Toledo, OHIO – The Ohio Controlling Board, a seven-member body with substantial influence over state financial decisions, is facing criticism for its involvement in extending a lucrative deal for JobsOhio, the state’s private economic development agency. The extension, which could last until 2053, would allow JobsOhio to continue reaping profits from Ohio’s state liquor monopoly without any further financial obligation to the state.
This action raises significant constitutional and ethical concerns. The Ohio Constitution stipulates that no money shall be drawn from the state treasury without a specific appropriation made by law. While the Controlling Board’s decision technically avoids a direct financial transaction, it effectively guarantees JobsOhio continued access to state revenue by preventing the state from claiming any potential future profits. Critics argue that this amounts to a “giveaway” of public funds.
Despite not requiring an explicit payment in exchange for the deal, the extension of JobsOhio’s benefits has sparked questions about the transparency and fairness of the process. Republican Attorney General David Yost, who has voiced his opposition, noted that the original deal required JobsOhio to pay Ohio approximately $1.4 billion up front. However, under the new arrangement, the private agency would not be required to make any payment, even as it secures a 15-year extension of what many consider a valuable public franchise.
The Controlling Board, which has its roots in Ohio’s emergency governance structure created in 1917, has been granted significant leeway in recent years to approve financial transactions without direct legislative oversight. Members of the board are selected by the Ohio House Speaker and Senate President, both of whom are Republicans. This concentration of power in the hands of a small group has raised concerns about the potential for gerrymandering and a lack of accountability in decisions that impact Ohio’s finances.
Historically, the Controlling Board emerged as a tool for political maneuvering, particularly in the 1970s when it became a focal point of conflict between the Democratic-controlled General Assembly and Republican Governor James A. Rhodes. More recently, however, it has been used to bypass more traditional legislative processes, with some arguing that this undermines democratic accountability.
The controversy surrounding the Controlling Board’s decision may not end here. Legal experts suggest that an Ohioan with the right standing could challenge the board’s actions in the state’s Supreme Court, questioning the constitutionality of such financial maneuvers. However, the Ohio Supreme Court has often been seen as reluctant to intervene in disputes involving the General Assembly’s decisions.
As the state continues to grapple with the implications of this controversial extension, questions linger about the broader ramifications for Ohio’s fiscal future and the role of private entities in shaping state policy.