TRANSPARENCY IN GOV'T FOR "ALL" OF OHIO IS WELL WORTH $1.3 MILLION!

The SCPR has never much liked Ohio treasurer Josh Mandel (a Republican) because he comes across as a blatant political opportunist.

Soon after he had been first elected treasurer, he was planning a run for the United States Senate against Sherrod Brown.

Sort of like here in Stark County when the-then Nimishillen Township trustee Todd Bosley ran against the-then incumbent commissioner Richard Regula (2006) and to nearly everybody's surprise defeated the Republican commissioner, Bosley (a Democrat, who seeks this November to be elected once again Nimishillen Township trustee) started talking almost immediately against Richard's father Ralph, the long time 16th District congressman (which then included all of Stark County).

The arrogance caught up with Bosley when he and fellow Democrat and commissioner Tom Harmon (now running at-large for Canton City Council having been the clerk of courts for Canton's municipal court) along with Republican commissioner Jane Vignos "imposed" a 1/2 cent sales tax on Stark Countians in December, 2008.

After that he was political toast.

But the lesson was not brought home to Bosley until the November, 2012 elections when (apparently knowing he could not be reelected commissioners) he ran against the-then 50th District Republican incumbent Todd Snitchler who buried the former commissioners at the polls.

Undoubtedly, Bosley in running again for Nimishillen trustee has his sights set much, much higher for himself in regrouping and getting back on track with personal political ambitions.

Likewise, though Mandel was defeated by Brown, he in pushing the Ohio treasury transparency checkbook program has to be intent on using it as a springboard from which to launch future personal political ambitions in terms of specific offices sought.

Folks like Bosley (e.g. his commitment to rebuilding Stark County broken (2007, 2008) 9-1-1 emergency call receiving and dispatch capability) and Mandel with his transparency checkbook initiative are good for the general societal welfare.

However, they do need to be kept accountable in the methods they use outside of program initiatives to achieve personal political goals.

If not kept in check, they can become political wrecking balls who hurt a lot of people tangibly and the body politic psychically in setting up conditions for political cynicism to take hold and grow.

Of course, there is a cost to effective, informative government.

Bosley's effort though not properly informed as not having gained the consent of the people in his being a party to "imposing" the tax (also, only part of the monies generated were for the 9-1-1 project with half of it being for general revenue fund shortfall coverage purposes) did generate the funds (several million dollars) to reconstruct Stark County's system so that it is pretty much "state of the art."

Now everyday Stark Countians have a greater assurance that when the need for emergency services surface, the county can deliver effective service.

For this Bosley, Harmon and Vignos are to be credited of achieving a good thing for the Stark County hoi polli.

Increased public confidence is well worth the monies spent.

In marked contrast, Mandel's transparency checkbook program will cost Ohioans $1.3 annually which long term will dwarf Stark County's 9-1-1 expenditures.

And transparency in government is a lot less tangible than the provision of higher level emergency services.

Nonetheless, in terms of building up the public confidence in being able to know what our hard earned tax dollars are being spent for, $1.3 million is a small price to pay for ensuring government official accountability.

Here is a headline from the Cleveland Plain Dealer on the cost for Mandel's checkbook program

SCPR readers should go to Ms. Borchardt's well written and highly informative article and read it (the LINK).

While Stark County auditor Alan Harold has shown yours truly he too is highly motivated to do good for the public, he does not come across as requiring personal political advancement (like it appears that Bosley and Mandel do) in order to imagine what he as a government official do to make all of our lives better.

This distinction The Report attributes to Harold is why he is a the apex (at #2, LINK) of the SCPR's Top 10 List of Stark County Political Subdivision Elected Officials in ranks as a quality local government official.

Harold is the first to tell anyone who asks that his success in the product of the excellent support he gets from day-in, day-out county employees who staff the auditor's office.

The Report inquired of Harold of where the county spin off of Mandel's program is in terms to going online.

His response:

Re: Roll out date for Stark County checkbook

        Alan Harold
        Today at 9:53 AM

To:  Martin Olson

Martin - thanks for the note.  Right now it will include FY 2012, 2013, 2014.  We will attempt to add 2015 data by quarter yet by the end of the year.  The data will include all departments for which the Auditor serves as the fiscal officer.  These include all county elected officials, Job & Family Services, Board of DD, Board of Mental Health, Multi-County Juv Attention, Stark Parks, Regional Planning, Soil & Water, Sanitary Engineer, Board of Health.

The Treasurer of State (TOS) is right now projecting early September for the statewide roll-out of this project.  I understand we have been asked to be in this initial wave.  TOS has approved the format of our data; right now, we are working on redacting non-public information.  This work and testing will continue over the next few weeks.

I'm excited to be part of the program.  Transparency in government is critical to maintaining the trust of the public and ohiocheckbook.com is just one other way we can show to the public that in Stark County, we have nothing to hide and that we are being prudent in spendingt our tax dollars.

Please let me know if you need anything further.

Alan

A SCPR "hats off" to Mandel and Harold for bringing a greater measure of transparency to Ohio and Stark County government!

AUDITOR HAROLD: AT IT AGAIN?

A mere 10 days ago or so (March 26, 2015), The Stark County Political Report named Stark County Auditor Alan Harold as the fourth best leader among all leaders of Stark County political subdivision government.

From here on out, on a quarterly basis, The Report will be assessing Stark's elected officials (city, village, township, county and boards of education) and publishing the results.

The SCPR thinks that Auditor Harold could be a candidate to challenge for "the top spot" on "The Top 10 List" if he weren't, in the judgment of The Report, so blatantly partisan.

With at least one Stark County media outlet (located South of Tuscarawas and Market), there is clearly "a double standard" at play when it comes to evaluating recent Stark County auditors and "the political connectedness" of their hires.

When former Stark County Auditor Kim Perez defeated (November, 2004) the Republican appointed (early 2004) auditor Brant Luther to replace Republican Janet Creighton when she became mayor of Canton on January 1, 2004; the folks at 500 Market Avenue South was all over Perez for hiring politically connected Democrats into the auditor's office.

But we are not hearing a peep out of the South-side folks on Auditor Harold's hires.

Harold defeated Perez in November, 2010 as an outgrowth of public perceived too close of a connection with former Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler (resigned/retired October 19, 2011) and therefore perceived not diligent enough to alert the Stark County public and State of Ohio officials of alleged deficiencies in the administration of the treasury under Zeigler.

With The Stark County Political Report there is NO double standard.

When 2011 defeated Republican mayoralty candidate (Canton) A.R. "Chip Conde" was hired by Harold which media outlet made "a really big deal" out of it?

Of course, the SCPR!

And Conde is a person that yours truly has a high regard for and thinks was the better choice for mayor in his race against William J. Healy, II in the 2011 race.

As readers of the SCPR knows, it makes no difference whatsoever to The Report whether or not a subject of a blog is personally highly regarded or not.

The Report thinks it is important for the media to scrutinize what appear to be "inside jobs" whereby elected officials select politically connected persons and thereby are suspected of cutting the taxpaying general public out of an opportunity to obtain these public jobs.

Despite his protestations to the contrary, The Report thinks that Conde's political connectedness was a weighty factor in his being hired into his auditor's department job.

Some elected officials blatantly (e.g. Canton Clerk of Courts Phil Giavasis, Stark County Recorder Rick Campbell, both Democrats re:  former Stark County Dems' chairman Randy Gonzalez son Kody [which the former chairman denies he had anything to do with]) and arrogantly cut out the general public of an opportunity to persuade the hiring authority that he/she (John & Mary Citizen) is the better qualified person for the job.

Giavasis and Campbell did not post the the chief deputy position.

Harold says he did on the Conde position.

But the SCPR thinks Harold's posting was nothing but "window dressing" to make it appear he was providing the general public an opportunity.

In effect, The Report thinks, these folks treat the public payroll as if it were the equivalent of corporations' payroll in which it is the clear prerogative of the owners (or managers in the case of publicly owned corporations) to hire whom they wish and then have the market decide whether or not they have made merited (in sense of doing quality work) hires which enables them to be competitive.

But, of course, with government there is no competitive factor at play.

Stark's "organized" elected Democrats used to "bellyache" about the SCPR singling some of them out on what appears to have been political connected appointments insinuating that The Report was giving "organized" Republican elected officeholders a pass.

The fallacy of the whining is that until 2010 during the time that the SCPR has been in existence (started March 12, 2008), except for some judicial offices, there were no countywide Republican held offices.

Yours truly repeatedly said at the time:  "Wait until we have some elected Republicans countywide and readers will see how utterly the SCPR is in the words of former Pipefitters and Plumbers' leader Dan Fonte:  'an equal opportunity critic.'"

And such has proved to be the case!

Today's blog is perhaps moving a step forward in getting into the inner recesses of who does and who does not get an opportunity at "lower profile" public jobs.

Here is the essence of an e-mail that the SCPR received about a recent Auditor Harold hire.

I follow your blog regularly. I appreciate your committment to our County. Harold's latest hire is Jennifer Drlik...Janet Creighton's former assistant. Rumor is that he seeks to have her replace ... as ... Manager. I'm not sure what to make of it, but I find it quite interesting. 

On April 2nd, the SCPR had Harold's office provide a up-to-date-list of county employees.

And sure enough, Drlik's name appears on the list as having hired on February 17, 2015, to wit:

So what is the political connectedness factor?

Perhaps there is none.  But the SCPR strongly suspects there is.

In this day and age of "the social media," yours truly cannot begin to tell readers the depth and tellingness of some social media postings.

All the SCPR did was "google" Jennifer Drlik and here is some what The Report found:

• Drlik, as alleged in the e-mail, she does (according to her social media listings) has a connection to Republican Stark County commissioner Janet Creighton in that:
• she worked for then Stark County auditor Janet Creighton from 1999 through December, 2003, which, of course, coincides with Creighton having been elected mayor of Canton in November, 2003;
• she worked for Mayor Creighton as an administrative assistant from January, 2004 through December, 2007,
• After her stints with Creighton, Drlik worked in the private sector

Now she resurfaces in government with Auditor Harold.

Hmm?

Just a note on Commissioner Creighton's philosophy of hiring.

She has adamantly justified with the SCPR that she is entitled in doing her work for the public to have employees that she feels comfortable with and who have her confidence and trust.

And to some degree, The Report agrees.

However, yours truly thinks that surely any merited from the general public hire would have to pass the "comfort, confidence and trust" factors in order to successfully navigate the interviewing process and background checks.

So, at best Creighton's argument is "specious," and at worst it is "spurious" and merely a cover for doing a political connectedness hiring which of course is totally unacceptable with taxpayer money.

And the same applies to:

• Phil Giavasis, 
• Rick Campbell, 
• Alan Harold, 
• Stark Probate Court judge Dixie Park,
• Stark County treasurer Alex Zumbar,
• Canton mayor William J. Healy, II, 
• Massillon mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry, 
• North Canton mayor David Held, and
• North Canton City Council all of whom the SCPR has written blogs on in terms of suspected political connectedness being the basis for certain hires,
• Stark County sheriff George T. Maier,
• and, undoubtedly, other elected officials who have not come within the purview of the SCPR

With Drlik, one common political connection factor other than the Creighton factor elaborated upon above, appears to be a connection that both she and Harold seem to have in supporting the candidacy of Curtis Werren for Canton Municipal Court judge.

On her facebook page, Drlik "likes" posts about Werren and presumably is a staunch Werren supporter.

From Werren's Facebook page, is this photo.

The SCPR is not arguing that per se these apparently political connectedness hires are not quality employees.

The SCPR argument is twofold: 

• how can one be sure that they are the very best to be hired without "authentically" interviewing a range of candidates from the general taxpaying public? 
• good faith hiring practices (i.e. the authenticity thing including non-politically-connected candidates) is a critical factor in the general public trusting elected officials to do first and foremost is in the public interest,

There are Stark Countians who think that former Stark County treasurer did not do due diligence in his hire of Vince Frustaci.  When the Frustaci story broke on April 1, 2009, Zeigler told the SCPR that in hiring Frustaci all he knew of Frustaci is that "he was some guy out on the golf course."

Undoubtedly, Zeigler has regretted many times over that he didn't do a more thorough job in vetting the Frustaci hire.

The SCPR thinks Alan Harold is a first-rate auditor.

However, he does have room to improve as do many if not most of Stark County political subdivisions elected officials with hiring authority.

