BREAKING NEWS - OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION FINDS "PROBABLE CAUSE" ON SNITCHLER SUPPORTER GRIFFING'S COMPLAINT AGAINST BOSLEY SUPPORTER - THE OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIR CHRIS REDFERN!

UPDATE:  09/30/2010 AT 3:12 PM.

The Stark County Political Report has learned that the Ohio Elections Commission has found that there is "probable cause" that the Ohio Democratic Party (chaired by Chris Redfern) has violated ethical rules as alleged by North Cantonian Elizabeth Griffing on behalf of the Todd Snitchler campaign for the Ohio 50th District state representative post.  Snitcher, a Republican from Lake Towship, is the incumbent.  He is being challenged by Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley (Democrat - Marlboro).

Hearing on the merits of the case has been set for October 14th at 10:00 AM.

The SCPR has talked with Ohio House Caucus representative Keary McCarthy who indicates that they (the Ohio Democratic Party - ODP) concedes that there were only two investigations of Snitchler; not the three that were alleged in "the rat flyer."


McCarthy also says that the ODP was represented at the "probable cause" hearing by legal counsel.

The SCPR has contacted both Snitchler and Bosley and neither would comment on the "probable cause" outcome.

Representative Snitchler did say that he attended the hearing along with Ms. Griffing and legal counsel

UPDATE:  09/28/2010 AT 2:45 PM.

The SCPR has learned that a probable cause hearing has been set to be heard by a panel of the Ohio Elections Commission this Thursday at 9:00 AM in Columbus on the Elizabeth Griffing filing on behalf of the Snitchler campaign a complaint against Chris Redfern in his capacity as chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party (ODP).

The complaint alleged that the ODP published falsified statements in "the rat flyer" sent out by the party with respect to the number of ethics violation complaints previously filed against Snitchler (Snitchler says one; the ODP says three investigations - in his successful 2008 election bid) and that Snitchler falsely claimed his website in May, 2010 that he was part of the Republican leadership.

ORIGINAL POST

The Stark County Political Report has obtained a copy of a complaint filed by North Canton resident Elizabeth Griffing.  She lists 2850 Limington St NW as her address which appears to be just outside the Ohio House 50th District boundaries.

She is registered to vote in the 51st Ohio House District being contested between Democrat Andrew Haines and Republican Kirk Schuring.  Her registration is Republican.

An Election Commission spokesman tells the SCPR that while the complaint was filed today, the Commission will not be ruling on whether or not it has jurisdiction and is otherwise properly filed until next Tuesday because the Commission's director (Philip Richter) is out of town.

Below is a blown up portion of "The Rat" flyer which focuses on the two points of the Griffing complaint.

Here is a copy of the base complaint.

(VIDEO) 52ND HOUSE DISTRICT - SECREST VERSUS SLESNICK - LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS AND CANDIDATES CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS?

Back in 2008 when Travis Secrest ran as the Republican candidate for Stark County commissioner against Democratic Party appointee and political warhorse Tom Harmon, the SCPR thought he was one of the most articulate candidates in the 2008 election field.

Secrest seemed to have a bright future in Stark County elective politics.

But only shades of that Travis Secrest showed up at last night's Stark County League of Voters "debate?" held in the auditorium of Timken High School in downtown Canton last night.

For this race, Timken High School was an appropriate site because it is located in the 52nd Ohio House District.  However, this is the only debate that should be held at this location.  Politically correct or not, Stark Countians are not going to want to troop down to downtown Canton no matter how safe Mayor Healy and his safety director says it is.

The Stark County League of Women Voters (the debate sponsor - using the word "debate" very loosely) obviously did not adequately publicize the event nor make a strong enough effort to get Cantoninans and Canton Township voters (the heart of the district) who live nearby to attend the event.

Another media person estimates 25 people.  The Report only counted 15.  Either number is unacceptable and the League needs to do better or get out of the debate business.

And neither of the candidates were rock stars either.

As expressed earlier in this blog, The Report was disappointed in Secrest.  He has shown much better in the past.  And yours truly gives him a pass for simply having a bad night.  It could be that as executive director of the Stark County Republican Party, he is spending too much time in the company of Stark County Republican Party Chairman Jeff Matthews.  Matthews is not exactly the SCPR's idea of a ideal mentor for an up-and-comer like Secrest.

Though he has very little chance to defeat Slesnick because the district is an overwhelmingly Democratic one, The Report believes he can do much better addressing the issues than he showed last night.  In doing so, he would put the heat on Slesnick to be a far better representative.

The Report was not disappointed in Stephen Slesnick.  He performed exactly as expected.

For Slesnick to describe himself (as he did last evening) as a "red shirt freshman legislator" is a telling self-description.  A red shirt in athletics is an athlete that is not quite ready for prime time.  At least Slesnick knows himself. 

Stark County's 52nd District voters should not be accepting of a "red shirt legislator."  Shame on Slesnick for having the audacity to run in the first place as ill-prepared as he demonstrated to the SCPR over his time in office to hold the office.

Yours truly and others criticized Canton Councilwoman Mary Cirelli for not being up to the demands of office when she served as state representative.

As limited as the SCPR thinks she was, Cirelli was a world ahead of Stephen Slesnick.  In hindsight, The Report thinks she did a better job than "the whiz-bang of Canton" (Mayor William J. Healy, II) who ousted her from office in 2004.

The SCPR did not hear one specific idea from either candidate.  Mostly, they did not answer the question asked and Moderator Dick Kuhn did not have the fortitude to bore in on them to get meaningful responses to questions posed.

It's questionable whether or not the event was a debate in any sense of the word.  A newbie would have had a hard time figuring out who the Republican and the Democrat among Secrest and Slesnick was.

It is really strange to see a staunchly conservative businessman being the representative for this largely urban district.  Slesnick is a company officer with Slesnick Iron & Metal (vice president since 2000).  And he acts the part of someone having had the way paved for him.

The Report is told that Slesnick shows up late for Ohio House committee meetings and often leaves early.  And for a city guy like Slesnick to be chair of the Agricultural and Development Sub-committee (see below) may be an indication of how little Ohio Speaker of the House Armond Budish thinks of him.

Also, the SCPR finds him to be inaccessible except when yours truly runs into him out on the political hustings.  Apparently, he only returns phone calls to those who throw him bouquets or softballs.

Slesnick is a classic example of what voters get when they live in a non-competitive political district.

The SCPR would like to advocate that Stark voters attend future Stark County League of Women Voters events.  But if they are to be a ditto of last night, then there are clearly better things to do.

