APRIL 01, 2016 - A SAD DAY FOR STARK COUNTY - 7TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE REVELATION OF A THEFT OF TAXPAYER MONEY BY VINCE FRUSTACI FROM THE STARK CO TREASURY

The date:  April 01, 2009.

The SCPR was at the Stark County Office Building covering the regular weekly meeting of the Stark County commissioners (Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) when information broke that Stark County Chief Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci had been fired as he was suspected of stealing taxpayer money.

Ultimately, Frustaci was convicted on his guilty plea of having stolen $2.4 million Stark County taxpayer dollars.

Here is an extract from the SCPR's blog of April 1, 2009:

From the results of an interview with Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler this afternoon together with information gained from a source last evening, The Report believes the following is a sensible picture of how Chief Deputy Frustaci (earning about $50,000 per year) came to be fired by Zeigler.

On Tuesday (March 31st), The Report believes that Zeigler got a phone call from an area bank (Zeigler refused to identify the bank) informing the treasurer (Zeigler did not say so) that all was not right with the treasurer's bank account in terms of the interest factor. A SCPR source (not Zeigler) has told Report that it was interest that has been drained off the county account in question and not capital funds)

With this information, The Report believes Zeigler did some internal checking and confirmed to himself that there was a problem with the office account balance and satisfied himself that Frustaci was the Stark treasury employee who worked the account. Then, The Report believes Zeigler immediately initiated action to bring in the state auditor (Mary Taylor), Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson and Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrrero to investigate.

By the way, John Fererro walked into the treasurer's office as yours truly and an Alliance Review reporter were talking with Zeigler. Zeigler excused himself and walked off with Ferrero.

As part of the discussion with Zeigler, (because a federal bank account is a subject of the investigation), he did indicate that there is an possible federal aspect to this matter.

The Report's non-Zeigler source says that as this matter was breaking, Frustaci was either contacted or was contacted (while he was on vacation) a treasurer's office employee and learned of Auditor Taylor's crew contacting the office asking for certain records whereupon Frustaci allegedly told the office contact that nothing was to be given to Taylor until he returned to handle the matter.

From the beginning there was a lot of finger pointing as to whom was to blame for conditions to have existed over several years that the thefts are thought to have taken place for Frustaci to have been able to pull off the theft undetected until March, 2009.

A key document was an audit began by the State of Ohio Auditor (SOA) on April 1, 2009 and issued on February 26, 2010.

Here is a summary of the SOA findings outlined in a cover letter signed by then state auditor Mary Taylor (Republican, now lieutenant governor).

The Honorable Gary D. Zeigler
Stark County Treasurer
County Administration Building
110 Central Plaza - Suite 250
Canton, Ohio 44702-1410

We conducted a special audit of the Stark County Treasurer’s Office (SCTO) by performing the procedures enumerated in the attached Supplement to the Special Audit Report for the period January 1,
2005 through April 13, 2009 (the Period), solely to:

• Examine reconciliations of SCTO’s depository activity to the Stark County Auditor’s Office (SCAO) adjusted fund balances at each month end during the Period and at April 13, 2009, to determine whether funds received were deposited into SCTO’s bank and investment accounts.

• Examine available documentation supporting certain SCTO disbursements for the Period to determine whether the disbursements were for SCTO-related purposes.

This engagement was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections established by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (January 2005). The procedures and associated findings are detailed in the attached Supplement to the Special Audit Report. 

A summary of our procedures and significant results is as follows:

1. We examined month-end reconciliations, bank statements and other relevant documentation and determined whether the SCTO depository and book balance agreed to the total fund balance maintained by the SCAO for the period January 1, 2005 through April 13, 2009.

Significant Results – In examining these documents and using the reconciled bank balances, we determined the SCTO’s depository balance did not agree with its book balance or SCAO’s adjusted fund balance due to shortages identified in the head cashier’s vault; inaccurate posting of interest/investment income and related service charges/investment expenses; and unauthorized manual checks issued and cashed by a SCTO employee.

We recalculated the head cashier’s vault cash balance and determined the vault cash was short $2,734,560 on April 13, 2009. In Issue No. 2, we noted two unauthorized checks totaling $230,000 were issued from SCTO’s bank accounts. Accordingly, we issued a finding for recovery against Vince Frustaci, chief deputy treasurer, for $2,734,560 of public monies collected but unaccounted for and $230,000 of public monies illegally expended.

We made one noncompliance citation for maintaining a vault cash balance in excess of amounts established by SCTO policies.

We made nine management recommendations addressing internal control weaknesses noted in the reconciliation process, vault cash collection process, cash drawer overages/shortages, tracking and recording unclaimed wires, recording interest income earned and fees incurred, and segregating the cash collection and reconciliation processes.

2. We examined bank, investment, and trust account statements, wire transfers, canceled checks and other relevant documentation and determined whether certain SCTO disbursements during the Period were for SCTO-related operations.

Significant Results – We examined available documentation supporting 1,285 canceled checks and wire transfers totaling $1,219,076,533 and 201 deposits into SCTO’s First Merit Bank trust accounts and determined these transactions were for SCTO-related operations with the exception of two checks. We determined former Chief Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci improperly issued and cashed two checks written to First Merit Bank totaling $230,000. These funds were not spent for SCTO-related operations.

We made one noncompliance citation for SCTO to maintain records supporting daily and month end reconciliations including the amounts reflected on those documents and disbursements of SCTO funds in accordance with the Commissioner’s records retention schedule.

We made one management recommendation for SCTO to develop and implement an operations manual documenting procedures for collecting, depositing, and recording payments received;
processing wire transfers, and completing daily and monthly reconciliations.

3. On June 14, 2010, we held an exit conference with the following individuals representing the SCTO:

Honorable Gary D. Zeigler, Treasurer
Lem Green, Deputy Treasurer
Honorable John D. Ferrero, Prosecuting Attorney

The attendees were advised they had an opportunity to respond to this special audit report. No response was received.

/s/ Mary Taylor

For his part Gary Zeigler steadfastly rejected the SOA finding in terms of accepting that he had done anything wrong in the management of the Stark treasury.  And he refused to resign from office despite many calls that he do so.

On July 28, 2010 a lawsuit was filed in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas whereby the Stark County treasurer, the State of Ohio and the Stark County commissioners sought recovery as provided for by Ohio statutory law (ORC 321.37) for recovery against Frustaci, Zeigler (who was not accused of or alleged to have any part whatsoever in the theft), and bonding and insurance companies providing bonds/insurances as required by Ohio law.

On August 23, 2010 the Stark County Board of commissioners as a follow on to the civil lawsuit having be filed under ORC 321.37 instituted proceedings to and did on the 23rd remove Gary Zeigler as Stark County treasurer.

On September 7, 2010 Zeigler filed a quo warranto with the Ohio Supreme Court contesting his removal by the commissioners.

On June 23, 2011 the Supreme Court found:

Because R.C. 321.38 does not require a complaint and hearing before authorizing a board of county commissioners to remove a county treasurer, it is incompatible with Section 38, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, and thus is unconstitutional on its face

and thereby restored Zeigler (a Democrat) to office.

Eventually (October 19, 2011), the Stark County commissioners reached a settlement with Zeigler whereby he agreed to retire/resign on that date whereupon the commissioners appointed Republican Alex Zumbar as treasurer.

(SCPR Note:  Zumbar won election as treasurer in November, 2010 as the nominee of the Stark County Republican Party.  However, the June 23rd Supreme Court decision negated the election results)

On October 31st, in the face of the commissioners having appointed Zumbar on October 19th and other Stark County communitywide pressure, the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee appointed Zumbar to fill out Zeigler's term.

Indeed, April 1, 2009 was a sad day for Stark Countians.  There were a number of political reverberations on account of revelations which flowed from that date.

But the most trying was that it was clear to many public officials that Stark Countians had lost a great deal of the trust they had in county government.

The commissioners did the best they could to recover taxpayer monies and here is an accounting that The Report obtained from Stark County Auditor Alan Harold

• (SCPR Note:  Harold, a Republican, likely won office in November, 2010 as a consequence of the troubles in the treasury because the incumbent Democrat [Kim Perez] was apparently perceived by the public to not having done enough to bring his misgivings about the practices and procedures in treasury to the authorities attention)

a printout of the final financial cost to Stark County taxpayers, to wit:

At the end of the day, Stark Countians were out $1,546,441.01.

But the greater damage was the loss of trust that Stark Countians had for their government.

The Stark County commissioners did not try to get Stark Countians to renew an existing sales tax levy or put on a replacement sales tax in the November, 2010/May, 2011 election because they thought that the trust factor was so low that a tax issue had virtually no chance of passing.

However, through the hard work of newly elected commissioners (November, 2010) Thomas Bernabei (Democrat, a highly respected former law director, councilman and service director for Canton) and Janet Creighton (Republican; a well thought of former Stark County recorder and auditor and mayor of Canton), county government has made a rapid recovery on the trust front.

While things are way far brighter on April 1, 2014 than the were on April 1, 2009, work remains.

The commissioners yesterday had some unhappy county officials in their board meeting room for a work session expressing their distress at not having their requested appropriations for the 2014 budget year approved.

If the commissioners grant the requested additional money, it could mean that the recently adopted budget (a mere two weeks ago) will have to be reworked with other Stark County departments of government receiving less than they thought (two weeks ago).

Any such development undoubtedly will create some rancor among the departments of government and therein make the commissioners' job of maintaining a "solvent" through 2019 objective problematic.

The 0.5% sales tax increase approved by Stark Countians in the November, 2011 election is due to expire in 2019.

Getting the county department of governments to self-discipline on fiscal matters has proved to be very difficult indeed for the commissioners to accomplish.

It is far from certain as of today that Stark County can make it until 2019 without experiencing another round of draconian cuts that occurred in 2010 through 2011 as a consequence of Stark's meager 0.25% sales tax expiring.

Sadness lingers on this "unhappy anniversary date" of April 01, 2016 of past treasury department travails.

Fortunate for Stark County that the leadership of Thomas Bernabei and Janet Creighton has brought the county out of the depths of despair.

The lesson from what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has name "Zeiglergate" is that elected officials need to be persistently vigilant in detecting structures of governance (i.e. administrative procedures and physical facilities) that present opportunities for those with an inclination to violate the public trust to do so.

FORMER STARK TREASURER GARY D. ZEIGLER ATTACKS THE STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT?

The Stark County Political Report has been the object of attack by various public officials, public figures (present) and now "apparently" former Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler.

Thusly, Zeigler joins a list of few headliner Stark County government/political figures who have, at one time or another, launched a diatribe on Stark County's (if I must say so myself) most incisive and courageous media outlet.

Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero filed an ethics complaint with the Ohio Supreme Court's Disciplinary Counsel against me early in 2010 because of SCPR blogs on his and his office's handling of complaints made against Marlboro police chief Ron Devies and his son Kyle.

Massillon Municipal Court judge Eddie Elum threatened me with a Disciplinary Counsel complaint for doing blogs on his political fight with former Massillon police chief Robert Williams.  It is more than a tad ironic that the Williams matter ended up in an ethics complaint being filed against Elum which resulted in a Supreme Court finding against him.

Massillon Clerk of Courts chief deputy R. Shane Jackson (also, political director of the "organized" Stark County Democratic Party) sent a "nasty gram email" (copied to a number of public officials) to me back in September, 2013 in which he tried to paint a picture of me being insensitive to the memory of November, 2012 Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald.

•  NOTE:  Quite to the contrary, I have a very high opinion of Mike McDonald and have written glowing of him in various blogs.

Attorney Steve Okey (who represented the Stark County Democratic Party in a mandamus action filed by Attorney Greg Beck for Lou Darrow and Tim Swanson) sent a "nasty gram email" to me suggesting that I was insensitive to law enforcement officers and George T. Maier in particular in placing Maier's picture in "political" crosshairs.  My blog was "pure political speech."  Nothing more.

I believe that Stark County Republican Party officials sent an emissary to me in order to jawbone me out of posting the Phil Davison video and his "political rant" at the September, 2010 Stark GOP executive committee meeting.  The meeting resulted in Alex Zumbar being appointed to be the Republican candidate to replace the-then removed (August, 2010) Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler in the November, 2010 general election.

And there have been a number of other attempts by other Stark County-based public officials/public figures to stifle the Stark County Political Report.

So why would Zeigler join the list?

It seems that he was upset by a blog ( which I call "the political comeuppance blog, " (PC blog) published on January 16th) I did  last Thursday (January 17th) which was focused on a political ally and employee of former Stark County auditor Kim Perez.

The Perez ally/former employee had complained to me about Perez successor Alan Harold (as Stark County auditor) deciding to get out of the deputy registrar business.

The Report covered Harold's appearance at the regular weekly meeting of the Stark County commissioners (January 15, 2014) at which Harold explained - in general - why he was getting out of the BMV business.

As the SCPR always does, I followed up with Harold after the commissioners approved his exit as a deputy registrar and zeroed in on him for more detail.

And he provided it.

The SCPR's preliminary conclusion on the county BMV exit was that Harold was amply justified (i.e. Ohio insisted that his wife sign on to be personally liable should there be a loss of money due to malfeasance/misfeasance, et cetera) in exiting notwithstanding the $400,000 to $460,000 in revenues generated over the span of the county's involvement (2006 through 2014).

In 2006 former auditor Perez signed on in his role as county auditor into the business of issuing State of Ohio license plates in Stark County.

A supplement conclusion of The Report in that blog was that the Perez political ally attack was just that and his concern was in reality was a "political" attack on Harold as "comeuppance" for Harold's defeat of Perez in 2010 which resulted in the complainer losing his job in the auditor's office.

The complainer was saying that Harold in getting of the license plate business was throwing away hundreds of thousands of revenue (which amounted to about $50,000 in annual net profit) for no good reason.

But the SCPR's examination of the matter showed the contrary.

In that blog, I provided some background of the nasty, nasty campaign between Harold and Perez including a photo:

• (taken by The Repository and published on October 17, 2010 and which remains on the Internet) of  a Harold billboard campaign roadside ad of a "golf outing" which included Perez, an blurred-out (facially) person, Frustaci and Zeigler
• depicting (by a Harold campaign supplied caption) Perez, in his capacity of being Stark County auditor, should have (according to Harold) have been watching treasury office operations more closely so as to prevent or at least minimize the theft by Vince Frustaci
• depicting (by a Harold campaign supplied caption) Frustaci (a chief deputy in the Stark treasury during the 1999 - October 19, 2011 [Frustaci was fired on April 1, 2009] tenure of Gary Zeigler) of what is believed to have been some $2.9 million in Stark County taxpayer funds. (Note:  Zeigler has never been implicated in the Frustaci theft) and
• depicting (by a Harold campaign supplied caption) Zeigler as having been fired - "the guy they fired" - (as Stark County treasurer),
• NOTE:  The base photo had been on public display in the lobby of the Stark County sheriff's office.  Sheriff Tim Swanson was then and possibly remains a personal and political friend of Zeigler who wrote "letters to the editor" in support of Zeigler during various times that Zeigler served as treasurer.

Apparently, Zeigler has been ruminating ever since over the unfortunate turn of events that local attorney and civic activist Craig Conley has tabbed as being "Zeiglergate."

We haven't head much from Zeigler since he retired/resigned from office on October 19, 2011.

But that may be all changed as perhaps indicated by his launching a couple of "nasty gram email" attacks on me in recent days using the blog described above as a pretext to vent on me.

Zeigler's history since the onset of his trouble times at the county treasury has been to blame others for his difficulties.

The one place he seems not to be looking at for one nanosecond is where?

You have it.

At himself!

A number of Stark Countians think he failed himself (and derivatively Stark County government/taxpayers):

• in his initial hire of Frustaci, 
• NOTE:  On April 1, 2009, (the date the Frustaci story broke) Zeigler told me that Frustaci was just some guy he knew out on the golf course
• in promoting him over a relatively short time frame to chief deputy treasurer, and,
• in not - in the view of quite a few Stark Countians and the State of Ohio auditor's office  - beefing up sufficiently, if at all:
• the security of treasury office facilities, 
• treasury procedures,
• treasury practices and
• treasury policy

and, accordingly, has only himself to blame for his troubles.

But it is rather obvious he is not into self-examination.

For some odd reason, he thinks the SCPR is someone he wants try on for size for venting.

Here is the e-mail he fired off to me last Thursday, to wit:

Article  

From:  Gary Zeigler  Thurs., January 16, 2014 at 9:50 AM

To:  tramols@att.net

Martin...  I have seen your article and picture that you have posted on your blog... as an attorney yourself.. you should be aware of the USA copy write [sic] laws. or if you are not familiar with them.. maybe you should take the time to read up on them and you had no permission from me or any one in that photo! to do so. Your article has severely jeopardized a vary large business deal and you will be hearing from my attorneys on that.  Haver [sic] a nice day!!

                                                       Gary Zeigler

My reaction?

You have got to be kidding!

A copyright law issue?

No way, Jose!

Remember, the included/referenced photo was taken by The Repository and used by me under the copyright "fair use" doctrine and, of course, attributed by the SCPR to The Rep's photographer who took the photo with a cite to the underlying article (by reporter Kelli Young).

So, I shared the e-mail with local attorney and civic activist Craig Conley (whom the SCPR has had occasion to criticize [the repeal of the "imposed" Bosley, Harmon and Vignos [as the-then Stark County commissioners] who volunteered on a "pro bono" (for the public good) basis to respond to Zeigler on my behalf.

The Conley letter:

End of matter?

No!

It appears that almost immediately on receiving Conley's letter that Zeigler was on his computer once again, to wit:

Poster

From:  Gary Zeigler  Fri., January 17, 2014 at 5:24 PM

To:  tramols@att.net

Martin... Your letter from your attorney does not empress [sic] me .. You better take a close look at your article.. I was not [FIRED] according to the Supreme Courts decision. You make no! comment in your article that I retired and was not fired.   That's a problem !!!
                                                                                               Gary Zeigler

Aha!

The real reason for the "upset" of Gary Zeigler, no?

To repeat:

I was not [FIRED] according to the Supreme Courts [sic] decision.

My response.

The "he was fired" attribution belongs to the Alan Harold campaign which formulated the billboard political advertisement; not Martin Olson.

But now that Zeigler brings it up, perhaps, it would be interesting to take a look at his assertion:  "I was not [FIRED] according to the Supreme Courts [sic] decision."

This from Zeigler,  notwithstanding that the PC blog of last Thursday was about Alan Harold and the BMV issue.

Like a number of Stark County public officials (elected and unelected:  e.g. - as pointed out above - Ferrero, Jackson, Elum, Okey, the Stark GOP leadership and others) who obviously do not like the incisive reporting and opinionating of the Stark County Political Report, it appears that Zeigler has been "sitting all over me" waiting for something surface, anything - no matter how ridiculous and minute - to jump on me about.

Although I do not think I have any obligation to do so, when something like Zeigler's e-mail surfaces, I think it over, and, oft times will go and do what I think I have no obligation to do.

And I am quick to provide space to those who take exception to my blogs. 

The Stark County general public is well aware that the Ohio Supreme Court (Zeigler v. Zumbar,  et al, [quo warranto] 129 Ohio St.3d 240, 2011-Ohio-2939) re-instated Gary Zeigler on June 23, 2011 because the Stark County commissioners (Bosley, Meeks and Ferguson) in replacing him on August 23, 2010.

It is understandable that in Zeigler's mind he wants to think he was not fired and will "grasp at straws" to find justification that satisfies his need to believe what he is determined to believe.

However, there are a number of Stark Countians who think otherwise and who prefer use the "fired" term rather that the "replaced" term.

So the question is whether or not the Ohio Supreme Court's use of the "replaced" terminology rather the word "fired" is "a distinction without a difference?"

Whatever term one wants to use, the reality is that Zeigler vacated his office on the day that Commissioners' "dismissed" him from office and his departure was involuntary.

Readers of the SCPR know that when I get into things, I have a history of being rather thorough.

In light of Zeigler's second e-mail, I went back to the Supreme Court decision itself to see exactly how the court put things in terms of Zeigler being dismissed by the commissioners on August 23, 2010.

To start with:  (at paragraph 5 of the decision)

On August 18, 2010, the board of commissioners adopted a resolution to hold a special meeting and hearing on August 23 to “consider the Special Audit Report and the Complaint,” “determine whether GARY D. ZEIGLER, Stark County Treasurer, has failed to make a settlement or to pay over money as prescribed by law,” and “determine whether the Board should remove such Stark County Treasurer pursuant to R.C. 321.38.”

Next:  (at paragraph 7 of the decision)

On the date of the special hearing, August 23, the common pleas court declared that “R.C. 321.38 when read in pari materia with R.C. 321.37 [SCPR NOTE:  Zeigler having filed a Declaratory Judgement action against the commissioners which was consolidated with a "recoupment" action against Zeigler by Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero] does not violate Article II, Section 38, of the Ohio Constitution,” that the “due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not applicable to the within action,” and that “[a]ny due process issue under either the United States or Ohio Constitution[] is resolved by the Board’s resolution of August 18, 2010.”  The court denied Zeigler’s motions for injunctive relief. Zeigler appealed from the common pleas court’s order, and the appeal is currently stayed pending the resolution of this quo warranto case. (emphasis added)

 Next:  (at paragraph 8 of the decision)

On that same day, the board of commissioners conducted an evidentiary hearing at which the board found: “the evidence presented demonstrated that there is no factual question that * * * $2,964,560 * * * came into the county treasury, and that said money is missing, * * * that Treasurer Zeigler failed to make settlement or to pay over money that is prescribed by law,” and that “the evidence showed that the theft from the Stark County Treasury was not an isolated incident, but occurred over a long period of time during Treasurer Zeigler’s tenure.” The board further found that “although Treasurer Zeigler committed no crime or malfeasance, [he] fail[ed] to appear and be heard about procedures he has implemented to restore the public’s confidence that their tax dollars are protected in the future.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the board voted to remove Zeigler immediately from the office of Stark County treasurer pursuant to R.C. 321.38. The board appointed Deputy Treasurer Jaime Allbritain to be acting county treasurer.

