WHEN DID PUBLIC DISTRUST OF STARK COUNTY GOV'T ACCELERATE? DECEMBER 30, 2008 OR APRIL 1, 2009?

Today - APRIL 1ST -  is a anniversary date of dubious distinction for Stark County government.

News broke on April 1, 2009 that Chief Deputy Stark County Treasurer Vince Frustaci was accused by Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler of stealing taxpayer money which resulted in Zeigler firing Frustaci.

Many Stark Countians believe that this revelation was the onset of a cascade of revelations which was the beginning of the almost total disintegration of trust that Stark Countians have for their government.

Others say:  "Hold on a minute, the real date of the unraveling of the trust that Stark Countians have for their government actually began on December 30, 2008 when Stark County Commissioners Todd Bosley, Tom Harmon and Jane Vignos 'imposed' a 0.50 of 1% sales/use tax."

The truth of the matter is that the two occurrences combined (as the primary cause) to wipe out any residual trust that Stark Countians formerly had in county government.

Of course, it is basic civics that the American system of government is built on basic distrust of government.  Checks and balances in the constitutional framework of government amounts to an institutionalization of the framers' (of the Constitution) distrust of government.

So, in a sense, it can never be said that the citizenry trusts government.  But, it can be said that trust in government has it high points and it has its low points.  At the local level, Stark Countian trust of county government may be at its lowest level EVER!

The SCPR believes that Stark Countians were absolutely stunned when they learned that Frustaci had stolen from them.  While the treasurer himself was completely exonerated by county and federal prosecutors of having any part whatsoever in the theft, Stark Countians were aghast that measures were not in place to prevent the theft which occurred over an approximate six years period of time.

Zeigler (who was removed from office by county commissioners on August 23, 2010 by the provisions of Ohio Revised Code Section 321.38) has steadfastly denied that he was remiss in terms of having in place safeguards to prevent employee thefts.  It appears to the Stark County Political Report that he stands alone  among former and current Stark County officials (and state auditor officials) in that point of view.

The State of Ohio Auditor (SOA) on June 25, 2010 (as part of the theft investigation) issued a report citing a number of deficiencies in procedures and standards within the Stark treasury.  Moreover, successor treasurers (Allbritain, Koher and Zumber [who was elected in November, 2010]) have made judgments agreeing with the SOA assessments, as well as having made their own determinations of additional safeguarding changes needed and have instituted them.

Initially, it was not known how much Frustaci had stolen.  Eventually, it came out that he stole either $2.46 million (the SOA finding) or $2.96 million (in the opinion of federal judge John Adams).

The financial implications for Stark County?  Devastating!

This is the point at which the missing money combines with the commissioners imposition of the 0.50 of 1% sales tax (December 30, 2008) to deal county finances a lethal blow.

How's that?

Well, there were a group of citizens who called themselves the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee ("VoteNos") that formed to gather signatures to repeal the imposed tax.

They were not taken seriously by many county officials (especially Commissioner Bosley, so it seems) until "lo and behold" they - the VoteNos - collected the necessary thousands of valid signatures to force the matter onto the ballot.

Well, with the revelation of the theft of county monies, it was a "walk in the park" for the VoteNos in their quest to convince Stark Countians to repeal the imposed sales tax.  By a 2 to 1 margin, the tax was repealed in November, 2009.

The job of repealing the tax was made easier by the campaign of those promoting retention of the tax.  In their campaign, almost nothing was said about the fact that most of the money collected by the tax was going to county general fund operations.

The VoteNos jumped all over what they said was a deception by county officials as to what the publicized  purpose of the imposed tax was, to wit:  "fix Stark County's broken 9-1-1 system."

So now you have:

• the loss of $2.96 million in taxpayer money and the public perception that adequate safeguards were not in place to prevent it or to discover it early on,
• an imposed sales/use tax, and
• a downplaying of the "general fund" revenue generating aspect of the tax which many Stark Countians took as a act of government deception

And the question rises: which was the beginning of the plummeting of Stark Countians trusting their government?

Answer:  A combination of the two.  Moreover, the SCPR would add the phenomenon whereby all too many local government officials have plied the public payrolls with their political loyalists, friends and neighbors and have had the good fortune to have relatives - in some instances - hired by non-relative government officials as Ohio ethics law forbids the direct hire of relatives.

Restoring trust is is the utmost importance for the financial health of county government.

