(VIDEO) IS STARK CO. AUDITOR KIM PEREZ "PEREZ LEADING THE WAY" ON STARK COUNTY ECONOMIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?

"This is economic development in Stark County," so says Stark County Auditor Kim Perez.

Appearing at the Comprehensive Community Infrastructure Broadband Opportunities for Stark County (CCIBOSC) conference at Stark State College of Technology this morning, Perez made an inspiring and motivation presentation to the 30 or so assembled about the far-ranging possibilities for Stark economic development.

The SCPR agrees with Perez:  CCIBOSC is a prime opportunity for economic development.

Moreover, so would be a complete remake of the Stark County Fairgrounds (a la Clark County).  However, on CCIBOSC there are driving forces that are creative, innovative and determined to make it work.  With the Stark County Fairgrounds, all we are getting is a puny little effort (former Commissioner Tom Harmon fronting for Elizabeth's Burick's "Horse Show Arema" effort) while the fairgrounds are disintegrating in one repair, after another repair, after another.

The Stark County Political Report applauds Perez, his chief assistant David Maley and his IT (Internet Technology) department for leading the way for Stark County to get on the map with economic development in this fashion.  The effort coalesces with the ongoing activity with Rolls Royce at Stark State to put Stark County on the map as a potential big time player in technologically based economic development.

Disturbing to The Report, however, was the dearth of elected Stark County-based public officials who attended the CCIBOSC conference.  Also missing were a number of candidates for county and statewide office (state representatives and state senators).

Back in 2008, when The Repository was doing its editorial board endorsement interviews, a main question they (actually Gayle Beck) were positing to candidates was on the matter of infrastructure.  As many SCPR readers know, The Report is not - in an overall sense - enamored with the quality of editorial opinions put out by the board.  However, that particular question was a very important one and should have gone a long way - on the basis of a quality answer - in determining who The Repository endorsed or did not endorse.

The only elected public official that the SCPR recognized (other than, obviously, Perez) was County Commissioner Steve Meeks.  There may have been some village, township, board of education folks and others at the political subdivision level that The Report does not know well enough to identify, but if there were it would have been darned few because there were only about 30 or folks total there.

The Report did call around to well-known elected officials and political figures to learn why they did not attend.  Perez told the SCPC that he did issue invitations to all of Stark's political subdivision elected offices (villages, cities, townships, boards of education and the county commissioners), but not to candidates for office (e.g. Janet Creighton  and Tom Bernabei - running for county commissioner), because he did not want to make the event a "political event."  Commissioners Bosley and Ferguson say they never got the notice that Perez says he sent them.

Perez denies that he had a political motive for himself in the timing of the calling of the conference.  He is likely in the political fight of his life against Republican Alan Harold (who was at the conference) to retain his office.  The timing of the conference may be co-incidental with the election coming up in a mere 25 days, but it is unlikely that the general public is going to buy Perez's assertion that he had no personal political motive in calling the conference now.

Here is a summary of the answers of those contacted by the SCPR.

• Former Canton mayor Janet Creighton whom The Report believes will replace Todd Bosley as a full term commissioner.  Creighton says that she was not invited by Perez nor did she see the notice in The Rep and therefore did not know about the event.
• Commissioner Pete Ferguson.  He says that he had about two other things to attend to, but that he learned about the details of the CCIBOSC plan from Perez Thursday evening.
• Commissioner Bosley (Democrat - Marlboro) running against Todd Snitchler (incumbent Republican state representative from Lake Township) says that that he never got the Perez generated notice, nor did he catch it in The Repository.
• State Rep. Snitchler says he did not see The Rep's story.

In defense of Kim Perez, the way that the SCPR knew about the meeting was seeing it in The Rep.  Accordingly, The Rep's story (and Perez says the Akron Beacon Journal also ran a story) seems to the SCPR to be the perfect squelch on those who offer the explanation that they were not invited.

Perez told The Report he initiated the CCIBOSC project two years ago and has been the driving force behind keeping it moving.

The Report believes he dropped the ball in not specifically inviting the likes of Creighton (R), Bernabei (D), Jamie Walters (Republican - Jackson; commissioner candidate) , state Representative Scott Oelslager (R) now running for the Ohio Senate - 29th, Richard Reinbold (D - Oelslager's opponent), Kirk Schuring (R - running for the 51st Ohio House District) and his opponent Andrew Haines as well as Stephen Slesnick (D - Canton) and his opponent Travis Secrest (R - Canton Township).

If Perez's project is to succeed, he will need the all-out support of all of the above, whether or not they get elected.

Here is a video of Perez's presentation at Stark State (October 8, 2010).

DOES KIM PEREZ THINK HE IS GOING TO LOSE TO ALAN HAROLD FOR STARK COUNTY AUDITOR? THINKING OF RUNNING FOR CANTON MAYOR MAY, 2011 DEM PRIMARY?

Although the SCPR thinks that his Republican challenger (Alan Harold) has the least chance of three Stark County Republicans who are either ahead or within hailing distance of winning in their respective races, it appears that Stark County Auditor Kim Perez is thinking otherwise.

The Report has learned that Perez has formulated a "back up plan" for his Stark County Political future.

What is the plan?

Running for mayor of Canton!

Interesting.  The Report thinks that Perez (historically, the Democrats strongest countywide vote getter) is premature in his doomsday look.  But, hey, maybe he has a poll that the SCRP is not privy to that tells him otherwise.

Mayor Kim Perez?

How does that sound?