Next:  (at paragraph 23 of the decision)

Zeigler claims that he is entitled to the writ because the statute that the board of commissioners relied on to remove him from office, R.C. 321.38, is facially unconstitutional because it violates Section 38, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.

Next:  (at paragraph 41 of the decision)

In its August 23 decision, the board of commissioners specifically concluded that Zeigler had “committed no crime or malfeasance.”

And "finally:"  (at paragraph 42 of the decision)

Based on the foregoing, Zeigler has satisfied the burden to establish that R.C. 321.38 is unconstitutional on its face. It is important to recognize that although Zumbar was elected to the office of treasurer in November 2010, that midterm election occurred only because of Zeigler’s improper removal. Because we hold today that R.C. 321.38 is unconstitutional, the removal of Zeigler violated Section 38, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, and he is entitled to serve the remainder of his elected term, set to expire in September 2013.  (emphasis added)

The point of going through the Supreme Court decision is to show that Zeigler in his email has drawn "an inference" that the court said that "he was not fired."

Well, to be charitable to Zeigler, such an interpretation is in the realm of "being in the mind of the beholder."

Again, the Supreme Court's precise way of expressing that Zeigler's exit as Stark County treasurer was that he was "improperly removed.

Others would put a more strident term to the adjective "improper" and that would be the word "fired."

Alan Harold's campaign chose to use the word "fired."

Anyhow, in this blog and in many, many prior SCPR blogs, the import of the Ohio Supreme Court decision has been cited extensively.

So it boils down to Zeigler quibbling over the word used by various interpreters of what happened on August 23, 2011:  "removed," or "fired."

Isn't the argument an example of the proverbial "a matter of semantics.

All of which I think supports my surmise that Zeigler is a new example of those who attack me and my blog on spurious, and/or absurd, pre-textual grounds for no other reason than trying to intimidate me and thereby endeavoring to apply "a chilling effect" on the SCPR and concomitantly the Stark County public's access to the county's foremost political/government analysis and reporting on Stark County government and politics.

It is pretty clear to me that he has not been a happy camper about my blogs on his time in office as treasurer with particular emphasis on the time period after April 1, 2009.

The SCPR is "far and away" the most thoroughgoing presentation of Stark County public issues and election contests and the fast evolving and furious controversy over Zeigler's time in office.

Moreover, The Report had written quite a few critical blogs about Zeigler as treasurer and Stark County political figure in the year preceding April 1, 2009.  The SCPR began on March 12, 2007.

So the foregoing is the context of the Zeigler attack.

Gary Zeigler, if he cares about Stark Countians (who elected him repeatedly as county treasurer from 2000 through 2008 [once "unopposed], and their access to incisive analysis and reporting, should be apologizing to me for his unwarranted attack. 

Of course, he probably was not thinking that I would share with the SCPR reading public the details of his frivolous attack.

But neither did Ferrero, nor Jackson, nor Okey nor the Stark GOP leadership.

I do have the ability to respond to the likes of Zeigler.

I try to set the standard, in terms of transparency (among other democracy enhancing mechanisms), for what I think Stark County officialdom ought to follow.

That is why I bring gratuitous attacks into the light of the public arena.

The Stark County public should know in all its detail when a Gary Zeigler strikes out at "the messenger" (i.e. the media) with a comprehensive discussion as to the context.

And I understand that being the object of attack on what I think is "trumped-up" is part of the price to pay for SCPR's public office holder/public figure scrutiny.

Although I think Zeigler should have resigned after the Frustaci story broke (i.e. when the findings of the Ohio Auditor of State findings that he did not properly manage the facilities, practices and policies of the treasurer's office so has to - hopefully - prevent the Frustaci thefit); he chose not to do so - insisting - that he did not improperly manage his office.

In a way, one has to admire Zeigler's spunk and I even wrote at least one blog to that effect.

However, spunk is not enough.

My impression is that many, many Stark Countians disagree with his self-assessment.  And as we all know "public perception" is everything. 

And in our democratic republic the taxpaying/voting public is in charge, whether or not Zeigler or anyone else wants to accept that reality.

A feature of the SCPR thorougly enjoyed by many of The Reports' readers is the time and effort I put into videotaping the out-in-the-public-sight of many of the stories I cover.

As if he did not have enough to be concerned about in defending the lawsuit initiated by Prosecutor Ferrero to recover net monies (after bonds and insurance) lost as a consequence of the Frustaci theft, Zeigler decided to focus on denying the SCPR the right to videotape court proceedings.

Hmm?

Isn't that interesting?

The SCPR has been welcomed by every Stark County judge I have asked for permission to videotape (for the public benefit) "as a qualifying media."

I can only guess.  But it seems that Zeigler's feeling anti-Stark County Political Report runs so deep with him that he instructed his attorneys to deny me (but really the general Stark County public) the opportunity to videotape his court appearance.

To his credit, Judge Inderlied was having none of it.

I was game in this blog to go into detail about the commissioners August 23, 2010 removal or firing (whichever term one prefers to use) of Zeigler in response to his whining nasty gram email.

The SCPR explored in detail his quibble over the use of one word (fired) for another (removed).

Stark Countians can satisfy themselves (if only Zeigler will permit them a la "Gary, may I") which word they prefer to think of when remembering August 23, 2010 and the comissioners having replaced Gary D. Zeigler as Stark County treasurer.

He can only hope that they also remember that the removal was labeled - improper - because of the lack of the commissioners' failure to implement "due process of law" measures in their process of replacing him.

If only Zeigler - as many Stark Countians think - had paid as much attention to administrative detail when he was treasurer as he is to the nuances of words, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion today, no?

