Written by 
The legal battle for transparency in Marion County has reached a critical point. On September 15, 2025, a formal complaint was filed by taxpayer Telly Haynes, directly targeting Marion County Prosecuting Attorney Ray Grogan. The filing alleges “wanton and willful neglect of duty, abuse of prosecutorial discretion, and gross misconduct in office,” a serious challenge under Ohio law to a power structure we have long investigated.
The 11-page complaint, supported by a sworn affidavit and evidence, documents a specific public records request that laid bare a pattern of alleged deceit. The core of the matter: a legally required public official surety bond for Probate Judges Larry Heiser and Robert Fragale that, according to the complaint and a critical email from the State Auditor’s Office, simply did not exist. This is not a mere bureaucratic oversight. A surety bond is a financial guarantee that a public official will perform their duties faithfully and honestly, protecting taxpayers from losses due to negligence or wrongdoing. The absence of such bonds for public officials of this stature represents a significant gap in accountability, and the complaint alleges the prosecutor’s office was actively complicit in concealing it.
As our investigative team, with the help of Telly, has documented a series of emails from March 2022 shows Grogan’s office, through First Assistant William J. Owen, attempting to use an alternative CORSA insurance policy as a substitute. The complaint rightly argues this was not an oversight, but a deliberate misrepresentation intended to conceal statutory noncompliance. This key piece of evidence, contained within the documents themselves, demonstrates a direct conflict between the clear requirements of the law and the actions of a public office charged with upholding it. The State Auditor’s email explicitly stated that public official bonds were required, a declaration that was then directly contradicted by the Prosecutor’s office in an apparent effort to satisfy the public records request without providing the mandated documentation.
The conflict then escalated into alleged retaliation. The complaint states that in response to Haynes’s legitimate public records request, Grogan’s office filed a retaliatory protection order case. The complaint asserts that this was a transparent attempt to intimidate and silence a public watchdog. The case was assumed to be easily dismissed, but is currently in the appeals court. The message was clear: use the legal system to challenge a public office, and that same system may be used as a weapon against you. The complaint also references a 2010 case involving Grogan and Heiser to suggest a historical pattern of “off-record supervision” and “systemic failure.” This past professional history, where the superior’s role was allegedly kept from the public record, suggests a long-standing pattern of skirting formal protocols.
Beyond a Single Case: A Broken System
This filing is not an isolated incident. Our long-running investigation into Marion County’s government and legal system confirms that the issues raised by her are systemic.
Public Records as Resistance
The Marion County public records process is fundamentally broken. Our team, since 2009, has witnessed a consistent pattern of late, incomplete, or outright denied requests. This includes requests for public correspondence, financial documents, and even official meeting minutes, all of which are subject to public disclosure under Ohio’s Sunshine Laws. Instead of “promptly” and “within a reasonable period of time,” as required by law, officials often respond with obfuscation. The Haynes filing exposes this, revealing how public records law is treated as a barrier to be navigated rather than a right to be honored. The result is a slow and steady erosion of public trust, leaving citizens without the information they need to hold their government accountable. When citizens are forced to wait months for information or are given incomplete records, it stifles their ability to participate in their own government.
The “Old Guard” Resists Accountability
The complaint’s reference to the professional relationship between Grogan and Heiser highlights a powerful and insular “Legal Old Guard.” We have documented how the close ties between these officials create an environment where statutory duties, such as obtaining a simple bond, are neglected and public accountability is an afterthought. This network of personal and professional loyalty, built over decades, functions as an echo chamber that shields its members from external criticism and legal consequences. This makes it difficult for new, honest officials to challenge the status quo and it fosters a culture where the letter of the law can be sidestepped, and a simple public records request can be viewed as an act of betrayal.
A Pattern of Retaliation
Haynes is not the first person to face pushback for questioning the establishment. Our findings, based on citizen reporting, show that the alleged retaliatory action against her is part of a wider pattern of official abuse of power. This is a tactic used to discourage citizens from exercising their legal rights and challenging the political elite. When a public official uses their office to file a legal case against a citizen, it sends a chilling message to the entire community that questioning authority is dangerous. This strategy, when successful, effectively deters other citizens from raising concerns or seeking out public information. This creates an atmosphere of fear that perpetuates the very lack of transparency and accountability the complaint seeks to remedy.
Broader Financial Questions
The Heiser and Fragale bond issue is just the tip of the iceberg. Our investigation into Marion finances has raised questions about broader “irregularities in the county’s CORSA policies and a lack of public transparency in financial agreements.” The absence of the bonds and the alleged attempt to substitute them with a CORSA policy provides a keyhole view into these larger financial concerns. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being protected and managed, and Haynes’s filing serves as a powerful call to action, demanding a full audit of these practices and a commitment to genuine financial transparency. This incident reveals yet another potential vulnerability in the county’s financial oversight, where a failure to properly insure public officials could put taxpayer money at risk.
Telly Haynes’s complaint is more than a demand for accountability for a single official. It is, according to many citizens, a legal strike against a political and legal system that has, by its actions, demonstrated a culture of non-compliance, a lack of transparency, and a resistance to public oversight. The outcome of this case, and others, will be a defining moment for public governance in Marion County.