(VIDEOS) STARK COMMISSIONERS PONDER BUDGET REQUESTS: PROSECUTOR, FAIR BOARD & STARK CO. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY BOARD. ARE THEY ASKING THE TOUGH QUESTIONS?

VIDEOS

Zantene & Locker
Stark County Fair Board

Green & Parramore
Stark County  Board of Developmental Disabilities

One of the more impressive things about the current Stark County Board of commissioners is their willingness to dig in on presentations made to them for their action on this thing or that thing.

The SCPR has been following the board closely for nearly five years now and can say without equivocation that the current one composed of Tom Bernabei, Janet Creighton and Richard Regula (on whom, individually, the jury is still out on in that he just took office this month) may be the best at vetting whomever comes before them with a request for action.

But let's just pause a moment and back off from any suggestion that the collection of Bernabei, Creighton and Regula (a former commissioner:  2003 through the end of 2006) is a nearing a state of perfection.

Far from it.

For instance, it still rankles yours truly the way the commissioners treated the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB).

As far as The Report can determine, the treatment has to do with:

1. that the SCDPAB was apparently the brainchild of former commissioner Todd Bosley seemingly done to bring him political support of those Stark Countians for whom the care of canines is a top priority, and
2. the lack of statutory authority (according to Commissioner Creighton) for creation of the advisory board in the first place.

Either way, the SCPR maintains that the good folks who agreed to serve on the Bosley initiated board deserve better treatment than they are receiving from the current body of commissioners, that is, except Regula, as he has not weighed in on the matter being in office for about three weeks now.

As far as The Report knows, the SCDPAB with just a few remaining members has not been officially shut done.  

They had nothing to do with Bosley's action and, accordingly, deserve better treatment than they are receiving from Bernabei and Creighton.

And there are other instances where the commissioners (again, excluding Regula, because he wasn't a commissioner) have come up short, but by and large they are dramatically improved over previous editions.

Back to the board's virtue of doing a relatively better job of questioning those who appear before them asking for Stark County taxpayer dollars.

While it can be excruciatingly painful to sit through budget hearings for their inherent boredom, three have occurred this cycle which have implanted a tinge of drama to them.

First, of course, which the SCPR has already written about had to do with Prosecutor John Ferrero's sort of (in the opinion of The Report) "in your face" presentation.  And this Ferrero caper was not the the first for him.  His pugnacious bearing was all too present at last year's budget hearings.

The commissioners have made it clear to all Stark departments of government which get general fund dollars that the expectation is that they are to come in with budget requests somewhere between current funding and 2010 funding and to project a 2% increase since county employees have not had an increase for a number of years.

So what does Ferrero, the non-team-player do?  You've got it!  He comes in with 2010 budget and and he projected a 3% raise.

Little bit of a disconnect here, no?  He expects others to play by the rules, but apparently his office is exempt?

Second, you have the Stark County Fair Board ([SCFB], also referred herein as being the "Fair Board" but which is formally titled as being the Stark County Agricultural Society).

The SCFB was represented at the commissioner hearings by President Darrell Zantene and Treasurer William Locker.

A main message:  the facilities at the county fairgrounds are deteriorating rapidly.   While no one said that the facilities (especially the grandstand - built in 1934) are at the "unsafe" level, it appears to The Report that such is where the grandstand is heading unless something is done and done within the next few years.

The Fair Board is at the point that they think have pared their budget (about $1 million annual) and that they are desperately seeking ways and means to increase income, reduce expenditures and find capital resources to make building/grounds repairs.

