(VIDEO) STARK CO. BOARD OF ELECTIONS (BOE) PROVES, ONCE AGAIN, THAT IT IS NOT CITIZEN FRIENDLY!

BOARD OF ELECTIONS
 MAY BE ON A COURSE

TO MAKE A "MAJOR"

LEGAL MISTAKE

UPDATE 10:31 AM

STARK CO. ASS'T PROSECUTOR
DEBBIE DAWSON
REPSONDS TO SCPR
QUESTION ON
SHERIFF CERTIFICATION

VIDEOS

ENCORE PRESENTATION
COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA
ON
STARK BOE
JOB POSTING
(LAUGH, LAUGH)

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

STARK BOE MEETING

OF

JANUARY 22, 2014

 UPDATED AT: 08:52 AM

Being a White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (WASP), I have not had very many occasions to experience the sting of discrimination in my entire life.

But the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE/Board) has managed to bring that bitter lesson home to this WASP in making it plainly obvious that the Stark County Political Report is not welcome to its meetings.

Derivatively, Braden, Cline, Ferruccio and St. John will be affecting the Stark County public's right to know the "complete" story of what goes on at the Stark BOE.

And, this from an entity of government supported by your tax dollars and my tax dollars.

It all began in February, 2010 as I showed up to a meeting of Stark County Board of Elections meeting with my camera.

William Cline and Curt Braden (the-then Republican members who remain to this day) and Democrat members Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and Samuel Ferruccio, Jr (a remaining member) composed the Board.

Here is a lift from a February 22, 2012 (see May, 2010 blog on the same topic) that explains the historical hostility:

Well, why was the SCPR at this particular [the regular February, 2010 BOE meeting] meeting anyway?

The Report had asked Director Jennette Mullane (an appointee of the Stark County Democratic Party which board member Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., is a former chairman of and who recently hired Mullane's sister to work for him as clerk of courts in Massillon), to place an item on the Board's agenda.

What was the item?

That the Board set up a plan with a timetable to scan in petitions and campaign finance reports as they are filed so that these documents are speedily and readily available to the Stark County Public.

Well, was the matter on the agenda?

No!

So, what did The Report do next?

After the meeting, yours truly asked Mullane about the omission.

Her answer?

The Board would not allow her to place the matter on the public meeting agenda.

So that was complaint #2 filed with the Ohio secretary of state.

Complaint #1?

Board member and Chairman William Cline (Republican of North Canton) denied the SCPR's effort to video-tape the meeting.  No vote was taken of the entire Board.  No.  Cline, unilaterally makes the decision. But after having to delay the meeting's start to have a private tete-a-tete with board member Maier.

Hmm?

What do you suppose that little confab might have been about?

While the discussion with The Report and Cline was going on, member Maier (in a sub voice) set upon disparaging blogs and the audacity of a blogger to be expected to be treated on a par with the likes of The Repository (which did have a reporter present).

The SCPR understands Maier's disdain for blogging because for him blogging appears to be a partisan political weapon; not the equal opportunity incisive critic that the SCPR is.

While Stark Politics was still up and running, Maier and his  Stark County Democratic Party political director Shane Jackson (who is Maier's chief deputy at the clerk of courts office) were going bananas over the blogs attacking Democrats and a scant few Republicans who were less extreme than the anonymous Stark Politics blogger..

They wanted yours truly to do a countervailing blog.

What an insult!

But Maier is, in the opinion of The Report, a master of political insult and arrogance.

Of course, the rest is history.  Not only did yours truly reject the request, but went totally the opposite and put together the SCPR to put both Republican and Democrat officeholders and candidates under intense scrutiny.

Mutual acquaintances have fed back to The Report that Maier has been known to go into spasm with some of the political critiques appearing in the SCPR.

Earlier this month a rather hilarious exchange between took place between Stark County commissioner Richard Regula on the occasion of BOE executive director Jeff Matthews (a target of quite of few SCPR blogs) presented the 2014 BOE budget request (all of which - to make the BOE/taxpayer tie once again to the bigs at the BOE - is funded with Stark County taxpayer dollars).

Here is a repeat from that blog so that readers can fully understand the BOE pique at the SCPR.

One of the things that the Bernabei, Creighton and Richard Regula of the Stark Board of County commissioners zero in on in the course of budget hearings are new hires and the year-to-year salary increases that Stark County departments of government hand out to their employees.

In the course of the back and forth between the commissioners and Director Matthews was Matthews' revelation that the BOE 2014 budget included the hiring of four additional employees in the year 2014.

Here is Richard Regula with his questions and Matthews' answer.

What a hoot! - no?

Not only the Stark County Board of Elections but any Ohio Board of Elections posting job listings for the taxpaying general public citizenry to apply for prompts a  "you have to be kidding!"

The public perception is that these jobs only go to the politically connected, plain and simple.

To say it again:  "job posting"  by a Board of Elections.

 Laugh, laugh, laugh and laugh some more!  Ha!, Ha!, Ha!

The SCPR thinks that Matthews stumbled and bumbled all over the place answering Regula's question and the latter revealed (as least that is what The Report thinks) that three of the four "non-posted" to the public have already been hired, subject to official BOE approval.

It is irony upon irony that each of Ohio's 88 counties have a department of government that is all about citizens having a choice (called elections) run by unelected, politically appointed folks who only have to account to the county Democratic and Republican party chairmen. 

Hmm?

One more sharing of the "very special history" between the SCPR and various members of the BOE.

From a February 26, 2010 blog:

In late 2009 or early 2010, BOE member Curt Braden had traveled to Columbus on official BOE business and "lo and behold" where does he spend over night?

You've got it!

At one of Columbus' most posh hotel and, of course, at Stark County taxpayer expense.

While the SCPR understands that public officials do not necessarily concern themselves with being frugal with your tax dollars and my tax dollars, one would think that a guy like Braden would at least take care to get the very best rates at one of Columbus' finest hotel, no?

Not on your life.

"Who cares," he must have said to himself.

Consequently, he signed up for a room at $144.00 a night whereas if he had gotten prior Stark County government approval - as he is required to do according "to the rules," the rate would have been $80.00 per night.

So while Braden and his fellows are careful to rein in the Stark County Political Report with rules, he is not so careful about himself nor with our taxpayer dollars.

SCPR rules?

Yes at Tuesday's meeting, Director Matthews told me (seated in the first row in order to get the best picture of "our Stark County Board of Election members in action) that "the rules" did not allow me to sit in the front row (where nobody but a Repository reporter was seated) but that I would at least have to remove to the second row and once seated "was not to move about."

While my experience is in no way, shape or form the equivalent of that experienced - even in 2014 America by African Americans and other minorities - the Matthews' (Board supported) rebuke caused me to reflect just a little as a WASP what it must feel like to experience somebody's prejudice.

After Tuesday's meeting, I was told by one in the room that "the Board"  [Cline, Braden, Ferruccio and St. John) obviously does not like you.

I hope that St. John (an African-American) - if he does not like me and the work of the SCPR - will disassociate himself from the discriminatory work of he fellow BOE members.  For it would be a bit hypocritical of him to take offense about African-Ameriocans are treated but not care about bloggers and the obvious put-down that I experienced by Maier (back in February, 2010) and the entire BOE in the fashioning of the discriminatory rules in favor of the mainstream press.

Now to the reason why I attended the January, 2014 BOE meeting.

First, to see Matthews' explain to the Board how he/Mullane (the Democrat deputy BOE director) labored long and hard to screen from among many, many applications the hopefully received for some of the best - if not the absolute "best" - paying Stark County government entry level jobs ($32,000 plus about another $10,000 in benefits) in all of Stark County.

Second, to see whether or not the Board dealt in any kind of detail with the necessity of setting a date before February 18th for the Board to meet in order to pass on whether or not those Stark Countians filing partisan petitions (deadline:  February 5th) had done so properly.

Mostly, the review includes making sure that the would-be candidates have obtained the minimum required "registered voter" signatures to be qualified.

However, this year there is a wrinkle to the qualification process.

The 2014 primary ballot will include sheriff candidates.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the BOE has to make a determination of whether or not the sheriff candidates meet the criteria of ORC 311.01 that specifically set out in Ohio law as being mandatory if one is to legally take office as a sheriff.

The Report doubts anyone reading this blog does not know about the fight within the Stark County Democratic Party to appoint a sheriff.  Rather that regurgitate that fight and how George T. Maier got bounced by the Ohio Supreme Court from being sheriff, here is a LINK for readers to get up to speed.

The SCPR hears that there is talk among the lawyer members of the BOE to ignore ORC 311.01 and merely deal with the sufficiency the validty/number of the signatures on the sheriff candidate petitions.

The Report can assure the BOE members that if they go that route, they will face a legal challenge.  Perhaps the should be taking a look at this Ohio Supreme Court case which is an expression of current Ohio law on the matter.

The BOE is truly between "the deep blue sea and the Devil" on this issue.

For if the Board finds Maier to be disqualified, "you can bet your 'bottom dollar' that the Maier forces will be filing litigation.

In viewing the videotape of Tuesday's meeting (posted at the end of this blog), readers can see what transpired in its totality unfiltered by the SCPR.

What more could one ask for?

Particularly noteworthy are the comments of member William Cline that make it clear that the BOE itself was not interested in vetting Matthews/Mullane, to wit:

• about the specifics of how many applications were received, 
• how the general public might have known about the job openings,
• whether or not political affiliation or any other connection (laugh, laugh, laugh Commissioner Regula et al) had anything to do with whom got hired, and
• what were the critical criteria which separated the applicants in the Matthews/Mullane determination of who would be recommended for hire.

Cline's laudatory comments are clear indication to the SCPR through the words of Cline - who is an attorney and clearly knows how to cross-examine - was not interested in showing that the Board had done its "due diligence."

Folks, it is this very blog you are reading and the revelations it contains that has put the SCPR in the category of receiving discriminatory treatment as being a second class citizen compared to the mainstream media representative.

I expect any day to get a call from the bigwigs at The Repository - because of their devotion to the journalistic values of "Sunshine Week" coming up soon - with the message that they are going to weigh-in to insist that I and my blog be treated with respect (which nearly every other public entity/official accords The Report) and "the equal protection of the law."

The Rep bigs uttered nary a word back in February, 2010?

Should I hold my breath on this January 23, 2014 waiting for that call?

Tuesday's meeting video follows:

(VIDEOS) IN BUDGET HEARINGS, COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA ASKS BD OF ELECTIONS' OFFICIALS: "ARE YOU GOING TO POST THOSE FOUR NEW POSITIONS?" WHAT A LAUGH!

UPDATED AT 6:00 PM

VIDEOS

COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA

ASK  BOE OFFICIALS

ARE THE FOUR NEW JOBS GOING TO BE POSTED?

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

COMMISSIONERS CREIGHTON & BERNABEI

DRESS DOWN

BOE OF ELECTIONS OFFICIALS

FOR

BREAKING

2% RAISE GUIDELINES 

One of the best forums from which the Stark County Political Report obtains information about Stark County government operations are the meetings of the Stark County commissioners.

The commissioners are now in the depths of their yearly budget hearings and these hearings, in particular, yield a great deal of information for The Report to repackage into blogs which make Stark Countians some the best informed people about their county, township, village and city governments in the entire country.

Yesterday, representatives (Director Jeff Matthews, Deputy Director Jeanette Mullane, Republican Board Member Curt Braden and Democrat Board Member Sam Ferruccio) of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE') trooped into the the commissioners' meeting room on the second floor of the Stark County Office Building for their time before the commissioners.

One of the things that the Bernabei, Creighton and Richard Regula of the Stark Board of County commissioners zero in on in the course of budget hearings are new hires and the year-to-year salary increases that Stark County departments of government hand out to their employees.

In the course of the back and forth between the commissioners and Director Matthews was Matthews' revelation that the BOE 2014 budget included the hiring of four additional employees in the year 2014.

Here is Richard Regula with his questions and Matthews' answer.



What a hoot! - no?

Not only the Stark County Board of Elections but any Ohio Board of Elections posting job listings for the taxpaying general public citizenry to apply for prompts a  "you have to be kidding!"

The public perception is that these jobs only go to the politically connected, plain and simple.

To say it again:  "job posting"  by a Board of Elections.

 Laugh, laugh, laugh and laugh some more!  Ha!, Ha!, Ha!

The SCPR thinks that Matthews stumbled and bumbled all over the place answering Regula's question and the latter revealed (as least that is what The Report thinks) that three of the four "non-posted" to the public have already been hired, subject to official BOE approval.

It is irony upon irony that each of Ohio's 88 counties have a department of government that is all about citizens having a choice (called elections) run by unelected, politically appointed folks who only have to account to the county Democratic and Republican party chairmen. 

Hmm?

As soon as The Report could get to a computer, an email was fired off to Deputy Director Jeannette Mullane asking follow up questions, to wit:

 

Jeanette,

With respect to the four hires referred to by Matthews in today's budget presentation, I have the following questions:

What are the job titles?

How much is each position to be paid as a starting salary?

With respect to the three hires to be made in January, have the candidate for those jobs been selected subject to the approval of the board?

If so, what are their names.

When is the four hire contemplated to be made?

Thanks,
Martin Olson
SCPR

MULLANE'S INITIAL ANSWER

Jeanette,

With respect to the four hires referred to by Matthews in today's budget presentation, I have the following questions:

What are the job titles?  Clerks

How much is each position to be paid as a starting salary?  $15.60 per hour or $32,459.65 annual

With respect to the three hires to be made in January, have the candidate for those jobs been selected subject to the approval of the board?  The Board hires the employees.

If so, what are their names.

When is the four hire contemplated to be made?  Unknown at this time.

Note that Mullane does not answer "all" the questions posed, to wit:  "If so, what are their names?"

However, the SCPR, if anything, is persistent:

The Report's "reply" attempt to get Mullane to answer "all" the questions posed.

MULLANE'S REPONSE TO THE SCPR'S FOLLOW UP

As you can see, Mullane refuses to respond to the SCPR request for names.

Why do you think that might be?

Hmm?

'Tis a puzzlement, no?

Well, Ms. Mullane, Director Matthews and each and every one of the Stark County Board of Elections can be assured that the SCPR will be at the January 21st meeting to record it all.

Of course the SCPR had to fight (Blog Link) for the right to videotape Stark BOE proceedings (Blog Link).

Courtesy of the work of Stark County commissioners' "second-in-command" administrator Chris Nichols (who obtained the information from the Stark auditor's office), The Report is publishing the current payroll of various departments of government.

Since, today's blog, the Stark County Board of Elections is the topic, below is the payroll as this month.  Of course, next month there will be three additions $32,459.75 (access denied to the general Stark County public courtesy of unelected "highly partisan" public officials) with a fourth to follow soon.

The BOE completely blew off the commissioners on their guidelines of no more than two percent (2%) increases in Stark County departments for 2013.

The chief, Matthews, (chairman of the Stark County Republican Party [an unpaid position] who was making a "mere" $78,708 (plus about $25,000 in benefits) gets a 4.3% increase to reach $80,000.  A nice, neat rounded off number, no?.  And the man apparently includes himself in the category of these "poor employees" the haven't  a raise in 4 or 5 years.

Now that's a convincing argument for a person who in total compensation package is likely well over $100,000 annually all of which is paid by the Stark County taxpayers, isn't it?

And look at Travis Secrest who has dutifully run for a couple "sacrificial lamb" campaigns for the Stark Republicans.  Wow!  From $31,514 to $41,200 (a whooping 30.7% increase) all within one year and he is a person that has not been on the job all that long.  And, again, you can tack on about another $12,000 annually in benefits so that his total taxpayer dollars take is over $50,000 annually.

Not to neglect the Democrats, there is Holly Tichnor who got a 12.7% increase in 2013.

In this video, see Commissioner Janet Creighton and Tom Bernabe take BOE members Republican Curt Braden and Democrat Sam Ferruccio to task for the flagrant BOE disregarding of the commissioners' 2% raise guidelines.



Since members of the BOE; namely Demeatrious St. John,  Sam Ferruccio (the Democrats) and Curt Braden, William Cline (the Republicans) are unelected, the only accountability for elected officials are Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Regula.

Right now the only consequence is "a dressing down by the commissioners" as seen in the video.

Of course, for the likes of St. John, Ferruccio, Braden and Cline, you just "grin and bear it."

For the commissioners' admonitions to mean anything, they are going to have to come up with "real world" consequences for county government entities that in effect tell them that their guidelines mean nothing to them.

We shall see what the commissioners do in devising effective measures to stop the "thumbing of the nose" they are experiencing by the likes of the Stark County Board of Election members.

ANY DAY NOW, INTERIM SHERIFF TIM SWANSON TO FILE A 2ND QUO WARRANTO AGAINST GEORGE T. MAIER!

AND
FILE A LAWSUIT
AGAINST
THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TOO!

UPDATED AT 09:45 AM

TOPICS

SECOND QUO WARRANTO TO BE FILED "SOON"

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

STATUTORY HURDLES THAT MAIER HAS TO JUMP

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

BOARD OF ELECTIONS OBSTACLE
(Maier Certification to be Challenged by Stark Co. Republican)

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

COMMISSIONERS TO BE SUED BY SWANSON 

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

IN THE END, MAIER BUSTER FAILS

On November 6, 2013 the Ohio Supreme Court ousted George T. Maier as sheriff of Stark County in quo warranto brought by interim Stark County sheriff Tim Swanson on February 12, 2013.

On December 11th, 101 members of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC)  under the insistent leadership of Chairman Randy Gonzalez defied the clear finding of the high court (November 6th) that Maier is not qualified under the statutory law of Ohio to be sheriff.

Consequently,  the Stark County Political Report was told by Swanson's attorney Greg Beck (yesterday) that Swanson has decided - in fact - to, for a second time, file a quo warranto.  

And that the lawsuit will be filed "soon."

Of interest is that Beck also says that Swanson will file a lawsuit against the Stark County commissioners because they have refused to pay legal fees incurred in his successful first filed quo warranto.   

He will be asking a Stark County Court of Common Pleas to order the county to pay those fees and back wages


SCDP-CC members had illegally (according to the Supreme Court) appointed Maier on February 5th to replace Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (November, 2012) who could not take office on January 7th because of what turned out to be a terminal illness and, in the November 6th Supreme Court decision were ordered to do a "re-do," hence the December 11th vote.

•  SCPR Note:  The February 5th vote was 92 for Maier, 84 for Darrow.  Many of the 92 appear in the December 11th list, but not all.  Some of them switched over in December to vote for Darrow, but more switched over to vote for Maier.   Moreover, new (they had not voted in the February 5th vote) members account the remainder of the 101.

The SCPR was quick to write at the time that the February 5th appointment would likely result in Maier being removed by Ohio's "court of last resort."

In Swanson v. Maier (1), Ohio's august justices (5 to 2) found that Maier was not a full-time peace officer on February 5th when chosen by the central committee members.

It may be that he still does not qualify as a full-time peace officer.

But even if Maier gets over that hurdle, there are two others that he has to high-hurdle over if he is to remain on the job at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard, to wit:

Section  311.01(B)(9) [the Ohio Revised Code]:  The person meets at least one of the following conditions:

(a) Has at least two years of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above, or has been appointed pursuant to section 5503.01 of the Revised Code and served at the rank of sergeant or above, in the five-year period ending immediately prior to the qualification date;

(b) Has completed satisfactorily at least two years of post-secondary education or the equivalent in semester or quarter hours in a college or university authorized to confer degrees by the Ohio board of regents or the comparable agency of another state in which the college or university is located or in a school that holds a certificate of registration issued by the state board of career colleges and schools under Chapter 3332. of the Revised Code. 

 Apparently, Swanson and his attorney are:

• unimpressed with Maier's transparent and perhaps (likely?) in-vain attempt to work from November 7th through his December 11th reappointment for his long time law enforcement pal Sheriff Ronald J. Myers of Harrison County, and/or
• convinced that Maier cannot meet the criteria of ORC 311(B)(9)(a) and/or (b).

"Soon," in the thinking of The Report, is to say "in the immediate future," perhaps by Friday of this week.

•  SCPR Note:   There are reasons to suspect that Maier may not qualify as being a full-time peace officer in a second quo warranto notwithstanding his work in Harrison from sometime during the week of November 6th through the week of December 8th (including, perhaps, the 11th itself)
• It could be that there is language in the contract between Harrison County and its deputies that define out a new employee as being full time for specified periods like probationary periods.  The Report understands that the contract language is being checked into by Beck.
• Accordingly, all the focus on February 5th or December 5th (or thereabouts) as the "qualification date" might not be as significant as the Maier supporters think for the longevity of Maier as the Democrats' appointee.
• If  February 6th proves to be "ironclad" as the "qualification date" as confirmed in a Supreme Court decision on the second quo warranto, and, Maier having been found by the court (November 6th) as not having been full-time, then the only person who benefits is Louis Darrow.  He is the only "realistic" person (the only other qualified candidate as of that date was Republican Larry Dordea) for the Dems to appoint if the February 6th dated is confirmed.
• If the Maier side is correct that the November 6th ruling changed the qualification date and a December, 2013 date is validated by the court (in a 2nd quo warranto decision) as a "new" qualification date and even if he is deemed by the court to be qualified as a full-time peace officer as of the "new" date; he still has to meet one of the criteria of ORC 311.01(B)(9) cited above which statute a number of folks believe he cannot meet.

Initial reports surfacing about noon yesterday (from a source other than Beck) were that a second Swanson quo warranto would be filed on Friday and, of course, that could prove to be the case but Beck has not confirmed a specific filing date with The Report.

While the SCPR believes that a second Supreme Court quo warranto will be decided much sooner than the nine (9) months it took the court to determine Maier to be unqualified the first time; a decision will not likely come down before the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) has to determine whether or not to certify Maier as a qualified "sheriff" (i.e. the criteria of ORC chapter 311 in addition to whether or not his petitions are in order).

The petitions have to be filed by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 5th.

Hmm?  February 5th?  Isn't that co-incidental?

Let's see, wasn't it February 5, 2013 when the SCDP-CC illegally appointed Maier sheriff the first time?

Would the Stark County Board of Elections in light of the ouster decision in Swanson v. Maier(1) quo warranto and the filing of Swanson v. Maier (2) quo warranto want to chance an illegally certifying (in the face of another Ohio Supreme Court challenge) Maier to be qualified?

It would not be surprising to see the two Democrats (Demeatrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio) vote for Maier certification notwithstanding the outcome of Swanson v. Maier(1) and the filing of Swanson v. Maier (2).

But the two Republicans (William Cline [an attorney] and Curt Braden [a former Stark County GOP chairman] are quite another matter.

And if they are reluctant to challenge Maier on their own, the SCPR has learned that they will have to deal with a demand from a Stark County Republican citizen who happens to be an attorney that they not vote to certify Maier.

A two to two vote on the Stark County Board of Elecltions brings Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted in as the tie-breaker.

Talk about a perfect situation for Republicans to achieve a Stark County Republican Party political objective (taking over the sheriff's office held most recently by the Democrats for nearly 30 years [Berens 1981-1984]) and be on the high ground of upholding "the rule of law" (i.e. Swanson v. Maier (1) in achieving that objective - the opportunity to deny certification is it - pure and simple.

Politicians dream of having the opportunity to do what is a beneficial thing for their political party under the imprimatur of doing the arguable if not the clear duty legal thing in support of "the rule of law."

Folks, it does not get any better than this for partisan board of elections members!

And if the BOE acts to disqualify Maier in the absence of any further direction from the Supreme Court, such could be "the end of the line" for the Dems' appointee.

Such a materialization could snowball into desperation time for the pro-Maier folks.

Could we see Maier filing a legal action against the BOE?

Another legal action?

Hmm? 

Muddier legal/political waters, the could not be, no?

If George T. Maier is ruled off the ballot by the Board of Elections (with Secretary Husted as the tie-breaker) and there is no successful legal challenge by Maier, the Democrats appear to have no other choice but to name Lou Darrow as their candidate .  

Darrow, The Report thinks, lacks the political skills to wage a successful campaign.

Moreover, he would have the burden of representing a political party that rejected him twice as its sheriff appointee notwithstanding that he is clearly qualified whereas Maier's qualification have always been questioned.

The SCPR does not see Doug Smith as a viable contender for the Democratic nomination.

If Lou Darrow ends up appointed by the SCDP-CC to be the Dems' candidate, the SCPR is willing to say right now that Republican Larry Dordea will be the the next elected sheriff of Stark County.

The only solace that Maier would have should he win Swanson v. Maier(2) (if he has been ruled off the ballot by the BOE) would be to remain at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard through December 31, 2014.

As the SCPR sees it, that is the best that Maier can hope for.

Things are not looking good for George T. Maier remaining the "long-term" sheriff of Stark County.

Additionally, it could be that he will end up repaying the Stark County taxpayers about $130,000 for salary, benefits received by him for the period February 12, 2013 through November 6, 2013 and re-branding expenditures made by him while serving as the SCDP-CC appointed sheriff who was not legitimated by the Ohio Supreme Court.

And he may lose Swanson v. Maier (2).

Which, of course, might mean the repayment factor may go up.

Another consequence of Tim Swanson winning Swanson v. Maier(1) is that Stark County taxpayers may have to pay Swanson's $33,800 or so legal fees and tens of thousands in dollars in salary and benefits for the time that Maier is determined to have served illegally in place of the interim sheriff.

As written above, Greg Beck tells the SCPR that Swanson plans on filing a lawsuit against the Stark County commissioners to recover the legal fees and wages in the immediate future.

So is George T. Maier about to suffer "a double whammy" and turn out to be a "short-term" sheriff?

The SCPR thinks that is the likely ultimate outcome.

And if he has to repay any monies out as a result of possibly losing in Marcelli v. Maier, the "double whammy" could turn out to be a "triple whammy" if not more.

The SCPR believes that George T. Maier in political consultation with brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman), Dems' chairman Randy Gonzalez and perhaps others (Oh!  How could The Report forget Stark County Dems' political director R. Shane Jackson) in the high reaches of Stark County Democratic Party politics made a calculation that though they suspected George had qualifications problems, it was worth a go.

Worth a go?

Yes.

Because who was going to raise the qualification problem in the courts if the SCDP-CC could be induced to appoint George?

Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero?  The Ohio attorney general?  Sheriff Tim Swanson?

And such a calculation seemed reasonable enough.

PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO

Ferrero has a political future in Stark County.  Would he want to jeopardize that by taking on the likes of Maier, Jr. and Gonzalez?

INTERIM SHERIFF TIM SWANSON

Swanson has a home and family in Florida.  Why would he want to have to be possibly "at the ready" to return to Ohio to serve as interim sheriff while the Democrats fight among themselves?

OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL MIKE DeWINE 

No way would a Republican attorney general who is up for re-election in 2014 want to create a Stark County firestorm for himself

To repeat, such a calculation seemed reasonable enough.

But ... but .... but ... but .... but!!!

As it turns out such a calculation - if, in fact, The SCPR surmise of  the calcualtion's existence is correct, was flawed.

Perhaps the Dem politicos forgot the adage:  Best laid plans mice and men oft go astray.

Astray they have gone in Stark County Democratic Party politics, no?

STARK COUNTY BD OF ELECTIONS TO DETERMINE WHO IS QUALIFIED TO BE APPOINTED BY STARK DEMS CENTRAL COMMITTEE AS McDONALD SUCCESSOR. COULD THE SHERIFF SELECTION END UP IN THE COURTS AS A CONTESTED LEGAL MATTER? ZEIGLER: "DEJA VU & ALL OVER AGAIN?"

NOTE:  The SCPR is focusing on the naming of a new Stark County sheriff.  With each new blog, The Report will include links to other blogs written since Friday, January 4th.
 

 SUBTOPICS

GEORGE MAIER SENDS OUT LETTER TO DEMS

CENTRAL COMMITTEE SEEKING SUPPORT

(SEE COPY OF LETTER IN THIS BLOG)
  

FORCHIONE DOES NOT DECIDE, MERELY COLLECTS/TRANSMITS
INFORMATION TO THE STARK BOARD OF ELECTIONS

LINKS

• January 11, 2013 blog
• January 10, 2013 blog,
• January 8, 2013 blog,
• January 5, 2013 blog,
• January 4, 2013 blog,

********** MOST RECENT BLOG **********

The Stark County Political Report has learned that so far two candidates for the appointment of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDPCC) have been interviewed (and submitted statutorily required information and finger prints) by Stark County Court of Common Pleas Administrative Judge Frank Forchione.

The two interviewed are Lt. Louis A. Darrow (currently serving in the sheriff's department and current Sheriff Tim Swanson's choice) and Massillon Safety Director George T. Maier who formerly served in the Ohio State Highway Patrol.

Such is a pre-condition (among a number of qualification factors) for anyone to be considered by the SCDPCC as its appointee to replace Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (who was victorious over Republican Larry Dordea in November) to take the oath of office as sheriff and to serve through 2014.

But the interview and the satisfaction of statutory requirements attested (sworn to) by the candidate for appointment does not put Judge Forchione in a position to determine whether or not Darrow and Maier or any other applicant (Dordea has told the SCPR that his application to the Stark Dems is in the mail) are qualified to be appointed by the Stark Dems.

Judge Forchione tells the SCPR that the qualification decision is to made by the Stark County Board of Elections (Stark BOE).

Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01(F)(2), in part, reads:

Each board of elections shall certify whether or not a candidate for the office of sheriff who has filed a declaration of candidacy, a statement of candidacy, ... meets the qualifications specified in divisions (B) and (C) of this section.

The qualifications of 311.01(F)(2) (listed by the SCPR as being items 1 through 8 below particularized to Stark County) are the easy part.

However, items 9 and 10 may prove problematical at least one of the candidates.  The list includes that the candidate for appointment:

1. be a U.S. citizen, *
2. be a resident of Stark County for one year,
3. be a qualified voter, *
4. have a high school degree or its equivalent, *
5. have a conviction record of a felony or first degree misdemeanor, *
6. be finger printed under the direction Judge Forchione who is to have the finger prints compared to local, state and federal databases and  (a process that takes about 7 to 10 days according to Forchione) who turns submits the results to the Stark BOE,
7. submit a list * of:
1. residences going back 6 years,
2. places of employment going back 6 years,
8. have evidence * of a basic peace officer certificate of training [by an approved issuing authority as specified in the statute],
9. have been employed within the past four years as:
1. a state highway patrolman,
2. a full-time police officer, OR
10. have been employed for the past three years as a full-time law enforcement officer

Sheriff Swanson speculated last Friday that George Maier may have difficulty qualifying.  He did not say which of the 10 criteria might be troublesome for Maier.

Could it be that items 9 and 10 are what Swanson was referring to?

On Wednesday Maier sent out a letter to Stark County Democratic Party precinct committeepersons.

Here is a copy of the letter:

In November, 2014, the selected McDonald replacement will have to stand for re-election and win in order to serve beyond 2014 for a full term in office.

The interesting thing to the SCPR is that the Stark County BOE determines who is qualified.

The BOE is membered by two Republicans and two Democrats by design a la the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union for a good number of decades during the 1900s.

And Maier's brother Johnnie, Jr. (a former head of the Stark County Democratic Party and currently the Massillon clerk of courts) was a board member up until he ran for re-election as clerk in 2011.

Ohio law does not permit a person running for political office to serve on the BOE.

So what happens is that the Dems switch out holders of one of the two Democratic positions (which the SCPR calls "the clerk of courts seat") with:

• either Phil Giavasis (Canton clerk of courts - the current holder of the office), 
• Shane Jackson (Johnnie's chief deputy in Massillon), 
• Randy Gonzalez (an Giavasis employee in the clerk's office, and current chairman of the Stark Democratic Party, and fiscal officer in Jackson Township) and, of course, 
• Johnnie himself.

Johnnie stirred up a controversy a number of years ago when he asked long time board member Billy Sherer to step aside (which had become to be known as "the union's seat on the BOE," so that he could appoint an attorney (Sam Ferruccio) (LINK - July 1, 2008 SCPR report on this Maier maneuver) which according to Maier was the wish of the-then Democratic secretary of state Jennifer Brunner who in turn threw Maier under the bus in denying that she requested any such thing.

If there is a tie vote (not uncommon, Republicans William Cline and Curt Braden in a stand off with Dems Giavasis and Ferruccio), it is broken by Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted.

What Ohioans and Stark Countians ought to be asking themselves is what qualifications do board of elections members have to assess whether or not a person is qualified to be sheriff?

And this is not even an antiquated law like the one was under which the Stark County commissioners (Bosely, Meeks and Ferguson) unconstitutionally removed Gary Zeigler as Stark County treasurer.

It was enacted on December 9, 2003?

What dopes the legislators in 2003 were, no?

Yours truly can see that there might well be a disagreement by a party-in-interest (i.e. one the applicants for the appointment) with the determination of the questionably prepared BOE members and we could see a  an appeal of an BOE determination filed pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2506.01.

Or, maybe an appeal gets filed because there is a tie as a consequence of a standoff between Stark Rs and Ds and Husted votes with the Republicans and the Dems take the matter into the courts?

And guess where the initial appeal is heard?

You've got it:  the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

But you have to believe that Judge Forchione will not abide being on the other end of the full circle that he was at the beginning of,  if such a scenario unfolds.

Alternatively, such a case would fall to one of the other judges, or, will they also (a la the Zeigler litigation) defer and we will have yet another Ohio Supreme Court out-of-county judge appointed to deal with the matter.

Are we about to go down that road again?

Could Stark be heading to the Ohio Supreme Court again?

Will Tim Swanson still be sheriff one or two years from now?