UPDATED AT 10:26 AM
VIDEO
STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONVENE
ADJOURN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
ON
APPOINTING "SPECIAL COUNSEL"
TO BENEFIT STARK DEM PARTY INTERESTS?
A couple of days ago the SCPR got wind that Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero might be about to recommend to the Stark County commissioners that they join him in asking the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to appoint "special counsel" at Stark County taxpayer expense to represent Stark County Democratic Party appointed members of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr in a proceeding now pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. (LINK to filing)
Really?
Why?
Well, follow this sequence of events, you will get the picture!
- January, 2013
- Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez calls a meeting with Democratic Stark County commissioner Thomas Bernabei and Democratic sheriff Tim Swanson at the Stark County Office Building suite of offices occupied by the commissioners,
- TOPIC: How to fix Gonzalez favorite for Stark County sheriff George T. Maier's deficiencies in qualifying to be sheriff under the criteria set forth in Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(8) and (9),
- Swanson refuses to participate in the repair and Maier goes to Harrison County to serve as a deputy sheriff for two weekends in order to solve at least one of Maier 311.01 problems,
- Maier had told local media that he "guaranteed" he would be qualified to be sheriff under ORC 311.01 or he would not apply to be appointed,
- February 5, 2013
- Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC, Dems) meets to appoint a sheriff to replace Democrat Mike McDonald who had been elected in November, 2012 but who could not take office on January 7, 2013 because of an illness that cost him his life on February 22, 2013,
- Democratic Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero files an affidavit with the SCDP-CC saying that Maier is NOT qualified under 311.01 to be sheriff,
- The Dems appoint Maier in a surprisingly close vote 92 to 84 over Democrat Lou Darrow,
- February 12, 2013
- Interim sheriff Tim Swanson files a quo warranto with the Ohio Supreme Court alleging Maier to be unqualified under 311.01 to be sheriff,
- November 6, 2013
- The Ohio Supreme Court agrees with Swanson and ousts Maier from office saying that he had usurped Swanson's right to be sheriff,
- November 8, 2013
- Maier goes back to Harrison County, Ohio and puts in another stint as deputy sheriff through December 5, 2013,
- December 11, 2013
- Stark Dems reappoint Maier sheriff by a 101 to 65 vote again over fellow Democrat Lou Darrow,
- February 5, 2014
- The filing deadline for candidates to fill out the term (through January, 2017) of Mike McDonald finds that George T. Maier has filed petitions,
- Ohio law provides that the Stark BOE determines whether or not candidates qualify under ORC 311.01 to run for sheriff,
- Republican Larry Dordea passes the test "with flying colors,"
- February 11, 2014
- Local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (a registered Republican, by the way) agreed to represent one Cynthia Balas-Bratton (a Massillon Ward 2A Democratic precinct committeewoman) "pro bono" (for the public good, i.e. free of cost to Stark County taxpayers) in "protesting" the candidacy of Democrat George T. Maier for Stark County sheriff in a proceeding provided for under Ohio law,
- SCPR Note: Conley says he agreed to do so in the interest of "the rule of law" alleging that Maier does not meet the criteria of Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(9) mandatory qualification factors of Ohio law,
- February 21, 2014
- The Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) deadlock 2 to 2 (Republicans Curt Braden and William Cline for disqualifying Maier; Democrats Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr for qualifying Maier),
- March 7, 2014
- Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted breaks the tie as provided for under Ohio law in favor of the Democrat St. John/Ferruccio position,
- Husted refuses to apply ORC 311.01 to Maier's candidacy and instead orders him on to the ballot saying he was "erring on the side of ballot access,"
- March 11, 2014
- Conley files an action on behalf of Balas-Bratton in Prohibition (i.e. Writ of Prohibition) with the Ohio Supreme Court,
(Repeating the first paragraph of this blog)
A couple of days ago the SCPR got wind that Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero might be about to recommend to the Stark County commissioners that they join him in asking the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to appoint "special counsel" at Stark County taxpayer expense to represent Stark County Democratic Party appointed members of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr in a proceeding now pending before the Ohio Supreme Court.
Yesterday, the commissioners met in executive session in what the SCPR believes to be in consideration of the Ferrero recommendation.
