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.

ARE THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS "LEADING BY EXAMPLE" IN SPENDING 2011 VOTED-IN SALES TAX INCREASE MONEY?

UPDATED EVALUATION BASED ON NEW DATA (10:00 AM, 09/13/2013)

One of the major headaches in being a Stark County commissioner is getting Stark County departments of governments to "hold the line" and not "rush out" to spend the "newly available" money provided as a consequence of Stark Countians having voted in a 0.5% sales tax increase in November, 2011.

The Stark County Political Report has embarked on an analysis of whether or not county departments of government are heeding the commissioners' admonition made repeatedly by them in the fall 2012 budget hearings that department heads limit department employee pay increases to no more than 2%. Beyond the 2% factor, The Report looks at a department's overall payroll budget,  2013 compared to 2012.

Readers, in addition to focusing on the 2% factor and the overall payroll numbers, need to keep in mind that salary/wages are 65% of a typical government workers' income. A Cleveland Plain Dealer report published yesterday (Public sector workers make more in salary and benefits than those in private sector, Labor Department says, Olivera Perkins) made the point:

Get a good government job. On average, you'll be paid more than your private sector counterparts, according to employee compensation data released Wednesday by the Labor Department. 

•  Employees in private industry received an average of $29.11 per hour in total compensation in June. That included $20.47 in salary and $8.64 in benefits. 
• State and local government workers averaged $42.09 per hour in compensation. That included $27.16 in salary and $14.93 in benefits.

The comparison translates into private industry employees being paid 70% in cash payments and about 30%, on average, in pensions whereas public workers receive their nearly - on average - $13.00 per hour pay advantage 65% in cash and some 35% in benefits.

For the commissioners' office employee overall numbers cited in this blog, readers need to factor up the total payroll numbers 35% to get an accurate picture of actual payroll numbers.  Stark County auditor Alan Harold told the SCRP yesterday that though he has not made an exact computation of the cash payment to benefit payments, his feel for the numbers indicate to him that the 65/35 ratio is pretty much on the mark.

Thirdly, taxpayers should look for staff additions and whether or not they are absolutely needed or merely in the "it would be nice" category when there are more monies made available courtesy of the taxpaying public.

Commissioner Creighton during the campaign to get the sales tax passed, put her fellow county office holders on notice, to wit:

"Right out of the gate" in the budgeting process, Commissioner Creighton and her colleagues were challenged on the 2% cap by a number of department heads.  Predictably, two of them were Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero, Jr. and Stark County recorder Rick Campbell (both favorite county officials of the SCPR).

The Report will get to Ferrero, Campbell, and the remaining department heads in the coming days.

But the place to begin media accountability of "your tax dollars" is with the commissioners themselves.

Take a look.   (Note:  click on the graphic to make it larger)

The Stark County auditor's office has provided the SCPR new data which substantially alters The Report evaluation of the commissioners' "holding the line" and being a good example to other Stark County departments of governments.

At first blush (based on the April data), it appeared to the SCPR that the commissioners have not done all that well in "holding the line" in their overall payroll expenditure increase from 2012 to 2013.

An analysis of the Stark County commissioners payroll deserves and asterisk.

And why an asterisk?

Because they have taken on a significant responsibility from Prosecutor Ferrero's office in their entering into a contract with former prosecutor David Bridenstine who has an expertise that Ferrero apparently cannot match from among the lawyers he currently has on staff.

Obviously, the commissioners have determined that they cannot do without Bridenstine notwithstanding that there has to be someone on Ferrero's staff who could do the work.  Apparently, they do not have confidence that the work would be done at the Bridenstine level of competence.

Bridenstine is limited to earning $65,000 in 2013 according to the commissioners' contract with him.

Beyond the asterisk, (and to The Report chagrin) the commissioners have added to the annual payroll so that now  (as of 09/13/2013) the office is pegged at an increase for 2013 to $796,121.47 from the 2012 number of $652,541:  a 22% increase.

Based on numbers provided by the auditor in April, the commissioners had increased their 2012 cash payroll expenditure of $652,541 to $697,213 (according to information provided the Stark auditor and Chief Administrator Brant Luther) for fiscal year 2013:  a nearly 10% increase overall.

But as the 09/12/2013 numbers show, the 10% was merely a foreshadowing of what was to come.

And, keep in mind that these annual payroll budget numbers do not include fringe benefits which likely boosts the overall numbers by more than a third (i.e. $796,121 becomes $1.07 million and the 2012 number of $652,541 becomes $880,930).

