AN UNFAVORABLE ZEIGLER SETTLEMENT COULD MEAN POLITICAL DEFEAT FOR COMMISSIONERS BERNABEI & FERGUSON?

Just about everybody in Stark County government just wants Stark County Treasurer to be gone! gone!! gone!!!

A week ago today, as we media types waited as a Stark County commissioners executive session meeting with Stark County Ross Rhodes et al  dragged on and on and on, yours truly figured out what this session was all about:  "a discussion of the way to reach a settlement with Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler to get him out of office.

Conventional thinking is that as long as Zeigler continues as Stark County Treasurer as he was when his employee and then Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci is believed to have stolen $2.96 million (he admitted in his guilty plea to having stolen $2.46 millon) in Stark County taxpayer dollars, Issue 29 (a county sales tax of 0.5% proposal) has no chance of passing.

The SCPR agrees with Stark County Prosecutor John Fererro's assessment as reported by Kelli Young in Treasurer’s presence in county government weighs on sales tax vote, The Repository, October 5, 2011.

Ferrero expressed doubt that whether or not Zeigler is present as county treasurer as being a material factor in whether or not the new tax will pass.

Should the county agree to a settlement with Zeigler which results in his resignation from office, the major factor will not not be a groundswell of support for the tax issue.

The larger factor, the SCPR believes, is how the public would perceive the favorability/unfavorability of the specific terms of any such settlement and the fallout on the two November, 2012 commissioner races.

Commissioners Tom Bernabei and Pete Ferguson are up for re-election in 2012.  So far, neither they nor any prospective opponents have taken out petitions from the Stark County Board of Elections.

Whether or not they (especially Bernabei) seek re-election could hinge on whether or not the sales tax passes in the first place.  Presuming that it does pass and both decide to run, then any settlement could play significantly in their chances for re-election.

The Report believes that it is highly unlikely that a settlement can be reached before November 8th and even if it does, it will take time for the Stark County voting public to absorb and reflect on the terms of the settlement, and determine whether or not the commissioner adequately protected the Stark County taxpayer interest in negotiating a settlement.

Such is the "tightrope" that the commissioners, and more specifically Commissioners Bernabei and Ferguson, are walking on as they consider whether or not they can abide settling with Zeigler.

In any event, Zeigler, of course, has no chance whatsoever of being re-elected should negotiations totally breakdown.  Already waiting in the wings is former Treasurer Alex Zumbar who Zeigler's attorney has described as a usurper treasurer for the time he served after Stark County commissioners removed Zeigler from office in 2010.

Whether or not Zeigler serves to September, 2013 (the statutory end to his term) is unknown as this blog is written, but the SCPR is confident that Zeigler's successor will be Zumbar.

A Zeigler resignation will likely mean that commissioners will be appointing an interim treasurer if Zeigler resigns and The Report believes that the choice will be Zumbar.

The Report doubts that Stark's Democrats will put up a candidate to oppose Zumbar, that's how well taken Stark County officialdom (Democrats included) were with Zumbar for the time that he served as Stark County treasurer.

VIDEO: COMMISSIONER TODD BOSLEY HOPING THAT THE "THIRD TIME IS THE CHARM." HMM?

UPDATED:  05.45 AM

You don't hear it often but Wednesday past Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley at the regular Stark County commissioners' weekly meeting is seen in the accompanying video wistfully intoning the well known cliche "the third time is the charm," but he tails off into a pondering (perhaps a questioning) mode.

The SCPR thinks that the chances of the Stark County commissioners getting to remove Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler from office today at 1:30 PM in a meeting called for that purpose at Room 318 of the Stark County Office Building is just that:  "a hope and and a prayer."

Stark Countians who want a return to normalcy in Stark County government should be "praying and fasting" between now and 9:00 AM on Monday morning when Geauga County Court of Common Pleas Frederick Inderlied makes his decision on whether or not to issue a preliminary junction prohibiting the commissioners from holding the hearing under Ohio Revised Code Section 321.38 to remove Zeigler from office, that Lordly wisdom plays large in the determination of Judge Inderlied.

If Judge Inderlied goes with what a number of legal observers believe the law holds, it appears to the SCPR that Zeigler will triumph in the courts.

The Report's mind says Zeigler will be with Stark Countians as a public official until September, 2013 presuming that Stark Countians take matters into their own hands via the ballot box (either in the the Democratic primary in May, 2012 or the general election in November, 2012) to remove Zeigler.

But The Report's heart is hoping for divine intervention.  Perhaps the Lord will provide Judge Inderlied with an insight on the law that some of the best legal minds in Stark County and across Ohio do not presently see.

Anything short of a miracle will keep Stark County embroiled in a negative downward spiral with Stark Countians sinking into new lower levels of a "lack of confidence" in the administration of Stark County government pretty much across the board.

In May, 2011 Stark Countians will get their chance to tell commissioners and Zeigler (if he is still in office) how discontented they are with them and him and a number of other county officials, when they get the opportunity to vote as to whether or not to renew a 0.25 percent of a countywide sales tax which expires in 2011.

Zeigler has refused to step down from office despite public outcry that he do so for not properly minding the store and thereby creating conditions enabling his former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci to make off with about $2.46 million to cover gambling debts.

Frustaci has admitted to the theft in open federal court and has provided to the media that gambling debt is the reason he stole the money.

Will Zeigler ever resign?

The SCPR thinks he will or, at least, not seek re-election once it becomes apparent to him that there is one barrier that a lawsuit will not solve.

What barrier is that?

The ultimate term limit barrier: The constitutional right of "we the people" to determine at the end of the day whether or not a public official remains in office.

The voting public is entitled, as a matter of the supreme constitutional law of Ohio and of "the land," to say to Zeigler:  "We know you think you have not done anything to merit removal from office, but we think differently.  We believe a la Harry Truman that "the buck does stop" with the holder of the public trust whether or not he did anything actionable at law."

If Zeigler goes to the point of being turned out by the voters in his quest to remain in office, the SCPR believes that the damage done to Stark Countians' confidence in their right to get a speedy solution to a perceived misfeasance by a public official in ensuring the safety of public funds will spill over onto the whole of Stark County's governors for years to come in terms of a heightened public cynicism. 

Here is the video of Commissioner Bosley on his "the third time is the charm" utterance and the commissioners voting on a resolution to set of today's hearing.

ZEIGLER'S STRATEGY? STARK VOTERS WILL FORGET OVER THE PASSAGE OF TIME? WELL, THERE IS A LOT OF TIME: 96 MILLION, 163 THOUSAND AND 200 SECONDS. WOW!

 

 The SCPR has been writing that Stark Countians should expect Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler to be in office through December 31, 2010?

Lord have mercy!  If only it were true.

But it isn't.

If Zeigler survives a coming Stark County commissioner effort to unseat him (perhaps on August 23, 2010), then he could be around for the duration of his term which he was elected to in November, 2008.

However, as informed by a knowledge source, the date of the end of Gary Zeigler as Stark County treasurer (assuming that Stark Countians do not re-elect him) will be September 2, 2013.  And, of course, the SCPR has confirmed the source by digging out the specific statute.

Over three years from today's date!

With that kind of time left in office if he can fend off the commissioners, why wouldn't he fight them to live another day?  And, undoubtedly, he is hoping that time will dull the memory and the zeal of Stark County voters to remove him from office.

Zeigler apparently does not accept the notion that the "buck stops with him as the head official" at the Stark County treasury.  He has repeatedly said that he has managed the office the way it should be managed.

He stands behind his management style and substance though he has made at least 12 corrections to internal treasury procedures as Kelli Young of The Repository wrote on June 14th (Stark treasurer makes changes in wake of investigation), to wit:

In the 14 months since Treasurer Gary Zeigler fired his chief deputy treasurer on suspicion of theft, Zeigler has implemented at least a dozen changes in the office, including additional security for the county vault and improvements to the office’s cash-handling procedures.

Also, on the fact that former Zeigler Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci had access to Stark County treasury checks with which he obtained $230,000 in Stark County taxpayer money, the persistently "unrepentant" Zeigler had this to say:

Zeigler said his office stopped using checks last year. All transfers between county accounts are now handled through electronic wire transfers, which require two signatures. The auditor’s office handles any checks that need to be reissued, he said.

“It’s a much safer way to transfer the money.” (FirstMerit to repay money stolen from Treasurer's office, Young, August 12, 2010)

So Treasurer Zeigler "admits" specifically that something could have been done better under his watch?

Hmm?

But it is irrelevant that Zeigler could have or should have done managed the treasury better.  He's staying, if Ohio law allows him to, for the duration.

What does the duration look like?

Okay, one more look.

STARK COUNTY TREASURER ZEIGLER COSTING TAXPAYERS MORE MONEY?

Apparently, Stark County taxpayers are likely to be thinking, Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler wants to keep on costing the Stark County taxpayers.

Of course, Treasurer Zeigler has been saying all along that he hasn't cost Stark Countians anything.  Moreover, his supporters see him as a heroic public official who quickly and decisively acted when he learned of troubles within his office.