With the loss of the $2,96 million and the determination of county commissioners (the current board:  Creighton, Bernabei and Ferguson) that public trust is so low that they dare not ask for a renewal of 0.250 of 1 percent tax passed initially in 2003 on the May, 2011 primary election ballot, the county has just completed a round of 16% cuts across county government.  A new round of more severe cuts (perhaps as high as 30%) are in the offing in 2012, if a replacement 0.250 is not politically viable by November, 2011.

The Report believes that the current Board of Stark County Commissioners is making progress on restoring trust to county government, but "the jury is still out" (i.e. the Stark County public perception) as to how soon the public trust will be restored to such a degree that commissioners can consider asking the public to approve sorely needed additional revenues to county government.

Let's throw in a wild card into this whole discussion.

The SCPR believes that former Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler has a 50/50 chance to win his Quo Warranto original action in the Ohio Supreme Court based on the legal arguments presented in the case.  Arguments were held on March 23rd and the decision could be out relatively soon.

So the "wild card" discussion point is:  How will the Stark County public respond to Zeigler being restored to office, if such happens?

The commissioners reaction to the possibility?

Pretty much, to paraphrase:  "We'll cross that bridge if it comes up on our path."

IS THIS ANY WAY FOR COMMISSIONERS TO RE-ESTABLISH TRUST OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT?

Apparently, the SCPR has missed something at Stark County commissioner meetings, of late.

At the commissioners' December 1st meeting, one of the attendees was interim Stark County Engineer Jim Jones.

So?

In the brief colloquy between commissioners and Jones, it came out that the county sanitary engineer function is no longer a part of the county engineer's office, but rather back to its old stand alone status of pre-May 2009.

Before she left office in 2008, Jane Vignos argued with Commissioner Todd Bosley as to whether or not it would save the county any money to place the sanitary engineer office function with the county engineer. Bosley won the argument and the change took place under a much ballyhooed "saving the county money" promotion by Commissioners Bosley and Harmon.

Save money?  Not likely!

Former Sanitary Engineer Mike Armogida was hired by commissioners (interesting enough, Bosley dissenting, but not on the need for a consultant; rather Armogida being the hiree) at $30,000 for a period of six months as a consultant from new job at Me Company.

The idea was for the consultant to help ease the transition from the stand alone status to the integration into the county engineer's office.

Well, it must not have worked because, as stated above, the separate Stark County sanitary engineer's office is on its own once again.

What is particularly interesting about this apparent "shell game" or "sleight of hand," whatever one wants to call it is that it appears that as late as October 29th Commissioner Bosley in his election campaign to unseat Republican state Rep. Todd Bosley (Ohio's 50th House District) Bosley thought that Jones was still with the engineer's office.  For in the October 29th edition of The Hartville News appears a full page ad by the Bosley campaign entitled:  TODD BOSLEY GETS THINGS DONE - IN ONLY 4 YEARS WHILE SERVING AS COUNTY COMMISSIONER, HE STREAMLINED GOVERNMENT TO SAVE OUR MONEY.

One of three instances listed in the advertisement included:  "Combined County Engineer and Sanitary Engineer Department for efficiency and significant cost savings."

Hmm?

Perhaps yours truly went to sleep during that space in the commissioners meeting in which commissioners voted to return the sanitary engineer function to stand alone status in meetings that have been held during the period of October 29th through December 1st?

Of course, newly seated Commissioner Tom Bernabei was not part of the "between us guys?" switcheroo.  

Whether or not The Report missed the change back, it is this sort of political gamesmanship that fuels the public's distrust of government. 

New commissioners Janet Creighton (taking office in January) and Bernabei have a ton of repairing to do of the public perception of county government.

The legacy that has been left to them is going to be difficult to overcome!!!

BREAKING NEWS: COPY OF NOTICE OF FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN GRIFFING V. REDFERN (IN BOSLEY VERSUS SNITCHLER OHIO HOUSE DISTRICT #50 RACE)

The Stark County Political Report has just received a copy of a document sent by Ohio Elections Commissioner Philip Richter to Chris Redfern (chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party - ODP) which notices Redfern that the Commission has found "probable cause" that the ODP has violated Ohio Revised Code Section 3517.21(B)(10), to wit:

Hearing is set for October 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM at the Elections Commission in Columbus.

The ODP has issued a press release explain its position on the "probable cause" finding, to wit:

Notice the admission (in the press release) that the ODP misstated the number of times that the ODP alleges that the Ohio Elections Commission has investigated Todd Snitchler.

The Report did ask Snitchler for a comment but he declined saying that he would not do so while the matter is pending hearing.

The question that is a serious one for the candidates is what impact the so called "the rat flyer" will have on the outcome of the race.

Snitchler forces, obviously, will be hoping that 50th District voters will react to the flyer as an example of the ugly politics that has no place in the electioneering.

