SCPR'S "DEEP THROAT(s)" AT SHERIFF'S OFFICE STILL AT WORK!

It appears that Stark County's version of "All The President's Men" may be up and running at the Stark County sheriff's office.

Nobody is alleging anybody having broken into George T. Maier opponent for Stark County sheriff Larry Dordea's campaign headquarters in the lead up to the November, 2014 general election to find out what they could about Dordea's secret campaign plans.

But there is no doubt that Maier has surrounded himself with a bunch of political loyalists who wear Stark County sheriff department uniforms and who apparently think that when Sheriff Maier says - "jump," they all rejoin - "how high?"

This blog's rough analogy to Watergate is done in order to how a politician's insecurity  (referred to herein as political paranoia) can lead to some pretty dire results.

And it could be that over the next two years Stark Countians will be sitting in "front row seats" as what the Stark County Political Report thinks is Sheriff George T. Maier's malady of political insecurity play out.

As the SCPR revealed in the blogs (the Sgt. Major Altieri blog) on the campaign in progress, there can be absolutely no doubt that Sheriff Maier puts personal political loyalty at the highest rung of the ladder to departmental success. One it appears departmental leadership aspirants have to climb over to get a Maier nod for promotion.

Although Dan Altieri (a highly decorated Marine, who fught in Afgahanistan and Iraq) had been a terrific, no-nonsense, non-political law enforcement officer faithfully serving "the people of Stark County," after retiring, having been a deputy for 27 years, was denied a reserve deputy sheriff commission by Maier in January, 2014 because Altieri (according to Altieri) had the temerity to exercise is U.S. Constitutional right of political association in supporting Lou Darrow in Darrow's contest with Maier to get the appointment of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee to replace November, 2013 Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald.   McDonald could not take office on January 7, 2013 because of an illness which cost him his life in February, 2013.

According to Altieri, when he cornered Maier asking why he was being denied a commission after his long and faithful service as a deputy sheriff, he was told that his support of Darrow raised a question with Maier as to whether or not Altieri was trustworthy.

Altieri's offense made him so untrustworthy to Maier?

He handed out literature for Darrow at a Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee meeting in support of Darrow.

The denial could have cost Altieri a job at an area college had not other Stark County law enforcement offices stepped in to provide the needed commission.

Maier certainly is entitled to have loyal-to-a point, dependable, reliable police officers surrounding him in his official capacity.

However, for Maier to demand personal political loyalty as Altieri says he did of him is "over-the-top" which means to the SCPR that Maier needs to be watched very closely by area media on the question of whether or not as sheriff he is politicizing the operation of Stark's countywide law enforcement agency.

There are those who say that it seems that personal political loyalty to George T. Maier has a lot to do with if not everything to do with whether or not one gets an administrative job with the Stark County taxpayer supported county sheriff's office.

As far as the SCPR knows there is no general public solicitation of the taxpaying Stark County general public for administrative job openings.

Stark County Political Report readers know the track record of The Report in climbing all over elected public officials (Democrat and Republican) who cut out the taxpaying public from opportunities to gain public employment.

One of the most egregious cases is how former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez's son Kody benefited from such a process in being selected by Rick Campbell (Democrat county recorder) and Phil Giavasis (Democrat Canton Municipal Court clerk of courts) for two different chief deputy positions.

Of course Randy says he had nothing to do with Kody's jumping to the front of the line or more accurately being the only person in line.

And the SCPR thinks he has the political savvy for such to actually be the case.

However, The Report believes that the likes of Campbell and Giavasis (current Dems party chairman, who, by the way, was Randy's boss when he was chief deputy of Canton Muny) don't have to be asked. Both have highly acute political noses that The Report believes function flawlessly to benefit the likes of Kody Gonzalez.

Now that Republicans have regained a foothold in county government, they too (e.g. Harold [county auditor], Zumbar [county treasurer], Park [Common Pleas judge] and Creighton [commissioner] indicate that Republicans are not to be outdone by the Dems.

In a twisted bit of justification, each party points to the other as doing politics driven (as contrasted to "merits driven" combined with "open to the taxpaying public driven") job selection as a proper basis on which to appoint - as a primary criterion - the highly partisan or personal political loyalist to public office.

It is stuff like this that grates on the everyday citizens and over time builds up to a point that ordinary citizens increasingly take on a cynicism which erodes there willingness to participate in the processes and structures of our democratic republic.

After having created the conditions for rank-and-file citizens to want to opt out of American's superbly designed democratic-republican system of government in (increasing numbers):

• not voting, 
• not working on political campaigns, 
• not attending government meetings, 
• not willing to speak out on witnessed abuses of power by government officials, 
• and the like)

many of our elected officials want to disparage the body politic (i.e. the electorate) as somehow being disinterested bores.

Closer to the truth of the matter, yours truly thinks, are the "inside jobs" done by many of our politicians which send out a message loud and clear that the hoi polloi is only to active in the public square to support the politicos continuance in office.

Otherwise, "We the People" are just to shut up!

While a number of Maier regime administrative posts are carryovers from Tim Swanson time as sheriff, can there be any doubt that they have been scrutinized by Maier and the likes of his political henchmen (err consultants, for example brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and Stark County Democratic Party political director Shane Jackson) for George T. Maier personal political loyalty?

The SCPR was the only Stark County media outlet during the campaign that informed the Stark County voting public that Maier has a history of allegations that suggest that he may not have the temperament, disposition and overall character qualities that many of us insist upon as being essential to being possessed by Stark County's top cop.

It could be that Maier has satisfactory answers to those allegations

However, Stark County only countywide print media (The Repository) failed to press Maier for answers to the allegations.

The SCPR did.

The Repository has a history of landing on certain candidates about one thing or another, but giving others like Maier a pass.

Former Stark County auditor Kim Perez is a prime example of The Repository's singling out to the exclusion of others.

When he took office as Stark County auditor in 2004 having defeated Brant Luther (who worked for her in the auditor's office) hand-picked by Janet Creighton (now a Republican Stark County commissioner) to succeed her as the appointee of the Stark County Republican Party upon her resignation as auditor in 2003 to run against Democrat William Smuckler for mayor of Canton (which contest she won), The Repository folks landed on Perez for bringing some his Democratic friends into office with him as staff members.

The SCPR thinks that the media should always be on the outlook for such.  And The Report had the same take on Perez.

After the SCPR broke the story on Kody Gonzalez and his inside track (a second time) to a chief deputyship, The Repository did chime in.

But by and large "mum is the word" with The Rep editorial board on personal political loyalty tests and political party office holder "horse trading."

And the SCPR cannot recall in all the years of being a Stark Countian (40 years) of the editors jumping on a Republican office holder.

The difference between The Repository and The Stark County Political Report is that The Rep has shown itself to be "a respecter of persons" whereas the SCPR is an equal opportunity critic.

The SCPR has written quite a few blogs over the nearly seven years of The Report's existence laying out chapter and verse how highly politicized yours truly thinks the record shows Sheriff Maier's brother Johnnie to be.