He and all Stark County political subdivision need to avoid "the very appearance" of political connectedness as having anything whatsoever to do with a given hire.

Which of course means that when a person who is political connected is hired:

• affirm that the position was posted and the extent to which it was posted,
• how many candidates were interview and the mix of public/private sector candidates, and
• chapter and verse the "on-the-merits" qualities that make a politically connected person a merited hire that is supported by merit and merit alone.

VOLUME 2 (SERIES) "GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN STARK CO GOV'T EMPLOYMENT?

 UPDATE 04/29/2014

Auditor Harold made of point of contacting the SCPR today say that he had no prior acquaintance with Ms. Sweeney prior to her being hired in her present capacity.

The Report has since checked prior blogs done on the employees of the Auditor's office  (LINK) and finds that Ms. Sweeney was listed as being an employee (CAUV coordinator) as the date (in 2013) of that blog.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The Stark County Political Report began a new series last Monday with Volume 1 with an examination of "the commissioners office," "the Stark County treasury" and "the recorder's office."

Today, the series continues with an examination of the auditor's officer and the prosecutor's office.

The prompt for engaging this series was an article which appeared in the Dayton Daily News on April 19th wherein "the average pay gap between men and women in the offices of four of Ohio’s five elected statewide officials has grown as high as nearly $10 an hour, while across state government the gap has shrunk to an average of 86 cents an hour ... ."

The Report has received plaudits from female county workers for having delved into this examination.

Also part of The Report's analysis along the way is whether or not the elected office holders are engaging in what appears to be patently political (male or female) employment practices.
l
On this latter point, The Report observed last week that Stark treasurer and Republican Alex Zumbar (ironically, a recipient of "non-partisan" Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee [SCDP-CC] action in becoming county treasurer) does not seem to be filtering politics out in his selection of new employees.

Recently, he has hired the daughter of Republican Stark County Probate Court judge Dixie Park and the daughter of Alliance (Zumbar's political base) Republican Alliance councilman-at-large Roger Rhome.

The Report recalls Rhome - several years ago, on being questioned about the strength of his Republican Party ties in Alliance, as minimizing those ties.

Really?

What's the saying?

"Actions speak louder than words?"

Anyhow, the charts produced last week seem to indicate that there is a male bias in the hiring of "the top jobs" with the Stark County commissioners, the Stark County auditor and the Stark County recorder.

Moreover, to the SCPR, there is more than a tinge of political bias in hiring practices.

On the gender factor, the national and Ohio Democratic Party operatives are attempting to paint office holding Republicans as being in favor of paying women less than men, which, of course, is a violation of law.

A violation of law?

So why isn't it dealt with in the legal arena?

Because it is extremely difficult to prove in a given case alleging same.

All kinds of legal differentiations are bought to bear by the putative violators as to why in specific case a violation of law has not occurred.

But when one looks at "the gestalt" of what the charts in an overall sense clearly show, it appears that top positions in government "from the White House to the local court house" are weighted towards men.

And Stark County appears - so far in the SCPR's examination - to be no different.

Taking a look at the Stark County auditor's office:

Aren't color contrasts wonderful?

In the auditor's office, think maybe the bottom pay ranks are dominated by "the pink" whereas the top pay ranks are dominated by "the blue?"

Hmm?

It could be that Republican auditor Alan Harold inheritled the bias towards men inasmuch he has not been auditor all that long.

He ousted Democrat Kim Perez in November, 2010 probably as a consequence of Perez being perceived by the Stark County voting public has having been "politically" too close to former Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler who The Report thinks the public blames him for not having had administrative practices, procedures, polices and secure facilities in place so as to have prevented his former chief deputy treasurer Vince Frustaci from having stolen perhaps as much as upwards of $3 million in Stark County taxpayer money.

But he has been auditor for the better part of four years and there comes a point in time that a new officeholder is responsible for correct inequities if they exist.

Harold can crow about the highly talented and accomplished Anita Henderson as his top paid official.

However, the above-chart shows she is clearly "the exception rather than the rule."

Of the top 20 auditor employees, only 3 are females.

Really?

What could there possibly be about doing administrative real property appraisal work that men have a special talent for, especially in "the top pay" categories?

That is a tough one to sell to the general public, no?

One more thing about Harold.

In hiring former Republican Canton mayorality candidate A.R. "Chip" Conde (by the way; a favorite of the SCPR in his race against Democrat William J. Healy, II in their 2011 general election standoff), the SCPR thinks that it did not hurt Conde in the slightest (The Report being just a tad sarcastic) that he is a top Stark County Republican.

Here is an email the SCPR received after last week's blog:

Hmm?

Here is what the auditor's office database shows on Zustin and Sweeney:

During the six plus years that the SCPR has been in existence, most of the fire from The Report on what is suspected to have been on the basis of a political party ID litmus test has been focused on county Democratic officeholders.

Now why would that be?

How about:  most countywide and to a certain degree city (i.e. Canton and Massillon) government offices have been controlled by Democrats?

Does anybody believe that Republicans, as they reverse things, will be any different?

The SCPR certainly doesn't think so and early returns (Zumbar and Harold) suggest that The Report's skepticism is well-founded, no?

Although they both evidence being well-up-to-it to do their jobs, The Report believes there was a political element to Republicans Brant Luther (February, 2013) and Chris Nichols (June, 2013) being hired as county administrators [budget director].

Turning now to the Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero's office.

The Report has been both highly critical of how Ferrero has run his office and laudatory with the latter coming in how he stood up in heroic fashion with former sheriff Tim Swanson to get in the way of the Massillon Maier political machine in its ongoing drive to make George T. Maier something other than the SCDP-CC appointed sheriff.

Here is what the Ferrero-led office chart looks like:

Pretty impressive along gender lines, no?

While the top four of five positions are held by men; of the top 30 the numbers are nearly 50/50 on the gender factor.

For the most part, these are "professional level" (i.e. lawyers) employees.

Nothing against John Kurtzman, Dennis Barr and Ross Rhodes, (The Report is not familiar with Caldwell), but for the SCPR's money Ferrero's "top gun prosecutor" is Chryssa Hartnett.

For that matter, it is beyond the SCPR how she gets bested by some $12,000 by Michelle Cordova. Two more years (Cordova's "adjusted" longevity) and she gets $12,000 more?

