MOUNT VERNON — It seems that Knox County Sheriff David Barber’s use of the Law Enforcement Trust Fund to pay campaign expenses was not in violation of any Ohio campaign finance laws; the transactions, however, were not reported correctly.

In October 2004, Barber wrote two checks from the LETF to pay for campaign expenses. The money, totalling $1,041.67, was listed in his campaign finance report as a loan from “Law Enforcement Trust Fund (David Barber).” This loan, as well as the majority of a personal loan made by Barber to his campaign in 2000, was repaid on Nov. 24, 2004. That same day, a deposit of $1,041.67 was made to the LETF.

Paying bills to Clear Channel Communications and Donahue Advertising directly from the LETF, instead of writing a check to the campaign and having the campaign pay the bills, doesn’t constitute a loan as was reported in Barber’s post-general election campaign finance report filed in December 2004, said Jeff Ortega, assistant director of communications for the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office.

“That technically would not be correctly reported,” Ortega said. “If it was listed as a loan it should be from entity to campaign committee.”

The transactions, he said, should have been reported by committee treasurer Mark Leonard simply as a debt, because the money was never funneled through the campaign’s account.

Because the issue is seen only as a clerical error, any discrepancies as far as campaign finance laws are concerned can be wrapped up with an amended report, regardless of how long ago the original report was filed.

“It can be quickly fixed via an amendment to the campaign report,” said Ortega.

Also, he said, because the funds were merely incorrectly reported and were repaid to the LETF, there appears to be no impropriety in regard to campaign finance laws.

“At a minimum, as long as money from the other source, the trust fund, is repaid, there is no substantive problem in terms of campaign finance reporting,” Ortega said.

Rita Yarman, director of the Knox County Board of Elections, examined Barber’s post-general election campaign finance report and didn’t see anything that seemed out of line.

“When reports are filed, we take them at face value,” Yarman said. “We do general auditing of the reports and look over basic things.”

According to Yarman, she looks to make sure the math has been completed correctly, looks for receipts or cancelled checks for expenditures, and that names and addresses are listed for any campaign contributors.

“As far as if there was any question about whether ... he could have taken a loan from [the LETF,] we would have no way of knowing that,” she said.

Because the report is filed with the board of elections, Yarman said she is not permitted to have anyone else other than the prosecutor look over the report.

“The only thing we could do is have the prosecutor look at it,” she said. “Even then, not working in that agency [sheriff’s department] there could be lots of funds and lots of money in places I wouldn’t know. I would think that the candidate and the treasurer would want to find out if it was OK to borrow money from such a fund.”

To correct the reporting of the trust fund money is a simple procedure, according to Yarman.

“They just file the paperwork with our office and it goes in the file with all the other [reports],” she said. “All they have to do is come in and amend it; they can show it as a debt.”

Yarman said the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office doesn’t look to go out and prosecute for incorrect reports; its goal is to make sure reports are accurate.

“If they find errors, they go about letting people make ammends and fix them; ammend the report and do what needs to be done to fix it,” she said. “There are basic things we do with those reports on our end of it. From there, again, it goes back to the candidate, the treasurer and the committee being legally responsible for what’s in that report.”

Barber declined to comment; calls to Leonard were unreturned at press time.