Probably not too bad if your alternatives are sitting Mayor William J. Healy, II and his announced challenger Bill Smuckler (County Councilman-at-large).

Healy has lost the trust of Cantonians and Smuckler is about as exciting as "watching paint dry."

Even with his tangential connection with what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley characterizes as being "Zeiglergate," Perez has come out of the whole mess with no legal culpability.  However, some feel (as does the SCPR) that Perez had an opportunity, if he would have grabbed the ball and run with it, to have figured out that former treasury Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci was stealing $2.96 million in county funds (the amount of money being the conclusion reached by federal Judge John Adams).

But Perez correctly projects that he could be in political jeopardy because the functional proximity of the auditor's office with the treasury and his being one of the Stark County organized Democrats most powerful figures.

The Report is willing to say on September 14, 2010 that should Perez lose to Harold and should he run against Healy and Smuckler in May, 2010, he will win election to the mayoralty of Canton in November, 2011.

On a personal level, Perez is well liked by leadership Republicans and Democrats.  Canton having a large Democratic registration margin makes the Democrat primary winner the new mayor unless maybe Janet Creighton were to run again.  And that isn't about to happen.

Perez has been a councilman and auditor for Canton city government.

So even 2011 promises to be a rich political year for the Stark County Political Report!!!

HAS STARK COUNTY AUDITOR KIM PEREZ THROWN IN THE TOWEL IN RE-ELECTION BID?

 UPDATE:  08/18/2010

Here is an e-mail from Republican candidate Alan Harold on the reliability of the data published in the blog on the full time employees that Auditor Perez maintains.

From:  "Alan Harold" <acharold@ ,,, ,

To:  tramols@att.net

Martin - good evening!

To address a point you raised about the validity of the data in the State Auditor's report, please know the following:

1.  The scope of the performance audit was agreed to by AOS and the client (in this case, the Cuyahoga County Commissioners) prior to commencement and gathering of data.

2.  Once the scope is set, peers are established and data is requested.  Per Mate Rogonjic, a senior manager in the performance audit division, all peers must agree to participate.  In this instance, Stark County (like Franklin and Hamilton) was sought as a peer and Mr. Perez (or his designate) agreed to a) participate and b) provide data.  I spoke with Mate (pronounced "Matt") prior to issuing the press release to confirm this, as this was the procedure in place when I worked in the AOS Performance Audit division in summer 2002 while completing my graduate work at Ohio State.

Hope this helps clarify the authenticity of the data used.

Alan

Also, a point of interest brought to the attention of the SCPR is the fact that whomever wins the November election between Perez and Harold does not take office on the new term until March 14, 2011.

 ORIGINAL BLOG

"Election by parade count," that is what one leading Stark County Republican seems to be suggesting to the SCPR in a recent telephone conversation.

As the conversation was going on, yours truly's mind drifted back to the 2004 election in which current auditor Kim Perez (a Democrat) was challenging Republican Brant Luther who was trying to retain office.  Luther had been appointed by the Stark County Central Committee to the auditor's post after Janet Creighton left to take over as mayor of Canton having defeated Canton City Councilman Bill Smuckler in November, 2003.

Brant Luther had the best parade operation in all of the 2004 election.  One of the very neat things he had his parade route workers do was to hand out plastic bag literature carriers with the "Luther for County Auditor" plastered on both sides of the bag.

So as one scanned down the crowd on both sides of the street of the parade route,  you were "assaulted" with a sea of "Luther for County Auditor" signs.

There is no doubt about it, Luther "out-paraded" Perez big time!

But who won the election?

So it is surprising to the SCPR that the veteran Stark County Republican with whom the conversation was taking place, put stock into the parade thing.

The Republican source was saying things to the effect:  "Perez is skipping parades all together," "interns from his office are handing out his literature, but Perez is nowhere to be seen," and "there is a car with signs on the sides in the parade, but no Perez."

While the SCPR wouldn't use the "parade thing" as a barometer, it could be that the phenomenon that local attorney and civic activist Craig Conley (who, by the way, is a Republican) calls "Zeiglergate" may reach out and envelope Perez and bring him down in November.

While acknowledging that Perez as auditor is not empowered by Ohio law to audit the Stark County treasury, the SCPR has criticized Perez for not going the extra step when it became apparent to him that there was a serious problem in the treasury's numbers (provided by Vince Frustaci - the man who admits to have stolen $2.46 million in taxpayer money), he should have found a way to get "original source documents" from FirstMerit Bank.

Of course, the SCPR is not the only one to criticize Perez on that count.

But the question is this:  will the Zeiglergate taint take him down in November?

It could.

To his credit Alan Harold is moving beyond Zeiglergate to some real telling numbers that suggest to the SCPR that Kim Perez may be one of the county elected officials who, according to Stark County officials, is not adequately paring staff to meeting the looming financial crisis coming to Stark County with the 2012 budget.

Harold's political friends at the Stark County Republican Party sent The Report a press release pointing to a Performance Audit (a panacea-esque strategy embraced largely by Republican candidates) released on August 3rd intending to show inefficiencies in the Cuyahoga County auditor's office, and it did, also show that Stark County is even less efficient.

A couple of points.  The Stark County Political Report does not like to use press releases as the basis for SCPR political analysis and, secondly, keep in mind that this report is issued by Republican Auditor of State Mary Taylor.  Remember, Taylor's office missed finding the Frustaci pilfering as well as other county treasury shortfalls going over quite a few years of auditing.

