ANOTHER STARK COUNTY DOG POUND ADVISORY BOARD (SCDPAB) MEMBER CRITICIZES COMMISSIONERS' OVERSIGHT OF STARK COUNTY DOG POUND OPERATIONS. WILL THIS BE "THE STRAW WHICH BREAKS THE CAMEL'S BACK" AND CAUSE THE COMMISSIONERS TO DISBAND THE SCDPAB? OR, IS THIS A OCCASION TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE "A CUT ABOVE?"

One of the things that yours truly has said repeatedly about the current Stark County Board of Commissioners (with the election of Thomas Bernabei and Janet Creighton) is that they are much more open, accessible, communicative, responsive, attentive, accountable, transparent and politically mature than any board of commissioners going back quite a few years.

And the Stark County voters recognized the change in November, 2011 in providing the commissioners with a solid victory in approving a 0.5% sales tax issue as a signal that the commissioners have been successful in restoring voter trust in their stewardship of county government.

However, it could be that the current board's enthusiasm for a different way of being and operating is ebbing.  They have been through a lot of trying times in the one year and a half that this board has been in place.  Perhaps they are growing wary of the day-to-day of this problem, then that problem and here comes another problem syndrome.

Or, it could be that operations at the Stark County Dog Pound (Pound - SCDP) is something that is an aberration from their up-to-this-point general "embracing the problems" and solving them approach to county government.

The SCPR has observed that from the very beginning of the current regime of commissioners that they have not been all that well taken with the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB).  In this aspect of their boardmanship, they are much like their predecessor boards.

Rightly or wrongly, it appears to yours truly that the commissioners have taken on an attitude of "there is nothing we can do to satisfy these (advisory board members) people.

On July 6th, The Report did a blog (LINK) on another in a long series of complaints that a SCDPAB member (Judith King) have of Pound operations.

Recently, another SCDPAB member has written the SCPR.  Here is that letter:

Hello Martin-

As a member of the Stark County Dog Warden Advisory Board, I am not surprised that the commissioners are thinking of disbanding the board.

They do not return phone calls nor attend any of our meetings.

I am sure we are a thorn in their side with our pleas to improve the horrible conditions at the pound; however eliminating the board is not going to stop us or private citizens from demanding some action be taken with regards to the "catch and kill" mentality of some of the employees at the pound and the lack of interest by  warden (sic) Tetrault of the pound's conditions.

I would love to see the commissioners' institute a forum with a "come and let us reason together " attitude., as you suggested. Unfortunately, I doubt very much that will ever happen .

Sure, the ventilation problem is a big concern during this extremely hot summer; however there are also many other problems that need to be addressed, many of which only require a look at some  ( not all, but some) of  the staff's inadequate performance.

Aren't the commissioners at all concerned about the warden who is rarely seen outside of her air-conditioned office and has no knowledge of the dogs in the pound, instead asking volunteers to do various jobs for her?  How can she be a leader when she has no clue about what happens in the actual kennel area?

If you get the chance to talk to Ms. Creighton again, please ask her these questions for us ( since she no longer communicates with the Advisory Board)

Has the $70,000 - $80,000 been approved for the ventilation system yet or is this just another promise?

Have the commissioners advertised for bids for the project yet?

Could the commissioners evaluate the warden's performance ON SITE at the pound ( and not by the  very infrequent pre-planned visits which usually turn into a smiley "everything's great here!" photo-op.)

Rose Hayne

By the end of this month commissioners have four new appointments to make and such could be an occasion for disbanding the SCDPAB altogether.

The Report has the impression that the commissioners are exasperated with the current SCDPAB makeup and might be at the point ridding themselves of their problem.

But yours truly would be surprised and disappointed to see that happen.

The Report's take on the commissioners has been that they are a resilient lot who have, so far, demonstrated political maturity a step or two above a number of other county officials (e.g. Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero and Stark County Recorder Rick Campbell).

Were they to disband the advisory board in toto, such would in the view of the SCPR be an occasion for Stark Countians to be concerned about whether or not they are taking on a jadedness that so often plagues government types which may be increasingly be manifested as everyday citizens seek the ear of county government.

Governing often is uncomfortable and perhaps even frustrating to the point of being at one's wits end in trying to satisfy everyone among the governed.

But such is the lot of office holders, especially in modern-day America.

It has to be tempting to the commissioners to try to banish their problems.

But as Ms. Hayne says: 

I am sure we are a thorn in their side with our pleas to improve the horrible conditions at the pound; however eliminating the board is not going to stop us or private citizens from demanding some action ...  (emphasis added)

Whichever way the Stark County Board of Commissioners decide to go on "the disbanding the board issue," they will be sending a message and an indication to the Stark County public about the political character of the individual members of the board that The Report believes will serve as an insight into what Stark Countians can expect in terms of receptivity and response as future complaints and problems are brought to the commissioners attention.

