PART I - A MULTI-PART "ANALYTICAL" SERIES ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE ON KEY "STARK COUNTY" RACES

MAIER FOR SHERIFF CAMPAIGN

UPDATED:  5:50 PM

Not long ago, The Stark County Political Report did a blog on what appears to be a George T. Maier attempt to intimidate the top brass within the Stark County Sheriff's Office (SCSO) into contributing to and supporting his campaign to make the transition of "merely being the" Stark County Democratic Party Central Commitee (SCDP-CC) "appointed" sheriff to becoming the elected sheriff.

Maier did hold his fundraiser on the 4th as evidenced by this campaign finance report (CFR)  expense statement on his pre-General CFR.

And the results of his "recommended level of support" solicitation are interesting to say the least.

As shown in the graphic above, the only one among the majors, captains and lieutenants part of the solicitation getting anywhere near "the recommendation" is one Timothy George; promoted by Maier to captain in May, 2013, to wit:  (source:  SCSO Facebook page)

Hmm?

Since he was promoted, Stark County Board of Elections filed Maier CFRs indicate that George contributed another $150 in the post-Primary report and therefore is relatively close to what George T. Maier thinks a captain should contribute.

Tim George, as far as the SCPR can determine, has contributed $800 so far.

Of course, we will not know what he or any other of the top brass at the SCSO does between October 16th and up to and beyond the election until the post-General election CFR are filed.

And that we will not know until December 12, 2014.

Just call the SCPR cynical when it comes to the Maiers (George and his brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., a former Stark Dems chairman), but The Report suspects that there might be a "wink and a nod" operation going on whereby other top SCSO officials/employees will make sizable contributions (or have since October 15th) in line with "the recommendation according to the rank," but they will not be known by the public until December 12th.

The SCPR's take on the Maier brothers is that "personal political loyalty" is an obsession with them and that for anyone who violates any test of loyalty with them (contributions, voting for a sheriff candidate or other Maier approved candidate within the SCDP-CC scheme of things, and the like) will forever be suspect with them as having the requisite loyalty so as to be considered part and parcel of the Maier Loyalty Club.

While he is still short of George T. Maier recommended $1,000 for a captain,  Timothy George is far and away (again, according to Maier filed BOE CFRs) ahead of his peers.

Making him, as far as the SCPR is concerned, the most loyal of George T. Maier's loyalists in terms of SCSO employees contributing to the boss' political campaign.

And as seen in the SCPR's blog on Sergeant Major and U.S. Marine par excellence Dan F. Altieri (at least from Altieri's perspective), personal political loyalty seems to be an obsession with George T. Maier.

Altieri thinks he did not get a renewed "reserve" deputy sheriff commission because he had handed out flyers when Maier was vying for the SCDP-CC appointment as Stark County sheriff on December 11, 2013.

As the SCPR understands it, Maier's denial of Alteri's commission, threatened his ability to earn a living.

The SCPR has searched high and low for a photo of Timothy George and cannot find one.

Would someone please send the SCPR a copy of a Tim George photo?

Why would the SCPR want a photo of Tim George?

Answer:  Don't you think he should be included in the SCPR generated graphic of "The Maier Loyalty Club?"  He does deserve to be rewarded for his "all-out-support" for George T. Maier, no? Does anyone dispute that he is entitled to be thought as being a member of the club?

And, one final thing.

Speaking of photos.

The SCPR has a report that there is (or has been) a photograph of former Democratic sheriff Tim Swanson (who, yesterday, endorsed Maier opponent and Republican Larry Dordea) and Democrat and Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero.

So?

Well, the word is that on the photo there are two darts.

Hmm?

So the questions are, if the report is accurate:  (the SCPR has a source that claims to have seen the photo)

1. What does such a mix in a photo suggest?
2. Does George T. Maier know about it?

With Swanson's endorsement of Dordea, no indication whatsoever that Prosecutor Ferrero is reconciled to Maier, are there a greater pair of disloyals to Maier in all of Stark County?

And the Maiers ain't ever going to forget that!!!

DEMOCRATS FOR DORDEA COMING TOGETHER?

UPDATED & REVISED AT 11:00 A.M.

Former sheriff Tim Swanson and current prosecutor John Ferrero remain - the SCPR thinks - the top two local Democrats, in terms of political appeal, to Stark Countians.

Each has rolled up large majorities in the elections that they have run for re-election.

Swanson has retired (again), but Ferrero is still Stark County's top-profile Democratic officeholder.

So it was one the biggest political mistakes that former Stark County Democratic Party (SCDP) chairman Randy Gonzalez made during his term as chair when he demeaned Ferrero in front of the 177 voting SCDP precinct committeepersons when the Dems met to appoint a successor to 2012 sheriff-elect Mike McDonald.



In the foregoing video, Ferrero said that he would support the Stark County Democratic Party appointee, whomever that might be.

And, the SCPR's recollection is that Tim Swanson has said the same thing.

But since those statements were made, "a lot of water has flowed over the dam."

The SCPR believes that the animosities between Ferrero/Swanson and many other Democratic precinct committeepersons (present and past) and appointee George T. Maier that a significant number of registered Democrats who nearly always, if not always, vote exclusively for Democratic candidates will make an exception on November 4, 2014 and vote for Republican Larry Dordea.

Recently (August 22nd), Dordea campaign officials stopped by former sheriff Tim Swanson's home and obtained a "photo-op" of Swanson family members Tim Swanson (the former sheriff's son and grandson) wearing a Dordea for Sheriff campaign shirts.

While Swanson himself was not in the photo, guess who snapped the picture?

You've got it!

Tim Swanson!!

What do you think the odds are that Swanson will follow through on his declaration that he would support the Democratic candidate, whomever it might be.

The SCPR has been told by Dordea supporters that efforts are underway to get Swanson and Ferrero to publicly endorse Dordea.

There is little doubt in the mind of The Report that both Swanson and Ferrero are privately telling all their "over the years" political supporters that they should vote for Dordea.

And that is a "thin" layer of "icing on the cake" in what the SCPR thinks is going to be a Larry Dordea victory in November because the Democratic "top of the ticket" gubernatorial candidate (Clevelander Ed FitzGerald) is going down big-time and he is likely to drag all the "down-ticket" candidates including George T. Maier down with him

FitzGerald, the SCPR thinks, will beat expectations if he get 35% of the vote.  If he should get 40%, he will think he won.

The biggest problem for Maier and all those Democrats running "down-ticket" is that registered Democrats (very likely to vote a de facto "straight-Democratic-ticket") will stay home in droves.

The "thin" icing on the cake that the SCPR thinks Dordea is benefiting from among Democrats who take their political marching orders from the likes of Swanson and Ferrero could become "thick and overwhelming" if the Dordea supporters can convince Swanson and Ferrero to make public statements of support.

Do not look for that to happen.

While the campaign button pictured at the beginning of this blog may not actually go into production, the Swanson photo session indicates that political wounds within the Stark County "organized" Democratic Party are about as fresh as they were on December 11, 2013 when the Dems under the guidance of then chairman Gonzalez did an "in-your-face" routine on the anti-Maier forces within the central committee.

The SCPR thinks Maier will do better than FitzGerald in Stark County.

And, if he had a solid SCDP structure behind him, The Report thinks he might win notwithstanding FitzGerald.

But he doesn't!

Accordingly, it is hard for the SCPR to see George T. Maier, the SCDP appointed sheriff he is, serving beyond December 31, 2014.

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

OTHERS PAY THE PRICE, TOO?

AND

MAYBE, STILL OTHERS ARE IN FOR IT?

VIDEO ENCORE

KATHLEEN CLUNK

MAKES A CHARGE

ON

STARK DEMS' CHAIRMAN

RANDY GONZALEZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The message from the Johnnie and George?

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

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

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

VIVIANNE WHALEN DUFFRIN

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

From that blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does anybody doubt that her firing was political payback?

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

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

And where did she end up with new employment?

You've got it!

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

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

THOMAS ROGERS

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

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

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

PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO

Watch out Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero!

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

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

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

Truly amazing, no!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at this Democratic precinct committee person contest.

Hmm?

Margaret Elum.

Who's she?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm?

SUE RYAN OF ALLIANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SCPR certainly does not believe that.

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

You've got it!  George T. Maier. 

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

We shall see!

KATHLEEN CLUNK

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



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

Reeks of disingenuousness, no?

Doesn't surprise the SCPR in the slightest.

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

(VIDEO) WILL MASSILLON'S "IRON LADY" - IN THE MAKING - BE THE RUINATION OF THE CITY?

UPDATE:  Area media reports that Mayor Catazaro-Perry in effect cried "Uncle" and submitted the Massillon City Council approved plan to the Massillon Financial Planning and Supervision Commission headed up by State of Ohio Office of Management and Budget representative Sharon Hanrahan sometime yesterday.

 VIDEO

Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry

Jousts

with

Councilman Ed Lewis

over

Massillon Financial Recovery Plan

She can only "hope" that she might some day become America's answer to Great Britain's "Iron Lady:"  Margaret Thatcher.

Who can doubt that Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry of Massillon is trying.

And she does have a pedigree of meeting with heads of state.

On August 1, 2012, as President Barack Obama was flying around the country campaigning for reelection as president, he stopped by Akron-Canton Airport for a "meet 'n' greet" with area public officials.

One of the privileged was Catazaro-Perry.

So it could be that the tenacity and tough skin that she has been honing since she became mayor on January 1, 2012 will one day catapult her into the national limelight as "one tough lady."

And we who have been here and seen her political schtick will harken back to the days of 01/10/2012 going forward as having witnessed a political iron lady in the making a la the quintessential and actual Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher.

The SCPR has been on hand to see many Catazaro-Perry "in-your-face" routines.

The evolving Iron Lady of Massillon, the SCPR believes, is not really who she has been as a person pre-political career.  However, she has been running with a political crowd since the early 2000s which has left its mark on her.

Ten years down the road and she is no longer the person who some folks remember as being a different Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

Right now Massillonians are taking in a confrontation between the politico-hardened mayor and Massillon City Council.

Yesterday was supposedly "showdown" date between Her Honor and Massillon's legislators, at least eight (8) of them.

The latest round in the stand off took place on Monday night when council passed a plan to:

• Reduce the credit that Massillonians who work out-of-town get for income taxes paid to the other city/village from 100% of up to the current 1.8% to 75% of that amount which will become 1.9% if Massillons agree to the .1% increase on an upcoming ballot initiative,
• SCPR Note:  This particular provision is the one of all the provisions of revenue raising measures being negotiated (?) between the mayor an council that Her Highness seems most fixed on.  Back in early 2012, Catazaro-Perry was proposing a 50% reduction in the credit.
• SCPR Note:  Republican leader of council, Ed Lewis, IV (Ward 6) has been just as adamantly on the other side of the issue.  As has Massillon resident and Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero (an arch political foe of Catazaro-Perry sponsor and mentor Johnnie A. Maier, Jr).
• Maier is Massillon's clerk of courts, a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (2003-2009) having succeeded Ferrero.  Moreover, he is currently executive vice chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.  Noteworthy also his Maier's tie to the Stark County Democratic Party political director Shane Jackson who is Maier's chief deputy and as such - at last report - is paid a higher salary than Catazaro-Perry.
• Reduced credit to begin July 1, 2014 and continue indefinitely if the .1% income tax increase passes,
• Reduced credit to end on December 31, 2015 if the income tax increase fails,
• SCPR Note:  It is the latter point (end on December 15th) which is "the sticking point" of whether or not the mayor will agree with council's passed plan

Initially, Catazaro-Perry was saying "my way or the highway."  But some think that by the end of Monday's council meeting she was reconsidering.

Witness this SCPR video of her exchange with Councilman Lewis (March 10, 2014 meeting):



Reconsidering?

Kathy Catazaro reconsidering?

You have to be kidding, no?

Well, for the good of Massillon, let's hope not.she is reconsidering.

The Stark County Political Report buys Lewis' line that council has given much more than the mayor.

Take a look at the rest of Ordinance 25 - 2014: (an extract)

==============================================

MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL FINANCIAL RECOVERY PLAN

1.  Sources of Additional Revenue

(a) 181.031 LEVY OF ADDITIONAL TAX

In addition to the income tax levied pursuant to Section 181.03 there is hereby levied, to provide funds for the purpose of expenses of operation of the municipal government, a tax upon earnings at the additional rate of one-tenth of one percent (.10%) upon those items enumerated in Section 181.03.

(b) Approve a street lighting utility fee with and effective date at the beginning of a quarter-year date, preferably April 1, 2014.  Under this plan, each improved property owner will be charged a fee of $25.00 per year.  (Same as Mayor’s)
 
(c) Evaluate existing debt refinancing opportunities.  (Same as Mayor’s)

(d) Identify non-essential City Assets.  (Same as Mayor’s)

(e) Evaluate new and existing fees for permits, licenses and services and bring them current with other similar cities.  (Same as the Mayor’s)

(f) Review and evaluate collections practices in various City departments (Same as Mayor’s)

(g) Adopt selected revenue generating recommendations contained in the Auditor of State Performance Audits for the Police Department, Parks and Recreation Department and The Legends of Massillon Golf Course (Same as Mayor’s)

(h) Explore grant possibilities for virtually every aspect of City operations (Same as Mayors)

2.  Expenditure Reductions, Cash Management Strategies and Elimination of Deficit Funds (Same as Mayor’s) (emphasis added)

===============================================

The SCPR for one will be surprised if she relents.

The expectation is that if the mayor had not accepted as of the end of yesterday the following consequences will flow:

• a 15% reduction in the city's budget using April, 2013 appropriation numbers, 
• to be implemented on April 1, 2014, and 
• to continue until the mayor and council agree on a plan

Looking at the politics of the situation, it could be that many if not most council members are just fine with the 15% cuts.

Republican members of council have been pushing for expenditure cuts since Catazaro-Perry became mayor.

If cuts take place, look for political dynamics to take over big time as both the mayor and council members are up for reelection in 2015.

Massillonians will be inundated with "the blame game" as to who caused the impasse necessitating the cuts.

The only hope that the SCPR sees in avoiding a drawn out fight between Massillon's "Iron Lady in the Making" and council is the Massillon Financial Planning and Supervision Commission headed up by State of Ohio Office of Management and Budget representative Sharon Hanrahan.

Hanrahan is one of the few voices, if not the only voice, she heeds other than that - apparently - of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and his "kitchen cabinet" of political loyalists.

Let's hope she can slow down the accelerating pace of an "Iron Lady in the Making!"

THERE NEEDS TO BE AN "OFFICIAL" INVESTIGATION! ARE WHOLESALE VIOLATIONS OF THE ORC 124.57 GOING ON IN THE STARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT?

SCPR ADVOCACY NOTE

THE STARK COUNTY PROSECUTOR

OR

"SPECIALLY APPOINTED 'INDEPENDENT' COUNSEL"

OR

THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL

SHOULD 

DO 

A

ORC 124.57 INVESTIGATION

UPDATE:  12:25 PM

Here is an e-mail received by the SCPR this morning, to wit:

Another great in-depth look at the Sheriff situation.

There is a online petition as well you might not be aware of.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/321/201/999/let-the-voters-decide-put-sheriff-george-maier-on-the-ballot/?taf_id=10714407&cid=fb_na

If you compare the names to those on your list posted today, you will see many, many deputies on there match, plus many more not on the posted list.

You are also right about the pressure and poor work environment being placed on the employees at the Sheriff's Office to support Maier, ... .. Those petitions were passed around in person, and you were basically in a no win situation.

...

Lose lose situation for sure.

Thanks again for what must be hours of research and information gathering. It is appreciated.

Note:  The SCPR excised from the e-mail published  above what The Report interprets as allegations of illegality and ethics violations inasmuch as whether or not such is the case is why The Report is calling for the Stark County prosecutor or an appointed “independent” special prosecutor or the Ohio attorney general’s office to conduct an inquiry to make a determination one way or another on the illegality/ethics issues.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The Stark County Political Report is absolutely "bananas" for the RULE OF LAW.

But, different than some, The Report thinks that the RULE OF LAW should apply "equally" to everybody.

George T. Maier attorney Thomas Rosenberg may have opened the proverbial "Pandora's Box" in suggesting, perhaps, that Stark County sheriff department lieutenant Lou Darrow violated the law in applying for the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointment as Stark County sheriff on December 11, 2013?

As we all know now, there is quite a bit of controversy in the Dems' finding someone to fill out Mike McDonald's term as Stark County sheriff.

Though elected in November, 2012, McDonald could not take office on January 7, 2013 because of an terminal illness which claimed his life on February 22, 2013.

The Dems selected Massillonian George T. Maier on February 5, 2013 but the appointment was found to have been illegal (a violation of Ohio statutory law) on November 6, 2013 by the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Dems - the SCPR thinks - made the mistake all over again on December 11th in re-appointing Maier.

But if Rosenberg had his way, Lou Darrow would have been excluded.

Never mind that a number of Stark Countians think that Maier has exactly the same problem.

Double standards do not seem to trouble Rosenberg.

In yesterday's blog, the SCPR opined that Rosenberg seems to have a penchant to one standard applying to others but not to his client.

Today, the SCPR is focusing on the Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57 "Pandora's Box" that Rosenberg introduced into the "all matters Maier" equation back on November 13, 2013.

Here is an extract of ORC 124.57:

124.57 Prohibition against partisan political activity.

(A) No officer or employee in the classified service of the state, the several counties, cities, and city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state shall directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, solicit or receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving, any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political party or for any candidate for public office; nor shall any person solicit directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting, any such assessment, contribution, or payment from any officer or employee in the classified service of the state, the several counties, cities, or city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state; nor shall any officer or employee in the classified service of the state, the several counties, cities, and city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state be an officer in any political organization or take part in politics other than to vote as the officer or employee pleases and to express freely political opinions.

Well, insofar as the SCPR can determine, so was George T. Maier a member of "Classified Civil" service when he applied to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas on November 26, 2013 (thirteen days after the his "stop" Lou Darrow letter).

But The Report's take on Rosenberg is that "what's good for the goose, IS NOT good for the gander."

The "rule of law" may or may not apply to a huge number of deputy sheriffs working out of 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

And, perhaps, to Democratic Party "write-in" candidate Lt. (Summit County sheriff's department) Douglas S. Smith.

Here is an extract of a "Concerned Citizen" letter sent to Summit County Sheriff Steve Brady on Wednesday of this week:

Sheriff Steve Brady
County of Summit
53 University Ave.
Akron, Ohio 44308
   
RE: Lt. Douglas S. Smith write-in candidacy for partisan ofiice and potential violation of\/~ the Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57, County of Summit Codified Ordinance 169.18 and County of Summit Ordinance 2011-207.

Dear Sheriff Brady:

I am writing this communication to you to request that you as the appointing authority conduct an inquiry and investigation into a potential violation allegedly committed by Lt. Douglas S. Smith who is an employee of the County of Summit, Akron, Ohio - Sheriff Office. 

Lt Douglas S. Smith is currently employed by the County of Summit, Akron, Ohio Sheriff Office in a classified position. Lt Douglas S. Smith currently resides at 1222 Hiddenview St., N.W. North Canton, Ohio 44720. 

The allegation is that as an employee of the Sheriff Department for the County of Summit, Akron, Ohio, Lt Douglas S. Smith most recently and also on prior occasions knowingly and continuously participated in partisan politics. Please see the attached newspaper articles which are attached as exhibits and supporting evidence or proof of the alleged violations.

This is contrary to the following State of Ohio and County of Summit, Akron, Ohio law: The Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57 - Prohibition against partisan political activity. Ordinance 2011-207, Section 169.18 "Political Activity" County of Summit, Akron, Ohio. County of Summit, Akron, Ohio Codified Ordinances Section 169.18, "Political Activity".

(SCPR Note:  Yesterday The Report spoke with Douglas Smith and came away with the following impressions:

• Smith is coordinating in a loose construction of "coordinating:"
• He has talked with Stark Dems' chairman Randy Gonzalez and George T. Maier himself about running as a "write-in" candidate before filing,
• Both Gonzalez and Maier are telling him that they are confident that they will win before Ohio's secretary of state,
• Neither endorsed his filing, but both were seemingly understanding that the Democrats would not want to have nobody on the ballot should the secretary of state surprise them and vote to keep Maier off the ballot,
• Smith seem "highly" fluid on whether or not he will stay in the race because
• He worries that the fact that he is an employee of the Summit County sheriff's department and has not established any kind of political base in Stark County and therefore would have a difficult time raising money to have a competitive campaign against Republican Larry Dordea, that it may not be practical for him to stay in the campaign should Maier not make it to the ballot,
• He does not plan to but is open to stepping aside should Maier not make it to the ballot so that the Stark Dems can appoint someone else in his stead,
• He does not think he has an ORC 124.57 problem, but is not sure of it and would be quick to exit if it became apparent that he does,

Last week, the SCPR got word of allegations that some "politiking" was/are going on on behalf of George T. Maier "within the sherff's 'official' abode."

Here is the content. of an e-mail that the SCPR received last Thursday:

Hello,

Regardless whether someone supports George T. Maier as Sheriff or not. I do not believe any Deputy Sheriff (whether ON or OFF duty) should have been attending this weeks meeting. Unless they were on "Official Business", such as testifying or providing security.

Most of the uniformed deputies shown on your short video, appeared to be Reserve Deputies, and Administrator's. I don't find it shocking that George T. Maier was using the Reserve Deputies to show force or support. Whatever he may call it. Apparently George T. Maier has been having Reserve Deputies volunteer their time to replace his name on county property and vehicles.

Something I do find a little shocking. Apparently George T. Maier's administration assistant, Derrick Loy has been circulating a letter around the Sheriff's Office asking for deputies/employees to sign in support of Maier. The letter is supposed to be presented to the BOE. I believe this practice not only violates department policy but possibly the law.

I find it shocking that Deputies would attend a BOE meeting on their own and volunteer to sign a letter supporting George T. Maier. Except that the Deputies are currently in contract negotiations with George T. Maier. The tentative contract George T. Maier recently presented to the deputies union was rejected.

I've been a long time reader of your blog and enjoy it most of the time. I'm not employed at the Sheriff's Office. However I have family and close friends that work there. Most of the employees are amazing people and could careless about the politics. They just want to do their job. I wanted to share some of my thoughts and observations.

Thanks for you time.

Speaking of the "petitions" (called a letter by the writer), here they are:

First, from the deputies:

Stark County Board of Elections 
2013"* Street NE Floor 1 
Canton, Ohio 44702

Please accept this letter from the following deputies of the Stark County Sheriff's Office as our statement of confidence in the qualifications of Stark County Sheriff George T. Maier.  As law enforcement officers, we believe George Maier to be well qualified for the Office of Sheriff and we respectfully request that Sheriff Maier's nominating petition and substantial qualifications be certified in the affirmative.

We strongly encourage the Stark County Board of Elections to put politics aside, and place him on the ballot as his qualifications demand, thus providing the voters of Stark County the fundamental democratic right to decide who is best suited to serve as their Sheriff. Rejecting Sheriff Major's candidacy denies the public a choice in this election, removes from the ballot a law enforcement leader we wholeheartedly believe to be qualified, and furthers the purely political motivation of a few detractors who seek to limit the public's choice in this election.

This letter is not a political endorsement for, or against any particular candidate. It is simply a statement of our desire to place the selection of our Sheriff where it rightly belongs - in the hands of the voters of Stark County.

Second, from some of the administrators working at the Stark County sheriff's office:

Please accept this letter from the following employees of the Stark Countv Sheriff's Office as our statement of confidence in the excellent performance of Stark County Sheriff George T. Maier. As employees having a diverse range of responsibilities and duties throughout the Stark County Sheriffs Office, we feel Sheriff Maier has transformed the agency's focus on service to the public. We respectfully request that Sheriff Maier's nominating petition and substantial qualifications be certified as provided by Ohio law.

We strongly encourage the Stark County Board of Elections to leave politics aside, and place Sheriff Maier on the ballot as his qualifications duly merit. This allows the people of Stark County the opportunity to decide who should serve as Stark County Sheriff. Rejecting Sheriff Maier's candidacy would deny the public a choice in this election and remove from the ballot a law enforcement leader we wholeheartedly believe has demonstrated his wealth of qualifications and capabilities during the past year.

This letter is not a political endorsement for, or against any particular candidate.  It is simply a statement of our desire to place the selection of our Sheriff where it rightly belongs - in the hands of the voters of Stark County.

And, of course, there are the "Contributors in the Officeholders' Employee" campaign finance report required by the law of Ohio, to wit:

(SCPR Note:  this list is independent of the petition signatures list)

Of course, the SCPR always tries to the other side of the story.
So, The Report sent this e-mail to the "named in the e-mail" Derrick Loy, to wit:

Derrick:

A excerpt from an e-mail I received this afternoon:

Apparently George T. Maier's administration assistant, Derrick Loy has been circulating a letter around the Sheriff's Office asking for deputies/employees to sign in support of Maier. The letter is supposed to be presented to the BOE.

True or untrue?

If true, please explain in detail the facts and circumstances surrounding your involvement.

Thanks,

Martin Olson
SCPR

The Report thought that Loy might respond in a meaningful way to the e-mail because he was quick to use the SCPR in his campaigning for Mike McDonald when he ran against Republican Larry Dordea in 2012.

Moreover, Loy recently became a center of controversy with Alliance City Council because he was one of a number of subjects on a "secret ballot" taken on January 13, 2014 during a council meeting as to whether or not Loy would be re-appointed to the Alliance Water & Sewer Advisory Board.

The SCPR asked Loy for his side of the story and sent in a responsive e-mail which The Report published in full.

Well, it now seems to the SCPR that Loy has been told by someone in the George T. Maier entourage to clam up with The Report, to wit: (Loy's response to the SCPR e-mail)

Martin,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your email, I don't check my personal email as often as I should.

Concerning your inquiry, I have never hid behind my positions or statements with you, as I believe in openness and transparency.  With that said, I do not feel compelled to respond to statements made by people who  lack courage and/or people hiding behind anonymity.

Be well,

Derrick

Oh what a terrific guy that Derrick Loy is!  "Be well," he says.

But no answer! 

He can forget the "laced with sarcasm niceties," just answer the questions!  Stark County's taxpayers are entitled to have answers from a guy who works for the taxpayers, no?

Seems like he may have consulted with Stark County recorder Rick Campbell on how he should respond to SCPR inquiries.  Loy's response in right out of Campbell's playbook.

No matter the truth or falsity of the allegation(s), "I do not respond to anonymous allegation."

Hmm?

Well, Derrick, THE E-MAIL PASSED ON TO THE STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT IS NOT ANONYMOUS BUT the SCPR, since the sender says he/she has friends and relatives working in the sheriff's department, does not want to make the writer's friends/family vulnerable to retaliation.

Now why in the world would the SCPR be concerned that the folks in charge at the Stark County sheriff's office might be in a mood for some retribution on the writer's friends/family if his/her identity were known?

Maybe, in light of this new information and the SCPR's concern for the well-being of the friends and family of the sender, Loy will reconsider and tell all HE knows about the facts and circumstances surrounding the circulating of the petition.  

For starters:

Who suggested that it be written?

Who authored it?

Were the signatures collected while the deputies/administrators were on the taxpayer dime?

Who hand carried a copy down to the Board of Elections?

Why wasn't Balas-Bratton's attorney provided with a copy by the Maier supporter and/or the Stark County Board of Elections?

It is highly unlikely that Loy or other person on the staff at the Stark County sheriff's department will answer the questions.

For it appears to The Reprt that Loy is one of the SCPR's regular readers and maybe, just maybe the amplification of the reasons for "no name as to the commenter" in this blog just might prompt him to reconsider, no?

Probably not.  But we shall see.

There is no doubt in the thinking of The Report that Loy is a George Maier's "main man" when it comes to doing the bidding of the Democratic Party appointed sheriff.

If the SCPR were to inquire of the "bossman," George T. Maier himself - there is no doubt that The Report would get "zippo" from a man who is paid by Stark County taxpayers (as is Loy) and who apparently thinks that he is unaccountable to the Stark County public.

Maier goes out of his way to make it plain to the SCPR (in a taunting-esque fashion) that he is willing to talk to the "easily put off" reporters at The Repository and to "bonkers for George Maier" Ron Ponder of WHBC but not to the SCPR

Now why would that be?

Of course, the SCPR is not having a love-in with Maier as Ponder is and does not ask "I don't want to offend you" questions that way too many of The Repository reporters seem to ask him.

But Maier has no compunction about accepting taxpayer dollars as public official compensation (unless, of course, the Ohio Supreme Court finds him - once again - to be in office illegally) and not subject himself to incisive questioning that the SCPR is so well known for asking questions that put the likes of Maier to be publicly accountable.

Back to the ORC 124.57 question.
 
At the beginning of this blog in the headline section, The Report calls for the Stark County prosecutor and/or the Ohio Attorney General to conduct an investigation into the conduct of Darrow, Maier and the other classified civil service employees working out of 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

And, in particular, to focus on the petition referred to in the e-mail above.

Note the "multiple assurances" in the petition that the deputies "are not being political."

That whoever wrote the petition had to repeatedly assert that the petition was not a political statement while dissing opponents of Maier as being political (the deputies letter), is in and of itself to the SCPR a tacit admission that Maier's supporters in petitioning were attempting to apply political pressure to effect the outcome of Balas-Bratton v. Maier in Maier's favor.

Ohio's BOE structure, is such  (i.e. two Republican members, two Democratic members and an evenly divided between Republican and Democratic support staff) as set up, to, by its very nature to engage in "Cold War-esque" political warfare with the secretary of state (be that person a Democrat or Republican) being empowered by "the rule of law" (as bad as the SCPR thinks the law is) is to step in and break any tie votes that occur among the four partisan members.

And, of course, those behind the petitions know that Ohio's Board of Elections reek of politics and so why wouldn't you try to apply political pressure?

Whoever was the genius behind the petitions forgot two things:

One, in their handling of election/candidacy protests, BOEs need to get about as far away as they can from their inherently political structure for in this role they are "quasi-judicial" bodies subject to review by the courts of Ohio.

To the degree that BOEs in their role as "sort of" jurists appear to be influenced by arbitrary political considerations, they run a very high degree of having their decisions overturned by the courts.

Two, the deputies/sheriff administrators' ORC 124.57 concerns.

Whoever, the petition (letter) genius was, may have put 73 hard working sheriffs in harms way on 124.57.

They are not deserving of what may be about to come their way in the way of an investigation on the 124.57 issue.

Maier, is a different matter.

His attorney (Rosenberg) laid down the standard for his own client in writing Ferrero on November 13th of last year.

Could it be that Maier himself will get hoisted by his own attorney's petard?

And, of course, Lt. Douglas Smith should be included in the lot.

If Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57 is to mean anything in terms of "the rule of law" prevailing in Stark County, then it is incumbent on Stark County's prosecutor (or, a special "independent" appointed counsel") and/or Ohio's attorney general (DeWine) to launch an investigation of whether or not any 124.57 prohibited political activities have emanated from the Stark County sheriff's department under the reign of George T. Maier?

Let it be written, let it be said!

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?