Notwithstanding the undesirability of the source of the numbers (in terms of possible "political" jaundice), they do suggest a compelling story of how inefficient Kim Perez's operations apparently are.

The SCPR forwarded a copy of the press release for response on Friday (August 13th), but The Report has not received a response from Perez, which is interesting in and of itself.

Let's look at the numbers again.

The standard appears to be about 10 fulltime employees per 100,000 population.  Cuyahoga County sits at about 16 employees per 100,000 whereas Stark County is close to 19 employees per 100,000.

Wow!

If the Taylor numbers are reliable (remember Perez has not disputed the numbers to the SCPR), then this is an additional real campaign issue which could be the final nail in the political coffin of Stark County Auditor Kim Perez.

The SCPR does believe that a number of Perez's employees are there primarily for their political value.  However, this does not mean that they are not getting their assigned job done.  If they weren't, The Report believes that Perez would get rid of them in a "political" heartbeat.

The question becomes:  Are these employees the most productive that Perez can get for the money being paid?

Maybe Perez does understand that he has too many political liabilities (Zeiglergate, being an incumbent and office inefficiencies) to survive in November.

Somehow the SCPR does not see that he is "throwing in the towel."  He could be going "low profile" so as not to be in a storm of negativity that Stark County Gary Zeigler is engulfed in at the moment.

It would be a big mistake for Stark Republicans to think that the election is over (a la Tom Dewey - 1948).

Could Stark Countians be stunned to learn in the wee hours of November 3, 2010 that Kim Perez is a political survivor?

Indeed!  Just ask the parade master Brant Luther.

ZEIGLER: IN OR OUT? STARK COUNTIANS SHOULD KNOW BY NOON ON MONDAY!

On November 5, 2008, Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler was "on top of the 'Stark County' political world."

He had just won a smashing 100% to 0% political victory for re-election in a "no-opponent" contest.  Whoopie Doo! 

Sources tell the SCPR that on November 5th, 2008 he bragged to local officials about his invincibility as a candidate for local office. He is reported to have told the officials that he is the top Stark County vote getter.

The SCPR has looked over the numbers of various countywide elected officials in the last decade and does not agree with Zeigler about his vote getting prowess.  The Report believes that Stark County Auditor Kim Perez is has demonstrated vote getting strength much better than Zeigler.

Undoubtedly, because of the the integral role the auditor's office plays in checking and balance (to a limited degree) the treasurer's office and the SCPR's and others' opinions that Perez failed in that role, Perez is likely going to be sorely tested on this electoral moxie this November.

Back to Zeigler and his braggadocio.

Kind of strange for a guy to be boasting who ran and ran and ran before getting an appointment (ironically, while now Stark County Prosecutor - who sued Zeigler for the Stark County commissioners this past Wednesday - was Stark County Democratic Party chairman)  to replace Mark Roach when he was forced out due to Roach's failure to keep up with the educational requirements of being treasurer?

One has to believe that Ferrero was instrumental in Zeigler getting the appointment to head up the treasury in the first place.

Of course, we all know well the expression "pride goeth before a fall."

Unless a visiting judge stops the Stark County commissioners, on Monday, August 2nd, the commissioners will remove Zeigler from office.

Here is a copy of Zeigler's defense to being removed filed in Ferrero's Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 321.27 lawsuit.

So what are the chances that Zelgler will stop his commissioner planned removal on Monday?

The SCPR does not believe Zeigler's odds are good.  However, any lawyer worth his salt does not try to get inside the head of a judge.  Anything can happen.

The Report is impressed with the arguments developed by Attorney Craig T. Conley.  Readers will note that the SCPR has been highly complimentary of Conley for his work in bringing Zeigler to public accountability.  He is doing this work pro bono (for the public good) free of charge to the Stark County taxpayers.

The SCPR believes BUT FOR Conley's drive for action, Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero would be sitting on his duff and twiddling his thumbs figuring out what to do next.

Now Ferrero is trying to take political credit for all of the Conley effort. Go figure.

Ferrero is man whose office was telling the media that they couldn't act until Frustaci (Zeigler's former chief deputy who has admitted in federal court to stealing $2.46 million in county treasury funds) is sentenced.  Obviously, now that Ferrero's office has been corrected by Conely, they are no long saying "wait to sentencing on September 7th thing).  

After all this current activity is completed, Stark Countians need to take a hard look at whether or not they think Ferrero should continue in office as his re-election date of November, 2012 approaches.


Back to Conley's arguments.

Here is a summation.

So stay tuned folks, this whole process could take many twists and turns until the Stark County public made who again to the extent that the law allows for.

WHO IS ALAN HAROLD RUNNING AGAINST? ZEIGLER? PEREZ? HIMSELF?

Nowadays it is understandable that every Stark County politician wants a piece of Gary Zeigler.  Why would a candidate want to run on the issues when he has a Stark County political/officeholding persona non grata to target.  In the case of Alan Harold, he wants credit for being the first Stark politico to ask Gary to resign.

Dare say that most Stark Countians (including yours truly) think that Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler "should" resign.  And, on Monday, the SCPR is told, the Stark County commissioners will remove Zeigler from office.

However it is a bit of a curiosity and a strong irony that Republican Alan Harold running for county auditor against Democrat Kim Perez is focusing on Zeigler.  Strongly ironic because Harold (see details below) was once slated to run against Zeigler (in 2008). In not getting his information right on Zeigler as to whether or not he MUST (capitalized for emphasis) resign under Ohio law, it might be said that he is running against himself.

