SOMEONE IS LYING IN THE LAKE/STARK COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS - LAKE ISSUE #6 - SCREW UP?

Nancy Molnar of the Akron Beacon Journal set up the obvious perfectly in her article Stark County reviews Lake Twp. Levy error, January 31, 2012.

As reported by the SCPR on, the Stark County Board of Elections received on or about July 27, 2011 a communication from the Ohio secretary of state noting the error in the ballot language on the Lake Township-wide police levy and provided the correction.

Conclusion:  to a reasonable person - someone is lying!

No matter who the liar may be, it should be disconcerting if not revolting to Stark Countians and, in particular, Lake Township voters that we are now into a "he says, she says" scenario.

People do make mistakes.

But errors should be owned up to and remedial processes instituted to prevent them from ever happening again.

For someone to lie to cover the tracks of an agency of government should be totally unacceptable to the Stark County body politic.

In the Molnar piece, Deputy Director of the Board of Elections (BOE) Jeff Matthews admitted that a board of elections worker "making a phone call" is not proper protocol for making sure that Lake Township got a timely message.

Such is in and of itself unacceptable of an agency of government charged with the responsibility of safeguarding elections.

In this day and age (e.g. e-mail with proof of delivery), the slop coming out of the Stark BOE (at the leadership level) is unacceptable.

If the board itself has the taxpayers interests at heart and cares whether or not Stark Countians have confidence in the voting integrity and processes of government, action should be taken against Matthews and and Director Jeannette Mullane by the board for not nailing down (i.e. documented proof) that Lake Township knew of the ballot language problem and when they knew of it and why the BOE permitted the erroneous language to be printed notwithstanding their knowledge it was wrong.

Who can accept the apparent BOE reasoning that the last resolution of the Lake Board of Trustees was erroneous and, though the BOE knew it to be erroneous, permit it to be ballot printed anyway because that was the last word from Lake?

Just a little bit of circular reasoning, no?

Yours truly can easily think of any number of recourses the BOE could have taken to get a timely correction the board needed from Lake over a nearly 30 day window within which to operate.

Between the two of them, Matthews (a Republican) and Mullane (a Democrat) must make in excess of $150,000 combined.  For that kind of money, Stark Countians cannot expect that they can communicate effectively with the likes of the Lake trustees?

And what about the Lake Township angle on the problem?

On November 28th, the SCPR had a telephone conversation with Lake attorney Charles Hall III.

No bones about it, he told yours truly:  "It was my error."

Moreover, he said that he was confident that ultimately there was not going to be a problem citing 5th District Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court cases which cites he promised to e-mail to yours truly - which he never did.

From that conversation, it is clear in the understanding of The Report that Hall (who was paid $36,000 by Lake Township in 2011; renewed for 2012 at the same amount) knew that there was a problem with the ballot language early on.

Hall's words to the SCPR:   "it was caught, caught and changed, and changed again."

Ultimately, the Ohio secretary of state's office made the final correction which Hall says was never communicated to him by the Stark BOE until it was too late.

One has to wonder:  once Hall knew of the erroneous language, why didn't he track ballot language as it moved through the Stark County prosecutor's office, the Stark County Board of Elections and the Ohio secretary of state's office and back to the BOE until he absolutely knew for certain prior to the deadline for making a correction, that the language was, in fact, correct?

No matter how the litigation over the issue turns out (it is now headed to the Ohio Supreme Court), the election having been overturned by Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Haas; it is incumbent upon the Lake trustees to pin Hall down on a timeline of what he knew, when he knew it, and why he did not track resolution of the errant language fastidiously once he knew a problem existed.

The SCPR can see that neither the Stark BOE nor the Lake trustees in a CYA fashion will be inclined to join in a joint enterprise to determine the truth of the matter.  It is not so much a case of finger pointing.  But learning how this whole process went wrong so that safeguards can be put in place to prevent a recurrence is the point.

If the Stark BOE or the Lake trustees either separately or jointly do not investigate and release findings publicly, then they will have excused the inexusable and thereby become part of the larger problem of the public's growing lack of confidence in government, and yes, even "local" government.