It could be that Bridenstine will not work enough to get up to the $65,000 and, accordingly, the $697,213 straight cash payroll will be adjusted downward.

Included in the projected 22%  overall increase are 2% raises for seven of the department's twelve employees.

The commissioners deserve plaudits for "toeing the line" on their "2% increase.  And they were fair about it.  They gave everyone eligible for an increase the 2%.

Examination of other department's pay scale will determine the fact of the matter, but The Report believes (based on statements (and other reports) made to yours truly that other departments have not distributed pay raises across the board.  Moreover, The Report will be surprised if all department heads heeded the commissioners' recommended cap.  Some of our county department heads are highly egotistic people and "nobody tells them" what to do with regard to the internal operations of their departments.

The SCPR is quite adept at "calling a spade a spade."  If The Report's analysis shows a disregard of the commissioners' cap; readers of the SCPR can be sure that this blog "will lay it out on the table" for all to see.

Returning to the commissioners' 2013 budget number and the Bridenstine factor.

County Administrator Brant Luther questions whether or not Bridenstine counts as against the commissioners' budget.  The Report thinks it does, but as the SCPR always does that other Stark County media hardly ever, if ever, is to allow those with whom yours truly disagrees a full, unfettered opportunity to make his/her case.

Here is what Luther had to say:

All Commissioner's office staff who were here in 2012 (and who remained an employee into 2013), did receive a 2% raise shortly after the 2013 appropriation was approved in March of this year.

The Bridenstine number is wrong [show on the county auditor's report to be $111,280] .  The only thing I can figure is that the number you are showing for David Bridenstine must be an annualized number based on David's previous contract rate of $125 per hour (however that contract was a limited, "not to exceed $20,000 per year" contract).  On July 3, 2013, the Board approved a Contract amendment to lower David's hourly rate to $44.58 per hour and increase the "not to exceed" annual number to $65,000.00.  The Commissioners do provide David with office space to use for County work, and he is available to Commissioners approximately 24 hours per week.  

For efficient payroll administrative purposes, David is listed in the payroll system as an Commissioner's employee, however, he is actually a contract consultant and is not an employee of the Commissioner's office (doesn't receive health benefits etc) and his consulting costs should not be calculated into the Commissioner's office personnel Budget.  To further clarify, if he is working on legal matters involving a revenue or special fund, his salary is reimbursed from that particular fund.  To the extent he is working on strictly general fund matters, his salary is reimbursed from County Obligations.

The SCPR specifically disagrees with Luther that "his [Bridenstine's] consulting costs should not be calculated into the Commissioner's office personnel Budget."

For the commissioners to allow Ferrero to shift the cost of Bridenstine's specialized work and knowledge off of his dime onto theirs is their doing and therefore The Report, for one, looks at the expenditure as being theirs.  Ferrero benefits from the sales tax having been passed exclusively for the benefit of Stark County's criminal justice system and therefore appears to have gotten away with one.

Ferrero had to know that Bridenstine was contemplating retirement and for him as the manager-in-chief of the prosecutor staff to allow a void in quality of representation on Bridenstine's specialized work - post-Bridenstine - is just more evidence that Ferrero does a very poor job of managing his office.

Prior SCPR blogs have scored Ferrero for his "less that superlative" managerial skills.

Had the commissioners not let Ferrero get away with having a Bridenstine-esque expertise void with his retirement, their 2013 spending would be $632,213 which is some $20,000 under the 2012 expenditure of $652,541.

Absent the taking on of the  Bridenstine contract, and, perhaps, the paring down of  the adding $90,000 plus to the county commissioners's payroll numbers  (see Nicholson and Nichols material below) would deserve a rating of A+ and thereby be a clear case of leading by example.

And to carry this topic on just a little futher and how much Ferrero's management deficiencies cost county taxpayers, the SCPR is planning a series on how much money Stark County's townships and boards of education spend on legal fees hiring private counsel.

If it were anyone but John Ferrero sitting as prosecutor, the SCPR would be in favor of a system that the Stark County sheriff's uses in providing policing services to townships (e.g. Plain and Canton townships).

For the money that is available on a contract basis, the Stark County prosecutor's office should be able to put together "one whale of a" legal team to represent township and boards of education interests.

However, while John Ferrero occupies the prosecutor's office; such an idea is a non-starter!

Back to the commissioners and how they fare on The Report's 2012/2013 budget expenditure analysis.