Bosley supporters, on the other hand, want voters to ponder on whether or not Snitchler has ethical issues in how he comports himself as a legislator.  Moreover, Bosley's group want readers of the flyer to focus on the dire economic consequences for Stark County and all of Ohio that could follow if Snitchler is re-elected and successfully pursues getting House Bill 400 (the elimination of Ohio's income tax over ten years) passed.

Bosley has disassociated himself from the ODP-generated flyer saying that he does not equate Snitchler to being a rat and that he has no control over what the ODP puts out.

The SCPR does not buy such disclaimers by either side.  For The Report, "the buck stops with the candidate."

How the Elections Commission rules will weigh in on how much oomph each side's take has on the voters.

More than two weeks will still remain after the ruling is to be made.

So Stark Countians have not heard the last of "the rat flyer!"

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.

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!

IS REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT TODD SNITCHLER (OHIO'S 50TH HOUSE DISTRICT) SHOWING SIGNS OF POLITICAL DESPERATION?

On September 10th the SCPR did a blog on "the rat" political flyer put out by the Ohio Democratic Party on Republican (50th Ohio House District) Todd Snitchler.

It is no surprise for The Report to learn from Snitchler yesterday that he is in the process of filing an elections ethics complaint against the Ohio Democratic Party for its publication of "the rat" and another politically derogatory flyer against Snitchler.

Snitchler tells the SCPR that he is not filing against his Democratic opponent Todd Bosley because he is joined on the publications themselves as being a party to the flyers.

To The Report this is a distinction without a difference. 

On September 13th Snitchler filed with the Ohio House a proposed piece of legislation (House Bill 580) to require the consent of political subdivisions as a requirement of an "expedited type II annexation."

There are two noteworthy things about Representative Snitchler's "belated" filing of this bill for Ohio House consideration that smack of this being a purely political move:

1. There are about 75 days left in the 128th Ohio General Assembly (OGA).  If the bill is not passed by OGA by December 31st, it dies and will have to be re-introduced in the 129th which begins on January 1, 2011 to regain its life. 
2. Only Snitchler's name appears on the bill as being a sponsor/co-sponsor.  Normally, there are at least a few co-sponsors.

The SCPR can say that there is absolutely no chance that HB 580 can become law before the end of the 128th OGA.  Democrats control the House and Ohio Speaker of the House Armond Budish (who picked Todd Bosley to run against Snitchler) would not in anybody's wildest dream allow Snitchler to pull off a political stunt like this.

And this is to say nothing of the "in a uproar" the Ohio Municipal League, the Ohio Townships Association and the Ohio County Commissioners Association would be in at his attempt to change legislation that all three organizations bought into when the bill was last changed (10-26-2001).

Bosley himself has declared in Stark County commissioners meetings (when he has had to vote in favor of expedited annexations because all the statutory requirements have been meant) that the law needs to be changed.

But will he endorse the Snitchler effort?  Of course, not.  Undoubtedly, he will call Snitchler's move what it really is:  a political stunt.

The SCPR goes one step further.  If Bosley is elected and attempts the same move, he will come up empty-handed unless he can get the powerful political subdivision associations to support his effort.  But the effort will look good to the constituents back home.

Another curiosity is why Snitchler finds the political gamesmanship necessary.

The Stark County (and 50th District) hotbed of anti-annexation fervor is in Tuscarawas Township (a district won by Snitchler overwhelmingly in 2008 - see below).  Residents there are up-in-arms about Massillon's attempted Poets Glen annexation (recently denied by county commissioners but which Massillon is appealing) and the Bit O Eden and Tuslaw schools Massillon annexation effort currently under consideration.

Does Snitchler think the election is to be won or lost in Tuscarawas Township?

Hmm?

Turning to Snitchler's ethics complaint.

Another case of political gaming?

Apparently.

In The Report's conversation with Snitchler yesterday, he said he understands that the complaint going anywhere is not that great.  Moreover, there is an ironical twist to his filing of a complaint against Bosley.  In his 2006 Republican "bitter" primary battle with fellow Republican Tina Hagan (daughter of former 50th District Representative John Hagan - 8 years before term limits forced him out), Snitchler himself was a the object of a Hagan elections ethics complaint.

So what is there to make of all this Snitchler political maneuvering?

The SCPR suspects that hard polling is telling him that he is behind his Democratic opponent Todd Bosley.

Each candidate has polls indicating that he is about 10 percentage points ahead of his opponent.

Whom among the two is to be believed?

Look at their actions!

