The news that the city of Columbus is the focus of an investigation by the state auditor is certain to conjure memories of a previous investigation.

In Wednesday’s edition, The Dispatch reported the auditor’s office requested a wide-ranging amount of records for the past two fiscal years (Oct. 1, 2023, to Sept. 30, 2025). The Dispatch obtained the Oct. 3 letter after filing a public records request last week.
Today is the deadline for the city to comply with the request, a deadline city officials said they planned to meet.

The auditor’s office was very specific about the information it requested: documents related to city contracts with vendors (both local and regional), detailed receipts from e-commerce sites such as Amazon, seizure records from the police department and the city’s banked overtime program.

Given the number of departments and accounts involved the request, it’s hard to imagine all roads leading to a single person, as was the case in 2020, when the state auditor’s investigation led to the arrest of the city’s CFO, Milton Rawle who was found guilty of embezzling almost $300,000 from the city.

The breadth of the investigation suggests the investigation may be focused more on impermissible or incorrect procedural practices rather than the kind of embezzlement case that rocked the city five years ago.

That is speculation, however. All that is known at this point is what was contained in the letter.

Our courts are founded on the concept of due process, but there are no constraints applied to the court of public opinion, where rumors can lead to a verdict that may or may not be proven in actual court.

There is always a temptation to say where there is smoke there is fire. That’s something that isn’t always true. We need look no further than the case of two Columbus business partners who were indicted and charged with 17 federal fraud charges a few years ago. They both were acquitted on all charges, but the damage to their reputation in the community had been done well before the trial even began.

That case should remind us that speculation can be unfair, in this case to the local vendors (and one contractor) named in the letter and reported in The Dispatch. This also holds true for city officials. Their reputations are vital to their livelihood and even the hint of impropriety can have lasting consequences.

At this point, we know only that these vendors held contracts with the city. There is no wrongdoing in that. Yet being publicly tied to an investigation can cast an undeserved shadow over legitimate businesses.

For that reason, we urge the public to resist drawing conclusions or spreading rumors about those who were mentioned. Until findings are made public, any assumptions about wrongdoing are premature and unfair.

The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.