. Those

were the three counties.

Q. Putnam County?

A. Putnam County. Those were the three

counties that came up very frequently with issues.

Many of those issues are based on, you know,

personnel issues, personality issues, operational

issues. And so Lucas County was one of the first

ones that we went up to. And I believe -- and I

certainly can stand corrected -- I believe a lot

of those issues were brought forward by

Mr. Stainbrook and the Republican Party and the

way in which things were happening up there. We

sent a group up at the time to, you know, kind of

kick the tires, knock around, see what the issues

were, you know, what were real issues and what

were made up issues. And by made up issues I mean

exaggerated issues.

Q. Right.

A. I don't mean made up factually. I mean

exaggerated issues. But did those issues affect

the outcome of the election. And in the course of

doing that, we found that I think -- I'm going to

miss her name, Linda --


15

]

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. Linda?

A. I want to say Rice, but that might not

be her name.

Q. Linda Hodge?

A. Linda Howell.

Q. Linda Howell.

A. And Jeremy -- Jeremy was the

Republican. That they had violated a directive I

think that was issued by Secretary Brunner, and it

was pretty obvious that they had violated that

directive.

Q. Something to do with provisional ballot

counting, if you recall?

A. I'm going to say the answer's yes, and

I'm about 80 percent confident that that's right.

Q. ®kay.

A. Where to count them, how to sort them,

when to count them. Something procedurally like

that.

i Q. That's not been a controversial issue

in Ohio at all, has it?

A. That's right.

MS. RICHARDSON: Object to form.

Q. Okay. You went up there to kick the


`

a

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

16

tires early in 2011, found the need to have the

I Board's director replaced and deputy director

apparently?

A. I believe that's correct.

Q. When's your next direct encounter with

issues at the Lucas County Board of Elections?

A. Hourly.

Q. Hourly?

A. The calls never stop.

Q. Really? From whom? Everybody?

A. Republican Party, Democrat Party,

warehouse supervisors, people who defended

Ms. Howell -- hourly's an exaggeration.

Frequently. Issues from -- you know, as much as

proppi.ng warehouse doors open that shouldn't be

open to iPhone pictures of how high the walls

should be and should the gates be -- should the

gates protecting the machines be up to the wall or

should they just be, you know, three-quarters of

the length. All of those issues.

Q. Fascinating.

A. Fascinating and confusing.

Q. Oh, absolutely.

And that did not cease when Linda


17

]

2

?

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Howell was replaced as director?

A. I guess to be -- to be frank, there

were peaks and valleys. But, no, there was always

something going on up there. And whether it was

tangible or not tangible, it was very tough to

distinguish because many of the stories that came,

they kind of -- I think dealing with the county up

there was much li.ke entering a calculus class

midterm in that you didn't have the framework or

the background or the genealogical history to

understand all the problems. So you kind of

started in the middle, tried to listen, figure out

which problems were there, which were not there.

And I don't think it was just since this

administration. I think those issues have been in

existence for a while.

Q. Predate -- as we discussed, it predated

Secretary Husted's service as Secretary of State?

A. Yeah.

I Q. When Linda Howell was replaced, I think

it was your testimony that there were continuing

issues after that?

A.

Q-

i

There were continuing complaints.

Okay. Anyone in particular who would


]

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

18

make those complaints? I know you mentioned that

they came from a variety of sources, but can you

remember anybody specifically?

A. I'm trying to remember the names. The

gentleman up there was a Board member, I think he

owned some nursing homes. I just don't remember

his name. I'm sure somebody else can help me fill,

in the blanks. He would have complaints.

Mr. Stainbrook would have complaints.

Q. Richard Rothenbuhler, would that be it?

A. Ben -- no -- well, no, Ben really

didn't have complaints. Ben

Q. Ben Marsh?

A. Ben Marsh. Oh, gosh, his name, I just

forget his name.

Q. Patrick Kriner?

A. Patrick Kriner. Mr. Stainbrook.

Undisclosed e-m.ails from I think it was the LCRP,

which I believe is the Lucas County Republican

Party.

Q. Uh-huh. But just a never ending series

of complaints about problems at the Board and the

function -- and the day-to-day function of the

Board?


19

3

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A. I would say a constant confusing

dialogue with no chronological order and very

difficult to sort through what folks were talking

about.

Q. Were any of these complaints and so on

that you were receiving or the Secretary's office

was receiving brought to the attention of the

Board members up there?


A. Constantly. They were making them.

Q. Oh, the Board members were making the

complaints?

A. Sure. Sure.

Q. And was it a situation that because of

the bipartisan nature of the Board that certain

issues couldn't be resolved?


A. No. I think they were chosen not to

resolve, be resolved.

Q. What do you mean when you say that?

A. Let me make sure I say this the right

way. The structure in Ohio on how Lucas -- how

boards are structured are odd. Parties make

recommendations. Those recommendations go to the


20

E

1®

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

L; Secretary of State's office. Once they were

accepted or rejected, you know, sometimes you get

> four of four people on the Board and by design,

they've been fighting for 20 years, and they're

supposed to get together and pass things on

majority vote. It works in many counties, other

counties it doesn't. But they're a fully

autonomous Board. They're paid for by the county.

They have the ability to operate by Robert's Rules

of Order or Masons rules of orders. Anything that

comes to their attention, they have open meetings,

they have open meeting laws, and those complaints

are dealt with at the county level. As you know,

Secretary of State's office is not the counsel to

the boards of elections. The counsel is the --

Q. The county prosecutor?

A. -- county prosecutor. So these are the

issues where with the exception of kind of the

appointment and the general oversight from the.

Secretary of State, the day-to-day management, the

stories, they're all local and -- and then -- and,

Mr. Todd, I guess it would be much like your law

firm. You give me a call, you tell me your

assistant's not doing a very good job, you tell me

Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - VideoSpectrum.Reporting LLC

21

] she's related to the second cousin of the guy who

you're in litigation with and that she needs to be

fired. It goes to the Board, it's a 2-to-2 tie,

and then you ask the Secretary of State's office

to break the tie. I don't know. I don't know

what to do about those things. You know --

9

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. I don't either because it's a whacky

system.

A. Yeah. I don't know what to do -- I

don't know what to do about those things.

Q. Yeah.

A. And so whenever there were issues, I

believe we went up there four or five, six

different times. I'm sure it's documented

somewhere. Talked to everybody and their brother.

And we started off privately, we started off in

private rooms, tell me what you're hearing,

Mr. Todd. Tell me what you are hearing.

Mr. Stainbrook. Tell me what you are hearing,

Mr. Gallagher. And then we would bring in

employees, tell me what you're hearing; tell me

what the problems are. Everybody would tell a

hell of a story. And then you'd open a door and

no one would tell the story. Because when you

i


22

]

2

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

asked them to tell it in front of other people,

they were not willing to tell the story.

So they were willing to complain, they

had the authority to address or vote or tie or not

tie on many of the issues, and I-® I don't know.

I don't know these people. I don't know who's

telling the truth, did not know.

Q. And you weren't there every day?

A. Oh, no. No. Didn't -- I mean I can't

even remember some of their names. No.

Q. Right.

A. No.

Q. We heard a little bit yesterday from

Mr. Damschroder that there is a system by which

the Secretary's office has an ongoing set of eyes

and ears in the county boards of elections, the

regional liaison.

MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.

Q. It's not exactly the way Matt put it,

but there was a -- and I was going to ask you to

explain a little bit more as to what those

regional liaisons were supposed to do.

MS. RICHARDSON: I'll object to form

and to the extent that we're representing


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

F

23

testimony esterda that r. B ry y y M o gemenke was

not present for.

Q. Well, just tell me what you think the

regional liaisons are for.

A. Regional liaisons are not in any sort

of management situation. Regional liaisons -- we

had envisioned regional liaisons, sometimes you

have seven of them, sometimes you have eight of

them. They're at different levels. Some have

elections experience, some don't. They are

instructed by our office not to give any advice.

They are instructed to observe the meeting, listen

to the meeting, give us a call if things get out

of order, if things are -- if there's a real

problem. You know, because, look, some'--

sometimes there are what I call real problems

which are real electorate problems, voting machine

problems, then there are personal issues, then

there are just fights. And so to the extent we

don't always get -- you know, we don't always get

to hear these machines are not counting right,

these machines -- those people were to report back

to us to the best of their knowledge what they

observed at a meeting. Absolutely no authority to


24

3

^

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

do anything. They're not paid at that level.

We have some very, very young first

jobs out of college listeners, reporters, call

back. All different qualities, all different

skill sets. But eyes and ears in a day-to-day

basis -- I mean certainly not saying that they

were i.mbeddedin a troop much like a reporter

would be in Afghanistan, that would not be the

case.

Q. But they would be charged, for example,

with attending Board meetings and report back if

there were issues that arose at the Board level?

A. Yeah, and to the extent that they

could. Because interesting enough you have these

big regions, a lot of boards meet at 8:00 on

Friday. Sometimes you've got to go to Putnam,

sometimes you've got to go to Lucas.

Q. Right.

A. Sometimes you have a dentist

appointment. So this was a sporadic issue. So 9

out of 10 times, I -- I almost never heard from

them.

Q. From the regional liaisons?

A. Well, I almost never heard from them.


25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. Did they report to anybody in

pa.rticular?

A. Yeah. I mean they would report to --

we'd have someone in charge of the regional

offices and they would report in. They really

didn't do written reports. They would just call

and say, hey, we have this problem. Sometimes --

sometimes what was nice is you would have

responsible Board members that would say, hey, you

know, this might come up, just want to make sure

your office -- and that would let us determine

whether they would send somebody to Putnam or

Lucas or Sandusky.

L. Uh-huh. But really no authority.

A. More just -- I would call them almost

AP reporters, not even opinion reporters, just

report back what they heard.

Q. Sort of circulating reporters?

A. Yeah. And they would take notes and --

Q. Did the -- who wasthe regional

liaisons for this area during the time period you

were at the Secretary of State's office?

A. I believe there were -- let me make

sure I get this right. Tim Monaco was certainly


5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

there for a period of time. And then I think

there was a period of time where we didn't have

anybody assigned to the county. I know we -- we

did send up a special master at one point during

theelection.

Q. Which election are you referring to?

A. The Presidential election.

Q. 2012. Thank you.

A. But that would not be a regional

liaison, but it would be somebody who actually was

probably more embedded into the situation.

Q. Right. Right.

A. And then at some point we didn't have

anybody assigned to the county. That happens

frequently. It's not personal. It happens

frequently. We have people who quit, it takes us

time to fill the j obs . Quite frankly, I don ' t

even know that you need them. But we have them in

the county, we have eyes and ears out there. And

it helps people, it helps Board members ask

questions to the Secretary of State's office and

report back to the lawyers.

Q. So it's an additional channel of

communication that functions between the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

27

Secretary's office and the local boards?

A. It is a one-way radio.

Q. Okay.

A. It is not a channel of communication.

They do not have the authority to make --

iQ. Say anything?

A. -- decisions on behalf of the office,

they do not have the authority to -- just like our

, - _counsel, they don't -- you know, they will say --

you know, oftentimes we spend time reading the

Code back to the Board members

Q. Uh-huh.

A. -- in our legal office because again

they are represented by -- in Code by the county

prosecutor.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. And so you have this great system in

which you've got state elections and statewide

elections and different access to hours based on

different counties, and so this is -- this is a--

this is the law that the General Assembly has

written and --

Q. As rewritten by our federal judges.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

28

A. Yeah, I mean --

Q. Like yesterday.

A. Yeah. I mean, look, it's the system

that's out there.

Q. Yeah.

A. And there is an oversight and

responsibility. And to the best of our abilities,

we felt it was a responsibility of the Secretary

of State's office to make sure that Ohio operated

in its most consistent fashion possible.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. And again I'd like to explain this

because I think this is really

Q. I think it's very important. Go ahead.

Please go ahead.

A. I think it's really important to

understand this. County votes, making sure people

vote in a county vote is very important.

Secretary Blackwell had a very difficult job.

Federal government had some problems in Florida,

federal government provided HAVA funds to the

states to buy voting machines. Wonderful country

we live in, federalism allows a state to control

those dollars. Five different voting machines in


^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

29

the State of Ohio, all bid individually and

separately, all with different salespeople, all

with different systems to come through, you know,

hard --

Q. And none of them spoke to each other by

2006?

A. Well, and a lot of those didn't speak

to each other. So to the extent managing those

things and making sure that those processes,

particularly on your federal elections, are as

fair as possible and your statewide elections are

as fair and as accurate as possible is very, very

important.

Your county issues, hey, if you pick

the county machine, the county machine counts the

way the county machine counts, as long as the

county sheriffs are all counted by the same

machine, same processes, fine.

A little different when you're talking

about the federal elections and statewide

elections. So it is one -- it is one of those

frustrating situations that you are responsible

for oversight and guidance, but you have no

day-to-day responsibilities on a lot of the other


30

:

E

i

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

things.

Q. It's almost like a state federal --

federalism system where you've got two different

levels --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- but they only occasionally are

interfacing and coordinating.

A. Yeah. They're only -- yeah.

Q. Okay. Let's talk about -- again going

back to Lucas County, we know there was an issue

that required the replacement of Director Howell

and I believe the deputy director at that point.

Do you remember whether that was in part due to

the fact,that Ms. Howell was not an elector of

Lucas County?


A. I recall the issue coming up as being a

complaint. That is not the reason for the

dismissal. The dismissal was a direct violation

of a directive issued by Secretary Brunner.

Q. On how to deal with provisional

ballots?

A. It was a voting issue.

Q. Okay.


31

A. If I chased down where everybody lived,

whose cousins, who went to school with whom, I

can't figure those things out. It was a very

tangible violation of a directive.

Q. By Director Howell?

A. By Director Howell and I believe by

Jeremy as well.

Q. The deputy director?

A. Yeah. I think they jointly recommended

something that was in violation of a--

Q. Of state law and the directive. You`re

nodding. That's a yes?

A. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes.

Q. If you don't --

A. Yeah, no. No.

Q. -- articulate something

A. Yeah, please tell me.

Q. And eventually Stacy's going to go

please, Mr. Borgemenke

A. Yeah, no, please. That's fine.

Q. After Director Howell was replaced,

what happened at that point? My understanding is

Mr. Roberts came in as director somewhere around

there.

]

^

9

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

1

1

1

1

l'

2(

2:

z:

2:

24

32

IA. I'm going to give you to the best of my

knowledge what happened.

Q. That's fine. That's all you can do.

A. There were changes in the Board members

that came either immediately before or immediately

after the -- Jeremy and the -- the dismissal. I

can't remember first which came, but Board members

were also replaced at the time, all within I think

a pretty short period. So there was kind of a

whole revamping. The only reason I think there

were new Board members that were in place is I

believe -- I believe Mr. Stainbrook, who would not

have been on the Board initially, was involved in

his hiring.

Q. In the hiring of whom? I'm sorry.

A. Mr. Roberts.

Q. Oh, okay.

A. So I --

Q. As director?

A. Yeah, as director.

Q. Right.

A. The day-to-day staff, they're supposed

to run the day-to-day office

Q. Right.


33

^

9

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A. -- they were removed. I just can't

remember whether one Board member or another Board

member came in. I do, however, remember

Mr.Stainbrook and I talking about Mr. Roberts,

and he may have been -- again, you can ask him.

Q. Okay.

A. He may have been there when we removed

Ms. Howell. I don't know. But it was kind of all

in one block of time.