Snitchler's legislative worthless action of introducing HB 580 and his likely futile ethics complaint look like they may be acts of political desperation!!!

COMMISSIONER TODD BOSLEY (ERR THE OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY) CALLED REPUBLICAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE TODD SNITCHLER A RAT. THAT AIN'T NICE, NO?

UPDATE AT 03:45 PM


Representative Snitchler has contacted the SCPR with a response to the anecdotal story that comes from Stark County Commissioner Pete Ferguson (Democrat) about a conversation he overheard from several supporters of Snitchler at an area event to the effect that the incumbent Republican is down in the polls and that he needs to get cracking.


Snitchler tells The Report that the anecdotal piece does not square up with reality.  He says that in fact his recent poll (within the past week) done by a professional Columbus-based polling organization shows him up "north of 10 percentage points."

A distinguishing mark of the Stark County Political Report is to provide space to candidates for public office to respond to points made in SCPR blogs.

ORIGINAL  POST

Last evening 50th Ohio House District candidate Commissioner Todd Bosley (Democrat - Marlboro) called the SCPR to give The Report a heads up on a flyer sent out by the Ohio Democratic Party (ODP) headed up by Chris Redfern.

The Report took the Bosley phone call as an effort to distance himself from the highly derogatory piece.  To call someone a rat is an ultimate dissing. Bosley says that he has no control over what the ODP does and that he has made it clear to the Columbus operatives not to be putting out pieces like the one pictured above.

While Bosley denies thinking Representative Snitchler is a rat, he does outright call him an obstructionist.  Bosley says that Snitchler has infuriated many House Democrats and that consequently the ODP/Ohio House Democratic Caucus combo is targeting Snitchler.

According to the flyer, Snitchler is a rat because (according to Commissioner Bosley err - The Report keeps forgetting - the ODP) he is:

• a job killer
• stretches the truth
• is not a friend to our [the 50th District] community

Where does Bosley err - there The Report goes again - the ODP get that from?

Well, Snitchler is a co-sponsor of House Bill 400 which is Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich's plan to do away with Ohio's income tax over a number of years.

And if there were a realistic chance of the bill passing,  the ODP might be on to something.  But as the SCPR sees it, the chances are between slim and none that the measure passes during the 128th Ohio General Assembly and Slim just left town.

Snitchler like most Republican candidates are fervent opponents of government taxation at all levels.  Though the SCPR buys Snitchler's argument that HB 400 has virtually no chance of passage,  the ODP is right in its suggesting a re-visitation to HB 400 in the upcoming 129 General Assembly?

How so?

The Republicans have a stranglehold on the Ohio Senate and there is no chance for the Democrats to gain control this election.  Moreover, it is looking more and more like Republican Kasich might defeat Democrat Governor Ted Strickland come November 2nd.  Kasich is currently holding about a 10% lead in a number of major polls.

So if Kasich wins, then the only domino left to fall is the Ohio House.  With Republicans in control of the executive and legislative branches of government, then the Kasich idea as put in legislative form by Representative John Adams and a whole host of Republicans is as least (in the words of Representative Snitchler) "on the table for discussion."

Snitchler goes on to point out that while the topic of jettisoning the income tax will be on the table in the 129th, Minority Leader Billy Batchelder (who will become Speaker of the House if Republicans take control of the Ohio House) has said that the current depressed Ohio economy will not tolerate abandoning the income tax a la House Bill 400.

The real point of "the rat flyer" is whether or not the Snitchler/Bosley campaign is headed for ugliness.

Right now both Bosley and Snitchler are saying that if the campaign does devolve into a morass of political mudslinging, it will be the fault of the other.

Bosley can disassociate from "the rat flyer" all he wants, but the public perception is going to be that he is part of what comes out in his name.  He can argue that he cannot control what comes out of Columbus.  But it does not wash with the public.

Same can be said for Snitchler for when the Ohio Republican Party/House Caucus inevitably sends out a nasty piece in his name.

Snitchler tells the SCPR that he is going to try to keep the campaign on the high road but that he does have Plan B at the ready.  The focal point of his attack?  You've got it, Bosley's (as a commissioner ) "spearheading" (to use Snitchler's word) the imposition of the 0.50 of one percent sales tax increase on Stark Countians in December, 2008.

Snitchler knows how unpopular the tax was as evidenced by the voters rejection of retaining the tax by a 2 to 1 margin in November, 2009.  He also noted that it is questionable that Bosley will be able to keep his promise to Stark County voters to maintain a 50/50 split on the imposed tax revenues between the Stark 9-1-1 rehab project and the county's general revenue fund.

