 |
November 2008 |
 |
|
|
|
|
By MATT NICHOLS
Staff Writer
A former Wapakoneta law enforcement officer’s future is now in the hands of seven state Supreme Court justices.
Former Wapakoneta Police Chief Dave Harrison’s 6-year-old sex crime case reached the pinnacle in Ohio’s court system Wednesday, as justices heard arguments from Harrison’s attorney Dean Boland and state prosecutor Scott Longo.
Each party had 15 minutes to present their case to the justices. After both attorneys argued their cases, a single word in Harrison’s sentencing entry and a grilling delivered to Longo by justice Maureen O’Connor left Boland optimistic about his client’s future.
In June, 2003, Harrison plead guilty to a six-count bill of information after child pornography was found on his computer. After entering his plea, the man who served as police chief from 1988 to 2002 was sentenced to one year in jail.
Seven months after he completed his sentence, it was discovered by county prosecutors that Harrison should have been sentenced with an additional five years of mandatory post release control, or probation.
During a court hearing, Harrison was given the option to either be re-sentenced or withdraw his plea. Harrison chose the latter, taking things back to square one.
With the plea withdrawn, the state of Ohio slapped Harrison with a 23-count indictment which he was ultimately found guilty of and sentenced to six years in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Tuesday, 08 July 2008 |
City council committee to reconsider ordinance verbiage
By WILLIAM LANEY
Managing Editor
A proposed ordinance dealing with the posting of signs in the public right-of-way is returning to committee for clarification and review after Wapakoneta City Council members and members of the public raised concerns.
During Monday’s council meeting, 3rd Ward Councilor Bonnie Wurst agreed to review the proposed legislation with her fellow Lands and Buildings Committee members. She scheduled a committee meeting for 10 a.m. July 28 to discuss the issue further.
“The first thing I want to do is talk with the law director, talk with Denny Faller, to see where he got some of the wording for the ordinance that was not part of the original idea for the ordinance,” Wurst said this morning. “As a committee, I want to try and decide if we can amend the legislation or if we need to start over.”
The ordinance defines garage and yard sale signs, political signs and real estate signs with specific stipulations on each type of sign.
The ordinance also establishes a fee of $10 per sign for each offense.
A fee, or fine, of $100 per offense pertains to another section in the chapter of signs and does not pertain to this section as reported in Monday’s edition of the Wapakoneta Daily News. Wurst said she wants to review the wording with Faller to make the verbiage clearer.
Local realtor Dick Brorein requested a section regarding real estate signs be reviewed by councilors because “we, people in the real estate business, need all the help we can get to sell property whether it is commercial or residential.”
“As far as advertising goes, signage is one of the most important things and when you have a house for sale five, six or seven blocks from the main intersection we need some help in letting people know where that house is located,” Brorein said. “Every aspect of the real estate business is important, and we need all the help we can get from council — just as the state is trying to help with the foreclosure issue — not a hindrance to sell real estate.”
Brorein suggested “open house” signs and signs directing prospective home buyers to a specific property be exempt from the ordinance.
Brorein said he understands councilors’ efforts to pass legislation to eliminate garage and yard sale signs from the public right-of-way, but “I can’t see where it (open house signs) hurts anything, but it helps sell property.”
The Wapakoneta realtor talked with realtors in Delphos and St. Marys and he said they have not experienced any problems with city officials regarding real estate signs near a roadway.
“I understand the garage and yard sale signs are a completely different situation, but I don’t think real estate signage should be included in any type of ordinance you pass,” Brorein said. “Please, help us if you can.”
Councilor-at-large Steve Walter told Wurst a paragraph requiring political signs to be removed within one week after an election violates the free speech amendment, citing a 1994 U.S. Supreme Court case and a 2000 Ohio Supreme Court case.
Walter told Brorein and others in attendance the prohibition of signs, other than directional and safety devices and signs installed by a government entity, has been in effect since 1980 for the safety of its residents.
He said the proposed ordinance is imposing a $10 fine per sign per offense into the sign ordinance.
“The problem is we have to have a solution and a code that applies to everybody,” Walter said. “The sign ordinance was passed in 1980, and the problem is not the ordinance — the problem is the people want the ordinance enforced now.” |
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 09 July 2008 )
|
|
|
|