In a specific context the question is:  Can the Stark County commissioners abide a difference of opinion from folks they appointed and, moreover, can they accept being challenged to reflect candidly with themselves on whether or not they have the correct read on conditions/operations at the Pound?

We do have in Stark County an elected public official who banishes those with whom he disagrees.  He makes no attempt to consider that maybe his take on a given situation is wrong and that he would be well advised to mull over their advice.  Rather than eliminate these folks, he should keep them around.  For all too many around him are careful to tell him what they think he wants to hear, as a matter of self-preservation.

One wouldn't think that the Stark County commissioners (who know this official all too well), would want to follow his example.

Before them is an occasion to demonstrate by deed which way they will go.

Either they have the political chutzpah that the SCPR and many Stark County citizens expect of them to deal effectively and maturely with the problems they encounter or they will take a step back by cutting and running in the face of a difficult situation,

By July 31st, Stark Countians should get an additional read on what our Stark County commissioners are "really" made of?

(VIDEOS OF COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING) GOING FORWARD: WHAT TO EXPECT OF THE STARK COMMISSIONERS NOW THAT THE SALES TAX HAS PASSED?

Before the elections of November, 2010 and the victories of Democrat Tom Bernabei (replacing Democrat Todd Bosley, who did not run again) and Republican Janet Creighton (who ousted the appointed Democrat Steve Meeks), Stark Countians likely had very little in the way of expectations of the county commissioners.

However, with the passage of the 0.5 sales tax (by an remarkable margin, given initial predictions of "gloom and doom"), Stark County may be perking up a bit.  "Perking up a bit?"  Okay, let's say such is the case.  A more profound point is whether or not county officials can sustain the obvious gain (as evidenced by the tax victory) over time?

The debate rages on as to whether the tax passed as result of "scare them to death campaign foreboding criminals running the streets of Stark County" or because Commissioners Creighton and Bernabei instituted commissioner ways of being which caught the eye of Stark Countians as being "a turning of the page" wherein commissioners are truly responsive and attentive to everyday Stark Countians.

Looking at the pattern at where the issue clearly passed (in order of margin of victory):

• Meyers Lake
• North Canton
• Louisville
• Plain Township
• Canton City
• Massillon
• Nimishillen Township
• Jackson Township
• Perry Township
• Canton Township
• Canal Fulton
• Alliance
• Navarre
• Washington Township
• Minerva, and
• Pike Township

as opposed to those areas in which it clearly failed (in order least amount to greatest amount of loss):

• Bethlehem Township
• Osnaburg Township
• Lexington Township
• Lake Township
• Hartville
• Sandy Township
• East Canton
• Marlboro Township
• Lawrence Township
• Sugar Creek Township
• Brewster
• Beach City
• Wilmot

the SCPR's analysis is that the power (the "reality fear" factor)  of the Yes for Safety Issue 29 campaign was embraced by the "influencers" of Stark County elections in the most populous (except for Lake) urban/suburban areas and that is why the issue passed with a rather comfortable margin.

The fact of the matter is (now matter what the reason for Issue 29's passage) that it is a "new" day in Stark County and with the tax being passed, the sole question that ought to be on the mind of Stark Countians is:  what now?

After the Wednesday regular weekly commissioner meeting (November 9th), the SCPR recorded an impromptu press conference with the commissioners.  SCPR readers can and should see the commissioners' responses to questions posed in order to gain a inkling of whether or not the commissioners have plan to sustain the county's gain.

In the first segment, commissioners speak of the first order of business being digging into the budgeting process for fiscal year 2012 immediately.

An important point made by Commissioner Creighton is that the will - as commissioners started last year - require department heads of government to present themselves at work sessions of the commissioners to have a back and forth on their budget numbers.

As pointed out by Commissioner Bernabei, collections on the newly approved amount will not begin until the second half of 2012.  This means that restoration to 2011 levels will not take place until fiscal year 2013.

Other topics included in this first video include the question of whether or not the commissioners will continue to go out into the larger Stark County community to meet with citizens.

Here is the first video.



A large part of the press conference discussion (part II) had to do with whether or not the sales tax passage indicates that Stark Countians are ready to "trust" county government (asked by Kelli Young of The Repository).

Other items included asking Commissioner Pete Ferguson about his plans for continuing efforts at consolidating county/municipal/township functions (health departments,  building departments, information technology departments) into consolidated county/political subdivision operations.