And from what the SCPR hears from the numerous Stark County lawyers that The Report is acquainted with, Hartnett is Ferrero's best litigator.

Hmm?

On the political front there are a couple of notable matters to discuss.

First, what is the role of John Kurtzman?

The Kurtzman factor seems to come up quite a lot in The Report's dialogues with members of the Stark County Bar.

The SCPR hears that there is a political bond between Ferrero and Kurtzman that goes back to Ferrero's Massillon days (law director, January, 1988 to February, 2003)

Kurtzman's critics are not that local lawyers do not like him, but they question "the value added" in terms of the prosecutor's office being a "lean and mean" prosecuting machine.  Often the SCPR hears that the $84,414 could be better used in the trenches of prosecuting Stark's "bad guys and gals."

Also interesting is the presence of Vivianne Duffrin on the Ferrero payroll.

Because she was of the opinion as of February 5, 2013 (as least former sheriff Tim Swanson says so) that George T. Maier was not qualified under Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01 to be Stark County sheriff, she was let go by Maier in October, 2013.

So where does she surface?

With her former employer (1992 through the date of her shifting to the sheriff's office) and fellow Democrat John D. Ferrero.

Ferrero rehired her shortly after she resigned (on December 11th) after the SCDP-CC reappointed Maier on the 11th after he had been ousted on November 6th by the Ohio Supreme Court (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto).  On Maier's ouster, Swanson had brought her back from the 6th through December 11th).

Was bringing political ally Duffrin back really the most efficient and productive thing Ferrero could have done with the $55,805?

Hmm?

There you have it folks!

Volume 2 of the SCPR's analysis of the gender/political pay/hire mix in the Stark County departments of government.

CONTINUING SERIES ON STARK CO. FINANCES: THE AUDTOR'S OFFICE - WHO AUDITS THE AUDITOR?

 UPDATED AT 2:00 PM

So far in the Stark County Political Report's comprehensive series of analyzing county officeholders' success/failure in responsibly "holding the line" in the management of "new monies" provided to county government by Stark County taxpayers in their passage of a 0.5% county sales tax in November, 20011, The Report has given the following grades:

• The county commissioners themselves, a C-,
• The Stark County recorder, a C-,
• The Stark County treasurer, a A+

Today, I deal with the Stark County auditor.

In my estimate, Alan Harold is one of the bright up and coming leaders in Stark County government.

Though he clearly wears his Republicanism "on his sleeve," I think he is one of those "make no bones about it" partisans who can work through their bias and in the end be fair and responsive to all; notwithstanding any partisan difference they may have with him.

However, though he denies it, the SCPR thinks that there must have been a political advantage factor at play in his hiring of past Canton Republican 2011 mayoral candidate A.R. "Chip" Conde as property tax supervisor in February of this year.

I have indication that when Republican Party decisions are being made, that along with Stark GOP chairman and Stark Board of Elections chief Jeff Matthews and Republican Stark County commissioner Janet Creighton; Harold is right "in the thick" of the decision making and probably is "neck-and-neck" with Creighton in terms of intra-party respected political acumen.

Jeff Matthews gets very little regard.

So how do I assess his management of his office?

The SCPR gives Stark County auditor Alan Harold a:

Contrary to what the name of this county department of government might suggest, the formal job of the county auditor's office is not to keep tabs on other Stark County departments of government.

As put by Harold himself on the auditor website, the mission of his office is:

dedicated to providing efficient and courteous service to the public while ensuring the highest possible standards for accountability, accuracy, and attention to detail in support of Stark County’s financial systems.

But you can be sure that Harold, in view of points made by him in his successful 2010 campaign to unseat Democrat Kim Perez, will "unofficially" be looking at his peers' operations (except maybe the Republicans [only kidding]) throughout county government and if he sees anything he thinks might not be "according to Hoyle," he will react in terms of the powers he has as county auditor or, alternatively, bringing the questions his has  - persistently and loudly - to the attention of federal, state/county government that he thinks has a say in what he perceives may be amiss.

He loudly and vigorously accused Perez of not being diligent and persistent enough in asking questions and making public issues out of numbers coming out of the Stark County treasurer's office (provided by Vince Frustaci) that were not matching up with the auditor's internal numbers.

Frustaci, as we all are too painfully aware of, for acts committed over the space of about a six-year span, when he was Stark's chief deputy treasurer was convicted in 2009 of having stolen upwards of $3 million of Stark County taxpayer money.

While there has never been any implication whatsoever that the-then treasurer Gary Zeigler had anything to do with the theft; Zeigler was criticized by Harold, the state of Ohio auditor, and others for not "running a tight enough ship" in terms of policies, practices, and oversight mechanisms either to deal with the possibility that an employee might try to make off with taxpayer money.

Some of Harold's county-level peers might think is he somewhat of a "busybody," I think that Stark County taxpayers should be comforted by the fact that Harold appears to be and acts in an vigilant "protect the taxpayers" manner.

However, notwithstanding my "in-general" being well-taken with Harold, I am not all that impressed with his management of his office in terms of employee turnover (eleven (11) employee departures; sixteen (16) "new" employees [in a timeframe of December 19, 2012 through September 11, 2013]).

Nor am I well taken with my suspicion that fellow Republican Conde was put "at the head of the line" at the expense, perhaps, of other "non-politically-connected Stark Countians who are entitled to an opportunity at publicly funded jobs.

The SCPR has some anecdotal indication that Harold is a highly demanding boss who can be difficult to work for.

But that might not be a bad thing from the taxpayers' standpoint.  Taxpayers want county bosses who get the "most bang for the 'wages' buck" from county employees.

That may or may not be the case for Harold.

In terms of accessibility, ability to take criticism (i.e. his political maturity), transparency and other democracy enhancing characteristics, Harold does well.

He stands "heads and shoulders" over the likes of Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero and Rick Campbell in on the political maturity factor.

On the day-to-day management of his office, according to my computations from records provided by Harold himself, he is up a net of five (5) employees in 2013 over 2012 and his payroll is up about $300,000.

My computation indicates that Harold went from 92 employees to 97 employees.

Moreover, he has more that doubled the commissioners' guideline for giving raises from revenues generated out of the 2011 sales tax passage monies.

They recommended 2% which, by and large, they met for their office.