SWANSON/MAIER POLITICAL WAR TO COST DEMS SHERIFF SEAT?

SUBTOPIC OF BLOG

HAS

SWANSON

MISSED SOMETHING 
IN HIS

HOUSE CLEANING 
OF

"ALL THINGS MAIER?"

On the surface, Sheriff Tim Swanson and "pretender" sheriff George T. Maier are the main players.

But in the background, Stark County prosecutor (and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman [1996 - 2003) John Ferrero and executive vice chairman of the Stark Dems (former chairman 2003 - 2009) Johnnie A. Maier, Jr are the political forces fueling the huge and "take no prisoners" fight going on within the party.

And the Stark County Political Report is beginning to believe that the Dems internal bloodbath may result in two-time Republican sheriff candidate (2008 and 2012) Larry Dordea slipping in the "political" back door and becoming the first Republican sheriff in Stark County since the politically disastrous and turbulent reign (to the Stark GOP) of Robert Berens (the sheriff who is said to wear a bandolier [see picture below]) 1981 through 1984.

On election day this year, the Ohio Supreme Court did what The Report predicted it would do and validated Swanson's quo warranto lawsuit against Maier (filed February 12, 2013) in ousting Maier from the sheriff's office, saying that he was never the legal sheriff of Stark County because he did not meet the legal qualifications spelled by Ohio statutes in order for him to be entitled to remain in office as appointed by the Stark Dems by a 92 to 84 vote (over Lou Darrow, a current Stark County - rank "lieutenant" - deputy sheriff) on February 5th).

The high court's decision settled - "for the time being" - the Swanson/Maier fight began "in earnest" on the 5th.

But only for "the time being."

Swanson rushed back from his retirement home in Florida to re-assume command of the sheriff's office.

Immediately, he began "to clean house of all vestiges 'Maier'" and restore the longtime Swanson rule at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

But the SCPR did find one Maier reference that Swanson has not erased.

Really?

What is that?

On the page on the sheriff's website which lists Stark County sheriffs who have served since 1800, Maier's name remains.

Hmm?

The question is:  Will the Maier name still be there after Sheriff Swanson reads this blog?

After all Sheriff Tim, the Ohio Supreme Court has said that Maier was never the legal sheriff of Stark County!

The SCPR is willing to bet that because the page is buried deep in the bowels of the website, Maier's name remaining is a Swanson oversight.

Because Maier and his political allies (Chairman Randy "Gonz" Gonazlez and Maier, Jr) in command at Stark Democratic headquarters out on 12th Street in Canton have "laid down the gauntlet" in Gonzalez publicly saying that he is in full support of George T. Maier's declaration that he would seek a "second" Stark Dems appointment to the sheriff's office, there has been - what the SCPR believes to be a "political saber rattling" - in the form of Swanson suggesting to Canton's local daily newspaper that he is having Ferrero (his "political ally of the moment") look into whether or not George Maier committed a crime for (reportedly in Swanson's words) "deceiving residents and for falsely representing himself [to Stark Countians] as [being] a qualified candidate for the office."

It appears that George Maier's "guarantee" of being qualified is being taken to heart by Swanson.

Moreover, he will be using the foolhardy statement to fan the fires among Stark's organized Democrats to ensure that any new appointment goes to his sidekick Darrow.  

The SCPR is skeptical that Maier will - in the end - be in play for re-appointment.

But he likely will run in the May, 2014 Democratic primary.

Who doubts the likelihood that the primary will be a continuing "knock down, drag out" battle between the Fererro/Swanson versus Maier/Maier/Gonzalez forces?

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the Swanson allegation/suggestion/inquiry? has about as much chance of finding a lasting home in "the land of prosecutorial discretion" as does the proverbial chances of "a snowball in Hell."

For starters there is no way that Ferrero can (though he may have motivation) make a finding to prosecute George T. Maier because of his obvious "conflict-in-interest" status in that he back on February 5th issued an affidavit saying that Maier was in his opinion unqualified.

And the SCPR refuses to believe that a stand-in, "no-dog in this fight" prosecutor is going to give Swanson's allegation "the time of day."

The import of the Swanson "war of words" is that they amount to "a [political] battle cry" to the anit-Maier-forces among Stark Dems that seemingly threatens the Stark Dems with disintegration in the short run.

But not short enough to - perhaps - prevent the Republicans from taking electoral control next November of 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

The SCPR believes that the main reason Stark County has a Republican county treasurer (Zumbar - actually appointed to office under the chairmanship of "Gonz" under stifling civic and political pressure) and auditor (Harold) is that Gary D. Zeigler's (Zumbar's predecessor) went to war with the Stark Dems when they put extreme pressure on him to resign from office early on when the Vince Frustaci "theft-in-office" scandal broke on April 1, 2009.

Zeigler (who has never been implicated in the theft) has always maintained that he did nothing wrong and therefore there was no reason for him to resign as Stark County treasurer.

It is likely that many countywide, officeholding Democrats agreed with Zeigler including, perhaps, Chairman Gonzalez.

Gonazlez was later to say that presiding over (even advocating for [ironically, {in light of the current Swanson/Maier fight} aided by Mike McDonald] Republican Zumbar's appointment was the hardest political thing he has ever done.

Rank and file Democrats were not taking to the prospect of Republican Zumbar's appointment.  McDonald (whose resignation - as sheriff-elect from the election in November, 2013 precipitated the current Dems fight) stepped up on October 31, 2011 and made an emotional plea to assembled Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee members to support Chairman Gonzalez.

It could be that the McDonald's rush to the rescue saved Gonzalez's "political bacon," at least for that day.