And in Lake Township, Trustees Erb and Stoll will have a real problem being re-elected in 2013.

LAKE TRUSTEES: WHEN DID THEY KNOW ABOUT ISSUE 6 BALLOT LANGUAGE ERROR AND WHO DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH ERRANT LANGUAGE?

Stark County:   becoming a laughing stock from the vantage point of some circles within  the state of Ohio government?

That is what was suggested to one Stark County elected official in discussions with state officials once it came to light that there was an error in the ballot language on Issue 6 - a proposed tax levy to expand the Uniontown Police District (from its present 9 square miles) to cover all of Lake Township.

This assessment by a certain Ohio official (commenting on the Lake Township situation) follows on the heels of a state perception of the debacled way Stark County officials handled matters growing out of the theft of Stark County taxpayer money by former Stark County Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci.

Ohio's auditor, treasurer, secretary of state and, of course, the Supreme Court are intimately familiar with the Stark trials and travails growing out the Frustaci matter.

Between the then treasurer Gary Zeigler (who was not implicated in the theft), the Board of County Commissioners (Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) and the county auditor (Perez) and the prosecutor's office (Ferrero) and the parade of in, out, in and out again interplay between Zeigler and successor county treasurers,  the political brouhaha over the theft in terms who should have been minding the store better devolved into a first class "finger pointing" contest with state officials drinking it all in.  Hence the notion of Stark being a laughing stock at the state level.

Now it appears that Lake Township (a Stark County political subdivision) is heading to the Supreme Court in an appeal by Lake Township trustees and the Stark County Board of Elections (Stark BOE) of Stark County Common Pleas Judge John Haas' ruling yesterday that the ballot language flaw on Issue 6 was fatal in compelling his finding as a matter of law that the passage on November 8, 2011 of Lake Police Levy (expansion township wide) was invalid.

And this may be a good thing.

A good thing?  For whom?

Answer:  the citizens of Lake Township in terms of them getting answers as to whom is specifically responsible for the ballot goof up of November 8th.

That question that went unanswered in Judge Haas' decision.

Plaintiffs' (the winning side of the Lake citizenry who opposed the expansion) attorneys attempted to depose Lake Township and Board of Elections officials, but Judge Haas was having none of it and quashed deposition subpoenas on those officials.

An unreported aspect of the case was a proffer of evidence (a document from the Ohio secretary of state office (SOS) showing that a SOS official spotted the error and communicated it to the Stark BOE on or about July 27, 2011.

Whether one is a Uniontown Police District (UPD) voter (disclaimer:  yours truly, a UPD resident voted for the expansion which had the benefit of reducing UPD residents tax rate) or a Lake unincorporated area voter, it seems to the SCPR that either type voter would want to know whom among their public officials bears the blame for the errant ballot language getting to the ballot.

Political retribution is likely in order for Trustees Erb, Stoll (2013) and Arnold (2015) at the hand of both sides of the expansion issue if it is shown that the trustees knew of the errant language but opted to proceed with the election nevertheless.

For the anti-expansionists, it could be that the trustees would have had to cancel the issue for the November 2011 election and therefore the anti's would have time to solidify their forces in order to get over the electoral hump.  This will especially be the case if the antis ultimately lose on an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

For the expansionists, as matters stand now (losing before Judge Haas), they have to be furious that they would have won fair and square in the election had their public officials not been so sloppy in formulating the ballot language.

For both sides there has to be a realization that the blunders of public officials have caused a heightened political division in the Lake community already divided by Uniontown, Hartville and Greentown (with their competing fire departments) and a historical division of the  southwestern parts of the township and Greentown being in the North Canton school district.

Moreover, there has to be more than a passing curiosity as to how much this costing Lake residents and UPD residents in terms of legal advice/litigation expense (Township attorney Charles Hall, III) and the costs on the UPD part of the tax duplicate whereby trustees are allowing the UPD to patrol and serve townshipwide notwithstanding the unsettled nature of the election dispute.

