Vets group appointee disputed

Prosecutor says the Rev. Wilburt O. Shanklin should be removed from the board.

Montgomery County Prosecutor Mat Heck has asked for a Court of Appeals hearing to remove a recent appointee to the Montgomery County Veterans Service Commission, claiming the appointment process deprived the group from putting who it wanted on the five-member panel.

The court document, filed late Friday afternoon by Heck’s office, contended the Rev. Wilburt O. Shanklin should be removed from the post he was appointed to last month because a local Disabled American Veterans leader submitted the nomination “solely because he was forced to” and before the DAV chapter could vote on the nomination, according to the court filing.

The Court of Common Pleas appointed Shanklin to a five-year term on the Veterans Service Commission last month. Seven of the 11 judges signed off on the appointment, a court document dated Dec. 15 showed.

Shanklin is expected to attend his first board meeting later this month.

Veterans groups such as the DAV nominate board members for the court’s consideration. The service commission helps veterans with benefits and other needs.

In the court filing, the prosecutor’s office said it was ensuring that veterans voices “are heard and that the people nominated to the Veterans Service Commission are duly qualified and properly appointed… It is imperative that the Disabled American Veterans are not compelled or feel they are compelled to do something they did not want to do,” the filing states.

An attorney in Heck’s office filed the court action after Veterans Service Commission President Ashley Webb met with Heck on Thursday. Webb sent material to both Heck and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine arguing that Shanklin’s appointment was “unlawful.”

A spokeswoman for DeWine, Kate Hanson, said Friday the office is reviewing the information.

“The bottom line is this is about the process, it’s not about any individuals,” Webb said Friday.

Repeated telephone messages were left for Shanklin requesting comment.

In an interview last month, Administrative Law Judge Mary K. Huffman said Webb misinterpreted state law in his contention the court had overstepped its bounds. She said then that the court legally followed the same appointment process “we use in every single statutory appointment that we make.”

The controversy is over the timing of the Shanklin appointment and whether he was properly vetted. Huffman said she was concerned that one of the veterans services board members, Tommy D. Adkins, initially gave false information to Shanklin about the deadline for applying.

Adkins had told Shanklin an Oct. 4 deadline to apply for a MCVSC seat had expired when in fact the court had extended the deadline. Adkins said he did not know the deadline had been extended.

The DAV has one seat on the five-member Veterans Service Commission. According to the prosecutor’s office, Shanklin joined the DAV on same day he asked to be considered for the veterans commission. “Mr. Shanklin is not an active member, has no association, no history, and no knowledge” of the DAV, Heck’s office argued in its filing.

Three DAV candidates were vying for the veterans service commission post. When one withdrew, Shanklin’s name was entered to replace him.

DAV Chapter 9 commander David J. Weeks submitted Shanklin’s name for consideration, but according to the prosecutor’s office, he did so only because he felt he was forced to by the court. In an Oct. 31 letter to two local DAV post leaders, Huffman said her office had been contacted by a “Montgomery County citizen” about being given false information about the deadline for applying, and directed the DAV to include that citizen’s name to the court for consideration. In the interview with the newspaper last month, Huffman said she did not at the time know who the citizen was. She said the court was obligated to consider three candidates.

Weeks declined comment when reached late Friday.

A representative for the judge said Friday morning she was declining further comment and referred questions to Court Administrator James Dare.

“I’m sure our judges appointed a qualified candidate according to the law,” Dare said, declining further comment.

In an interview Thursday, Heck said he and his staff were reviewing not only the complaints Webb has made, but the “entire procedure and process that was taken in this case.”

“We will decide whether we feel that there’s any irregularity in either the submission of the name or the appointment,” he said.

The first meeting Shanklin is scheduled to attend is Jan. 25, Webb said. He said Shanklin would be welcomed as a commissioner.

“Our issue is not Mr. Shanklin,” Webb said. “It’s the conduct of the appointing authority that has come into question.”

It’s not clear yet when a Court of Appeals hearing would take place.

Staff writer Josh Sweigart contributed to this story.

About the Author