BREAKING NEWS! SHERIFF-ELECT GEORGE T. MAIER AVOIDS "PERSONAL LIABILITY" FOR NOW.

UPDATED & REPUBLISHED

The Stark County Political Report has just learned that Judge Linton Lewis, Jr. (of DeRolfe case fame [finding Ohio's funding of public education to be unconstitutional]) has found (in a ruling made yesterday) that Sheriff-elect George T. Maier will not be liable to former sheriff Timothy Swanson for damages in the approximate amount of $90,000 for having usurped to office.

Readers will recall that the Ohio Supreme Court found that Maier was illegally appointed to office as sheriff by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) on February 5, 2013 and removed him from office on November 6, 2013.

Subsequently, the SCDP-CC on December 11, 2013 reappointed Maier.

In unofficial returns published by the Stark County Board of Elections, Maier defeated Republican Larry Dordea in the November 4th election by about 3,000 votes.

Other than the defeat by virtue of the quo warranto filed by Swanson, Maier has survived every challenge to his candidacy to be sheriff including:

• a indirect attempt via a Writ of Prohibition filed by SCDP-CC challenger Louis Darrow against the SCDP-CC proceeding on February 5th,
• a challenge made to the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) on the issue of whether or not Maier was qualified,
• which was deadlocked at the BOE with the Republican board members voting to disqualify him and the Democrat members voting to qualify him,
• Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted while not saying he was qualified allowed Maier ballot access,
• the Ohio Supreme Court using an "abuse of discretion" standard said that Husted did not abuse his discretion is allowing Maier ballot access.

Local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (who represented Swanson in the civil liability case) tells the SCPR that he thinks Judge Lewis erred in ruling against his Motion for Summary Judgment.

Moreover, Conley says, in granting Maier a summary judgment when the Maier attorney never filed such a motion is clearly in error and that he expects that the motion grant to "unasked" by Maier is clearly reversible error.

If Conley is correct in his assessment on the latter point and the Fifth District Court of Appeals reverses Lewis, then there will be a trial on the issue of civil liability.

The court of appeals could reverse Lewis on both rulings in which case Maier would be liable to Swanson unless his legal counsel can get the Ohio Supreme Court to hear an appeal (not as "a matter of right" as in original jurisdiction case such as quo warranto) of any personal liability determination.

As former New York Yankee catcher Yogi Berra is credited with saying:  "it's not over until its over" seems to apply with this case.

ROUND AFTER ROUND. MARCELLI (CONLEY) V. MAIER (ROSENBERG). ONLY ON THE SCPR!

Anyone living in Stark County who has the least sense of political awareness, knows about the ongoing political battle of George T. Maier to have staying power as Stark County sheriff.

In his quest to be sheriff, Maier has been in, he's been out and now he is in again.

But for how long?

Back on February 12th, the SCPR captured Maier on video on he question of whether he is to be a sheriff "on a short term basis" or "over the longer term?"



We should find out this week whether or not interim Sheriff Tim Swanson will continue to wage war with Maier via quo warranto actions on the question.

There were rumblings late last week that Maier forces had prevailed on Swanson to drop that fight.

But even if he does, Maier might not be "home free."

As pointed out in a SCPR blog last week, with Maier taking out petitions to run in the May, 2014 Stark County Democratic Party primary, the Stark County Board of Elections has a role to play as to whether or not to certify Maier as being qualified under the statutory law of Ohio to be sheriff.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the likes of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and his Board of Elections member-minions (Phil Giavasis and Sam Ferruccio, the Dems on the BOE) are putting pressure on the Republican members (Cline & Braden) to fall-in behind George gloss over whether or not he meets Ohio's legal standards (i.e. "the rule of law) to be sheriff.

So it will be interesting to watch the Board of Elections even if Swanson abandons his effort.

Deserving of equal billing vis-a-vis the quo warranto fight is the civil suit filed by Stark County resident and taxpayer Thomas Marcelli (representing Stark County taxpayers, in general) versus Maier to recover compensation paid to Maier and expenditures made by him (primarily in re-branding the sheriff's office with his name) for the period - according to the Ohio Supreme Court (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, November 6, 2013) that he was not legally the sheriff of Stark County (February 12, 2013 through November 6, 2013).

Since Marcelli's original filing (which was amended on December 13th):

• Maier's attorney (Rosenberg of Roetzel & Andress) has filed a "motion to dismiss," (December 10, 2013)
• Which Marcelli via his attorney Craig Conley has rejoined (December 19th) with a "motion to strike" coupled with a "motion to disqualify" Maier's attorney,
• Which Rosenberg has responded to (December 24th [presumed filing date] with pleadings:
• "Memorandum In Opposition to Motion to Disqualify (Memorandum)," and
• "Motion for Sanctions (Sanctions)."

Consequently, on and on this legal merry-go-round goes and where it will stop nobody knows.

The SCPR sees the civil arena aspect of the fight as a veritable "David v. Goliath-esque" legal confrontation that seems sure to leave the defeated legal gladiator much worse off for having waged the fight.

Hence, The Report names the fight as being the:  "Stark County World Series of Legal In-fighting!"

To understand where the progression of the Marcelli (Conley)/Maier (Rosenberg) legal fight stands, the reader of this blog should refresh him/herself on this "civil?" battle by clicking on the links provided by The Report of each cited aspect of legal pleadings filed.

In today's blog, the SCPR reviews Rosenberg's "Memorandum In Opposition To Motion to Disqualify Counsel" and his "Motion for Sanctions; 19 pages in length.

As in his motion to dismiss, Rosenberg appears (in the Memorandum) to go after Conley's jugular once again as it seemed to The Report to be the case in the motion to dismiss (i.e. the obvious personal attack on Conley), to wit:

In an off-hand sort of way, Rosenberg responds to Marcelli's amended and "verified" complaint (apparently still relying on his original motion to dismiss) in implying that the Conley-on-behalf-of-Marcelli has abandoned? the complaint in favor of a tangential issue of disqualifying Rosenberg in "a vexatious filing."

Hmm?