In addition the Bridenstine add on, the commissioners have brought on an administrative assistant (Nicholson) at $32,500 annually and a director of management and budget (Nichols) at $68,000.

While the SCPR does believe that the commissioners' office was understaffed during the Mike Hanke as chief administrator era, the addition of Bridenstine, Nicholson and Nichols appears to be overkill in the opposite direction.

The administrative assistant hire was absolutely needed in the opinion of yours truly.

But was a "big ticket" $68,000 (Nichols) addition (plus a projected post-probationary increase) really needed?

Chief Administrator Brant Luther received a 10% hike over what his predecessor Mike Hanke was making.

What was the justification for giving the new administrator that kind of pay increase?

Why didn't the commissioners insist that Prosecutor Ferrero provide a viable alternative to Bridenstine?

In the original blog, the SCPR evaluated that because of the Bridenstine matter, the commissioners come in at a SCPR grade of a B-.

With the addition of data showing the Nicholson and Nichols hire (which yours truly had overlooked in focusing too much on the April data), the SCPR lowers the commissioners grade to C-.

A C- is hardly a grade that the commissioners can take any pride in and clearly does not set any kind of example for the remaining Stark County departments of government.

It could be that the 2013 22% commissioners' office increased payroll budgeting is a harbinger of a much more to come in The Report's analysis of increases (both in terms of wage increases and total volume of employees) in other Stark County departments of government.

Commissioner Creighton's statement as set forth above in this blog surely will be put to the test in the mind of Stark County taxpayers and the actual performance of county officials comes to light.

To the SCPR, it is not likely that those numbers from other Stark County departments of government are going to present a pretty picture.

It has to be a bitter pill for private sector employees/taxpayers to swallow that "on average" they are paid less both in terms of base compensation and fringe benefits and to a see public employment increase (while, perhaps, justifiable but hardly a demonstration of a focus on efficiency) with some receiving raises that exceed what is going on in entrepreneurial America these days.

Taxpayers need to monitor what happens to increased tax dollars once they are approved.

And The Report is your window into Stark County government.

The SCPR's next analysis will be on the Stark County auditor's office.

PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO: "MR. MAIER'S QUALIFICATION FOR THE OFFICE OF SHERIFF IS NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED." WOW!

NOTE:  See the SCPR blog (LINK) published earlier today on the Stark County sheriff appointment meeting scheduled for this evening.

Although on January 10th Massillon safety director George T. Maier was into giving guaranties as to his qualifications under Ohio statutory law (ORC 311.01), as of February 5th he has not satisfied Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero that he is qualified.

Here is what Ferrero had to say to the Ohio Supreme Court on Maier's qualifications in an affidavit:

"Mr. Maier's qualification for the office of Sheriff is not clearly established ... "

Hmm?

Maier:  "I guarantee ... "

Hmm?

Is there any doubt should Maier become sheriff that there will be a chilly relationship between "the new sheriff in town" and Stark County's top law enforcer:

The backdrop to all of this is the political competition that has been going on for years now between three Massillon Democratic Party political forces"

• the Maier branch of the Massillon Democratic Party,
• the Ferrero branch of the Massillon Democratic Party, and
• the Cicchinelli branch of the Massillon Democratic Party.

Right now, the Ferreros and the Cicchinelli are pretty much on the same page.

Of late, the Maiers have been bashing Ferrero from the Maier mouthpiece blog (The Massillon Review - believed by the SCPR to be written by Johnnie A. Maier, Jr minion Shane Jackson) on Ferrero's opposition to Maier political protege and mayor of Massillon Kathy Catazaro-Perry's plan to reduce the credit that Massillon's get for paying out-of-Massillon village/city income taxes.

With his affidavit, Ferrero is creating the conditions for all out political warfare to break out, no?

Here is the complete text of Ferrero's affidavit:

(VIDEO: COM'R BERNABEI SETS OUT CRITERIA FOR 2013 BUDGETING) STARK CO. PROSECUTOR FERRERO PROVES ONCE AGAIN HE IS NOT A TEAM PLAYER?

UPDATED STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HEARING SCHEDULE:  01/09/2012 AT 11:30 AM

Last Thursday the Stark County commissioners started the 2013 budget process.

In November, 2011, the commissioners convinced Stark County voters that they had righted the "county ship-of-state" and that they could be trusted to manage a 0.5% increase in the county sales tax.

In 2012 only part of the full increase in revenue (about $22 million per year) was realized by the commissioners inasmuch as collections did not begin until well into the 2012 tax collection cycle.