They have three debates left.  The highlights will be Bosley versus Snitchler on October 13th, and Harold/Perez (county auditor) as well as Koher/Zumbar (county treasurer) on October 20th.

If the League can get things together for the debates of the 13th and 20th, they may be worthwhile for Stark Countians to take in.

Last night definitely wasn't as was amply testified to by the mere presence of 15 or 25 (pick your own number) who attended.

The SCPR shot a lot of footage of last night's event, but nearly all of it tells voters very little - and nothing new - about what Secrest and Slesnick would specifically do if sent to Columbus.

The Report does present a video of the opening statements of each candidate to give readers an idea of the lackluster evening that all of us had who attended the "debate?".

(VIDEO) KEN KOHER - INTERIM STARK CO. TREASURER - "A POLITICALLY SAVVY NON-POLITICIAN?" AN EXAMPLE FOR ALL STARK COUNTY OFFICIALS?

He may not have a lot of political experience, unlike his general election opponent Alex Zumbar (Republican - Alliance) but he is showing signs of being a savvy non-political politician.

Ken Koher (Democrat - Bethlehem Township) who was sworn in as interim Stark County treasurer a little over a week ago (September 20th), appeared before Stark County commissioners yesterday at the regular weekly meeting in his initiative to present a weekly report to commissioners and their weekly public meeting forum in a overture to Stark Countians that a Koher treasury administration is going to:

• aggressively reform operations at the Stark treasury, and
• to be transparent to the Stark County public

The Report is told that Koher in his first day in office discovered that under his predecessors the procedures in place in the office were some 10 years behind times.

Undaunted, he is moving ahead to correct the problems that he sees but that his predecessor Gary D. Zeigler, up to his removal from office on August 23rd by county commissioners, seemed to say did not exist. 

Stark Countians lost $2.96 million most of which ($2.46 million) was admitted by former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci (sentenced to 10 years in federal prison) to have been stolen by him.  Moreover, federal Judge John Adams is on record as saying he believes Frustaci took the entire amount.

Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero is seeking recovery of the missing money under the authority of Ohio statutory and case law.

Commissioner Steve Meeks said in yesterday's meeting that Koher's commitment to keep the Stark County public updated on his progress at rectifying his perceived deficiencies in the operations of the Stark treasury "is a breath of fresh air."

Indeed it is and Stark County's other officials would do well to help restore the Stark County public's confidence in local government by following the lead of Koher.

But don't hold your breath that they will!

Here is a written copy of his report detailing changes he has made in one week; a video of his commissioners' meeting appearance is included in this blog at the end.

BOSLEY "REALLY!" GETS NASTY WITH SNITCHLER: SUGGESTED IN REPOSITORY INTERVIEW, ON CLEVELAND MARKET TV AND IN A FLYER THAT SNITCHLER DOESN'T CARE ABOUT "TEEN DATING VIOLENCE" AND THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF THOSE DRIVING SCHOOL BUSES.

UPDATE:  09/29/2010 AT 11:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SNITCHLER REACTS! ------------------------------------------

HB 19

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 9:57 AM

From:  "todd@toddsnitchler.com" <todd@toddsnitchler.com>

To:  "Martin Olson" <tramols@att.net>

Martin -

The more I've thought about this baseless accusation that I somehow condone or weakened laws allowing sex offenders to drive buses the more I've looked at prior law and what HB 19 did.

In short, before HB 19 passed, sex offenders, criminals and child molesters were prevented from being employed AT ALL as school bus drivers.  The gutter type attack used by Mr. Bosley and House Democrats fails to mention that HB 19 actually weakened the law and allows rehabilitated offenders to serve as bus drivers (e.g. someone convicted of assault more than 5 years prior).

A no vote on HB 19 in no way permits a sex offender to be a school bus driver.  In fact NOT changing the law would have continued to bar such individuals from ever being employed as school bus drivers.

Further, if you look, I introduced HB 257 to protect students from sexual predators who are teachers, administrators, coaches, etc. that would enhance the penalties for such offenses.  These same Democrats who say I favor easing restrictions on sex offenders - a lie - wouldn't even hear my bill. I think perhaps THAT fact doesn't square with the disgusting campaign they are running trying to smear me with political spin run a muck.

So while dishonest campaigning seems to be the theme used by Mr. Bosley and his supporters in the House, the facts are stubborn things and when fully exposed.

Just thought you would like to have the facts.

Regards -

TAS

ORIGINAL POST

As ugly as the Ohio Democratic Party's "the rat flyer" was in the party's attack on Ohio House (50th - Stark County) Representative Todd Snitchler (Republican - Lake) was, things got even uglier at the editorial board meeting on Monday at The Repository.

The Report is told that as the endorsement interview session was ending with Democrat Commissioner Todd Bosley making his closing statement, he injected in his closing statement an accusation that Snitchler was "apparently" in favor of teenage dating violence and allowing school bus drivers with criminal records (i.e. sexual predator-esque) drive Ohio' children to and from school as evidenced by his vote for House Bill 19, the essence of which is included in today's SCPR graphic which heads up this blog.

According to Bosley, his charge caused Editor Gayle Beck to do doubletake and backtrack to give Representative Snitchler an opportunity to defend his vote.

The core of Snitchler's defense (as told to The Report) by Snitchler himself, who voted "no" three times on varying versions of the bill,  is that the bill does not effectively deal with the teenage dating violence problem in that it only provides for 20 minutes of education on the topic once a year.

Representative Snitchler also told The Report that he gets besieged by area teachers about the add-ons to their classroom responsibilities (such as educating against teenage dating violence) that are not adequately dealt with by the State of Ohio with additional paid time and curriculum space to fit them in.  He says that the requirement is just another in a long line of State of Ohio imposed unfunded mandates.

Here is an analysis of legislation by the Ohio General Assembly's Legislative Service Commission (a politically independent part of the the OGA), that while not detailing the cost of the bill to local school districts, certainly indicates costs.

Snitchler says (who could believe otherwise?) that he is absolutely opposed to teenage dating violence and having school bus drivers with criminal records as sexual predators among a whole list of prohibited criminal background factors.

Apparently, before House Bill 19 was amended - late in the legislative game (the bill passed on December 27, 2009) - to include the specific prohibitions of a person being an Ohio school bus driver who had a criminal record including such crimes as murder, rape, robbery, burglary, sexual imposition, kidnapping, assault, prostitution and the like.  Why?  A loophole existed in the law that whereas most school employed personnel similarly endowed with a criminal record were shut out from public and charter school employment whereas school bus drivers were not.

It is quite unbelievable that Ohio's parents could have "criminally endowed" school bus drivers transporting their kids to school, but for House Bill 19,  no?