Notwithstanding Rosenberg's seeming "sleight of hand," the complaint in amended form remains in tact no matter what impression Rosenberg may wish to the public to believe.

To the SCPR, Rosenberg's Motion for Sanctions is the equivalent to Conley's Motion to Disqualify.

To The Report, he may point the finger at Conley but to the discerning he is to be "painted with the same brush" as with which he paints.

Readers of this blog should bear-in-mind the SCPR's "half-a-dozen of one" (Conley's Motion to Disqualify) and "six of another" (Rosenberg's Motion for Sanctions) point of view as one reads on. Otherwise, Rosenberg will have succeeded in marginalize Conley without he himself being "hoisted by his own petard."  A fair minded reader will not allow Rosenberg to escape scrutiny by his own standard.

That Rosenberg continues his "legal" name calling (started in his motion to dismiss) in this latest pleading is clearly indicated in his use of the word "vexatious" as seen in the extract from his pleading as set forth above.

Vexatious Litigation

A legal action or proceeding initiated maliciously and without Probable Cause by an individual who is not acting in Good Faith for the purpose of annoying or embarrassing an opponent.

 Getting deeper into the Rosenberg arguments:

The Report's take on Rosenberg's arguments against his disqualification, to wit:

• that he (Rosenberg) did not make a false statement (as alleged by Conley) in chastising Rosenberg for using the word "duly" in describing how Maier came to be sheriff (in the February 5th SCDP-CC proceeding),
• SCPR COMMENT:  Is Rosenberg serious?  
• To be arguing that Marcelli/Conley have abandoned the complaint seems just a tad silly to the SCPR.  
• There is no doubt in the the SCPR's thinking that Conley does not personally like Rosenberg and just as soon not have him on the other side of the case and it could be that seeking to disqualify Rosenberg does not advance the Marcelli/taxpayer cause because of the distraction but that is something quite different from abandoning the premise for being in court in the first place.  
• Isn't Rosenberg himself by focusing on the disqualification factor suggesting that there may well be something to the Marcelli complaint that he would rather not deal with?
• SCPR COMMENT:  The "duly" part of the legal jargon fight for laymen is like "two ships passing in the night." 
• Conley sees "duly" in terms of the Supreme Court having ruled on November 6th that the SCDP-CC failed to "legally" appoint Maier because of he did not meet one of perhaps a number of criteria required by Ohio law for one to hold office as sheriff,
• Rosenberg, understandably, wants to focus not on the substance of the result (i.e. Maier's being Stark County illegal sheriff "from the beginning" of being appointed) but on things like taking a vote in accordance with Democratic Party bylaws and the SCDP-CC making a determination (merited or not in the mind of a body [e.g. the Supreme Court] on the qualification issue.
• SCPR COMMENT:  An obvious "bone of contention" that Judge Farmer will have to rule on.
• that he (Rosenberg) does not have a "conflict in interest" in his having a "dog in this fight" (the SCPR's words) in his being paid $20,000 to defend Maier in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto either in the direct sense nor in the derivative sense of having provided Maier with speculated and alleged "faulty" legal advice (re:  indemnification/malpractice).
• that Rosenberg (and co-counsel Traven) are not "material witness" and "necessary" witnesses to what advice they gave Maier in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto and therefore not into a "conflict in interest" situation.
• SCPR COMMENT:  It could be that Rosenberg will convince Judge Farmer that his take on this issue is supported in law whereas Conley's is not.
• The Report can see both sides of the argument but Rosenberg's is on procedure (i.e. legal standing [which makes laymen's eyes glaze over] and what seems to the SCPR to be circular reasoning.
• "To be debated" reasoning?  Yes.  
• Conley:  Maier was never the sheriff of Stark County and therefore retroactively the Stark commissioners could not pay his legal fees.  Anytime one receives public monies without legal authority, do they not have to be paid back?
• If so, will not Rosenberg have to indemnify Maier for presumably taking the money "on the advice of counsel?"
• If so, could Rosenberg be accountable to Maier in damages on Conley's alleged premise and supposition of potential of malpractice in providing the speculated giving of such advice?
• Rosenberg:   In a sort of way (color of law/good faith) seeks to establish that there was legal authority to pay Maier and such ends any discussion of any potential legal accountability of Rosenberg to Maier and therefore no possibility of conflict in interest on the payment issue which authority negates any need for Maier to assert "on advice of counsel" as a basis for action.
• SCPR COMMENT:   Again, a "bone of contention" to be decided by Judge Farmer.  

That he used 19 pages of briefing to make his case that the Marcelli/Conley motion to disqualify was a frivolous filing is testament enough in the opinion of the SCPR that, while it may have been "unwise" for Conley to get sidetracked on an issue of which particular legal counsel he was going to contend with on the merits of Marcelli's amended complaint, such number of pages (to repeat:  19 pages)  in and of itself shows that the Marcelli case deserves to be heard on its merits/demerits and that both the motion to disqualify and motion for sanctions are both "red herrings."

To repeat the theme of this blog.

All the motion to disqualify and the motion for sanctions indicates to the SCPR (and the attendant personalized language used by both sides) is that Conley and Rosenberg do not like each other.

One last point on Rosenberg and his apparent attempt to divert attention away from the underlying Marcelli "for the taxpayers" complaint is his focus on wanting a hearing on his own side issue, to wit:

The SCPR was mighty happy to see him request a hearing.

And The Report hopes the court itself will schedule a number of hearings.  But they should mainly be on the complaint itself and "only" tangentially on the motion to disqualify and the motion for sanctions in terms of clearing them off the table.

The Report plans on being in court to videotape each and every such hearing.

It will be a real test for Judge Kristin Farmer to stay focused on "the real issue" in this case (i.e. whether or not Stark County taxpayers have a case to be reimbursed for the Maier receipts and spending) and not get sidetracked on whether or not Rosenberg has a "conflict in interest" or whether or not Conley's client has made "a frivolous pleading."

To The Report the latter efforts are two lawyers going after each other because they plain do not like each other.

As Stark County commissioner Thomas Bernabei repeatedly says to The Report and all within his hearing that the Stark Dems' fuss as to whom will be Stark County sheriff is "the gift that keeps giving" in terms of the ongoing controversy in the context of side battles.