One thing we know from the proffered SOS memo is that the Stark County Board of Election officials knew on or about July 27, 2011 about the faulty language.

Undoubtedly, they did not keep this information to themselves.

Who at the Lake Township government level knew of the problem, when did they know it, and who issued the directive to proceed with the election and, if the directive was made or sanctioned by a trustee or trustees, why wasn't the decision made in the context of a public meeting with a resolution voted upon by each and every trustee?

Ultimately, the courts will decide the substance of the issue one way or another.  At a higher level with the proffered SOS evidence being in place in the court record for the Supreme Court to consider in the context of an appeal, if made; we may see a remand back to the Stark Court of Common Pleas for testimony by Stark BOE and Lake Township officials.

However, whether or not the Ohio Supreme Court (assuming an appeal) orders a revisitation of Stark County BOE and Lake Township officials in a testimonial context; Lake Township residents on both sides of the issue should demand from the Lake trustees that they provide chapter and verse on their role in the Issue 6 debacle!

A highly negative public perception of the quality Stark County governance developed out of the Frustaci revelation on April 1, 2009.

Despite the best effort of the likes of new county commissioners Bernbei and Creighton and new Stark County Treasurer Zumbar and Auditor Alan Harold to regain public confidence, they now have the added Lake problem which encompassed not only Lake officials but also the county prosecutor's office and the Stark County Board of elections.

Is there any wonder that Stark County governance is taking on a goofball tone with the folks some 125 miles away from Stark County?

STARK BOARD OF ELECTIONS ALLOWS "SCPR" VIDEOTAPPING OF ITS MEETING. THE STARK COUNTY PUBLIC CAN DEPEND ON THE SCPR TO PROVIDE VIDEO COVERAGE OF IMPORTANT BOARD TRANSACTIONS

Readers of the SCPR will recall that The Report was denied the right to videotape the February, 2010 regular meeting of the Stark County Board of Elections (SBOE).  While the reason for the change of heart is not known to yours truly, it is a welcome change.

Something that the Stark County public should note is the failure of The Canton Repository reporter who was present at the February 22nd meeting to protest the exclusion of The Report's camera or, worse yet, to report the Board's action.

The Rep's ignoring of the denial of one more point of access to a public body's proceedings is particularly disturbing that the snub came from a publication that subscribes to the newspaper industry's annual Sunshine Week which begins this year one week from today (March 14th).

Saturday's meeting did not deal with any momentous matters.  William Cline was re-appointed chairman of the Board, Curt Braden - vice chairman, Jeanette Mullane - director and Jeff Matthews - deputy director.  Additionally, the full time employees of the Board were reappointed to their jobs for another two years. 

After the meeting, yours truly and Stephanie Ujhely of The Alliance Review had an interesting conversation with Deputy Director Jeff Matthews.  Director Matthews revealed that while Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has four times the work load of the SBOE, it gets ten times the money.

Other interesting revelations included Matthews' description of the difficulty in maintaining a needed level of polling place workers.  Some 200 to 300 workers decide not to participate in the last week or two before any given election.  Even on election day, the SBOE has to be prepared to supply upwards of 50 or so poll workers to replace workers who do not show up as they said the would.

Matthews says that more and more poll workers are doing the work for the income and not out of civic duty, even though the pay is a minimum wage level when one considers the length of the day worked.  He says that having advanced placement high schoolers as a resource for poll workers has been helpful and successful.

Now that The Report is permitted to videotape, attention will now be turned towards getting the Board to agree to scan in candidate petitions and campaign finance reports so they can be placed in an online database for Stark Countians to access without the necessity of citizens going to the time expense and traveling expense of actually going to the SBOE and paying copying costs, if actual document copies are desired.

And, the SCPR believes, not only does the consuming public save, but so does the SBOE itself.

As retrieving records is done now, a citizen goes to the SBOE, identifies the requested records to a Board employee who then must go get the file and, if copies are wanted - which they usually are, then the Board worker has to start, watch over and complete the copying process.

