VOLUME 2 SCPR ELECTION ANALYSIS SERIES: BALAS-BRATTON "PAYS THE PRICE" FOR STICKING UP FOR THE "RULE OF LAW?"

OTHERS PAY THE PRICE, TOO?

AND

MAYBE, STILL OTHERS ARE IN FOR IT?

VIDEO ENCORE

KATHLEEN CLUNK

MAKES A CHARGE

ON

STARK DEMS' CHAIRMAN

RANDY GONZALEZ

Political party chairmen appear to want nothing but predictable loyalists as members of their respective central committee.

Never question the wisdom of the chairman, is the implied, if not expressed, admonition that is likely to be uttered by the likes of Stark GOP chairman Jeff Matthews and Stark Dems' chairman Randy Gonzalez.

Gonzalez knows first hand the agony that a precinct committee person can put a chairman through.

For a refresher,  check these SCPR blogs (with videos) of the testy relationship between Gonzalez and his Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC)  members as he had to deal with the threat they (84 of them)  posed to his realizing the commitment of the Stark County Democratic Executive Committee (controlled, in the opinion of the SCPR by Johnnie A. Maier, Jr [JAM]) to seeing that JAM brother George appointed as Stark County sheriff.

• The February 5, 2013 selection process,
• The December 11, 2013 selection process, and
• The February 21, 2014 Balas-Bratton challenge to George Maier being on the 2014 ballot

One of the leaders of the anti-Maier-PACT turned out to be one Cynthia Balas-Bratton who on February 14, 2014 filed a challenge to George Maier's right to be qualified by the Stark County Board of Elections under the standards of Ohio Revised (ORC) Code Section 311.01.

As early as February 17th she was the subject of a verbal attack by a George T. Maier supporter.

From a SCPR report on a meeting held at the Stark BOE on the 17th to establish the ground rules and hearing date on the challenge, here is a summary of the attack as described by Balas-Bratton attorney Craig T. Conley:

On his way out of the BOE building, he encountered - what he says was - another unpleasant event.

Conley (see video below) says he witnessed his client Ms. Balas-Bratton being verbally "castigated" (Conley's word) by a fully uniformed female Stark County deputy sheriff for having had the audacity to have filed the Maier candidacy protest in the first place.

For her heroine-esque efforts for the "rule of law," she was richly rewarded by the JAM Stark County/Massillon Political Machine with a defeat at the polls at the hand of one Dave Irwin, a Maier ally, who works for Stark County recorder Rick Campbell, also a member of the JAM loyalty group.

The message from the Johnnie and George?

Cross us, criticize us, differ with us more than we like; and we will (in a political context) go after you.  So the SCPR thinks.

As recently as April 30th (the appointment of a replacement for John Benincasa, who had passed away, as Alliance City Council president), Chairman Gonzalez levied an indirect attack on Balas-Bratton in praising Steve Okey for defending Deameatrious St. John (who, interestingly enough [then a Plain Township precinct committee person] was at the Alliance event) in Balas-Bratton's attempt to have him removed from the Stark BOE February 21st hearing).

In a somewhat shocking turn of events, St. John himself was roundly defeated by a John Ferrero ally.

VIVIANNE WHALEN DUFFRIN

Vivianne Whalen Duffrin knows all about being in the path of an irate Maier.

From that blog:

Just as a case in point as to the degree of political "bad blood" that continues to flow between the Maiers and Ferrero, let's look at the matter of Vivianne Whalen Duffrin.

Duffrin, a lawyer, was a long term human resources person for former Sheriff Tim Swanson (who had given Mike McDonald his blessing to succeed him as sheriff).

She even remained after Maier's appointment by the SCDP-CC on February 5th.

However, a matter that did not get a whole lot of publicity at the time was the fact that she weighed in on the George T. Maier qualification question on the wrong side insofar as her longevity at the sheriff's department.

She was of the opinion that George was not qualified under the provisions of ORC 311.01.

Anyone who knows Johnnie A. Maier, Jr knows that he does not forget things like Duffrin's act.