Harold's mathematical "mean" pay raises was five percent (5 %); again, more than double what the commissioners' thought would be indicative of "holding the line" on county finances.

In all the SCPR's analyses, I think that next year's (2014) will present a clearer picture of how prudent Stark County's bosses are managing funds provided courtesy of the Stark County taxpayers.

What follows is a detailed listing of personnel factors in the auditor's office for the December, 2012 through September, 2013 time period.

Readers need to keep in mind that the wages indicated are only for that (i.e. wages).  Harold has told me that he - in general - agrees with fringe benefits (health insurance, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation and pensions) cost government employers about 35% of the wage base.

The December, 2012 payroll:

As compared to the September, 2013 payroll:

(VIDEOS) THE 2013 STARK CO. BUDGET. ARE THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DEMONSTRATING PRUDENCE?

 VIDEOS

Bernabei:  Summarizing the 2013 Budget

Harold:  The Impact of State Gov't Funding Loses

Creighton:  "A New Day in County Finances" 

Tomorrow, the Stark County commissioners will likely adopt a budget for 2013 they presented to Stark County department heads and to the general public last Wednesday.

It appears that it is now financial recovery time for all Stark County departments of government.

2011 was an absolute nightmare for county offices because a 0.25 sales tax levy expired and commissioners determined prior to its expiration that because of a loss of confidence in county government (i.e. the imposed sales tax of 2008 and Zeiglergate, et cetera), it would be unavailing to put a renewal or replacement issue on the ballot.

In the interim, the commissioners have practiced what they preached in terms of leading by example in fiscal austerity.

With the passage of the November 2011 0.5% sales tax increase, it is make up time for them and the remaining county departments of government.  In the opinion of the SCPR, the commissioners' increase, for one, is justified from 2012's $523,020 (all numbers rounded off) to $819,629.

The $819,629 represents a accurate accounting of what the commissioners are actually spending to run their office.  In 2011, 242,632 to had been shifted off the commissioners' general fund allocation to three non-general fund budget categories.

To the SCPR it was pretty amazing what former Chief Administrator Mike Hanke was able to do in maintaining a high level of commissioner administrative functions (including his wearing many, many hats) by becoming creative in finding the financing to maintain a core staff in the face of cuts being made.

Hanke retired March 1st.  However, the 2013 budget is his handiwork working with his top associate Rick Flory.

As alluded to above, making up for previous cuts across county government operations is a theme of the approved appropriations for the 2013 budget.

Already in the headlines of various media have been the restoration of large amounts of general fund budgeting to the Stark County sheriff's department.

The sales tax increase was promoted to the voters that the proceeds' first priority use would be to restore the criminal justice system (the sheriff, the courts, the prosecutor and other associated offices) to its 2010 levels (the last year that the county received sales tax revenues prior to the tax expiration in 2011).

As it turns out, former Sheriff Tim Swanson had not preplanned adequately in getting up to full bore with his department's operations (i.e. hiring enough deputies/corrections officers to full staff the jail so that its 501 beds can be fully utilized) with the infusion of new funds to finance same.  In fact, he was so unprepared that the department returned unused funds in 2012.

Oh, he has his excuses.  But the SCPR thinks that is exactly what they are.  The truth of the matter is that despite his many years in office and cumulative experience, he proved (with the rehiring debacle) why he did the Stark County public a favor in retiring.

Unfortunately for Stark Countians, notwithstanding the fact that the sheriff will be hiked from the 2011 budget appropriation number of $13,884,409 (seven/eight digit numbers to be read as being in the millions) to 2013's $17,937,214, the latter number is $1,156,382 less than could be available if current sheriff George T. Maier were able to make up for Swanson's deficiency in planning.

But he can't.  And what's worse for the safety of Stark Countians is that in the opinion of the SCPR, it is unlikely that Maier will be anything other than a short term sheriff.  The Report fully expects that the Ohio Supreme Court will - ironically - find for Swanson in his Quo Warranto against Maier and turn Maier out of office within, perhaps, the next 60 days.

A parade of sheriffs is not what Stark County needs in order to shore up and stabilize Stark County's maximized safety for the citizens.

The SCPR believes that the Stark County Democratic Party leadership (i.e. Chairman Randy Gonzalez and Executive Vice President Johnnie A. Maier, Jr [brother of George Maier] a former chairman) are to blame for the deficiency in the appointing process that is likely to result in George Maier's removal by the high court.

Another key player in the criminal justice system is the Stark County prosecutor's office.

Headed up by John Ferrero (another former Stark County Democratic Party chairman), the prosecutor's office is another example of the Stark County public being poorly served.

The one public official that had to be drug along kicking and screaming during the county's hard financial times (LINK to a prior SCPR blog that details much of same) was Prosecutor Ferrero.

Ferrero will get the funding to restore to his office the 14 employees that he lost in the austerity drive.  His office goes from $2,937,064 (2011) to $3,344,136 (2013).

In the opinion of the SCPR, given the deficient way in which The Report thinks Ferrero manages his office, he could probably do with a few more employees.

At that, the commissioners show their frugality in reducing the prosecutor $288,004 from his requested to appropriated funding.

Good for them!   The Report believes they need to be especially diligent in scrutinizing any requested numbers that come from Mister Fererro.

Another office deserving special attention is the Stark County Recorder.

Rick Campbell and John Ferrero are fiscal twins in the judgment of the SCPR.

A bellyacher-extraordinaire who apparently (according to Auditor Alan Harold) has a difficult time finding his way to the office, Campbell merits close watching.

Figuring out how many new employees (given the confusing numbers game that Campbell appeared to be playing with commissioners in the budget hearings on Recorder employees compared to Microfilming employees) Campbell wanted seemed to merit the hiring of a private investigator.

Whatever the actual number turned out to be, it appears the commissioners had the good sense to cut Campbell's request in half and also to cut him substantially from his requested 2013 ($670,590) to what they actually appropriated ($618,665),

Still Campbell managed to cajole them into a huge increase from 2011 in which he received $517,010.

Campbell used to be one (circa 2004 - 2008) of the Stark County's most impressive elected officials in terms of adopting technology and thereby becoming more efficient. 

But since then, The Report has become completely disenchanted with him.

In yours truly's estimate, Campbell and Ferrero rank right at the top of those Stark County elected officials that the voters ought to be of a mind to replace.