About $2.75 million remains segregated in the Stark budget for 9-1-1.  The Stark County Political Report believes that the new set of commissioners who will take over on January 1, 2011 will be under enormous pressure to take some of the $2.75 million and put it into the general fund.  The county faces an average of 16.1% in Stark County departmental cuts over Fiscal Year 2011.

On another Snitchler/Bosley front, Commissioner Pete Ferguson tells the SCPR that he recently was at a public event at which he heard some Stark Republicans talking about a poll that the Snitchler camp has showing Snitchler (who is an incumbent Republican running in what appears to be a favorable Republican year) behind Bosley, and the quipping further that he had better ratchet up the campaign.

Early on in this campaign season, The Report tabbed Bosley/Snitchler as one of the leading closely contested races in all of Stark County.  The control of the Ohio House of Representatives could depend on who wins between Bosley and Snitchler in the 50th located right here in Stark County.  The 50th is indexed as being a dependable Republican district and a Bosley win would have to be taken as a "political upset."

Stay tuned to the Stark County Political Report for indepth analysis of how each of the highly contested Stark County races are playing out with the Stark County voting public.

VIDEO (CITIZENS BESEECHING COMMISSIONERS): FERTILE DOGS GALORE IN STARK. THE COMMISSIONERS NEED TO HELP CIVIC GROUP WITH THEIR SPAY & NEUTER CLINIC!

Since before September, 2009 Stark County civic activist Nanci Miller has been working with her fellow Stark County citizens who care about the plight of dogs and cats in terms of nothing being done to check their reproductivity.

The unchecked propagation of dogs and cats leads to them, because of their numbers, being homeless (either a result of being born out in the public domain or being abandoned by pet owners) and in time picked up to be dealt with by public authorities at public expense. Many families with pets cannot afford to have them spayed and neutered.  Undoubtedly, current tough economic times make it even less likely that struggling families can afford the procedure.

A member of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (appointed by Stark County commissioners), Nanci works tirelessly with other like minded civic folks of Stark County to solve the problem of abandoned and uncared for canines.

In September, 2009 she formed the non-profit The Animal Welfare Society of Stark County which was recently granted 501(c)(3) status by the Internal Revenue Service.

Moreover, she has been working closely with Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley to put together an effort of citizen volunteers to staff a facility so that Stark Countians have a place to bring their dogs for low-cost spaying and neutering.

The county's role?

To provide (via a $1 per year lease) a facility where the low-cost spay and neutering clinic can be housed.  Commissioners are working with Miller to get a garage facility on the grounds of the Stark County Dog Pound in usable conditions so that the clinic can become a reality.

On Wednesday, August 18th, Ms. Miller and a group of about 12 supporters appeared before the commissioners to encourage them to act now to assist The Animal Welfare Society of Stark County (AWCOSC) so that they can tell prospective grant providing entities that they have a facility and the clinic is up and running.

Originally, the commissioners (principally Bosley) were thinking of providing about $100,000 to rehab the county building to make it suitable for a spay and neuter clinic.

However, with county finances in a steep downward spiral with the loss of $2.96 million in county funds from the Stark County treasury as well as with the rejection by Stark County taxpayers of the retention of a 0.50 of one percent imposed (December, 2008) sales tax, the county is hard pressed to assist any group no matter how worthy the cause.

About that only project the county should be looking a putting any county funds into should be those that help county officials cut county expenses.

The SCPR believes that a low-cost spay and neuter clinic has the prospect to help keep costs down, if not decrease them, at the Stark County government funded Stark County Dog Pound.  Over the longer term, if Ms. Miller's organization can help to dramatically reduced the uncared for population of dogs, the county may be able to keep the county dog pound operation from expanding and thereby keep costs in check.

The AWSOSC has modified its request for county assistance to a level that will enable the facility to be rehab minimally so that a basic, bare bones clinic can be opened.

The SCPR support the commissioners assisting AWSOSC in light of the group working very hard to keep the amount of assistance needed to an absolute minimum.

Also, The Report salutes Commissioner Bosley for his work with these civic minded Stark County citizens to solve a very large problem in Stark County.

Here is a video of the AWSOSC presentation to commissioners on August 18th.

VIDEO: COMMISSIONER TODD BOSLEY HOPING THAT THE "THIRD TIME IS THE CHARM." HMM?

UPDATED:  05.45 AM

You don't hear it often but Wednesday past Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley at the regular Stark County commissioners' weekly meeting is seen in the accompanying video wistfully intoning the well known cliche "the third time is the charm," but he tails off into a pondering (perhaps a questioning) mode.

