The Manchester Community Building, where officials are facing scrutiny following the release of a state audit on August 19, 2025, that uncovered improper financial practices and resulted in multiple findings being referred to the Ohio Ethics Commission. (Photo by Ryan Applegate)
By Ryan Applegate
People’s Defender
The Village of Manchester is facing mounting scrutiny following the public release of a state audit on August 19, 2025 that uncovered multiple violations of Ohio law, mismanagement of public funds, and inadequate internal controls during the fiscal years 2021 and 2022. The audit, conducted by the office of Ohio Auditor of State Keith Faber, includes a formal Finding for Recovery and an extensive management letter. Among the most serious outcomes of the audit, two matters have been referred to the Ohio Ethics Commission for potential investigation of ethical misconduct.
The audit report confirms that the Village’s financial statements were prepared under the state-sanctioned regulatory cash basis and received an unmodified opinion in that context. However, it also received an adverse opinion under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), as the Village does not follow those standards. This finding, while not unusual for small local governments, was overshadowed by the scale and nature of noncompliance revealed in the management letter and accompanying findings.
A central focus of the audit is the improper use of funds from the Manchester Fire Levy Fund. In 2022, the Village issued a check in the amount of $20,652.63 to pay off the final installment of a loan held not by the Village itself, but by a nonprofit organization, the Manchester Fireman’s Benefit Association. That loan, originally used for improvements to the Village-owned firehouse, was the responsibility of the private nonprofit. The check was signed by Fiscal Officer Robin Taylor and Council Member Christine Henderson, after Fire Chief James Bowman reportedly told the fiscal officer that the Village was obligated to make the payment.
The audit found no legal obligation for the Village to pay any part of the private loan and no record of Village Council approval for the expenditure. As a result, a formal Finding for Recovery in the full amount was proposed against Taylor, Henderson and Bowman, jointly and severally. The auditors determined that this constituted a misuse of taxpayer money and a violation of the Ohio Revised Code. The situation was deemed serious enough to be referred to the Ohio Ethics Commission to determine whether any public officials may have misused their position or approved a contract in which they had an interest.
According to Ohio law, specifically Revised Code 2921.42 and 102.03(D), public officials are prohibited from authorizing or influencing the authorization of any public contract in which they or their associates have a financial interest, and they must not use their official position to secure anything of value that could improperly influence their duties. The audit’s findings strongly suggest that those legal boundaries may have been crossed in this case.
Another matter referred to the Ohio Ethics Commission was not detailed in the same level of specificity in the audit, but the management letter indicates the existence of a second ethics-related concern arising from the Village’s handling of public contracts. While the names connected to the second referral were not disclosed, the letter indicates that multiple officials may have taken actions that raise ethical red flags and warrant further investigation.
Beyond the ethics referrals, the audit outlines nineteen separate findings of noncompliance or internal control failures. Among these are numerous improper fund transfers, including the movement of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to various Village accounts; including Parks and Recreation, Fire Levy, and multiple utility accounts; without the required council-approved resolutions. These unapproved transfers, which collectively totaled over $300,000 across two years, violated Ohio Revised Code 5705.14.
The audit also documents a series of financial reporting and procedural breakdowns, such as the failure to maintain proper depository agreements, delayed remittance of local, state, and federal payroll taxes, and failure to enroll eligible employees in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS). The Village accrued penalties and interest for late OPERS payments, including $470 in 2022 alone, and failed to remit proper federal payroll taxes for the third quarter of 2022, leaving a balance of $558 and generating an additional $360 in penalties that were paid in 2023.
Moreover, the Village’s fiscal officer failed to complete mandatory continuing education required by the Ohio Revised Code and did not attend annual investment training or file for an exemption under Ohio law. The absence of ongoing professional training raises concerns about competency and oversight, particularly in light of the financial errors documented in the audit.
Additional violations include missing or inadequately documented public records responses, unauthorized sewer fees added to customer bills, and the use of restricted levy funds for unrelated purposes—such as the misuse of infrastructure levy funds that were ultimately reclassified to the General Fund via audit adjustment. The Village also failed to adopt and follow a formal public records policy, neglected to properly manage aged outstanding checks, and did not support its allocation of audit costs with appropriate documentation.
While the Auditor’s office did not offer public comment on the findings, citing the preliminary status of some matters and the pending review by the Ethics Commission, the implications are clear. If the Findings for Recovery are not resolved, the Ohio Attorney General may initiate legal proceedings to collect the amounts due. In addition, under Ohio Revised Code 9.24, individuals named in unresolved Findings for Recovery are barred from entering into state-funded contracts.
With the audit now finalized and released to the public, Manchester residents are left to reckon with the consequences of what the state has characterized as significant financial mismanagement. The involvement of the Ohio Ethics Commission suggests that the situation could have deeper implications, both legally and politically, for the officials involved.