So 2013 will be the real test as to whether or not trust in the commissioners by the voter is well-founded.

Already, they are being put to the test by guess who?

You've got it.  None other than Stark County Prosecutor John Dee Ferrero!

Ferrero was one of those (whom, by the way, the SCPR agreed with) who advocated, during the decision making process as to what the 2011 levy rate should be, that it be a full 1%.  Joining in with Ferrero was Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson and his then-chief deputy MIke McDonald.

But the commissioners did not agree with them and the issue (#29) was put on for 0.5%.

In the playout since the passage of the levy and the partial pay out in 2012, Swanson was restored in full to his 2010 budget (2012 being the last budget year that the 2008 imposed 0.5 sales tax [Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) was colleted for.

Ferrero was cut and he has complained ever since.

Last budgeting cycle he suggested to commissioners that their failure to give his office (also a criminal justice department of county government [budgeting restoration of which was the primary justification for the levy] might result in his asking Stark County common pleas judges to appoint counsel for the prosecution of cases which would result in no savings to the county.  In fact, if Ferrero followed through with his suggestion, the county could actually have been worse off financially than it would have been had it also restored Ferrero's office to the 2010 level.

For 2013, Ferrero is requesting $3,632,140.60 compared to an actual 2010 "actual received appropriation" of $3,416,976.79.

 

Now he is back, more or less "demanding" to be restored to his 2010 budget so that he can rehire 14 laid off/attrited employees.  (the following are extracted from data sheet provided by Ferrero's office)

So that is where the SCPR thinks it comes out that Ferrero has reluctantly been a "team player" in the past and is showing that if he has his way he will not be a "team player" in 2012.

The question is whether or not the commissioners will hold their ground with Ferrrero?

The SCPR thinks they will.

Here is what Stark County Commissioner Tom Bernabei had to say about the 2013 budgeting process when asked by The Report last Friday:



One cannot blame Ferrero for trying, but the message that he is sending to his fellow Stark County department heads is clearly one of two things:

• the prosecutor's office is more important that other county offices, or
• that he is not a team player

Nevertheless, the SCPR is confident that the commissioners will have the last say.

The Report sees the commissioners as being determined to make all but the sheriff's department share in the sacrifices to be made if they are to squeeze monies out of total revenues for such things as infrastructure repair (e.g. Stark County ditches, the fairgrounds, et cetera), economic development and funding a "rainy day" fund.

The next several weeks of budget hearings and deliberations will tell the day as whether or not they are going to be successful.

Here is a listing of the commissioners' budget hearings

(VIDEO: FERRERO & RHODES EXPLAIN TO COMMISSIONERS) 1,106 DAYS LATER ...... !

No one mentioned local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley yesterday at the regular weekly meeting of Stark County commissioners.

But in the estimation of the SCPR, he should have been in a highly laudatory way.

It was Conley who, more than any other Stark Countian, public official or private citizen, is responsible for bulldoggedly pushing Stark County Prosecutor John D. Ferrero to get moving on recovering for Stark County taxpayers - as much possible, as quickly as possible - the $2.96 million (he admitted to taking $2.46 million) that many believed former Stark County Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci stole from the county treasury.

Conley is also the person who coined the set of Zeigler-constructed administrative circumstances and lack of controls surrounding the Frustaci matter as being Zeiglergate.

The initial revelation of the theft itself was made on April 1, 2009.

The then treasurer Gary D. Zeigler was not implicated in the theft.

However, many (including former Ohio Auditor of State Mary Taylor, Alan Harold [now Stark County auditor] and Alex Zumbar [now Stark County treasurer] alleged that Zeigler had inadequate and deficient processes, procedures, safeguards and physical infrastructure in place to be a deterrent to the apparent ease with which Frustaci made off with taxpayer money.

Hence, the Conley coined the label: Zeiglergate.

From the filing of a federal information filed against Frustaci on June 25, 2010 specifying the $2.4 million, it was puzzling to The Report why Stark County Prosecutor Ferrero was not pursuing a remedy provided under ORC Sections 321.37 and 38 to hold Zeigler liable for the loss.

Of course, the bonding companies for Zeigler and the insurance company covering county employees (Frustaci) needed to be pursued as well as Frustaci himself.

The answer of the Ferrero administration was that it would be premature to file a civil action for recovery until Frustaci was actually sentenced (September, 9, 2010).

Yours truly thought that Ferrero's delayed response was nonsense, as did Craig Conley.