To the SCPR, Johnnie (a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman) is the most politically paranoid politician in all of Stark County.  Accordingly, The Report thinks he surrounds himself in political and government circles with people he has determined to be totally loyal to his political interests.

Since George first came to the notice of the SCPR when he was sworn in as the SCDP-CC sheriff appointee on February 5, 2013, it  is appearing to The Report that Sheriff Maier and brother Johnnie share the affliction of political paranoia.

Many folks are dismissive of importance of political paranoia as a factor in a politician's life and for the most part they are right to be so because nearly every politician is afflicted to some degree. But most successfully keep a cap on it.

One American politician who allowed political paranoia to destroy his presidency, and for many pf us, his credibility forever, was President Richard M. Nixon (1969 - 1973).

In the process of the unfolding of what came to be called "Watergate," the United States of America came to the threshold of a Constitutional crisise

Yours truly just finished reading "The Powers That Be" by David Halberstam.  (A book, hopefully, the big a The Rep have read).

The book is an exhaustive study (over 1000 pages) of The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times and CBS (to a lesser degree ABC and NBC) in terms of them effectively serving their reading publics with investigative journalism that dug out things like Richard Nixon's political paranoia prompting the occurrence of Watergate.

"The Powers That Be" shows Richard Nixon as being one of those persons who did not take scrutiny or criticism well from the days (1946) he was first elected to Congress.

The paranoia began early and went largely unchecked until he resigned the presidency in humiliation.

He surrounded himself with "jump how high" folks and these folks as detailed in "The Powers That Be" tried to bully the media.  Disturbingly enough, they were successful until Bernstein and Woodward got rolling on Watergate with the help of a courageous "loyal to America first" person in Mark Felt.

On Friday the SCPR was contacted by a source internal to the Stark County sheriff's department and told that on January 20th (Tuesday of last week), Sheriff George T. Maier issued an internal memo laying out a number of promotions and other moves.

Here is a copy of that memo.

Here is one SCPR source says about the promotions:

... it sounds clear to me, that most of the deputies and employees are NOT in support of the recent Maier promotions. 

Apparently it's known/believed within the Sheriff's Office, that the recent Maier promotions are a direct result of Charles Stantz, Timothy George, and John Oliver being "MAJOR" supporters of George T. Maier's election campaign.  

They were frequently seen attending area parades, public gatherings, canvasing neighborhoods, erecting George T. Maier campaign signs, and etc in support of Maier for Sheriff.  (Which was clearly seen in photographs posted on the "Maier for Sheriff" Facebook page.) 

The SCPR is also hearing that Maier will be bringing in a chief deputy sheriff.  There has not been one since McDonald held the post.

The word is that the new chief will come from among Maier's Ohio State Highway Patrol pals (to the degree they still exist) who is said to have retired recently.

It appears to the SCPR that Maier has announced the promotions of four (George, Stanz and Oliver; Loy, of course, not a raise in rank for he is not a deputy sheriff, but with a much more significant job) of his most personally political loyal - during the Maier/Dordea campaign - administrative sheriffs.

Not only did Maier promote George, Stanz and Oliver, but he raised Stanz and Oliver by two ranks (from lieutenant to major).

The SCPR is told that it has been eight years since a skipping of ranks promotion took place (under Swanson) wherein Sgt Johnson was promoted to captain about eight years ago.

Folks, these promotions and their suspiciously seeming correspondence with political campaign activity, should raise red flags to the Stark County public and to all of Stark County media.

But no one should hold his/her breath in thinking that Stark's only countywide newspaper will nose into the question of whether or not the Maier promotions have anything to do with their political involvement in George's campaign.

Fortunately, the SCPR does have  "Deep Throat-esque" type figures deep within the bowels of the Stark County sheriff's department.

Which likely means that there is very little Maier can do outside his close-in super loyal officers that the SCPR will not get hold of and pass onto the Stark County public in the context of a critical journalistic analysis.

Which, of course, likely drives the Maier brothers right up the proverbial wall.

It would not surprise the SCPR that with the publication of this blog that Maier and his political confidants will launch a witch hunt to ferret out the department's "Deep Throat."

In a post-election blog, the SCPR chided the sheriff-elect that one of his first hires should be a plumber so as to fix all the leaks emanating out of 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

Over the seven years that this blog has been in existence, yours truly has received numerous reports the degree to which Johnnie, Jr., and R. Shane Jackson "bounce off the walls."

The irony is that these two gave yours truly the idea of starting a blog.

Questions need to be answered by this sheriff:

• justifying these promotions on merit grounds, and 
• addressing his seeming obsession with personal political loyalty as  factor:
• in whom he hires to administrative positions, and/or 
• who gets promoted.

Maier has to (in order to avoid the sheriff''s department being generally thought as being rife with a requirement of political correctness in sync with Maier's political interests), persuade, by clear and convincing evidence that his administrative hirings/firings and promotions had nothing whatsoever to do with the recipient's personal political loyalty to him.

Additionally, there are obvious questions about the promotions and added department functions cost paid out of the Stark County general fund funded by Stark County taxpayers.

Here is a comparison between the only existing major's (Arnold) pay rate and those of Oliver and Stanz as lieutenants.

• SCPR note:  When Maier provides data to the Stark County auditor's office, The Report will be sure to publish the "more or less" exact cost to Stark County taxpayers of the actions he outlines in the above January 20, 2014 inter office memo.

Of course, Maier does not have the gonads to take "political factor" and fiscal questions from The Stark County Poltical Report.

As the SCPR sees it, this is "come to Jesus" time for the bigs at The Repository.

The Report is told that quite of number of deputies are upset with how Maier is handling things and see a significance to the safety of the Stark County public with Maier spending money on promotions and other, perhaps, unneeded changes in that overtime for the day-in, day-out law enforcement deputy sheriff workload is alleged to be severely cut back.

One change that the SCPR applauds is the addition of an investigation function (i.e. a detective bureau).

It has take Maier two years to add this much needed capability.  But "late is better than never."

Maier has blown off the SCPR questions because he knows that yours truly will not abide preconditions as to limiting the digging nature and scope of inquiry. (see blog on Massillon Ward 4 Councilman Shaddrick Stinson's attempt to do so)

Would Maierdare blow off The Repository?

If The Rep takes up the challenge to insist that Maier answer incisive questions on the issues raised in this blog, the interview needs to be video recorded and made available to the Stark County public so that we all can assess whether or not The Rep did its journalistic due diligence.

The potential gravity of this situation in terms of continuing public confidence in the integrity of the Stark County sheriff's office depending of a thorough vetting of Maier hiring/promotion practices is clearly, as far as the credibility of The Repository is concerned is a "trust, but verify" matter..

When Kim Perez took office as county auditor, the editors went to work right away.

And who thinks that the functioning of the auditor's office is anywhere near in importance to the public having confidence in the operation of countywide law enforcement?

It is not a question of the professional police men and women who staff the sheriff's department.

Only yesterday, the SCPR received a response to questions posed to former Sheriff Tim Swanson.

Here is what he had to say about several of Maier's promotees:

Oliver and Stanz are both outstanding deputies and always could be depended on to do a professional job, great choices in my book. 

The question insofar as the SCPR is concerned is whether or not what the SCPR thinks is a case of Maier being unduly afflicted with political paranoia manifests itself in his management of the professionals who work for him?

Maier and his qualities or lack of qualities as a leader, is the topic of inquiry; not the professional law enforcers.

However, the SCPR can think of a least administrative employee who seems to voluntarily follow Maier around like "a lost puppy dog" seeking his Master and thereby thought by many to be pretty much having been - at the outset - an unadulterated political hire and, here, by the way is a good paying job that was not put out to bid to the general Stark County taxpaying public.

Low and behold!

A 16 months later a promotion!!

At who knows (we will know soon and the SCPR will publish that number) at what kind of increase.  Of course, all taxpayer dollars from a taxpaying general public who never got an opportunity to apply for the job.

Swanson also said in his e-mail response :

Remember Maier, outright lied about his qualifications in the first place. 

He told me as well as making the statement publicly that he would not vie for the appointment if he was not qualified.   

Track record of being able to be trusted as to what he says as to be truthful, isn't very good. 

I think that haunts some of the people still there. I'm still dumb founded by the arrogance of the ones involved in the debacle and those that sit by and don't say a word or see the same injustice as we and a few others do.  (emphasis added)

On November 6, 2013, the Ohio Supreme Court "on a technicality" (George Maier says) said he was not qualified.

The SCPR agrees with Swanson that Maier has a credibility problem.

Accordingly, he is one to focus on going forward; not the sheriff department deputies.  The Report thinks he has created a climate that one needs to be "politically correct" in order to thrive with the domain of the Stark County sheriff's office.

They likely will do what they have to do to survive and some of them may turn themselves into quintessential "yes-men" in order to tap into the opportunities presented by the political current which appears to be engulfing the office.

Political correctness should not be part of the equation in Stark County public official/employee relationship.

It is the role of media to let Maier that know that every step he takes as sheriff is being watched.

If the Stark County media does it job in closely watching Maier, then the professionals have some protection from future political whims that Maier may wish to press on them going forward.

Because The Repository failed to press for answers in the lead up to the Maier/Dordea election contest, the editors now have to verify to the Stark County reading public that they can ask searching, penetrating and incisive questions of the sheriff.

The Stark County commissioners have a role to play.

It is their general fund appropriation function.

They are in the process of conducting budget hearings.

Sheriff Maier is due in for the sheriff department hearing on February 5th.

Don't expect it to happen, but the commissioners should be asking about the expenditures Maier made in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 which smack of George T. Maier using taxpayer money to plaster the name of "Sheriff George T. Maier" within the sheriff's complex (as if the deputies and other sheriff personnel do not know he is sheriff) and all over Stark County (the vehicles) when it was far from certain that he would ever be elected sheriff.

Commissioner Thomas Bernabei to the SCPR is ga-ga over Maier.  The only public official The Report has seen Bernabei embrace has been Maier.

If a hug was Bernabei's modus operandi on greeting public officials across-the-board (his custom is to do a hearty handshake), The Report would think nothing of it.

But its not.

And this should be disturbing to Stark Countians in terms of Bernabei being able to distance himself from Maier so as to be as searching on Maier as sheriff on fiscal matters as he is on other public officials who get funds from the county's general fund.

For Bernabei is far and away the most capable commissioner in terms of asking tough questions of those officials who spend taxpayer dollars.

The SCPR has not heard Bernabei ask Maier one "ire provoking" (to Maier) question as he has with other county officials.

In the 2014 budget hearings, there were a number of pointed exchanges between Bernabei and elected department heads.  Even Janet Creighton got in on the act here and there.  But it was Bernabei who put on most of the heat.

So The Report expects the February 5th session to be an "atta boy, slap on the back" hearing.

Other county officials will not be so lucky, if prior budget hearing sessions (2013/2014) are any indication of what commissioners put "out-of-favor" department heads through, of Stark County government through.

The SCPR has no problems whatsoever with the grilling.

But it needs to be evenly/equally applied.

When Stark County taxpayer funds are a stake, it is not a matter of being in or out of favor on the personal likability chart.

Whether The Repository or the commissioners do their due diligence or not, readers of the SCPR can rest assured that The Report will.

In Maier's case, it is just terrific that Stark County's version of Deep Throat" continues to function post-election right under George's nose.

Don't you just love it?

Hey Sheriff Maier, who do you think Deep Throat is?  Or, perhaps, better yet:  who the Deep Throats are?

Maybe he will put his new investigation unit in on the hunt?

LOL, no?

Sort of, perhaps in a political sarcasm/satire context.

But not for everyday Stark Countians who have no other policing resource!

What if one of George Maier's political enemies (no names please) needs sheriff office services and/or contact and has to deal with one perceived to be on a political correctness track with the sheriff?

Which factor will trump?

Political correctness or professional policing?

Think about it Stark Countians!

MASSILLON'S FIGHT TO KEEP CHECK & BALANCE IN PLACE

UPDATE:  12/22/2014

Over the weekend Massillon Councilman Shaddrick Stinson contacted the SCPR relative to Friday's blog.

As regular readers of the SCPR know, The Report always allows space to subjects this blog to respond.

Stinson's complaint to The Report was "Why not ask me?" about whether or not he is the captive of Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry administration (de facto, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr).

Stinson's point is appropriate to make.

The Report does frequently ask subjects of this blog for their responses to SCPR takes on their public persona.   But not always.

The SCPR is not very much interested in publishing, in the context of "on camera" video questions/interviews that this blog is known for, is self-serving spin.

It idea is that subjects of the SCPR's "on cameras" do not have advanced notice of what the questions might be and, on occasion, viewers actually get candid answers.

However, it is difficult to keep political spin out completely.

One of Stark County's most accomplished politicians at getting his spin in despite the SCPR reluctance to provide a forum for wiggling it in is Canton's Mayor William J. Healy, II.

He is in the judgment of the SCPR Stark County's most skilled politician.

At first thought on The Report being contacted by Councilman Stinson was why doesn't the SCPR do an on camera interview of Stinson at Massillon council's next meeting on December 29th.

The idea was presented to Stinson but his response was such that it was "DOA."

SCPR Note:  Even after Stinson's disclaimer of being the captive of the Catazaro-Perry administration, The Report is not buy. 

As far as the SCPR is concerned his response is "a mere assertion."  Where is the evidence that he has and thereby is capable of taking a stance at odds with the mayor?

Stinson's response:

Mr. Olson I'm willing sit down and talk with you. But I have conditions as well. First, you are on camera as well. Second, you agree to answer my questions as well. What do you think? Lastly, I view the video before you post it to your blog for accuracy. Let me know.

Obviously, Councilman Stinson is not very well acquainted with the SCPR.

Conditions?  You have to be kidding.

As for his "I have conditions as well;" (implying that yours truly had conditions); the SCPR has no idea where that came from because The Report never conditions "on cameras" with anybody on anything.

Quite to the contrary.

The SCRP likes to use "on cameras" to be all encompassing and far ranging.

One never knows what might come out in the spotlight of the camera, no?

So absolutely NOT!  The SCPR accepts "no conditions" from any interviewee and is quite content to pass up opportunities to ask questions or do interviews if a subject is insisting on conditions.

Stinson did make some written input and here it is, that is to say "the back and forth."

Re: Why don't you ask me?

        Shad Stinson
        Dec 21 at 7:51 PM

To: tramols@att.net

I behold to no one but the citizens of Massillon and my Ward. I am not in the Johnny /Kathy camp other than by party affiliation. This was my first year on council. I know some of my mistakes or errors were basically not knowing so if he can base my alliance on that then that's totally up to him and that's fine. Hell he didn't even vote for me and I was appointed by the party.  The same one he is "aligned " with.  Anyways. Good luck with your blog and I'm sorry we couldn't have a sit down.  You can learn a lot from people when all your cards are on the table and open conversation.

On Dec 21, 2014 6:51 PM, "Martin Olson" <tramols@att.net> wrote:

    Thank you for the partial "on point" response.

    Any additional response to his telling me that he had made a mistake in thinking - based on your presentation to him back in the 2013 election cycle that you would be an "independent" thinking/acting councilperson vis-a-vis the Catazaro-Perry administration, if elected?

    From: Shad Stinson <shadstinson@gmail.com>
    To: Martin Olson <tramols@att.net>
    Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 4:57 PM
    Subject: Re: Why don't you ask me?

Just for the record I did seek Frank out to get his vote and endorsement for coucil [sic] just like I did others in the Legends. And he told me that he did not feel comfortable putting my sign in his yard due to Trinor [sic] being his neighbor. I said thank you and reminded him to vote. But yes I did have a sit down with Frank at his request.

ORIGINAL BLOG

As 2014 winds down after having gotten through the election of November 4th, it may seem that politics is on the back burner.

Believe me, political maneuvering is "alive and kicking" even as Christmas is less than a week away.

A hotbed of political activity is the city of Massillon.

Just take a look at the Stark County Board of Elections candidates list for city council as of December 17th:

One of the things that impresses the SCPR is how many "independent" thinking council persons hold office on Massillon City Council.

For many government legislative bodies, it has been the experience of The Report that members line up with this or that interest group or political/government figure and not with the interests of their respective constituents.

North Canton City Council is a glaring example in Stark County of having too many robot council members who have taken on a siege mentality in lining up with the administration and each other resulting in their emanating a hostility to citizens who disagree with "the official position."

In  North Canton, it seems as if the whole of government is run by one person; namely, Law Director Tim Fox.  "Whatever Tim thinks" appears to be "the order of the day" on the part of North Canton mayor David Held and at least a majority of North Canton City Council.

Massillon City Council as presently constituted is pretty much as a legislative body ought to be:  independent minded and highly constituent oriented.

And this has to be driving Mayor Catazaro-Perry and her chief benefactor and "power behind the throne - right up the wall" in his apparent quest to control all things Massillon.

Only Tony Townsend (council president) and Ward 4 Democrat Shaddrick Stinson seem to be council persons who - in the words of Tennessee Ernie Ford - "have sold their 'political' souls to the company store" with the company store being in the opinion of the SCPR the Catazaro-Perry administration and her prop-ups constituted by and large by the Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. Loyalty Club.

Townsend, who was Massillon's former Ward 4 councilman, may get the surprise of his short political life as council president with possibly being challenged by current Republican Ward 2 Councilwoman Nancy Halter.

A source tells the SCPR that the idea of Halter challenging Townsend is one of the options being discussed this year by those who want to preserve council's "separation of powers" from Massillon's "my way or the highway" Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

It makes sense to the SCPR that Halter might want to challenge Townsend.

She was hopping mad when in 2013 Republican Al Hennon pulled out of running against Townsend after it was too late for Republicans to replace him.  The SCPR thinks this was all part and parcel of a diabolical "political" scheme by Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and his Stark County Dems' political director hanger-on and Chief Deputy Clerk of Courts R. Shane Jackson to keep Townsend on council.

Townsend, had he remained Ward 4 councilman, was likely to lose in 2013 because of a number of publicized troubles he has had in recent years.

The Report thinks Townsend is the epitome example of what Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. will do for anybody that he - Maier - is convinced is willing to be the ultimate loyalist for Maier's political interests.

But for the political shenanigans at play, former Republcan Massillon Ward 6 councilman Donnie Peters, Jr. was set to run for council president which likely would have made Townsend a part of Massillon's political and government history book.

And it is becoming apparent that Tony's Ward 4 successor - Shaddrick Stinson - "is cut from the same cloth - as Townsend.

There is an effort being made to unseat Stinson.

One of the persons that Stinson politically courted in 2013 was former Massillon mayor Frank Cicchinelli.

It was a amazing sight for the SCPR to behold.

The politically hardened, tested and astute Cicchinelli bought Stinson's line that he was not a Maier Loyalty Club member.

With Cicchinelli being politically neutered, Stinson still had to struggle to defeat a less than ideal Republican candidate.

Recently The Report brought this up with Cicchinelli and he admitted, more or less, that he had been hoodwinked by Stinson.

The SCPR is somewhat empathetic with Cicchinelli in that Stark County is "blessed" with some pretty slick political operators and it can be quite an undertaking to smoke them out.

Of course, "the really big question" hovering over Massillon politics is whether or not Catazaro-Perry will have meaningful opposition in the Democratic primary or from a Republican in the general election.

Today, the SCPR thinks probably not.

Which, of course, means that Maier, Jr. and Jackson can go all out to convert perhaps Stark County's very best council to something that resembles North Canton.

One of the more interesting political plays in the making in Massillon's council race jockeyings is that going on between Maier, Jr. loyalist Linda Litman and Councilwoman Michelle Del Rio-Keller.

Del Rio-Keller tells the SCPR that she has no problems whatsoever with any of the warring political factions in Massillon.  She wants to work for the betterment of Massillon and will work with the mayor, the Republicans on council, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr, influential Massillon Democrat John Ferrero or anybody else for the benefit of Massillonians.

However, she will be her own person.

And even if that means that people she differs with from time-to-time (e.g. Mayor Catazaro-Perry) will not talk to her after a given disagreement.

Her independent-mindedness may pit her against Maier, Jr. Democrat Linda Litman who lost narrowly to Republican Ed Lewis, IV in November, 2013 in upcoming 2015 primary election.

Both have taken out petitions to run at-large and in Ward 6.

If Lewis decides to run against Catazaro-Perry, then look for Del Rio-Keller to run in Ward 6 in and Democratic head-to-head clash.

In a sort of ironical twist, Litman having taken out petitions to run in Ward 6 may force Lewis' hand to run for mayor.

The SCPR figures that he has much more to gain than lose if he were to run against the mayor than trying to hold onto his Ward 6 seat.

Lewis in the 2013 general election won by a mere 23 votes.  In a 2015 match up in a scenario in which Catazaro-Perry runs unopposed or with a nominal opponent, the SCPR thinks the Maier, Jr. forces will go "all-out" to put him on the political sidelines.

And, even if he survives; he is only one of ten council persons.  A highly influential one with his Republican and Democratic colleagues, no doubt.  But still just one of ten.

As mayor, which the SCPR figures he has just as good a chance to win as remaining a councilman in the face of a Litman candidacy; he has an opportunity to be much more effective for the welfare of Massillonians.

Lewis has the disposition to be a "come let us reason together" as mayor.  No doubt there will be times he disagrees with a majority of council, but he has the maturity to reach out to them and most of them will have the maturity to reach to him for the good of Massillonians to make Massillon government work for everyday Massillonians.

The SCPR encourages him to run for mayor even if former Democratic mayor of 24 years Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. decides to take on Mayor Catazaro-Perry in May, 2015.

It is time for Massillon to move on with a younger generation of executive leadership.

Lewis tells the SCPR that he considering whether or not 2015 is the correct timing to run for mayor.

The Report thinks it is.

Not so much that the political environment is that such that "stars are aligned for a Lewis win."

There is no doubt is that he may well win.  But there is a risk that he might not.  An equal of greater risk of his not winning exists, the SCPR thinks, in Ward 6 is present.

All he should ask for is a 50/50 chance of winning and then roll up his sleeves and get to work and get going now.

Certainly that 50/50 ratio if not better exists now.

Run, Ed, run!

When the Republicans took control of council in November, 2011; they took office in a spirit of working with the newly elected mayor in a non-partisan way.

But that was not to be.

For little did the Republicans know (or, for that matter, independent minded Democrats) at the time that the Catazaro-Perry/Maier, Jr. alliance would not allow for compromise, give and take or whatever label one wants to put on different functions of government to be a "check and balance" on one another.

As a consequence of the Catazaro-Perry/Maier, Jr. "my way or the highway" attitude, Massillon finds itself a financial mess with no solution in sight other than deep cuts in Massillon's operating budget which undoubtedly mean that everyday Massillonians will be less-safe and getting less services (e.g. street and highway repair).

Massillon can get on a track in which council and the mayor's office can work collaboratively each through "check and balance" of the function of their respective branches of government to bring effective and efficient government to Massillonians.

The only model that the Catazaro-Perry/Maier, Jr. cabal sees is to elect loyalists to council who pledge to work in a collusive fashion with "those who know best" and thereby give short-shrift to the everyday citizens of Massillon.

The elections of 2015 may be the most important in terms of the future well being of Massillon that the city has ever faced in its entire history.

Voters should use as their guidance as whom to support in May and November in the dawning new year this standard:

the commitment of candidates for mayor and for council who promise to work collaboratively together but ever mindful that they do have different roles in government and to function as a check and balance on each other.

Voters should reject those who are "top-down" types who appear to use politics and government for their personal enhancement and, not as it should be:  which is to say - for "the general welfare" of Massillonians.

PART III - A MULTI-PART "ANALYTICAL" SERIES ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE ON KEY "STARK COUNTY" RACES: THE SHERIFF CONTEST

(NIXON PHOTO REFERENCE)

As a child it dawned on me, that the general public thought Republicans were in a political party of the rich and Democrats were the party of the working class.

My family was working class.

So the question I posed to my father?

"Dad, why are we (the Olson family) Republicans?

Dad, would get red in the face and say:  "Son, don't believe that bunk.  The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln and there wasn't a more common man who has ever been president of these United States of America!"

Being considerably older now, it is now apparent to me that neither political party's province is of any economic class.

They both have rich and poor and to the degree to which it exists due to he "dumbing down" of America's wage structure - the middle class.

So it has been "eye opening" to me (switched to the Democratic Party in 1976) and out of both main political parties (with the initiation of the SCPR, March 2008) as to how "out-of-touch" both the Republican and Democratic political parties are vis-a-vis huge segments of the American public.

Not sure what is going to replace them, but I am convinced that over the longer course we are in for a political convulsion the likes of which this great country has never seen.

Both political parties have become about themselves and empowering and enriching those who man the party posts of leadership by which the parties commandeer (in the sense that ordinary people are not buying) our institutions of government at the national, state and local levels (thereby excluding most of them from "meaningful" participation) and consequently are sowing the seeds of the parties' demise over the long haul.

Okay, Martin, it's time:  "Off the soap box!" and get on to the Dordea campaign finance report and DO IT NOW!

THE DORDEA CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT

The SCPR uses the Nixonian "Republican Cloth Coat" (LINK) analogy to set up this blog's discussion on:

• the Dordea campaign, 
• its structure, 
• the level of contributions, and 
• the campaign not focusing, as far as The Report can tell, on seemingly benefiting a specific person or company with ties within the Republican party structure (contrast:  Kody Gonzalez and the Democrats) in terms of campaign expenditures on the part of various campaigns

First, there are really no Big Kahunas apparent in the Dordea CFR as there are in Maiers (LINK to yesterday's blog).

Compare the Dordea list with Maiers:

Hmm?

Two to one, Maier trumps Dordea.

And Maier's list of high end donors is quite a bit longer than Dordea's.

Interesting, no? for the political party who likes to portray Republicans as "the party of the rich."

It could be that the Maier Political Machine is much more comfortable with the "hob-nob" crowd than local Republicans?

Remember, former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr has had a fight or two or maybe even three over the past decade or so?

The evidence is there for one to think that perhaps the brothers Maier do not feel all that comfortable with the so called "working class?"

Maybe that is part of the "unstated reason" why former Democratic sheriff Tim Swanson has endorsed Dordea?

And it could be that George (in his political sophistication; largely at the schooling of brother Johnnie, Jr.) did not appreciate the decorated American military hero, no-nonsense, day-in, day-out, working class 27 year sheriff deputy named Dan Altieri?

Maybe Swanson is right?

• (remember though, he merely recommended Dordea as being the only candidate "qualified under Ohio's sheriff qualification law" to be sheriff)

The SCPR is speculating as to what else may have been in Swanson's mind as he mulled over whether or not to endorse a Republican.

For lifelong Democrat Swanson to endorse a Republican and have his picture taken with him, had to be one tough process for this staunch Democrat, no?

Given what is revealed by the Maier CFR,  for many rank-and-file Democrats, the candidate of choice on Tuesday might be Republican Larry Dordea as a personification of what most ordinary Stark Countians want in the sheriff's office?

Other differences in the Dordea CFR as contrasted to Maier's is that there is "NO!" list of employees under his management who have contributed to his campaign.

There was no solicitation like this:

Yet another difference is the complete absence in union contributions to Dordea.

To the SCPR this is a sad thing.

The Report's heart goes out to the working men and women of America.

Democrats like the brothers Maier - The Report thinks - use unions for their personal political aspirations but appear to want nothing to do with them when it comes to "hob-nobbing" time.

And, to boot, most organized/elected Republicans work them over big time.

More than any other factor, the SCPR sees unions has the key American phenomenon that made the middle class what it was in its heyday in the 1950s, 1960s and even into the 1970s and is a sort of "Custer's Last Stand" for the middle class nowadays.

Republicans who are anti-union should be ashamed of themselves.  They should find ways to work with them.

As sheriff, if elected, Republican Larry Dordea will have the opportunity to be a model for Republicans in working with unions.

Doing such could be a way for him to get re-elected in 2016.

The election of 2016 will be "a whole kettle of different fish," in that it is a presidential election year.  Republicans have a tough time winning countywide in Stark County in presidential years.

The SCPR's overall assessment of Dordea campaign finances is that he has raised enough to put on a campaign that might well turn out to be the winning campaign.

Dordea has been able to get by on significantly less than Maier because the overall political environment favor him, to wit:

• Republican governor John Kasich is going to politically obliterate Democrat Ed FitzGerald on this coming Tuesday,
• Dordea will benefit because many Democrats will stay at home in the face of the expected onslaught,
• While some Republicans will likely vote for Maier (the SCPR thinks a Republican Stark County commissioner will be one of them), the number of those doing so should be washed out if not surpassed by Swanson/Ferrero/Darrow Democrats (who opposed Maier's appointment on February 5th and December 11th of 2013) who vote for Dordea

Despite the disadvantage that Dordea has in having been significantly out fundraised; in the 2014 political Republican landslide environment, he might still surface as Stark County's next "elected" sheriff.

One acquaintance of the SCPR thinks Dordea will win comfortably.

The Report does not share that sentiment.

If Dordea wins, the SCPR thinks it will be relatively close.

As in the Maier Campaign Finance Report blog, the SCPR has transformed the BOE filed paper reports ("Hey! Representative Schuring, let's get into the 21st Century with Ohio's campaign finance information") so that you, the SCPR reader has an easy way to find out who is supporting Dordea/Maier that either speaks well for him or not so well.

To the SCPR, it looks like Dordea is wearing a CFR that is tantamount to him donning a "Republican cloth coat."

In this election, it appears that Democrat George T. Maier is wearing the "mink coat."

Here is a LINK to the report.

(ENCORE OKEY VIDEO) AS PREDICTED BY THE STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT, STEVE OKEY BRINGS TURMOIL TO ALLIANCE CITY COUNCIL

On May 1st (a little over 30 days ago), the SCPR wrote in a blog commenting on Canton attorney Steve Okey's selection by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee/Alliance as Alliance City Council  (Council) president as a replacement for recently deceased long term (since 1994) council president John Benincasa, The Report wrote:

There is no doubt to The Report that Okey as council president will try "to bend over backwards" to avoid open confrontations with organized Alliance Republicans.

But does he have the self-discipline to pull it off?

The Stark County Political Report in making the above statements was giving Okey "the benefit of a doubt" and did so largely on what Okey had to say in this SCPR video interview of April 30th (the date he was selected by SCDP-CC/Alliance to succeed Benincasa)



Well, the SCPR was way off the mark on the first statement, to wit:  "Okey, as council president will try 'to bend over backwards' to avoid open confrontations ... ."

But The Report was implicitly correct in suggesting that Steve Okey would not have the self-discipline to pull the "avoid open confrontations" off.

Moreover, the SCPR had this to say in the very same blog:

Steve Okey said all the right things last night with regard to his relationship with council going forward.

But the SCPR thinks that it will not take long for The Report to ramp up including in this blog's coverage of Stark County's politics and government (given the return of Steve Okey to council):  Alliance City Council.

Up until now, Alliance has been the most mellow of all of Stark County's city/village councils in terms of controversies.  In fact, more times than not, when the SCPR has blogged about Alliance council matters, guess who was at the center of the brouhaha?  You've got it, one Steven Okey.

To say it one more time, with Okey back on the scene, it is likely that The Report will making more trips to Alliance, no?

Monday night's Steve Okey performance was not an avoiding of anything.  What he did on Monday was to make his presence felt to such an "over-the-top" degree (Council censured him) that the SCPR describes it in the introductory graphic to the blog as being HURRICANE STEVEN HITS ALLIANCE CITY COUNCIL.

Before the debacle of Monday night, Okey signaled in a letter written to council members on May 30th that his presidency is going to be an "imperial presidency" in saying in the opening:
"Dear Council Members: At the next meeting of City Council, we will (emphasis added) be making a transition on how certain Council votes are taken."

Then at the meeting itself he wrangled with council members (primarily Republicans Jakmides and Dordea) for some 45 minutes over their insistence (endorsed later by all of Council in a unanimous voice vote [not roll call]) that they be permitted to vote by voice vote on undisputed matters unless the outcome of the voice vote is unclear or a council member asks for a roll call vote.

Members Jakmides and Dordea constantly challenged Okey on debating his position from the presidency chair which they said was a violation of the rules of council by Okey himself.

Okey kept saying he wasn't debating.  Well if he wasn't then the SCPR has no clue what a debate is.

Eventually, Council had its way by overruling Okey's ruling in making a motion to appeal it which motion is decided by guess who?

You've got it:  Council itself.

And the "voice" vote on the motion was unanimous in sustaining the appeal.

Of course, that was about 45 minutes after the argument began.

Okey had difficulty explaining that he said in the May 30th letter that Council had done nothing illegal with its past voice vote procedures, to saying after the voice vote on the appeal  (as Councilwoman Sheila Cherry pointed out) was illegal, to saying that he had not meant to say he thought the voice vote was illegal but that "it might be interpreted by some to be illegal."

Quite a dance, no?

• SCPR Note:  The Report provided Okey with a "heads up" on today's blog and thereby providing him with an opportunity to weigh-in with his comments regarding matters likely to be broached.  He did take advantage of the opportunity and the SCPR has published his e-mail immediately before the May 30th letter referred to in note 1.

While the SCPR agrees with Okey that it was a bad practice for Alliance City Council to vote on certain matters on an "unsigned" ballot (the lawsuit) and that Council should change its rules and do a roll call vote on each and every matter voted upon (the May 30th letter and the Monday night fracas) except perhaps informal resolutions and referral to committees, The Report doubts that his real motivation is enhancing the democratic quality of Council procedures.

And it is to be noted that Okey himself participated in the practices he now finds so odious.

Isn't that interesting?  Maybe even hypocritical?

There is much more to this story, the Stark County Political Report thinks, than reformer Okey coming to the rescue of a procedurally inept Alliance City Council.

The SCPR thinks that the main reason that Steve Okey is back on the scene in Alliance (after having been defeated in his run for mayor in 2013) is to serve as an eastern Stark County (Alliance area) political front man for Stark County Democratic Party appointed sheriff George T. Maier in his November election bid.

As anybody who knows anything about Stark County politics is aware of, the Johnnie A. Maier, Jr Massillon-based political machine since January, 2013 has been bulldozing Johnnie's brother George through the Stark Dems' selection process (to replace Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald [November, 2012] who could not take office on January 7, 2013 due to an illness which claimed his life on February 22, 2013.

It took two tries (February 5, 2013 [undone by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 6, 2013] and December 11, 2013 [an appointment that has not been challenged to date, but might be at a future date], but so far it has worked.

Okey has been a "prime time player" in the "make George T. Maier" the Democratic Party appointed sheriff push.

For instance he was one of the attorneys (Allen Schulman and Michael Thompson being two other local attorneys) referenced by Stark Dems' chairman Randy Gonzalez as being of the opinion on February 5th that George T. Maier was qualified under ORC 311.01 to be sheriff.

On November 6th, Stark Countians learned in the Ohio Supreme Court decision that they (Okey, Schulman and Thompson) were wrong in their opinion.

Moreover, Okey represented Chairman Gonzalez and the SCDP-CC (free of charge) in an effort by former sheriff Tim Swanson to stop the second appointment selection date (December 11th) in a mandamus action.  The Ohio Supreme Court refused to derail the December selection date.

And Okey got involved representing a George Maier interest (in the form of defending then Democratic Stark County Board of Elections member Deametrious St. John) when suit was filed in the Fifth District Court of Appeals trying to prevent St. John from voting on Maier's qualifications for announcing before the vote that he felt Maier was qualified.  The suit was dismissed for mootness which dismissal is currently under appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Maier had been challenged by a fellow Massillon Democrat as to his certification as a qualified (under Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01) candidate.

It took an Ohio Supreme Court decision for Maier to be on the upcoming November 4th ballot.

Maier's November opponent is Alliance councilman and, of course, Republican Larry Dordea.

Dordea is a former Alliance police chief (nine [9] years) and is currently Hartville's police chief.

The SCPR thinks that the Maier folks are bringing the November fight right to Dordea's doorstep in what appears to have been an all out fight between Okey (who The Report sees as the Maier proxy candidate) and Democratic Councilwoman Sue Ryan over the Council presidency.

The Report believes that the first announced pro-Maier candidate Derrick Loy (who has worked for the sheriff's office since September, 2013) was deemed to be unelectable in the context of the SCDP-CC/Alliance group.  Though having political baggage of his own (in terms of generating controversies during his six (6) years as a  Alliance City Council member), Okey apparently was deemed to be more viable than Loy.

And, as it turned out, he was.  But by the slimmest of margins.

Just to go back a bit.

When Okey filed his lawsuit against Alliance City Council (February 4, 2014), he - in the opinion of the SCPR - took advantage of the pleader's prerogative of naming a group of defendants with a single name.

Now just guess what name Okey tagged the group with?

You've got it.

Dordea!

Okey had to know that on Monday night with his proposal he was going to generate a fight with Dordea and the other Republicans on Council.  As can be seen in his e-mail to the SCPR set forth at the end of this blog, Okey can see the Republicans as being political but not himself.

The SCPR sees politics being a play on both ends of the dispute but Okey is the one who started the fight.

So the political game seems to be that Okey as a George T. Maier advance man is trying to paint Larry Dordea as being against what some interpret as being the "rule of law" (his words on Monday) and anti-sunshine (the lawsuit) in terms of the transparency of Alliance City Council votes.

One more thing about the Okey lawsuit.

Guess who the central figure was in the dispute about a particular vote by Alliance City Council on whether or not he was to continue to be a member of the Alliance Water Sewer Advisory Board?

Bingo, again!

None other than Derrick Loy.

To say it again, the  SCPR would like to believe Okey's protestations that his lawsuit and his Monday night proposal and the May 30th letter is about strengthening Alliance City Council democratic procedures.

But The Report's assessment of  Okey (as an elected official and a public figure) as being one of the most political persons in all of Stark County does not permit the SCPR to think that such is his primary motivation.

Time will tell, but the SCPR expects Okey to work feverishly between now and November to find bases within the context of Alliance City Council proceedings to embarrass Larry Dordea.

Sue Ryan incurred, in running for the presidency of Council, a realpoltik lesson in coming up against the Maier political machine alliance with Okey.

Three incidents occurred at the May 14, 2014 11th Annual Democratic Recognition Dinner (Dinner) that were brutal political eye openers to Councilwoman Ryan that she (from the Maier perspective) made one huge political mistake in not bowing out of the "succeed John Benincasa" process.

First, she says that at the Dinner she encountered Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.  Usually, she says, Maier, Jr is all smiles and even is known to give her a friendly hug.

What did she get on the 14th?

A cold stare and a cryptic: Hi!

Hmm?

Why would that be?

Answer:  The SCPR thinks that she was supposed to have gotten the message (at the very least when Steve Okey got into the presidency quest), DROP OUT!

Loy apparently had spread the word that Ryan would not sign a George T. Maier loyalty pledge (back during the Maier/Lou Darrow fight over the sheriff appointment) and therefore was not a person to be trusted.

And, even if the Loy claim is bogus (Ryan says she cannot remember being asked to sign any such pledge), how in God's little green acre of the inner circle Stark County Democratic Party politics could Ryan ever, ever think she could match up with all things Democratic Party true-believer Steve Okey?

Second, it was a real "ear" opener to Ryan to hear Derrick Loy boo Alliance Area Democratic Party president Brian Simeone as he was recognized as the AllianceArea Democratic Club Democrat of the Year.

Simeone tells the SCPR that as far as he knows the Loy boo likely came from a comment he made about Steve Okey in a May 5, 2014 article about Simeone in The Alliance Review.

The quote?

"I challenge (our new council president) to put aside his partisan politics to continue Benincasa's legacy of bipartisan cooperation."

Third, at the Dinner, Kathleen Purdy, was getting signatures for petitions to run for the state board of education and she approached the Steve Okey table only to be refused by one of those seated because she - Purdy - was for Larry Dordea.

Purdy emphatically denied that such was the case.

None of the three incidents cited above surprises the SCPR.

The Report has known Johnnie A. Maier, Jr for many, many years.

It took awhile, but in time it dawned on The Report that Maier, Jr is a "my way or the highway" sort of guy whose political hero is Vern Riffe.

Vern Riffe, served as Speaker of the Ohio House (1975 - 1995), and whom, during his time in state government, was the undisputed boss of the Ohio Democratic Party.

Maier served a rather undistinguished career (in terms of substantive legislative achievements) in the 56th (now the 50th) Ohio House District from January 3, 1991 through December 31, 1999s.

The SCPR takes Steve Okey as being very tight with the Maiers and seemingly is embarked on a quest to advance the cause of George T. Maier across eastern Stark County with an emphasis on Alliance itself.

But for him to bring that mission onto the floor of Council - as The Report thinks he is -  in trying to make Dordea in particular (under the guise of getting Council straightened out) to appear to be against the rule of law (i.e. the roll call vote issue) and transparency (i.e, the unsigned ballots) is quite another.

Remember these are practices Okey engaged in as a councilman.  Where was his devotion to democracy fostering procedures then?

That he is heavily involved in the George T. Maier campaign against Dordea makes his championing of these matters now suspect in terms of his real motivation.

If he did not have the Maier connection, then the SCPR would be much more impressed with his advocacy.

Neither Ryan nor Simeone would say that she/he would be supporting Larry Dordea over George T. Maier come November as they assess the race today.

The Stark County Political Report thinks that if Steve Okey does much more of what he did on Monday night, it will not only be Ryan and Simeone as Democrats supporting the Republican Dordea in November.

Could Hurricane Steven prove to be a political disaster for George T. Maier?

OKEY MAKES HIS OWN CASE

Steve Okey
Jun 4 at 5:43 PM

To:   Martin Olson

Martin,

Thanks for the opportunity to provide information regarding the Council meeting on Monday.

As the President of City Council, I have the responsibility to make sure that City Council meetings follow the law of Ohio and the rules of City Council.  Council rule 2.01 states that the President "shall . . . decide all questions of order."  I take these responsibilities very seriously, especially because I have devoted the past 27 years of my life to the practice of law.  Following the law is part of the public trust for every public official.  It’s especially important that Council members who make the law also follow the law.

Every organization needs to take a fresh look from time to time at how it operates.  Just because “we’ve always done it that way” does not mean that past practice is still the best way.  People in the business world know this.  Government should do the same.  That’s why after I became Council President, I took a fresh look at Council rules and the law.  And I saw that the Ohio Revised Code and Council rules don’t need to be changed.  They simply need to be applied and followed more consistently.  Again, this is part of my job as President of Council.   

As part of my effort to fairly apply and follow the law and rules, I tried to hold a roll call vote at Monday night’s meeting of Alliance City Council.  This was not changing the rules, but simply applying the rules that are already there.    

Ohio Revised Code section 731.17(A)(3) states very clearly:  “The following procedures shall apply to the passage of ordinances and resolutions of a municipal corporation:  . . . (3) The vote on the passage of each ordinance or resolution shall be taken by yeas and nays and entered upon the journal.”  This statute is mandatory.

Council Rule 5.02 is similar to the statute:  “All ordinances, resolutions and rules for the government of Council shall require for their passage or adoption the concurrence of a majority of all members elected, and the votes on their passage or adoption shall be taken by yeas and nays and recorded on the journal.”  Council rules require the “yeas and nays” for other votes, too.

The phrase “yeas and nays” means a roll call vote.  A roll call vote is when the clerk calls each individual member’s name, and that member then orally states his or her vote.

We don’t have to look any further than Council’s own rules to know what “yeas and nays” means.  Council rule 5.01 states:  “In taking the yeas and nays, the Clerk shall call the names of the members in alphabetical order.”  That rule sounds pretty clear to me.  

But if that’s not enough authority, we can look to the decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court and to Robert’s Rules of Order (which Council has adopted by its own rule 7.05).  They also say that “yeas and nays” means a roll call vote.

“Yeas and nays” does not mean a voice vote, which is what Council has mostly done in the past.  A voice vote is when members of Council say “aye” as a group at the same time.  Then the members voting no, if any, all say “no” at the same time.  The trouble with group voice votes is that they do not always clearly identify whether all members actually voted.  The Alliance Review has stated that it sometimes has been difficult to tell whether members of Council even bothered to vote.  After all, no individual member of Council is called upon to state his or her vote.

Again, in order to transition from voice votes to roll call votes, I was not changing any rules, but simply following the law and rules already in place.  Before I took this action, I sent a carefully researched, four page letter to every member of City Council and to other city officials, including the law director.  (A copy of that letter is attached to this email.)  I explained my reasons and shared all of the legal authority.  That way everyone could be on the same page and there would be no surprises.

In reply to my letter, I received no emails and no phone calls (even though they all have my cell number).  I received no legal authority from the law director suggesting that my application of the law and rules would be incorrect -- and indeed, have received nothing from her to this day.  The only response I received was an insulting text message that one member of Council sent.  That kind of childish behavior is disappointing.

Having heard nothing of substance, I then attempted to follow Ohio law and Council rules and hold a roll call vote at the Council meeting on Monday.  Unfortunately, Council refused to follow the correct procedure and demanded instead that only group voice votes be used, regardless of what the law and rules say.

Council’s behavior seems particularly silly, since it takes only about 10 seconds to hold a roll call vote of the seven members.       

Sometimes there are disagreements about what procedure should be followed.  If a Council member disagrees with the President on a question of order, then Council rule 2.01 permits any two members to appeal the President’s decision to the whole Council.  Council members should know this because it’s right in their own rules.

On several occasions, I asked Council member Jakmides if she was making an appeal of my decision to hold a roll call vote.  Over and over again, she said “no.”  Even though I gave Ms. Jakmides numerous opportunities to make an appeal, she refused.  It was only after the law director told her what to say that the meeting could finally move forward.  Yet again, Council members are unfamiliar with their own rules.  

Instead of appealing my decision to hold a roll call, Ms. Jakmides first made a motion to “censure” me.  If I am to be “censured” for trying to follow Ohio law and Council rules, then I will consider that a badge of honor.  But it is a sad day when members of a city council ignore their own rules and state law, and refuse to give their individual votes on the record.  Censuring the Council President simply because he calls for a roll call vote?  It sounds Orwellian.  Just what are they afraid of?  

Holding elective office is a privilege.  Casting a vote on behalf of the people you represent is an honor, and we should be deeply concerned that members of Council are trying to hide in a group voice vote, rather than take 10 seconds to follow the law and their own rules.  We should also be concerned about the city law director’s advice to Council regarding their votes, both now and in the recent past.

Some might ask, “What difference does all this make?”

It might make a huge difference.  If Council fails to scrupulously follow the law in passing an ordinance, someone could dispute whether the ordinance is valid.  A criminal defendant could seek the dismissal of charges because the charging ordinance was not adopted according to law.  A person could dispute a tax obligation because the tax ordinance was not adopted according to law.

Why take chances?  Consistently following the law helps us to avoid these and other problems.  Also, a roll call vote as required by the statute and rules avoids any uncertainty and keeps the public better informed of the decisions of their representatives.  I can't think of a single downside to holding a roll call vote.        

I am a realist.  I understand that some members of Council might refuse to follow my lead because they are motivated by party politics.  But partisan politics has nothing to do with this.  Good government is not a Republican or a Democratic goal.  It is an American goal.  Council members from both parties need to be aware of the correct path to follow.  In that manner, I am following the example set by our late Council President John Benincasa.

Others might be motivated by bitterness because of their disappointed aspirations or because I previously filed a court action over other votes of Council that were legally improper.  It is unfortunate if public officials let hurt feelings get in the way of following the law and rules.  

My job and my motivation are clear:  follow the law, apply the law, and clean up this voting process so that the law and rules are followed consistently.  It's the same process I started in fighting for open meetings and against illegal secret ballot votes.       

But I would prefer to work with the members of Council, rather than have them attack me for the sin of asking for a roll call vote.  Perhaps they will be more willing to put their individual votes on the record if the people of Alliance remind them that a roll call vote is a virtue, not a vice.  Again, what are they afraid of?

Regards,

Steve

(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!"