TREASURER GARY ZEIGLER REPORTEDLY HAS MADE 14 CHANGES IN HIS OFFICE SINCE "THE AUDIT." ISN'T IT LIKELY THAT STARK COUNTY VOTERS WILL WANT TO MAKE A 15TH CHANGE COME NOVEMBER OF 2012?

Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler is probably just hoping against hope to ride out the political storm in process over his firing of his chief deputy Vince Frustaci in April, 2009 amid allegations by Zeigler that Frustaci had stolen from the Stark treasury.

Many Stark Countians are really, really mad that taxpayer money is missing from the treasury.  This comes at a time that Stark County is facing its largest financial crisis in history (except, maybe, during The Great Depression). 

Zeigler says he did what he was charged by law to do in order to avert any theft and once it occurred, he did what he was charged by law to do in reporting the alleged theft.

Zeigler can say what he says, but the bottom line is that Stark County voters will have the final say in terms of how they think he managed the Stark treasury when it comes to his expected bid for re-election come November, 2010.

The SCPR is going out on a limb over two years out from the election and making a prediction.  Even though more than two years remain in Zeigler's current term (remember he ran unopposed thanks to the cowardly Republican Alan Harold - now running for auditor), Stark County voters will not have forgotten the treasury's troubles in November, 2012 and they will hold Zeigler accountable.

Stark Countians are being insulted again by the combo of the State of Ohio Auditor's office and Zeigler's office.  Several weeks back, it became known that the Auditor and the Stark treasury had reached an accord in what is called "a letter of arrangement" as to Stark County's responsibility to pick up the tab for the cost of a forensic audit in light of the alleged theft.

But nobody in Stark County knew about it because the Auditor suggested to Zeigler, who on advice of his treasury office legal counsel, accepted the suggestion that Zeigler not keep a copy of the letter so as not to make it a public record.  For its part, the Auditor's office claim immunity from the letter's discovery because it was part of an ongoing investigation.

Today we learn in a Repository piece by Kelli Young (Stark treasurer receives state report on special audit) that the Ohio Auditor and Zeigler are claiming confidentiality in revealing the contents of the report which specifically states how much money is missing from the Stark treasury.

The SCPR has this question to ask of Auditor Mary Taylor and Treasurer Zeigler:  Do we live in a Democracy or not? 

Are the American and Stark County people entitled to know about the content of their government operations or not?

Taylor is up for election this year as the running mate of John Kasich as the Republican lieutenant governor candidate.  Hmm?  Election of a person who withholds information of government operations from the voting public? 

Voters should pause for thought before voting for a Kasich/Taylor ticket.  Not fair to Kasich?  You bet.  But he can always remove her from the ticket.  The way she runs the auditor's office is not as a small "d"emocrat.

Zeigler can point to Taylor's auditor operation all he wants to as a reason for his withholding information that the public ought to have.  But as he demonstrated in the "letter of arrangement" situation, he had the right (according to the state Auditor) to release the information.  Under public pressure, he eventually did so.  Are we in for a deja vu, all over again Yogi Berra-esque maneuver?

Young in another piece entitled Stark treasurer makes changes in wake of investigation (June 14), describes 14 changes made in the procedures of the Stark treasury.

Hmm?

The question that these changes leaves the SCPR with is this:  Is there a 15th change coming?

The answer:  Likely, yes.  But it will be a while before that change is coming.  And, the 15th change will not be one that Treasurer Zeigler effects.

It will be done by the voters of Stark County!

CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT THE STARK TREASURER'S OFFICE SAYS THE OHIO AUDITOR ALLEGEDLY SUGGESTED TO THE TREASURER IN TERMS OF PUBLIC RECORDS APPLICABILITY?

Exactly what the public likes about public officials?

Pointing the finger at each other!

Who is right?  God Almighty only knows!!!

The issue?

Who shielded, if anyone, the "letter of arrangement" memorializing the terms of conditions of the Ohio auditor' forensic audit of the Stark County treasury (April, 2009) from the public view? 

Letter of arrangement?

 

Yes, a "letter of arrangement."

According to Kelli Young (politics and government editor for The Rep - Special audit letter from the state absent from county files, online April 18, 2010), the Ohio auditor had a need to memorialize an arrangement between the auditor and the Stark County treasurer (circa April, 2009) that "outlines the nature and scope of services the state auditor’s office will provide, the timeline for the audit, the county’s required involvement and the associated fees" for forensic audit services growing out of the alleged theft of county funds with Treasurer Zeigler accusing and then firing his chief deputy Vince Frustaci.

An interesting revelation in the Young account is this Young statement:

Zeigler, who signed the letter without consulting with commissioners, said he didn’t keep the letter he signed or get a copy.

 Hmm?

Take a look at another excerpt from the March 12, 2002 "letter of arrangement."

Recognize any signatures?

How about then county auditor Creighton, county treasurer Zeigler and county commissionerJackson.

What has happened from 2002 to 2010 to obviate the need for Auditor Perez and Commissioner Bosley (president of the Board of Commissioners) to sign the "letter of arrangement?"

Was Treasurer Zeigler authorized by Ohio law to sign for the county on his own?  Was the Stark County prosecutor's office consulted by Zeigler prior to signing?

Other questions.  Were the commissioners empowered to pay the more than $209,000 plus paid so far on the basis of the 2002 "letter of arrangement?"
Was the prosecutor's office consulted prior to commissioner action?


Back to the discussion of how the 2009 "letter of arrangement" got removed from public view.

As the SCPR understands Young's account, Zeigler's office claims that Taylor's office advanced a suggested way for the county treasurer to avoid having the April, 2009 "letter of arrangement" in the public view.

Here is how the failsafe (in terms of shielding it from public scrutiny) plan seems to have unfolded.

Simple, the plan? apparently goes. thusly:

(From the Ohio auditor, again, according to Zeigler's office and recreated in The Report's words) 

Just don't maintain a copy of the letter in the county treasurer's file.  Return the original to our [the Ohio auditor] office.  And bingo!, while the the audit is in process the Ohio auditor can [and will?] legally withhold the letter from the public and its a win-win for both the county treasurer and the Ohio auditor. 

Now we hear that the Ohio auditor is, in fact, exercising its "claimed" legal prerogative and withholding a copy of the original from the public as represented by The Repository.  No surprise here. 

What will be the public reaction to the Young revelation of the the chain of events as interpreted by the SCPR?

Here is one reaction which The Report believes articulately expresses what most of the public will think of the Young expose..

The SCPR cannot say it any better than Mr. Fenno.

As Fenno points out, the net result is a further jading of the public attitude towards government.

Is this what government wants.  A complete breakdown in citizen trust of government?

Mary Taylor, who is the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, wants to govern - if elected - an increasingly skeptical, cynical public?

What joy would there be in that?

We know that Taylor likes to issue press releases.  Just go to her website or read your daily newspaper. 

One final question for Mary on a "yet to be issued press release."

When is her office "finally" going to issue an auditor's forensic report on the Stark treasury's missing funds?

Is she tied up running for lieutenant governor?

Is that the reason for the delay Auditor Taylor?

Hmm?

"PROMISES, PROMISES, PROMISES": WILL THE STARK COUNTY TREASURER AUDIT EVER END?

Stark County is approaching a dubious anniversary date:  April 1, 2010.  

This is the day that in 2009 the story broke that Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler (Democrat) had fired chief deputy Vince Frustaci amid Zeigler allegations that Frustaci had pilfered county money.

County officials are totally frustrated that Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor (Republican) has been unable to complete a forensic audit of Stark Treasury finances over nearly a year and keeps sending bills.

Some county officials blame Taylor's office for failing to catch the loss of county funds in the first place.  

So the SCPR has these questions:  Will the "forensic" audit chastise the Ohio auditor's staff for not catching the missing money in the first place in its ongoing "financial" audits?  Will the Ohio auditor pay back the fees charged for the "ineffective" financial audits?

Back to the main question.

When will the forensic audit end seemed to be the question of the day at yesterday's weekly Stark County commissioners' meeting.

Who appears to be the most frustrated county county official?

County Administrator Mike Hanke, that's who!

In the accompanying video, see and hear Hanke vent his frustrations:

GOLLY GEE! HOW MANY AUDITS IS STATE AUDITOR MARY TAYLOR GOING TO DO ON THE STARK COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE?

 UPDATE:  01/06/2010 - 9:20 AM

UPDATE:  01/05/2010 - 2:00 PM

From the Stark County Treasurer's office:

HI MARTIN 

THIS IS ROTA, FROM THE STARK COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE SPECIAL AUDIT TOTAL IS $210,000., THE INFORMATION THAT WAS IN THE REPOSITORY, ABOUT THE AMOUNT BEING $360,000, PLUS WAS WRONG INFORMATION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONFIRM IT, CALL RICK FLOREY, AT THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, WELCOME, TO CALL ME AT THE TREASURER'S OFFICE, THERE IS A CONTRACT AGREEMENT, THAT THE TREASURERDEPARTMENT, HAD TO SIGN FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE AUDIT. 

 ORIGINAL POST

According to Terry (who emailed the SCPR yesterday), Treasurer Zeigler has already passed seven state of Ohio audits, to wit:

The treasures [sic] last 7 audits are in perfect or very good shape with very few suggestions from the State''' They are public record and I suggest you read them before making your comments'''' You will change your tune'' don;t you think the rep' read them'''    READ"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" They could not find anything wrong or you would have read about it'     Terry

Yeah Terry, so why is Ohio spending anywhere from $210,000 to nearly $400,000 (depending on whose estimate you believe) on an eighth audit - a forensic audit?

Hmm?

Could it have something to do with Zelgler firng Vince Frustaci (his chief deputy) after alleging that Frustaci had made off with county money back in the spring?

So what are you suggesting Terry?

Something like:  "Since the state auditors in their previous seven audits and The Repository (via the opportunity to do or the actual doing of a public records check) didn't catch the missing money,  taxpayers have no right to determine exactly how much is missing?"

Is that it, Terry?

Remember, Terry, Zeigler himself says money is missing.

Somehow the SCPR doesn't think Stark County taxpayers agree with you Terry. if that is what you are suggesting.

Sources are saying that maybe as much as $2 to 3 million is missing?  However, a county official has been saying of late to the SCPR that with bond money ($500,000, according to media reports) might cover most of the missing money.

And perhaps $2 to 3 million is missing, but nothing is wrong with the books?

Really?

Might merit some checking via an eighth "forensic" audit - don't ya think?

If the $2 to 3 million turns out be the missing amount and there is only a $500,000 bond, who do ya suppose might be looked to make up the difference?

Maybe the person elected by Stark County voters and taxpayers to mind the store?

Nobody?

After all Ohio's auditors and The Rep didn't catch it in those seven previous audits!

WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG TO DO THE FORENSIC AUDIT OF THE STARK COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE? THE REP DID NOT DIG DEEP ENOUGH?

UPDATE:  01/04/2010

Correction:  According to Ohio Revised Code 305.02(A):  If a vacancy in the office of  ... county treasurer ...  occurs more than forty days before the next general election for state and county officers, a successor shall be elected at such election for the unexpired term unless such term expires within one year immediately following the date of such general election.

The SCPR interprets this language to mean that if Treasurer Gary Zeigler were to resign on or before September 22, 2010, then his successor appointee (as made by the Stark County Democratic Central Committee) would have to stand for election at the next general election which is  November 2, 2010.  From September 23rd on, The Report interprets this statute to delay a retain the appointee election to be in November, 2012.

The SCPR thanks a reader of The Report for catching the error in the original blog and bringing it to the attention of yours truly.

ORIGINAL POST

Why is it taking so much time and so much money (anywhere from $210,000 to $368,644; depending on whose numbers you believe) to audit the Stark County treasurer's office.

The answer:   apparently, because  "the bookkeeping" at the Stark County treasury and the Stark County auditor's office "is a mess."

Officially, Republican Mary Taylor's representative:

Our fraud investigation in Stark County is immense. We are taking the time necessary to ensure that each and every tax dollar stolen or misspent at the county level is identified and returned. (Steven Faulkner according to Kelli Young's Repository report:  Stark County commissioners set aside more money for special audit, December 30, 2009)

However,  the SCPR has reason to believe (talking with a well placed Stark County Republican) that Taylor's office has let it be known to Stark County Republicans that the real reason is the chaotic condition of the bookkeeping at both Zeigler's office and Perez's office.

Does the SCPR believe that politics is at play in Republican Taylor' audit?  Yes and no.

First, the "no."

At a professional level, the Ohio auditor's office, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, do audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles.  So in this sense, the SCPR believes that Taylor is doing her work as a professional, unbiased auditor.

Second, the "yes."  Go back up in this blog to the large print "let it be known" language.  This is the way politics finds its way into the auditor's work - Republican or Democrat.

Kelli Young's piece was a fine work of reportorial journalism, but not being politically savvy, she missed digging into the political woodwork of the state auditor's office to find the political scuttlebutt that sppears to be passing from Columbus to the likes of Stark County Republican Party chairman Jeff Matthews.

Matthews is desperate these days.  The SCPR believes, despite Young Republican official denials), that the YRs are putting heavy pressure on Matthews to stop the bleeding of county level of Republican losses over recent years.

You have to believe that the likes of Mary Taylor, working with putative GOP gubernatorial nominee John Kasich, is looking for ways to enhance Republican vote totals come this November.  The Stark County treasurer's office trouble is "taylor" made to help Republicans this fall.

If the SCPR's calculation is correct, the time is pretty much run on giving Stark County Republicans a shot at the treasurer's office in 2010.

Hold on Olson,  Zeigler is not up for re-election until 2012!

True.  But what if the auditor's report was so damaging to Zeigler that he has to resign on the issuance of the state auditor's report?

If a Zeigler resignation is to come, it will have to happen soon indeed for it to give Republicans an opportunity to take this office in 2010.

The way The Report figures the calendar, Zeigler would have to resign not later than February 3rd which would require Stark's Democrats to appoint a successor  (by Ohio law) not later than February 17th which would leave February 18th until the Stark Board of Elections closes - which would be the cut off for filing petitions for running in November, 2010.

If Taylor files her report on February 3rd or before, she will be hit by a barrage of Democratic complaints that the timing was political.  However, Zeigler and the Democrats have an advantage.

Even if the Taylor report comes out before the 3rd and let's say it makes it untenable for Zeigler to remain as treasurer, surely he can hold out long enough to allow Democrats to make his replacement appointment good until December 31, 2012.

Such a scenario, of course, would leave the Democrats open to the charge of playing politics with the public trust.

So there you have it folks.

The political dynamics of the Stark County Treasurer's office saga!!!

WHY HAS THE FBI SHOWN UP AT THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE?

The SCPR has learned through a law enforcement source that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has shown up at the Stark County Office Building a couple of days this week to question Stark County commissioner Pete Ferguson (elected in November, 2008).

Why?

The source does not know.

There is no indication that Ferguson has done anything wrong.

The conjecture is that the questioning has something to do with the Vince Frustaci investigation that Mary Taylor of Ohio auditor's office requested when Frustaci was fired as chief deputy by Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler on April 1st amid allegations by Zeigler that he suspected Frustaci had stolen money from the county treasury.

Ferguson is said to have known Frustaci for a long time.

If the questioning is related to the Frustaci matter, it gives credence to those who do not think that indictments will be coming down any time soon.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that The Repository recently did a story (County finds that seeking bond for treasurer amid probe to be problematical, July 17)to the effect that Treasurer Zeigler may not be able to be sworn-in for his new term as county treasurer because of difficulties in securing a $1 million bond set by the county commmissioners.

If Frustaci gets charged with taking the county money, it is interesting to note that he was covered by a $500,000 bond. The allegations are that $2 to 3 million is missing from the treasurer's office.

These, indeed, are troubling times for Stark County government.

The SCPR believes this is the price citizens pay when they vote in "one-party-rule."

Only Democrats serve in countywide office (except for judicial office).

THE HAMMER IS ABOUT TO FALL IN THE FRUSTACI INVESTIGATION - WHO & HOW MANY WILL BE INDICTED?

UPDATE: JULY 16, 2009 AT 4:30 PM

The SCPR has new information which suggests that the number of indictments will more likely be on the low side of the estimates in the original piece below. Right now the SCPR believes the indictments will most likely be two in number and that the end of July is probably too early to expect indictments to be handed down.

The SCPR will update this blog as more information is forthcoming.

ORIGINAL BLOG


The Stark County Political Report (SCPR/The Report) has learned that as many as seven indictments may be coming down in the investigation of the Stark County Treasurer's office and the reported loss of $2 to 3 million in taxpayer funds.

County treasurer Gary Zeigler fired his chief deputy Vince Frustaci alleging that Frustaci pilfered the money. The firing occurred on April 1, 2009.

The SCPR has two primary sources on the question of who and how many Stark Countians will be indicted as a consequence of an investigation being conducted by the FBI.

One source says seven people will likely be indicted, but could not definitely say that all seven would be Stark Countians.

The other SCPR source says that seven is too high.

But both agree that indictments could be forthcoming soon. Perhaps, by the end of July.

The SCPR believes that one of the persons to be indicted will be Frustaci and that another highly likely indictment will be of a high ranking Stark County bank official who allegedly facilitated the theft.

The bill is in on Ohio auditor Mary Taylor's forensic audit of the Stark County treasury in light of the FBI investigation and it will total $150,000.

This $150,000 coupled with the likely $100,000 deductible that the county will likely pay on the reported settlement of the Hope Steffy case is not exactly news that Stark County taxpayers want to hear.

INDICTMENT "S" TO COME DOWN SOON ON STARK TREASURY INVESTIGATION?

Matters are beginning to stir on the alleged theft of monies from the Stark County treasurer's office.

News broke on Wednesday, April 1, 2009 that Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci had been fired by Treasurer Gary Zeigler on suspicion of theft. However, three months have passed since the firing but there still is no indictment naming anyone as being responsible for the theft.

The SCPR has learned that the indictments, when the come down, will name more than one person.

When are the indictments to come down?

Possibly, by the end of July.

Another question. How much money was stolen?

The SCPR is being told by a law enforcement official in a position to know that it is in the 2 to 3 million neighborhood.

The Stark treasury is being audited by Mary Taylor. She is the elected auditor for all of Ohio. Her report is said to be four to six weeks in the offing.

Ten year Stark treasury employee Frustaci is presumably the focus of an FBI investigation. A source has told The Report that it was known (certainly Zeigler had to know) that Frustaci liked to play high stakes poker and go to Mountaineer Casino Racetrack and Resort to gamble. The SCPR's source says that Frustaci was known at Mountaineer as being a "Whale." Moreover, video cameras have reportedly shown Frustaci, in a time period running up to his firing, gambling at Mountaineer.

Did this Whale get head over heels in gambling debt? Was this one of the underlying reasons he was fired for suspicion of theft?

Did Zeigler know about this red flag, but chose to ignore it?