Back on April 29, 2009, Stark County Republican (not then a candidate for auditor) Alan Harold wrote a letter to the editor of The Repository saying in effect that Ohio's law required that if former Chief Deputy was convicted of stealing from the Stark County treasury, then Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler "MUST" resign.

Well, here is the "official" law on the matter of the county treasurer and his longevity in office.

Does anyone see language in Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 321.38 that the treasurer "must" resign?

"May remove" is "must resign?"  Hmm?

Should he resign?  Of course!  But he is not required to.

Why bring this up?

Because Alan Harold in a "comeuppance-esque way" wrote yours truly an e-mail yesterday saying in effect he was correct in saying that Zeigler "must" resign (back on April 29, 2009).  Harold pointed to the following statements (ignoring ORC 321.38) by Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero and Attorney Craig Conley as validating his "must" argument.

Ferrero:  


''The state law is clear on that.  It says the county treasurer is responsible for the acts of their employees and that's why they are required to have bonds on themselves.''

Conley:

Anyone see anything in Harold's proffered supports to corroborate Harold's contention of "must?"

Harold in the e-mail is upset that The Report said, in a blog shortly after his April 29 letter to the editor, that he was "light on the law" on contending that the law of Ohio is that Zeigler "must" resign.

"Light on the law" was being kind.   The Report believes a better description would have been "wrong on the law; but correct on what Zeigler ought to do."

Harold's deficit legal analytical ability means that should he become county auditor, he needs to leave the lawyering to the Stark County prosecutor and to listen to and read what the prosecutor "actually" says.

Trying to be one's own lawyer, especially when one is the head of a major county department of government, is dangerous stuff.

So where are we "really" heading with this discussion?

While the SCPR has said in a previous blog that Stark County voters "should" seriously consider removing Stark County Auditor Kim Perez (because he could have done more to protect Stark County taxpayers in the Frustaci matter) from office in favor of Harold this November.  However, with missives like the e-mail he sent to The Report yesterday; yours truly has growing reservations about Harold and his fitness to serve as county auditor.

Even in the face of his MBA in accounting from The Ohio State University,  his banking experience (Huntington) and his comptroller employment at Steve Coon Restoration seemingly indicating excellent credentials to be Stark County auditor, the SCRP is becoming increasingly  leery of Harold becoming auditor.

But why?

First of all,  a number of sources say Harold caved into pressures from his employer at the time (Huntington Bank) not to run against Gary D. Zeigler back in 2008.  Who, with a family to support, is positioned to fend off that kind of pressure? 

But his yielding to Huntington does raise questions about his ability to act on what his heart tells him to do in the face of enormous pressure.  Will it be "deja vu all over again" (a la Yogi Berra) if he gets pressured as Stark County auditor?  Voter due diligence requires that voters factor in his ability to handle the heat of holding public office as a consideration of whether or not to vote for him.

Secondly, Harold seems to be a reasonable, articulate and intelligent guy who keeps his emotions in check, but is the appearance reality?

Back in July, 2009 at a John Boccieri rally at the Sunoco station on Tuscarawas west, he was in the thick of things of those holding up signs "Drill, Baby, Drill" and yelling at Boccieri as he attempted to hold a press conference.

As we all know, it is Harold's First Amendment U.S. Constitutional right to do the Boccieri rally thing.

So, why the concern?

Because this kind of activity might indicate a person who is a political party true believer that might carry his partisan fervor into his management of a government office.

The Report suspects that Harold is more into passionate partisan politics than most observers ascribe to him.

If Harold is elected, will his partisan passion mean a wholesale dismissal of the Perez-hired employees merely because they were hired by Democrat Perez and/or they are registered Democrats?  Such is a question that Stark County voters should be mulling over in deciding between Perez and Harold.

Stark Countians, including the SCPR, want an end to this "politics as usual" ritual that occurs in the change of office from one political party to the other.  Will Harold deliver?

Thirdly, his  e-mail with yours truly over the "should" and "must" thing is, perhaps, an indication of a person who does not take kindly to being corrected.  The Report is beginning to get a drift from Harold that he may be a "I'm always right" sort of guy.

How will this play in managing the many employees of the Stark County auditor's office?  Will he defer to legal counsel on questions of law?  Can he take any kind of counsel from others?  Or will he take on an arrogant tone about himself and be accountable to nobody.  More questions for Stark County voters, no?

Haven't Stark Countians had enough of the "I'm accountable to nobody"  type of attitude emanating from all too many Stark County officeholders these days?

Right now the SCPR is leaning towards advocating that voters replace Perez with Harold in November.

But Alan Harold is doing his damnest to change The Report's lean!

Oh, one more thing.

Let's see.  Republican candidate Alan Harold versus Gary Zeigler?  Kim Perez?  Himself?

THIS MORNING: SCRP CRITICIZES AUDITOR PEREZ; THIS AFTERNOON: PLAUDITS TO PEREZ! HMM?

UPDATED 07/26/2010 AT 11:00 PM

Republican Alan Harold, who is opposing Democrat Auditor Kim Perez in November's election had the following statement in a press release provided to the SCPR this evening, to wit:

“Mr. Perez’s request to the prosecutor stinks of desperation and is ‘too little too late’”, states Auditor candidate Alan Harold. “This request could have been made at any point since the June 25 pleading by Mr. Frustaci and is only prompted by a deadline imposed by the counsel of a concerned tax payer.

“Mr. Perez has been asleep at the switch for too long in this matter and his credibility, much like his good friend Mr. Zeigler’s, has been seriously tarnished due to his inability to carry out his fiduciary responsibilities. Only at the behest of others, as with his failure to produce documents needed for the State Auditor, does Mr. Perez ever step to the plate.”

REVISED & UPDATED AT 2:08 PM

This morning the SCPR was critical in a blog about Auditor Perez' failure to adequately follow up when he knew or suspected problems in the Stark County treasury with regard to unaccounted for money.

The Report stands by that blog, however, this afternoon Auditor Perez is showing show signs of redeeming his prior failure.

Local attorney and citizen activist Crag T. Conley sent letters to Perez and the Stark County commissioners on July 22, 2010 asking them to request that Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero take action "immediately" on the bonds of Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler for money missing from the treasury (nearly $3 million).  Recently, former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci pled guilty in federal court to stealing $2.46 million of the larger amount.

Perez wrote a letter to Prosecutor Ferrero today requesting he take action.

Here is a copy of the letter.

The SCPR praises Perez for the action he has taken on Conley's request!!!

Conley also issued a memo to media praising Perez for moving forward on his request.

Here is a copy of the Conley accolade.

Action like this could be a "political lifesaver" for Perez.  Auditor Perez has a long track record of being the best vote getter among Stark County's elected Democrats.

Undoubtedly, he is hurt by his lethargic reaction to what Conley calls "Zeiglergate."

But as the saying goes:  "better late than never."

The SCPF will assess over the next three months as to whether or not Perez has acted soon enough to save his position as Stark County auditor.

As for Zeigler, what impact does the Perez initiative have on him other than the lawsuit himself?

It sets Zeigler up to be removed from office by the Stark County commissioners.  The SCPR believes commissioners will remove Zeigler with the only question remaining being the timing.

Before September 7th, the appointed Democratic successor will have to run in the November, 2010 election to defend the newly appointed post.

After September 7th, the appointed Democratic successor will have breathing space until November of 2012 to create a record for him/herself and extra time to campaign to retain the office.

Stark Countians can rest assured that the wheels are churning at Stark Democratic and Republican headquarters these days to figure out all the nuances of what The Report believes to be the coming Stark County commissioner removal of Zeigler.

If Stark's organized Democrats have their way, the removal will come after September 7th so they can appoint Commissioner Steven Meeks after he removes himself from the commissioner race with Republican Janet Creighton.

As The Report sees the Meeks move, it is either as The Report speculates or Meeks is going to have to go elsewhere to stay in public life.

The SCPR does not see him anywhere near defeating Creighton in what would clearly be a Stark County upset special!

YES, ZEIGLER SHOULD RESIGN. BUT? SHOULD THERE BE CONSEQUENCE FOR AUDITOR PEREZ?

In a bid  to survive in office, Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler (Treasury) on Wednesday, July 14,  had his attorney (Dennis Thompson - of the Akron area) prepare and distribute a "Statement relating to Gary D. Zeigler."

The SCPR believes that Thompson's statement in no way absolves Zeigler from what The Report believes to have been a major Zeigler failure to protect the public treasury from the likes of Vince Frustaci who on June 25th pled guilty in federal court to have stolen $2.46 million while serving as Zeigler's chief deputy.

The Report views Thompson's statement as a public relations gambit designed to divert attention away from his client and onto other county and state officials.

The SCPR is unimpressed with Thompson's statement and continues to believe that Zeigler should resign as Stark County treasurer.

Having established such as the SCPR position, The Report now moves into a consideration of the Thompson focus (among others) on Stark County Auditor Kim Perez.

A Thompson statement:

Hmm?

So what is Perez's obligation in protecting the integrity of treasury funds in the light of suspecting there was a problem? 

Interesting enough, on September 9, 2009 (note after April 1, 2009, the date that Zeigler fired Frustaci)  Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray (OAG) wrote an Ohio attorney general opinion (OAG2009-033), which the SCPR believes puts Perez in a bad light in terms of his contending that bringing the matter of two imbalances between Stark County treasury and the auditor, to the attention of the State of Ohio Auditor ("SOA," - November, 2008 & March, 2009) absolved him of any obligation to pursue the matter further.

Even though, by his own words, Perez speaks of "a lack of cooperation from the Treasurer's office," he thinks reporting the "lack of cooperation" to the Ohio Auditor solves an obvious "no-confidence" in the information problem between his office and the Stark treasury?

The SCPR has written before that Perez, once he suspected problems at the Treasury, when available, should have - at a minimum - insisted on "original source bank statements."

Reportedly, Perez is saying that Stark County Prosecutor Ross Rhodes directs that Perez "MUST" (emphasis added) rely on the bank statements provided by Frustaci. However, Rhodes' letter of July 13th (attached to the Stark County Auditor Report to the Stark County Commissioners on the Investigation of the Stark County Treasurer's Office) does not contain such a statement. 

Is it good enough for public official Perez, with the connection (functionally) that he has with the Stark treasury, to "punt" a suspected problem to the Auditor of State and thereby (in his mind) wash his hands of the matter?

To the SCPR, OAG2009-033 in and of itself together with its cited statutes and cases seem to indicate Perez (as do all Ohio county auditors) has that responsibility and the authority (which Perez claims he does not have) to follow up his misgivings about the goings-on in Zeigler's office with an insistence of original source bank statements.

Here is a summary of the law as articulated in OAG 2009-033)

Even in light of the law cited about, the SCPR does not think that Perez could have just waltzed over to First Merit Bank and gotten original source documents; although Vince Frustaci did not seem to have any difficulty getting $220,000 in cash.