Q. Okay. Did you have any personal

dealings with Mr. Roberts at that time?


A. At what time?

Q. At the time period now we're talking

about sometime in early, perhaps the first half of

2011.

A. I dealt with Mr. Roberts once

Mr. Roberts became an officialof the office.

Q. Okay. And what was the nature of your

communications with Mr. Roberts at that time?

A. How many stories am I allowed to tell?

Q. As many as you want and as many as your

counsel will sit around for. I'm happy to listen.

A. Well, look -- because this is what is

-_


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

34

so confusing and so difficult about this

situation. It is my personal belief there's a

cultural problem in Lucas County.

Q. Within the Board itself,

Mr. Borgemenke, or generally?

A. I can't speak to the whole county.

Q. Okay.

A. I certainly am not -- you know, I think

there's wonderful people in Lucas County. I think

this Board

Q. Tony Packo, for example.

A. Yeah. I think the Board would go

back -- I think nobody would disagree that this

Board has had its series of problems for years.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Some of which get debated in the paper.

And I'll refer to Mr. Stainbrook even though

that's not the question. If you would like to

object, that's fine as well.

Q. No. No.

A. Mr. Stainbrook and I had several,

several conversations over the course of him

becoming a new Board member. He was alsothe

chairman of the Party.

Realtime - Vicieoconferencing - Trial Presentation - VideoSpectrum Reporting LLC

35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. Uh-huh,

A. He's also probably the leader, probably

the most vocal, probably the most active, all of

which some -- as he and I have exchanged and we've

exchanged jokes sometimes, sometimes we think

that's a good thing to be, sometimes we think

that's a bad thing to be. We had some differences

of opinion on that. But always tried to keep it,

as best we could, light and professional.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Got in some arguments but actually kind

of settled up most times. Explaining to

Mr. Stainbrook and explaining to Mr. Roberts the

way in which Scott Borgemenke thinks boards

operate -- and by boards, I mean when I was in the

governor's office, dental boards, I sat -- and

that I've sat on dental Boards. Chiropractor

boards, I've been on the Ohio University board,

I've been on boards for museums and trustees.

Every one has their different flavor, right?

Q. Uh-huh.

A. And I remember one example that I

talked to Mr. Stainbrook about was when I was on

the board at Ohio University, we were in charge of


]

^

v

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

36

macro policy, hiring/firing administrators, big

problems, making sure we were ready

preparedness, making sure the budget was lined up.

If a student wanted to leave the dorm room because

they were in a fight with their roommate or a

boyfriend was there, we would certainly be

involved in issues such as security issues, males

not being removed from female dorms. We were not

in charge of moving roommates. We were not in

charge of making sure the meals were hot. We were

not in charge -- so -- so what I think

Mr. Stainbrook and I both tried to do was to try

to decide what is the day-to-day function of a

Board member and then what is the day-to-day

function of the person who is paid professionally.

I think you see that in a lot of elected officials

offices.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. You know, the Governor runs the State

of Ohio. The Governor makes the decision. There

are a lot of people making a lot of decisions

right now under the Governor's purview. Is the

Governor aware of what's on everybody's computer

right now at the Department of Administrative


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

37

Services? He is not, nor should he be.

Q. Even Bob Blair isn't.

A. And Bob Blair isn't either. You know,

I-- I tell a story I worked for Bob Taft. Bob

Taft was a good man, he was tough on staff. And

he asked a lot of questions, sometimes operated

hands on like Mr. Stainbrook operates. Bob Taft

would get upset sometimes in the newspaper. And

the way I related to Governor Taft was, you know,

Governor, 57,000 employees in the State of Ohio

and they all have computers. Somebody is looking

at pornography right now and there's nothing we

can do about that. And we can set up our policies

and we can have our day-to-day people and we can

bring our managers in --

Q. Uh-huh.

A. -- and we can tell our managers this is

not acceptable and I want to make sure you look at

it. That doesn't mean Scott Borgemenke or

Governor Taft go running in and start checking

people's computers out at ODOT. And so we worked

through that a lot. And I think -- I think we

both benefitted from it. I've learned a lot from

Mr. Stainbrook. I think we both benefitted from

Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - VideoSpectrum.Reporting LLC

38

1 those exchanges. So that's what we worked with a

2 lot with Mr. Roberts. What was Mr. Roberts

3 responsible for, what was Mr. Stainbrook

4 responsible for, how are they dividing the office.

5 I think those are the things we worked on.

6 Q. Mr. Roberts did not remain in the

7 position as director for very long.

8 MS. RICHARDSON: Object to form.

9 A. I-- I don't -- as you joke with me

10 that I couldn't keep a job, I don't remain in jobs

11 very long. I don't recall that he stayed -- I

12 don't know what "very long" is. I think he stayed

13 as long as his mental sanity could allow him to

14 say.

15 Q. Why do you say it that way?

16 A. I believe because in his resignation

17 letter, he talked about the office being totally

18 dysfunctional.

19 Q. In terms of the actual staff of the

20 office?

21 MS. RICHARDSON: Object to form.

22 A. I can't speak to his mental state of

23 why he couldn't stay in the job.

24 Q. But Mr. Roberts believed that he could


]

d

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

39

not do the things that you and Mr. Stainbrook had

been talking about in terms of creating a smooth

functioning work environment that would produce

the results that we expect from a Board of

Eleetions.


Q. Is that really what it boiled down to?

If you know. I mean, I -- I'm just trying to

figure out here what happened.

A. I don't know the answer. I -- in the

conversations that I recall with Mr. Roberts,

which were not many --

Q. Uh-huh.

A. -- I don't think Mr. Roberts knew

exactly what his duties were. Mr. Roberts felt

pulled in many different directions, and so I -- I

don't know. I don't know. I really don't.

Q. Did you ever have an impression that

Mr. Roberts was not a competent individual?


A. Yes.

Q. Okay. In what sense?

A. For this job. And here's the way I --

first of all --


1

2

3

4

40

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. When you say "this job," you mean the

director?

A. No. No. I mean for the Board of

Elections. And let me explain what I believe

competency is. I'm not a lawyer.

Q. Okay.

A. I'm a regular guy.

Q. That's fine.

A. I think I'm one of the most competent

chiefs of staff, political operatives, whatever

you want to call it. I cannot change my own oil.

I am not competent to work at Jiffy Lube. it

doesn't mean that I am not a competent person.

That is an unfortunate term that I believe that

the Code has. I believe there are people that are

not competent for certain jobs, but that's not a

besmirching of who they are as individuals. I do

not believe he's competent to have that job.

Q. Based on what?

A. Based on his ability not to -- you

know, managers, day-to-day people, you manage up,

and, you know, good chiefs of staff manage up and

they manage down. And I do not believe he had the

ability to manage up or down. That he -- that he


41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

was there to implement what he was told to do.

And sometimes he was told two different things to

do, and I think his frustration in leaving and

departing so quickly had to do with that.

Q. Who was telling him two different

things to do?

A. You know, I don't know. I don't know.

I assume -- and this is assume because I've worked

in Governor's offices and I've worked -- and I

will give you my example of what I assume because

I think these things are structured very well.

Q. That's okay.

A. DAS, the director, tells you what they

want to do in the department when you're the chief

policy advisor to the Governor. The Governor

tells you what he wants done at DAS. Some people

can handle those situations, some people can make

those decisions, some people are willing to

implement those decisions based on who tells them

what to do, and they move forward and they're able

to take the responsibility. It was not apparent

to me in the structure that Mr. Roberts was

willing to make the decisions that I feel the

full-time -- the full-time employee is responsible


42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

for making.

Q. When you say full-time employee, you

mean in his capacity as director of the Board of

Elections?

A. As director of the Board of Elections.

Q. Okay.

A. And I believe there is a responsibility

that the director and the deputy director have to

run the day-to-day operations of those boards.

And if they don't do it properly, it is the

responsibility to have the Board to remove them.

Q. Or if they violate the law, as we

learned with Linda Howell?

A. Or if they violate the law, the

Secretary of State could remove them. But I do

believe they have that responsibility.

Q. And in this case, though, Mr. Roberts

resigned, correct?

A. I think so.

Q. Okay. He was not removed for not being

able to execute his responsibilities.

MS. RICHAR.DSON: Object to form.

A. I believe there's a letter of

resignation.


43

^

G

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. Okay. And you had referred to it

before that he was having difficulty in trying to

accomplish the goals he wanted to accomplish as

director.


A. I don't believe Mr. Roberts had goals.

I believe Mr. Roberts was a member of the infantry

and he just didn't know which sergeant he was --

or general he was supposed to listen to. He

didn't have goals. He didn't set leadership

abilities. He -- he was implementing tasks and I

think he got confused.

Q. Well, who was he listening to?


A. Who was he talking to or listening to?

That's a difference, too. That's a difference,

too.

Q. Exactly. And I am asking who he was

listening to. Because what you have described

here is the typical relationship between an

executive director and a Board, and the Board sets

policies, sets the tone in the general direction

and the executive director executes.

A. Well --


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

44

Q. And is it fair what you are describing

as he was unable to execute the policy as being

set by the Board?

A. No.


A. No. I believe Mr. Roberts, and I think

that it continued throughout and I think it's --

and I think there's enough dysfunction to be

spread equally. Things don't get on the agenda

there, big issues. If you go through the

transparency committee, no one can tell you how

things are put on the agenda. Does the executive

director or the director put it on the agenda?

Does the chairman put it on the agenda? Does the

head of the Republican -- I'll say the Republican

chairman, it doesn't necessarily have to be the

Republican chairman. I think in this case it was

the Republican chairman was Mr. Stainbrook, the

Republican chairman was Mr. Rothenbuhler at the

time. Do they get together and decide what's on

the agenda? No one can tell you. And when people

like that are running an election and no one can

tell you how issues big, small, or indifferent get

on that agenda, that's a problem. I don't know


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

45

whose problem it is, but it's kind of a problem.

Q. When you say get on the agenda,

Mr. Borgemenke, do you mean that matters are not

being placed formally on an agenda for the Board

of Elections to determine or just in the generic

sense of an agenda that there's no process by

which matters are being raised and addressed?


A. Both.

Q. Oxay.

A. And it's inconsistent. And ifthere's

a complaint about a voting machine, sometimes

Mr. Stainbrook wanted that put on the agenda.

They would adjourn the meeting. Sometimes

Mr. Stainbrook -- and I just use Mr. Stainbrook

because he's sitting here.

Q. No. No. That's fine.

A. If anybody has an objection, I can

mention this about any of the other Board members

because I don't think it applies to

Mr. Stainbrook, he's here in the room.

Q. Right.

A. If Mr. Rothenbuhler didn't want to deal

with an agenda item, he would just never put it on


I

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

46

the agenda. There is -- it's kind of sad, there

are layman terms and there are legal terms and

then there are election terms.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. And words like "competency," words like

"regular," okay, they're used differently in

different contexts.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Boards of Elections are required to

have regular meetings.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Okay. Regular meetings, the Board of

Elections actually have standards, things that

must be talked about in a regular meeting. No

less than 15 times have I had conversations with

Mr. Stainbrook, Mr. Rothenbuhler, and I'll name

those two because they are the ones, explaining

that a regular meeting did not mean frequency. A

regular meeting meant you have to announce the

meeting on a regular basis and deal with issues

addressed in the Code and in resolution. It never

happened.

Q. Do you mean the Board wasn't having

meetings?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

47

A. Right.


A. No, they were having meetings, but

they're allowed to have -- you know, you can have

informal meetings in which you deal with the issue

at hand. You can have regular meetings. In

regular meetings you deal with personal issues,

you deal with -- those meetings never happened.

We told them over and over and over. I don't know

why they didn't do it. I don't know why. But

that was -- that was a breach of duty.

Q. By the Board members?

MS. RICHARDSON: Object to farm.

A. By everybody.

Q. But whose -- I mean we have to have a

system in Ohio, as you point out, that applies

generally --

A. The Board --

Q. -- to who's in charge.

A. The Board. The Board and the person

that they choose to hire day to day, those six

people, no matter their dislike for each other,

their interrelation with each other, they need to

figure out how it works. And for the most part in


487

^

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

87 other counties it works.

Summit County, my friends, I say it

with a twinkling in the eye, sometimes they run

into some problems up there. But they just fight

like hell and eventually they settle on things.

We got to in Lucas County -- and again I want to

make sure I don't blame --

Q. Anybody?

A. -- total gridlock. Republican staff

members would not talk to Democrat Board members.

DemocratBoard members would not return Republican

staff inember's phone calls. That's not --I mean

I worked in the legislature for years. You know,

I've worked over there, things have gotten really

partisan lately.

When I was in Jon Husted's office, we

spoke with Minority Leader Beatty all the time.

And you know what we did? We didn't agree, but

you know what we did, we told them what we were

doing, we told them why they were on the agenda,

there was open communications and the agenda moved

forward.

I don't know who's to blame. And when

we went in four or five or six times and talked to

I


^

9

C

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

49

everybody individually, everybody had a good story

of who to blame. And I believe everybody thought

thatthey were telling their version of it.

And then we had the transparency

committee, and we said, well, if we're going to

have these problems -- you know, I'm a Seinfeld

fan, the airing of the grievances. Let's have an

airing of the grievances, all right? And so we

went up there, and we thought, you know, if y'all

want to talk about it, here's your time. That's

where it came from. But things didn't happen.

Q. When you're talking about the gridlock

that had developed --

A. They won't let you use your phone

anymore? You have to use --

MR. STAINBROOK: I'm using --

MR. TODD: I don't accept phone calls

in depositions.

THE WITNESS: I know. We're good

friends. We were talking about it in the hall and

we're good. He knows I'm playing with him.

MR. TODD: I don't have my phone with

me. He could be playing Madden and I don't care.

A. Yeah, I was -- just --


50

Q. Mr. Borgemenke, you said that gridlock

had developed up there at Lucas County. Would

this have been during the time period you were

still at the Secretary's office?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. And there were clearly at least

two directors who were in the position of being

director of the Board of Elections that we've

talked about so far. First was Linda Howell, and

then Mr. Roberts, we know he was there for

whatever period of time he was there. When

Mr. Roberts left, was there an effort made to

bring in another director to bring the horse back

-- or the saddle back on -the horse?


Q. I know horse jokes are not good. Go

ahead and answer if you can.

A. Again, and I hate to do this -- I hate

to do this to you. I think history's very

important.

Q. I agree. Yeah, I appreciate you

telling me.

(Ms. Carwile exits deposition.)

A. I think history's very important. So I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1 51

need to go back and recreate what I -- what I

witnessed up there.

When we first went up there, Ms. Howell

and Jeremy, whatever his last name is, there

wasn't gridlock because the Board voted 4-0, 3-1., -

Whether they voted the right way or the wrong way,

that's the system, majority rules. Were things

being done properly or not being done properly,

look, we went up there, there were 4-0 votes done,

and we found some things done improperly.

Q. And we're now talking again -- the time

frame early 2011.

A. We're talking about when we first got

up there.

Q. Okay.

A. When we first get up there, look, this

computing system, the people are confusing -- but

the Board voted and that's the system we have.