It was Conley who forced Ferrero's hand by filing a civil action (July 2, 2010) in the name of Bethlehem Township resident Tom Marcelli.

Conley had a number of concerns which the SCPR blogged about on July 9, 2010.

Ferrero did not take kindly to Conley's move, but in the end it got the prosecutor motivated to take the suit over.

John Ferrero and Ross Rhodes (Ferrero's chief civil litigator) were at the commissioners' meeting yesterday.

Ferrero and Rhodes explained to commissioners why they should approve a settlement with the bonding company covering the first period of time span that Frustaci began stealing from the county.

Commissioners Bernabei said that the county has recovered about $1.76 million ($1,760,674.30) of the $2.96 million ($2,964,560.00) that is missing which rounds off to about a 60% recovery.

The SCPR does a "tip of the hat" to Craig Conley and bestows upon him a SCPR Unsung Hero Award.

Conley has spent many, many hours without recompense looking out for the taxpayers of Stark County.

He is a model of civic involvement and engagement for all of Stark County's citizens!

Prosecutor Ferrero?

He was merely doing his job and is well compensated ($120,000 per annum) for his work as is the rest of his staff.


He and the commissioners should have publicly singled out and thanked Conley for his "in the public interest - pro bono work.

Had he not filed the Marcelli lawsuit on July 2, 2010, it is likely that the county would still be months away from finally having a resolution to the recovery question.

But such would have taken a magnanimity that seems to be lacking by many public officials, especially Mr. Ferrero.

The Report trusts that Ferrero's 2012 Republican opponent Michael J. Grady will thoroughly scrutinize not only his "less than impressive" performance on this matter but also a rather large list (in the opinion of the SCPR as specifically delineated in previous blogs) of administrative deficiencies demonstrated over the span of the prosecutor's last four years in office.

Here is a video of the commissioners dialogue with Ferrero and Rhodes.

THE FERREROS (JOHN & JAYNE) OF MASSILLON POLITICAL SCENE GETTING IN THE WAY OF MAYOR KATHY CATAZARO-PERRY'S CHANCE FOR SUCCESS? JOHN: INCONSISTENT ON TAXATION QUESTION?

It is becoming more and more apparent to the SCPR that Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero is all about John Ferrero and/or his corner of Stark County government and little, if anything, else.

According to Stark County Auditor records (circa 12/07/2011), Ferrero was set to take in somewhere around $120,000 in Stark County taxpayer dollars as the elected Stark County prosecutor.

Now we have a situation where he was for a Stark County sales tax increase which would benefit his office, but he is against a 50% reduction in Massillon's income tax credit (for non-Massillon taxpayers).

The kicker is that Ferrero works in Canton, but lives in Massillon and a 50% reduction in the Massillon income tax credit would compel him to pay some Massillon city income tax.

THE STARK COUNTY TAX ISSUE

Last year Stark County commissioners were mulling over exactly how much of a levy they would ask Stark Countians to approve and for how long.  It was generally thought that they were gravitating to a 0.5% increase for a period of 8 years.

John Ferrero deferred on the projected 0.5% increased at a public meeting the commissioners held with elected officials in 2011.  He and Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson wanted commissioners to go for a full 1% increase and they wanted it to be permanent.

The commissioners made it clear that for the 0.5%, eight year levy,  that they ultimately decided to go forward with, would require the hard work of each and every county employee and county departments heads such as Ferrero.

Well, we all know "the rest of the story" - sort of.

The levy passed by a surprising margin which was a big, big relief to the commissioners who just recently passed appropriations for the 2012 calendar year county budget.

Who objected to his share of appropriations?  You've got it!  None other than Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero.

As the SCPR sees it, Ferrero tried to muscle down the commissioners by putting out the prospect of asking Stark County's judges (Municipal and Common Pleas) to appoint "special counsel" which - to get to the short of it - would force commissioners in the long run to pay out substantially more than Ferrero was asking for in 2012 appropriations.

Ironically, one leading Stark County public figure contacted yours truly after the successful levy campaign to say that Ferrero sat on his duff during the campaign and did very little to help it pass.

The Report asked Ferrero about this allegation and asked him for some details as to exactly what were the specifics of his effort in promoting the levy.

He refused to respond in any kind of detail.

Hmm?

Stark County Commissioner Tom Bernabei says that he is confident that Ferrero will not make good on his suggestion to "blow up" (The Report's words and assessment in a figurative sense of the expression, not Bernabei's nor Ferrero's) the county budget/appropriations with "special counsel" expenditures.  The Report does not know how Bernabei can be so optimistic.

Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar is making a gallant effort to bring down the delinquent Stark County property taxes which now stand at $43 million.  Zumbar wants go from referring 520 collection cases to the prosecutor's office in 2011 to 700 this year.  (Confirming:  Stark collects $2.4 million in revived tax-collection effort, Kelli Young of The Rep, February 18, 2012).

Good luck Treasurer Zumbar! Take this quote from Young's article, to wit:

More recent collection efforts have been stifled by the county’s budget woes that forced Prosecutor John Ferrero to reassign temporarily one of the paralegals in his delinquent tax collection unit into another division due to layoffs.

Also, The Report recalls that in a Delinquent Tax Assessment Collection (DTAC) work session with commissioners last year that Prosecutor Ferrero noted that the county only gets about 3 to 4 percent of real property taxes collected in Stark County.

So why would he want to put resources into an activity that benefits the cities, villages, townships and boards of education sprinkled across Stark County but which does relatively little for Stark County government?

But he was for the sales tax increase.


THE MASSILLON TAX ISSUE

John Ferrero lives in Massillon and he was Massillon's law director and prosecuting attorney from January, 1988 through February, 2003. 

A Massillon public official for over 15 years and he has a problem paying taxes to the city?

Apparently, so.

The SCPR has learned that Ferrero and his chief assistant John Kurtzman (who also lives in Massillon) appeared at Massillon's city council meeting of November 21, 2011 to object to a plan being pondered to reduce the income tax credit by 50% to Massillonians who work outside the city.

Massillon voters recently elected Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (Massillon clerk of courts) and Shane Jackson (Maier's chief deputy) political protege Kathy Catazaro-Perry as mayor over long term and now former Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. last November.

One of the problems that Catazaro-Perry faces is that Massillon is not in very good financial/fiscal shape.

Of course, she knew this going in and decided to run anyway.

Last year John Ferrero's sister-in-law Jayne Ferrero (Massillon city auditor) proposed the 50% income tax credit as a way to help Massillon (Cicchinelli was still mayor when the tax credit reduction was proposed) get money to at least make an effort to be more current on its expenses which were and continue to run months behind.

So it was a bit confusing when Massillonian John Ferrero and Kurtzman showed up to object and Auditor Jayne Ferrero was nowhere to be seen and, in fact, is reported in the Massillon Independent as now having no opinion on the income tax credit reduction.

Exactly what was the Ferrero/Kurtzman objection?

“You [Massillon City Council] are now pitting families against families ... they [because of the credit reduction?] are taking food away from their children"  (The Independent, February 8, 2012).

The real reason, the SCPR believes, for the Jayne Ferrero turnabout and for the Ferrero/Kurtzman objecting appearance on November 21st is because of their political alliance with the electorally deposed Cicchinelli forces. 

In one sense, the SCPR thinks that the contending political forces (all Democrats) deserve each other.

On the other hand one must pause for thought and consider that it is not the politicos who suffer if the reduction does not pass council.  Rather it is the residents of the city of Massillon.

If Catazaro-Perry does not get additional revenue that the reduction would bring in (estimated at $600,000 this year; $1.5 million next year), cuts will have to be made that likely will affect the well-being of Massillonians.

Catazaro-Perry by virtue of having been elected by the citizens of Massillon deserves an opportunity to govern.  Notwithstanding her knowing what she was getting into, it is in the interest of Massillonians that she have a fair chance to show what she can do to right the fiscal structure of the city of Massillon.

The SCPR has criticized and continues to admonish Mayor Kathy for relying too much on the likes of Maier and Jackson.  A major reason she is in her current fix is because of the political warfare that is obviously continuing post-election between the Maier-led forces and Cicchinelli loyalists.

CONCLUSION

John Ferrero could be a major factor in helping to stabilize both Stark County government as well as Massillon's.

But it appears that he is not inclined to do so as evidenced by uncooperative attitude vis-a-vis commissioners in the budgeting process post-0.5% sales tax increase (which he supported) and by his opposition to the proposed 50% reduction in the Massillon income tax credit.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of a person who is doing his own thing.

So it is not surprising that John Ferrero is for increased taxes to help solve Stark County's fiscal emergency but not Massillon's.

Coming full circle:  It is becoming more and more apparent to the SCPR that Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero is all about John Ferrero and/or his corner of Stark County government and little, if anything, else.

And consistency be hanged!