OHIO LEGISLATIVE SERVICE COMMISSION
Office of Research Legislative Budget
www.lsc.ohio.gov and Drafting Office
S.B. 91 Final Analysis
135th General Assembly
Click here for S.B. 91’s Fiscal Note
Primary Sponsor: Sen. Schaffer
Effective date: March 28, 2024
Effective date:
S. Ben Fogle, Attorney
SUMMARY
 Requires state officials and employees of a state agency to report alleged fraud, theft in
office, or misuse or misappropriation of public money to the Inspector General.
 Requires all other state officials and employees, and certain other persons in local public
office, to report alleged fraud, theft in office, or misuse or misappropriation of public
money to the Auditor of State.
 Prohibits a political subdivision or taxing authority from making a revenue expenditure
unless the expenditure has been appropriated by its legislative authority, and is not
compelled by a process authorizing expenditures by resident vote.
DETAILED ANALYSIS
Persons required to report fraud and abuse
The act requires all state officials and employees employed by or appointed to a state
agency to report alleged fraud, theft in office, or the misuse or misappropriation of public
money by a state official or employee to the Inspector General. All other state employees and
elected officials must report fraud, theft in office, or the misuse or misappropriation of public
money to the Auditor of State’s fraud-reporting system.
A “state agency” for the purpose of the act is every organized body, office, or agency
established by the laws of the state for the exercise of any function of state government, except
it does not include the General Assembly, any court, or the offices of the Secretary of State,
Auditor of State, Treasurer of State, or Attorney General. Officials or employees of these bodies
must report to the Auditor of State’s fraud-reporting system.1
1 R.C. 4113.52(A)(1)(a); R.C. 1.60, 117.01, 117.103, and 121.41, not in the act.
January 8, 2024
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
“Misappropriation of public money” is defined as knowingly using public money or
public property for an unauthorized, improper, or unlawful purpose to serve a private or
personal benefit or interest, and “misuse of public money” is knowingly using public money or
public property in a manner not authorized by law.2
With respect to local public government, the act requires a person who, during the
person’s term of office or course of employment, becomes aware of fraud, theft in office, or
misuse or misappropriation of public money, to timely notify the Auditor through the fraud-
reporting system or other means, if any of the following apply:
 The person is elected to a local public office;
 The person is appointed to or within a local public office;
 The person has a fiduciary duty to a local public office;
 The person holds a supervisory position within a local public office;
 The person is employed in the department or office responsible for processing any
expenses of the local public office.3
Additionally, the act exempts a person who serves or is employed as legal counsel for a
local public office or a state agency from being required to report fraud, theft in office, or
misuse or misappropriation of public money if it concerns any communication received from a
client in an attorney-client relationship. Further, a prosecuting attorney, director of law, village
solicitor, or similar chief legal officer of a municipal corporation, or employees of those, is not
required to report a violation to the Inspector General or to the Auditor’s fraud-reporting
system at all.4
Continuing law requires a person who becomes aware, in the course of employment, of
a violation of a state or federal statute or a local ordinance or regulation that the person’s
employer has the authority to correct, and the person reasonably believes the violation is a
criminal offense that is likely to cause imminent harm or hazard to public health and safety, a
felony, or improper solicitation for contribution, to orally notify the person’s supervisor or
other responsible officer of the violation. Also, the person must file a written report with that
supervisor or officer that provides sufficient detail to identify and describe the violation. If the
violation is not corrected within 24 hours or a reasonable and good faith effort was not made to
correct the violation, the person may file a written report with the relevant prosecuting
attorney, a peace officer, the Inspector General, the fraud-reporting system, or any other
appropriate public official or agency.5
2 R.C. 4113.52(G)(3) to (G)(5).
3 R.C. 4113.52(A)(1)(b) and (c).
4 R.C. 4113.52(A)(1)(d) and (e).
5 R.C. 4113.52(A)(1)(f), (2), and (3).
P a g e |2 S.B. 91
Final Analysis
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
The act also clarifies that these reporting requirements are not intended to infringe, and
should not be interpreted as infringing on, the constitutional right against self-incrimination.6
Finally, the act specifies that nothing in the act should be construed to limit the
authority of an auditor, including the Auditor of State, to make inquiries or interview state or
local government employees or officials or otherwise perform audit procedures related to fraud
during the course of an audit or attestation engagement.7
Political subdivision expenditure restrictions
Additionally, the act prohibits political subdivisions or taxing authorities from making
any expenditures of money unless the fiscal officer of the subdivision or taxing authority
certifies the following:
 The expenditure has been appropriated in accordance with the tax levy law (continuing
law requirement);
 The expenditure has been appropriated by the subdivision’s or taxing unit’s legislative
authority; and
 The expenditure is not compelled by a process authorizing management, control,
distribution, or disbursement of an appropriation or expenditure by a vote of the
subdivision’s or taxing unit’s residents.
The act clarifies that these restrictions do not prevent a political subdivision or taxing
unit from authorizing a bond issue otherwise permitted by law, or from soliciting input related
to the management, control, distribution, or disbursement of funds.8
If challenged, a court may examine this restriction in light of the Home Rule
amendment. Municipal corporations have constitutional home rule authority to exercise all
powers of local self-government, which includes the power of taxation. The Ohio Constitution
grants the General Assembly authority to limit a municipal corporation’s authority to tax,
assess, borrow money, incur debt, and loan its credit. Courts have found chartered municipal
corporations may deviate from state law on all matters of local self-government, whether
substantive or procedural, while nonchartered municipalities may deviate only on substantive
matters.
If a court finds the provision relates to a matter of local self-government and does not
fall under the General Assembly’s authority to limit municipal corporations’ taxing authority,
the provision may not apply to any municipal corporations. If a court finds that the provision is
6 R.C. 4113.52(A)(4).
7 R.C. 4113.52(H).
8 R.C. 5705.41.
P a g e |3 S.B. 91
Final Analysis
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
a procedural matter of local self-government, rather than substantive matter, it may apply only
to nonchartered municipal corporations.9
HISTORY
Action Date
Introduced 03-22-23
Reported, S. Gov’t Oversight 06-21-23
Passed Senate (32-0) 06-28-23
Reported, H. Gov’t Oversight 12-13-23
Passed House (92-0) 12-13-23
Senate Concurred in House Amendments (30-1) 12-13-23
23-ANSB0091EN-135/ar
9Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3, art. XII, sec. 2, art. XIII, sec. 6, and art. XVIII, sec. 13; Gesler v.
City of Worthington Income Tax Bd. of Appeals, 138 Ohio St.3d 76 (2013); Northern Ohio Patrolmen’s
Benevolent Ass’n v. Parma, 61 Ohio St.2d 375 (1980). See also State ex rel. Cronin v. Wald, 26 Ohio St.2d
22, 27 (1971); Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Cleveland, 50 Ohio App.2d 275 (8th Dist. 1976); Frisbie
Company v. The City of Cleveland, 98 Ohio St. 267 (1918); and Emmert v. Elyria, 74 Ohio St. 185 (1906).
P a g e |4 S.B. 91
Final Analysis