The system we have is if you got three votes,

that's the policy. But there were some things

that were -- were done incorrectly. As that

changed, what we got into was nothing being put on

the agenda. When things were put on the agenda,

they were very difficult to distinguish. The


5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

527

sides were so different, you know, it was 50

degrees, it was 150 degrees. You know, they were

so different that things just stopped getting put

on the agenda. Whether those things were voting

issues, personnel issues, timecard issues, whether

there were Republican -- I mean we even hacl.

discussions about the -- about whether there were

Republican computers or Democrat computers, not

whether there were taxpayer computers. Whose

computers are they? Which party do they belong

to? You know, I think -- and again I would -- I'm

more than happy to have someone correctme if it's

appropriate, i believe the police had been called

two or three times.

Q. To the Board?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Over what?

A. One time was I think with Mr. Roberts'

computer -- here's what I'm telling you I'mtold.

I don't know what the policy is.

Q. That's fine.

A. This is the way I recollect it. I'm

told when somebody leaves, the county party -- not

the county party, the county administrator,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

53

whether they leave human services, Board of

Elections, they own the equipment, they own the

office building, there is a procedure and process

in which computers get wiped out, removed, reset

up. Well, they weren't allowed in the room to get

the computer.

Q. By whom?

A. I will apologize ahead of time. I

believe it was Ms. Gallagher, but I could stand

corrected at the time if -- but I believe it was

Ms. Gallagher, but I don't know that she was the

only one. But I think she was there at -- I

believe she was there at the time. I don't know

that she physically stood in the room. But -- but

they couldn't remove the computer. Police get

called, there's another situation.

Q. Well, let me -- before you go on

A. Sure. Sure.

Q. I'm just trying to get -- I'm just as

confused as you are by some of these facts.

A. You should be. You'll never figure it

out.

Q. When Mr. Roberts left, you say there

was some issue regarding the county administrator


1- 54

taking his computer?


A. No. I believe there is a county policy

with county computers like there is at the

Secretary of State's office, like there were at

any other departments.

Q. Like the IRS?


A. I don't know what the IRS's policy is.

When somebody -- when somebody leaves, that is the

property of the entity that owns the property.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Most places have disposal, whether they

come in and wipe it out, whether because of public

record laws they put it on a tape. I don't know.

Every county's different. 2 just know that they

wanted to get into the computer. I don't know if

they charged in the moment Ben Roberts left. I

don't know if they came in six months later. But

I do know that the police were solved [sic].

Q. Called? You said "solved."

A. Called. The police were called. I

don't know. That seems -- that seems like that

could have been worked out differently.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


9

lp

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

55

Q. Seems unusual.

Is it your recollection that that

related to the fact that the way we have our

bipartisan voter registration information at the

county level that we have a central tabulating

system in each county that has both a Republican

and Democratic key?


A. I do not believe -- no. These are

different systems. Okay. Your tabulation key and

your personal computer, these are different

systems. Access to these are different systems.

These are not -- these are not, hey, Scott's got

access, he's the executive director, I can get in

there and start -- these thingsare different,

there are different systems set up. My

understanding was it was a personal computer.

Q. And you don't know whether it was, in

fact, a dispute about this question of whether the

Republican key which had been in the possession of

Mr. Roberts was being asked for by the Democratic

side?

MS. RICHARDSON: Object to form and

asked and answered.


^

9

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

56

A. One is it wasn't a key because I don't

-- I don't think.

Q. I don't mean that -- I don't mean that

in terms of

A. I don't think it's a black box.

Q. No. No. No.

A. I believe the way the system is set up,

two Republicans and two Democrats have access to

passwords.

Q. Correct. That's what I meant by "key."

A. Yeah. They have access to passwords.

You cannot do it without both of those. One

person left, so I don't know that it would violate

the security. Now that we're on to that system, I

don't even know, you know, Mr. Todd, why that's a

relevant question. Because when people left, they

never even changed the passwords.

Q. Okay.

A. So even if that were the case,

passwords weren't changed anyway.

Q. Who called the police over this?

A. I do not -- I


A. I don't know. There are any number of


]

^

4

^

6

7

8

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

57

-- some day when I have interest, I would --

everybody has a police report filed against

everybody else up there. It's an exaggeration,

but it's not too much of an exaggeration.

Q. You mentioned that there are other

police reports. Are there any other specificones

that you can think of 2

A. Yeah, this was down the road. Right

before the transparency committee when

Mr. Stainbrook was I think -- I think frustrated

about the way things were going, an employee was

released. And I believe it was -- gosh, I wish

people could correct me because I would generally

probably agree with their fact set. I believe

Ms. Gallagher had been not reappointed for her

job. It's an odd law. The laws are odd in the

State of Ohio. You can be removed for certain

reasons, but there's a reappointment process.

Q. Right.

A. And it's for members and it's for upper

level staff. I believe she had not been

reappointed. And it was certainly within a day if

not hours the person that had beenappointed to

that job, Gina Kaczala, for some reason one of her


]

^

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

58

first -- one of her first acts was to leave the

Board meeting and go up and relieve the duty of a

woman named Melissa who I think was in charge of

getting poll workers or she was -- she was a staff

person, lots of multi-function -- people do a lot

of multifunctional things.

Q. Sure.

A. During the election, you do some

things --

Q. Right.

A. -- don't do other things. She relieved

her of her duties. She left that day, came back

the next day because there was -- there was a

question of whether Ms. Kaczala had the right to

relieve this person of their duties. Once again,

difference of opinion. Is this the day-to-day

person? Is this the Board member's person? Is

this a -- do you have to have a 3-0 vote? I don't

know. She came back up, sat at her desk, was

confronted byI think -- I believe D'Angelo which

is the Democrat and Gina Kaczala which was the

sitting Republican. Told that she had been

removed, that she was not allowed to be there

anymore. I believe that security in the building


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

59

was called to remove her from the building. That

security, to my recollection -- I'm going to say

it was a state highway patrol who was also in the

building, went back upstairs to remove the

employee.

I don't know why things are done this

way. And the concern -- the concern that one

would have is if this type of interaction is

happening with these types of issues, how are the

blocking and tackling getting done on making sure

the election's run properly.

Q. When did this issue arise with regard

to this employee you seem to recall the first name

was Melissa? Do you recall roughly when that

happened?


A. Yeah, I know roughly when it happened.

I won't know the day.

Q. No.

A. It's going to be within 24 hours of

when Ms. Gallagher was not reappointed.

Q. Okay.

A. And I remember taking issue -- to be

honest with you, that's why I remember asking


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

60

Ms. Kaczala why she thought that should have been

the first order of business. And that's why I

think this is all so sad.

Q. Was that

A. I didn't understand why that would be

the first thing someone would do. But that's

where -- that to me -- and you may not be asking

me that. That to me is where the issue of

competency comes in.

Q. And when you say that, you're relating

that to Ms. Kaczala's decision to go in and

relieve Melissa of her duties?


A. Yeah. I guess when you get a new job,

there's lots of things to deal with. And the

competency of the individuals involved in the

history of this Board could maybe almost all be in

question. Because when you're dealing with these

issues within two hours of being hired, that just

makes me wonder if you're competent to make the

decisions that matter. And it happened time and

time again with time and time of employee. it

just kept happening and kept happening.

Q. I believe you said originally that the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

61

incident with Melissa happened around the time the

transparency hearings were going on; is that --

MS. RICHARDSON: I --

A. No, I think it happened -- well, I know

it would have happened before the transparency

committee --

Q. Okay.

A. -- came on. Because part of the

transparency committee was this was something -- I

believe Mr. Stainbrook brought it to my attention

or brought to my attention when Ms. Gallagher had

left of being another issue why things aren't

being done right. And I think what was occurring

was the complaints kept coming fast and furious.

And I think the Secretary felt he needed to go

hear a story -- hear what was happening.

MS. RICHARDSON: And I don't want to

interrupt.

MR. TODD: No.

MS. RICHARDSON: But if you get to a

stopping point, if we can take break.

MR. TODD: Oh, no. Great place to

stop.



62

E

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. All right. Let's go back on the

° record.

A. Okay. Thank you.

Q. Let's go back and talk a little bit

about -- and just to clarify the record a little

bit and help me understand. My understanding is

that when Mr. Roberts left as director of Lucas

County Board of Elections, that an issue arose

with regard to his computer, correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. Were you aware of the fact that that

computer was the object of a police investigation

at the time he left?


A. No. But what was troubling about it,

what I was aware of was the identification and the

description of there being Republican computers

and Democrat computers.

Q. Ah.

A. Which was relayed to me several times,

that there are Republican computers and Democrat

computers.

Q. Do you recall that there was an issue

that had arisen where a Board employee had


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

63

actually hacked into Mr. Roberts' computer and hael.

been in an unauthorized manner sending out e-mails

under his signature?


A. I believe that that was one of the many

stories that had been told from the Lucas County

Board of Elections with no outcome or no

determination.

Q. Okay. But you do remember that story?.

A. I remember lots of stories.

Q. But you remember that one specifically

with regard to the computer?


A. Yes. But can I change my words?

Q. Absolutely. Please explain.

A. One of numerous rumors of shenanigans

happening up there, yes, I do remember that rumor.

Q. And it would be important to preserve

that computer so that no one could remove evidence

that in fact it had been hacked.


A. I do not believe that's why the police

were called.

Q. Okay. But do you know why they were


]

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

64

called?

A. Because people were taking the

computer.

Q. Was it the employee who had actually

hacked the computer who was trying to take it?


A. I don't know that the computer was

hacked. I don't think that's ever been -- I

believe there's a pending report on that like the

seven others that there's been no determination

on. But I do not know who that was.

Q. When you say pending report, do you

mean pending police investigation?


A. I don't know.

Q. Okay.

A. But back to the problems with the Lucas

County Board in general, if these things were

occurring, and I don't know if they were, they

never changed passwords for two years. So once

again we have an issue -- we have an issue. Let's

assume --

Q. Right.

A. -- hypothetically for a second that was


1

2

3

4

65

the case.

Q. Okay.

A. Don't know that it was ornot. if this

is happening, why are passwords not being changed?

What are the protocols if these accusations --

these things aren't being changed; they weren't

being changed. This was part of the problem. So

if it was occurring -- I'm not saying it was or

wasn't -- there are ways to go into this.

I do believe -- I do believe people

walk away from their computers and send e-mails

and those sorts of things, don't know that that's

hacking. But I don't think -- the IT policies

weren't there. I've been in offices before where

people have said computers have been hacked and

immediately everybody's changing their password.

I work at a place now called the Ohio

Hospital Association. You couldbreak in there,

look at all the files and find nothing secretive.

We have to change our passwords every three weeks.

And so again a flaw in the office.

Q. Yeah.

A. And again I think that computer was a

-- I think that computer was -- and someone else

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Realtime - Videoconferencing - TrialPresentati.on - VideoSpectrum Reporting LLC

66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

could verify this, but I think that computer was

not related to the elections. I believe that

computer was more like a laptop computer, an

e-mail computer.

Q. Right. And that was the question is do

you know whether or not it was actually the

computer that had been allegedly hacked by the

Board employee and used improperly to send out

e-mails in the name of the Board?


A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Mr. Borgemenke, when we have a

functioning Board of Elections in a county, is it

customary that the chairman of the Board would

call meetings?

MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. {

A. I believe it's functionary that the

chairman of the Board or the executive director or

via policy, whomever the Board agreed had the

ability to call the meetings of the Board. I

think it operates many different ways.

Q. Okay. And if it -- there was no policy

indicating that anyone other than the chairman

could call the meeting, then we'rs to be stuck if


67

]

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

the chairman refused?


A. I am unaware that that policy exists

that the chairman called the meetings, one. And,

secondly, when asked about how to get things on

the agenda, I know I had suggested several times

to change the policy.

Q. As to put things -- how to put things

on the agenda for the meeting?

A. Yeah. I'm unaware that the policy

exists. To the extent that it does exist, when

asked about how to fix that, I thought bringing up

a change in policy would be a way to do that. And

I don't know if that was brought up. I don't know

if that was brought up or not.

Q. Okay. And

A. But again I guess I'm going to

editorialize for a second.

Q. Oh, please do.

A. They can't call meetings? I mean,

again, I don't know whose fault -- they can't call

a meeting? This is

Q. You know

A. I understand. I understand your point.


]

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

68

But -- but --

Q. It's been my experience is the chairman

calls a meeting and the Board members showup. I

mean it's the way it always works, no matter

whether we're talking about the Board of Elections

or the Ohio University Board.

MS. RICHARDSON: Object to form. Is

there a question?

MR. TODD: No. We're kind of

dialoguing. We're not asking a question.

Q. I guess the question is if that were

the policy, I mean, isn't the problem that the

chairman is not calling meetings?


A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. I think the other Board members, if

they have a problem with the chairman, have many

remedies. Changing the policy, changing the

chairman. And they didn't take anyof them.

Q. But those actions that you just

mentioned, Mr. Borgemenke, would have to happen at

an official Board meeting?

A. They had meetings. They just couldn't

_. I


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

69

get items on the agenda. Mr. Stainbrook would be

the best one to testify to that.

Q. So they did have Board meetings?

A. Sure.

Q. Okay.

A. What was put on the agenda was always a

question.

Q. Okay. So in other words, you had said

before that there was a long period of time that

they did not even have a Board meeting up there.


A. They didn't have regular Board

meetings. Regular Board meetings, and you'll --

again, after the deposition, go back and refer to

Code, look in the Code.

Q. Yeah.

A. Regular Board meetings require certain

things get discussed.

Q. Correct.

A. They had meetings. Some of them were

regular, some of them were not regular. Regular

is a content issue. Nothing prevented anything

else from being brought up in open discussion.

You do a lot with open meetings. If you watched


]

1

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

70

one of these meetings, people said anything that

they wanted at any time.

Q. So it was pretty open but not in a

legal sense.


A. Well, I guess it was open. But I guess

to the extent that a Board member would not bring

up a real problem, I guess that would be a

fiduciary -- I guess I would be more concerned

being a Board member not bringing up an issue that

I was aware of, whether the Board meeting occurred

or not. That's not the Secretary of State's

office job, that's a --

Q. That's a Board member job.

A. Board member job.

Q. Okay. Let's go back to a little bit of

your personal chronology. And I believe you told

us that you left the Secretary's office around

March of 2013?

A. Could have been May.

Q. May. I'm sorry. It was May lst of

2013.

A. Yeah.

Q. After leaving your position at the


7

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

71

Secretary of State's office, when is the next time

Lucas County issues involving the Board of

Elections came to your attention?

A. Whenever I would glance at the Blade.

Q. Okay. And --

A. And as you know, in our world -- in our

world, which is a small world out here, you know,

there are people that wake up in the morning and

they clip news services and they send you the

clips of the news service. And to the extent that

I clicked on some of them and did not click on

other ones, but that would be the --

Q. But you were not in a position nor were

you actually involved in any of the matters that

was occurring -- that were occurring there.

A. No.

MS. RICHARDSON: I object.

Q. Okay. When was the next time --

A. Sorry.

Q. -- that you became involved in

personally involved in matters involving the

personal -- or excuse me, the Lucas County Board

of Elections?

A. What do you mean by "personally


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

72

involved"?

Q. When was the next time that you became

directly involved in any matters that involved the

Lucas County Board of Elections?

A. The transparency committee.

Q. Okay. So between the time you left the

Secretary's office and started at the Ohio

Hospital Association until the beginning of the

transparency committee hearings or thereabouts,

the beginning of that process, you had not been

involved with Lucas County?


Q. Board of Elections, that is?

A. No more than any other gadfly on

capital square reading the clips, no.

Q. How did it happen that you were

contacted to be involved with the transparency

committee?

A. Well, just by me wanting to be short, I

just can't -- I just don't have that in me.