On October 11, 2013 Duffrin was unceremoniously fired by George from sheriff's position and get this:  "in the middle of negotiations with various 'union represented' grouped-employees within the department."

How that - "in the middle of negotiations - for George T. Maier looking out for the interests of Stark County taxpayers?

Does anybody doubt that her firing was political payback?

Guess who was back on the job November 7, 2013 after George was ousted by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 6th?

Guess who resigned late in the evening of December 11th after George was reappointed by the Stark Dems that same day?

And where did she end up with new employment?

You've got it!

The staff of Stark County prosecutor John D. Ferrero!!!

If that ain't an "in your face" George T. Maier, the SCPR does not know what it is?

THOMAS ROGERS

So does Massillon police officer Thomas Rogers who got passed (illegally, as it turns out) over for promotion to sergeant in favor of George T. Maier's son at a session of the Massillon Civil Service Board (MCB) as George, "apparently" in his capacity as Massillon's safety director, attended the meeting at which his son prevailed over Rogers.

Although it was obvious to most that the MCB case on behalf the interests of George's son, carried through the level of Ohio's second highest court (the 5th District Court of Appeals; having lost before Stark Court of Common Pleas), was not winnable; the Kathy Catazaro-Perry administration plowed on.

What a disappointment (sarcasm) that Catazaro-Perry (politically mentored and administratively propped up by JAM), didn't try to get the Supreme Court of Ohio to hear the case, no?

PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO

Watch out Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero!

Remember, Ferrero was the guy who got "the resist the Maier Political Machine" started on February 5, 2013 when he managed, in filing an affidavit that he was of the opinion that George T. Maier was not qualified under ORC 311.01, to, accordingly, convince 83 other Democratic precinct committee persons to vote no on George.

Ferrero got humiliated by Chairman Gonzalez at the February 5th selection event with what the SCPR thinks was thinly disguised disgust that he had done the affidavit questioning Maier's qualification to be sheriff.

The vote of ended up 92 (George T. Maier), 84 (Lou Darrow).

Truly amazing, no!

It seems as if JAM and folks like his chief deputy of the Massillon clerk of courts and Stark County Democratic Party political director R. Shane Jackson were "asleep at the switch" in monitoring the loyalty level of those who were elected/appointed as precinct committee persons.

Just like Johnnie and Shane were "asleep at the switch" and focused on electing the dependent on them  Kathy Catazaro-Perry mayor of Massillon all the while losing control of Massillon City Council to the Republicans in the election of November, 2011.

Never mind that the Ohio Supreme Court validated Ferrero on November 6, 2013 in finding for former Sheriff Tim Swanson in a quo warranto, he filed on February 12, 2013.

Think these folks are looking for a way to visit you with some Ferrero comeuppance?

But getting Ferrero will not be as easy as going after Duffrin and Balas-Bratton.

They (the Maier Political Machine) did get close to a close confidant of Ferrero.

Look at this Democratic precinct committee person contest.

Hmm?

Margaret Elum.

Who's she?

For beginners, she is the top administrative aide to Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

Beyond that connection, she is the wife of Massillon Municipal Court judge Eddie Elum who in the estimate of the SCPR is one of Johnnie A. Maier's top supporters

One thing about Prosecutor Ferrero, he showed on September 21, 2013 at the Western Dems annual Clambake he can do his own humiliating.

A September 27, 2013 SCPR blog outlined how Maier ally Catazaro-Perry was slated to introduce Ohio treasurer Democratic candidate Connie Pillich at the clambake.

Massillon's mayor was ignored by Ferrero who instead did the Pillich introduction himself.

A highly offended Kathy Catazaro-Perry walked out in a huff.

Hmm?

SUE RYAN OF ALLIANCE

While we are dealing with precinct committee persons, it is more than worthy mentioning that Alliance councilwoman Sue Ryan got the lesson of her life for not being loyal enough to George T. Maier, and, of course, derivatively to JAM.

Ryan actually believed that it was doable for her to become president of Alliance City Council which came into being because of the death on March 30th of president since 1994 John Benincasa  (on the vote of the SCDP-CC/Alliance branch).

She forgot, apparently, that she had refused George T. Maier loyalist Derrick Loy (who was hired by SCDP-CC appointed Sheriff George T. Maier in September, 2013 as an administrative assistant) back in early 2013 that she sign a loyalty pledge to him as the Party appointee.

The SCPR thinks that when it became apparent that Loy was so thoroughly disliked by Democratic officials including, it seems, a majority of SCDP-CC members, Chairman Gonzalez, The Report thinks turned to former Alliance Democratic councilman Steve Okey who has plenty of folks in Alliance  (more the Republicans than the Democrats, but he is far from completed embraced by Alliance Dems)  who are not wild about him but less so than Loy.

Okey did try hard to be the equal of Loy in terms of being disliked in Alliance political circles.

In filing a lawsuit against Alliance City Council out of his "deep concern" for transparent government and the upholding of Ohio's Sunshine Law in Alliance, he excluded then Alliance City Council John Benincasa and Ward 2 Councilwoman Phyllis Phillip who (i.e. Phillips) just happened to be - at the time - a SCDP-CC/Alliance member.

It is essential to George T. Maier, if he to have a more than 50/50 chance to be elected sheriff to have someone in eastern Stark County help him make inroads this presumably pro-Larry Dordea section of Stark.

And Okey is going to be his point person in Alliance and surrounds.

The SCPR was always skeptical of Ryan's persistence that she was going to win over Okey.

And, sad to say, The Report was right on the mark.

She was stunned to learned that Schroeder and Williams had been flipped from supporting her to supporting Okey.

The SCPR was not,  For The Report it was simply of matter of converting supposed Ryan voters into Okey voters. 

It was humorous to hear Okey chortling away about "the closeness of the vote."

Of course, the implication is that he was in doubt right up to the minute of the vote.

The SCPR certainly does not believe that.

And guess who swore in Okey as council president this past Monday evening at the regular Alliance City Council meeting?

You've got it!  George T. Maier. 

One has to wonder whether or not Sue Ryan has any Maier sourced comeuppance in store?

We shall see!

KATHLEEN CLUNK

Kathleen Clunk (an Alliance precinct committee person at the time of the Alliance council presidency selection) was willing to go on the SCPR camera on April 30th and allege that Gonzalez as chairman discriminated against her in that only George T. Maier supporters on the SCDP-CC she says were notified to submit their petitions for the precinct committee person elections which took place this past Tuesday.



Gonzalez when queried sometime back about previous complaints like Clunk's, answered that the Party simply couldn't afford to mail out to everybody.

Reeks of disingenuousness, no?

Doesn't surprise the SCPR in the slightest.

To the SCPR it is a flip of the coin as to who is more dissembling as between Canton mayor William J. Healy, II and Chairman Gonzalez.

HAS BALAS-BRATTON ATTORNEY CONLEY PUT TOGETHER "THE PERFECT BRIEF?"

By mid afternoon on Wednesday George T. Maier nemesis and Cynthia Balas-Bratton attorney Craig T. Conley had filed his client's brief and evidence with the Ohio Supreme Court in furtherance of his client's protest of George T. Maier being the Democratic candidate for sheriff in the May 6, 2014 primary election.

We shall know within a week, give a day or two, whether or not Conley put together "the perfect brief" in terms of being "the winning argument."

By the SCPR's analysis, Conley's brief is pretty impressive, perhaps even perfect, but - as The Report as frequently opined in these pages, in making a ruling "the Supreme Court does not have to be correct, it just has to be the Supreme Court."

Actually, the statement comes from Conley himself who, as I recall, picked it up from another source.

What is interesting about the potential of the Conley argument is that it is so constructed that the high court may never get to the merits of the case.

Really?

How's that?

THE BACKGROUND

Remember Conley's focus on one Deametrious St. John during the run up to the February 21, 2014 hearing on the Balas-Bratton protest?

St. John, one of two Stark County Democratic Party appointees to the Stark Board of Elections (BOE), had been foolish enough to make himself a media star and make pronouncements that indicated to Conley and many others that he (St. John) had already made up his mind on how he would be voting on a protest filed by Conley's client (Cynthia Balas-Bratton) on George T. Maier's qualification to be a candidate for Stark County sheriff on the May 6, 2014 Stark County Democratic Party ballot.