So the SCPR's question to Snitchler was, in effect:  wasn't closing the loophole allowing school bus drivers with heinous criminal enough for you to vote for an otherwise objectional piece of legislation.

Answer:  it was not.

Really?

Snitchler went on to explain to The Report.  He seems to be relying on 50th District voters realizing that Bosley has sunk to gutter politics with his HB 19 attack and that obviously he (Snitchler) opposes both teenage dating violence and buses drivers with criminal records, as described in the legislation, driving Ohio's school children to and from school.

Another reason why the SCPR believes Snitchler could vote no on HB 19 (undoubtedly "a politically incorrect" action that Bosley is trying to capitalize upon) in light of the emotionally charged school bus driver vetting issue is a "as a matter of faith" reliance on school district officials to vet (via criminal background investigations) all school employees whether or not compelled by state level legislation.  After all, they want to save their own skins, don' t they?

The SCPR is told by a Democratic House Caucus official that no school officials showed up at House and Senate Education Committee hearings to object to the passage of the law.  In fact, the official says that a Buckeye Association of School Administrators leader testified in favor of passage of the bill.

Obviously, the Democratic official is trying to throw water on Snitchler's contention that local school districts will be financially and workload- burned by the pass of the statute.

The Bosley campaign has followed up his editorial board presentation with a flyer (see it immediately below this paragraph) and a congruent TV spot playing on Cleveland television stations.

For his part, Bosley says that he has an obligation to inform voters that Snitchler is not properly protecting Ohio's school children. 

The SCPR's take on all of this?

First, such is the state of American politics this day and age. Look for Snitchler to come out with a tit-for-tat flyer before the campaign is over.

Second, here you have a guy (Todd Snitchler) who some say is an idealogue (for example, in this instance:   "State government should not be imposing mandates on local government and I will be fighting mandates to the hilt" ) who is matched up with a guy (Todd Bosley) who will stand up for what he believes in - to a point.

Bosley voted (December, 2008) to impose a sales tax on Stark Countians in order to fix the broken Stark County 9-1-1 system which has long been near and dear to him as a matter of principle:  saving the lives of Stark Countians in extremis.

However, he and his allies (Jane Vignos and Tom Harmon) slipped in a very pragmatic thing:  a portion of the tax was designated towards generating revenue for the Stark County general fund.  A very practical thing to do, if you have to govern.

In the opinion of The Report, had Bosley been the person who had to vote on HB 19; he would have supported the bill even if he had reservations about the additional burden on local education because closing the school bus driver loophole would have triumphed as being the common sense thing to do.

Yes, maybe the multiple topics do not go together (a violation of the Ohio Constitution requiring "single subject" legislation - as pointed out to The Report of Snitchler), but multiple subjects were the reality before the Legislature in HB 19.  Presumably, had the issues been separates, he would have voted no on the date violence bill while supporting the tightening up on the qualities of school bus drivers.

The SCPR sees Snitchler as more tenaciously holding onto what he believes in than Bosley.

Again, that is not to say that Bosley is without political principle.

Because Bosley believed so much in fixing Stark's broken 9-1-1 system, he put himself in the position of being highly vulnerable to being defeated in a quest to get another term as commissioner.  Stark Countians voted 2 to 1 against retaining the tax in November, 2009.

If he defeats Snitchler in November, it will be an amazing political feat.  Of course, very few expected him to best the then incumbent Republican commissioner Richard Regula (son of the former congressman Ralph Regula) in November, 2006.

It could be that Snitchler's vote on House Bill 19 will be a game changer in the 50th House District race.

.
The Report believes that independent voters (probably the deciding factor in the race) may have a hard time with Snitchler's stand on "the state interference in local education" principle as something they can abide as trumping the safety of their children going to and fro on a school bus.

Even though local school officials - as an operational reality -  may work hard to keep bad actors out of driving school buses, the prohibition of certain offenders needs to be in codified law, the SCPR believes most voters would say.

On the other hand, in running ads like this one, Bosley runs the risk of incurring voter wrath for negative campaigning.

The stakes are high in this race.  It could be the determiner of who controls the Ohio House of Representatives.

In the final analysis, the SCPR believes that there is more hardball politics to come in this political confrontation.

Buckle up your seat belts everybody!

SEE VIDEO: AT ONE TIME COMMISSIONERS WERE LOOKING TO SPEND $100,000 ON REHAB OF COUNTY BLDG TO HELP LOW COST SPAY & NEUTER CLINIC GET OFF GROUND - IS THAT STILL THE PLAN WITH THE COUNTY EXPERIENCING FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES? ALSO, REAGAN TETREAULT TO BE STAYING ON AS DOG WARDEN.

It was just a few months ago that Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley was suggesting that Stark County might spend up to $100,000 of county money to rehab a building on the Stark County Dog Pound grounds and then lease it to the Animal Welfare Society of Stark County (AWSOSC) for $1 per year.

Now it appears that their may be some question about whether or not the $100,000 will be spent on the "to be leased building."

While the immediately county financial crisis does not seem to be an overriding factor in the consideration, it cannot be a help to the AWSOSC folks in their quest.

The SCPR understands that the money, if it is made available, will be from permanent improvement funds ($1.9 million currently on hand) that was in the main generated in the sale of the Stark County farm which was sold by commissioners at auction in November, 2008.

Commissioner Steve Meeks is said to be the main hold up on the funding, but Commissioner Bosley tells The Report he feels that Meeks will come around eventually and that he (Bosley) is firmly committed to the expenditure.

The question that the SCPR has is this:  if the current financial crisis in the general fund of the Stark County budget is not a barrier to the funding, what is Commissioner Meeks waiting on?

Something is not adding up here!

Animal Welfare Society of Stark County representative Nanci Miller says that the planned Spay & Neuter clinic cannot fund raise until they have a lease on the building.   She says they have already missed a July, 2010 opportunity to get grants because of the lack of a lease.

The SCPR has the feeling that the current financial crisis must have something to do with the commissioners' delay in acting, despite Commissioner Bosley's denial that such is the case.

The Report does recall (from discussion at prior commissioner meetings) that the plan has always been to fund the rehab from the permanent improvement monies.

So what is the delay, if it is not some consideration about the current financial difficulties?

Miller submitted a rehab cost sheet showing the need for over $200,000 to complete it.  However, she suggested at last Wednesday's meeting that there are alternative ways to achieve the building modernization and reconfiguration with a combination of a cash infusion and donated work.  Moreover, she seems to imply that the AWSOSC will expand its fund raising activities to cover any short fall of funds needed after the county puts whatever amount it is going to put into the rehap.

Still the question remains, what is the holdup with the county's "promised?" $100,000 share?

In other Dog Pound related news, the SCPR has learned that the probationary period of newly appointed dog warden Reagan Tetreault expired on September 24th.  Commissioners tell The Report that she will be staying on as warden.

Here is a video of Nanci Miller's plea for a lease at commissioners meeting last Wednesday.

POLITICAL FLYERS OF YESTERYEAR & BOCCIERI VERSUS RENACCI

 

The political flyer collage above bring back memories of campaigns past.  American political history is rich in combative, nasty, positive and high-minded political flyers.

This year in Stark County an Ohio Democratic Party flyer put out in support of 50th District state representative challenger Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley, depicts incumbent Ohio Representative Todd Snitchler (Republican - Lake) as being a rat has drawn a complaint to the Ohio Elections Commission (September 24th) filed by out-of-district Snitchler supporter Elizabeth Griffing.

Overlooked in the Bosley/Snitchler hubbub are the flyers being put out by the Boccieri/Renacci campaigns in their 16th Congressional District fight.  

First, the SCPR presents a flyer by Republican Jim Renacci who is challenging Democrat incumbent John Boccieri trying to capitalize on national polls showing more Americans dislike Obamacare than like it.

Second, a Boccieri ad touting the Boccieri energy plan while dissing Renacci and somehow tying him to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The stakes are high in the Boccieri/Renacci race, perhaps, control of the the United States House of Representatives.

Look for the flyers to get even nastier.

(VIDEO INCLUDED) MASSILLION MAYOR FRANCIS H. CICCHINELLI, JR IS ONE STEP AHEAD OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS? HE KNOWS THAT IT IS NOT WISE TO TAKE ON HIGHLY MOTIVATED CITIZENS, EVEN ONES NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN HIS UPCOMING ELECTION.

It appears that Massillon City Councilwoman Kathy Catazaro-Perry was about to deliver a political blow to Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr.

But not on your "political life," if you are Cicchinelli.

A fixture in Massillon politics since the 1980s, the tigerland mayor has been in many political fights and novices like Catazaro-Perry are at a real disadvantage when it comes to political infighting with Mayor Cicchinelli.

Of course, she does have the politically sophisticated Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (Massillon clerk of courts and former chair of the Stark County Democratic Party) in her corner as well as Massillon Municipal Court Judge Eddie Elum and Stark County Democratic Party Political Director Shane Jackson (Maier's chief deputy).

In the judgment of the Stark County Political Report, none of the three are much of a political match for Cicchinelli.  Sources (including Mayor Cicchinelli himself) tell the SCPR that for years Catazaro-Perry (KCP-Forces), Maier, Elum and Jackson have been working to oust Cicchinelli from being THE political power in Massillon.

A crucial, and probably the last political battle for Cicchinelli, will be fought between the mayor and the KCP Forces next May in the Democratic Party primary.  Mayor Cicchinelli is running for re-election and political observers speculate the either Catazaro-Perry or Judge Elum will be his opponent.

One of the ways that Massillon has been surviving economically/financially in these times is through a Cicchinelli-led drive of aggressive annexation.

In announcing his bid for re-election back in June, Mayor Cicchinelli cited unfinished business in the realm of annexation as a prime motivator for his running again.

Recently, he has caused an outcry from nearby townships (Perry and Tusarawas) for his annexation of the R.G. Drage educational facility in Perry and the Poets Glen development in Tuscarawas Township.

Massillon Council supported the Drage and Poets Glen annexations, but all of a sudden things changed when it came to the current effort to annex Bit-o-Eden mobile home park and the adjoining Tuslaw schools.

It's not Bit-o-Eden that has many Tuscarawas Township residents in a rage.  It was the attempt to annex the schools.

The Cicchinelli annexation attack of their schools got activist township residents  in a "we are mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore" modality.

And have they gotten organized!

So much so that the SCPR believe that the KCP-Forces saw an opportunity to gain allies in their effort to remove Cicchinelli as mayor of Massillon next May.

Obviously, Tuscarawas Township residents do not vote in the Massillon mayor's race, but nothing keeps them from campaigning for Catazaro-Perry, Elum or any other person who should decide to challenge Cicchinelli in next year's Democratic primary.

This is where Frank Cicchinelli's political wisdom comes into play.

In backing down from his plan to annex the Tuslaw schools (see The Independent Matt Rink's terrific piece: Massillon mayor drops plan to annex Tuslaw property, September 24, 2010), Cicchinelli demonstrates once again that he is one step ahead of the KCP-Forces.

It is one thing to run against another political power machine much like his own, but to have to run against highly motivated citizens (even non-Massillonians) is quite another.  This has to be his thinking in this political day and age when motivated citizens are showing more and more that they can organize and be quite politically effective.

The SCPR believes that Thursday's move by Cicchinelli was a stroke of political genius by the mayor.

In dropping the Tuslaw annextion he took a lot of the wind out the KCP Forces effort.  However, he is still in for the fight of his political life next May.

But - Mayor Cicchinelli is a political survivor.

Here is a video of Mayor Cicchinelli that the SCPR took on September 7, 2010 (the Stark County Democratic Party selection of a candidate for county treasurer event) in which he talks about the Tuslaw annexation issue.

VIDEO: ITS ELECTION YEAR AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, TOO?

They couldn't politically muscle the Stark County school system, but they (The Medicine Shoppe et al) appeared to done just that with Stark County commissioners at Wednesday's meeting.

Local pharmacies are smarting from recently (i.e. the schools September, 2009) installed mandates by the schools and the county (late 2009) to require employees to order prescription drugs via mail rather than from Stark County located pharmacies.

While the Stark County employee force is small potatoes (1385) compared to the 17 Stark County school district, these days every dollar counts to Stark County taxpayers.  Every dollar unnecessarily spent on items like prescription drugs is a dollar more that will have to be made in cuts to local government services or with a future tax increase.

The only justification for the commissioners' action Wednesday in moving from a "must" buy from mail-order to optionally buy is the speculated saving of  local pharmacy jobs.

But how many?

Darned few, it appears. 

But it is election year (Commissioner Bosley running against incumbent Republican Todd Snitchler for the Ohio House - 50th and Commissioner Meeks being challenged by Republican Janet Creighton to retain a commissioner's seat), and the SCPR suspects that the sudden about-face by commissioners from last year's decision was more about these elections than about retaining Stark County based jobs.

Commissioner Pete Ferguson stepped front and center as the promoter of the turn about (from last fall) by commissioners.  But was he really?  Or was he merely the commissioner not up for election who could make it appear that the decision was not a political one?