Some of the things they have done include:

• getting into using the fair grounds for boat storage,
• building a reserve (i.e. increased the fair ticket price by $1 with with 20 cents of each dollar going to a capital reserve fund and 80 cents going to operating expenses), but the the board has had to use some of the 20 cents to keep the fair going,
• trying to attract new events,
• trying to find lower costs for the rides portion of the fair but have been stymied because of the limited number of ride companies available to bid on providing rides,
• looking at raising fees for use of fair grounds which is not in the cards because of competition from other Stark County-based facilities,
• applying for grants but have been unsuccessful because they do not fit within the qualifying factors of grantors,
• building a sponsorship program whereby area organizations and businesses pay to sponsor certain buildings, and
• making some attempt to get agriculture devotees to make voluntary capital contributions

Some of the reductions in income have to do with:

• slowed down by "trending down" fair attendance owing to competing forms of entertainment occurring during the same timeframe as the fair,
• the loss of "mom and pop" members who cannot afford increasing fees to be at the fair,
• the cost of entertainment (big name) is, according Treasurer William Locker, "is getting completely out of line" in that it is currently about 1/3rd the fair's annual income,
• the harness racing business being on the decline,
• the fair experiencing "a rainy day" which Locker says cripples the income factor,
• increasing utility expenses despite completely shutting down the electric and gas when it is prudent to do so,
  

The folks who staff the SCFB are really nice folks with the best of intentions, but it seems obvious that previous boards and administrations have not properly maintained the fair's physical plant and now it is likely that we are likely to be going to hear a clamor for the commissioners to put massive amounts of taxpayer money in the getting the buildings and whatnot up to minimally acceptable standards.

One glaring deficiency of the Fair Board pointed out by Commissioner Creighton is the age the those serving on the board.

Her implied suggestion?

Maybe some youth and vigor on the board would inject visionary thinking that just might be the salvation of the fair going forward, no?

Take a look at its request made of the Stark County commissioners:  asking for $414,900 in 2013.  Hmm?

For 2012, the Fair Board received about 8.5% of it request from the commissioners.

Let's say that this year the commissioners get real generous and give it 20% of its request.  The SCFB gets about $83,000. How much more does it have to raise to get its house in order?  About $332,000.  Hmm?

So why should the commissioner throw good money after bad?

County administration assistant Rick Flory shared with the commissioners on Commissioner Bernabei inquiry the amounts which Stark County taxpayers have subsidized the fair with, to wit:

• $2,800 (2012),
• $22,500 (2011),
• $22,500 (2010),
• $22,500 (2009),
• $134,500 (2008)

This is a budget item to watch for everyday Stark Countians to begin to understand how well the commissioners are doing a stewards of the taxpayers money, no?

Here is a video summary of the discussion that took place between Fair Board president Darrell Zantene and its treasurer William Locker.



Finally, item number three being pondered by the commissioners.

Whether or not to allow the Stark County Developmental Disability Board (SCDD) to put a levy on in May of this year?

Here is what SCDD wants to do:  (from its fact sheet)

The Stark County Board of Developmental Disabilities has a 1.9 mil renewal with a 1.4 mil additional levy request on the May 7, 2013, ballot. The levy will benefit children and adults in Stark County who have developmental disabilities. This levy maintains the same millage that is in place and will result in NO NEW TAXES. The 1.9 mil renewal request renews a levy that expires in 2013, while the 1.4 additional includes the same 1.4 mil levy that expires in 2014. This eliminates the need to be on the ballot in both 2013 and 2014. The good news for the taxpayer - NO NEW TAXES. 

After the restructuring of the levies, SCDD (currently have 5 levies in place for 6.8 mills) reduces to 4 levies but maintains the 6.8 mills.

On the surface of the proposal, it seems as if this is a win/win for the SCDD and for Stark taxpayers.

It especially appears so when one considers this statement from SCDD's superintendent Bill Green, to wit:

From current calculations, it is our understanding that combining the two expiring levies will result in lower tax revenues because of the property revaluation that Stark County just went through.    Regardless, if we requested two separate renewals or not, we will be receiving $1.1 million less than what we collect now with the same millage.

But there is a catch that caught the ear of Commissioner Creighton during SCDD's presentation.

Catch?

Yes.  In the conversation between the commissioners and SCDD officials is the fact coming out that SCDD is carrying over some $32 million into 2013 against an annual budget of approximately $50 million.

Well, the obvious question that voters would be asking is this:  how is it that a agency that is carrying over about 60% of its annual budget needs to renew its levies (2013 - 1.4 mill; 2014 - 1.9 mill) for 10 years.

SCDD answer?

(Paraphrase)  "We're being prudent in looking down the road so as to prevent a financial crisis in the near term."  And, according to Superintendent Green that $1.1 less combined with other revenue losses [the state of Ohio including the Department of Education) means that going forward the SCDD is looking at 10 year life of the combined levy to offset about $7.2 million in the space of about two years (i.e. by the end of 2015) in total losses from the current budget level of $50 million.

Other points emphasized by Green to the commissioners include:

• that the SCDD is trying to change it business model,
• that the SCDD is only sustainable to 2017 with the status quo,
• getting SCDD customers out of segregated environment to the degree they exist,
• changing the SCDD's role from primarily being a provider of services to being a funder of services and thereby leverage more services for the retarded, developmentally disabled and intellectually disable,
• converting the SCDD from being a reactive organization into being a proactive one witness the plan to restructure long term funding of the agency,
• making the business model into one that is sustainable

It is surely rare that any government department or agency looks long term.  So the SCDD deserves plaudits for doing so.

But are the times such that the commissioners and ultimately the voters will be willing to allow such a strategy to become reality?

The commissioners did ask incisive questions of Green and yours truly followed up after the meeting with additional questions.

First, the SCPR video of the exchange between Green and the commissioners:



Second, after the commissioners' meeting Green's interview with The Report:



There are two things that stand out about the SCDD's whole process.

Number one, again, is the forward thinking going on at SCDD.

Number two is that the Stark County commissioners are not being a rubber stamp. 

Stark Countians should take heart that their county commissioners are asking pointed questions of the fellow county officials who are coming before them with their budget requests.

The Report believes that the commissioners' asking of meaningful questions is different from previous boards.

Yours truly's take on the prior boards is that the fellow county officials were their friends and therefore the commissioners merely went through the motions in their questioning.

The current board is much improved in this regard!

(VIDEO) IT BEEN AWHILE SINCE THE SCPR VISITED THE STARK CO. DOG POUND ISSUE. AND IT SEEMS THAT VERY LITTLE HAS CHANGED, MAYBE EVEN GOTTEN WORSE?

 

It was December 26, 2010 when the SCPR last dealt with the issue of the quality of care that dogs processed through the Stark County Dog Pound are receiving.

The past Wednesday the commissioners appointed a new member (Judy King) to the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB) and reappointed a serving member (Sally Rouse).  Both Ms. King and Ms. Rouse are volunteers at the Stark County Dog Pound.

At Commissioner Creighton's initiative, the commissioners now ask appointees to come to the commissioner meeting at which they receive an appointment so that all the commissioners are acquainted with and somewhat familiar with their appointees.

One of the things that the commissioners did not do in their exchange with the candidates for appointment was to pursue points brought up by them in their remarks about problems continuing to exist at the Stark County Dog Pound. 

After their appointment, The Report stepped out into the hallway and interviewed the two appointees (see the video at the end of this blog).

Was yours truly surprised.  The two gave The Report an ear full of dissatisfaction with the way things are going at the Pound and their dismay that Warden Tetreault was not improving matters.

In fact, they told the SCPR that they were inviting the commissioners to their next SCDPAB meeting scheduled for August 18th so that they can air out with commissioners problems which linger and perhaps worsening at the Pound.

The SCPR has a alternative suggestion.

The commissioners have work sessions on Mondays (10:00 a.m) and Tuesdays (11:00 a.m.) of each week.  Why not take one of those days and have a work session with advisory board members, Tetreault and the Stark County public on the issues that surround the operation of the Pound?

Last year was a year within which commissioners (not the current board except for Ferguson) fired (January 27th) the then dog warden Evert Gibson.  Matters had gotten so out of hand at the Pound in terms of Gibson to effectively manage union personnel that commissioners felt compelled to replace him with Reagan Tetreault (May, 2010) who was dog warden in Holmes County.

But even the Gibson successor hire process was not without some controversy.  Members of the SCDPAB suspected then Commissioner Bosley of trying to finagle a person, who had not been a part of the SCDPAB's screening of candidates, to the top of the list of persons being considered to replace Gibson.

Moreover, there was a controversy between Commissioner Ferguson and some SCDPAB members as to whether or not he saw a video of Pound employees mistreating dogs housed at the Pound.

While the SCPR understands that the commissioners figure to have "bigger fish to fry" (i.e. getting their 1/2 cent levy proposal passed on November 8th), the county does have other business and it is high time that they dig into the bubbling problems that appear to continue to plague the Pound and get them resolved "once and for all!"

Matters like the quality of work being done at the SCDP also factor into the commissioners' quest to reestablish trust between themselves and the Stark County public.

The commissioners can ill afford to lose votes for their 1/2 cent proposed sales tax increase.

While no one connected with the SCDPAB, Friends of the Pound, or from the members of the dog-loving public have indicated to the SCPR that their vote is in jeopardy as a consequence of perceived problems at the Pound, The Report believes that, if the commissioners fail to act on the complaints, they may be risking such a reaction.

BACK TO ROUSE AND KING

The state of repair at the SCDP have gotten so bad and with the county experiencing severe financial problems and likely that commissioners are not willing to make needed repairs themselves, the Friends of the Pound (which both Rouse and King are involved in) is holding a fundraiser to raise money to fix a ventilation problem among others at the Pound.

Here is the video of Sally Rouse and Judy King 

STARK COUNTY DOG POUND VOLUNTEERS: A CASE OF "NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED?"

 

Stark County Dog Pound (SCDP - Pound) volunteers - are they "a gift to the [Stark County] community?"

The Stark County Political Report says:  ABSOLUTELY!

Civic volunteers are the personification of everyday citizens being part of the governance of our local community.  They have no political motivations (i.e. getting re-elected, et cetera).  They are involved because they consummately care about their specific project.

In the case of the dog pound volunteers, if the animals do not have the volunteers looking out for them, their needs and safety concerns may go unmet.

So why raise the question in the first place?

Because the SCPR  is increasingly hearing suggestions that the volunteers (i.e. unpaid Pound workers and Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board [SCDPAB] members) have become a case of "the tail wagging the dog."

The Report has been hearing these rumblings ever since the SCDPAB got very active in forcing the county commissioners' hands in removing Evert Gibson as dog warden earlier this year and in weighing-in against a last minute "surprise" candidate to replace Gibson.  Other criticisms of the commissioners include the appointment of former commissioner Tom Harmon's stepson as a deputy dog warden, the failure of the commissioners to control the union (Local 94, Teamsters Union) and ensure that the Pound function properly.

And there is also the matter of the Animal Welfare Society of Stark County (AWSOSC) being led to believe (by Commissioner Bosley?) that the county would be putting county money into a facility on SCDP grounds to house a spay/neuter clinic operated by AWSOSC (a non-proift).  So far as the SCPR knows, commissioners have not delivered on the commissioner suggestions of financial help (i.e. $1 a year lease, and, perhaps up to $100,000 for reconstruction costs?).

The commissioners "apparent" change in attitude is probably the case (in addition to the evaporation of the political motivations - see below) because of the very limited funds that the county has for such purposes these days.  When it was "more or less promised."

While he has been commissioner, Todd Bosley has been "apparently" been very supportive of the volunteers.  It will be interesting to see whether or not his support continues as ex-commissioner Todd Bosley.  The SCPR suspects that Bosley's interaction with the volunteers will disappear now that he has no political purpose in doing so.

Moreover, former Commissioner Steve Meeks seemed to be on board with Bosley on being gungho for the volunteer groups until November 3, 2010.  Whether or not Meeks genuinely supports the volunteers will be shown by his involvement or non-involvement now that the political purpose is gone.

The Report believes that "in reality" the volunteers have been "a pain in the __ __ ___" to the commissioners including Bosley and Meeks and that the negativity has been embraced by Commissioner Ferguson (see yesterday's video in which he talks about "the - limited - role of the SCDPAB" (a body of volunteers).

Within the past few days, the SCPR has learned that an employee of the Stark County Dog Pound has been written up a second time and/or suspended, depending on whom you believe.

Commissioner Ferguson tells the SCPR (last Wednesday that a Pound employee was "written up a second time", but not suspended).  However, here is a edited e-mail that The Report has gotten on the matter which suggests a suspension, to wit:

I heard that ...  was hosing out a dog cage with the dog still in it. ( supposed to take the dogs out before cleaning the cages , which is more time consuming) The volunteer reported this to the Warden and she said she would handle the situation. A short time later ... came up to the volunteer screaming at her , saying she should not go behind his back , she did not see him spraying the dog ,and on and on .....About this time the Warden walked up and ... stopped shouting (sic) and walked away. The Warden told the volunteer to write a report of the incident and give it to her.

After this, ... again approached the volunteer , saying he wanted her to talk to his wife in the parking lot, implying that his wife would handle the situation, if the volunteer got smart with her.

I heard some of the volunteers that witnessed this, passed the info on to the commissioners, and ... was suspended with pay until a hearing takes place. Not sure how long the suspension is.

Here is another excerpt from an e-mail received by the SCPR that suggests reasons why acrimony is seeming to prevail between the volunteers, county commissioners, and Pound employees. To wit (with minor editing):

I see that this issue is taking a disturbing turn; that being that the real problems that have existed at the pound for some  time, the very same issues that provoked the installation of video cameras in the first place (by Evert Gibson) to record abuse and unnecessary rough handling by the deputies are now being used to defend the abusers.  I believe the freedom of information act makes the tapes available, but the reason they were installed was so that the WARDEN (who it now appears has become the darling of Ferguson and Hanke) can review them on a regular basis.  Obviously the darling is not doing so.  It should also be noted that according to inside sources the deputies have learned how to avoid being photographed.  I have been told that the "program" to view the videos is complicated, hence the evidence that does exist may not have been thoroughly viewed/edited.

As for the dog food:  Food has always been supplied by donations.  When Evert was the warden, if donations ran out, he bought food for the dogs out of his own pocket, but such needs were very few because the pound had (PAST TENSE) the support and respect of the community, so donations were usually plentiful.  I think the current issue is not (as suggested in your video) that dogs are starving, but that moldy food is considered acceptable by this warden.  In some cases there are dogs that come in so malnourished that feeding them extra would be a logical and humane act, but (as I understand) the deputies refuse to allow volunteers to provide extra food to such animals, not for any economic reason, but because the dog might poop more, thus the deputies who are being paid outrageous salaries to CARE for these dogs might have to clean the cage. 

I have personally experienced the irresponsible, inexcusable and irreversible act of ... kill at will behavior.  I have personally seen ...  lift a big dog using a snare pole.  Several people in this neighborhood have seen him exert utterly unnecessary force and roughness, in addition to extreme rudeness to themselves when the pound was called regarding 2 apparently lost dogs that did not require the force used. 

To suggest that the volunteers are making false claims regarding what is and is not basic humane and responsible treatment of animals, civil behavior toward the tax-paying public and competent management by the person who was hired to 'fix' the problems is disturbing to me.  While there may be a volunteer or two who have unrealistic expectations is possible.  I don't know as I don't go down there, but I do know that these people (volunteers) are not working their asses off for any gain or glory.  They are doing so because there is a tremendous need and that need exists because the employees do NOT work their asses off.  Rather, they prefer to do little more than sit on them.

It should also be noted that one of the final blows to Gibson's tenure at the pound came because Ferguson didn't feel   he had received an appropriate response to a personal issue he'd reported.  Now that citizens have boldly come forth to reveal some inexcusable behaviors at the Pound (Greathouse and Beaver) that have resulted in the loss, not to mention heartbreak and financial costs due to a lack of competence and management under the new warden, Ferguson himself seems to be very forgiving. 

Does anyone think that this warden who lives in another county is going to even show up for work when the weather gets bad?  I doubt it.  Has anyone asked WHY she left her previous job?  I'd like to know that answer.  And finally,  her public statement that the heart-stabbing ... and a few other deputies can't bear to have dogs named because it's too upsetting when they have to "put them to sleep"just about made me spew! 

It appears to this reader that certain commissioners have tired of this issue and are taking the easy way out by siding with their new hire rather than making management demands upon her as they did upon her predecessor.  I hope that the new commissioners will use their authority to address this situation. 

So there you have it folks!

It appears that the relationship between the current commissioners (not including the "new to be soon installed" Tom Bernbei) and the volunteers is not the best.

As stated by the second e-mail writer, the new commissioners (Creighton and Bernabei) need to take a firm hand on matters at the Stark County Dog Pound and solve this festering problem "once and for all!"

It is disturbing that there may be those and including, perhaps Commissioner Ferguson and County Administrator Hanke, who find the volunteers as communication "inconvenient truths" especially at a time the county is experiencing severe financial shortages and therefore are to be diminished in terms of their believability so that they do not get in the way of county officials getting public support for additional revenues so sorely needed by the county.

Had Bosley, Meeks, Ferguson, Vignos and Harmon effectively tackled the long brewing SCDP problems over the past five years, the commissioners would not have the current set of problems.

But they didn't.

The SCPR finds it to be an outrage that there might be a subtle trashing of the dog pound civic volunteers by public officials.  If such is the case, cooler heads (Creighton and Bernabei) need to step forward immediately and diffuse this problem which seems to be at "a low boil" currently before it hits "a high boil" and gets out of control.

Civic volunteers and their "check and balance" on how government functions is a critically important part of the public's confidence in government institutions, the local government included.  Commissioners should be pleased that the Pound volunteers are bringing the problems of the Pound to the public's attention.  The way to honor the volunteers is to take their complaints seriously and to solve the problems, post haste

Stark County, with the Frustaci matter fresh in the local collective memory, does not need another "bad taste in the public's mouth" event.  If the commissioners fail "to take the bull by the horns" and solve the Pound problems, "Hell will freeze over" before any kind of tax issue passes in Stark County.  And, inaction or ineffective action could result in a new round of ex-commissioners dotting the Stark County political landscape.

The SCPR applauds the Pound volunteers for exposing the SCDP problems and pushing for resolution.

In doing so, they can expect to kicked around.  The Report has experienced the same fate with the reports and investigations that surface in these pages.  One of the reasons that politicians and many elected officials are disdained by the public (only about 20% of Americans have confidence and trust in government) is because they look after themselves and their political hides rather than the general welfare of the governed.

So rather than fix problems as they can and will continue to surface, the politicos and highly politicized elected office holders either bury the problems or try to make victims out of those in the greater Stark County community who "put the light of day" on their self-serving ways.

Lamentably, the SCPR reminds the Dog Pound volunteers that in looking after the public interest, oft times "their good deeds will not go unpunished."

Such is the reality of life, especially when the electoral fate of public officials may be at stake!

But the Stark County public undoubtedly esteems the likes of the Stark County Dog Pound volunteers!!!

Here is a video of SCDP Advisory Board members discussing "volunteer policy," "whether or not there is a dog food shortage," and "whether or not there is abuse at the Pound."