The SCPR thinks that the chances of the Stark County commissioners getting to remove Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler from office today at 1:30 PM in a meeting called for that purpose at Room 318 of the Stark County Office Building is just that:  "a hope and and a prayer."

Stark Countians who want a return to normalcy in Stark County government should be "praying and fasting" between now and 9:00 AM on Monday morning when Geauga County Court of Common Pleas Frederick Inderlied makes his decision on whether or not to issue a preliminary junction prohibiting the commissioners from holding the hearing under Ohio Revised Code Section 321.38 to remove Zeigler from office, that Lordly wisdom plays large in the determination of Judge Inderlied.

If Judge Inderlied goes with what a number of legal observers believe the law holds, it appears to the SCPR that Zeigler will triumph in the courts.

The Report's mind says Zeigler will be with Stark Countians as a public official until September, 2013 presuming that Stark Countians take matters into their own hands via the ballot box (either in the the Democratic primary in May, 2012 or the general election in November, 2012) to remove Zeigler.

But The Report's heart is hoping for divine intervention.  Perhaps the Lord will provide Judge Inderlied with an insight on the law that some of the best legal minds in Stark County and across Ohio do not presently see.

Anything short of a miracle will keep Stark County embroiled in a negative downward spiral with Stark Countians sinking into new lower levels of a "lack of confidence" in the administration of Stark County government pretty much across the board.

In May, 2011 Stark Countians will get their chance to tell commissioners and Zeigler (if he is still in office) how discontented they are with them and him and a number of other county officials, when they get the opportunity to vote as to whether or not to renew a 0.25 percent of a countywide sales tax which expires in 2011.

Zeigler has refused to step down from office despite public outcry that he do so for not properly minding the store and thereby creating conditions enabling his former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci to make off with about $2.46 million to cover gambling debts.

Frustaci has admitted to the theft in open federal court and has provided to the media that gambling debt is the reason he stole the money.

Will Zeigler ever resign?

The SCPR thinks he will or, at least, not seek re-election once it becomes apparent to him that there is one barrier that a lawsuit will not solve.

What barrier is that?

The ultimate term limit barrier: The constitutional right of "we the people" to determine at the end of the day whether or not a public official remains in office.

The voting public is entitled, as a matter of the supreme constitutional law of Ohio and of "the land," to say to Zeigler:  "We know you think you have not done anything to merit removal from office, but we think differently.  We believe a la Harry Truman that "the buck does stop" with the holder of the public trust whether or not he did anything actionable at law."

If Zeigler goes to the point of being turned out by the voters in his quest to remain in office, the SCPR believes that the damage done to Stark Countians' confidence in their right to get a speedy solution to a perceived misfeasance by a public official in ensuring the safety of public funds will spill over onto the whole of Stark County's governors for years to come in terms of a heightened public cynicism. 

Here is the video of Commissioner Bosley on his "the third time is the charm" utterance and the commissioners voting on a resolution to set of today's hearing.

WILL THE STARK COUNTY'S 9-1-1 FUNDING MAKE IT TO THE STARK COUNCIL ON GOVERNMENTS (SCOG)?

Recently, yours truly had a conversation with Commissioner Todd Bosley in which the topic of funding for the Stark County Council of Governments' (SCOG) came up.

Stark Countians will recall that Bosley spearheaded an effort to "impose" a sales tax increase of 0.50 of one percent in December, 2008.  The sales pitch for the sales tax was the repair of what he and many Stark County emergency force leaders tab as being a "broken 9-1-1 system."

However, a significant added reason (which was pushed into the background in justifying the tax) was getting more revenue for Stark County government general fund operations.

When "Vote No Increased Taxes" group got the retention or non-retention of the tax issue on the November, 2009 ballot, the pro-retention forces totally focused on the 9-1-1 aspect of the tax as being "the" reason why the tax should be retained.

Shortly after county voters overwhelmingly voted not to retain the tax (about 2 to 1 against retention), county commissioners began differing over putting the remaining revenue to be collected 50/50 into a 9-1-1 fund and the county general revenue fund.

Before former Commissioner Tom Harmon left office, he and Bosley had a public meeting difference over the division.  His successor Steve Meeks (joined by Commissioner Pete Ferguson) adopted the Harmon position and some of the early-on 9-1-1 designated money ended up in the Stark County general fund.

So why is the topic coming up again?

Because Bosley fears that if the money is not actually transferred to SCOG before he leaves office on December 31st (he is running for state representative for the Ohio House - the 50th - against Republican Todd Snitchler), the money or parts of it will never make it to SCOG.

Really?