Also, there is the matter of "unfunded mandates" which cost local governments dearly and which the Ohio General Assembly could resolve if pressed by local government officials and citizens across the state of Ohio.

We see such a phenomenon in the General Assembly's passage of a bill to set up two primary elections next spring:  one for state offices in Marcy and another for federal offices in May/June at a cost of $15 million.

The passage of this bill should make it abundantly clear to Ohioans that members of the Ohio House and Senate are keenly aware of "who pays the bill."

The likes of the county commissioners, the judges and the elected department heads of Stark County government need to continue to put the heat on the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly to - over time - relieve local governments of unfunded mandates.

The SCPR sees this as a key issue in whether or not local government can be solvent and will be keeping the issue foremost in the minds of county officials.

Expectations - what are they for county officials given the passage of the 0.5% sales tax levy?

For the SCPR they are that the commissioners will not "backslide" from the terrific start that Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton brought to the county table with their election as commissioners.

But beyond that, there is no money but to muddle along.

In a year or so of more stewardship in which Stark Countians can assess whether or not the commissioners and county elected officials have kept the faith in responsible and connected governance and, on the hope that the public verdict will be affirmative, then the county commissioners need to take a look at creating an economic development fund (including the repair of infrastructure [e.g. the ditching problem] with an additional 0.5% sales tax earmarked for such an effort.

While their may not be "great" expectations given the financial realities that county officials face, there are expectations that they will continue to build trust by being consummately efficient in providing county services.

Here is the second part of the press conference video.

(VIDEO: "A MUST SEE - CREIGHTON AT HER FINEST) EXPLAINING WHY SHE AGREED TO THE ZEIGLER SETTLEMENT. IF YOU ARE READY FOR BEDTIME, YOU CAN WATCH THE BERNABEI VIDEO, TOO.

Undoubtedly, the Stark County commissioners are hoping against hope that their agreement for now former Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler will pay dividends beginning on November 8th with the passage of their sales tax initiative for 0.5%.

Beyond the sales tax question is the concern - at least in the consideration of the personal political fortunes of Commissioners Bernabei and Ferguson - that the settlement could "boomerang" and comeback to haunt Bernabei and Ferguson should they decide to seek new terms as county commissioners.

The settlement "political" effect is difficult to read.

On the one hand and THE BIG PLUS is that Stark Countians are disgusted with the life of what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has coined as being "Zeiglergate" and in the words of Stark County Auditor Alan Harold:  "I [obviously speaking for 'most' Stark Countinans] just want Zeigler to be gone!"

All of the controversy surrounding the Stark Treasury started on April 1, 2009.

Eighty million, four hundred thirty eight thousand, four hundred seconds!

Whew!!!

The Report is not going to regurgitate all of the history of Conley's Zeiglergate, CLICK HERE for a prior SCPR blog that sketches out the history.

The question is this:  will the relief of being rid of Zeigler via his resignation on Wednesday be enough?

• to help with the passage of Issue 29 (the sales tax), and
• to facilitate the reelection of Commissioners Bernabei and Ferguson should they choose to run.

The SCPR buys into the thinking that the commissioners chose to settle at this time in order to help the sales tax pass.

The Report believes that the commissioners could have gotten a better financial deal for Stark County had they waited.  Judge Indlied's $1.8+ million judgment against Zeigler was an albatross that the former treasurer wanted to jettison bigtime.  His attorney correctly assessed that the highest motivation point for the commissioners to be the most generous to Zeigler was pre-sales-tax-vote.

It could be that they (the commissioners) have achieved a political master stroke (in terms of short term political interests) in doing the settlement thing now.

We may know part of the actual answer on how the Stark County public is taking the settlement late in the evening hours on November 8th.

May know?

Yes, a close vote will have the likes of yours truly pondering "until the cows come home" as to what effect the settlement had "as a tipping point" in a narrow win or loss.

A decisive outcome however will leave little to muse about.

A HUGE LOSS?

A huge loss means that the public was not impressed with the settlement and Zeigler's resignation.  It was a case of too little, too late coupled with an innate hatred of "all things sales tax" in Stark County.

Such will also spill over onto Commissioners Bernabei and Ferguson in a huge way.

For Bernabei, it likely means he definitely will not run for reelection.

The Report can see Ferguson running for reelection even in the face of a huge sales tax levy loss but that he will have to face a Republican opponent who likely will hammer way, in hindsight, at the "bad deal" that the Zeigler settlement was as a backdoor way to how badly to make the point that the commissioners (zeroing in on Ferguson - who was a member of the board that "unconstitutionally removed Zeigler") have handled Zeiglergate.