But with a little creativeness, the SCPR has to believe that Perez did not have to accept the Frustaci- provided documents on blind faith and could have and, in the view of the SCPR, should have insisted that the county prosecutor look for legal procedural ways and means for him to "'require factual proof'" (i.e. the bank statements) were authentic.

The Stark County Political Report believes that Auditor Perez failed county taxpayers in not taking a more rigorous approach to resolving the misgivings he certainly must have had with respect to the Frustaci-provided information in light of the November, 2008 incongruity of numbers.

Another thing.  Perez's "hypothetical example" given in his report to commissioners is insulting to anyone who has basic analytical ability, to wit:

If yours truly got a bank statement that did not jive with checkbook balancing, a trip would be made to the bank with the question:  "Why doesn't my checkbook balance with your statement I received in the mail.  I have checked and rechecked my account and I am absolutely sure it is correct."

I would insist that the bank take a look at its numbers on its computers.

Eureka!  On checking against its computer records, an incongruity would be obvious.  "Hmm?" the bank would say.  "How can this be?"

The rest of the story?

A neighbor who worked at the bank had been forging checks against my account and, to cover his tracks, had intercepted my monthly bank statement from my mailbox and recreated the statement to cover for the withdrawals made by him and reinserted the fraudulent statement in my mailbox.

So my going to the original source was the key to finding the criminal activity on my account.

Does whomever created the non-analogous hypothetical actually work in the Stark County Auditor's office?

If so, isn't that worrisome in and of itself?

The bottom line?

Does The Report's take on Perez's failure to obtain original source documents from the Stark treasury's banker mean that the SCPR is advocating that Auditor Perez resign?

No.

Why not?

He only has about three months left on his current term.  It would be too disruptive of county operations for him to do so at this late date.

However, it does mean that The Report believes that Stark Countians should take a serious look at removing him from office via the election process in November, 2010!

SEE VIDEO: WAS STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS "EXECUTIVE SESSION" MEETING OF YESTERDAY A LEGAL PROCEEDING?

The Stark County Political Report is "smelling a rat" in the commissioners going into executive session with Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler and his attorney at yesterday's meeting.

Why does The Report suspect that all may not be legal with the commissioners and their executive session?

First of all, the meeting was billed as a Stark County Auditor Kim Perez "come to Jesus" moment.  Only trouble is:  Perez did not show up.  Probably because he was told not to show up as commissioners had bigger fish to fry yesterday.

Who might that fish be?

Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler, that's who.

As The Report entered the commissioners hearing room at the 1:30 p.m. start time, talk was taking place (from County Administrator Mike Hanke) that Zeigler might show up.  There had been information in the media to the effect that Zeigler be invited to appear in addition to Perez.

Well, Zeigler did show up and showed up with his attorney, family and friends and a huge stack of documents.  Here is a pictorial collage showing a part of the Zeigler entourage.

It is apparent to the SCPR that Zeigler was surprised that he and his attorney would be called into executive session by commissioners.

Why would he bring friends and family to a meeting to have to sit out in the waiting area while a executive session which lasted about an hour went on?

After the executive session, there was no discussion of Zeigler by commissioners in open meeting and, of course, friends and family had not returned to the meeting.

Second reason.

The SCPR captured some video of Zeigler and his attorney immediately after the executive session ended speaking to what went on during the executive session.

Study the video which is posted at the end of this blog. See if you agree with the SCPR that Zeigler and his attorney (reading between their words) indicate their part (Attorney Thompson clearly identifies another part of the session, after their presentation was done, as to being about "pending or imminent litigation") was about Zeigler's effort to shift responsibility for not detecting the $2.46 million

Zeigler brushes aside Rep reporter Kelli Young's question about the existence or plan by Zeigler to file a lawsuit against State of Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor.

Even if Zeigler does plan to file against Taylor, what do the commissioners have to do with it?

Third reason.

After the meeting had adjourned, yours truly asked Commissioner Bosley what lawsuit involving Zeigler was the topic of the executive session.  The Report recited to Bosley (paraphrasing):  "Let's see, there is Zeigler's suit against The Repository and Tom Marcelli's (for Stark County taxpayers) against Zeigler; what other lawsuit is there to discuss."

Bosley ducked answering the question and passed it on to County Administrator Mike Hanke who in turn passed it on to board attorney Prosecutor Deborah A. Dawson (who had not returned to the meeting after the executive session).

Commissioner Bosley has to do better than the "pending or imminent litigation" attribution to the executive session in light of the suspicious circumstances of the Zeigler/commissioner meeting.

Here is the video which presents a summary of the unfolding of the executive session event.

WILL THE COMMISSIONERS ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS OF PEREZ?

A "grandstanding" request (by Stark County commissioners) got a "grandstanding" response, no?

Obviously, Stark County Auditor Kim Perez was going to exonerate himself from any obligation whatsoever to "push, push, push" to get to the bottom of mismatches of Frustaci-provided data with auditor in-house data.

Key language in Perez's report is this: 

“There is a difference between business and friendship.”  ... Gary wasn’t going to be able to give me that information. I did what I was supposed to do. I went to the state auditors.”

What has not been exhaustively explored by the one-newspaper-town Repository is the extent of the friendship between Perez, Zeigler, and Frustaci and how, if at all, that factored into the failure to catch the Frustaci theft of $2.46 million in county funds.

It appears to the SCPR that  Perez and Zeigler are using de jure (legal) structures of government as cover for themselves in building a case that they did everything the law requires of them in the performance of their duties.