Q. I understand that, so please feel free

to explain.

A. There are -- since I started in the

Secretary of State's office, I've been to Florida


73

]

2

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

aa.

22

23

24

three times. Two of those times I've spent over

two hours on the phone talking about the Lucas

County Board of Elections, on vacation, so whether

it has to do with Florida or whether it has to do

with something else. One time is when

Mr. Stainbrook was trying to get a new appointee,

I think the -- yes, the Republican I believe had

resigned or left and tried to get a new appointee.

And I was -- I actually have a picture on my phone

of me standing in the water talking to

Mr. Stainbrook.

Q. Okay.

A. And I often look at it to bring back

fond memories.

The other time I had taken my mom and

daughter on spring break in March of -- I guess it

was this year. And I got a call referring to a

news clip about how a bunch of things are

happening in Lucas County, and e-mails keep coming

and, you know, anybody have any suggestions on

what to do, what not to do, you know. We're --

more -- look, so much of my job, particularly with

Lucas County, is psychologist. How you deal with

this, how did you deal with this, questions along


2

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

those lines. But nothing official, nothing

official.

Q. Who called you?

A. I want to say it was Jon Husted.

Q. Okay. And when he called, what was the

substance of the conversation?

A. Can you be more specific? When Jon --

when Jon Husted calls me in general, we talk about

a variety of things: Football, Alex going to

school. He was actually -- I know at one point my

mother's stepfather -- my stepfather, my mother's

husband, had passed away. He was calling to see

how the trip was going because I had been

complaining to him about how I was going to stay

in a one-room suite with an 80-year-old woman and

a 16-year-old girl and I wasn't sure how I was

74

going to make that. So when Jon calls me,it's

not often topic related, it's often checking in.

So I don't believe it was a call to say, hey,

here's what we're doing; will you do this.

Q. You said that you received the phone

call when you were in Florida regarding the

transparency committee.



75

:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A. I guess let me correct it.

Q. Yeah, please do.

A. I believe it was a top -- I believe it

was a topic that came up in the context of the

five or six things Jon Husted and I talk about.

Q. Okay.

A. We rarely talk about items specific.

We talk about current events, families, sometimes

we talk about charter schools.

Q. Friendly conversation, tinged with

politics.


A. No. Tinged with things that he wants

to talk about usually because he's driving

somewhere. Because I have no interest in charter

schools, and I talk to Jon Husted about charter

schools a lot, so sometimes it's a time filler.

Q. Okay. The topic that came up regarding

Lucas County when you were in Florida revolved

around what?


A. Again, I -- I remember -- I don't know

what he said.

Q. Okay.


76

:

E

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A. And I don't think there was a he-said,

you know, she-said. I do recall saying, not only

in that conversation but in a couple

conversations, I don't know what else can be done

out there. Been up there a couple of times.

Whenever you talk to people behind closed doors,

they tell one story. Whenever you talk to them in

a different -- you know, I said I don't know what

else can be done. Because if nobody's willing to

talk outside of a closed room, I don't know what

you can do, Jon. And he said, well, what if we

just make them talk and have hearings? I said,

quote, hell, it can't be any worse than what we've

been trying to do for the last two years. That's

a quote.

Q. Okay. Had you been talking with the

Secretary from the time you left the office until

that conversation in Florida about the situation

in Lucas County?


A. No.

Q. So there wasn't --

A. Part of the reason I left the Secretary

of Sta:te's office had to do with Lucas County,


I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

77

quite frankly. No. For my own psychological

well-being, no.

I Q. Okay. So there was a gap then in your

knowledge from specifically what you had done in

2013 to March of 2014 or thereabouts when you were

called.

A. Yeah.


A. Yeah. An absolute yeah. And again, to

be very straight with you, to the extent that

something would be in the newspaper maybe or maybe

not, I would pick it up. To the extent I'd run

into somebody in the Athletic Club and they would

mention something. But no -- there was no

off icial -- I was too busy doing Medicaid

expansion at the time and trying to learn that

issue, and I was dedicating most of my time to

that.

Q. Right. When the Secretary called you

in the spring of this year to talk about the Lucas

County situation, the topic of some type of

hearing apparently was discussed.


A. Again, I don't know -- I don't know if

--^


78

]

d

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

it was a hearing. I don't know if it was that

formal of a process.

Q. Well, in the discussion was it simply a

matter of trying to identify options as to what

could be done at that point?


A. You know, I cannot speak to that

conversation because I don't recall. I can tell

you -- I can tell you over the course of six

months to a year it was often said I don't -- I

said to him I don't know what else we can do up

there. I do also recall saying -- at one point

jokingly saying maybe there needs to be an airing

of the grievances. I do not believe it was that,

in that conversation. But the conversations with

Lucas County never changed. They really never

changed in form or -- they never changed.

Q. But there was an interruption in the

conversations you participated in from when you

left in May of 20 -- or the end of April of 2013,

the Secretary's office, and when you received the

call from Secretary Husted in the spring of this

year.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

79

A. I just don't recall any conversations.

Q. You don't remember anything in that

interval, other than -- with the Secretary. I'm

not going to say just generally. I mean, you

know, everybody talks at the Athletic Club.

A. Again, Bill, I want to be as straight

as possible.

Q. Yeah.

A. I don't. But we talk about five or six

topics all the time. I mean --

Q. And you just don't recall any specific

mentions of the Lucas County situation until this

spring and the call we're talking about?

A. I don't.

Q. Okay. When you received the call from

the Secretary in the spring, did he ask you to do

something at that point?


A. No.

Q. How did matters proceed then from that

point? Were you called again to discuss Lucas

County?


A. Not to talk about Lucas County


l

2

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

80

specifically.

Q. Okay. How did it happen that you

became a member of the transparency committee?

j tA. I mean I guess you're going to have to

ask him. He makes the decisions. I've been with

him a long time. I've been on a lot of boards. I

will stop in at the office once a month or so, see

how things are going. And it was asked if I would

be willing to go up there again and -- that's the

answer to your question.

Q. Yeah.

A. I don't know. Tn7ould I be willing to go

up there and talk to these folks again.

Q. And do something?

A. And do something. And I do remember

saying we're not going to accomplish anything

behind closed doors. They're going to do the same

thing. We've been theresix times.

Q. Got you.

And did you have a discussion with the

Secretary or someone else about the process that

became the transparency committee?


A. What do you mean?


81

^

S

E

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. Well, here's where I'm getting to, is

there is no animal of a transparency committee

in --

A. Sure.

Q. -- Chapter 35 of the Ohio Revised Code.

A. Sure.

Q. So I'm curious as to how this got put

together and were you a participant in the process

of putting together this basically ad hoc

committee?


A. I told him that I would be willing to

sit and supervise and ask questions, for people to

come and talk and tell their story, and to see if

they would be willing to tell their story and

accusations in public and that I would be willing

to sit through that.

Q. Okay.

A. Now, the one thing I will say, and you

may be getting to it, so I don't want to --

Q. Oh, that's all right. That saves me a

question.

A. I don't want to preempt. I don't

remember how it was set up. I do remember,


82

^

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

though, specifically that every meeting of the

transparency committee was called to order by the

Board of Elections. And the Board of Elections

turned their -- they called to order, they ordered

the meeting, they turned the meeting over to the

transparency committee. If there was a recess, we

would ask if we could have a recess. So they --

it was done in the course of their business as a

Board.

Q. Okay.

A. So it wasn't -- we didn't show up with

squatters rights and have a gavel and say come

speak.

Q. Right. in other words -- and I assume

you were not involved in whatever discussions

occurred between the Secretary's office and the

Board of Elections to actually structure how that

process worked.


Q. You're nodding no. I'm just putting

that --

A. Oh, no.

Q. Okay. And that's sort of what I took

from-the -- what I've seen in the transcript, too,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

is that in effect the transparency committee as

we've talked about it functioned as a committee of

the Lucas County Board of Elections rather than

anything else.

83

MS. RICHARI?SON: Object to form.

Q. Is that your understanding?

A. Yeah. I took it that, look, the

context -- and I don't remember the -- the context

with which the transparency committee was created

was that it needed to be open, needed to be

subject to open meeting records, public

notification, and being an official role of the

Board because the Secretary of State's office just

can't go up there and start having hearings on

things, that's not in our purview. So the Board,

it was part of their meetings.

Q. Okay.

A. It's their court reporter. I would

assume it would be part of -- having not attended

their other meetings, I would assume it would be

like they would discuss other issues.

Q. Just as a little bit of background, you

served as the chairman of the transparency

committee. You're nodding yes.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

84

A. Yeah.

Q. Again, she's going to smack you.

A. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes.

Q. There were three other members:

Mr. Ruvolo, Ms. Brunner and Mr. Allison.

A. Correct.

Q. And do you know how they were selected

for this august body?


MR. TODD: And characterization

probably.

A. I don't. I don't know.

Q. Okay. You were familiar with all three

of those individuals?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. And you'd worked with them before?

A. In different capacities.

Q. Okay. As the transparency committee

functioned, did it actually have an agenda when it

started in terms of certain witnesses to call, or

was this just an open forum, an invitation for

people to come in and air their grievances?


A. I would say it was a structured -- it


^

9

F

^

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

85

was a structured discussion from everybody who had

complained, wanted to complain, had issues with

either nepotism, had issues with people coming in

late to work, had issues about whether machines

were being tested right at the -- you know, so

everybody who had spoken to us who was an employee

there and even the people that weren't employees

there who we were aware of filed a complaint was

offered a chance to talk.

And what we tried to do in every

meeting was make sure that the Board members had

an opportunity to respond, that they got -- they

got to give opening statements. We, you know, let

them -- we did run it -- we did run it, sometimes

Mr. Stainbrook and I. I think there was one

situation where we tried to run it through

ourselves, we didn't try to let -- we didn't try

to let the Board members cross-examine thepeople.

Sometimes it was a little lax. But we were -- ^

look, we were trying to get -- we were trying to

get the issues out.

Q. Okay. As people came to present their

complaints or air their grievances, was any

testimony taken under oath?


]

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

86


A. No. I felt -- do you want me to

follow-up with that?

Q. Oh, yeah. Please do.

A. One is I wasn't sure of the authority

to take oath. And, secondly, my personal belief

was I didn't want to put anybody in any harm

because the ability of the whole lot to see things

differently. I didn't want them to violate any

personal integrity if they were not telling the

truth. Which I -- which to be quite frank with

you, it was out of a caring situation.

Q. Caring about whom?

A. About the people giving the testimony.

Q. When?

A. I wanted them to hear the stories and I

wanted them to tell the stories and they all

contradicted each other every time. I'm not sure

I got the whole truth from any one person. I'm

also not sure I didn't get their viewpoints. So

that's the way --

Q. And opinions?

A. And opinions. And opinions. It was --

interestingly enough, I'm probably even more


7

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

opinionated than -- they had fact sets that they

thought were out there, but no one ever proved

anything.

Q. Well, I take it that the transparency

committee's function then was to really allow for

a lot of different information to come in to the

attention of the members of the committee and you

87 1

were conducting sort of an open situation where

anyone could come in and say what they wanted to,

correct?

A. Yeah.


A. And the press.

Q. And the press?

A. And the press,

Q. And the public?

A. And the public. And what would happen

occasionally from all sides and everybody and

angle is the press would call with these stories

to the Secretary of State's office, and they would

have one side or the other side. So it was a good

time for everyone to air and have the press sit

there.

Q. Would there have been any discussion


]

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

88

among the transparency committee members before

this process started as to how this was going to

be perceived?


A. How it was going to be perceived?

Q. Yeah, how -- not perceived. I'm sorry.

I misspoke. I meant to say did you have any, for

example, an initial discussion amongst the members

of the committee as to the procedure that you were

going to follow?

A. We had a discussion in which I told the

Board members that it was my intent to go as long

as we needed to go, as far as we needed to go

until people were finished talking, so it was not

my intent to cut people off. And actually to the

extent that I got a fair amount of criticism from

my other transparency committee board meeting that

I let things go too far and let people talk too

long because they had other places to go. But,

no, it was pretty much under my -- my direction.

Q. Okay. And --

A. I mean -- and I guess when there were

legal questions, I would always defer to

Mr. Allison or to Ms. Brunner on more of the legal


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

89

issues, courtesies based on what their expertise

may have been I think were granted.

Q• Understood.

When the process started, was there an

anticipated outcome from it; in other words, we

know that one of the things that happened at the

end of the transparency committee hearings was a

set of recommendations. Had it always been the

plan to come up with recommendations at the end?


A. No. No.

Q. Okay.

A. As a matter of fact, I can tell you how

I viewed it. I viewed it as a way for people to

maybe air their grievances and be able to start

over, and itwas going to be so embarrassing that

they were going to find a way to regroup

themselves and move forward. There were things

that were found out in the transparency committee

that I think became very concerning.

Q. Okay.

A. Now, I will state as far as a report,

Secretary Husted did want to know what was being

said.


I

^

9

5

6

7

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

go

^ . L7h-huh.

A. So depending on -- you know, did you

report what you heard? The answer would be yes,

you reported what you heard to Secretary Husted.

Was there a report or recommendations at the

beginning? That was not -- that was not the way

we were going.

Q. In other words, there was no plan at

the beginning to have recommendations, for

example, whether or not to replace the director or

certain Board members or anything, that was not

really contemplated at the time this open-ended

process began?

A. No. And you will have to ask

Mr. Damschroder, another lawyer, I don't even

think the Secretary needs to do anything along

' those lines to remove -- no, I don't think so,

that you don't even need to do those sorts of

things.

; Q. The transparency committee conducted

its hearings, we get to the end, there are certain

recommendations made. Was there ever a written

report generated by the transparency committee?



91

7

1

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

characterization of the hearing.

A. Gosh. The answer I believe is no.

Because I believe I let each person speak

publically because I thought going back to have a

report was against the transparency committee. I

think I let each member of the committee speak to

things that they found egregious, offensive. So I

believe to the extent that there was a report or

that discussion, that discussion was done via a

court reporter. So I believe people aired what

they saw, talked about their concerns, talked

about their complaints. But I don't believe there

was a written -- I know I certainly didn't write a

report.

Q. That would be something you would

probably remember.

A. Yeah. No, I know I didn't do that.

Q. After the last public hearing, did the

members of the transparency committee meet to

develop the recommendations which they ultimately

came to?


A. No. And I don't -- you're going to

have to talk to somebody in the office about this.


]

6

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

There was a final meeting of the transparency

committee in which there was a hearing officer,

for lack of a better term.

Q. That's the correct term. But go ahead.

A. Okay. For lack of a better term, there

was a hearing officer in which the transparency

committee brought some people back, asked some

questions, and I believe the hearing officer did

that. But there was no -- there was no meeting of

what we are going to do. There was what I would

say was a 5 to 10 minute discussion in a recess to

discuss the order with which we were going to

discuss what each person wanted to say, and not

everybody quite frankly in the transparency

committee agreed. Everyone had a little bit

different feel and everyone knew what -- so to be

honest with you, everyone kind of knew what

someone was going to say. But it was by no

means -- you know, we agreed that Bill Todd had

brown hair, right, we didn't all agree --

Q. That would have been a few years ago,

Mr. Borgemenke.

A. Yeah, we didn't agree to those things.

Q. Well, I guess I'm a little puzzled

92


^

S

`

E

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

93

because I thought that there were recommendations

that the transparency committee made that the

Secretary then acted on and called for a statutory

hearing based on that set of recommendations.


