by
Stu Clampitt
Hamilton County Reporter
As first reported by The Hamilton County Reporter, the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department is investigating the alleged theft and destruction of campaign signs by a woman caught on tape removing signs belonging to Hamilton County Council President Steve Schwartz. That woman has been identified as Lisa Hall, wife of Hamilton County Council candidate Mark Hall.
Mark and Lisa Hall campaigning this past Saturday. (Photo provided)
A press release from the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department reads in part, “On April 29, 2018, the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office opened an investigation into missing campaign signs owned by Hamilton County Councilman Steve Schwartz. Schwartz reported campaign signs missing from the northwest corner of 211th Street and Oak Bay Drive.”
Click here to view the full release.
A press release given to The Reporter by Mark Hall states, “My opponent trespassed and placed signs without the permission of the Property Owner, Dr. Marc Zipper. There is no question that signs were placed illegally by my opponent on Dr. Zipper’s private property.”
Click here to view Hall’s full press release.
Hall goes on to say that volunteers from his campaign are cooperating with the Hamilton County Sheriff’s department.
“The campaign has provided them full written documentation of our agreement for signage and exclusive use of the property in question,” Hall stated.
The Reporter spoke directly with Mark Hall and Council President Steve Schwartz, who are both running for Hamilton County Council District 3, about this incident.
Photo provided by WISH-TV
Hall told The Reporter he was given exclusive permission to place signs on the property by the property owner, Dr. Marc Zipper. Hall provided emails which we are publishing in today’s edition.
Schwartz told The Reporter he has non-exclusive permission to place signs on the property from the farmer who leases the land, William Ray Clark. Schwartz provided a letter signed by Mr. Clark which we are also publishing.
Hall told The Reporter he contacted Zipper in March to get permission to place campaign signs on his property.
“I wrote him [Zipper] a note and said we committed that we would remove all the signs,” Hall said. “He wrote back and said, ‘I did not give anyone else permission to place signs on my property other than you.’”
Hall went on to say, “Just so we are on the same page, that means no farmer. That farmer who cash rents from him three months out of the year does not have permission to put signs on that property. He can’t give permission to anyone else to put signs on that property. This says, ‘I did not give ANYONE else permission.’ My opponent is misleading the public as evidenced by this. Where is his proof?”
Schwartz provided proof to The Reporter in the form of a letter from the William Clark.
“I had permission from the farmer, Bill Clark,” Schwartz said. “He lives within eyesight of where those signs are.”
An undated letter from William Clark reads in part, “I, Bill Clark, gave Steve Schwartz permission to put up campaign signs on many farm fields in Hamilton County that I farm and lease from other people including Dr. Marc Zipper.”
The Reporter also called Mr. Clark to clarify when he both gave Schwartz permission to place signs on the land involved in this dispute and notified Dr. Zipper.
“I don’t know if he [Dr. Zipper] remembers it or not, but I specifically told him,” Clark said. “I didn’t want him to not know. It was March, right before they started putting signs up.”
When asked if he was given permission for the trail-cam, Schwartz said, “That was never talked about. I know they were planning to put out one of their own. I think they were actually going to put out two because he is very upset. The people taking my signs were only taking the cardboard portion and leaving him a wire in his field. He’s upset because if you hit one wire his combine’s done.”
Clark verified he had given two of his own cameras to someone to place on his property, but Jackson Township Board Member Glen Schwartz, father of Steve Schwartz, put his own in place on Friday afternoon.
The Reporter asked Hall why his wife was removing signs at night, as the images from the trail-cam indicate.
“We came home from a long day of campaigning,” Hall said. “It was just at dusk. It wasn’t after sunset. It wasn’t in the middle of the night. It was right at dusk.”
Pete Schwartz, Steve’s son, told The Reporter the security camera images were time-stamped approximately 9:15 p.m.
Sunset was at 8:37 p.m. on Saturday, April 29.
“My commitment to Zipper is to police the area and keep it clean,” Hall said. “There were other signs that were removed in addition. It’s not pick on you-know-who day.”
When asked where the signs were put and what his intentions were to do with them after removing them, Hall told The Reporter, “We destroyed everything. That’s what we’re supposed to do. Our commitment was to get rid of them. Dr. [Zipper] said, ‘your choice.’ All of them were destroyed.”
Hall said his campaign “told everybody that. We didn’t do anything wrong. Here’s the letter, here’s the proof. We’re to police the area. We are the only campaign that has permission for signs. Even though Your Mama’s Grill and Bar and College Painters weren’t political signs, they’re still a mess and my commitment to Dr. Zipper was still to clean them up.”
Hall said there were two Schwartz signs removed Saturday, but there more signs removed. He listed signs for College Painters, Your Mama’s Grill and Bar and judge candidate Will Riley as others he and his wife removed and destroyed.
Hall said this is the first time they have removed signs from that location, though he says he has had permission to do so throughout the campaign season.
“It’s really very straight forward,” Hall said. “He’s misleading the public. He did not have permission. We have written proof from the owner – the only person who can give permission. He does not.”
Hall indicated he thinks there should be charges filed against Schwartz for trespassing.
“The issue here is that you have a person in power who is trying to mislead the public,” Hall said. “He trespassed. He didn’t have permission. Now whether Zipper presses criminal trespass charges against him or not – that will be up to Dr. Zipper. But clearly you can see he wasn’t in the right-of-way. The stuff he was putting was way out in the middle of the field. That was really odd, because it wasn’t along the side of the road.”
When asked about where the signs were relative to the field, Schwartz said, “That’s where it’s going to become the grey area. The more than I looked at it today, I don’t know where the right-of-way begins and where the field actually stops. I didn’t put signs in the farmer’s field, but in the grassy area next to it. It could be the right-of-way, but the farmer, either way, told me I had permission. Not only did I put them out, but the farmer put them out as well for me.”
Schwartz explained Clark would call when the signs were missing, then Schwartz would leave signs at Clark’s barn door for him to place. This last set of signs was placed by Schwartz himself. He specified that there were three signs total taken over the weekend.
Hall told The Reporter he feels like his campaign was set up by Schwartz.
“How did he even know to put a camera there?” Hall asked. “It was a set up. Did he have permission to put a camera there? No. He didn’t have permission to be there.”
Schwartz said he understands that in a situation with a property owner and a renter, both of whom gave their own permissions to different campaigns, there is clearly room for misunderstanding.
“I understand the debate – that they are saying they had permission and I definitely had permission from the farmer,” Schwartz told The Reporter. “I went to great lengths to make sure I had the proper permission. I’ve known the farmer for quite some time. But at the end of the day it does not give anybody permission to steal my stuff and then destroy it. Last night Pete and I came up with an example. If somebody leaves a car in your driveway, you can call a wrecker and have it towed away. But you can’t drag it behind your house and set it on fire. That’s what’s happened. It is theft and destruction.”
The exact charges, if any, will be at the discretion of the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department and the prosecutor’s office. If the issue comes down to destroying the signs in questions, IC 35-43-1-2 reads in part, “A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damages or defaces property of another person without the other person’s consent commits criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor.”
Criminal mischief is what Jeff Hern admitted to after his own campaign sign escapade in 2016.
When told, in the interest of transparency, that The Reporter will publish the emails he provided, with the email addresses removed, Hall said, “I think that’s appropriate.”
One of those emails, sent from Hall to Zipper on April 3, specifies that he and his wife would not remove the signs themselves. “Even now with your permission it just can’t be Lisa or myself that removes them. In order to avoid issues, with your direction, the plan is to use a third party monitored by a sheriff’s deputy to remove them. That is how we will proceed.”
And yet, 25 days later, Lisa Hall was seen on camera removing a sign the Halls later destroyed.