Is Bosley's concern well founded?

The SCPR thinks so.

If the planned renewal of 0.25 of one percent sales tax does not fly by the May, 2011 election, Stark County departments of government are looking at about 30% to 35% in "across-the-board" cuts in 2012.

It seems to logical to The Report that if the "9-1-1" share of the money is still accessible to the commissioners after Bosley leaves office and the renewal does not pass, then the temptation to divert the money - or at least some of it - to the general fund will be strong.

If such were to happen, Stark Countians are likely to be looking at a scaled down re-work of 9-1-1, and if that were to happen, then taxpayers would be in a "We told you so" mode.

So look for Bosley to bring this matter up in the several months.

There could be a real donnybrook between commissioners in the offing!

VIDEO (PART 8) BATTLE OF THE TODDS - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & SUMMARY OF WHY EACH SHOULD BE ELECTED

Today's segment if the final of the videotape taken of the July 28th Ron Ponder "Points to Ponder" radio show on WHBC-AM1480 entitled "The Battle of the Todds."

The participants, of course, were Todd Bosley (Democrat and Stark County commissioner) and Todd Snitchler (Republican and state representative for the 50th Ohio House District).

Bosley is challenging Snitchler for the House seat.

The SCPR, again, thank Ron Ponder for allowing The Report to videotape this WHBC public service.

Here is the video.

VIDEO (PART 7): BOSLEY DISTANCES FROM OBAMA; SNITCHLER FROM McCAIN & TALK ABOUT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

It is interesting what political candidates will do "under the pressure of the moment."

The SCPR's take on Bosley and Snitchler is that both "for appearances sake" made statements under questioning by Ron Ponder of "Points to Ponder,"  WHBC-AM1480 in their July 28th radio debate that belie their true positions.

For instance in the video that accompanies this blog each takes a turn distancing from their political party's top national guy.  With Bosley, of course, this is President Obama.  With Snitchler, less obviously, it was the 2008 GOP national standard bearer John McCain.  The appearance?  "I can critique my side's leadership."  But can they, really?

On to the next topic of the debate.

The accomplishments of each candidate.

The Report's take on them.

Both are thin indeed.

Republican Snitchler had to piggyback his HB 77 (conceal personal information of Federal law enforcement officers) on to a Democrat Representative Kathleen Chandler (Portage County) sponsored bill.  This, he says, is an example of his ability to work bipartisan.  Really?  And that is Snitchler's lone success in his first (and, perhaps, only) two year term.

Democrat Todd Bosley was practically as desperate.  One of his achievements he talks about being his most "fun" accomplishment is his work on Solid Waste District (includes Stark, Wayne and Tuscarawas Counties) recycling.  He really stretches when he claims that his Solid Waste work is an indication of his ability to work bi-partisan.  Most of the commissioners members of the Solid Waste Board (i.e. Tuscarawas and Wayne) are Republican.

Bosley does have a stronger claim on his 9-1-1 work.  He has been pushing this issue since his days as Nimishillen Township trustee.  However, he "borrowed" it from Nimishillen Township Fire Chief Rich Peterson.

Here is the video of each speaking for himself.

VIDEO: PART 6 "BATTLE OF THE TODDS," BOSLEY SAYS THAT SNITCHLER IS A "JUST SAY NO" STATE REPRESENTATIVE. IS HE CORRECT?

Todd Bosley "got up close and 'personal'" with 50th District Ohio Representative Todd Snitchler (Republican - Lake) in their "Battle of Todds" debate on Ron Ponder's "Points to Ponder," (WHBC-AM1480) on July 28th.

In this segment of the debate (see the video below), Bosley accuses Snitchler as being for cutting $250,000 million from Stark County schools in that Snitchler was a sponsor of House Bill 400; a bill to phase out Ohio's income tax over 10 years.

That's a specific charge.

A more general charge was that Snitchler is like his counterpart Republicans at the national level (popularly known as "the party of no") in that he has no consistent, positive agenda for Ohio and the 50th House District and that all Snitchler has to say is no.

The SCPR does note that during this entire debate, it does seem that Bosley had Snitchler in the "defending" himself position.  One has to wonder why Sntichler didn't attack Bosley as a "tax and spend" Democrat because of Bosley's two votes as a sitting county commissioner for the "imposed" sales tax in December, 2008 and, before that, having - as a relative new commissioner - having voted for a license plate fee increase.

As the SCPR sees it, Bosley is being somewhat disingenuous in scoring Snitchler for not getting his sponsored and cosponsored legislation passed.  Anyone who knows anything about how Columbus works, knows that in modern legislative times (Republican or Democrat), the majority party pretty much shuts out the minority party from getting significant legislation passed.