However painful it was for Chairman Gonzalez, looking back he had to be lamenting the political reality was that the  Zeigler perspective was not the public perception and also square up with the knowledge that Zeigler's doggedness has cost the Dems dearly and for the foreseeable future.

When the state of Ohio auditor came out with a report after the Frustaci revelation that Zeigler's "protect the taxpayer's money" administrative policies, procedures, practices and facility infrastructure were not what prudence would dictate, it should have been clear to Zeigler that his position - even if true - was not politically sustainable.

If the Democrats were going to have any chance going forward to maintain the longtime Democratic control of the Stark treasury, Zeigler was going to have to step aside and do it yesterday.

But Zeigler had worked tirelessly in the Stark Democratic Party vineyards having run in countless "unsuccessful" campaigns (by the SCPR's calculation about nine times) and consequently he was not about to lose the prize having been appointed himself by the Stark Dems in year 1999 as treasurer without a mammoth fight.

In 1999,  Mark Roach - son of former longtime Democratic Stark County treasurer Harold Roach) fell onto hard times and was forced to resigned.

Zeigler won election in 2000 surprisingly easily over current Republican Stark County commissioner Richard Regula (son of longtime 16th District congressman Ralph Regula).

He won again "in a walk" in 2004.

By 2008, he was running unopposed.

But a mere 15 months later, April 1, 2009, the political sky fell in.

And he was in the fight of his political life.

And fight he did!

Until October 19, 2011.

After many twists and turns it "finally" dawned on Zeigler that there was no way had he stayed on after the Ohio Supreme Court had ruled that he had been unconstitutionally removed fm office by the-then Stark County commissioners Todd Bosley, Steve Meeks and Pete Ferguson (all Democrats) that he was going to be re-elected in the general election of 2012 if he could get through a Democratic primary unchallenged.

Being the relatively young man he is, it appears to the SCPR that Republican Alex Zumbar, given a general perception that he may be Stark County's most non-political politician who is doing an excellent job as treasurer, will be Stark County treasurer for many, many years to come.

And the same thing may be the order of the day for Republican and Stark County auditor Alan Harold.

His predecessor, Democrat Kim Perez, was unfairly, in Perez's view, politically tainted and tarnished in having been a close political ally of Zeigler's (a main point of the Harold's 2010 general election campaign) over many years and a consequence, lost to Harold.

The lesson?

Those internal political party fights can have lasting and enduring consequences in electoral politics.

The question?

Are the Democrats on a "political suicide 'on the plank' march to political oblivion" in the Swanson/Ferrero versus Maier (George)/Maier (Johnnie)/Gonzalez apparent "fight to the finish?"

Consequently, could Stark Countians wake up to "Good morning, Stark County, it is January 1, 2014 and Republican Larry Dordea today takes the oath of office as Stark County's newly elected sheriff?"

Stay tuned!

EARLY WARNING! ALEX ZUMBAR MAY BE BRINGING PARTISAN POLITICS BACK TO COUNTY GOVERNMENT?

Update:  11/10/2010 at 6:00 PM

Yours truly misread Young's report to include the actual meeting as a part of the surprise.  Young says it was not.  Only the appearance of the reporters was a surprise.


Notwithstanding the correction, the SCPR stands by the assessment that the tactic of giving the press a heads up without letting Koher know beforehand was of questionable ethics at best.


What Zumbar's tactic does for him in the future is take away any objection he might have if someone who has pre-arranged a meeting with him shows up with reporters who were not announced beforehand to Treasurer Zumbar.


ORIGINAL POST


Republican Alex Zumbar started out as a "above party politics" candidate for Stark County treasurer as did his Democratic opponent Ken Koher. 

In order to restore public confidence in county operations so that some day county officials can convince Stark County voters that they should be willing to vote additional revenues to the county operations, the partisan, "good ole boy," political featherbedding way of governing by both the Democrats and Republicans must stop.

Ken Koher was appointed interim treasurer on September 7th.  He assumed office about a week later and seemed well on his way to doing his part to restore public confidence when political reality hit him square in the face:  he had to get elected in his own right.

But he didn't.  On November 2nd, Stark Countians choose Alliance Republican Alex Zumbar instead.

Stark Countians will freshly remember that the whole reason for an election to fill the "unexpired term" of Gary D. Zeigler (removed from office by county commissioners on Augsut 23rd under the authority of Ohio statutory law) was the theft of several million dollars of county money by Zeigler's chief deputy Vince Furstaci.  Though Zeigler has been determined by federal and county prosecutors to have absolutely nothing to do with the theft, commissioners removed him on the fact that money came up missing as provided for in Ohio Revised Code Section 321.18.

Fast forward to yesterday, November 9, 2010.  Kelli Young of The Repository (Zumbar starts transition as new county treasurer)  reports that Zumbar, yet to be certified as the 11/02/2010 winner and yet to be bonded, gathered a couple of reporters and showed up at the Stark treasury unannounced to begin preparations to assume office.

Reading between the lines of the Young story and on the basis of a contact with by the SCPR with Zumbar and one his supporters on October 31, 2010; The Report is beginning to believe that Zumbar may be far more political than previously believed.

More politics - this time with a Republican stripe - is the last thing Stark County needs if there is to be a restoration of public confidence in the integrity of county governmental operations.

Regarding October 31.

Picky, picky, picky was the reaction by yours truly to communications received by the SCPR from Zumbar and his key Sarah Brown (wife of Stark County Court of Common Pleas - Charles E. Brown, Jr.) on a blog by the SCPR about campaign finance aspects of the treasurer's race.

Picky, picky, picky; how so?

The "picky, picky, picky" complaints:

•   Jane Vignos (a Zumbar contributor) was inadvertently identified as having formerly been Stark County auditor rather than Stark County recorder.
• Charles E. Brown, III (another Zumbar contributor) was inadvertently identified as being Judge Charles E. Brown of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.  The third is Judge Brown's son.

On receiving the Zumbar call, The Report updated the blog to correct the inadvertent errors

However, it was the third Zumbar complaint that the SCPR rejected.  It had to do with The Report highlighting the contribution of a Terrence Verble to the Zumbar campaign in light of the fact that Terrence is the husband of Susan Verble who is a regional liaison for Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor's office.

Readers will recall that the State of Ohio over a number of years failed to catch the Frustaci theft until Frustaci tripped himself up by taking a trip to Florida from whence he could not be doctoring records as the auditor's audited in a adjoining room.

The SCPR views the contribution by Terrence as being a smokescreen for Susan.  Obviously, it would raise eyebrows for examiners of the campaign fiance report to see that an employee of an office which has auditing responsibilities vis-a-vis the Stark County treasury to be contributing "direct" to a candidate for the county treasury.  However, the thinking might go:  how about an "indirect" contribution; let's say through a spouse?

Such is what the SCPR believes happened with the Verble contribution. 

It should be disturbing to Stark Countians that Alex Zumbar, in light of all the controversy that has surrounded the Stark County treasury, to be so insensitive to public perception as to not blink an eye at the Verble contribution.  The SCPR has examined quite a few campaign finance reports of Stark Republicans and The Report has noted the name Verble but not Terrence Verble as a contributor here and there.  The contributor recalled?  Susan Verble, that's who!

So far as the SCPR is concerned, Alex Zumbar has tainted himself on the issue of restoring public trust in allowing what the SCPR believes to be a camoulflaged Verble contribution.

Moreover, the SCPR has another crow to pick with Zumbar, and one can add in for good measure, his Republican cohort Alan Harold about Zumbar's $200 contribution to Harold's campaign in the pre-general reporting cycle.

Much ado (Auditor-elect Harold, in particular) was made about the apparently personal and certainly political relationship (both Democrats) between former Treasurer Gary Zeigler and Auditor Kim Perez while they both were still in office.  And the SCPR thinks that political alliances should be strictly scrutinized.  But why should there be a different standard for the Republicans?  Answer:  there should not be.  For the SCPR, exactly the same standard will be applied! 

Again, insofar as the SCPR is concerned, both Republican Auditor-elect Harold and Republican Treasurer-elect Zumbar (on two counts) have tainted themselves on the issue of restoring public trust.  Neither has even assumed office yet.

Just a word on the Brown contribution to Zumbar.  It is well known in Stark County political circles that the Alliance Zumbar clan is in thick with the Charles E. Brown, Jr family.

But first let yours truly say this.  There is no indication whatsoever that Judge Brown (former head of the Stark County Republican Party) is anything but of the highest ethical and professional standards when it comes to his impartial administration of justice in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

Under current Ohio Supreme Court articulated standards of ethics, judges are not prohibited from making campaign contributions to candidates for public offices.  Some judges as a matter of personal policy will not make campaign contributions.  The SCPR can cite readers to many contributions to various candidates made by Stark County based judges.  And, to repeat, such is perfectly permissible under legal profession ethical rules.

In the case of Zumbar, the Brown contributions in the pre-general election cycle did not come from Judge Brown rather from his son Charles, III and wife Sarah.  But who in their right mind - the lack of direct contributions notwithstanding - believes that Judge Brown did not privately support Alex Zumbar?  Hello there!  Alex Zumbar worked for Judge Brown at one time in his career.

To The Report, the Zumbar and Sarah Brown outcry on the inadvertent SCPR Brown misidentification is in of itself a reason for further assessment.  Why the "hue and cry?" 

Now to the Young report.

Why did Alex Zumbar "surprise" interim Treasurer Koher with the pre-arranged reporter accompanied visit?

Apparently, Zumbar did not trust Ken Koher enough to have called him beforehand to let him know that he wanted to come in to begin the transistion.  Wow?  What was the basis of this apparent distrust?  Doesn't Zumbar owe the Stark County public and explanation?  Zumbar never breathed a word during the campaign that Ken Koher was not trustworthy. 

But thinking back to the October 31st conversation that yours truly had with Zumbar, he did impliedly reflect on Koher in suggesting that he had stolen Zumbar's idea of revamping the office.  However, he did pass it off as being a case of "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

Among the things that surfaced in the "surprise" visit include:

• the apparent inability of Zumbar to deal with "all" Stark County treasury employees as "at will" employees given the representation of seven deputies by the union AFSCME
• Zumbar's take that Kim Perez's IT employees are sitting on their collective duffs not getting the job done in a timely fashion on the rework of software to do the impending county property tax billings (January, 2011)
• the treasury's ability to meet a required 16% reduction in county budget appropriation for FY 2011

Revealatory on a trust issue between Zumbar as treasurer and Perez as auditor (until March, 2011) in the following dialogue reported by Young:

He suggested that Koher write a letter to Stark County Auditor Kim Perez, whose IT employees are responsible for the implementation, to “at least light a fire.”

Koher said he’s in constant contact with the auditor’s office, “Those messages have been said.”

“Maybe it’s time to journalize it, to put it in writing,” Zumbar said.

Obviously, there are many trust issues that remain with Stark County taxpayers with the whole of Stark County government.  But it is not good when a man who is about to take office may have propriety issues (e.g. surprise Koher to ensure transparency and in the area campaign finance).

As readers of the SCPR know.  The Report can be relied on to report on and comment on all county and political subdivision officials (elected and unelected) as they deal with the public's business

And Alex Zumbar is no exception!