A HUGE WIN?

A huge win will be two things to the SCPR.  County officials put on an effective campaign that:

• scared the bejabbers out of Stark Countians, and
• settling with Zeigler aided the cause to victory.

For those who want to know in some detail why the commissioners themselves say they made the Zeigler settlement agreement, here are videos of them "in their own words:"

Creighton's presentation is most interesting.  See her reaction:

• to Stark County Education Service Center (SCESC) member and Republican Richard Wingerter's (he is a long time foe of of any county sales tax) reluctance to support the sales tax (he abstained on the actual board endorsement.  Moreover, he tells The Report he voted against the tax in absentee voting),
• to Republican John Hagan (a former state rep. [the 50th], candidate for county commissioner [2008], and sitting Marlboro Township trustee) having had the ability to persuade his fellow trustees not to endorse the sales tax, and
• to Democrat Canton Councilwoman Cireill's (a former commissioner and state rep.) challenge to commissioners to impose the tax "if they really believe in it."

THE CREIGHTON VIDEO



God Bless him, but Commissioner Tom Bernabei is a technician type who laboriously wades through the terms of the agreement in the following video.  Being a wonk,  he can put you to sleep.  So be sure to be wide awake on viewing this video.

THE BERNABEI VIDEO

(VIDEO OF STARK COMMISSIONERS) - A MUST SEE! - ITS NOT PHIL DAVISON BUT IT IS A TREAT

 

As we (Stark Countians) well know by now, on June 23rd the Ohio Supreme Court ordered Gary D. Zeigler reinstated as Stark County treasurer.

The high court ruled that Stark commissioners (Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) illegally removed Zeigler from office on August 23, 2010 under Ohio Revised Code Sections 321.37 and 321.38 because 321.38 has no provision it it for "due process of law" and therefore is unconstitutional under Article II, Section 38 of the Ohio Constitution.

Commissioners had removed Zeigler under the permission of the combo of 321.37 and 321.38 for the mere fact that money ($2.96 million) came up missing during the period 2003 through 2009 during his tenure as county treasurer.

His chief deputy treasury (Vince Frustaci) admitted to stealing (June 25, 2010) $2.46 of the amount, however, many believe that he stole the entire missing amount.  Zeigler himself was found by county and federal prosecutors to have had no involvement in the theft.

The sticking point in Zeigler resuming office in other than a limited fashion has been the fact that his bond was canceled last October.

When the bond came up for renewal post-Frustaci theft, Zeigler was able to get a bond.  However, (as seen in the accompanying video in the account of Stark County Personnel Manager Marsha Cimadevilla - it took time).

With the Supreme Court reinstatement, Stark County (the commissioners office) is again trying to get Zeigler bonded.

Apparently, it is going to be some time before Zeigler gets bonded.

In this blog, the SCPR presents a video discussion among the commissioners and Cimadevilla as to the timetable of getting the bond.

It is a must see video!!!

STARK COMMISSIONERS ARE REALLY GETTING CONCERNED? COUNTY TO BE OUT OF MONEY FOR NON-CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IN ABOUT 6 MONTHS?

By the Stark County Political Report's calculation the Stark Commissioners have been out campaigning  since February 9th of this year (Plain Township community meeting).

And well they should be!

For two reasons:

1. They have an URGENT need to restore trust on the part of Stark Countians in county government, and
2. If they can convince Stark Countians to trust them, then they need to convince those who vote to increase the sales tax by 0.5%.

ON THE TRUST ISSUE

One sees this all the time from government officials.  When there is no self-serving need to be in touch with the electorate; they aren't.

Meanwhile, something like the Vince Frustaci scandal (re:  former Stark County chief deputy treasurer who stole Stark County taxpayer money) surfaces.

All of a sudden public confidence and trust in that branch of government (and in all accretive sense - all of government) nose dives.

Consequence?  Publicly perceived (rightly or wrongly) government officials that the public thinks could have or should have done such and such to prevent the problem cannot get elected dog catcher and requests for additional revenues (taxes) are non-starters.

A number of Stark County officials probably lost in 2010 (at least in part) because of the public perception of  "could have/should have" came out of the Frustaci scandal with.

On finances:  the Stark County commissioners have a herculean task to restore enough trust and confidence vis-a-vis the Stark County public as a consequence of  the Frustaci scandal.

Beginning in February, commissioners launched a "meet with the public" series designed to account to the public on county finances.  By the time they have concluded on June 30th in Marlboro Township, they will have conducted 22 meetings.

To what effect?

Highly questionable!

Why so?

Because very few Stark Countians have been attending these meetings.

Jackson Township produced the best turn out and the city of Canton (believe it or not) - the worst.  Maybe 25 or 30 attended Jackson.

How many in Canton?  ZERO!!!

One of the alarming this about the commissioners' series of community meetings (all of which were held in township halls or council chambers and the like), relatively few of local government officials attended.  And, it appears, absolutely none went out and encouraged their citizenry to attend.

Of course, if the 0.5% sales tax that the commissioners are certainly going to be putting on the November ballot goes down and county services for non-criminal justice matters are reduced to a skeletal level, who will all of a sudden get activated?

You've got it.  All those township, village, city and board of education public officials who could not get off their collective duffs and help the county commissioners in their endeavor to connect to and educate the public.

Commissioner Creighton sounds the alarm bells at commissioner meetings in suggesting that the finances of the county (if the 0.5% sales tax fails) could go so low that the treasurer's office may not have the personnel to collect/process property tax and other revenues that are due the county.  Moreover, the auditor's office - she suggests - may not have the personnel to do such things has process requests for advances (made commonly by boards of education) and payments to local governments.

Is this hype on Creighton's part?

The SCPR thinks so.  But maybe not!

At Monday's (this week) work session, Creighton initiated a request of Commissioners Bernabei and Ferguson that they join her in scheduling a meeting of virtually all of Stark County's public officials (including boards of educations, school treasurers and the like) so as to specifically confront them with the looming 2012 county fiscal crisis that she says will impact each and every one of them whether they are a village, city, county, township or board of education official.

No date has been set and on checking with Commissioner Creighton this morning there is some question as to whether or not such a meeting will actually be set up.

The Report thinks it should occur and local government officials made to face up to what is in the offing for them and their collective constituencies across Stark County.

The first of two hearings that are required by Ohio law for commissioners to hold is set for 1:30 p.m. Room 318 of the Stark County Office Building on June 21st (next Tuesday).

The Report expects a number of opponents to the tax increase to be present.  The exchange should be interesting and yours truly encourages Stark Countians to show up in great numbers.

Community activist and local attorney Craig T. Conley (a participant in the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee" that successfully opposed retention - November, 2009 - of the commissioner [Bosley, Harmon and Vignos] imposed 0.5% increase of December, 2008) has told The Report that he opposes a 0.5% increase and is insistent that the county has not done enough to rein-in benefit costs at the Stark County Sheriff's department.

ON THE NUMBERS WHICH COMMISSIONERS SAY JUSTIFY A TAX INCREASE

The SCPR presents below a series of documents produced by the Stark County commissioners which give their version of how the finances of the county will shake out should Stark Countians.

(VIDEO) COUNTY ENGINEER EXPLAINS USE OF 2007 LICENSE PLATE FEE INCREASE TO COMMISSIONERS. IS STARK COUNTY GETTING A BIG ENOUGH "BANG FOR TAXPAYER" BUCKS?

One of the legacies of Mike Rehfus as county engineer (who passed away in December, 2009) is his successful effort to convince the then commissioners (Bosley and Vignos; Gayle Jackson voted no) to "impose" a $10 permissive county add-on license plate fee.

Because of his untimely death, Refus, of course, left it to others to implement his plan to put Stark County's roads and bridges on a par if not better than counties like Summit who had vastly more money to operate with.  His successor, Keith Bennett, is now fleshing out Refus' dream.

Yours truly had several conversations with Refus about the disparity between Summit and Stark roads (before the license plate increase by former Commissioners Bosley and Vignos) and he would chafe at the comparison.   In response, he would say something like:  "Of course!  Summit has five times the money that Stark has!!"  (the figure "five times" is not meant to be literal)

Refus had to work hard on the political side of the question to get Bosley (a Democrat) and Vignos (a Republican) to join together to impose the fee increase.  And he had a huge barrier.  Former commissioner Gayle Jackson was adamantly against the increase.  Her son, Shane, (chief deputy for Massillon clerk of courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. and political director of the Stark County Democratic Party) went to work on Bosley to get him to join mother in rejecting Refus' entreaty.

Bosley did the right thing in joining Vignos and incurred the political ire of the Jacksons and their political patron saint Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.  Had Gayle Jackson had the foresight to support the increase, Stark roads and bridges would have benefited about seven months earlier.  Because of her "no" vote, the tax did not begin to be collected until January 1, 2008.

Yesterday, Engineer Bennett was in front of Stark County Commissioners Janet Creighton, Pete Ferguson and Tom Bernabei to give an accounting of how the money is being spent.

SCPR readers can see the entire session in the video that accompanies this blog which is accessible at the end of this written material.

Here is some interesting information for readers to digest before viewing the video.