The SCPR in today's graphic uses the expression "probable cause" in a political sense.
And The Report believes that it is unlikely that North Canton Ward 4 Republican councilman Jon Snyder (the current president of North Canton City Council) will be replaced by challenger Hillary Mueller. Snyder has been a councilman for some 15 years.
The same SCPR analysis goes for Republican Councilwoman Marcia Kiesling (at-large). She has been on council about 10-1/2 years.
However, smart politicians run scared or they may find themselves on the outside looking in.
It appears that Snyder and Kiesling have no intention of giving up their seats and they are doing their "political - due diligence" to prevent a surprise come Tuesday's election.
Recently, Snyder (October 25th) and Kiesling (also October 25th) sent complaints to the Ohio Election Commission (Commission) asking it to find that Mueller and McCleaster had violated Ohio Revised Code Section 3517.21, to wit:
3517.21 Infiltration of campaign - false statements in campaign materials - election of candidate.
(A) No person, during the course of any campaign for nomination or election to public office or office of a political party, shall knowingly and with intent to affect the outcome of such campaign do any of the following:
...
(10) Post, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement concerning a candidate, either knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, if the statement is designed to promote the election, nomination, or defeat of the candidate. ... .SNYDER'S COMPLAINT
The Mueller campaign piece that prompted Sndyer to file his complaint, to wit:
Mueller's campaign literature generated a two pronged Snyder complaint:
- One being that she knowingly and falsely or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of her statement said in campaign literature mailed to residents of North Canton's Ward 4 that North Canton generated a $700,000 deficit (in year 2013 of Snyder's two year December 1, 2011 through November 30, 2013) whereas Snyder says (in a statement to the SCPR) that the actual number when published after January 1, 2014 will show about a $350,000 surplus.
- On this aspect of the complaint the Ohio Election Commission (at a hearing conducted Thursday, October 31st in Columbus) found "no probable cause" on Candidate Mueller.
- A second one being that Mueller falsely (or according to the "reckless disregard standard") - if believed - indicated that Snyder had voted in favor of a raise in year that caused him and other council members to receive a raise in the current term year 2013 (prior to December 1, 2013; the beginning date of the 2014 - 2015 new council).
- Such a raise, if it occurred, would be a violation of Ohio and North Canton charter law. (Note: such a raise, did not, in fact, occur).
- On this aspect of the complaint the Election Commission did find "probable cause" which means that the Commission will consider additional evidence and arguments in a hearing set for Monday morning in Columbus.
The McCleaster campaign piece that prompted Kiesling to file her complaint, to wit:
- One being that he knowingly and falsely or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of her statement said in campaign literature mailed to residents of North Canton's at-large voters that Kiesling had an council attendance rate of 72% whereas Kiesling says that the rate is actually 83%.
- On this aspect of the complaint the Ohio Election Commission (at a hearing conducted Thursday, October 31st in Columbus) found "no probable cause" on Candidate Mueller.
- A second one being that McCleaster falsely (or according to the "reckless disregard standard") - if believed - indicated that Kiesling had voted in favor of a raise in the current term year 2013 that caused her and other council members to receive a raise in year 2013 (prior to December 1, 2013; the beginning date of the 2014 - 2015 new council).
- Such a raise, if it occured, would be a violation of Ohio and North Canton charter law. (Note: such a raise, did not, in fact, occur).
- On this aspect of the complaint the Election Commission did find "probable cause" which means that the Commission will consider additional evidence and arguments in a hearing set for Monday morning in Columbus.
In terms of a finding, of course, that is the job of the Ohio Election commission.
At the hearing on Thursday (October 31st) in Columbus, it is interesting that neither Snyder nor Kiesling showed up.
The Report is told that Snyder sent his wife Kathy Lewis and a CPA (certified public accountant) but that neither was allow to speak on behalf of Snyder inasmuch the Commission only allows the complainant or a complainant's attorney to argue on the complaints.
However, Mueller and McCleaster did appear and are said to have advocated their respective positions for about 10 minutes each.