Of comfort to Stark County taxpayers is the reality that the county has only received about 20 (at tops) complaints from employees protesting being compelled to do mail order after commissioners issued their fall of 2009 mandate.  This is hardly a groundswell of employee dissatisfaction that commissioners tried to portray as part of the justification of Wednesday's decision.

Of comfort?

Yes.  Because, though it will add to the expense of county government, the added expense will not be as great now that it would have had the commissioners bowed to the local pharmacy pressure last fall.

The county administrator in charge of the county drug prescription plan told the SCPR that once employees get accustomed to the mail order scheme of things, they really like it and are not about to go back to traipsing to a local pharmacy to get their prescription drugs.  And, of course, Stark County saves money at the same time.

Had the employees not been compelled to use mail order in the first place, the money-saving mail ordering system would not have gotten the toehold it now enjoys.

It is disappointing to The Report that Stark's commissioners caved in to obvious political pressure by the locals  who apparently cannot compete with the mail order folks and thereby forced Stark County and its political subdivisions to look outside the county for a better deal.

One would think that those who cannot compete would simply "tuck tail and run," but not these folks.

They seem to have no reluctance whatsoever to dip into local taxpayers wallets for an - in effect - subsidy.

The Report is told that Caremark has promised the county $100,000 in savings annually.  It won't be known how much of the $100,000 is lost to county coffers until July of 2011.

Here is a video of commissioner action taken on Wednesday.

COMMISSIONERS USE "ALLEY VACATE" PROCESS TO MEDIATE A NIMISHILLEN TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE DISPUTE IN ORDER TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF A EVERYDAY STARK COUNTY CITIZEN?

The Stark County Political Report has been hearing for some time  now that the Nimishillen Township trustees do not get along very well.  Moreover, they have had a difficult time working with the City of Louisville going back a number of years.  Additionally, they are a major holdout on joining the Stark County reconfigured (centralized dispatch) 911 effort.

So it was no surprise to The Report when two trustees appeared at a Stark County commissioner hearing on a proposed alley vacate petition on opposite sides of the fence.

The owner of the property (Precision Holdings LLC - "Precision") on which the Carriage House Bar is located had filed the petition for vacating an alley way on its west border.

Trustee Lisa Shafer stood up and said she was "for" the vacate.

Trustee Allen Gress said that he (and appeared to include Trustee Mike Lynch in using the word "we") was against the alley vacate until such time as the township could work out an agreement with the owner of the bar which sits adjacent to the alley to limit the number of outside music concerts to perhaps one a month.

Gress, who did not even mention the major stakeholder in preventing a vacate of the alley; namely, Kellie Mathie, an adjoining owner to Carriage House, opposed the vacate.  He did so primarily because a vacate by commissioners would free Carriage House to reconfigure the property (the entire alley would revert to Precision) so that she and her family could not get access to a "barn" which houses their vehicles at the rear of the family home.

It took Commissioner Steven Meeks to rein Gress in by unmistakably suggesting to him that he would not support extending the commissioners date for granting the vacate unless the trustees made the Mathie family ingress/egress a primary factor in negotiating with Precision/Carriage House a solution to the noise problem.

Legal counsel for Precision flatout promised the commissioners that his client would be pleased to grant the Mathie family a license over the Precision property where Honey Alley now exists so that they can get their vehicles in and out of their barn.

Gress looked pretty silly to the SCPR in his presentation.  Mathie presented very effectively.

In the video that is provided below, Commissioner Bosley tells Trustee Gress that the commissioners will not be considering his beer sales outside equating to unacceptable noise frequency argument in coming to a decision. 

The commissioners did the right thing in granting more time.

But Gress should not misinterpret the commissioners' conciliatory action as an embracing of his notion of using withholding the vacate as leverage to get his way on limiting the number of outside activities held by Carriage House.

Clearly, the commissioners are looking to protect the Mathie family; not to assist Trustee Gress (and his ally Zoning Inspector Keith Lasure) in township efforts (remember Trustee Shafer says there is no undealt-with noise problem) to control noise emanating from the Carriage House.

Accordingly, Trustee Gress is going to have to find another way to deal with the noise issue in conjunction with Trustees Shafer and Lynch.

Once the commissioners are satisfied that the Mathie family have been protected in their ingress/egress need, then The Report believes that they will move forward in 60 days (the extension period granted) to grant the alley vacate.

Here is the video.

PHIL DAVISON ENCORE: FIRST WATCH THE NEARLY 20 MINUTE INTERVIEW WITH DAVISON, THEN LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL PIECE. THE CONTRAST IS STRIKING.

The Phil Davison that readers of the SCPR saw on The Report of September 9th presented an entirely different picture than he manifested in a follow up interview with yours truly shortly after the Stark County Republican Party event of September 8th.

Take a look.

It may be hard to believe that this calm, collected Phil Davison of the extended interview you just saw is the same Phil Davison who appeared before the Stark County Republican Party executive committee on September 8th in his quest to become the Stark Republican nominee for Stark County Treasurer.

But the same Phil Davison he is.

The SCPR in this blog has presented the follow-up video on Phil so that Stark Countians can get a more complete take on this lifelong resident of Minerva.

NORTH CANTON COUNCIL PRESIDENT "DARYL REVOLDT" OFF TO COLUMBUS? TO WASHINGTON?

With it looking more and more like Republican John Kasich is set to unseat sitting Governor Ted Strickland from office and, less likely, but not out of the question that former Wadsworth mayor Jim Renacci will be sending Congressman John Boccieri packing from his digs in Washington, Stark County politicos have started discussing whom, from Stark County GOPdom may be tracking to both Columbus and Washington to serve these potential November 2nd winners.

An example of the speculation is North Canton Council President Daryl Revoldt.

The SCPR has learned that several North Canton councilpersons are saying that Revoldt is a prime candidate to be leaving North Canton government for a post in either a Kasich administration or as chief-of-staff for Renacci in the eventuality that he gets elected.

Revoldt was a chief-of-staff for former Congressman Ralph Regula, ending his stint for Regula in 2001.  Revoldt also has important State of Ohio Republican ties from the years he spent as Region 9 economic development director for the Robert Taft administration.

The Report did contact Revoldt who told yours truly that he has absolutely not made any contacts with either the Kasich or Renacci camps.

He tells The Report that he is happy with his current situation (political and employment wise) and is not looking to make a change.

So if Revoldt does end up in either Columbus or Washington it will be because Kasich or Renacci tell him that they need him to help get them up and running as a newly elected official.

The Stark County politicos who are talking about Revoldt opting for bigger and better things (especially the potential Kasich gig) point to two factors:  one, he has a daughter living in Columbus and, two, Revoldt's wife dearly loves Columbus.

