A CASE STUDY: WHO WILL PAY FOR STARK CO SCHOOLS? VOLUME 1

On October 21, 2013, the Stark County Political Report did a blog on the battle between the Canton City School District and a company by the name of Amerimar with respect to a fight between the two over who is going pay real property tax on Canton's major office building complex; namely, The Huntington Bank (Huntington).

The Amerimar/Canton City Schools battle is a microcosm of the on going battle between Stark County "individual" property owners and taxpayers "in general" as to who is going to foot the bill for funding Stark County's schools.

In March, 2013 the Canton City Schools (CCS) filed a complaint on the valuation/tax appraisal by the Stark County Auditor's office on Huntington.

Accordingly, the Stark County Board of Revision (a division of the Stark County auditor's office) sent notices (three in all) to Amerimar notifying the company of the CCS complaints.

In preparing the October 21 blog, the SCPR put together this estimated analysis of the taxes stake.

By The Report's calculation, the CCS has about $130,000 at stake over and above what Amerimar is conceding in terms of property tax increase.

In November, 2013 the Board of Revision sided with the CCS and send Amerimar this notice: (again, one of three notices)

Consequently, on December 16, 2013, this:

So the battle is on in the courts as to whom will pay the taxes that the Board of Revision is saying is owing for Real Property Tax Year 2012 and, of course, ensuing tax years.

While this case is only one case, the SCPR thinks it is emblematic of the rather large overall fight between individual property owners and Stark County school districts over whether the county assessed tax bill is to be borne by the "individual" property owner or spread out over "all" taxpayers in a given school district.

And most real property taxes are for schools.

Witness this SCPR extract from a rate schedule published by Stark County treasurer Alex Zumbar.

The Report has embarked on an investigation of the factors that the  Stark County taxpaying public should focus upon in coming to an opinion on how the Board of Revision functions and whether or not a proper balance is struck between individual property owners and the county's school districts.

While the SCPR will fan out to cover nearly every one of the 17 school districts that seem to be involved in the process of challenging individual real property valuations for real property tax purposes, the main focus will be on the Amerimar/CCS legal fight.

As this blog is written, each side has written a brief.

In ensuing blogs the SCPR will touch on the keystone legal issues that the court will decide and bring other battles (including videotapes of proceedings) taking place at the Board of Revision level.

One thing that is readily apparently is that the Stark County auditor's office Board of Revision is doing an exceptional job in processing valuation of complaints.

Do not look for a headline like this one to be appearing in Stark County media:

And a sampling of school districts and the costs absorbed.  (LINK to entire list)

Using the Amerimar/CCS case as an example, the Stark County auditor's office came to a decision in the case within an eight-month timeframe.

Given the number of complaints filed and other work handled by the Stark County Board of Revision, the SCPR thinks an eight month administrative process is quite acceptable.

Each week from here on out, The Report will be reporting/analyzing on the particulars of the Amerimar/CCS case and on the many other cases pending before the Board of Revision.

After all, YOUR TAX DOLLARS are at stake!

ZEIGLER CASE DELAYED: WHILE HIS ATTORNEYS CLEAR UP "TECHNICAL" PROBLEM? JUDGE TO RE-CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT ZEIGLER IS TO HAVE HIS ATTORNEY FEES PAID BY STARK COUNTY TAXPAYERS

Updated at 2:00 PM

 Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler's original "team" of lawyers - Thompson & Bishop (of the Akron area) - were nowhere to be seen yesterday within the confines of the Stark County Courthouse.  At least, yours truly did not see either of them.

It appears that Zeigler (presumably on the advice of Thompson & Bishop) has determined that new legal counsel is needed to handle his defense to the lawsuit filed by Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero on July 28, 2010 to collect from bonding companies, an insurance company and Treasurer Zeigler himself (personally and individually) in a prosecutorial quest to recover for Stark County taxpayers nearly $3 million in missing funds that has occurred during the time Zeigler has held office (hereinafter referred to as LAWSUIT).