Simple enough, no?
Not really!
As he is wont to do, Conley really complicated the consideration by commissioners with the following two letters fired off before meeting time (1:30 p.m.),
Before moving on though, readers are advised that if the Stark commissioners decline to provide the Dem BOE members special counsel, their point of view will be represented in the form of the Ohio attorney general's office representing Secretary Husted, to wit:
THE BACKGROUND RE:
CONLEY'S THINKING ON THE COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERING APPOINTING "SPECIAL COUNSEL"
Re: Appointment of special prosecutor in BOE OSC cases
FROM Brant Luther TO You Tues, 4:18 PM
Show Details
From: Brant Luther
To: Martin Olson
Martin,
The Commissioners will most likely address this issue tomorrow at their regular meeting. There will probably be an executive session at the conclusion of the Commissioner's meeting with action likely to follow.
Thanks,
brant [sic]
Brant A. Luther, Esq.
Stark County Administrator
110 Central Plaza South, Suite 240
Canton, Ohio 44702
330-451-7581
>>> Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> 3/11/2014 1:40 PM >>>
Brant,
I understand that the commissioners are being asked to appoint special prosecutor on representing Stark BOE on Balas-Bratton v. Stark BOE/Deametrious St. John case.
True or untrue?
If true, when will the Board of Commissioners meet to consider request?
MartinOlson/SCPR
MARCH 12, 2014 (8:41 AM)
LETTER #1
TO: Stark County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE: State ex rel. Cynthia Balas-Bratton v. Hon. Jon Husted, et al., Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2014-0374
It is my (unconfirmed) understanding that Prosecuting Attorney Ferrero has determined that he is "conflicted-cut" from representing Respondent the Board of Elections ("B0E") in the above-referenced action in prohibition and that he therefore will be requesting, during your meeting this afternoon, that your Board appoint a special prosecutor in his stead pursuant to O.R.C. 305.14(A).
I respectfully suggest that appointment, and the attendant unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds ought not be made for the following reasons (not necessarily presented in order of importance):
1. The primary Respondent involved is the Ohio Secretary of State not the BOE, which is essentially a "nominal" Respondent.
2. The Court will decide the matter on its merits with or without either Respondent's involvement, noting that the Relator, even in the absence cf an answer having been filed by Respondents, is required under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(2)(a) to file her evidence and merit brief by a finite date.
3. Under S.Ct. Prac.R. 12.08(A)(3), motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings are not permitted, which I presume means, on the "flip side", that Relator may not move for default judgment in the event no timely answers are filed.
4. Assuming, as anticipated, Respondents are served Summons and Complaint today, I calculate their answers to be due this coming Monday, March 17, 2014, which hardly provides a special prosecutor sufficient time to review the BOE's voluminous file, the applicable statutes and the applicable jurisprudence in a meaningful manner (which, of course, is not a problem for the Secretary of State's counsel, the Ohio Attorney General).
5. Given the BOE's tie vote, a special prosecutor would be in an automatic position cf conflict with his own client for purposes of either supporting or opposing the relief requested by Relator.
In sum, the Secretary of State, not the BOE, is responsible to "defend" his decision; and the BOE, because of its tie vote, is certainly not in a position to do so for him.
It therefore is again respectfully suggested that no O.R.C. 335.14(A) application for appointment of a special prosecutor should be made, noting that said Revised Code Subsection does not mandate either such an application or the Court' s subsequent grant of same.
MARCH 12, 2014 (10:17 AM)
LETTER #2
TO: Stark County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE: State, ex rel. Cynthia Balas-Bratton v. Hon. Jon Husted, et al., Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2014-0374.
With reference to item no. 5 of my earlier memo of this date to you, I respectfully direct your attention to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(1), which provides, in pertinent part, that "A lawyer's acceptance or continuation of representation of a client creates a conflict of interest if . . . the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another current client''.
I also respectfully direct your attention to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(c)(2), which provides, in pertinent part, that "Even if each affected client consents, the lawyer shall not accept or continue the representation if . . . the representation would involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same proceeding".
In short, under the instant circumstances of the BOE's tie vote, any special prosecutor appointed would have, as I opined previously, an automatic" conflict.
Therefore, such a special prosecutor may not, under the aforesaid Rules of Professional Conduct, enter an appearance in the above-referenced action in prohibition; and should he or she nonetheless do so, I will move for his or her disqualification under the Ohio Supreme Court's jurisprudence in, inter alia, Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. Rubin, et al. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 256.
In sum, it would be both a waste of taxpayer money and an exercise
in futility to appoint a special prosecutor in Prosecutor Ferrero's stead.
I therefore again respectfully urge you tc refrain from seeking such an appointment.
MARCH 13, 2014 (7:01 AM)
LETTER #3
TO: Stark County Beard of Commissioners
FROM: Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE: Stats ex rei. Cynthia Baias-Bratton v. Hon. Jon Husted, et al., Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2014-0374
Noting that the Ohio Secretary of State ("Secretary"), as Ohio's chief elections officer, is in essence the "fifth" tie-breaking member of all County Beards of Elections/ it may well be that an attorney representing the BOE under the instant circumstances is representing the majority of the "five-member" BOE and therefore does not have a conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
If arguendo that is a correct proposition of law (noting that I am unaware of any jurisprudence supporting same)f there obviously is no need to use Stark County taxpayer funds to replicate the same arguments/filings that will be made by the Secretary's counsel, who, under that same proposition cf law, will in essence be representing both the Secretary and the B0E.
I therefore again respectfully urge you, conflict or not, to refrain from appointing a special prosecutor, as same clearly would be but a waste of our County's taxpayer dollars and would only serve to otherwise needlessly "muddy the waters".
In short, let the Secretary's statutory counsel (the Ohio Attorney General) *carry the ball" here.
MARCH 12, 2014 (2:09 PM - 3:59 PM)
STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONVENE/ADJOURN "EXECUTIVE SESSION"
The video:
Hmm?
No decision.
But that the meeting lasted one hour and 50 minutes (1:50) tells one that there was a hot and heavy controversy going on in the meeting, no?
One theory is that one or more commissioners want to appoint taxpayer subsidized legal counsel for the Dems whereas at least one does not with the result being the realization of a "bad" motive to make an already messy situation even messier.
Another theory is that Conley has made his mark with at least one of the commissioners that for an appointment to be made would be a waste of taxpayer money.
The commissioners will try again today at 4:00 p.m. to resolve their obvious differences.
And, of course, the SCPR will be there to videotape the decision.
So at the end of all that high drama yesterday, nothing, absolutely nothing is decided as to whether or not the Stark Dems are going to be benefited at taxpayer expense.
Talk about coming full circle.
Back in January, 2013 Stark County Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez enlists the support of Democratic commissioner Bernabei within the confines of official taxpayer supported seat of county government (i.e. the Stark County Office Building) to help the Democrats seat Stark County's next sheriff.
While it is unlikely that Gonzalez will be back today, there is no doubt with the SCPR that politics is at play today in some way, shape or form on the questions of whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Stark County Taxpayer will be asked to fund the interests of the Stark County Democratic Party.
Prosecutor Ferrero denies that there is a conflict in interest in terms of the Democrat BOE members position being represented by "somebody" before the Prohibition writ now before the Ohio Supreme Court.
He says that with the secretary of state breaking the tie in favor of the Dems that their position is majority position and therefore there is no conflict in interest in having a tie between the two competing GOP and Dem positions in the context of the original 2 to 2 vote.
And Craig Conley tells the SCPR he agrees with that position.
But he maintains that it still is a waste of Stark County taxpayer money for the commissioners to agree to appoint legal counsel to represent the St. John/Ferruccio position.
It is somewhat ironical that the commissioners will be making a decision on whether or not to fund the Stark Democratic Party interest with taxpayer funds today.
How's that.
Well, at noon today, Stark County Budget Director Chris Nichols (also a Republican who serves on the Canton Township Board of Township Trustees) will be presenting the "final" 2014 Stark County Budget at a public meeting to be held in the third floor conference room of the Stark County Office Building.
At that meeting the commissioners will be preaching austerity.
The question will be if you are Craig T. Conley is this:
Will the commissioners practice what they preach?
No comments:
Post a Comment