Revoldt tells The Report that he is flattered by the talk among Stark County's political talking heads but that for him to leave North Canton, it would take a very significant position that either Kasich or Renacci would have to push on the basis of "your public service in this job is sorely needed."

So will Revoldt be leaving North Canton on the outcome of the Kasich/Strickland or Boccieri/Renacci races?

Perhaps not likely, but certainly within the realm of possibility.

VIDEO - SOME AUDIENCE REACTION TO BOCCIERI, RENACCI & BLEVINS DEBATE - ONLY ON THE STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT!

At the beginning of the "for 16th District congressman (Ohio)" Boccieri/Renacci/Blevins debate last night, the assembled crowd threatened to get out of control.

It started with the opening statements of the candidates.

But Louise Keating (of the Wooster Chamber of Commerce) buttoned down the crowd as soon as they started applauding one of the candidates in violation of agreed to rules by the candidates.  During the debate, there was one more violation of the rules.  Ms. Keating was quick to respond telling the violators that "any more of that" and they would be escorted from the debate.

Only at the end, obviously, when the promised sanction had lost its clout did the crowd again erupt for their respective candidates.  There were cheers for Renacci to be countered by a chorus of "nos," or perhaps "boos" when his supporters felt that Renacci reflected on Boccieri.

Moderator Keating did a splendid job running the Boccieri/Renacci/Blevins debate.

The SCPR thinks it is important that The Report's readers/viewers get a taste of the audience reaction rather than be stuck with what the political pundits think.

So here is a video that gives a sampling of the crowd reaction.

SEE VIDEO - PELOSI & OBAMA (AKA "JOHN BOCCIERI") VERSUS RENACCI IN WOOSTER (WAYNE COUNTY) DEBATE?

Fifteen times (according to Congressman John Boccieri), his opponent referred to the first term congressman as either being Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the United States House of Representatives) or President Barack Obama in a debate sponsored by the Wooster Chamber of Commerce last night at Wooster High School's Performing Arts Center.

But, like it or not (from Boccieri's perspective), that is Jim Renacci's campaign against the Democrat from Alliance.  Ancillary to the Pelosi/Obama theme, Renacci, from Wadsworth, focused on less government, less taxes and a strong military as reasons why voters should choose him on November 2nd.

Renacci got a tad nasty when in his final summary (Boccieri had already had his turn) he called Boccieri a lying congressman who will lie again if re-elected.

To the SCPR, the Renacci maneuver ("you're a liar congressman") belonged in the "cheap shot" category and clearly an ad hominem attack.  His supporters cheered wildly (a violation of debate rules that all three candidates had agreed to).  However, Boccieri forces got their revenge by shouting "no" to the Renacci "liar" outburst.

While Renacci had "in essence" said as much earlier in the debate accusing Boccieri of:

• promising to vote against Cap 'N Trade, but then voting for it.
• voting against Healthcare when it did not matter, but voting for the bill when the need for his vote was critical to its passage.
• promising constituent services, but then not delivering them.

Boccieri, on the other hand, went on the offensive by touting his ability "to bring home the bacon" to 16th District constituents.  He cited and cited and cited again his successful effort to bring home millions to the District with a special emphasis on Wayne County, the site of last night's debate.  Moreover, he dwelt on government and private sector partnerships as the realistic way to achieve an economic rebound in America.

Libertarian Jeff Blevins of Wadsworth keyed in on what one would expect of a Libertarian:  "keep the government out of nearly everything."

The SCPR's assessment of the debate.

Boccieri had the better of it on a rational plane.  Renacci had the better of it for those who like emotional, attack-style politics.

Both candidates used Washington Democrat and Republican politico-generated "talking points" galore.

Boccieri was much more positive and generative/supportive of programs and policies to get America out of its economic and financial mess.

Renacci obviously is, in campaign approach,  trying to tap into the fears of people.

Which is the winning recipe?

It is hard to say.

The SCPR has a sense that Boccieri (who is likely behind in polls) is making headway with his affirmative campaign.

If the election were held today, The Report thinks Renacci wins by a percentage point or two.

Here is a video of the final statement made by each candidate last night.  Yes, the "liar" episode and the cheers and boos are in it.

"NOT A DIME'S WORTH OF DIFFERENCE?"

KENNETH KOHER SWORN IN AS INTERIM STARK COUNTY TREASURER. HAS A MESSAGE FOR STARK COUNTIANS

On September 20, 2010 Kenneth Koher was nominated by Stark County Democrats to be the party's selection as interim treasurer to replace the person (Jaime Allbritain) appointed on August 23rd as provided for in Ohio law.

Koher was also selected by Stark's organized Democrats to run to fill the remainder of the term of former Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler who, of course, was removed by Stark County commissioners on August 23rd.

Earlier this morning he was sworn in as the interim Stark County treasurer.

Here is a video of Koher being sworn in by Stark County Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold

Koher will have to stand for election on November 2nd against Republican nominee Alex Zumbar (North Canton finance director).


Commissioners acted under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 321.38 to remove Zeigler.

Zeigler was not implicated in the theft from the Stark County treasury of what is believed to be about $2.96 million by former chief deputy Vince Frustaci while in the employment of the treasury.  However, on filing of litigation to recover funds under ORC 321.37, the commissioners had the option to remove Zeigler.  Zeigler is seeking reinstatement to the job in a case currently filed with the 5th District Court of Appeals (which sits in Canton) and with the Ohio Supreme Court.

In selecting Koher (the Democrats) and Zumbar (the Republicans) Stark Countians will, in the opinion of the SCPR, be in good stead no matter which nominee is elected.

The Report believes that Zumbar has the stronger political credentials which may turn out to be a liability in the current "anti-incumbent, anti-politically connected" world.  He has served as an elected official in Alliance as the city's auditor and his brother is the elected law director of Alliance.  His brother is also a Republican.  The Zumbars are closely allied with Stark County Common Pleas Judge Charles Brown who formerly served as the Stark County Republican chairman when the Republicans were dominate in Stark County.

Koher seems to have been virtually non-political however he just severed ties with his former employer - the State of Ohio - which took a gubernatorial appointment by Democratic Governor Ted Strickland.

Moreover, Koher was openly endorsed by former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

AFTER STARK COUNTY'S TAXPAYERS LOSE $2.96 MILLION, THE REPOSITORY - WITH THE AID OF FEDERAL COURT RECORDS - FIGURES OUT THE FRUSTACI "AIDED BY AT LEAST ONE ACCOMPLICE" STARK CO. TREASURY THEFT? AN NEWS EXPOSE? REALLY?