Of course, the media is a chief beneficiary of all the legal wrangling.

And it appears to the SCPR that we Stark Countians find ourselves witnessing a sort of Stark County World Series of Legal Infighting courtesy of Messers Conley and Rosenberg as manifested by their side issues.

How long will Judge Farmer allow this legal gamesmanship to go on?

JUDGE FORCHIONE HAS SOME QUESTIONS TO ANSWER ABOUT HIS ROLE IN THE STARK SHERIFF SELECTION PROCESS, NO?

UPDATE:  11:00 AM

Within the past few minutes the SCPR has talked with Lt. Lou Darrow with regard to the question of whether or not he has been contacted by Judge Frank Forchione in the context the judge's work performing ministerial duties under Ohio statutory law regarding the qualification of sheriff candidates for the re-do appointment by the SCDP-CC as ordered by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 11th.

Darrow tells the SCPR that Forchione had not contacted him at the judge's initiative.

However, Lieutenant Darrow added that he, himself, had contacted the judge out of concern that Forchione's re-opening the qualification process (see below) for the Democrats to consider additional candidates for the SCDP-CC appointment to the county sheriff position "would be used against him" (the SCPR's words; not Darrows) if he did not go through the application process once again.

Darrow did reaffirm that he believes that he and Republican Larry Dordea are the only two candidates who by virtue of the decision in Swanson v. Maier are qualified for consideration when the SCDP-CC meets on December 11th.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The Stark County Political Report has learned from a person whom The Report considers a highly reliable source that Stark Common Pleas Court judge Frank Forchione (Democrat) was making phone calls last week.

So?

Agreed, there is nothing particularly newsworthy about that in and of itself.

But once you know that one such call was supposedly made to Ohio Supreme Court ousted-sheriff (November 6, 2013) George T. Maier, does that make the ordinary into - perhaps - just a tad more than an ordinary practice of making a phone call.

Maybe, just maybe, no?

And The Report has reason to believe the alleged call was not a return phone call.

Add in that the SCPR has confirmed with Republican Larry Dordea (a SCDP-CC sheriff appointee aspirant; see explanation on the appointment process below), that he did not receive a Frank Forchione call last week or ever in the current application process.

Hmm?

Does that make the Maier thing even more interesting?

Also, why would Forchione need to talk to Maier anyway?

Everything is in place from Maier's first go at becoming the SCDP-CC appointed sheriff.

It is hard to imagine any need for the judge to talk again with Maier, no?

What else does he need in addition to Maier's widely disseminated press reports that he is again an applicant for appointment?

Remember, all the "ministerial" stuff is taken care of as of the February 5th Stark Dems.

And Judge Forchione says that assessing that part of qualifying is his only role.

Who else among sheriff-appointee prospects did or did not receive a Forchione call?

The Report has learned that Douglas Smith initiated a contact with Judge Forchione last Monday to arrange an interview with him as part of the ministerial qualifying process preliminary to being considered by the SCDP-CC.  Smith said that Forchione did return his call (Smith having left his telephone number) in order to arrange a mutually satisfactory date for the interview.

How about Lou Darrow?

The SCPR tried but was unable to contact Darrow for a response.

But if the judge was contacting all the candidates, wouldn't Dordea have received a call at the judge's initiative?

We all learned recently that Forchione on his own initiative interpreted (even though a "current" case (Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez, et al) is pending in the Ohio Supreme Court) "the ouster-decision" (Swanson v. Maier) as authorizing him to re-open the application process to one and all who think they are qualified to be Stark County sheriff.

The Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) has been ordered by the high court to re-do its February 5, 2013 defective appointment of Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald's replacement.

They are scheduled to do so on December 11th.

McDonald submitted his resignation before his January 7, 2013 "take office" date.

A critical problem with Forchione's interpretation is that the only date mentioned in Swanson v. Maier as being "the qualification date" on criteria listed in Ohio statutory law was February 6, 2013.

That date is one that the Ohio Supreme Court has said George T. Maier cannot meet.

If the Forchione to Maier telephone call report is true, which the SCPR believes it is, why is Judge Forchione calling Maier apparently at Forchione's initiative?

Well, the SCPR has already reported that he talked Douglass Smith, so what is different about him being in touch with Maier?

For one, The Report, to repeat the point, is under the clear impression that Forchione initiated the purported contact with Maier whereas in the Smith situation it was Smith who seized the initiative.

Secondly, Smith had not applied in the first round of the SCDP-CC consideration of who was to be McDonald's successor.

And, of course, there is the "no contact" with Dordea.

Wouldn't it shock all of us if the supposed call to Maier was:  "don't bother George, I am now clear the February 6th date applies and therefore you cannot qualify for the re-do appointment?"

Folks, do not hold your breath on that one.

The Report would call/visit (with camera in hand)/email Judge Forchione and ask the question full-throated and direct to him.  But, but, but . . . the good judge is not taking Stark County Political Report calls/on-camera visits/emails these days.

It appears to the SCPR that Forchione only takes media questions if he thinks they are softball questions of the "kiss-up" variety that unfortunately for Stark Countians seems to be standard fare from so much of Stark County local media these days.

And It is probably not the "why?" the phone call to George T. Maier" question so much with Forchione.   Undoubtedly, he has a ready answer for that one.

Rather he knows as do all Stark County public officials and public figures, it is a certainty that SCPR questions are going to probe much deeper than the obvious.

For instance, the SCPR would press Forchione on his re-opening process rationale and justification much harder than has been done by those media persons he has been willing to talk to.

As The Report wrote last week, it was strange indeed that a man who likes to project himself as a conservative type has gotten to the point that some Stark Countians see him as a judicial activist type.

Of course, there is the whole thing with the Studer case wherein he was forced by a local civic activist to do a U-turn on ordering a $5,000 Studer fine paid to an out-of-state charity and have it deposited in the general fund of the Stark County treasury which happens to be the mandate of "the rule of law" in Ohio.

And now the "open the appointment process" controversy.

Hmm?

So maybe Judge Forchione's true nature is that of being an activist who sees some benefit from the publicity that comes with doing controversial things as part of his judicial function?

He does these things and then cherry picks which media get to ask him questions and he has consequently been seemingly comfortable in the confidence they will uncritically publish his self-serving statements (e.g. "I err on the side of enhancing democracy).

None of Stark County current media knows of the connective tissue that may or may not bind various players in the "select a new sheriff process" as does the SCPR.

Insofar as Judge Forchione having or not having historical connections to these folks, isn't the Stark County public entitled to know that the judge has been vetted by a prepared media person with questions which go to the heart of the matter?

Could "zeroed-in" questions clearly raise THE QUESTION as to whether or not Judge Forchione should be involved in the qualification process at all?  

Especially in light of his interpretation of "the qualification date" including the post-February 6, 2013 period which happens to be the - in effect - "substantive" (i.e. no longer merely "ministerial") interpretation of the leadership of the Stark County Democratic Executive Committee and the Maier side of the appointment controversy. 

Was any consideration given to having one of the Republican Common Pleas judges - who has no connection with Democratic politics - do the ministerial processing?

Shouldn't this have been considered going back to the original application process?

It is hard to believe that one of them would venture into the "I think I know the mind of the Ohio Supreme Court" landscape?

How convenient that Judge Forchione wraps himself in a safe media cocoon, no?

Other Stark County judges and Stark officials have no problem going on camera with the SCPR.

These interviews are put on the SCPR blog in their entirety.

They are the best and truest forum from which Stark Countians can make an informed assessment.

The camera tells all.

If Forchione is so confident that he has gotten into the minds of the justices of the Ohio Supreme Court in his brash interpretation of Swanson v. Maier, he should be willing to take on all related questions.

Why is Judge Frank Forchione being so selective? 

What is he protecting himself from?

The SCPR suspects that there is way more to this story and whom is talking to whom out of the public spotlight than the general public has any idea of as this matter currently stands.

The Report goes all the way back to the meeting that Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez called with Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei, interim sheriff Tim Swanson which included George T. Maier via telephone.

The topic, according to Tim Swanson?

How can we fix George T. Maier's suspected problem of qualifying to be Stark County sheriff?

It appears to the SCPR that nothing has changed from that meeting in January, 2013 to the very date of this blog!

Only now the qualification factor is not "suspected."

George Maier is down in Harrison County trying to fix the unfixable if the February 6th date holds.

Ohio's "court of last resort" has clearly ruled as a matter of "the rule of law" that he was never the legal sheriff of Stark County from February 11, 2013 (the date he was bonded) through November 6, 2013.

Unless the high court forthrightly says before December 11th something other than February 6, 2013 as being the operative qualification date, the Stark Dems and Judge Forchione have their marching orders!

Wouldn't it be ashamed if Stark County were to be put through another trying time?

GEORGE T. MAIER & HIS "POLITICALLY ARROGANT" BEDFELLOWS?

UPDATE:  12:30 PM

One of the "Perhaps Happening Today?" as listed at the beginning of today's blog has gone down.

The Stark County Political Report learned minutes ago that local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has sent to Stark County Prosecutor John Fererro "a demand" that he initiate legal action against:

... George T. Maier for the recover of and payment into the Stark County treasury of all ... the salary, benefits, expenses, legal fees and expenditures plus statutory interest from the dates of payment of same to the date of such recovery and payment ... .

Because he is a participant in the Stark County Democratic Party proceedings involving the appointment of a successor sheriff to Mike McDonald who was unable to take office as scheduled on January 7, 2013, Ferrero will have to as a matter of ethics recuse himself and appoint alternative legal counsel to consider Conley's demand.

Here is the complete letter sent today by Conley to Ferrero:
(CLICK ON GRAPHIC TO ENLARGE)

ORIGINAL BLOG

PERHAPS HAPPENING TODAY?

SWANSON 
FILES 
A 
MANDAMUS

WITH 
THE

OHIO SUPREME COURT

 ====================

CONLEY 

SENDS

DEMAND LETTER 

TO

STARK PROSECUTOR

JOHN FERRERO

TO 

PURSUE 
GEORGE T. MAIER

ON

RECOVERY

The supporters of George T. Maier during his quest to become sheriff of Stark County point to his "administrative, technical, mechanical" skills as a policeman as being clear-cut evidence that he is qualified to be sheriff.

However, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on November 5th (last week) that de facto (as a matter of fact) is not the same as de jure (as a matter of law) and ousted him from office in finding for Sheriff Tim Swanson in his quo warranto lawsuit against Maier launched on February 12, 2013.

Quo warranto: (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right or power (or "franchise") they claim to hold.

In his arguments in Swanson v. Maier, the former Ohio highway patrol director (mostly as second-in-command; only a few days at the top) could not establish "by what authority" to the satisfaction of Ohio's "court of last resort" his appointment as sheriff was vested in and therefore was bounced out of office.

Stark Dems chairman Randy "Gonz" Gonzalez injected, back on February 5th, the assertions of local attorneys Michael Thompson and Steve Okey that Maier was qualified under the statutory standards of Ohio to be sheriff.

Now we know that Thompson and Okey were very, very wrong in their legal analysis.

Maier's law enforcement employment history in terms of being qualified as of February 7, 2013 (the qualification date as determined by the Supreme Court in its Swanson v. Maier ruling) on application to the law of Ohio did square up, the high court said.

On February 5th, the Dems were replacing Mike McDonald (elected in November, 2012) who resigned before his scheduled taking of office set for January 7th due to an illness which regrettably and tragically ended in his death on February 22nd.

Gonzalez made out on the 5th that the Thompson/Okey pronouncements were as if they had come down from God Almighty himself and thereby convinced a majority of Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDPCC) persons that Maier should be included alongside the unquestionably qualified Democrat Lt. Lou Darrow currently then and now of the sheriff's department and Republican Larry Dordea as a group of three that the SCDPCC could consider.

Gonzalez also overreached in imbuing Judge Frank Forchione of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas with judicial deification in discharging his limited role on the matter of qualification that neither Forchione claimed for himself nor provided for by Ohio statutory law.

It appears to the SCPR that Gonzalez, Thompson and Okey along with others executed a Maier strategy to, a la rugby style, thug him across the finish line.

It seems to The Report that Okey was more of a player of the bulldozing variety than has heretofore been noticed.

Okey is a former Democratic Alliance city councilman who ran for mayor of Alliance in a losing effort in November, 2011.

An interesting thing about his councilman days, is that also a member of the Alliance city council was Republican Larry Dordea who has run for sheriff twice (losing to Swanson in 2008 and to Mike McDonald in 2012).   

In talking with Dordea, The Report's take is that these two really do not like each other.

Dordea is currently chief of police in Hartville and previously served as police chief in Alliance where both now live.

On reading the relevant statutes in the light of George Maier's published policing resume as of the date of the statutory qualification date (30 days from the date that the vacancy occurred [e.g. January 7 plus 30 days equals February 7th], a number of Stark County attorneys took strong exception to Okey's and Thomspon's reading of the law.

One such attorney was Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero.  He signed an affidavit to that effect.

To repeat, now that the Supreme Court has ousted Maier,  we know Ferrero was correct in his analysis that Maier was unqualified.

No wonder - looking back - that Gonzalez moved, in the opinion of the SCPR, in a  pugnacious manner to belittle the prosecutor's affidavit.

It was strange indeed for Gonzalez to accord Thompson and Okey precedence over Stark's county prosecutor.

Over the weekend Steve Okey revealed how heavily invested he is in the apparent to the SCPR Maier/Gonzalez  strategy of bulldogging Maier into office.

Okey, on Saturday, weighed-in with the SCRP over this blog (CLICK ON THIS LINK) posted by The Report on Thursday:

Here is Okey's initiated email:

Martin,

The graphic below that you created for your post of Nov. 7 is absolutely inappropriate.  Showing someone in the crosshairs of a rifle scope is never a good idea.  Even worse is depicting a uniformed law enforcement officer in the crosshairs.  We should recognize and respect the added risk that peace officers face in the line of duty.  Your graphic does neither.  Do the right thing and change or remove this graphic.

This has nothing to do with politics or who I support in the current dispute.  It would be just as inappropriate to put Tim Swanson, Lou Darrow or Larry Dordea in the crosshairs.

Steve Okey

I try to be attentive to the concerns of readers of the SCPR.

But the part of the e-mail I took special notice of was:   We should recognize and respect the added risk that peace officers face in the line of duty. 

OMG I said to myself, this guy has the audacity/arrogance (consistent with how Maier/Gonzalez/and Maier's brother Johnnie play "hardball" politics) to attribute by implication that by virtue of my "original" graphic that I had demonstrated a disrespect for the safety of police officers in the line of duty.

As will be seen in my responding e-mail below, I rejected out-of-hand Okey's implied assertion.

The import of the original graphic was a political representation (note the "watchdog") that Conley is focusing on Maier and his illegal holding of the sheriff's position and his thinking that Maier is subject to having to pay back monies received and unwisely and unnecessarily expended (e.g. changing signage to the name George Maier).

Even though Okey was way off base, I decided to change the graphic.  But only slightly.  Maier remains - in the slightly modified version - the focus of Conley's attention.

But I was not about to let him think for a nanosecond that his basis for objecting had any acceptance whatsoever from myself.  (See my responding e-mail below)

It was, I think, a tortured creation of Okey's politicized mind which I believe is in line with the arrogant ways of Maier/Gonzalez et al.

And for him to bring Darrow and Dordea into the discussion was a verifying tip-off to me that the real point was his unhappiness with my critical attitude towards the Stark Dems selection process of February 5th and his role in it.

Knowing Steve Okey as I do, having observed his words and actions in the Alliance political/government context, I had no illusion that he would apologize for his outrageous implication.

My perception of him is that as a physically large person he has taken to his size in his demeanor which manifests itself in his getting overbearing.

Of course, I have demonstrated that I can and do shove back when attacks like Okey's come along.

 And, accordingly, I sent this response:

[Your] commentary regarding the graphic is insulting of me and unwarranted (i.e “do the right thing”).  I reject the premises of your objection.

The context of the graphic is solely political to make the point that Mr. Conley says he is focusing on Mr. Maier and in my view it takes quite a stretch to come up with your assessment of how the graphic might be perceived.

I believe that your concern may be grounded in a personal political philosophy that entails a political correctness filtering process.

All you had to do was to write something to the effect: “have you thought of how someone might misconstrue the point you are making in using such a graphic” without jumping to conclusions and making your suggestion that I deem to be insulting and unwarranted.

You should have assumed that I would be open to making the change you asked me to consider in light of  what I think is your unwarranted personal sensitivity.

Why would I assume that your objection has anything to do with your support of Mr. Maier?

It is interesting that you should raise such a point.

Now that I have dealt with your inappropriate suggestion, I ask for your apology for not giving me the benefit of assuming that I did not realize that there is a Steve Okey out there who might jump to an unwarranted construing of the original graphic.

Do the right thing, Steve, and apologize to me.

His predictable (to me) answer:

You can forget it, Martin. I owe you no apology.

Steve

Over the years I have known Okey, I have not detected that he has the capacity for humility when he oversteps.

So no surprise in his inability "to do the right thing."

On the other hand, I had no problem whatsoever making the minor modification I did to my graphic if only to satisfy what I believe to be Okey's phantasmagorical supersensitivity.

I see the Okey's disingenuous, politically inspired attack in the same light as Shane Jackson's "shaking and trembling" over a point in a blog mine with regard to what may have gone on within inner Stark County Democratic Party circles with respect to being prepared well in advance of the November, 2012 election to replace McDonald should he appear likely not survive his illness.

Apparently, both Okey and Jackson are Maier foot soldiers on a mission to bully the Stark County Political Report on behalf of Maier.

In Jackson's attack, he alleged I was disrespecting McDonald in discussing what may have gone on within the hierarchy of the Stark County Democratic Party.

I have it on the word of what I deem to be a good source that the Stark Dems had approached Louisville police chief Andrew Turowski to consider stepping in for McDonald.

Jackson is totally ridiculous and embarrassed himself in sending out the email.

I have always had the highest regard for Mike McDonald.

I think Okey shows - notwithstanding his self-serving disclaimer - that he serving as a Maier/Gonzalez "political attack dog."

I believe is a bit more politically mature than Jackson.

Jackson, the coward he is, said "don't respond to my e-mail" [that he copied to a seeming "Who's Who" list of  Stark County politicians] because "I won't read it" is a telling the world with his very own words what an unfair person he is.

When the likes of Okey and Jackson write e-mails like they have to me, they can expect a SCPR public response.

Though both Jackson and Okey are strong "organizational Democrats," one has to wonder how committed they are to a wide ranging discussion of the merits of candidates and issues within the framework of the U.S./Ohio constitutions given their ad hominem attacks on me.

Beyond the Swanson/Maier legal fight over de facto and de jure, The Stark County Political report has a much more expansive standard as to whether or not one is qualified to be sheriff than either the Maier apologists or the Supreme Court deal with.

The SCPR definition incorporates such qualities as demeanor, temperament and how one treats seemingly unimportant persons.

We all know that a policeman is a very powerful person, even at an entry level.

To be Stark County's "top cop," we Stark Countians should insist that demeanor, temperament and respectful treatment of citizens of high station in life or low station in life and those who may differ with a candidate politically and otherwise be treated with respect.

There are "signs and signals" that the SCPR interprets as being indications that Maier may not meet minimal standards on demeanor, temperament and respectful treatment that The Report believes a county sheriff should possess.

Remember that George Maier was haughtily guaranteeing Stark Countians back in January that he would qualify (de jure) to be sheriff if he decided to apply for the Democratic appointment or he would not apply.

As lawyers full well know, one cannot "guarantee" anything when it comes to knowing how courts will rule.

That Maier would "guarantee" the "unguaranteeable" the SCPR believes is an "in his own words" revelation that he has "demeanor" (in this case:  arrogance) problems.

And then for Okey and Thompson to have the legal chutzpah to declare him de jure qualified is in the mind of The Report an equal measure of Maier-esque hubris that he apparently (in the form of Chairman Gonzalez's ruling on the qualification matter) was all too happy to be the beneficiary of.

The Report does not recall hearing any equivocation or hesitation in the Okey and Thompson declarations re: Maier de jure qualifications though questions aplenty were raised as to Maier's qualification at the Dems' conclave.

To repeat, Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero put his challenge to Maier's qualification in a sworn statement (affidavit) form.

Not to forget Chairman Gonzalez.

For him to bull ahead and thereby impliedly proffer that he could conduct a fair meeting notwithstanding his written declaration that he was an avowed supporter of George Maier is an unbelievable manifestation of conceit.

Now on top of that, Chairman Gonzalez declares in the local media that notwithstanding the Supreme Court's ruling he is going to forge ahead once again on an apparent continuing arrogant binge in support of Maier.

Some months ago, the SCPR notified Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei that Maier (though still under litigation as to whether or not he was the legitimate sheriff of Stark County) was spending Stark County taxpayer money (it turns out $13,671) plastering his name on county property as a sheriff?

Bernabei has always impressed the SCPR (along with Commissioner Janet Creighton) with their exercising "the bully pulpit" function of the office to bring independently elected/selected (in Maier's case) officeholders "to heel" on fiscal matters.

But not a word on Maier's expenditures.  The SCPR thinks that such Maier actions were a self-important disregarding of the hard earned tax dollars of Stark Countians.

In comments to local media (not the SCPR) within the last few days, this is what Maier had to say about those expenditures:

Maier ... said he chose to add his name to the decals, signs and shirts after receiving guidance from the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association and other sheriffs that it was an appropriate practice to do when the office's leadership changes.

"I guess it's part of the branding for the sheriff's office."

Hmm?

Sounds like he is really concerned about the hard-earned taxpayer dollars, no?

Not a part of the newspaper report on his comments is a reference that the Ohio Buckeye Sheriff's Association file a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Maier in Swanson v. Maier.

Also reported is Maier's caution that, perhaps, returned sheriff Tim Swanson should not be erasing his name completely because he plans on being back as the Stark Dems "repeat the mistake" (of course, the SCPR's interjection) appointee.

Sounds a little like a double standard, no?

A guy who is under challenge and had to know that stay as sheriff was uncertain to say the least did not bat an eyelash in spending Stark County taxpayer money in the face of that uncertainly.

Go figure!

As if what the SCPR cites in today's blog were not enough to raise questions about Maier's demeanor, temperament and respectfulness to all (regardless of station in life), The Report has in previous blogs noted an anecdotal incident (which occurred in Massillon) and linked to a Columbus Dispatch report both of which add to the mix of questions that Maier should be answering to the satisfaction of Stark Countians before he gets reappointed.

Returning to the de jure side of the Maier qualification question, it appears that it centers on "the qualification date."

Insofar as the SCPR is concerned, the qualification date is and remains February 7, 2013 as articulated by the Ohio Supreme Court and its decision.

If The Report read is correct, then there is nothing Maier can do to cure his not meeting the de jure qualification in terms of the Stark Dems doing a "re-do" of the illegal February 5 appointment.

Apparently, Swanson's attorney Greg Beck also sees it this way although he does not specify such in his recent letter to Gonzalez.

Should Beck be compelled to re-open the matter with Ohio's high court as threatened in his letter to Gonzalez and should the court find differently on "the qualification date," it is hard to see how Maier could then qualify on the basis of having "illegally" assumed the position of sheriff and therefore according to the court was never the sheriff in the eyes of the law as a bootstrap into qualification as a cure to what the Supreme Court says was a fatal flaw in the first place.

The latter point may explain why the SCPR is hearing unconfirmed reports that Maier is back down to Harrison County (he tried this unsuccessfully before as revealed in documents filed in Swanson v. Maier) working as a full-time deputy sheriff for his longtime police friend Sheriff Ronald J. Myers.

But that will only work if the Supreme Court adjusts the qualification date.

It appears to the SCPR that Gonzalez and his "undisclosed" five legal advisers (according to local media reports) are banking on and assuming a changed qualification date for the Harrison County gig (if the report is accurate) to work.

However, the SCPR believes that one should not expect the Supreme Court to change the qualification date.

Consequently, the SCPR thinks Maier and friends are highly likely to lose the de jure battle in the end.

However, it is clear to The Report that Maier will run in the May, 2014 Stark Democratic Party primary.

The Report, for one, welcomes the prospect.

Such will be the first opportunity of Stark County voters to weigh-in on the demeanor, temperament and respect-for-all factors in evaluating whether or not Maier is qualified on this expanded definition to be sheriff on the part of Stark's Democrats.

If he passes that test, then it will be up to a combination of independent, Democratic, Republican and folks of other political persuasions to make that evaluation.

If he passes that test, then Stark Countians should rally behind him and get out of the "three steps forward, five steps backward" condition that Commissioner Janet Creighton says Stark County government seems to be in these days.

Maier could help Stark Countians to get to clarification and stability sooner than later if he were to drop all the political infighting and work his way through the electoral process.

But a prime question with the SCPR is this:  does he have it in him to do what is best for political stability of Stark County government and politics?

Or will he with the help of the likes of Gonzalez, Thompson and Okey continue with his bullying ways?

(VIDEO: SEE McDONALD SUPPORT DEMS SELECTION OF ZUMBAR) DEMS SHOULD APPOINT REPUBLICAN & FORMER ALLIANCE POLICE CHIEF LARRY DORDEA SHERIFF, BUT THE MORE LIKELY CHOICE IS MASSILLON SAFETY-SERVICE DIRECTOR GEORGE T. MAIER?

It was a little over a year ago (October 31, 2011) that Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez did what had to be the most odious political duty that he has ever had to do in his entire political life:  appoint Republican Alex Zumbar as Stark County treasurer.

Reason?

The public was demanding it!

Very rarely does the public get that intensely involved in who the politicos appoint to office.

But finding a successor to the resigned/retired Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler (as a consequence of controversy in the management of operations of the treasury during much of Zeigler's years in office [that is, in hindsight]) had turned into a political "hot potato."

Gonzalez was determined not to be a chairman who ushered in the demise of countywide elected Democrats by doing the politically correct thing (from the Democratic perspective) and appointing a Democrat.

And there were those who argued that he do exactly that.  One being Canton mayor William J. Healy, II and another Canton City Council president Allen Schulman.

It is widely believed that Gonzalez was targeted by some within the party for ouster.  

Well, that did not happen.

It is somewhat ironic that the staunchest supporter of Gonzalez holding his political nose and appointing Republican Alex Zumbar was none other than Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald.

See the following video to refresh yourself at the vehemence of McDonald's support of Gonzalez.



Now it is McDonald's replacement that is in question.

Yesterday, sitting Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson announced that McDonald would not be taking office.

As put by the North Canton Patch's Morgan Day:

Michael A. McDonald, 54, announced today that he is not medically fit to take office as he continues to battle esophageal cancer ... .

Swanson likely will remain as interim sheriff, pending the selection within 45 days of the interim selection a successor to McDonald.  Stark County commissioners will meet at 1:00 PM today to consider the appointment of an interim.

McDonald came forth in November, 2011 and revealed to the media that he had a case of esophageal cancer.

On numerous occasions since McDonald revealed that he had cancer, the SCPR inquired of him as to whether or not he was up to the rigors of running for office and, if elected, serving.

In an August 16th blog, The Report listed the following McDonald response to questions about his health:

• "I'm feeling good, I'm coming to work and I'm out campaigning,"
• It's no secret that he has esophageal cancer and that he shared that information with the Rep so that he could take advantage of the opportunity to educate the public about what the potential consequences could be if acid reflux goes untreated,
• But that he does not have serious problems with the cancer presently,
• In no way, shape or form does the cancer interfere with his doing his job or campaigning nor will it have any affect on his ability to serve as sheriff, if elected.

That was a little over four months ago.

So why was The Report so fastidious on the McDonald health issue?

From the August 16th blog:

The SCPR's point of view is that he needs to keep the public appraised of his medical condition right up through the election.  For, God forbid, if his health was to take a turn for the worse and it turns out that it is knowable prior to the election that he likely will be unable to serve; the Stark County voting public is entitled to know so that voters can choose between the possibility they will be voting for a situation that the Stark County Democratic Central Committee will be picking the next Stark County sheriff or the alternative Republican Larry Dordea.

McDonald never waivered with The Report on his health condition.

It got to the point that on one occasion when yours truly asked questions of McDonald, he anticipated that they were on his health (which they were not) and interjected that his health was just fine.

So now on January 3, 2013 we get news that his health is such that his doctor says he should not take office as sheriff.

What Stark Countians now have to believe is that the turn in McDonald's health to the point of being unable to serve took place in the space of November 1, 2012 through January 3, 2013.

The SCPR understands that McDonald and others close to him (i.e. politically close, who McDonald undoubtedly confided to) needed to be in denial for personal pyschological reasons.

But The Report has been told and believes that Stark Dem officials were surveying Stark County police communities looking for possible candidates to step in at the last moment, if need be, to run in McDonald's place.  One such target is believed to have been Louisville police chief Andrew Turkowski. 

Area media is reporting that Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez is saying that that yesterday's announcement is a big surprise to him.

Such could actually be the case.  But who will believe it?

The question of what he knew and when he knew it is likely one Gonzalez cannot win from the public perspective.

If it turns out that he has known for some time of even a likelihood (not necessarily a certainty) that McDonald was in no condition to serve and did not insist that such be shared with the Stark County voting public, then it will likely look to Stark voters that he was protecting the Stark Democratic Party's interest.

To repeat, as pointed out above; it could be that he did not know.  But in this cynical age of politics very few, if any, are likely to believe him.

So what to do?

The SCPR thinks the thing to do is for him to lead the Stark County Democratic Party (once again) to appoint a Republican:   Larry Dordea, who recently concluded a unsuccessful campaign against McDonald.

Throughout the campaign, the SCPR took the position that both McDonald and Dordea were eminently qualified to be sheriff.  Stark Countians would be in for some good sheriffing, no matter which of the two won.

Dordea ran a relatively close race against McDonald receiving some 82,000 votes after having lost in a respectable showing to Sheriff Swanson in 2008.

He served effectively as the chief of the Alliance Police Department in the early 2000s and is doing a sterling job a chief in Hartville presently.

But he is a Republican.

For most Stark Countians, party i.d. is irrelevant.

However, it would take a superhuman act for Gonzalez to lead the Dems central committee down that road a second time.

One way for that to happen is for McDonald to weigh-in.

If he were to ask the Dems to appoint Dordea; how could they refuse?

The SCPR does not expect that there is any way that Dordea will be selected either because it comes out that the Dems knew that it was likely McDonald would not be able to serve or that McDonald will ask them to do so.

The Dems are still smarting from losing the county treasurer and auditor offices (they believe, through no fault of their own) in 2010 and are in no mood to lose the sheriff's office, to boot.

At the county level, once a political party loses an office; it is likely that it will remain lost to that party for quite a number of years.

Who thinks that the Republicans, now that they are in charge,  are going to lose control of the auditor and treasurer's office any time soon?

So there is little doubt that were Dordea to be selected, he and perhaps successor sheriffs likely would ensure continuing Republican control of the office for years to come.

The SCPR is hearing from both Democratic and Republican sources that the Democrats are being leaned upon to select Massillon Safety-Service Director George Maier.

If he wants the job, a politically initiated person would have to think that the job is his for the taking.  His brother is Johnnie A. Maier, Jr who formerly has served as chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party and is currently Massillon clerk of courts.

Maier became the second in command in the Ohio Highway Patrol when Democrat Ted Strickland became governor.

Was it merely coincidental that at-the-time Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (JAM) happened to have been the first Democratic Party chairman in all of Ohio to have endorsed Strickland in a then contested Democratic primary?

Can anyone imagine that Johnnie will not be driven to make brother George Stark County's top cop?

The Maier family has been prominent in Massillon city policing going all the back to when Johnnie's/George's father served as a Massillon policemen.  Brother Chuck (now a security official with Massillon city schools) has been a policeman and George has two sons Johnnie (Ohio Highway Patrol) and Michael (Massillon police) who, according to The Report's information are currently in policing.

George is now the political appointee of Massillon mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry as safety-service director in Tigerland.

Notwithstanding Maier's policling background and obvious Stark County-based political clout, in the opinion of the SCPR, he would be a poor choice for all of Stark County.

Not because he lacks solid policing credentials (LINK), but because of temperament issues.  One only have ask Lawrence Township trustee Michael Stevens, (formerly in the inner circle of the JAM/Massillon political machine),  a former Cicchinelli administration service department supervisor.

The Report wrote a blog in March, 2012 (LINK) which gives particulars as to why Stark Countians should be wary of having Maier as the county's top cop.

The best case scenario for non-political Stark Countinans would be for Dordea to get the job.

But do not hold your breath.

Politics will, in this instance, most surely will prevail.

Stark's Republicans blew it big time when they would not recommend (one of three) the obviously qualified Democrat Chryssa Hartnett (a prosecutor in John Ferrero's office) for consideration by Governor John Kasich in replacing Stark County Court Common Please judge Charles Brown on his retirement.

Notwithstanding that the Democrats selected Zumbar reluctantly, they did do the right thing for Stark County political and governmental stability.

But do not expect a repeat.

Gonzalez and the Stark Democratic Central Committee would be the laughing stock of politicos throughout Ohio if they were to for a second time in a little over a year to do the best thing for for the Stark County community on a call for non-partisanship. 

Political realities with both Stark County political parties and indeed all political party organizations is to feather their own nests and not to look out for the well-being of the citizenry.

Look for a Democrat to become the next Stark County sheriff.

And do not be surprised if it turns out to be George T. Maier.

There are better Democratic choices if Dordea is not to be the selection.

One would be Turkowski of Louisville.  As the well-respected leader of the Stark County Police Chiefs Association, Turkowski was a leading voice in aiding the Stark County commissioners to avoid a county financial disaster in passing a 0.5% sales tax increase in November, 2011.

There has been some talk that Jackson police chief David Zink would be a likely replacement for McDonald inasmuch as he is chief of one of Stark County's largest police districts.  Moreover, he took out petitions to run against McDonald in the March, 2012 primary.

But it appears that Zink has torpedoed himself.

Recently, according to an area media report, Jackson trustees initiated an investigation of Zink (hiring private legal counsel) on allegations, to wit:

... that Zink violated the township’s harassment policy by trying to have a physical or dating relationship during the last five years with a female police department employee whom he supervises. The attempts included a kiss, repeated offers to travel out of town together for training, uninvited visits to her home and an uninvited visit to her hotel while she was away at training two hours away from Stark County.

...

According to [the private legal counsel Hill's] report, Zink denied all of the allegations when interviewed by Hill. But Hill noted that he was able to corroborate most of the allegations by a third party or through documents and that Zink had not been persuasive in denying the allegations. He said the chief hesitated when asked about an incident in 2007, then read from a prepared written statement to describe his version of the events. At another point in the interview, Hill said Zink had become “flustered and ambiguous” in addressing the allegations.

As a consequence of the investigation, Zink was suspended without pay for a month.

So it would seem that Jackson officials (which includes Gonzalez who is a former Jackson trustee currently the elected fiscal officer), will be preoccupied with dealing with the spill out from their actions vis-a-vis the allegations.

Moreover, it is not likely that Gonzalez and the Dems would want to have to defend a Party choice of Zink to replace McDonald.

However, that is not to say that politics rather than getting Stark County's very best "on the overall merits" law enforcement official in place as McDonald's replacement will be the prime factor in the selection process.

Remember that political parties are not about doing what is best for everyday citizens unless circumstances (e.g. Zeigler/Zumbar) give them no other choice.

It appears to the SCPR that Stark's organized Democrats are in the catbird's seat in terms of being free (in terms of Stark Republicans not considering Democrats for selection) to make a politics-based choice and therefore Stark County is unlikely to get the county's very best policemen as Stark County's top cop.