Here is video segment six in which Snitchler goes back to his effort to get performance audits of all departments of state government enacted.

VIDEO: "ANNEXATION" - BIG IN CICCHINELLI'S RE-ELECTION BID; BIG ISSUE IN THE 50TH OHIO HOUSE RACE, "THE PROXY EFFECT?" WILL CICCHINELLI "PRIVATELY" SUPPORT CREIGHTON OVER MEEKS?

One of, if not the prime reason, major reason that Francis H. Cicchinelli is running for re-election for a seventh term as mayor of Massillon is "unfinished business" in bringing Massillon back to full economic viability by the use of what he says is the economic tool of annexation.

Annexation Director Sam Sliman of Canton (the self-described "Darth Vatder to the Townships) has the same quest for Canton.

Though one is a Democrat (Cicchinelli) and the other is a Republican (Sliman) they couldn't agree more on the importance of annexation used to the hilt to help rehabilitate city economies.

On the other hand, there are township-oriented folks like Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley and state Representative Todd Snitchler that see the matter as more a "preserving the townships" principle that they agree that the annexation law needs to be modified to enhance township preservation.

These annexation differences could factor into the political campaigns underway this year (Bosley v. Snitchler, 50th Ohio House District) and next year for Cicchinelli in his bid for a seventh straight term as mayor.  Also, it could factor into the Creighton (Republican) versus Meeks (Democrat) county commissioner race this year.

Readers will see on the accompanying video that Mayor Cicchinelli is very displeased that former Jackson Township trustee and now Commissioner Steven Meeks voted with Commissioner Todd Bosley to deny the Poets Glen annexation.

While he denies that he will support Creighton,  he qualifies the denial by saying: "in a public way."  Hmm.  Privately?

The Report does not view Meeks as a out and out supporter of the "township" view of annexation as Commissioner Bosley seems to be, even with his Poets Glen vote.  Remember, his close political ally Randy Gonzalez (Jackson Township fiscal officer among a number of other public roles) brokered the annexation agreement between Canton and Jackson Township.

So why did he vote to deny Poets Glen?  The SCPR believes he got caught up in the passion of the moment and got steamrollered by Bosley.

Back to the annexation issue in and of itself.

The SCPR's view?

Annexation is not an "enduring" economic tool.  It is quick fix at best.  And, it by its operation - within Stark County and Ohio - it is designed to take from one entity to add to another.

However, townships should not be content to be as townships have always been.  We are in the 21st century and townships need to be just as much economically engaged as are Ohio's villages and cities.

The Report gets the take that all too many township officials have a idyllic sense of the township form of existence and are not fully engaging nearby cities for the mutual benefits of both types of government.

There probably does not need to be any change in annexation law.

What is needed is township, village, and city officials working in a corroborative and sensitive fashion that is a win-win for both the townships and corporate entities.

The Report has taken videos in the SCPR library and edited into this single video a representation of the importance and significance that Cicchinelli, Sliman, Bosley and Snitchler attach to the annexation issue.

VIDEO: PART 4 - "BATTLE OF THE TODDS" - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ON WHBC'S "POINTS TO PONDER" JULY 28, 2010

Stark County radio personality and celebrity Ron Ponder had Ohio 50th District candidates in for a debate he and his producer Stephon King dubbed the "Battle of the Todds" as both the Republican candidate and Democratic candidate share the first name, but likely - in reality, very little else.

Republican state Representative "Todd" Snitchler (Lake) and Democratic Stark County Commissioner "Todd" Bosley (Marlboro) squared off on July 28th on WHBC1480 AM with Ponder as the host.

Today's topic:  campaign finance.

Before or after viewing the video posted below, readers of the SCPR can see a list of Todd Bosley's contributors in the last reporting period by clicking on this link and a list of Todd Snitchler's by clicking on this link.

As Ponder points out on the video, the candidates are evenly matched in fundraising as of the middle of June, 2010.

"The Battle of the Todds" centers on the claim of Todd Bosley that Todd Snitchler is the captive of Ohio's corporate interests whereas Todd Snitchler says that Todd Bosley is beholden to unions.

Who is right and who is wrong?

As far as the SCPR is concerned, both are correct.

There does not seem to be a middle ground in terms of allegiance to "all" the people of Ohio as between the two Todds.

If this race is too close to call as the SCPR has billed it, then, perhaps, the winner will be the Todd who can convince 50th District voters that he is the Todd who will "truly" and primarily represent the interests of the greatest number of 50th District citizens.

The video.

.