A. You know, gosh, Bill, to the extent

that I stated what my personal recommendati®ns

would have been, that could very well be the case.

To the extent that Jennifer Brunner stated what

her personal recommendations were, that could have

been the case. To the extent we all agreed on

those or submitted a report, I don't believe that

was the case.

Q. Sure.

A. But what I will say, I will say

everything that was donewas done with the court

reporter in the room, so that would be your best

-- that would be your best record into what was

said. There was nothing said that was not part of

that. So however that recreates history would be

where I would go.

Q. And I guess I'm used to in a hearing

process or trial process, if you will, that at the

conclusion of hearing a body of evidence, however iRealtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - Video

Spectrum Reporting LLC

94

c

E

a

a

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

it's brought in, that the decision-makers will

discuss what they heard and saw and so on, and

they will arrive at a set of conclusions. And I'm

just wondering whether that process really took

place or not, because again it appears that the

Secretary acted as though the transparency

committee had made firm recommendations and a

course of action.


A. Again, I'd be more than happy to go

back and read -- read it. You could go back to

read it. I do know what was said. People didn't

dissent from anybody's opinion. There was

opinions that Jennifer Brunner had that I may not

have agreed with. I didn't write -- like, in a

three-judge panel, I did not write a dissenting

opinion. We kind of let people make the

statements as they wanted to make them. And to

the extent there may have been a three-to-five

minute discussion before we went back into the

room, Bill, that may have occurred. But there was

no formal -- there was just no formal process and

there's just no way it was more than 5 or 10

minutes about here's what I think I'm going to say


95

]

L

?

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

or do you think you should let so-and-so come up.

You know, I think we talked about Kelly, you know,

do we want to make sure that Kelly, you know, has

a chance to be heard because her name was

mentioned a couple times. Those conversations

would occur literally on lunch breaks or --

Q. Sure.

A. -- Coke breaks. But --

Q. But you don't remember like a formal

decision-making process where the four of you sat

down and said, okay, we've listened to four nights

of this stuff and we're -- you know, Secretary

Husted is looking to us to give him some

recommendations as to a course of action to

follow. You don't recall anything like that?


A. it's in the deposition -- whatever was

-- whatever was there is what occurred.

Q. Okay.

A. There were no side -- there were just

no side meetings, there was nothing --

Q- Okay.

A. -- you know, like in The Nine where

they go in and the newest justice talks and then


7

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

]. 2

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

^ -- 96

-- there was nothing like that.

Q. Or 12 Angry Men?

A. Yeah. There was nothing -- there was

nothing like that.

Q. Okay. Yeah, that's -- I was just

trying to figure out how the process concluded.

Okay. The transparency committee met

several times and invited many people to speak.

Did anything come up during the transparency

committee at all regarding Mr. Roberts?


A. Ye s .

Q. Okay. And what do you recall came up?

A. Probably similar to what I discussed

about giving a little brief history of where we

had been. I think I even at some point said we've

been through -- excuse my numbers, we've been

through nine Board mernbers, three directors, five

executive directors, some of which were picked by

Republicans, some of -- so, yeah, I mean -- so,

yeah, the name would come up. There may have

been, although I just can't recall, when we asked

who was the director at the time that someone --

something occurred and an employee might have said

i


97

Mr. Roberts. So, yes, it came up.

Q. But did Mr. Roberts testify to your

recollection?

A. He did not.

Q. Did not.. . '. . . . ,.^

Did there have -- excuse me, let me

withdraw that.

Was there any discussion of anything

that happened with regard to Mr. Roberts' tenure

other than as you've indicated?

MS. RICHARDSON: object to form.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what do you recall about

that?

A. The 10 to 12 years of the same group of

people not being able to operate properly and

focused on the wrong things, not focused on

elections. It occurred before Mr. Roberts, during

Mr. Roberts, and after Mr. Roberts. So to the

extent that he had a position during those times,

those stories were told.

Q. And stories were told regarding his

however long tenure and particular incidents that

happened. Do you remember any specifics of that?

:

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


98

^

9

C

b

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A. I believe somewhere in the transition

-- in the transparency committee it was said at

least once, maybe twice that Mr. Roberts did not

run -- that he did not run the Board, that he just

did what Mr. Stainbrook wanted him to do. And I

believe there were some questions as to

Mr. Roberts' timecards, time -- sign-in sheets.

Q. Got you.

A. Which of course I believe there were

some of those discussions.

Q. Qkay.

A. But it wasn't a major --

Q. That's all you can recall?

A. That's all I recall.

Q. Okay. During the course of the

transparency committee hearings I think you

mentioned that Ms. Bensman's name came up. What

do you recall regarding those discussions?

A. Mostly confrontations based on

different levels of election night.

Q. Let me stop you there.

A. Yeah.

Q. Election night from May of 2014, would

that have been the election night you're referring


99

L

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

to or do you remember?

• A. I think it was probably both election

nights, but I'll have to go back and check. But

certainly --

Q. When you say both?

A. Would have also been '12 as well.

Q. November of 2012?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Okay. He just nodded yes.

A. Yes.

Q. I'm telling you, she's mean. She's

going to reach over and smack you if you don't

start speaking orally.

What do you recall about the incidents

and descriptions?

A. I remember people feeling -- gosh, I

don't want to put words in their mouths. You're

going to have to look at the testimony, so I am

summarizing it.

Q. Okay.

A. People feeling intimidated, people

feeling threatened, people feeling that she was in

improper locations, telling staff what to do but

not having a role.

Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - VideoSpectru.m. Reporting LLC

100

]

d

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Now, I also -- if my recollection

serves me, she was also appointed as an observer

which does give you -- you know, again, when

people make accusations, you don't know if the

people are observers or not.

Q. Right.

A. It does give you a different set of

abilities to do things.

Q. Particularly locations?

A. No. No. It really depends -- it

really depends on, really depends on the Board --

the Board situation, where the observers are, you

know, what the Board decides, how aggressive the

observer is going to be, whether the observer gets

all access to everything at all times or whether

the observer's on the Board. Those policies tend

to vary.

Q. Whether they should or not, but that's

an editorial comment, so --


And --

MR. TODD: I'll withdraw that. That's

a topic for another day.

A. Well, Mr. Blackwell I think --


101

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. Well, we could spend a whole day

talking about --

A. No, no.

Q. -- the observer statutes were changed

after that.

A. Yeah. But what -- but what I would say

is this is the best of both worlds. We're a

parochial state, we have a parochial county, we

have 88 different places, that's why people like

Ohio. Those things come with their efficiencies

and their lack of efficiencies.

Q. Couldn't agree more, okay.

Any other specific testimony ox-

concerns regarding Ms. Bensman that you recall

from the transparency hearing?

A. Ms. Bensman's name fairly or unfairly

has come up frequently throughout the last three

years in the transparency committee as well.

People questioning her role in the Board, what she

does and doesn't do.

I believe Mr. DeGidio -- and to the

extent I'm confusing Meghan or Kelly, I apologize.

But Mr. DeGidio had words with Ms. Bensman on

several occasions, but youwill have to speak to


102

^

4

U

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

him about those situations. And he questioned why

those interactions would occur with -- with a --_

an observer and a board member.

I also believe that there were -- there

was testimony in which Ms. Bensman was frequently

relaying information, good or bad, to the press

during the process of the election. Like I said,

good, bad, I'm not sure it's allowed or not

allowed, but I believe that that kind of testimony

came out.

Q. And I was going to ask you, we'll start

with that last question, Mr. Borgemenke. It is

permissible for observers in Ohio to relay

anything that they observe to the press, isn't it?


A. I think -- I think it is.

Q. Do you remember any specifics of -- let

me withdraw that. You mentioned that Mr. DeGidio

had some encounters with Ms. Bensman at some

point. Did that information come to your

attention during the transparency committee

hearing or had you been aware of that while you

were still at the Secretary of State's office?



103

^

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A. Both.

Q. Okay. Was Mr. DeGidio at the

transparency committee and offer his story?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Was he still a member of the

Board at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And I believe you said you

discussed whether or not Ms. Bensman should speak

to the transparency committee.

A. I believe we made the offer that

Ms. Bensman could because her name came up a

couple of times, that -- I know I had mentioned to

Mr. Stainbrook certainly in the hallway and I

think I also mentioned it in the committee that it

-- that if she would like to speak, her name came

up a lot, that she should be offered that

opportunity. Because I do believe people using

her -- her name was brought up several times. And

I thought that if she wanted to address that

situation, she should be able to do this. And I

have a vague recollection that she wrote either a

statement or an e-mail that was read into the

record.


^

9

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

9a

104

Q. Rather than coming up and personally

speaking to the comittee.

A. That is my recollection.

Q. Okay.

MR. TODD: What time is it, folks?

MS. GALLAGHER: 12:30.

Thereupon, a luncheon recess is taken

at 12:30 p.m.


c

1C

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

l

105

Friday Afternoon Session

September 5, 2014, 1:14 p.m.

BY MR. TODD:

Q. Okay. Mr. Borgemenke, before we went

off the record we were talking a little bit about

the transparency committee hearing.

A. You can call me Scott now.

Q. Okay. Thank you. Because it will save

me several syllables.

At the time of the transparency

committee hearing, we know there were four members

on that group: You, Mr. Ruvolo, Mr. Allison and

Ms. Brunner, correct?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. All of you in one capacity or another

had_had prior involvement with the affairs in

Lucas County; is that true?


A. Yes. That would be right, yes.

Q. In other words, no one came to that

group, the committee, without having prior

experiences with the situation at the Lucas County

Board of Elections?

Realtime - Videoconferencing - Trial Presentation - VideoSpectru.m. Reporting LLC

s

9

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

106

MS. RICHARDSON: Same objection.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And for example, Jennifer

Brunner had appointed the director who was

removed, Linda Howell, that we discussed earlier.


A. I think she was the Secretary of State.

I don't -- I guess I would say no, she didn't

appoint her because the Board makes the hirings

and the firings.

Q. Okay. But do you know whether or not

she was the one that directed the hiring?


A. I would -- I don't know. But I would

be surprised because I don't think she has the

authority to hire and fire. I think that's a

Board action. I think that's all a Board action.

Q. Okay. Mr. Ruvolo and Mr. Allison both

had been involved with the Lucas County Board of

Elections as well, correct?


A. Yeah. I think they had been up there.

Q. Okay. And, for example, Mr. Ruvolo was

at some of the time period we talked about an


:

E

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

actual member of the Board of Elections.

A. He was.

Q. And do you know whether it's Mr. Ruvolo

who led to Mr. Roberts' resignation because he was

so obstinate and refused to adopt any new

policies?


A. Could you restate?

Q. Let me rephrase that.

107

My understanding is that one of the

main reasons that Mr. Roberts resigned as director

was because of Mr. Ruvolo's refusal to allow the

Board to consider policies that needed to be

adopted.

MS. RICHARDSONs Objection.

Q. Did that matter ever come to your

attention?

A. I'm not sure I even understand the

question. How --

Q. Mr. Ruvolo was on the Board of

Elections while Mr. Roberts was the director.

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. Do you recall that?

A. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.


108

^

E

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. Okay. And is it -- do you recall that

one of the reasons if not the main reason

Mr. Roberts resigned was in fact because

Mr. Ruvolo was so difficult to deal with as a

Board member that he couldn't accomplish any of

the things necessary to have a smooth running

office?

MS. RICHARDSON: Obj ection .

A. I -- I guess two things. I don't

believe that was mentioned in his letter of

resignation.

Q. Okay.

A. And there's -- that's why there's three

Board members. So -- that's why there's three

other Board members.

Q. Oh, at the Board of Elections?

A. At the Board of Elections.

Q. Yeah.

A. So it was not mentioned in his -- I

don't know.

Q. Okay.

A. It was not mentioned in his letter.

There are three other Board members.

Q. Okay.


109

]

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A. So that's my answer.

Q. Okay.

A. I think it's a design that no one Board

member, as Mr. Stainbrook could remind me all the

time, have the ability to do anything but three

do.

Q. And then the other member of the

transarenc committee, Mr. Allison apparently1^ y had

been involved and done some type of management

review at the Board of Elections in Lucas County.


A. Y e s .

Q. Okay. And was that a management review

that was conducted by both Mr. Allison and

Mr. Ruvolo while you were the -- at the Secretary

of State's office?

A. I'm going to say yes, but there's a

chance that might not be right. But I think the

answer's yes to that.

Q. Okay. So it's fair to say that none of

the four members came to this transparency

committee meeting with their mind a blank slate?


A. This is going to sound glib and is not


:

L

s

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

110

inten.ded to sound glib. I think they all had a

blank slate because it's so confusing you have no

ability but to go up there and listen. There --

it is too -- it is too confusing up there to be

able to connect any dots or come up with any --

so, no, I would argue everybody wanted it to work,

everybody.

Q. Did you feel at the end of the public

sessions with the transparency committee you had

sorted out the confusion?


A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And is that why you adopted

certain recommendations as a transparency

committee?

A. So what was your previous question? I

want to make sure I understood your previous

question.

Q. Okay.

A. Do you think we

Q. Came to some conclusions about what was

really going on.


A. Yes.


111 I

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. Okay. And what were those conclusions?

° A. Total malaise and dysfunction.

Q. Okay.

A. And, you know, it's like a football

team or anything else, you can have good and

talented and smart people and they can't work

together and they can't move the ball forward.

Emotions in the group clearly overruled common

sense and moving the ball forward. So to the

extent that there was clarity, that there was

going to be no reconciliation in being able to

move forward with those people, it was much -- it

was much like a divorce. The facts and the

abilities of the Board to operate in the best

interest of the people for the State of Ohio and

Lucas I think could not be served with the people

at that table.

Q- And you believe that despite their

prior involvement in the affairs in Lucas County

Board of Elections, that the four people on this

transparency committee were fair and impartial and

able to come to those conclusions in an unbiased

manner?



112

A. I believe you had four of the most

competent people in the State of Ohio on how

teamwork, Board operations and elections are

important, and skills, abilities, the ability to

get along and emotion all worked equally. And I

believe that nobody puts in that kind of time

without it wanting to work.

And I guess in follow-up, Bill, you

know, you said earlier there's no reason to have

transparency committee

Q. No. I said there's nothing

A. Right.

Q. -- in the statute.

A. Right. But there's no reason to do it,

nothing calls for it, it only calls for hearings

and removals. I -- I actually believe in my heart

that that transparency committee and those

recommendations were to try to make that system

work, that I believe that was the intent going up

there. That's what I truly believe because I

don't think you had to go through that kind of

hours and pain to get to any outcome.

Q. Well, I mean, you -- under the

circumstances, and we know that the

]

e

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


113

]

1

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

recommendations of the transparency committoe

became in effect allegations substantiating

removal of the Board members. And I just think it

would have been better to have a fair and

impartial group, an unbiased group to conduct

those matters rather than four people who had been

up to their eyeballs in it before.

MS. RICHARDSON: Objection to the form

and to the multiple errors of characterization.

A. I disagree with the question.

Q. Okay. That's why I'm asking the

question and waiting for a answer.

A. No, I'm not being -- I don't think this

was based on allegations. We didn't go up there

to determine what was truthful and what was not

truthful because there's no ability to do so.

I've been told by one group that people were put

on the Board of Elections so they would waive

legal fees. I was told by another group that that

didn't happen. I was told by another group that

while residency can be a park bench, they stay at

the Comfort Inn. I was told by another -- I was

told by another group that John Irish hired

strippers at a --


1C

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

114

L Q. Democratic county fundraiser?

'•i A. -- Democratic county fundraiser.

s Q. Well, I think everybody knows that.

A. Well, no more than anything else in the

paper. I guess if the paper is going to be a

guide, then I would submit all the Blade articles

for the last 10 years.

Q. Okay.

A. Thanks for letting me play again

attorney. I don't think we -- I don't think we

made anybody guilty or innocent. I think we found

things that were very unusual and impossible to

manage in a public body. Nepotism policies,

supervisory policies. You know what -- you know,

and I say this -- again I say it a little tongue

in cheek, divorces happen and there are good

people involved in those divorces. That doesn't

mean they can live together or rebuild a model

house or run an election. And so I would say it

wasn't about accusations. I would say it was

about the inability to communicate and understand.

Q. And define --

A. Which I think by the way is really

important in a public body. That's -- that's the


6

9

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

115

old democracy to me.

Q. I agree.

But you would agree with me that when

you have a divorce, one of the two spouses doesn't

get to sit on the bench and make the decisions.


A. I don't understand that.

Q. Well, Mr. Ruvolo was part of the

problem; he was on the transparency committee.

Ms. Brunner was part of the problem; she was on

the transparency committee. Mr. Allison had made

recommendations which apparently weren't followed;

he was on the transparency committee. You told us

you quit your job because you were so unhappy with

Lucas County. I mean, how does -- how could any

of these people be fair and impartial?

MS. RICHARDSON: Object to form

A. No. Bill --

MS. RICHARDSON: -- and it

mischaracterized the testimony that Mr. Borgemenke

gave earlier.

A. I respect your line of questioning.

It's a good question. It's a good try. Jon

Husted made the decision. Nobody in the


116

^

L

^

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

. transparency committee made a decision on

anything. Jon Husted made the decision. I'm

going to say this tongue in cheek as well, I've

worked for public officials my whole life. And if

anybody makes a decision, he makes the decisions.

He made that decision. Nobody made a decision.

As a matter of fact, everybody on that

transparency committee, and I know Mr. Stainbrook,

and we've been friends, and we may -- we'll

continue to be friends. People make accusations

all the time. We didn't accuse anybody of doing

anything.

Q. And I respect your position on that.

A. TrIe - _

Q. I really do, Scott. But --

I A. I don't know where Tony -- I don't --

Q. Yeah. And, you know, what I guess what

I'm really concerned about here is that we have a

process which is not called for in the Code that's

used as essentially the record to make a

determination in an administrative hearing without

there being another record made. And it's very,

very unusual. I've never seen anything like this

in 40 years of practicing law in Ohio.


117

MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. I'm not

sure there's a question on the table. And --

MR. TODD: I don't think there is.

That was a soliloquy.

MS. RICHARDSON: Obviously, I object to

the characterizations both of testimony and to the

facts at issue.

Q. But you realize that those

recommendations became -- within a matter of

perhaps 36 hours, the allegations used under a

statutory process to remove people from appointed

office in the State.


A. I -_

Q. But that did happen, correct?


A. I don't agree with that.

Q. You don't think that happened?

A. No, I don't agree with that. And I

know you've been a lawyer for 40 years, and I

think you're a pretty good lawyer. But things

happen on the House floor all the time, one

hearing, two hearings, three hearings, five

hearings, the body makes the decision.

:

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


:

z

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

118

- I don't -- I'll be very -- I'm going to

be -- I'll be really frank with you. I think the

^j transparency committee was an ability to save the

people there, to tell their story because of the

way the Code is written. And that is that the

party chairman makes these appointments. That's

what I believe. And again -- and this is not to

be antagonistic.

Q. No.

A. It's not to be antagonistic.

Mr. Stainbrook is on record five or six times

asking for the transparency committee to come up

there and take a look at things. And he

absolutely did call me and he absolutely --

Q. I agree.

A. And he did that. How is that out of

order? That was -- that was an ask for help and

that's what happened. I guess I'm just confused.

I'm sure -- you know, from where you sit, you see

things differently.

Q. Yeah. It's because as you know from

having, for example, served on the dental board,

that people come forward and they make

accusations. There is a due process hearing in


119

]

^

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

; which witnesses are presented. There are counsel

present on both sides, and you go through a very

formal, regular process, and then a conclusion is

reached by a hearing officer, and then it goes to

the Board for decision.

Here we have a bifurcated process where

there is a group of people, many of whom who have

an ax to grind, certainly in the case of

Mr. Ruvolo who's involved in many of these events.

And that whole group of allegations and statements

and whatever happened during all of those

proceedings then become the record that

Mr. Damschroder uses to recommend the termination

of members of a Board of Elections.

I mean I've never seen anything like

it. I mean that's why I ask the question: Do you

think it would have been better if we're -- if

that was going to be the end result of the

process, that we started with the four people on

the transparency committee being people who had an

open mind and were uninvolved and had no

background and no hearing -- understanding of that

process before?

A. Counselor --


^

9

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MS. RICHARDSON: And I'm going to

object.

MR. TODD: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

MS. RICHARDSON: Again, I'm not sure

that there's a question on the table.

MR. TODD: No, there is.

MS. RICHARDSON: I'm starting to lose

track of who is testifying. There were a lot of

characterizations there about facts not in

evidence, about testimony that I think

misrepresents testimony given so far, and I'm not

sure what the question is.

Q. Well, the question simply stated is:

Would this process have been served better had the

members of the transparency committee not had any

prior knowledge of the circumstances in Lucas

County and come into the process completely with

an open mind?


A. I --

MS. RICHARDSON: I still don't

understand precisely what the question is. To the

extent that you understand a question, you can go

120

I


7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

_ ahead and answer. But I'll object again to the

characterization.

MR. TODD: Let me --

MS. RICHARDSON: I object to the

characterization.

MR. TODD: I appreciate that,

Ms. Richardson.

Q. Let me read it back. Well, the

question is simply stated: Would this process

have been better served had the members of the

transparency committee not had any prior knowledge

of the circumstances in Lucas County and come into

the process completely with an open mind?


A. I think that question makes statements

of fact that aren't true. I think you're making

statements that people did not have an openmind

going in. I fundamentally -- I disagree with

that.

Secondly, accusation --- this was not

about -- people aired accusations against each

other. They aired accusations. The transparency

committee made a report on the functionality, not

on the guilt or the innocence or the accusation of

121


122

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

L X versus Y, but the ability of this group to make

a decision for the betterment of the elections in

tj Lucas County. No -- at no point did anybody stand

up and say Bill Todd did this.

Q. I hope not.

A. Well, but at no point did anybody make

any of those accusations. Things came out.

Q. Let me stop you right there,

Mr. Borgemenke. When you say no one made

accusations, you mean no one on the transparency

committee

A. I'm sorry.

Q. -- made accusations?

A. No.

Q. People did come forward and air their

grievances?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Okay.

A. The whole group that came and sat

across the table made accusations against

everybody else, absolutely positively, yes.

Q. Okay.

A. There was -- there was one interaction

that was shut down, there was one interaction


123

^

E

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

l where Board members were making accusations

against other Board members. In my mind, and I

can speak to my mind and I can speak to my

opinion, that's not what we were there for. I've

known -- look, I've known these folks now for

about three years. You've been working with them

for 90 days. These stories are very, very, very

confusing. You cannot unwind these stories. But

what you can do is say is this a group of people

that can go forward and operate a Board of

Elections? And -- and with Ohio being a swing

state and seeing what we've seen in Florida, the

functionality of our counties who are very strong

in the elections process, their functional.ity is

extremely important to making sure that this

process gets done right. I believe -- I believe,

and I can certainly speak for myself, it was the

ability with which these people could function as

a team and as a group.

Q. Okay. Back to my question which was:

Would the process have been better served had the

four members of the transparency committee had no

prior knowledge of the circumstances in Lucas

County before this hearing process began?


:

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

124

F- MS. RICHARDSON: I'm going to repeat

all of my prior objections and add that the

question has been asked and answered.

A. Am I allowed to ask you a question?

Q. Sure. Absolutely.

A. Everybody's aware of the dysfunction in

Lucas County. It's been documented for years in

the Blade. If there were a trial, would we have

to rule out all the residents because they read

the Blade? I don't --

Q. Well, it's always a matter of degree,

Scott. I mean, it's like I've been involved inI

Lucas County, ma be ^y you don't know it -

A. Sure.

Q. -- for the last four or five years on

these matters and in one capacity or another. And

in fact the last time I was against this group on

behalf of the State party. But it's a matter that

there is a point at which when you have so much

prior experience, such as Mr. Ruvolo, who may have

very well been part of the problem, but by the way

this committee was structured and put together, he

became a -- the judge and jury even though he may

have been somebody on the dock. That's a problem.


9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

125

LI MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.

MR. TODD: Thank you. I'd be surprised

if you hadn't objected to that.

A. I guess there are two things to that,

Bill. One is I think you're overstating any one

member's influence on the outcome. Secondly is --

secondl is if I concede toy your argument that

that's the case, which I do not, I would use that

same argument as why Mr. Roberts and Ms. Bensman

cannot be appointed because wouldn't it be better

for people to have no knowledge of what happens at

the Board of Elections to get appointed.

Q. Well, I mean, Mr.

A. Well

Q. I'm glad you got to that, Scott,

because that's exactly the argument that

Mr. Damschroder used, is they shouldn't be

appointed because they have prior knowledge of

what's happened at the Board.

MS. RICHARDSON: There's no question on

the table.

A. Yep.

Q Q. I mean --

A. I --


126

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

L MS. RICHARDSON: I --

Q. Do you see benefit in having prior

knowledge of the situation at the Board in serving

in the role either as director or as a Board

member?

MS. RICHARDSON: And I'm going to

object to at least the first --

MR. TODD: Okay.

MS. RICHARDSON: -- half of that

statement before we got to the question, and to

the extent that we're representing testimony that

again Mr. Borgemenke was not privy to and that I

believe mischaracterizes the testimony. And I'm

not sure that I understand precisely what question

is pending on the table. If you understand, you

can go ahead and answer subject to those

objections.

Q. Okay. Let me restate the question.

It was: Do you see the benefit in

having prior knowledge of the situation at the

Board and serving in the role either as a director

or as a Board member?


A. Can you restate the question? I wasn't


]

^

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

127 ^

listening. I'm still trying to -- I

Q. That was a restatement.

A. Well, resay it. I--

Q= Okay. Let me restate it again.

A. Can you reask the question? I wasn't

listening so I

Q. Okay.

A. You don't have to restate it.

Q. I'll read it again because I'll never

figure it out.

A. Yeah.

Q. Do you see the benefit in having prior

knowledge of the situation at the Board and

serving in the role either as a director or as a

Board member?


A. I don't believe anybody who was on the

transparency committee had any ax to grind or had

anything -- any other motives than to try and to

air out what the problems were in a public format

and to in their opinion make a determination if

that Board could function as a team. And that's

-- that's all I got. But I -- I will -- Bill, I

take it a little personally, too. I think I


z

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

128

L certainly tried very hard not to make any personal

accusations on people because it was a

he-said/she-said situation, so I

Q. Obviously.

Let's go back again to the end of the

transparency committee process. And did the

transparency committee actually publically

recommend that the Secretary terminate three Board

members and two employees, the director and the

deputy director? That's my understandingas to

what your recommendation was.


A. I think the answer's yes, but it would

be in the record.

Q- Okay.

A. I think the answer's yes.

Q. But it's your recollection that there

was, in fact, that recommendation that three Board

members and two employees be terminated?


A. If that's what's in the --

Q. Okay.

A. I can't --

Q. Understood.


129

A. If that's what's in the record, then

that's what's in the record and that's what

Q. And since there were four members of

the Board and you've described an ongoing,

ten-year plus situation with lots of issues up

there, why didn't you recommend all four be

terminated?

L

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


A. I believe that Mr. Irish had not been

on the Board long enough to be involved in the

cultural dysfunction that had occurred. I also

believe Mr. Irish had made motions to take steps

to try to address the problem prior to a

transparency committee. And that's why I--

that's where I was.

Q. Okay. After that conclusion to the

transparency committee, which I believe was around

the 9th of May-ish, did you discuss your

recommendations with anyone else?


A. Since when?

Q. The recommendations at the final

meeting were on Friday, May 9th of this year.

A. Okay.

I


130

1

s

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

- Q. Okay. Did you discuss those

° recommendations with anyone else other than make

that public pronouncement?


A. May I talk to counsel?. . . . . . . . .

Q. Sure. You guys can go out if you want.


A. Thank you.

Q. Uh-huh. I think before we took this

break the question that I had asked was after the

transparency committee concluded its last hearing

on May 9th, did you discuss the recommendations of

the transparency committee with anyone?

A. Yeah. And I think what I wanted to ask

-- what I wanted to ask counsel about because I

was unsure --

Q. You don't have to tell me.

A. No. No. I want to tell you because I

wasn't sure. I think I misunderstood the

question. Once I made the pro -- once I made the

statement

Q. Right.

A. -- on the record

Q. Right.


131

;

L

F

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A. -- did the press come and ask about it,

the answer would be yes.

Q. Okay.

A. So, yeah, the answer would be yes. Did

I -- so I did discuss it, but nobody outside of

what was said.

Q. Understood.

A. Does that make sense?

Q. Yeah, absolutely.

Because I was going to ask then

specifically did you speak to anyone at the

Secretary of State's office regarding the

recommendations of the transparency committee?


A. I guess the answer would be partially.

And the reason it is partially is because the

Secretary of State's office was there and heard

the recommendation and, thus, how did it go, I

would imagine the answer's yes.

Q. Okay.

A. But I mean --

Q. Well, what I would -- was someone

specifically in attendance that night from the

Secretary of State's office as a representative of


c

1C

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

132

1 the secretary's office?

? A. I don't remember. It should be in the

3 record.

Q. Okay. Do you recall having any

conversations or discussions with anyone at the. .. . . . . . . . . ..

Secretary of State's office regarding the

transparency committee proceedings once they

concluded?


A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And who did you talk to?

A. Probably Matt Masterson.

Q. Bat Masterson?

A. Matt Masterson.

Q. Oh, okay, Matt Masterson. Sorry.

A. Jack Christopher. But the context of

that was this was the most exhausting thing I've

ever been through in my life. There was no

content issues. It was how did it go, I'm

exhausted, hope we never have to do this again.

But there was nothing-- because there was nothing

-- you know, it spoke for itself, there was

nothing more to say.

Q. Did you discuss the matters that had


133

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

.l occurred during the course of the transparency

committee hearing with the Secretary?


A. To the extent he said how did your day

go and I said really tired, yes, the answer would

be yes.

Q. Okay. And it's your testimony then you

never spoke substantially to anyone at the

Secretary's office, including the Secretary,

regarding the matters that were discussed at the

transparency committee?


A. After the report was written?

Q. Correct. No, not after the report was

written. After the last hearing. Because I think

you -- you told us you didn't do a report.

A. I'm sorry. After Matt's report was

written. I

Q. Yeah. We'll talk about Matt's report

in a minute.

A. I had no conversations that I recall

from the time we had our last transparency hearing

to the time Matt Damschroder oversaw a process.

Q. Okay._. ^


2

3

4

5

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

134

A. After that, I -- after that until Matt

had a -- whatever he wrote, I didn't have anything

until after that had come out.

Q. Okay. And were you actually in

attendance at all at the hearing that Matt

Damschroder conducted?

A.

Q.

hearing?

Yes.

Okay. And did you participate in that

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the extent of your

participation?

A. I asked a lot of questions of people to

say this is our understandi.ng of what was said in

the transparency committee, what do you have to

say about that? We kind of went through a very

quick -- a synopsis of what I think -- I don't

know who else was up there. Tony DeGidio was up

there. Jon was up there, if he was spoken to.

Other people came up to speak.

Q. Okay. Let me try to clarify for the

record what you are describing.

A. Yeah.

Q. You were at the hearing that Matt


:

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

135

Damschroder conducted.

A. Yes.

Q. And you presented things that are your

impressions as to what had occurred at the

transparency committee hearings, correct?


A. I projected what people had said they

said and asked if they said it.

Q. Right. Right.

A. Yeah.

Q. At that point when Mr. Damschroder was

conducting that hearing, did you have the

transcripts yet from the transparency committee

meetings or hearings?

A. I don't know that I had the transcripts

ever.

Q. Okay. Did you ask people -- you said

you asked people questions at the hearing. Who

were you asking questions of?

A. I just want to make sure I get this

right. They came -- people would come forward,

sit down. I would ask questions like, you know,

this was said on this date; can you provide

details to what you said to the -- you know, last

I


1 136

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Tuesday, you said this in the transparency

committee; can you tell us a little more about

this? Is there anything that you've seen

differently from this? Those kinds of

discussions.

Q. In other words, you were asking

questions of people who were in effect witnesses

at Mr. Damschroder's hearing?


Q. Correct?

A. I guess if that's a term you want to

use.

Q. I don't know what the term is.

A. Yeah. I don't know what the term is.

Q. Yeah, but the people --

A. Yes. And it wasn't just me. It was

the people on the transparency committee would ask

some people questions about --

Q. Okay.

A. -- we heard this, were you aware that

there wasn't a policy, should there have been a

policy. Much like what you're --just questions

like that.

Q. Understood.


137

:

8

5

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

During that process, to the best of

;, your recollection, was anyone ever put under oath

regarding what they said?


A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. I

Q. I'd asked you before whether or not you

had discussed the recommendations to the

transparency committee with anyone and your answer

was -- other than of course the press and so on,

the people you talked to immediately after the

transparency committee hearing that, no, you had

not spoken to anyone about it until the conclusion

of the hearing that was conducted by

Mr. Damschroder.

So let's start with that as the

foundation. From the point in time of the end of

the hearing that was conducted by Mr. Damschroder

to the present, have you discussed the

recommendations of the transparency committee?

A. Nothing --

MS. RICHARDSON: Object to form. Go

ahead.


138

L

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

L4 A. Nothing of substance.

Q.Q• Okay. And --

A. And the process, exhausting.

Q. Yeah. And let me ask you again

specifically have you ever spoken to anyone at the

Secretary's office or the Secretary himself

regarding the conclusions of the transparency

committee?

A. Not that I recall because there's --

it's there. So not that I recall, because

everything I said is there and so --

Q. Okay. Let me ask you to take a look at

what's been previously marked here yesterday as

Relator' sE.xhib5 t B.

A. Do I have that?

Q. I think you will. There you go.

A. Oh, here it is.

Q. Okay. And take a minute and

familiarize yourself with E-xlriibs.t B.

Mr. Damschroder identified it yesterday. But I

want you to take a look at it real quick to see if

you can recognize what that document is.

A. I can make the assumption that this

is --


d

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

139

Q No --

MS. RICHARDSON: I don't think there's

a question on the table.

Q. Yeah, I have a specific question.

A. Okay.

Q. And that was have you ever seen it

before?

A. I don't think I've seen this letter.

Q. Did you discuss this letter withanyone

before it was sent on June 24th, 2014?

MS. RICHARDSON: Object to form. And

he just testified that he hasn't seen this letter.

MR. TODD: Yes, and I respect that.

But I want to know whether he spoke to anyone

about the fact this letter was being prepared and

sent.

A. The orily

MR. TODD: Thank you for having me

clarify.

A. The only thing that I recall is that I

was told that it was coming out -- whatever was

coming out today or tomorrow or something along

those lines.

MS. RICHARDSON: And just for the


140

^

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

record, have we described today what document

we're looking at? I know we marked it yesterday

and we're referring to it, but just for context if

we can clarify what --

Q. Yeah. Go ahead. Identify it for the

record, if you will, Scott, what this document is

that's marked as Exhibit B.

A. It appears to be the letter notifying

that Jon Stainbrook, the chairman of the party,

that his nominations presented to the Secretary of

State's office -- well, I guess I know the

outcome, but I haven't read the outcome -- that

they were not appointed.

Q. Okay. Did you discuss with anyone at

the Secretary of State's office the

recommendations this spring to appoint Kelly

Bensman and/or Ben Roberts to the Board of

Elections in Lucas County?

A. Did i --


A. Did I discuss -- after the transparency

committee, I'm not involved in the appointment

process.

Q. Okay. And I was going to ask you, did


----^141 I

£

c

1C

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

L -- if you had any discussions at all with anyone

?i at the Secretary's office. And I believe it's

3 your testimony that, no, you had no discussions

6 whatsoever.

> A. I mean, I don't have a role in the

appointment process.

Q. okay. I'm going to ask you a couple

questions about the letter -- about the content of

the letter but obviously not about the letter

since you were not involved in it.

MS. RICHARDSON: I'm going to preface

with an objection that he has testified that he

has not seen this letter before today and the

document speaks for itself.

MR. TODD: Yes. Thank you.

Q. I'm simply going to ask you about

certain facts contained in the letter and ask you

about your knowledge of the stated allegations or

facts. And the one in particular that I wanted to

ask you about is there's an allegation under the

category of Kelly Bensman that she was involved in

verbal and physical altercations at the Lucas

County Board of Elections, and given the

information that you have about the circumstances


142 ^

s

{

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

up there, are you aware of any information that

would substantiate that allegation?


representations of the letter.

A. I guess I'm confused. I am not aware

nor was I involved in writing the letter.

Q. Right. I'm not asking you that.

A. Yeah.

Q. I'm asking you whether you know of any

verbal or physical altercations directed towards

Ms. Bensman.

A. I know that in the transparency

committee Ms. Bensman's name was -- I just don't

remember the details. But Ms. Bensman was

mentioned in altercations around election night.

And I believe I said, as I said before, it's been

on a couple different election nights. That's my

recollection, but I would refer back to whatever

the transcript says from the --

Q. And you don't remember any of the

specific details of what was involved in those

alter -- were they altercations?


A. I don't.


^

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

143

Q. Okay. There's another statement in

° there about Ms. Bensman being removed from the

government center, which I take it is Lucas County

government center. Do you remember anything from

the transparency committee hearing that would

substantiate that?


A. I don't.

Q. So --

A. But again I guess I would go back to if

it was said, it's there.

Q. If it was said, it was there. But you

don't remember anything specifically.

MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Asked and

answered.

Q. You don't remember -- the question is:

You don't remember any specifics that would

substantiate the statement in the letter that

Ms. Bensman was removed from the government

center?


A. I vaguely remember a discussion about

asking for removal, whether it's from the

government center or from a room or from


13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

144

!. somewhere, in which someone may have asked for it

tohave occurred and trying to figure out if there

was a policy. I do believe, you'll have to ask

Mr. Damschroder or someone else, that there is a

policy laid out in Code and/or --

Q. In a directive?

A. -- in a directive that people can be

removed. That's my recollection.

Q. But you don't remember any specifics

that would underlie that Ms. Bensman be removed

from the government center.


again asked and answered.

Q. Are you still thinking? Or did we put

you to sleep with all of these boring questions?

A. No. I -- everybody in the place, top

to bottom, made accusations about leaking

information, physical removal, standing over

people's shoulders, screaming at each other,

sitting in the backs of cars, not being present

for meetings, when there's an altercation that

occurs, the Board members don't have meetings or

discussions. And -- and, Bill, I guess I'd have

to say we're going to have to go back to the


^

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

145

l deposition. They all accuse everybody of

everything. And I don't know that any of them are

any more right or wrong than each other. What I

do know is it's no way to run a democracy in an

election, so I -- I pause -- I pause in the names,

the accusations, the acts, the people, the teams,

the political parties, all blur together. He

pushed me, she pushed me. He stood in a doorway,

she wouldn't let me leave the doorway. The

policeman was there, the policeman was told -- so

it was all said about all of them all of the time.

And so I want to be as honest as possible, they

all accused -- everybody accused everybody of

everything. And I don't know if -- and my

recollection is I didn't know if it was Kelly, the

security guard, I know it was in the newspaper,

that should all be documented in the transparency

report. If so, if it's there, it's there. But,

you know, this to me is what was indicative of the

problem.

Q. I understand that, Scott. But again

I'll go back to don't you think it would have been

helpful during the transparency committee to put

these witnesses under oath, to test these random


146

:

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

accusations that people were making? I mean

they're no better than rumor or innuendo when

they're just made -- I don't care if they're in a

public hearing or in a private closet. If they're

not under oath, they don't mean anything.

MS. RICHARDSON: Object to the form and

the characterization and misrepresentation of

testimony.

A. You keep going back to a premise that

did not exist, in that these were accusations

about people. This is dysfunction of a unit that

are responsible -- that are responsible for

interacting. This wasn't -- this wasn't about who

did what to whom. Who could tell up there. This

is about the way in which they interact as a

governmental body and the gridlock and the lack of

democracy and quite frankly the lack of faith that

people have that these things are being run

professionally and done properly.

Q. And that has -- we still have the same

director there that we did at the time of the

transparency committee hearings, right?


A. I think so, but I don't -- I think so,


147

E

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

but I don't know.

Q. And she would have been instrumental in

some of the problems that you are talking about?


A. I'm trying to think what was said about

her for a second.

Q. Apparently something to the effect that

you recommend that she be terminated.

A. Boy, I think that's probably right.

Which once again proves that the transparency

committee didn't make the decisions.

Q. It was really the Secretary who made

the decision.

A. Right.

Q- Okay. Let's go down and take a look a

little bit lower in Exhibit B only because again

it's a good reference point. There's a statement

in there that Mr. Roberts at one point says he

served as the director for five months in 2011.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And three paragraphs later it says he

resigned after two months --

MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Is --

Q• Does --


^

la

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

148

Lj MS. RICHARDSON: Sorry.

MR. TODD: Yeah.

^ Q• And I guess the question is: Was his

tenure to your recollection as short as 60 days or

as long as five months?

A. I guess -- again, one, I didn't write

the letter, so I don't know.

Q. Understood.

A. Secondly is if proper records are kept,

they should be kept up at the Lucas County Board

of Elections or at the HR department, so you

should be able to find that there.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. And thirdly is if you start to pull

their personnel records, good luck with that

because there's no consistency in discipline.

They have -- they have sticky notes in personnel

files, so God's speed to you if you can figure out

how those records were kept. I don't know. I

mean literally, Bill, sticky notes.

Q. Understood. Yeah, I've seen records

like that.

A. Yeah. I know. I know. So to that

extent, I don't know.


149 1

:

S

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. Well, and I guess the reason -- so to

your recollection, you don't know if he was there

two months, five months --

A. My.

Q. -- recent

A. My gut would tell me that it would be

five months, but I don't know. And I didn't write

the letter.

Q. Okay. After the -- go ahead if you

were going to finish up.

A. No. Go on.

MS. RICHARDSON: Okay.

A. I -- I'm okay.

Q. The recommendation then came out from

the hearing officer in his report of June 4th,

2014, which is E.xhibit A in front of you. I'm not

going to ask you to refer to it because I'm not

going to ask you anything specifically about that.

After that report came out from Mr. Damschroder,

did you have occasion to discuss the

recommendations in that report with anyone?

A. I don't recall.

Q. All right. You don't recall any

conversations at all?


^

z

E

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

150


A. It would not surprise me if I did, but

I recall no specific conversations. You've been

around 40 years, I'm sure I ran into someone who

asked me about it.

Q. I'm sure you did.

A. Right. So I guess to the extent that I

can't say I didn't, but I don't recall specifics.

Q. Do you recall having a conversation

with you and the Secretary and Mr. Stainbrook

regarding the proposed appointments to replace the

removed members?


A. I -- I don't recall that.

Q. Okay.

A. But I also -- but I don't think the

Secretary, Mr. Stainbrook and I were on many

conversations together.

Q. So you don't recall telling

Mr. Stainbrook that if he challenged the

recommendations here, that you would make sure

that neither he nor Ms. Bensman nor Meghan would

ever work again?



question.

A. And the Secretary was part of this

discussion.

Q. Yes. My understanding is there was a

discussion with you, the Secretary participating

A. No. I said they would never work

again?

Q. That's --

A. No.

Q. And I am asking you.

A. No. And I'm not being -- because I

need to understand.

MS. RICHARDSON: And before you go any

further, you're asking that as a question not as a

statement? Because on the transcript you need

clarification --

MR. TODD: Yeah. Yeah. It's a

i 151

_I assumes facts not in evidence. Misrepresents the

testimony.

MR. TODD: There hasn't been any

testimony on that.

MS. RICHARDSON: Well, he's testified

that he doesn't recall any specific conversation.

MR. TODD: Thank you.

:

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


c

1(7

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

152

L and Mr. Stainbrook in which you said that if they

tried to challenge the Secretary's rejection of

ti Meghan -- or excuse me, of Kelly Bensman and

Mr. Roberts, that Meghan Gallagher, Kelly Bensman

and Mr. Stainbrook will not be employable in Ohio

again.

MS. RICHARDSON: I'll repeat the same

objections.

Q. I mean, I don't know. I wasn't there.

A. And I don't think I was there either

because it would require a bunch of things. One,

it would require me not working at the Ohio

Hospital Association. Two, it would require me

being the tzar of jobs in the State of Ohio in

which I had the ability to stop people from

working. Three -- I mean, three is, that sounds

to me to be one of the craziest stories I®- how

would one even make that statement?

Q. Well, I think if you'regoing to damage

peoples' reputation, then one of the ways you

would threaten them is say don't challenge my

decision or I'm going to destroy your reputation.

MS. RICHARDSON: I'm going to object.

I'm not sure that there's a question.


153

7

i

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MR. TODD: I was answering his.

MS. RICHARDSON: Answering his.

MR. TODD: That's my testimony. I'm --

MS. RICHARDSON: And so there's no

question pending on the table right now.

Q. And, Mr. Borgemenke, I think you've

said you don't remember any conversation like

that.

A. I don't even know how to respond to

that situation. I don't even know how to respond

to that.

Q.

A.

Whom?

Q-

look --

Fair enough.

Damaging who's reputation with whom?

Well, Mr. Borgemenke, let's take a

A. No. But --

Q. Wouldn't you say that some of the

things that are stated here in Exhibit B are very

damaging to Ms. Bensman's reputation; for example,

in saying that she was a primary cause or central

figure in creating an environment of dysfunction?

A.

Q-

I --

A primary figure in altercations or


154

2

L

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

incidents, that she was a source of intimidation

and provocation and one of the altercations

leading to her --

A. Mr. Todd, I didn't

Q. Don't you think that's slander?

MS. RICHARDSON: I'm going to object

for just a moment. I'm going to object to that.

I'm not -- again, once again not sure what the

actual question is. We're asking him to testify

about a letter that he has testified he has not

seen prior to today and it's misrepresenting

what'sstated in the letter which speaks for

itself.

Q. Thank you.

And the question is: Isn't that the

kind of thing you would do if you were trying to

destroy someone's reputation?


A. No. Why --

Q. Okay.

A. No. I -- one is I didn't write the

letter.

Q-

A.

I understand that.

Secondly --

1


155

:

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. And I'm not accusing you of that.

A. Secondly

Q. Fair enough.

A. Silly.

Q. Fair enough. I understand.

A. Silly.

Q. If we could have about a five-minute

break, and I think we'll be able to wrap up in

about three questions.

MS. RICHARDSON: Okay. Sounds good.


Q. Okay. Back on the record. A couple

questions to finish up.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. One is with regard to the transparency

committee. Were the members of the committee paid

for their services?


A. My understanding is Jennifer Brunner

was paid.

Q.

A.

Okay. Were you paid?

No.

Q. And do you know whether Mr. Allison or

Mr. Ruvolo were paid?


c

1G

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

L

156 i

iA. I do not believe they were.

Q. Okay. Do you have any understanding of

the details of how Ms. Brunner was paid?


A. None.

Q. Okay. So you don't know whether she

was special counsel to the Attorney General?


A. I have no idea.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you -- let's go back

into conversations after the transparency

committee hearing, after the report was issued.

Do you recall having a conversation with

Mr. Stainbrook on Father's Day of this year in

which you advised him to not pick Kelly Bensman

for the Board of Elections position because

otherwise she would be destroyed?

MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. And at

this point in time, we have --

MR. TODD: I'm just asking.

MS. RICHARDSON: These are getting to

the point where it's becoming harassing. He has

testified that no such conversation took place.

He doesn't recall any such conversation and the


157

:

z

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

allegations that are being presented. And I think

any further questions along those lines at this

point are harassing.

MR. TODD: And I understand that, and I

will not ask about any other questions, but this

is a separate conversation that occurred on

Father's Day this year, and we have records to

prove it.

MS. RICHARDSON: Okay. If there are --

if there are records that you are asking him to

talk about, then we'd like an opportunity to --

MR. TODD: No. No.

MS. RICHARDSON: -- see the records.

MR. TODD: Only that the call occurred.

Only that the call occurred. And if he says he

has no recollection of that, you know, I just want

him to say yes or no. If he has no recollection,

he has no recollection.

MS. RICHARDSON: I'm not sure again

what the conversation -- what the question is and

what we're referring to.

Q. All right. Did you have a conversation

-- did you call Mr. Stainbrook on Father's Day of

this year?


158

lc

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

L A. I'm sure I talked to Mr. Stainbrook

after the report was filed, but I don't know that

it was Father's Day.

E) Q. Did you discuss with him who he -- the

Lucas County Republican Party should or should not

pick for its representatives on the Board of

Elections?

A. The best of the recollection to a

conversation that I had with Mr. Stainbrook was

that I felt that there were -- the Secretary of

State would be open to -- not on -- as an agent,

would be open to lots of people that would be

mutually beneficial, and that I did not believe

anybody associated with the past would be

acceptable. And I thought the chances are -- and

I thought the chances are that that person would

be rejected. And I said to him that I think there

are other people that could be mutually agreed

upon, but I thought there were some that probably

would not. And that -- and I do remember saying

to him, and I think he would say this as well, I

do remember saying to him, you know -- and he

said, he said, well, we're going to sue. And I

said to him, well, Jon, I guess you're going to


159

E

c

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

L have to do what you have to do; everybody has to

do what they have to do. I -- I mean --

Q. No. That's --

E A. That's what I ----

Q. That's your recollection?

A. That's my recollection.

Q. Okay. That's fine.

As we've learned from our discussions

today, people have different recollections of

events.

You know, I think that's all for today.

Thank you.

MS. RICHARDSON: We'll just confer

briefly. Take just a quick five-minute break.


MS. RICHARDSON: I have just a couple

of follow-up questions.

MR. TODD: Absolutely.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MS. RICHARDSON:

Q. Okay. Mr. Borgemenke, you were asked a

series of questions that were really more in the

form of accusations made against you about


160

e

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

'.^ conversations that purportedly took place between

you and Mr. Stainbrook. And I understand that you

testified that the content of -- the accusations

regarding the content of those conversations were

false.

MR. TODD: I'll object to the form of

the question. That's a speaking objection.

MS. RICHARDSON: But I want to clarify

a couple of things for the record.

Q. On Father's Day of 2014, were you

employed by the Secretary of State's office?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any role in making the

decision at issue in this case, which is the

Secretary's decision to reject the appointments of

Ms. Bensman and Mr. Roberts?

A. No.

MS. RICHARDSON: Okay. I have no

additional questions.

- - - - -

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. TODD:

Q. Mr. Borgemenke, then in your capacity

-- the conversation that you had with


2

3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

[ I

161

Mr. Stainbrook on rather's Day of this year, that

we've talked about, was that just a

friend-to-friend conversation?

MS. RICHARDSON: I'm going.to object to

the form and the characterizations.

A. I think Mr. Stainbrook asked an opinion

about what he should do.

Q. Okay.

A. I took that as someone who's been

around for 20 or 25 years, worked with the

Republican Party and tried to be helpful. To the

extent that I believe I would have told him there

are lots of people who I think can be mutually

picked here, but I thought that there were some

people that were not. He said these are my people

-- I am paraphrasing.

Q. Absolutely.

A. These are my people. This is my right.

And I said I don't know what's going to happen. I

have no idea what's going to happen here. But I

think there are agreements, if you want to have an

agreement, to get other people appointed is what I

said.

Q. Okay. How did it happen that you


1C

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

162

1 called him that day?

2 MS. RICHARDSON: Object to form and

3 assumes facts not in evidence.

A. Do you know what -- do you know what, I

> don't know how it happened. And it very well

could have happened because I was checking in on

° him. Sometimes I check in with him on baseball

games. Sometimes I check in on him about his

father. Sometimes I checked in on him to see how

he was doing. I don't know. I don't know. But

-- but to the extent that I was under any

direction from the Secretary of State's office or

had any authority from the Secretary of State's

office is just -- there's just no way. I didn't

have the authority to do this when I wasthe chief

of staff and the Assistant Secretary of State, I

didn't have authority to do this. And I assume

that at some point Mr. Stainbrook will take a

deposition himself. We touched base on a couple

things.

Q. Well, you know, that's why I asked you

whether it was a friend-to-friend conversation.

But talking about authority even as chief of

staff, did you ever ask -- you've testified there


c

1C

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

163

1! was a lot of dysfunction at the Board of Elections

2 during the time you were still with the

3 Secretary's office.

4 A. Sure.

5 Q. And that included a lot of tie votes

> amongst the Board members so they couldn't get

' things done, correct?

A. Sure.

Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Stainbrook to

deliberately tie votes so the Secretary could

break the tie?

MS. RICHARDSON: Objection to the form

and the accusation and to the general basis of

that question. I'm going to instruct you not to

answer until we have an actual question on the

table.

Q. All right. Let me ask it more

specifically. Did you ever ask Mr. Stainbrook to

vote so that the Lucas County Board of Elections

would tie and not be able to decide when to

establish early voting hours for the 2012 election

and where to establish an early voting center in

Lucas County?

MS. RICHARDSON: Obj ection . Again, I'm

i


164

c

1C

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

not even sure what the question is.

2 THE WITNESS: Jon, please stop making

31 faces at me at the end of the table.

4 MR. STAINBROOK: I'm not making faces.

5 You. ' ve been --

> Q. Let me read back the question. Let me

ask it more specifically. Did you ever ask

Mr. Stainbrook to vote so that the Lucas County

Board of Elections would tie and not be able to

decide when to establish early voting hours for

the 2012 election and where to establish an early

voting center in Lucas County?

MS. RICHARDSON: And again I'm going to

object to form, to assumes facts not in evidence,

to the fact that it's testimony from counsel and

is, you know, making accusations here that are not

supported in the record.

MR. TODD: It's just a question.

MS. RICHARDSON: If you understand --

MR. TODD: And he can say yes or --

MS. RICHARDSON: If you understand the

question, you can answer.

A. I absolutely understand the question.

Mr. Stainbrook, in conversations with him, we


I

t

1C

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

165

1 often have to explain to him the options. There

2, are certain standards and guidelines. And when

3 Mr. Stainbrook says he's talking to the Romney

people or when Mr. Stainbrook says he's talking to

the Ohio Republican Party, and when Mr.Stainbrook

31 is saying we'd rather have it in this Y or that Y,

okay, there are any number of options. To the

extent that an option was tieing that they can't

get it, they should send it to the Secretary of

State's office. That's what this 2-2 Board is,

okay. I don't know if I said that. If you can't

reach resolution -- I'm sure we tried to say to

reach a resolution. i know he and Mr. Peter

Ujvagi get upset over whether they're going to

have it at the county center or the YMCA and then

who owns who, and then somebody's got -- and so to

the extent have I said to Jon Stainbrook that he

could or should not make a tie, if they can't

solve their problem, that's the process.

Q. Okay.

A. That they should -- that they should --

that's the process and it goes. To the extent

that these are local board decisions, that's where

these decisions should be made. And so I-- I can


,

f

e

1C

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

6

1 never speak to -- I can't speak to that

2 conversation. i guarantee you I've explained to

3 Jon Stainbrook on multiple occasions the process

is the process, try to make a resolution. If you

5 can work with the Democrats, work with the

> Democrats. If you can't work with the Democrats,

don't work with the Democrats. If you need to

have a tie vote, that's what the tie votes are

for. Our preferences would be to do it here

versus -- you know, our preferences would be to

have you guys do it there, you know -- you know

this -- those situations happen with Jon

Stainbrook all the time, probably had 30 of those

conversations with Jon Stainbrook.

Q. Okay.

A. And there were always 35 different

reasons why it was very, very complicated. And I

always encouraged Jon to solve the problem at the

local levels. And we also had the conversations

about how Jon could control the Board. He was

asked several times to become the chairman of the

Board. He did not want to become the chairman of

the Board. And so these conversationsoccurred

all the time. And as I said at the beginning, it


167

£

c/

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

L was an attempt to be helpful to Mr. Stainbrook who

21 appears to be very confused on three things.

Q. Which are?

A. Are you the chairman of the Republican

Party? Are you being paid by the taxpayers as a

chairman and member of the Board of Elections?

Are you a public celebrity? Or are you a public

official? And we've joked many times about those

hats are very hard to balance. And I've always

tried to give him the best advice on when he's a

public official, he's a public official. When

he's the chairman of the party, he's the chairman

of the party. And that he had a responsibility to

run the election as best he could. And I think

Jon tried to do that sometimes. And I think if he

would have stayed the hell out of personnel and

let the place run itself, he would still be there.

Q. Do you recall having a conversation

with Mr. Stainbrook in which you asked whether or

not Kelly Bensman would be interested in being the

director of the Lucas County Board of Elections

because you thought she could do a good job?


A. Yes, I do remember having that


168

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

11 conversation. I don't think that's what I said.

2 I think what I said was there are lots of ways to

3 solve these problems. There are lots of ways to

4 solve these problems. And you should go to Ron

5 Rothenbuhler and ask him is Kelly an acceptable

5 person? Is somebody else an acceptable person?

7 These were always put down as options.

3 Q. Ukay. One last question is do you

► recall any testimony at the transparency committee

hearing regarding altercations that John Irish was

involved in the Board of Elections?

A. I do.

Q. Okay. And what do you recall about

that?

A. Again, I would go back because the

final record being the deposition. I'm going to

confuse whether it was Gina, Meghan or Kelly.

Mr. Stainbrook was being the -- this will be --

I'm going to tell the whole story.

Q. Sure. We ' ve heard a lot of interesting

stories about Lucas County Board of Elections

today. One more won't hurt.

A. This is exactly the issue and this is

Lexactly why we are where we are today. One Board


169

►

1®

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1 member was asleep in his car, okay? Problem.

? Election night. He was asleep in his car.

3 The chairman of the Board, Ron

6 Rothenbuhler, all kinds of chaos, refuses to

convene a meeting to pull the emotion out of the

situation, to separate and have a discussion. He

refuses to help there. The other guy's asleep in

the car. The press is asking a bunch of

questions. Jon, who is a very emotional person,

is having a high-level discussion with someone,

whether it was elevated or inappropriate, I don't

know. People called it inappropriate. People

called it threatening. i am making none of those

accusations. i am repeating what was said. And

Irish comes in and tells Stainbrook and starts

yelling at him to stop yelling at people. And so

this is the democracy, and the Board with -- we

are running the elections. Guy's asleep, a

chairman -- a guy's asleep, a chairman's not

calling a meeting, one emotional guy is demanding

answers, whether they were right, wrong, or

indifferent. Staff members called it threatening.

And the other guy came in and stopped him from

yelling. There you go. Welcome to election day


lt

1]

ls

lr

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

2

3

4 1

5

7

3I

I I

170

in Lucas County.

Q. I understand it's complicated, but

at --

A• I mean --

Q. It was complicated by on at least one

occasion an employee of the Secretary of State's

office showed up on election night drunk.

MS. RICHARDSON: I'm going to object to

form and to the accusation and characterization.

Q. I'm just asking. Are you aware of

that?

A. I'm not aware that anyone showed up

drunk at the election.

Q. Nothing further. Thank you.

A. Did -- did --

Q. I'll tell you afterwards. We're done.


MS. RICHARDSON: We have nothing

further. And we will reserve our right to review

and sign. And we'll also reserve the right to

reconsider whether or not there's a need for any

type of confidentiality. But at this point in

time, we'll say that there is no confidentiality.

MR. TODD: Thanks. And we would like


171

19

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1 to order a copy.

2 (Signature not waived.)

3

4 Thereupon, the foregoing proceedings

5 concluded at 2:35 p.m.

6

7

3


11 State of Ohio : C E R T I F I C A T E

County of Franklin: SS21

1 I, Stacy M. Upp, a Notary Public in and for the31 State of Ohio, do hereby certify the within named

Scott P. Borgemenke was by me first duly sworn to

4 testify to the whole truth in the cause aforesaid;

testimony then given was by me reduced to stenotypy

5 in the presence of said witness, afterwards

transcribed by me; the foregoing is a true record

5 of the testimony so given; and, this deposition was

taken at the time and place as specified on the7 title page.

1(

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

I do further certify I am not a relative,

employee or attorney of any of the parties hereto,

and further i am not a relative or employee of any

attorney or counsel, employed by the parties hereto,or financially interested in the action.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

and affixed my seal of office at Columbus, Ohio, onSeptember 17, 2014.

^^k.y,--Stacy M. Upp, Notary Public - State of Ohio

My commission expires August 6, 2016.


173

Witness Errata and Signature Sheet

Correction or Change Reason Code

1-Misspelling 2-Word Omitted 3-Wrong Word

4-Clarification 5-Other (Please explain)

Page/Line Correction or Change Reason Code

I, Scott P. Borgemenke, have read the entire

transcript of my deposition taken in this matter,

or the same has been read to me. I request that

the changes noted on my errata sheet(s) be entered

into the record for the reasons indicated.

Date Signature

The witness has failed to sign the depositionwithin the time allowed.

Date Signature

-5=


MICHAEL DEWINE ( - Supreme Court of Ohio and the … COUNTY REPUBLICAN PART^.' EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE...

Documents

Transcript of MICHAEL DEWINE ( - Supreme Court of Ohio and the … COUNTY REPUBLICAN PART^.' EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE...