(VIDEO: COMMISSIONERS COMMENT ON HANKE) STARK CO. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR MIKE HANKE'S LAST DAY OF WORK. RETIRES, EFFECTIVE TOMORROW. AN EXCELLENT HIRE, NO?

In the annals of Stark County commissioner history December has proved to be both the best of times and the worst of times for former Stark County commissioner Tom Harmon.

The best of times occurred on December 13, 2007 when on the strong support of the-then Commissioner Harmon, the commissioners selected former Repository managing editor and longtime employee Michael Hanke as Stark County's new chief administrator.

No one knew it at the time, the decision to hire Hanke was probably the saving grace in getting Stark County through the worst of times which were yet to come.

The first year went well enough for Hanke, but then came December 28, 2008:  the beginning of the worst of times (LINK - prior blog) for Stark County finances.

On that date the-then Board of Stark County Commissioners composed of Harmon, Todd Bosley and Jane Vignos decided to impose a 0.5% sales tax.

The imposition of the tax kicked off an furor among everyday Stark Countians which resulted in the tax being repealed in November, 2009 and coupled with a nose diving national/local economy resulted in Stark County government experiencing a financial crisis which the county is just now beginning to get out of.

Much of the credit for survival and even a degree of prospering is in the opinion of the SCPR owing to Chief Administrator Hanke.

But he did have help.

In November, 2010 former Canton mayor Janet Creighton (who has held a number of Stark County elective offices) and former longtime Canton law director Tom Bernabei (also a former councilman and Healy administration official) assessed that there was a large deficiency in county commissioner leadership quality and offered themselves to Stark Countians as having "been there, done that" type of leaders who on being elected teamed up with Hanke to pull Stark County through to the point it now occupies:  surviving and in small measure beginning to thrive.

The Report could go through all the many tests, trials and difficulties that Stark County has endured during Hanke's tenure, but to do so would be to spoil yesterday's celebration by the commissioners of the former reporter and editor turned top flight administrator's gig as chief administrator.

During Hanke's time, he has served with eight commissioners.

Stark County employees will hold a Hanke retirement celebration event at the Stark County Office Building tomorrow afternoon.

Hanke announced his retirement on December 13, 2012:  five years to the day of his initial hire.

Be sure to see this video of Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Regula commenting on the Michael Hanke era as chief administrator for the Stark County commissioners.

And thank you Tom Harmon for having the foresight in being a driving force in 2007 Board of Stark County Commissioners making the right choice!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The financial implications for Stark County?  Devastating!

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

How's that?

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

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

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

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

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

So now you have:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The commissioners reaction to the possibility?

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

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

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

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

So?

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

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

Save money?  Not likely!

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm?

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

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

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

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

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

FORMER STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONER TO TAKE ON FORMER STARK COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIR CURT BRADEN ON TUESDAY FOR A REPUBLICAN BOARD OF ELECTIONS SEAT? ALSO, WHEN ASKED BY THE SCPR, WHETHER NOT REPUBLICANS ARE ASKING HER TO SEEK THE PARTY CHAIRMANSHIP, JANET CREIGHTON RESPONDED: "NO COMMENT."

The Stark County Political Report has a well placed source from within the Stark County Republicanism telling The Report that Jane Vignos is burning up the telephone lines this weekend seeking support to unseat former Stark County Republican Party chairman as one of two Republican representatives on the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE).

The source tells yours truly that Vignos is getting a very positive response from Stark GOP executive board members.

The SCPR is somewhat skeptical that Braden can be beat in his quest to retain his BOE seat.  But when The Report learned that the person interested in running against him is Jane Vignos, the skepticism faded sustantially.

If the Vignos report is true and if Janet Creighton does seek and gain the chairmanship of the Stark GOP, then there will be a sea change in how the Stark County Republican Party is run.

Democrats with the Zeigler problem, a new appointed commissioner (Meeks), a new county engineer (Bennett - "conflict-in-interest" concerns)  and the possible departure of incumbent commissioner Todd Bosley could be in for lots of political trouble come November, 2010 with a Vignos/Creighton managed Stark County Republican Party which will be much more invigorated with a change in leadership from current chairman Jeff Matthews.

The Report's source says that if Republicans do make a change that it is likely that Matthews will remain as deputy director of the BOE.

Matthews may remain.  The SCPR believes it depends on how bitter the fight between Vignos and Bradern (if it materializes) becomes.

For job security, it might be wise for Matthews to sit this one out!

DISCUSSION: HAVE STARK COUNTY'S POLITICAL PARTIES GOTTEN OUT-OF-HAND?

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) apologizes to those public officials and/or politicos who do not have a "place of honor" on The Report's graphic for the discussion about The Report's belief that there is a rampant use of Stark County (including municipalities, villages and townships) departments of government to provide employment (present and past) to those who work the political hustings for their benefactors, the benefactor's political friends in need or the Republican and Democratic party organizations.

The topic is especially relevant now with the troubles in the Stark County treasurer's office. Treasurer Zeigler denies that Vince Frustaci became a county employee some 9 years ago because of his political connections.

Well, pardon The Report's skepticism!

So, let's start at the base question.

Why is it a bad thing for a local government official to hire (or have a fellow local government official hire - in case of relatives) political friends and family for government jobs?

First, these are public jobs paid for by taxpayer monies and should be open for one and all.

The Report knows of situations in Stark County in which virtually whole families are employed in local/state (within Stark County) government. Some have two or three public sector jobs.

Wow!

From The Report's standpoint this political reality is unconscionable at any time, but especially so when Stark has a 10.4% (Canton 11.5%) unemployment rate.

Second, how does one supervise "one's political friend" who "voluntarily" does political extras beyond the call of a given job's duty?

The Report has heard numerous accounts of folks who have gotten employed through the "political avenue" only to be found wanting in having the essential skills.

Does anyone remember Elizabeth Ray and Ohio Congressman Wayne Hays? If not here is a link to familiarize yourself.

Third, these employees grow too comfortable in their jobs. They stagnate, work over (i.e. "put them through unnecessary exercises) members of the general public who question their job performance and all too often assume a "my way or the highway" type of attitude. These folks become so ensconced and ho-hum about their jobs that when problems arise that require mental acuity to solve; they are without a clue.

When government employees cannot solve the problems of government, who do the leaders call in? You've got it. They call in consultants.

Who pays for the consultants?

Bingo!

You and I. We pay for the inept political appointee and we pay for the fix. Isn't that special?