It appears that Zeigler through his attorneys is asking Stark County taxpayers to foot the bill for him defending himself in a lawsuit on bonds purchased at county expense (as are all bonds for county employees when required as a condition of employment by Ohio law). Moreover, as part of his defense, Zeigler seems to want taxpayers to pay for waging a fight to keep county commissioners from dismissing him from office under the provisions of Ohio Revised Code Section 321.38.

While Judge Frederick Inderlied's order does not specifically and explicitly say that taxpayers are to pay for Zeigler's legal fees, attorneys, according to custom and usage in the profession, understand "appointed" also means taxpayers pay.

Here is a copy of the order.

 Note that Zeigler added to his legal team.  He started off with Dennis Thompson of Thompson & Bishop out of  Akron.  Now, according to Inderlied's order he has added Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Cook and Batista out of Avon, Ohio

Let's do a summarization from the taxpayers' perspective as to what they are "out-of-pocket" because of moneys coming up missing from the Stark treasury:

• $2.46 million (the theft that Frustaci has admitted to)
• $500,000 (the approximate amount of other missing money)
• $209,000 (the cost the post-theft Ohio Auditor's forensic audit
• ????????? (the cost of Zeigler's attorney fees)

Many, if not most Stark Countians paying attention, and the Auditor of State Mary Taylor disagree with Treasurer Zeigler's contention that he hasn't cost Stark County taxpayers; at least, in the sense that he did not have proper checks and balances in place to prevent Vince Frustaci (Zeigler's chief deputy) to make off with 2.46 million Stark County tax dollars over the period of a number of years. 

Moreover, the SCPR believes most Stark Countians hold Zeigler accountable on the basis that "he is the man in charge" and "anything that happens on your watch is your responsibility and you need to accept the consequences."  Kind of a "the buck stops here - Harry Truman-esque" phenomenon.

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.

STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO REMOVE STARK CO TREASURER ZEIGLER ON MONDAY OF NEXT WEEK? COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO BE UNHAPPY WITH FERRERO'S LEGAL ADVICE, NO? SCPR'S CANDIDATE TO REPLACE ZEIGLER? GARY YOUNG OF CITY OF CANTON AUDITOR'S OFFICE!

The Stark County Political Report (SCPR) just learned from multiple highly reliable sources  that the Stark County commissioners will remove Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler in a specially called meeting for Monday at 3:00 PM.

Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 321.38 the commissioners "may" remove the county treasurer (Zeigler, in Stark County's case) once a lawsuit under ORC Section 321.37 has been instituted by the county prosecutor.

 

The SCPR has learned that Stark County Prosecutor was to have filed a ORC 312.37 lawsuit this afternoon at 3:00 PM.

Speaking of Prosecutor Ferrero, the Stark County commissioners have to be hugely displeased with him on account of his advice, very publicly made, that the commissioners could not proceed until Vince Frustaci (who admitted to stealing $2.46 million from the Stark treasury in federal court on June 25th) is sentenced on September 7th.

Yours truly never believed that story.  Nor did the civic minded Attorney Craig T. Conley who by persistence forced Ferrero's hand into acting today to bring a legal action which is a precondition to the commissioners removing Zeigler.

Conley should be seen as a heroic figure to Stark Countians in pushing the resolution of what he calls Zeiglergate.  He is doing this work pro bono (for the public good - no fee charged).

The  Report is pleased to see that the editors of The Repository recognize Conley's key role in getting Ferrero moving (How much worse can this mess get?, July 28, 2010), to wit:

County commissioners have just been outwitted by the attorney for a private citizen who’s suing Treasurer Gary Zeigler over the $2.96 million that is missing from Zeigler’s office.

Attorney Craig Conley had warned commissioners and county Auditor Kim Perez that he’d ask the Ohio Supreme Court to intervene if they didn’t immediately sue Zeigler themselves to start the process of recovering the money.

But they should not blame the commissioners.  They were relying on Ferrero's advice.  What?  Should they have hired private legal counsel and defied their government attorney and legal adviser?

The SCPR salutes Conley for his terrific work for the Stark County citizenry.

The Report has also learned that Zeigler and his legal counsel may be consider instituting proceeds to get a judge with jurisdiction to block any removal action by commissioners.

The commissioners are to appoint a replacement if they decide to remove Zeigler.

A good candidate to replace Zeigler would be Canton Auditor office employee Gary Young.  He is one of the top administrators in Canton and is respected by organized Republicans and Democrats alike for his "no-nonsense" style of administration and for his high degree of integrity.

The SCPR has spoken to Young and he says that a number of folks have brought the idea of the possibility of his being a candidate for the selection.

Young did not rule out his availability to The Report.  But he is not soliciting support for the position either.

Let's see if the commissioners have the ability to pick Young or someone of  his caliber.  It is time for the turmoil surrounding the Stark County treasury to end.  A time of healing is in order.

To the commissioners:

Take Charita Goshay's (columnist at The Rep), put political considerations aside, and endeavor to pick the very best person you can find as the successor to Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler!!!

BONDING & INSURANCE COMPANIES TO LESSEN BURDEN OF FRUSTACI THEFT ON STARK COUNTY TAXPAYERS? SEE COPY OF FERRERO LETTER RESPONDING TO PEREZ REQUEST THAT HE PURSUE BOND/INSURANCE MONIES

UPDATE:  07/28/2008

Today's "status conference" has been postponed.  The SCPR has been informed that Judge Marvin Shapiro will not be the judge to replace the recused Judge John Haas and that the Ohio Supreme Court is in the process of selecting another judge.

ORIGINAL POST

How much is Stark County's "Rainy Day Fund" going to get hit by the recent revelation that the missing funds from the Stark County treasury (about $3 million) of which $2.46 million is due to the admitted theft by former treasury Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci?

Probably about $2 million, but it could be significantly less.

How is that?

By the action of local citizen activist and attorney Craig Conley.

First of all, he is forcing the hand of Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero on the matter of pursuing Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler for recovery from his personal/individual assets.

On July 2nd Conley filed a lawsuit on the behalf of Stark County taxpayers in the name of Bethlehem Township citizen Tom Marcelli against Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler in his personal/individual capacity (which means going after Zeigler's personal/real property holdings if a judgment is obtained).

Judge Haas of the Stark County Common Pleas Court has recused himself and the case has been taken up by visiting judge Marvin Shapiro of Summit County.  Shapiro retired from the Summit Court of Common Pleas on March 31, 2008.

Stark Countians will know more tomorrow the date and time for a "status conference" called by Judge Shapiro) about who (Prosecutor Ferrero or Attorney Conley) will be trying the case.

This the lawsuit that could help Stark County taxpayers dip below the $2 million loss (after bonds, insurance and other resources have been collected on). 

The SCPR believes this lawsuit should have been filed on June 25th (the date that the "Bill of Information" against Frustaci was filed in federal court and to which Frustaci pled guilty).

A legal fiction was circulating around government and political circles (which the SCPR believes was generated by the Stark County Prosecutor's Office) that the suit was premature because Frustaci had not yet been sentenced.

Conley says that such is not the case.

Second of all, Conley, on July 22nd, opened up a second front in forcing Prosecutor John Ferrero's hand on initiating action to collect on bonds (2 - $250,000 bonds) and an insurance policy ($500,000) that the county owns on the performance of Treasurer Zeigler in terms of any losses to county funds during his term(s) in office.

He wrote Stark County commissioners and Stark County Auditor Kim Perez that they had an obligation to pursue the bonds and insurance coverage on Zeigler and, in the case of insurance, on Frustaci.

Yesterday, Perez responded with a request to Ferrero to proceed.

Again, Ferrero's action, when taken, will be over a month after the filing of the federal Bill of Information against Frustaci.

Why so long?

The commissioners and Perez were asleep at the switch.  However, they were relying on Prosecutor Ferrero to inform them as to what their legal position is as well as the timetable action.  The SCPR believes that the problem with with the prosecutor's office.

Again, there were legal fictions being floated about on preconditions for filing.  First, the necessity of sentencing of Frustaci and secondly contract language in the bond/insurance policies requiring the passage of a certain period of time before suit could be filed.

Conley tells the SCPR that such is not the case.

Moreover, Conley tells The Report that if suit on the bonds/insurance is not filed by this Friday, he will be filing another suit in the name of Tom Marcelli as a surrogate for Stark County taxpayers.

If it were not for Craig T. Conley, the SCPR believes that the taxpayers of Stark County would be in jeopardy of losing their ability to recover from Zeigler on what Conley says is his "strict liability" for the missing funds (remember, nearly $3 million) which occurred during his terms in office.

 Last week Prosecutor Ferrero lambasted Conley in local media for "costing taxpayers money."  Quite to the contrary.   Conley has potentially saved taxpayers $2 million.  A public records request by Conley for records evidencing the costs that Ferrero claim has gone unproduced upon because?:  "the do not exist." Conley says he is being told by prosecutor officer personnel.

Attorney Craig T. Conley has been a prime mover for the Stark County taxpayers and is due a debt of gratitude from all of us!!!

 By the way here is a copy of Ferrero's response to Stark County Auditor Kim Perez's request for Ferrero to proceed on the bond/insurance collections.

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.