Will this strategy work?

Thomas Marcelli's (Craig T. Conley, as legal counsel) "for the Stark County taxpayers" lawsuit to recover monies from Treasurer Zeigler threatens to open a legal "pandora's box" into a far ranging probe into the entire Frustaci matter.

How so?

In the discovery process , as provided for in legal procedure law, Zeigler and Perez among others will potentially have to submit to "under oath" questioning by Conley.  The SCPR believes that Conley will leave "no stone uncovered," if allowed to proceed.

Stark Countians should be keenly interested in Conley being the lead counsel for the lawsuit.  It is unclear as of the writing of this blog that he will be, in the end.  Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero has a "first right of refusal."

In a prior blog, the SCPR has asked Ferrero to step aside in favor of Conley.

If Zeigler fights the the lawsuit (which he gives every indication that he will), then the discovery process provides Stark Countians with their best chance to get into the "unofficial" side of the matter and the personal relationships of the various parties as to how those relationships may have affected, if at all, the official side performance of various county officials.

It is not always the case that "there is a difference between business and friendship."  Sometimes friendships subsume business and businesslike decisions are not made.

It is this aspect of the Frustaci matter that Conley questioning could help ferret out or alternatively confirm that friendships did not affect the performance of official duties.

The Report would accept the results of a Conley lead inquiry and believes that Stark Countians would too.

Another Perez statement that deserves vetting is this:  “We’re only going to get an original of the fraudulent document." (so says Perez).

Really?

Not if you go to the Stark County public via the media and put pressure on Zeigler to authorize the bank to provide its original.

But they are friends.  So says Perez.  Is a friend going to be willing to publicly put Zeigler on the spot?  Probably not.

Then you have this goody from the Young article (see cite below):

Despite his longtime friendship with the county treasurer, Perez never approached Zeigler about the disparities between the two offices.

Of course, Perez could have used his friendship to the advantage of the Stark County taxpayers in another way.  "Come on bud, something is not right about the numbers we're (the auditor's office) getting from Vince.  Go to the bank with me and authorize the bank to provide my office with original source bank statements."

Perez tells Kelli Young of The Rep (County auditor:  Probe finds no fault with his office) July 13, 2010, to wit:

But Perez said he doesn’t believe obtaining original source records from the treasurer’s office would have helped detect Frustaci’s crimes.

Moreover:

A legal opinion written by Assistant Stark County Prosecutor Ross Rhodes that accompanies Perez’s report states that the auditor must rely on the accuracy of the treasurer’s documents.

So which is it?

Even if Perez had gotten original source bank statements, they don't tell the tale on a mismatch between treasury/auditor accountings?

Or, he couldn't insist on original source statements because Rhodes said:  "the auditor MUST (emphasis added) rely on the accuracy of the treasurer's documents.

And, of course, Rhodes should be grilled about his "must rely on the accuracy of the treasurer's document." 

Since Young didn't ask the critical questions, will the commissioners at today's meeting?

Don't count on it.

The SCPR believes that the county commissioners just want this problem to go away as does the Stark County "organized" leadership of the Democratic Party.

The SCPR sees the call for the Perez report, the report itself and the collateral work as being ineffective to get to the heart of assigning responsibility.

As matters stand right now, The Report thinks the Stark County public should take this whole exercise as being one rather large, concerted action to white wash the matter!!!

WHY DIDN'T STARK COMMISSIONERS EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO INSPECT THE TREASURY'S BOOKS? WHY IS THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE EXCITED ABOUT THE CALL FOR PEREZ TO RESIGN?

 UPDATE:  07/06/2010 AT 9:45 AM

Commissioner Todd Bosley has told the SCPR that Auditor Perez will be appearing before the commissioners to answer their questions when he has the called for report ready.  Bosley expects the report to be done prior to the 30 day period prescribed by commissioners in their letter to Perez.

ORIGINAL POST

Revised at 7:30 AM

In Stark County, "auditors" are a hot topic these days.  Normally, auditing is pretty boring stuff.

Stark County commissioners are focusing their efforts on the failure to catch Vince Frustaci (who has pled guilty on June 25 in federal court to having stolen about $2.46 million in county funds) on the Ohio Auditor of State Mary Taylor (Taylor) and Stark County Auditor Kim Perez (Perez).

However, it appears to the SCPR that there are different motivations behind the two efforts.

The Report believes that the Taylor initiative is designed as a part of a larger Stark County Democratic plan to assign blame on Taylor whereas the Perez initiative is to be a platform which provides Perez with a politically friendly overture to present cherry-picked information to absolve his office of any responsibility on the failure to catch.

There is no suggestion that Perez compensate the county, if information surfaces that indicates a county auditor failure to catch.

Here are copies of the two letters sent out by commissioners on Wednesday.

First, to Taylor.  (By the way, a Taylor spokesman says that Mary will not be appearing before the Stark County commissioners in response to the letter)

Second, to Perez.

However, the commissioners have not exercised statutory authority to do a direct examination of the Stark treasury's books nor have they asked Treasurer Zeigler or Auditor Perez to come in for a public Q&A session as they have Taylor.

So how about the commissioners themselves?

Ohio Revised Code Section 321.11 has been pointed out to The Report as a statutory enactment of long standing (1953) which gives them to right to assure themselves as county officials that all is well with the treasurer's office, to wit:

A factor that has not been widely reported upon, are the "social/civic/political/familial" factors between Perez, Zeigler, Frustaci and Stark County sheriff (Swanson - whose office was involved in the Frustaci investigation under the guidance of the auditor's brother Rick Perez - a chief deputy poised to become the Stark County sheriff when Swanson quits). Perez, Zeigler and Swanson are all Demoratic county office holders.

Social/civic/political and familial?

Examples, please!

SOCIAL

The SCPR is told by a source that before March, 2009 Frustaci vacation trip to Florida, it was practically a daily occurrence that Kim Perez, Gary Zeigler and Vince Frustaci would have lunch together.

CIVIC

Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson has written at least one letter to the editor of The Repository (in recent times) defending Zeiglier's managing of the Stark treasury. 

On October 24, 2008 Vince Frustaci wrote a letter (Swanson is widely respected in state, local law enforcement) to The Rep's editor endorsing Sheriff Swanson over Republican Larry Dordea in their 2008 match up.

POLITICAL

According to the SCPR's best recollection, Zeigler, Swanson and Ferrero have run as a "law enforcement team" in past (2004?). However, the triumvirate did not last as The Report remembers Ferrero dropping out of the three-way campaign because of differences between the three.

FAMILIAL

Zeigler's son is employed by Stark County Auditor Kim Perez in the auditor's office.  The SCPR source says that Zeigler has described his son's work in the auditor's office as preparing one day to succeed Zeigler as county treasurer.

By Ohio ethics law, relatives cannot work from one another.   It is common practice (especially among Democrat officeholders) for them to hire each other's family members.  However, the official line is always that in hiring the fellow officeholder's relative, the hiring official was getting "the best available person" for the job.

Recorder Rick Campbell says this about his employment of his Chief Deputy Recorder Kody Gonzalez (son of Stark County Democratic Party kingpin Randy Gonzalez).

As a final note, the SCPR recites the following about Auditor Kim Perez's office.

On Friday, June 25th (the day of the former Stark County Treasury Chief Deputy Frustaci "bill of information" press conference), the SCPR got a call from the Stark County Auditor's office (not Perez himself) which The Report suspects to have been a feigning of an inability to get in contact with Pat DeLuca of "The DeLuca Show."

Why the thought of feigning?

Because, when contacted by the SCPR,  DeLuca said that he had not received a message from Perez's office.  However, he had yet to checked voice mails at his station, which were not available to him over the weekend.

Also, an e-mail sent to Perez (a copy of which was sent to The Report) asking for his resignation had DeLuca's e-mail address on it.

So - in hindsight - the obvious question to the caller by yours truly should have been:   If you can't get through on the phone, why not just dash off an e-mail?  Because that is how the SCPR contacted DeLuca.

DeLuca had criticized Perez and called for his resignation with reference to DeLuca's belief that Perez failed Stark Countians in ferreting out the $2.46 million theft from the Stark treasury that former Stark Treasurer former Chief Deputy pleaded guilty to in federal court on June 25th..

What would have been the motivation for the suspected feigning?

Answer:  To get The Report to defend Perez to DeLuca.  The caller had a perception that the SCPR  and DeLuca are close.

Close (an articulated perception of the auditor official) or not, it was a serious miscalculation for the caller to think that The Report would be so undiscerning as to not raise questions (in terms of thinking it over) about why such a call would come from out-of-the-blue.

When The Report published a blog asking questions of Perez's office as a follow up to DeLuca's Facebook "open letter, " then the Perez aide's attitude to yours truly turned negative.  "You blindsided us," he said.

Really?

"We've bent over backwards to comply with your public information requests," he said.  Hmm?

So Perez's office, apparently, is a respecter of persons when doing its statutorily mandated public records response?

Isn't that interesting?  

Well, the SCPR does not ask for preferred public service from Stark County based government officials.  Just comply with the law!

The officeholder in providing the SCPR the requested information was merely complying with Ohio's open records law. The Report demands nothing more and will accept nothing less!

Public officials need to focus on doing their jobs and quit trying to massage/manipulate the media.

And, the media has to have the discernment to know when they are being manipulated.

And, by the way, the SCPR did offer Perez an opportunity to defend himself from DeLuca's call for his resignation by putting the defense/response together in an e-mail which The Report will then publish the response either as an update to the original blog or in a new blog.  Such is standard practice for the SCPR whenever a subject of a SCPR blog disagrees with The Report's opinion.

Moreover, The Report has asked both DeLuca and the auditor's office via e-mail whether or not they have contacted one another.  So far The Report has received no answer from either. Accordingly, it appears that Perez's effort to contact was a ruse.

As stated at the outset of this blog, normally discussions about auditor offices is boring stuff.

But not in 2010 in Stark County, Ohio!!!

Auditor Perez does have a lot of questions to answer.

It is just a short jaunt down the hall from Perez's office to the commissioners' meeting room.

Why don't the commissioners insist on having Kim Perez in for questions?  After all, one of the commissioners told yours truly that somewhere during the unfolding of the Frustaci matter, Perez contacted the Taylor with the admonition "you have a problem in the Stark County treasurer's office."

A Perez spokesman, when asked if the commissioner's statement was accurate, said:  "It may be?"

So this is a for instance of questions that Perez needs to answer in public.

Thirty days to submit a report?  No public Q&A?

Hmm?

Sounds like Democrats (all three commissioners) protecting a Democrat, doesn't it?

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

UPDATE:  01/04/2010

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

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

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

ORIGINAL POST

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

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

Officially, Republican Mary Taylor's representative:

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

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

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

First, the "no."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there you have it folks.

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