Tuesday, September 01, 2015
Current Weather
Loading Current Weather....
Published: Thursday, 6/19/2008

Lucas County Board of Elections fails to double-check check


To Timothy E. Bohls, Sr., it was a legal question.

Mr. Bohls, 56, received a paycheck for $100 from the Lucas County Board of Elections for working the polls at the March 4 primary.

The only problem was, Mr. Bohls didn't work the March 4 primary.

His son, Timothy E. Bohls, Jr., did.

Mr. Bohls said he has refused to do what several people have suggested he do: Cash the check and give his son the money.

"It's not legal, is it?" asked Mr. Bohls, who, since the March primary has moved from an apartment on Brookview Drive in South Toledo to Perrysburg.

"My feeling is, the county should have to account for that $100. And how can they account for that $100 when I didn't do a thing for it?"

He said about two weeks ago, he and his son took the check to the board of elections office in downtown Toledo, where they were told that Mr. Bohls, Jr., would have to fill out a "new affidavit" that would have to be approved by a judge.

By that time, the check had expired.

Mr. Bohls said no one presented them with an affidavit to fill out, and he assumed the board of elections would be in touch later.

On Tuesday, a new check came, still made out to the elder Mr. Bohls.

"They should make the check out to the right person," Mr. Bohls said.

Yesterday, board of elections Director Daniel Pilrose called Mr. Bohls and promised him a corrected check would be issued.

Mr. Pilrose said the younger Mr. Bohls gave only his last name when he was signed up to work at the last minute, so when the staff looked up his name, they used his father's name by mistake.

He said the error was compounded two times when a board employee erroneously told Mr. Bohls that he needed an affidavit to get the check reissued, and then didn't make sure the county auditor issued the check in the correct name. He said the staffer would be counseled.

"That was our mistake," Mr. Pilrose said.

He said the auditor's office apparently believed the request was simply for a new check to replace the expired check.

Recommended for You

Guidelines: Please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. If a comment violates these standards or our privacy statement or visitor's agreement, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report abuse. To post comments, you must be a Facebook member. To find out more, please visit the FAQ.