As indicated above, the result was a finding of "probable cause" to go on to further hearing on the "pay raise issue."
The SCPR has spoken with all the parties: Snyder and Mueller; Kiesling and McCleaster.
Only McCleaster has provided a written statement, to wit:
One of my opponents Marcia Kiesling levied two complaints against me in regards to my campaign mailer in a filing with the Ohio Elections Commission. The first complaint was due to me listing Mrs. Kiesling’s public meeting attendance rate of 72%. This information was verified and found to be accurate by the Ohio Elections Commission in a hearing in Columbus on Thursday October 31st.As is the SCPR's policy, should Snyder, Kiesling and Mueller elect to submit a written statement, The Report will print it in full.
Her second complaint involved ordinance 47-13, the ordinance council passed by emergency, that granted pay raises for the city’s elected officials. It is important to note that NO violation has been established, and I fully intend to attend a hearing in Columbus on Monday morning as I firmly believe that I did nothing wrong, and that I told the truth. The facts are, Marcia Kiesling is running for re-election and will most certainly take full advantage of the pay raise for elected officials, that she voted for, if she were to be re-elected. That was all that I was trying to get across in my campaign mail piece, I was opposed to the raises when passed, and I’m opposed to them now.
I’m looking forward to returning to Columbus on Monday so I can get this issue behind me, and move on to what really matters, being present and available to the residents of North Canton in the final days of this election, and working on the issues that matter to them!
My main recollection of my conversation with Jon Snyder is that he stands by his complaint and filed the complaint because he feels that false allegations need to be met head on.
Kiesling also stands by her complaint and was heartened by the finding of "probable cause" in light she says "that last year there were 24 complaints filed" with the Ohio Election Commission and "there were no 'probable cause' findings."
She refused to discuss the aspect of her complaint (her attendance factor) which the Commission refused to find "probable cause" on saying there was no point in doing so in light of the Commission not finding "probable cause."
Mueller says she did not make any representation in her campaign literature that Snyder or any other council member would receive "a mid-term" pay raise and that she made a "good faith" point on the basis of information she received from North Canton city government sources that the city would be running a $700,000 deficit for 2013.
To sum it up, Snyder and Kiesling are buoyed by the Commission finding of "probable cause" on "the pay raise issue" whereas Mueller and McCleaster are confident that in the end they will be exonerated of having committed a violation of Ohio election law.
THE POLITICAL EFFECT
While both Snyder and Kiesling appear to the SCPR to be quietly comfortable that they will be reelected.
And on the other side of the equation Mueller and McCleaster are of the hope of being elected. However, both seem to understand that unseating incumbents like Snyder and Kiesling is not really what one expects.
It is interesting to the SCPR that Snyder and Kiesling elected to file the complaints.
Unfortunately, campaign literature - as a matter of course - is rife with questionable assertions that could be the subject of Election Commission consideration.
Some politicos believe that any publicity (even negative publicity) is good for them in that it gets them free publicity.
Canton's area newspaper is covering this story as is the Stark County Political (but, of course, in much more detail and with political "import" analysis included).
If one embraces the political adage "any publicity is good for a publicity) then perhaps Mueller and McCleaster will benefit come Tuesday's election.
For they are not nearly as well known as Snyder and Kiesling and so, if nothing else, voters in their respective voting districts will now have a better take on Hillary Mueller and Robert "Jamie" McCleaster.
And if they are found on Monday "not to have violated Ohio election laws" it will be "all the better" for them, no?
Could it be that come the results on election night that both Snyder and Kiesling "will be kicking themselves" for having provided Mueller and McCleaster with a springboard for an election majority?
The SCPR does not expect a Mueller and McCleaster election.
But it does seem that their chances are better "post-complaint" than had no complaint had been filed.
If either Snyder and/or Kiesling lose, that they filed the complaints at all is a credit to them for it does appear - whether or not one agrees with the positions or not - that they were operating on "the principle of the thing" in believing that they were wronged.
No comments:
Post a Comment