Stark County Republican Party Chairman Jeff Matthews says if anyone files an action under Ohio Revised Code Sections 3.07 and 3.08, it should be the Stark County Democratic Party.
Dems Party Chairman Gonzalez's response: (a paraphrase) "Our only obligation was to ask Zeigler to resign" (which Gonzalez et al has done, perhaps, repeatedly). It would have been a godsend for Stark's organized Democrats and the Party's elected officials had Zeigler done so.
But Zeigler has repeatedly said that he did not do anything wrong in the management of his office which implicitly is to say (in the opinion of the SCPR) that he had adequate and reasonable safeguards in place to prevent his former chief deputy - Vince Frustaci - from making off with county money to the tune of what some say is $2.96 million (Frustaci has admitted to taking $2.46 million)
Moreover, county and federal prosecutors have exonerated him of any involvement in the theft itself.
At face value one might say that since Zeigler adamantly maintains that he minded the county treasury properly, that is the full explanation of why he has not heeded calls for his resignation.
But is it?
Some think that Zeigler (being wholly blameless in his eyes) is outraged that the Stark Dems "threw him under the bus" and that his insistence of reassuming office in light of the June 23rd Ohio Supreme Court decision reinstating him is sort of a revenge on the Stark Dems.
The problem for Zeigler and the Stark County organized Democrats is that the Stark County voting public seems to think that Zeigler did not have adequate and reasonable safeguards in place. Moreover, The Report believes that the public perceives that Zeigler (before the Frustaci story broke) was a key member of the Dems' "good ole boy network" and therefore his stubborness in not resigning rubs off on most of the remaining Stark County Democratic Party officeholders.
Zeigler clearly cannot get re-elected if he chooses to run again in 2012 and his former connections to many of the remaining Democratic officeholders could be a key factor in their losing.
One has to wonder whether or not Zeigler would get a measure of satisfaction in their losing.
Back now to the focal point of this blog: Gonzalez's rejection of the Stark GOP's (and Republican Craig Conley's) entreaty for the Stark Dems to initiate a constitutional challenge to Zeigler remaining in office.
Here is a copy of a letter sent by Conley to Gonzalez on Friday:
So, the question remains: should the Dems take up the Republican challenge?
Con: As pointed out by Conley a larger number of valid Stark County voters signatures would be needed (about 20,000). While very doable given the Stark County electorate's negative take on Zeigler's handling of his office, it still would divert Party resources from the 2011 and 2012 elections, and make the Republicans' task to win whatever offices/issues are at stake much easier to achieve.
Pro: It is likely that unless or until the Stark County voting public has cleaned its own house, they will not be of a mind to elect Democrats to anything. Going the 3.07/3.08 route would be proof positive that the Stark Democrats (win or lose) are doing everything they can to deal with its Zeigler problems. Win or lose, having made the effort should go along away towards Stark Countians being open to electing Democrats countywide.
Gonzalez in rejecting the Stark GOP/Conley prod is preserving Party resources.
But to what end if the Stark County public feels that Party has not done all it can to put Zeigler behind it?
No comments:
Post a Comment