Readers will recall there was a lot of public attention paid to certain Cuyahoga County-based contributions made to Stark County auditor Kim Perez and Mayor William J. Healy.  Undoubtedly, the Stark BOE was besieged with multiple requests for the campaign finance contribution records of Perez and Healy.  Had they been online, then the BOE would not have had to expend employee time on multiple requests and could have used the time for completing other important SBOE tasks.

Intially, The Report was told that the SBOE did not have the necessary equipment that was up to doing the job.  That problem has been solved by the purchase in January of the needed copying/scanning equipment.

Now Director Mullane says that the Board will get to it when the Board gets to it.

The SCPR had asked her to put an agenda item on the February 22nd agenda requesting the board members to address this matter in public discussion.  Mullane tells The Report she did not put the item on the agenda as she was told by the Board (refusing to disclose which board member(s)) not to put the matter before them.

The Board has a real problem in relating to the public in the first place because the four of them are appointed by the Republican and Democratic Party executive committees.  In other words, they are not put in place by the voting public.

One would think that the Board would be especially sensitive to allowing public input since their selection is not a high water mark of American democracy.  But the SBOE doesn't appear to be.  The SCPR request has been rejected out-of-hand.  Moreover, the Board agenda provides no place on it for the public to address the board with questions/requests.

Isn't it more than a bit ironic that a Board charged with the responsibility of protecting the integrity of our choosing our local, state and national leaders seem to be rather cavalier in its relationship with the Stark County public.

One of the reasons the SCPR has taken up this cause is because of The Report's perception that the SBOE, in particular, does not have a track record of being voter accommodating (reference:  getting online access to petition/finance documents) and voter friendly (reference:  lack of public speaks and entertaining public initiated agenda items).

Here is a short video that introduces the Stark County public to the SBOE board members except for Sam Ferruccio who was not present.

STARK COUNTY GOVERNMENT SHOOTING ITSELF IN THE FOOT?

The implication of the email (see graphic above) from Director Jeanette Mullane of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) is that:

• scanning in campaign finance reports as they are filed ( required by Ohio law this coming Thursday - 10/21) would necessitate purchasing expensive equipment, and 
• and the expending of intensive, voluminous labor by board employees

Nonsense!

Excellent scanning machines can be purchased for $500 or so.  They can be loaded with 50/100 sheets at a time and left unattended while they do their work. 
Most sophisticated commercial copy machines (something the BOE would be looking to purchase) have scanning ability included.

Mullane had told yours truly the BOE was looking at getting a new copier before the campaign fiance reports were due.  Apparently, the board squelched that idea.  No surprise here.

The current system is the ungodly expensive system which wastes the time of citizens wanting the records (to and from the BOE as well as gasoline/wear and tear on vehicles) and consumes enormous amounts of time of board employees making copies.

How much does the board charge citizens for the paper, the toner and the labor to produce copies of desired campaign finance reports?  $0.10 per page.

Think the board covers its cost at $0.10 a page?  But going electronic could help reduce costs and cope better with the reduced level of the BOE staff. 

An assumption of Mullane's email is that the board employees would need to drop everything and go now and scan in all existing campaign finance reports - going back years.

Not at all.

Just start with Thursday's batch and go back during slow time and retrieve older reports.

The Stark BOE doesn't even need to re-invent the wheel.  Rick Campbell has put all recorded documents in digitized form (having done so over time) while digitizing current documents as they are filed.

Campbell's office has been able to reduce his staff needs dramatically since he took over as recorder (saving the county and taxpayers oodles of money) and has created the most efficient and user friendly government office in all of Stark County.

 The Stark BOE can and must to the same eventually.

Why the foot dragging on saving taxpayer money and having citizens feel some love with accommodating services to boot?

The Stark County commissioners should take note that government services (e.g. the Stark BOE's failure on the rather simply done and inexpensive Internet available campaign finance reports) that are anti-consumer/citizen friendly do not help their cause to retain the sales/use tax they imposed in December, 2008 come the election in two weeks.

With friends like the Stark BOE board members, the commissioners do not need any enemies a la the Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote.