In a decisive move by Ohio's legal system, Montgomery County has seen its Miami Township fiscal officer, Robert Matthews, temporarily stripped of his duties following an unauthorized financial maneuver involving millions in township funds. Attorney General Dave Yost initiated the push for this suspension, which now sees Matthews banned from performing any fiscal activities or stepping into township offices, save for public gatherings, as per the Ohio Attorney General's office. The intervention came after Matthews crossed legal boundaries by attempting to sink $9.7 million of the township's money into the purchase of gold coins—a venture far beyond his prescribed clerical scope.
The act in question, detailed by the AG's office, demonstrates an overt defiance of the investment policies set out for the township's holdings, Yost called out this blatant disregard with stern clarity, "The fiscal officer’s sin was trying to invest $9.7 million that didn’t belong to him in a product that the township’s investment policy doesn’t allow for" he said in a statement obtained by the Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. "He doesn’t get to arbitrarily decide that the rules don’t apply." The legal criterion for Matthews' temporary dislodgment from office was met and sanctioned by Visiting Judge Jonathan P. Hein, who saw a knowing violation of a fiscal duty in the officer's actions.
This recent ruling not only inhibits Matthews from any official fiscal interactions but also bars his entrance to the township offices, reducing his presence to that of a civilian at public meetings. The township has been directed to operate as though the fiscal officer's seat is unoccupied, although replacing Matthews is not yet an option on the table. In the event of a success in his endeavor, Matthews' actions would have saddled the township with nearly $382,037 in unnecessary transaction fees plus an ongoing $32,613 for annual storage fees for the gold coins.
Underlining the gravity and irregularity of Matthews' actions are the constraints of Ohio law, which confines township fiscal officers to recording roles, maintaining ledgers and minutes are the everyday yarn of their work rather than the unilateral management of township funds—spending of which requires the assent of two trustees and a counter-signature from the fiscal officer, which in this case, conjured a scenario far removed from those lawful prescriptions. As the township moves forward, amidst this enforced vacancy and the search for rectitude, residents look on, awaiting the consequences that the pursuit of permanent removal will unravel for the once-trusted fiscal officer.