In sum, the SCPR thinks the commissioners (err Michael Hanke, well, on second thought - the commissioners deserve credit [especially Tom Bernabei]) has done a superlative job in managing the 2013 budget.

Totally impressive is the fact that they have set aside $5.5 million in unappropriated funds for future capital projects, wit:

• A rainy day fund,
• Repairs to the county ditch drainage system,
• Roof for Stark County jail,
• Relocation of the Stark County Board of Elections,
• Creation of a sinking fund to provide for county employee retirement payout liabilities,
• Bow building roof repairs (Bow was obtained by the county from the federal government to house some county operations), and
•  county office building repairs

Newly appointed Brant Luther has big shoes to fill for the 2014 budget.  Mike Hanke proved to be a master budgeteer.

The SCPR presents a full video presentation of the proceedings of March 13, 2013.

First let's discuss aStark County Auditor Alan Harold's presentation.  (note:  Harold's presentation begins at the 11 minute mark of the video)

Harold makes a very telling description of the scam job (the SCPR's characterization; not Harold's) that the Republican controlled Ohio General Assembly [including our local representatives Hagan, Oelslager and Schuring] did in taking away millions of local governments (from $6.2 million [2007] to $2.9 million [2013]) to be supposedly replaced by revenues from casino operations (originally projected at $5.4 million which is likely to, in fact be $1.8 billion) which in fact looks likely to be a  net loss of revenues from the State of Ohio in the amount of $4.4 billion since 2007.



Next up is Commissioner Tom Bernabei and his summary of the budget.  Also featured in this video clip:  comments by Stark County  Commissioners Creighton and Regula (at the end of the video).

And finally, Commissioner Creighton in a one-on-one interview.

DOES AN APPOINTMENT OF A PARTISAN PUBLIC FIGURE TO A JOB IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR DESERVE "SPECIAL SCRUTINY?" ARE THE REPUBLICANS, GIVEN A CHANCE, ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE DEMOCRATS?

AN ANALOGY

In American constitutional law, when a legislature legislates in certain areas of citizenship (e.g. the right to vote, racial factors and religious tests), the United States Supreme Court has said in multiple cumulative decisions that such legislation will be given "special scrutiny" by the courts of the land to determine whether or not that law can stand as a constitutional exercise of legislative action.

While, of course, the appointment of partisan public figures to public sector jobs is not at the constitutionality level of importance, the SCPR posits that any time a partisan public figure (including elected officials) are appointed to a public job that has a political person at its head, then citizens and the media acting on their behalf should apply special scrutiny to the appointment to determine whether the appointment has a predominant factor as being based on merit and not primarily because the appointed person has political connections.

The Stark County Political Report has, for the past five years of existence, more diligently than any other Stark County media outlet scrutinized such appointments within the county/political subdivision context and assessed the merit factor as contrasted to the political factor.

THE STARK COUNTY EXPERIENCE WITH POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS

THE DEMOCRATS

ZEIGLER 

The Stark County public woke up to the importance to such scrutiny in the course of what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley termed as being Zeiglergate.

Back in 1999 Zeigler was appointed Stark County treasurer by the Stark County Democratic Party when then-sitting treasurer Mark Roach (who more or less was the political heir of his father [Harold Roach] who had served many years as Stark treasurer) was forced from office because he did not keep up with the continuing education mandates of Ohio law.

It appears that the Zeigler appointment in terms of having merit qualifications to be treasurer was like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

While Zeigler kept his continuing education requirements up to snuff, he showed in the opinion of many Stark Countians (including the SCPR) 2009 that he lacked the managerial skills to have put in place policy, practice and physical infrastructure safeguards to have prevented the theft of upwards of $3 million from the county treasury by a man he appointed to be his chief deputy treasurer in the early 2000s.

On April 1, 2009, Zeigler announced to the Stark County public that he suspected Vince Frustaci (the chief deputy) of having perpetuated the theft over a period of several years.  Subsequently, Frustaci pled guilty to the theft and is currently serving a 10 year prison term in federal prison.

Zeigler himself has never been implicated in the theft.

But it seems to the SCPR that the public perception that he did not merit being treasurer because of perceived management shortfalls ultimately led to Zeigler squaring up to that perception and resigning on October 19, 2011.

This time around the Democrats were forced - by the public citizen factor - to appoint Republican Alex Zumbar to replace Zeigler.

A bitter pill indeed for the Democrats to swallow.

However, they have no one to blame but themselves in that they pay too little attention to the qualifications of their prospective appointees to hold the office they aspire to and pay undue attention to their political clout and their conjectured electability.

JOHN FERRERO

Another Democratic appointment that the SCPR thinks has not worked out to the benefit of Stark citizenry is that of Prosecutor John Ferrero.

When the highly respected and esteemed prosecutor Bob Horowitz moved on to being the judge for the Stark County Probate Court on the retirement of R.R. Denny Clunck.  Sr, the-then Stark County Democratic Party chairman Ferrero became the Party's selection to take over from Horowitz.

The SCPR believes Ferrero's performance in office proves that he was the wrong person for the job.

The Report cites his handling of the Devies case (see prior blog LINK for background), Zeiglergate, budgeting for the office, and most recently the Forchione/Sandy Hook (see prior blog LINK for background) demonstrates amply that there had to be someone other than Ferrero that merited appointment.

It appears to the SCPR that Ferrero's appeal was not primarily on his skills as an attorney but rather on his electability and re-electability.

For political parties such criteria make sense.  But for the public, experience, skill and temperament must be primary.

GEORGE T. MAIER

When Mike McDonald had to step aside on January 3, 2013 from being sheriff-elect because of illness, it fell to the Stark County Democrats to appoint his replacement.

Three applied:

• Stark County sheriff lieutentant Lou Darrow,
• Massillon safety director and former state highway patrolman George T. Maier, and
• Hartville police chief (former Alliance police chief) Larry Dordea (a Republican).  Dordea ran against McDonald last November.

The selectee we all know now was Maier.

While in a de facto sense (except, perhaps in opinion of the SCPR, on the issue of temperament), Maier appears qualified if not well-qualified.  However, he seems to lack de jure (as a matter of law - ORC 311.01 criteria) qualification which is now being determined by the Ohio Supreme Court.

In addition to the questions the SCPR has about Maier's temperament (see prior SCPR blog), it appears to The Report that on February 5, 2013, the Stark Dems' Central Committee on the insistence of Chairman Randy Gonzalez (in concert with Maier's brother Johnnie, Jr [a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman]) Maier was appointed sheriff as a consequence of the political heft that brother Johnnie still wields among Stark's organized Democrats.

To The Report, the appointment of a county sheriff should not be a matter of political power exercised, but as to the merits of qualifications in every aspect of the word qualification to be sheriff.

The Report believes that the Democrats have fallen short on the issue of merit and that the exercise of political power has been the main reason they appointed Maier sheriff.

RICK PEREZ

Most recently Mayor William J. Healy, II tried - in the opinion of The Report - to make a politics-based appointment of former Stark County chief deputy sheriff Rick Perez to be director of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab.

As part of the appointment, the job description was watered down to take out the requirement that the director have a science background so that Perez could qualify.

It could be that Canton public safety director Thomas Ream was equally instrumental in the appointment, if not, the prime mover, for his personal and political friend.

Healy has denied having a role in the matter, but the SCPR is not buying.

The appointment was reversed with the reaction of the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG)

No one should say:  aha! - its the Democrats who dwell on the political factors.

Not at all.

THE REPUBLICANS

Given the opportunity, Republicans, The Report believes - if not monitored by citizens and the media - will replicate the Stark County Democratic Party model.

It just so happens that the Republicans have held so few politically significant Stark County based offices over the last ten years or so that they have not had the opportunity to demonstrate that they too often look at political factors rather than merit factors in appointing to office.

But the political landscape is changing.

And ironically enough, the change is taking place because of opportunities that fell to Republicans as a consequence of Zeiglergate.

The Report has already discussed above how Alex Zumbar became treasurer.  Absent a major goof up like Roach and Zeigler, he is likely to be Stark County treasurer for the next couple or three decades.

The same for Alan Harold who is Stark County auditor.

Because of Kim Perez's close political and personal ties to Gary Zeigler and his public perceived failure to effectively identify and insist on remedial reaction to obvious problems emanating from the treasurer's office in the auditor office interaction with then-Chief Deputy Treasurer Frustaci, the SCPR believes he lost office to the-then untested and political neophyte Harold in November, 2010.

One of the hallmarks and chief values of the SCPR to the public discussion of Stark County government and politics is that The Report has demonstrated over the past five years of existence that this publication can be relied upon to harpoon both Democrats and Republicans for their failures to protect the public interest in defference to political party interests.

All of the foregoing brings us to the real topics of this blog.

Can the recent hire of A.R. "Chip" Conde (a prominent Stark County Republican - who last ran against Democrat William J. Healy, II to replace Healy as mayor of Canton) to the auditor's staff pass the "smell test" of having been primarily politically motivated?

Moreover, can the recent hire of Brant Luther (a prominent Stark County Republican - who once served as the Stark County Republican Party's appointee as Stark County auditor) to be Stark County chief administrator by the commissioners (controlled 2 to 1 by the Republicans) pass the "smell test" of having been primarily politically motivated?

BRANT LUTHER

First, the Luther appointment.

To the SCPR the most suspicious part in terms of political dynamics of the Luther resume is his former employment with current Stark County commissioner Janet Creighton.

The Report did look over the resumes of the applicants for the position and does think that there was plenty of justification on the comparative analysis for Luther to have been among the top five.

However, in listing the five finalists, The Report in a blog (LINK) at the time listed Luther 4 on the list of 5 in terms of yours truly's evaluation of factors of merit.

The Report's top candidate was the currently Geauga County chief administrator.  But in talking the matter over with Commissioner Tom Bernabei, the Geauga Countian more or less took himself out of the running for the post on his failure to commit to relocating his residence to Stark County.

It is convincing to the SCPR that one would not want to hire an out of area person for the key position of county administrator only for that person to tire of making the long daily trip from Geauga county to Stark county and quite understandably rethink his having taken the job in the first place.

The Report's most realistic choice was Vince Marion of the Alliance city administration.  It appears to yours truly that he has done a superlative job in Alliance as an economic development administrator.  Also, though a Republican, The Report perceives him to be a low profile partisan and therefore not a major political player.

It could be that the commissioners' choice (Luther) will work out fine.

Only time will tell as to whether or not he has the tools to be an effective administrator.

One thing he will have to do from time-to-time is to face down (in the context of a major part of the job:  the county budget) independently elected Stark County officials (all of whom, except for Zumbar, are Democrats).

Because of his extensive historical involvement as an active and partisan Republican (e.g. serving under Creighton in the auditor's office; being an elected Republican councilman in Alliance; having run for retention as Stark County auditor as a Republican appointee to that office; and having run for state representative as a Republican), will Zumbar experience unique difficulties with these folks on the basis of unstated and unarticulated political undertones?

That, of course, remains to be seen.

The Report is satisfied that the commissioners have made it crystal clear to Luther that political considerations have no place whatsoever with his work as chief county administrator.

And The Report believes that Luther will toe the line on this factor.

All that remains to be seen is whether or not Luther has the needed skills to discharge his responsibilities as chief administrator.

For if he falls short, you can bet your bottom dollar that the critics will come out of the woodwork claiming that Luther's political notoriety and associations were the "real" reason he got the job and not because he was clearly more qualified and merited for the office than his competitors.

A.R. "CHIP" CONDE

One would think it would have been reported in Canton's daily newspaper, but, if it was, The Report did not catch it.

On March 8th the SCPR received this e-mail from Conde:

Hmm?  Yours truly thought, when did Conde become an Alan Harold employee?

Beyond that, The Report had a whole host of questions for Harold in a quest to determine what, if any, political factors played in Republican Harold's act in hiring Republican and Canton mayoralty candidate (November, 2011) A.R. "Chip" Conde into the auditor's office.

Off went an e-mail to Harold with the list of questions.  Also, The Report met face-to-face with Harold on the matter.

Alan Harold is an enthusiastic Republican.

The Report remembers him (in his pre-being-a-public-official days) as a part of a group of partisan protestors (i.e. calling the Democratic candidate to task for high gasoline price with the chant "Drill Baby Drill) camped out across the street and on the sidewalk adjoining the Sunoco gasoline station of West Tuscarawas where the candidate (Democrat John Boccieri) was doing a photo-op campaign appearance.

And there is nothing wrong with being into one's politics passionately as long as it does not cause such a person as a public official to put party interests above the public interest.

So the point of Harold's passion is not to condemn it, but to note it as a background item for future reference.

Well, Harold has become a public officeholder in November, 2010 and the SCPR thinks a damn good one.

But no matter The Report's high regard for Harold, his appointment of Conde requries "special scrutiny."

Here is the Q&A between the SCPR (light gray) & Harold (light blue).

Apparently, you have hired Chip Conde to your staff?

My questions:

The date of hire? 2/4/2013

The position?  Property Tax Manager

His job responsibilities?

Oversee Board of Revision process, serve as my alternate to the Board of Revision, manage website conversion process, back-up budget/settlement functions.

His annual income including benefits?  $37,000 salary + $13,122
insurance

Was the position put up for public bid?

yes - advertised in The Rep and online (monster.com)

What political connections past and present do you have to Mr. Conde?

He worked for Strategy One, who did some consulting on the sales tax
campaign and my campaign.

What political factors played into the hire decision, if any?

None - I think my record since I've been in office speaks to hiring of people who are, above all, qualified and committed to serving the public.

Whom approached whom regarding the job?  He applied.

Was any third person involved in connecting Conde to you for hire?  No

The SCPR also reviewed Conde's resume together with 21 others which were submitted in response to the Repository and Monster.com solicitations.

The two that stood out to yours truly was Conde's and one from a Stark County local government finance department employee of some 20 years.

Conde's main merit qualification for getting the Stark County auditor job was his service in the Creighton Canton mayoralty administration as chief-of-staff and budget director, 2005 through 2008.  Moreover, he ran for mayor of Canton himself in 2011 against incumbent mayor William J. Healy, II.

The Report thinks that the finance department employee probably has better credentials than Conde on paper for getting the auditor department job.

Accordingly, notwithstanding Harold's denial, it appears to the SCPR that Conde's political connections (i.e. working on the Stark County sales tax effort, the Harold campaign, being in the Creighton administration and being the the Republican standard bearer in the Canton mayoralty race of 2011) did play a significant role in his landing the job.

In the SCPR's face-to-face with Harold he talked about how although he has veto power over the actual hire he basically turns over the hiring to his employees.

CONCLUSION

As the regular readers of The Report know and as pointed out earlier in this blog, yours truly thinks that Alan Harold is likely one of Stark County's very best elected officeholders.  So yours turly would like to believe his protestation that politics had nothing to do with the Conde hiring.

But in all candor, The Report cannot do so.

Going through the two recent hires in which Republicans have control (i.e. Creighton/Regula, the commissioners office and Harold the auditor's office), it is the SCPR's opinion that political connections, at the very minimum, did not hurt Luther and Conde.

What's more likely in the mind of yours truly is that the connections were  a difference maker.

In the final analysis, the SCPR believes that the Luther and Conde hirings are evidence that Republicans are in fact no different in this regard than what Stark Countians have been getting from Democrats over recent decades.

Isn't it amazing what "special scrutiny" will reveal?

STARK AUDITOR GETS A SCPR "A+" FOR HIS BUDGET PRESENTATION. A MODEL FOR ALL STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT!

It was refreshing to sit in on Stark County Auditor Alan Harold's 2013 budget presentation to Stark County commissioners on Monday morning.

Quite a contrast to the one about a week earlier by Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero.

The difference?

Harold showed that he is a team player.  In the opinion of the SCPR, Ferrero has demonstrated that he is not.

Despite passing a sales tax levy in November, 2011, the Stark County commissioners are under the gun to be very frugal with taxpayer dollars.  There simply is not enough money to go around.

Put yourself in the commissioners shoes.  Who would you rather come in?

• A guy who says he wants to go back to 2010 levels of funding and rehire 14 people (Ferrero) and might go from his desired 3% to the commissioners' recommended 2% raise for existing employees or,
• A guy who points out that he has scaled down by 17 employees since 2010 and might need to add a couple in the information section of his department (Harold) and who didn't miss a beat in plugging the 2% figure into projected raises for employees who have had no raises of any kind for a number of years (same situation for the prosecutor's employees)

Is there any doubt?

The commissioners would never say it for themselves, so let yours truly do it.  Of course, Auditor Harold.

The SCPR is impressed with Harold's "let us help the county attitude" and his demonstrated cost cutting that is truly exemplary for all county officials to follow.

What is interesting about the employees that Harold wants to add (a PC Network Technician and a Network Engineer) is that they are in the information technology area.  While the auditor hasn't promoted it this way, it appears to The Report that these are employees who are likely to make the county's technology more effective and efficient and over time will recoup for the county the expense of their remuneration plus.

On the prosecutor's side, it appears from Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar's budget hearing input with commissioners that the "low hanging fruit" on delinquent tax collections has been picked and now that the prosecutor's will have a much tougher time collecting what is owing to the county's revenues.

The Report can see it now. There is likely to be less productiveness out of the prosecutor's office on this score.  But, of course, the number of employees and monies dedicated to the DETAC (Delinquent Tax Assessment Collection) effort will not decrease.

So that is yet another difference the SCPR projects as being a difference between the two departments of Stark County government.

You have seen the numbers for the prosecutor's office on the SCPR (LINK).

Here are Harold's numbers (compared to predecessor Kim Perez's):

.
From a Perez high of 114 in 2008, Harold dropped to 86.  Amazing, no?  A drop in 28 employees.

Harold has added some employees and yet he is still (2012) 17 employees below Perez's lowest number of 108 employees registered in 2010 (Harold defeated Perez in the November, 2010 election)

More numbers.

From Perez's high in 2008 of $7,608,812.50 (that's millions folks), Harold dropped to $6,601,568.16 and reduction of $1,007,244.34.

From Perez's last number registered in 2010 of $7,467.519.54, Harold comes in at a projected 2013 reduction of $804,779.18 even in the face of hiring two new employees and with all employees getting a 2% increase.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the SCPR grades Stark County Auditor Alan Harold as deserving of an A+ in the way he operates his office.

Here is a list of the auditor's office employees and the office pay scale as presented by Auditor Harold.