 UPDATE:  09212010 - 09:45 AM

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:29 AM

From: "mary" 

To:tramols@att.net

Martin, isn't this a little like 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'?

Why in the world would Jeff refuse to open a 'reliable' source's e-mails because of something so petty? Apparently the paper isn't interested in getting good information from private sources. You don't treat your 'source's' so shabbily.

Reminds me of something similar in 'childishness' that I know he sent a reader and commentor on the Rep a few months ago. She had written Mr. Gauger, not with a 'scoop' but with a very legitimate question concerning not being allowed to comment on 'crime' stories.

Not knowing much about computers, and the proper protocol about caps to use when sending an e-mail, PLUS a problem with her eyes, she used all caps in her e-mail to him. She meant no disrespect and had no idea that it was considered 'shouting'. She didn't even know what 'shouting' meant, which is why she wrote me asking 'huh?' after receing (sic) the answer from him. ( I didn't either when I first started commenting on the Rep)

Mr. Gauger, using absolutely no finesse befitting a newspaper executive editor, wrote back;, "Please don’t “shout” at me in all caps. In future, I’ll not answer your all-cap e-mails."

It's now always what you say, but HOW you say it. He sure missed the boat on that one. This lady was a customer of his newspaper. I would think he could have told her about the caps in a more friendly way. She felt like you know what when she got that reply from him. To threaten her with not reading anymore of her e-mails if she used "all caps" in the future, reminded me of a kid throwing a tantrum or a teenager going through puberty and suffering with acne.

ORIGINAL POST

How to make a failure into a triumph.

That is the attempt being made by the "bigs" at The Repository in the spate of pieces in today's Repository on the "revelation?" that Vince Frustaci had inside help in his stealing what federal judge John Adams believes to be $2.96 million from Stark County taxpayers.

"After the fact journalism," that is what is being practiced by The Repository these days.

"After the fact" to appeal to the prurient interest in order to excite sales of the print edition of  of The Rep.

It is commonly known that the newspaper industry is in survival mode these days and a major reason is its wholesale abandonment of investigative journalism.

And Stark County's ONLY countywide newspaper The Repository is no exception to the rule.

The SCPR (published since March, 2007) has been hearing the rumors about accomplice Cutshall and actor Frustaci connection since April, 2009 when Frustaci was fired as chief deputy by the then Treasurer Gary Zeigler on account of the revelation (by State of Ohio auditors) that county money had been stolen by Frustaci.

The Repository pieces reveal that the Frustaci thefts may go back to 2001.

Frustaci has said that he stole the money to cover gambling debts.

The Report believes that the "bigs" at the Rep and some Stark County law enforcement officials have known about "illegal" high stakes poker games participated in by significantly placed public officials; including, we now know, Vince Frustaci.

Well, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the "losers" at these games (and, over time, they all lose money) have to cover their gambling debts.

The question becomes:  how to do so?

Stark Countians now know how Vince Frustaci decided to cover his gambling losses.

Is Stark County in for additional revelations?

Hopefully not, but, if not, it will not be because The Repository's staff of investigative reporters have dug out the names and job descriptions of "the losers with gambling debts to cover."

Not long after the Stark County Political Report started up and the readers of The Report figured out that yours truly is not a respecter of persons and that The Report does name names and report reality when sources identify themselves "on background" and various nuances of "off-the-record," the SCPR started getting requests to investigate this Stark County matter or that Stark County matter.

While yours truly (not a trained investigative journalist) does what one person can, The Report is just that:  one person! - who functions as an "opinion" journalist.

It just so happens that the SCPR, in issuing daily opinion blogs, does much more than most editorialists in gathering factual data to support the opinion rendered.

Just compare a SCPR opinion piece with a Repository opinion piece on the same story.

Some readers confuse the SCPR;s step-up in editorial writing quality as being the work of a reporter and beyond that an investigative journalist.  No.  The SCPR is and will continue to be an opinion journalist with data and facts to support the opinion.

The last The Report knew, The Repository has about 60 employees.

More than that, because The Repository has been a monopoly in Stark County news for a long, long time; The Rep's employees, including its "bigs" get telephone calls, letters and personal entreaties dripping-ripe with inside information that should serve as a springboard to strident investigative journalism.  But it doesn't.  Why not?

The SCPR's take is that The Repository "powers that be" are so much in bed with the Stark County political and government establishment that they pick and choose very carefully who they take on.

Because of "bottom line pressures" The Repository has taken to soliciting the business of entities that may become subjects of inquiry (e.g. Canton government, SARTA [a partnership], Canton City Schools and the like).

Hard hitting and penetrating journalism suffer when relationships like those referred to above develop.  And, moreover, the reading public - once these relationships become public knowledge - wonder about the integrity of The Rep's publication of stories and opinions.

One story that bugs the SCPR is one in which The Report is told that a Repository reporter is privy to certain information about the Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill controversy and wants to do a story revealing what the reporter knows, but whom is being held-at-bay by "the higher ups."

How many stories are "the mahogany row" types at The Rep sitting on?

The Report is told by a source that Repository Executive Editor Jeff Gauger will no longer open the source's e-mails "because he is mad at her."  Mad at her?  Really?  Gauger is mad at her because he sent her a letter (unmarked "confidential") because the source released the letter to public authorities.

So let The Report get this right.

A source may have a dynamite tip or story potentially weighs in or the health and safety of certain Stark Countians but the Stark County reading public does not get the benefit of it because the "only countywide newspaper" editor in Stark County is mad at the source?

Wow!

SCPR SERIES: CANDIDATES ON THE ISSUES - RENACCI ON IMMIGRATION

With this blog the Stark County Political Report starts a series that will last through the end of October to let readers/viewers see the candidates (Boccieri versus Renacci - Ohio's 16th Congressional District)  "in their own words."

In this blog Republican Jim Renacci responds to a North Canton Town Hall question on immigration.

WHO IS WINNING IN THE 16TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT?

Who is likely to win between Congressman John Boccieri and his Republican challenger Jim Renacci?

The SCPR believes that the race is too close to call with Renacci up by a little bit in the polls.

Readers of the SCPR will recall that The Report correctly called the Boccieri/Schuring contest of 2008 with the prediction that Boccieri would win about 10 percentage points.

While no one can call this race with any degree of certainty, it is clear that whomever wins from among Renacci and Boccieri will be the one of the two who can convince 16th District voters that he offers the best promise for producing jobs.

Charlie Cook, a highly regarded national pollster by Democrats and Republicans alike (author "The Cook Political Report"), has identified the jobs issues as the definer of the victor in the close congressional races spread across America this fall (reference:  Hardball, week of September 13, 2010).

But Cook's focus on jobs is nothing new for him.  In a piece on his website date October 10, 2009 (Putting Jobs First), Cook cites as follows:

a fascinating September 21-23 national survey conducted by Democratic pollster Geoff Garin of Hart Research Associates for the Economic Policy Institute. A whopping 81 percent of the 802 registered voters interviewed said that the Obama administration needs to do more about unemployment and disappearing jobs.

The SCPR buys Cook's argument and Garin's research and can now say that whomever wins in the 16th as among Boccieri and Renacci will depend on the "job productiveness potential" voter perception of each.

Notice that The Report does not say whom has the "objective" best job producing plan.

It will be impossible for voters to make such an assessment with all the political spin that both sides are spewing out these days.  But voters will be able to determine who is the more convincing of the two.

Indeed, a la James Carville (Clinton strategist 1992), "it is the economy, stupid!"  -  "de ja vu , all over again" (Yogi Berra).

VIDEO: A DOG & PONY SHOW BETWEEN COMMISSIONERS (PRINCIPALLY, MEEKS) AND PROSECUTOR FERRERO ON BUDGET OVERRUN?

About three weeks ago, Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero sent his Chief Counsel John Kurtzman to the Stark County commissioners to ask for more money.

Kurtzman danced all over the place in his quest to justify the commissioners providing Prosecutor Ferrero with about $288,000 to finish 2010 without having to make dramatic cuts in his prosecutorial staff.

It was argument A, and if that is not strong enough; here is argument B, and if that is not strong enough; here is argument C.

The SCPR thought at the time.  No offense to Mr. Kurtzman, but the commissioners are going to be put off that Mr. Ferrero himself did not show up to make the request.  And, as it turned out, when he did the following week, he was told by commissioners that could not understand his absence the week before.

What was astonishing about Ferrero's presentation was his admission that he had known from early on in 2010 that his office was going to be short of money to finish the year with, but that he was "hoping and praying" (The Report characterization) that a "miracle" happened and the needed money would just show up.

Commissioner Meeks took the commissioner lead in a kind of "tough guy" approach.  Paraphrasing:  "We have no money.  If we give out money from our budget stabilization fund (aka "rainy day fund") ,  budget cuts for next year will be 21% rather the projected 16%.  Go ask the judges (Stark County Common Pleas Court) for the money."

At first, yours truly took all this in on a serious vein.

On reflection, however, it now appears to the SCPR that this parade of appearances by the prosecutor's staff in interaction with the commissioners was more a theatrical performance than anything else.

That is not to say that the shortage is not real.  The Report believes it was.

However, the commissioners were in a bind.

They knew that they have other county officeholders drinking all of this in.  How to give Ferrero the extra money he is asking for without opening the proverbial "Pandora's Box" to other officeholders with financial needs?

And, of course, Commissioner Bosley is running for office (against Republican Todd Snitchler for 50th Ohio House representative) and Commissioner Meeks is trying to retain his commissioner's seat (opponent:  former Canton mayor and Republican Janet Creighton).

So the political factor also plays into this drama.

So with hat-in-hand, Ferrero supposedly went off to implore the judges to help him.  The Report says "supposedly" because yours truly has it on good information that Ferrero never showed up Stark County Common Pleas.

The SCPR did e-mail Ferrero with questions of whether or not he showed up and whom did he talk to.

No surprise to the SCPR, Ferrero - being the public servant (in terms of accessibility; notwithstanding his website "Contact Us" invitation) he is not - in the opinion of The Report, blew off the inquiry.

And, by the way, both Kurtzman and Ferrero showed up a seeming retinue of "support" staff with them.  Kind of a curiosity given the Kurtzman/Ferrero plea of how overwhelmed the office is with work given the unfolding of what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has dubbed as "Zeiglergate."

Well, The Report has learned that Ferrero and the commissioners had to know that the judges have no money to give. 

While the judges do have a fund of about $3.1 million (as of the end of 2010), it is mandated to be used for specific purposes and not for a prosecutor's inability to properly budget for his office over a 12 month period of time.

The SCPR has learned that when large numbers of mortgage foreclosure suits (because of a developing and flowering real estate financial crises - i.e. "credit default swaps, et cetera) of the  started filling up the Court's docket, the Court imposed a $200 fee on the filing of such cases to provide for the financial burden placed on the courts on account of the huge influx of suits.  However, the judges did provide for a "waiver" of the fee if the imposition of the fee would impede a satisfactory resolution of a particular case.

Consequently, the courts took in about $5 million to $6 million of which $3.1 million remains.

Naturally, word got around.  The SCPR has been hearing it for a number of years that the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is awash in money.  Hearing it from who?  Various and sundry county officeholders including some past and present county commissioners.

But the bottom line is that the county officeholders including the commissioners are wrong and they know better than to pass around the suggestion that the Stark County Courts of Common Pleas is sitting on surplus money that could be used to offset the county's financial shortfalls because of the cessation of the 0.50 imposed sales tax.

Accordingly, the SCPR believes that the interaction between the commissioners and Ferrero were for show only.

Everybody involved had to know from the beginning that Ferrero was going to get his $107,400.00 from the county's "rainy day" fund.

Of course, Stark Countians need to be aware that what started out to be a $5.5 million "rainy day" fund has be drained by the $2.96 million (so says federal judge John Adams) lost by the Vince Frustaci theft of Stark treasury funds while serving as chief deputy.

For the rest of the story.

So were the commissioners waiting "with baited breath" for Ferrero to come back to them with a report from the judges at their September 8th meeting?

Not at all!

What they did was slip in a resolution among the myriad of agenda presentations by commissioner employee Jean Young to quietly dip into the "rainy day fund" and provide Ferrero with his requested $107,400.

No speeches, no discussions.  Quite a contrast to the high drama of the interaction of the commissioners (especially Meeks) with Kurtzman and Ferrero at their previous two meetings.


Go to the minutes of the September 8th meeting.  Try to find any reference to the resolution.

So why is September 17th before The Report writes this blog?

Because The Report could not make it to the September 8 commissioners' meeting.

But The Report did ask Commissioners Bosley and Ferguson about Ferrero's report as to what the judges had to say.  Bosley was evasive.  Ferguson genuinely appeared not to know.

So when yours truly got the opportunity at the September 15th meeting to inquire, Commissioner Meeks responded.

Here is the video of his response.



At the end of the day, the SCPR believes that the commissioner/prosecutor interaction was a bit of political theater that Stark County could do without.

Prosecutor John Ferrero was a "no show" for the final act.  Go figure!