Balas-Bratton filed her "protest" with the Stark BOE on February 11th.

The BOE met on February 17th to set a hearing date (February 21st) and to dispose of several administrative and procedural issues.

On February 21st the hearing was held and as expected to the Republican Party appointed BOE members (Curt Braden and William Cline) deadlocked with the two Democratic members (St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr), and it was left to Secretary of State Jon Husted to break the tie.

Which, surprisingly enough he did in siding with the Democrats saying that he chose "to err on the side of ballot access" and that he was unable to determine one way or the other whether or not Maier was qualified under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(9)(a) or (b).

In doing so, the SCPR believes that Husted wittingly and intentionally left a large hole for Balas-Bratton and her attorney to drive a bus through in their quest to have the Ohio Supreme Court reverse him.

And who better to drive that bus than one Craig T. Conley.

Of all the legal counsel taking part in the Maier qualification matter, The Report thinks Conley is most knowledgeable and prepared.

And that takes in a lot of territory.

Readers of the SCPR will recall the filing of a quo warranto by interim Sheriff Tim Swanson on February 12, 2013 (Greg Beck, the lead counsel) to have Maier (appointed by the Dems on February 5, 2013 to fill in for Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald [who could not take office as required on January 7, 2012 due to an illness from which he died on February 22nd] removed as a usurper in that he was not qualified under ORC 311.01 to be sheriff.

The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with Swanson and Beck and removed Maier on November 6, 2013.

How impressive was that?

On December 11th, the Dems reappointed Maier.

Consequently, the battle of his ORC 311.01 looms large.

Sections 311(B)(9)(a) or (b) are a focal point of the Balas-Bratton challenge to Maier's candidacy to serve beyond December 31, 2014 as Stark County sheriff.

Had St. John not mucked things up with his desire to be a media celebrity, the SCPR thinks that Maier had a better (though likely still not better than 50/50) chance to remain on May's ballot.

And in doing so, he handed Balas-Bratton a gift that The Report thinks has plenty of promise to be George T. Maier's undoing.

What organization wouldn't like to be an executive vice president (St. John) who in a quest to be the local yokel "from the big city" savior? 

It is interesting to the SCPR that St. John appears to look down his nose at Stark County's "organized" Democrats on the basis of his having learned the "art of 'power' politics" at the feet of Cleveland/Cuyahoga County political strongman George Forbes might end up being the reason that George T. Maier is ruled off the May ballot and concomitantly the Democrats have nobody to challenge Republican Larry Dordea.

The Report imagines that St. John these days is frequently down on his hands and knees praying to the "God of 'all things political'" that his "day in the media sun" is not THE basis on which the Supreme Court makes its decision which results in Maier's disqualification from the ballot.

In a St. John induced-decision scenario, Ohio's "court of last resort" rules that St. John had locked himself in by his own words and, thereby, "on the face of it" tainted the BOE hearing process to such a degree that Balas-Bratton ended up being denied her due process of law constitutional rights.

Should the Supreme Court negate St. John's vote, then Maier fails to qualify by a 2 to 1 vote and Husted's tie-braker is thereby negated.

As the SCPR understands Conley's position, such is how he sees the likely outcome of the Supreme Court's handling of Balas-Bratton v. Husted, et al.

If Conley is correct and the Ohio Supreme Court takes the St. John way out, the court avoids having to go into a thoroughgoing analysis of the provisions of ORC 311.01(B)(9).

By Ohio statutory law, Husted was compelled - as the tie-breaker -  to sift through the evidence submitted and make a "finder of fact" determination in the light of ORC 311.01 statutory standards as to whether or not Maier meets subsection (9)(a) or (b) criteria.

Husted's failure (assuming the court rules that St. John should not have been one of the BOE decision makers) will have in effect left Maier "in the lurch" on the matter of his qualifying or not under the ORC 311.01 scheme of things.

Moreover, the man who self-describes as being a "a political operative" and who insinuated on February 15th of this year (the day he was replaced by the Stark Dems as a BOE member with his term set to expire on the 28th) that the Stark Dems were nothing but political "rubes" in comparison to his political upbringing under Forbes, will likely be thought in Stark Democratic Party Executive Committee circles (if his media grandstanding results in Husted getting overturned) as being the man who cost George T. Maier an opportunity to be elected sheriff.

CONLEY'S BRIEF

Thanks to St. John's media performance, Conley comes right out of the box with with a pathway the high court has to like.

The Balas-Bratton brief opens with the "threshold" question of whether or not Dem BOE member St. John's pre-hearing media comments worked a denial of "due process of law" on the prosecution of her "protest" of Maier's candidacy.

There is a saying:  "the first impression is the last impression."

In first signaling the Supreme Court that the court has an easy way available to dispose of the Writ on a concrete constitutional basis (.i.e. denial of due process of law) due to St. John's media exuberance, Conley has made, the SCPR thinks, an indelible impression on the court in using language that will catch the court's attention and likely will stay with the seven justices throughout the course of the court's deliberation.

No doubt the court will look at the ORC 311.01 arguments with interest.

However, it should be readily apparent that getting into taking the evidence submitted by the various parties in this consideration of Balas-Bratton v. Husted, et al and comparing it the provisions of 311.01(B)(9)(a)/(b) is a rather daunting task even for a body like the Ohio Supreme Court and its vast legal resources.

Readers need to recall that in Swanson v. Maier, the court refused to go further than an analysis of ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a)/(b) inasmuch as the court's scrutiny of those provisions was enough for the court to determine that Maier' failure to qualify under either of them made it superfluous to go on to 311.01(B)(9), to wit:

Accordingly, the focus of this SCPR blog will be on the Balas-Bratton "due process of law" argument which The Report thinks could well be a dispositive argument.

However, Conley does make another (in addition to the ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) and (b) arguments) interesting argument under ORC 2733.14.

2733.14 Judgment when office, franchise, or privilege is usurped.

When a defendant in an action in quo warranto is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising an office, franchise, or privilege, judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom, and that the relator recover his costs.  Effective Date: 10-01-1953 

Of course, as we Stark Countians know all too well, the Ohio Supreme Court did find Maier guilty of usurping in its November 6, 2013.

Could this argument be another "easier way out" of the more difficult ORC 311.01(B)(9) legal minefield?

BUILDING THE "VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS"
ST. JOHN BIAS ARGUMENT

Conley skillfully wends his way through the St. John "for Maier" history:

1. St. John [SCPR note:  executive vice president of the Dems] citing qualification criteria endorsed George T. Maier [SCPR note: over Lou Darrow] on Maier personal stationery pre-February 5, 2013.
2. St. John voted as a Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) member on February 5, 2013 to appoint George T. Maier as McDonald's successor.
3. St. John voted as a SCDP-CC member to appoint Maier a second time (after the 11/06/2013 Supreme Court finding a violation of 311.01(B)(8)) on December 11, 2013.
4. St. John in a interview to local media within days of his sitting as a "quasi-judicial" public official on the Balas-Bratton "protest" of the Maier candidacy stated:  "I've always believed he [SCPR note:  Maier] met the qualifications."
5. Balas-Bratton insisted pre-hearing that St. John step aside and not be one of the determiners of her protest but was refused by St. John himself, the Stark BOE and the Ohio secretary of state and in doing so preserved her "denial of due process" arguments.
6. St. John, at the conclusion of the Balas-Bratton "protest," [SCPR note:  "go figure,'] moved to qualify Maier and voted for his own motion.

Hence, Conley's powerful closing on the "denial of due process" argument:

The SCPR thinks it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will wade into the ORC 311.01 waters given the compressed time frame within which it must act given ballot publication timeline concerns especially with having been provided the justices' powerful legal pathway on "denial of due process" grounds.

On the chance that the Supremes decide to wade in, it seems to the SCPR that advantage is still with the Balas-Bratton position.

In the Applicable Jurisdiction section of his brief, Conley paints a vivid picture of principles of law that apply to Balas-Bratton.

1. Citing 1995 Supreme Court legal precedent, Conley sets up that when it comes to interpreting ORC 311.01 provisions, "it is the responsibility of the courts to enforce the literal language of statute.
2. Courts are not to add or delete words to/from statutes,
3. A year is not the cobbling together of parts of years to make up full years, rather a year is defined in Ohio law to be "12 consecutive months."  (SCPR note:  the definition of a year is a bone of contention in the interpretation of a year under ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a))
4. A number of Supreme Court decisions (despite the fact that Jon Husted says the law is unclear and ambiguous) have held 311.01(B)(9)'s language to be "definite," "unambiguous," and clear with specific reference in the precedent cases to:
1. the requirement of two years supervisory experience as a peace officer, and
2. the requirement of the officer being at the rank of "corporal or above."

THE TWO YEARS OF SUPERVISORY EXPERIENCE- AS A PEACE OFFICER

Even it one does not contest (which Balas-Bratton does) whether or not Maier's stint as the second-in-command (and about seven days as first-in-command) at the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS) meets the standard of ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a), to wit:

(9) The person meets at least one of the following conditions:

(a) Has at least two years of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above, or has been appointed pursuant to section 5503.01 of the Revised Code and served at the rank of sergeant or above, in the five-year period ending immediately prior to the qualification date;

Conley's bottom line position is that Maier is short a number of days having "at least two years of supervisory experience as a peace officer."

Maier in his application process did try to take the February 11, 2013 to November 6, 2013 time as SCDP-CC appointed sheriff to solve the ODPS time period deficiency.

A problem?

Indeed.

In its November 6th decision, the Supreme Court said that in effect Maier was never the lawful sheriff of Stark County.

So how can he bootstrap himself, Conley argues, into meeting the two year requirement of ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) by adding service time that the Supreme Court itself said in Maier v. Swanson was from a legal standpoint "as if it had never occurred?"

THE TWO YEARS OF SUPERVISORY EXPERIENCE
- AS A CORPORAL OR ABOVE

Inasmuch as Maier did not have a literal rank of "corporal or above," the Maier legal team can only argue "equivalency."  


And that folks, the SCPR thinks, is a losing position because of the "literal" rule of construction Ohio's courts are held to and the reality that "equivalency" appears nowhere in ORC 311.01(B)(9(a).

AT LEAST TWO YEARS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Finally, Conley attacks the contention by the Maier proponents that he meets the criteria of ORC 311.01(B)(9)(b), to wit:

(b) Has completed satisfactorily at least two years of post-secondary education or the equivalent in semester or quarter hours in a college or university authorized to confer degrees by the Ohio board of regents or the comparable agency of another state in which the college or university is located or in a school that holds a certificate of registration issued by the state board of career colleges and schools under Chapter 3332. of the Revised Code.

And to make short-shrift of Maier's failure to meet this criterion of Ohio statutory law, one need to go no further than to look at the affidavit of a Stark State College official (Vogley):

"As of the date of this affidavit, Maier has not earned any credit at Stark."

And Maier testified at the February 21st "protest" hearing that he had not done any academic work at Stark State College."

Closed case on ORC 311.01(B)(9)(b), no?

A key point for purposes of the Supreme Court's handling of the Balas-Bratton Writ, the SCPR thinks, is that Secretary of State Jon Husted completely and utterly failed to make any finding on ORC 311.01.

In doing so, he totally undermined the import of his breaking the tie on the Stark BOE in terms of result holding in siding with the Democrats.

Had he merely said in his written findings that he adopted the findings of the Democrats as stated in the Dems position paper, he would then have placed a huge burden on Balas-Bratton to show that in doing so he had "abused his discretion."

But he didn't and thereby damaged the likelihood that Maier's place on the ballot will be validated.

With friends like the Republican secretary of state, who needs the enemies?

And one might add:  with friends (for the SCDP) like Deametrious St. John, who needs any enemies?

The clincher however for Balas-Bratton prevailing in Balas-Bratton v. Husted, et al may well be that her attorney Craig T. Conley in his submissions of documents (the brief and evidence) to the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday may have submitted "the perfect brief!"