Most of the missing money is from the $2.46 million that former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci has admitted to stealing.  He made his admission on June 25, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for Northern Ohio.

The SCPR had been hearing that there was some question as to whether or not the Thompson & Bishop generated (for Zeigler) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in response to the LAWSUIT was legally sufficient.

It is interesting to note that an apparently "curative" Zeigler affidavit (not filed with the original motion) was filed yesterday, to wit:

In the video that accompanies this blog, Judge H.F. Inderlied, Jr (sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court) seems to confirm that there needs to be a re-work of Zeigler's effort to stop Stark County commissioners from removing him from office.

A new legal team from Avon, Ohio (Wickens, Herzer, Cook, Panza and Battista, a 28 person law firm) has entered their appearance and conducted Zeigler's representation yesterday.

From Judge Inderlied's remarks from the bench, it appears Stark Countians can expect a replacement for the legally "fragile" Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Tuesday, August 17th.  The county commissioner filed case was about collecting money; not removing Zeigler. The parties agreed that Zeigler's counsel would file a Writ of Prohibition which will likely also be heard by Judge Inderlied.

Judge Inderlied also addresses his intent to re-examine the law (on the initiative of a motion filed by Stark County prosecutors) as to whether or not Zeigler is entitled to have Stark County taxpayers to pay for his legal representation on the LAWSUIT.

Stark Countians should be pleased that Judge Inderlied in yesterday's hearing is allowing county commissioners to proceed under Ohio Revised Code Section 321.38 subject, of course, to a ruling of whether or not the removal process provided for in this statute passes constitutional muster.

All of Zeigler's legal maneuverings indicate a county treasurer who is in complete denial as to any responsibility he has for allowing conditions to exist at the treasurer's office that may have created opportunities for Frustaci to make off with county money.

He may or may not succeed in the legal arena.  However, it is clear to the SCPR that in the public arena the public mind is that he does bear responsibility in the sense of Harry Truman-esque "the buck stops here."

The Report does not believe there is any question that Gary Zeigler is history as Stark County treasurer come December 31, 2012.

He may achieve a "phyric victory" in the legal sense; but in end,  the Stark County people will have their way by removing Zeigler from office through the election process.

Like others, the SCPR believes he should resign.

But a Zeigler resignation is not going to happen.

Here is Judge Inderlied at yesterday's hearing.

VIDEO: SEE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESPOND TO REPOSITORY EDITORIAL THAT BLAMES COMMISSIONERS FOR ALLOWING OHIO AUDITOR TO HIDE "LETTER OF ARRANGEMENT" WITH STARK TREASURER. A SHAMEFUL PIECE OF EDITORIAL WRITING!

Anyone who has read the SCPR knows that The Report has a very low opinion of the work of the editorial writers at The Repository.

The editorial written on April 20th (State auditor's letter should be public) did nothing to rehabilitate the editorialists in The Report's eyes.  If anything, the April 20th opinion was a reaffirmation of yours truly's view that these folks have to be among the worst editorial writers in America.

They completely missed the "real" issue on the hidden "letter of arrangement" initiated on June 16, 2009 by the Ohio auditor with the Stark County treasurer as amended on December 8, 2009.

The real issue is who is ultimately responsible for the letter being hidden from public view.

Answer:  Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor, CPA, that's who.

The Rep editors demonstrated warped, twisted thinking in turning the blame on the Stark County commissioners.

They really went out-of-bounds in suggesting that somehow "all" the commissioners - being Democrats - was the reason they failed to exercise the necessary level of due diligence to dig out the secret letters.  (emphasis added).

One expects this kind of "loosey-goosey" thinking from wildly partisan types who want to demonize for purely partisan purposes.  But an editorial board?  Wow!

The nub of the weak-minded editorial is clearly evident in this language from the editorial, to wit:

We’d bet that if even one of the commissioners belonged to a different political party from the treasurer (all are Democrats), he would have been using his bully pulpit to protest this arrangement — this loophole in the public records law — that keeps commissioners and the public in the dark.

 And, also:

Neither has the willingness of county commissioners to pay the bills for the investigation without knowing just what services they’re buying.

First, the "loophole in the public records law."

Well, apparently nobody (except for the Ohio auditor and Stark treasury attorney Lem Green and Treasurer Zeigler himself), including The Repository (April 12th?) knew about the existence of the letter until this past week.  Moreover, nobody, including government "Sunshine Law" guardian for Stark County (sarcasm folks) "The Repository" knew about the legal loophole.

So the "loosey-goosey" thinking Rep editorial writers want to hold the "out-of-the-loop" (as a matter of law as interpreted by the Ohio auditor's office) commissioners' feet to the fire to know about secretly held documents that are secret not because they contain confidential information in and of themselves but because they are associated with a confidential investigation in progress.

Hmm?

A logical Ohio auditor's official would think thusly:  "Gee, I am doing an investigation.  I want to be paid for the investigating work.  Maybe, just maybe, I need to get a copy to of the letters outlining the expense of the investigation to the bill payer."

It is ludicrous for anyone to think (like the Ohio auditor's office apparently does) that a document which contains no confidential information in and of itself would itself be confidential.  Moreover, how is the paying authority to know what to expect to have to pay.

As far as the SCPR is concerned the bogeymen in all of this reside in the Ohio auditor's office.

First, for suggesting to Zeigler's office in a leading way of how to avoid the document being a public document.

Lem Green, legal counsel for the Stark treasury told the SCPR yesterday that if he had it to do all over again he would advise Treasurer Zeigler not to take the suggestion of the Ohio auditor not to keep a copy of the document.

Second, for providing defective rationale for the document being a part of the investigation process and therefore confidential when the document does not contain any confidential information in and of itself.

The Rep editors do make one plausible point. If yours truly were a commissioner I would be more than a little uncomfortable paying bills in a year 2002 agreement.  I would be pressing Taylor's office for something more current.

Question is, would such a discussion have prompted a revelation of the "letters of arrangement?"

The SCPR thinks not.

So the only resource of the commissioners would have been to press the point by refusing to pay until they had a more current document than the year 2002 "letter of arrangement."

Obviously, the commissioners felt comfortable with the 2002 document and therefore felt there was no need to press for something more recent. The SCPR does not think that they should have felt comfortable.

There is one more point to be discussed.

When did Kelli Young of The Rep find out about the existence of the June 16, 2009 and December 8, 2009 "letters of arrangement?"

The SCPR has reason to believe she found out on or about April 12, 2010.

Which, if substantiated, makes a hypocrite out of The Repository.

How so?

The Repository bills itself as an expert on Ohio's Sunshine Law.  Do they mean to say that they did not know about the "loophole" until April 12, 2010?  Not much of an expert, huh?

The hypocrisy?

We (The Rep) didn't know about the loophole until April, 2010, but you, Mr. Commissioners, should have known the first time you paid an Ohio auditor's invoice (presumably sometime in 2009) for the ongoing forensic audit of the Stark treasury notwithstanding your year 2002 "letter of arrangement."

For thinking people, The Rep's editorial tells you more about these editors' flawed thinking qualities than anything else.

Until the SCPR arrived on the scene Stark Countians had no choice - in a one newspaper town - but to abide the opinionating of these deficient thinkers.

Now the bar is raised.

And The Rep's writers had better sharpen up or sooner rather than later virtually no one will be reading the editorial pieces appearing in The Repository.

Here is the video of yesterday's commissioner meeting in which Commissioners Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks defend themselves.

DISCUSSION: "THE BLAME GAME" HAS BEGUN?

How come it took this long?

Yes, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) has learned that "The Blame Game" has begun.

A Stark County based official has told The Report that Republican Mary Taylor (of nearby City of Green - Summit County) and Ohio's auditor has started pointing her finger at Stark County treasurer for not providing enough oversight of Vince Frustaci, Zeigler's chief deputy.

Mary Taylor is the only elected Republican holding statewide office in Columbus (except for the Ohio Supreme Court which is staffed by seven Republican justices - including, of course, the chief justice)

One of the things Taylor can and likely is doing (in the opinion of The Report). is using her office as a political weapon against Democrats (not in an exclusionary to Republican officeholders sense) both at local levels of government as as her office fans out across Ohio and at the state level. The Report suspects that a Democrat would do the same thing for the Democratic party. It is all part of the political game playing that goes on between elected Republicans and Democrats.

In this day and age, the general public is highly cynical of the motives of most "high powered" politicians of whichever political party.

So when it comes to government accountability, you and I are left to choose our political poison.

Who do you believe in a finger-pointing contest which is apparently underway in the Frustaci investigation?

On the one hand, Zeigler tries to pass off Frutaci as a person who qualified on his merits to be hired nine years ago. And this may be. But, The Report, being as knowledgeable of how politics works as yours truly is; is more than a tad skeptical of Zeigler protestations.

Even if the Frustaci hire was essentially a hiring as a consequence of his political connections, how does that make Zeigler responsible for what he alleged to have done - if the allegations are proven?

The argument that appeals to The Report is that relationships become so chummy and cozy because of the frequent outside-of-work political camaraderie environment contacts, that due diligence standards ("trust, but verify") get relaxed and a ripe opportunity for troubles comes into being.

Did this kind of relationship develop between Zeigler and Frustaci? Was Zeigler taken advantage of? Did he create the conditions to be taken advantage of?

The Report believes that Zeigler set himself up to be had by buying too much into "good ol boy political buddy" world.

If so, Zeigler will bear some, if not most, of the responsibility, if the Frustaci allegations are proven to be true.

On the other hand, The Report understands that Mary Taylor, the Ohio auditor, has been checking the Stark County books for a little over two years now (Taylor took office in January, 2007). And up to now, no problem. How come?

It was Stark County auditor Kim Perez and Zeigler himself who spotted the trouble with the account in question after being called by the county treasury's banker.

Because Democrats control Stark County, The Report believes that Republican Taylor has the standard added incentive political motivation (as described above) to ferret out Democratic wrongdoing. How did she miss this one?

The Columbus-centered Republican pols are not going to be happy with this screw-up, Mary!

The Stark County based-official referred to above, speculates that it is one of two things (sort of an "either/or" thinking model that people like to use in trying to make sense of a situation) that accounts for the Taylor failure to pick up on the missing money for the two years her office has been inspecting Stark County treasury's books.

One would be that somehow one of Taylor's subordinates was in on the whole scheme.

Hum? Not something The Report believes is the case.

The Report's source on the whole Frustaci saga hss all along been suggesting to The Report that a bank employee may have facilitated the missing money situation. Zeigler himself may have inadvertently given credibility to this possibility in telling The Report on Wednesday that there may be a federal aspect to this case because of the banking factor.

Were there three individuals in on the whole set up? For two years?

In 2009, The Report is shocked by very little. But if it turns out that the source's take is borne out; yours truly will be astonished.

The other source conjecture is that the Ohio auditor's operation is inept. At least on the Stark County watch.

Inept? What would such portend for the finances for the entire state of Ohio?

If the official is correct on either premise, doesn't Mary Taylor deserve blame just the same as Stark Countian Gary Zeigler?

If both are to blame, who is left to protect the public's interest?

THE ANSWER: No one. That's why Stark County is missing "a lot of money!"

When politics and/or political relationships enter the picture, then all safeguards get neutered. If one has an alarm, but the alarm gets disarmed; what good is the alarm in the first place?

And all that is left is? You've got it: FINGER-POINTING.