WHO IS TO BLAME ON FRUSTACI MATTER, OTHER THAN FRUSTACI HIMSELF? ZEIGLER? PEREZ? TAYLOR? ZEIGLER, PEREZ & TAYLOR IN COMBO? HOW ABOUT THE CANTON REPOSITORY? HASN'T THE REP BEEN REMISS IN PUBLIC OFFICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY?

Stark County politicians are fully engaged in the "blame game" as to how Stark County government finds itself in a morass of responsibility-shirking, unimaginative, stilted and hence failed leadership.  And the same malady faces a number of Stark County political subdivisions (villages, cities, townships and boards of education).

But politicians come and go while our civic and entrepreneurial institutions endure.

One local "entrepreneurial" institution that, in the judgment of the Stark County Political Report, would be a huge disappointment to its founder John Saxton, is The Canton Repository.

"Truth shall be his guide, the publick  (sic) good his aim ...  well-informed men,  of all parties, are invited to make it a Repository of their sentiments."

The Repository has been a Stark County newspaper monopoly for quite a few years.  But what benefit has its monopolistic and therefore its powerful place in Stark County life been for everyday Stark Countians and the quality of their local governments?

The SCPR believes that the Frustaci matter and the revelation of deficient government (in its internal checks and balances) to the Stark County public is that The Repository, in recent decades, has not been "all that it could have been" for the public good in terms of visiting hard-hitting accountability upon Stark's governors.

As he was on his way out the door at The Rep, former executive editor David Kaminski (now with the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce) as executive editor huffed and puffed as if he was going to blow a political house or two in (i.e. equating The Rep to a 800-pound gorilla that buys ink by the barrel).  But he never did and has melted into the "poobah" element of Stark County's upper crust.

Kaminski proved to be a "big bad wolf" who, in the end, ineffectively used The Rep's powerful place locally to monitor Stark government and politics for the betterment of Stark Countians.  And current Executive Editor Jeff Gauger seems to be following Kaminski's suit.

Enforcement of accountability rightly done by this Saxton-founded newspaper (which is nearing its 200th year anniversary (2015), and Stark County government could be much better than we are seeing these days.

Recently Charita Goshay, the talented writer for The Repository, got closer to the truth than any of her peers in her piece:  When politics triumphs public service, everyone loses (July 12, 2010).

Here is her nugget of truth:

It’s now clear that the current mess might have been avoided had Democrats done the honorable thing in 1999 and replaced the disgraced Roach with Linda Karman, who was infinitely more qualified than Zeigler by sheer virtue of her 22 years’ experience in the office as a deputy treasurer, head cashier and interim treasurer.

What Goshay failed to do is to recount to the Stark County public the many failures of The Repository over recent decades to use its monopolistic "bully pulpit" to bring pressure to bear to stop the 1999 Zeigler appointment and other local political party abuses of their patronage powers.

Moreover, Goshay failed to identify current Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero as the party chairman who presided over and likely played a key role in the selection of the politician Zeigler over public servant Karman.

It has been characteristic of The Rep's opinion people to use vague reference (e.g. Democrats/Republicans) as to the identity of the offenders of local good government.  Naming names of public officials in specificity has not been a strong suit of The Rep.  After all, such would not be polite.  And doing so might damage the ability of Repository staffers to get access to the top eschelons of Stark County government and thereby hamper the task of pumping out a daily issue.

Moreover, ongoing incisive and critical editorial analysis might make it less likely that the likes of William J. Healy, II (the highly deficient mayor of  Canton) would see The Rep's editorial board as being easily manipulated into being a de facto public relations outlet.

There is a long line of deficient Stark County governmental leaders who have not gotten the job done for Stark Countians which The Rep's opinion makers have played "polite" on with only muted criticism.

Cumulatively these unchecked failures on the part of Stark County's only countywide newspaper have loomed large in the denigration of Stark leadership.

Why hasn't and why doesn't our one-newspaper-town publication made a continuing and vocal issue on the accountability factor?

In the short term the SCPR agrees with what appears to be the take of most knowledgeable Stark County government watchers; Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler has not exercised the proper quality of oversight that he should have provided.  Accordingly, the "buck does stop with him," and he should accept responsibility with a real consequence of resignation.

It also appears to the SCPR that  Stark County Auditor Perez and Ohio Auditor of State Mary Taylor have a share in creating conditions in which Frustaci-esque events can occur.

Over the longer term and in a background sort of way, however, The Canton Repository has not been a good steward for the public good in terms of fighting for good government vigorously or consistently enough in the sense of naming names and journalistically going after the offenders of the public good, who have instead of serving the public welfare served themselves.

The SCPR believes that "the powers that be" on the top floor at 500 Market Avenue South have known much more about the sins, omissions and incompetence of Stark County leadership - from top to bottom - than they have ever made public; much less hold the offenders accountable for.

Because it has failed to use its journalistic might in bold and effective ways for good government, The Repository should be seen by the Stark County public as also in part to blame for what local attorney and civic activist Craig Conley has named "Zeiglergate."

AS IF THINGS COULDN'T GET WORSE FOR STARK CO TREASURER GARY D. ZEIGLER? AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY MARCELLI (CONLEY) AGAINST HIM. TOP ASSISTANT LEM GREEN RESIGNS. WILL STARK'S ORGANIZED DEMOCRATS SUFFER FALLOUT?

REVISED & REPUBLISHED 07/13/2010 AT 10:22 AM

INCLUDES ZEIGLER RESPONSE TO MARCELLI/CONLEY TRANSFER ALLEGATIONS GIVEN TO ALLIANCE REVIEW REPORTER

For Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler, today (July 12, 2010) probably ranks up there with the last few days in March, 2009; April 1, 2009 (when Zeigler says he first learned of the Frustaci theft) and June 25, 2010 (when the U.S. attorney filed the federal government Bill of Information against Vince Frustaci (the former Chief Deputy in Zeigler's office.

How so?

First, his long time (obviously now. former) confidant and friend Attorney Lem Green (staff attorney for the Stark County treasury) resigned today.

Second, Bethlehem Township resident Tom Marcelli through his attorney Craig T. Conley has filed an "amended" verified complaint with the Stark County Court of Common Pleas against Treasurer Zeigler setting for allegations that Zeigler has transacted on three properties owned or partially owned by Zeigler which, according to Conley's allegations, are in fraud of Conley's expectation that he - if allowed to proceed on the case - will obtain a judgment (hence the caption nomination:  creditors fraud) against Zeigler for Marcelli (standing in for the Stark County taxpayers).

Here is a copy of a key paragraph is the amended verified complaint:

Here is an excerpt from the Alliance Review's Laurie Huffman who did an interview with Zeigler last night in response to the Marcelli/Conley allegations on real property transfers:

 Those who want Zeigler to resign have to have a grudging admiration for Zeigler's spunk.  Who in Stark County could remain in office under the pressure Zeigler is being subjected to?  Nonetheless the SCPR stands by a previously issued calls for Zeigler to resign.

However, as Green is saying, Zeigler's fastidiousness may be more than just a personal stress factor.  It could be spilling over into Stark County government, in general.

And, of course, there is the political aspect.  Democratic countywide officeholders (all of them) have to be literally shaking in their boots about how what Attorney Conley is calling "Zeiglergate" will be affecting their continuance in office.

The most nervous has to be Stark County Auditor Kim Perez,  In the past he has proven to the most productive Democratic candidate vote getter in Stark County.  But will that save him this year?

 Perhaps not.

His opponent, Republican Alan Harold, is about as politically "greenhornish" as one gets for running countywide.  However, being politically innocent could bode well for him come November.

In terms of office function, Perez as auditor is the closest to Zeigler's treasury position.  And with Stark Countians looking at the qualifications for office, (e.g. Who's qualified, who isn't for countywide elected positions, Gayle Beck, Repository editorial board, July 12, 2010), Harold professional qualifications - MBA from The Ohio State University with an undergraduate degree in accounting -  (if not his political experience) puts him in an ideal place to defeat Perez.

If the Zeigler drama keeps going, the race might not even be close.  And the "winning going away" under these circumstances is not likely to be Perez.

Back to Zeigler's future.

The SCPR believes that even if he can weather the current storm he will not be able to survive a Democratic primary (which is surely to come) if he runs again.

The Report thinks that it is unlikely Zeigler is entertaining long term thoughts these days.  Rather, it is probable he is just trying to get from day to day.

With Green's exit and the Stark County executive committee having called for his resignation, it hard to believe that Zeigler can hang in there much longer.  Now, with the amended lawsuit by Marcelli, he is further besieged.  Undoubtedly, Marcelli's attorney is not just looking for real estate transactions to try to undo.  Conley, in the process of trying the case will be certainly looking for other assets to levy against if he is successful in getting a judgment for the money missing from the Stark treasury and not satisfied from other sources.

Who would of thunk that Stark Republicans could go from holding no countywide offices (non-judicial) to holding them all.

Really?

How about the coroner's office and engineering office?

Good point.

But if Stark County Republican Chairman Jeff Matthews can "strike while the iron is hot" (which the SCPR is skeptical that he can), then it could be a clean sweep by election night in November, 2012.

Finding a "qualified" Republican to run for "all" these offices could be problematical.  However, Democrat Coroner Murthy did have a challenge from a qualified Republican in 2008.  Could these new circumstances. though unrelated to the coroner's office, prompt a rematch?

A prospect of a Republican clean sweep by November, 2012 has to be, one would think, a reason of a number why Green (being the stanch Democrat he is) made his move today.  And, it most certainly, has to be a prime reason for the Stark County executive committee's recent action in "demanding" that Zeigler resign.

Stark's organized Democrats have to feel like they are the political equivalent of BP.  They have a huge leak on their hands and are seemingly powerless to stop it.

In a bizarre twist of unfolding events, wouldn't the organized and officeholding Democrats be eternally grateful to Zeigler if he were to resign and to resign today?

FRUSTACI INVESTIGATION RESULTS TO BE REVEALED AT PRESS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 2010 AT 10:00 AM

The Stark County Political Report has learned from a reliable source that a news conference has been set by law enforcement officials for Friday, June 25, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Canton  to announce the results of an investigation of the Stark County Treasurer's office regarding allegations by Stark Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler that former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci had stolen Stark treasury monies.

The Report has learned that the results will include heretofore publicly unidentifed person(s) also subject(s) of the investigation in addition to Frustaci.

Zeigler's allegations concerning Frustaci came to public light on April 1, 2009.  With the allegations came Zeigler's further revelation that he had fired Frustaci.

LATER TODAY; THURSDAY, THE 24TH; FRIDAY, THE 25TH; MONDAY, THE 28TH; OR TUESDAY, THE 29TH OR MAYBE EVEN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH? FINALLY, A CONCLUSION TO THE FRUSTACI INVESTIGATION?

Yesterday, the SCPR received a telephone call from a person in a position to know, that "finally, finally" the allegations made by Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler on April 1, 2009 that Zeigler's - the then - chief deputy Vince Frustaci had misappropriated money (Zeigler fired Frustaci on the 1st of April, 2009) from the Stark County treasury being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will be concluded within days.

"Within days?"

What does that mean?

Hard to say.

Dare say that nobody in Stark County government on April 1, 2009 would have thought on that day that it could take as long as July 1, 2010 to complete the investigation.

Accordingly, The Report was reluctant (despite a constant stream of questions and musing from various readers and public officials) to do yet another blog speculating on the investigation conclusion date because of the large number of inaccurate reports as to the timing of the conclusion.

Not that the SCPR's sources have been wrong.  Not at all.

What has happened is that people very close to the investigation have indeed let it be known to The Report's sources that the end is near.  But for one reason or another the investigating authorities have changed the timeline.

As The Report observed several blogs ago, law enforcement authorities will take whatever time they think they need to do the job correctly.  And that is the way the anticipatory public should want it.

The Repository was - at the time of the blog referred to above - jumping all over the county commissioners for not pushing for a conclusion of the investigation.  Such was just a case of "grandstanding" by "the powers that be" at The Rep.  Kind of journalistically unbecoming for folks who know the reality that quality law enforcement should and will take the time it needs to do an investigation, no?

So, it appears, any day now, the matter will be finalized.  At least, insofar as Mr. Frustaci is concerned.

However, once the amount of the alleged theft is officially known (believed by some to be as high as $3 million); there may be other ramifications in terms of the county commissioners looking at the county treasury's oversight function and whether or not there was (on the commissioners' assessment) insufficient performance of the oversight responsibility meriting action by the commissioners in pursuit of the Stark County public interest.

Accordingly, there may be plenty of life left in this story.

Stay tuned!

TREASURER GARY ZEIGLER REPORTEDLY HAS MADE 14 CHANGES IN HIS OFFICE SINCE "THE AUDIT." ISN'T IT LIKELY THAT STARK COUNTY VOTERS WILL WANT TO MAKE A 15TH CHANGE COME NOVEMBER OF 2012?

Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler is probably just hoping against hope to ride out the political storm in process over his firing of his chief deputy Vince Frustaci in April, 2009 amid allegations by Zeigler that Frustaci had stolen from the Stark treasury.

Many Stark Countians are really, really mad that taxpayer money is missing from the treasury.  This comes at a time that Stark County is facing its largest financial crisis in history (except, maybe, during The Great Depression). 

Zeigler says he did what he was charged by law to do in order to avert any theft and once it occurred, he did what he was charged by law to do in reporting the alleged theft.

Zeigler can say what he says, but the bottom line is that Stark County voters will have the final say in terms of how they think he managed the Stark treasury when it comes to his expected bid for re-election come November, 2010.

The SCPR is going out on a limb over two years out from the election and making a prediction.  Even though more than two years remain in Zeigler's current term (remember he ran unopposed thanks to the cowardly Republican Alan Harold - now running for auditor), Stark County voters will not have forgotten the treasury's troubles in November, 2012 and they will hold Zeigler accountable.

Stark Countians are being insulted again by the combo of the State of Ohio Auditor's office and Zeigler's office.  Several weeks back, it became known that the Auditor and the Stark treasury had reached an accord in what is called "a letter of arrangement" as to Stark County's responsibility to pick up the tab for the cost of a forensic audit in light of the alleged theft.

But nobody in Stark County knew about it because the Auditor suggested to Zeigler, who on advice of his treasury office legal counsel, accepted the suggestion that Zeigler not keep a copy of the letter so as not to make it a public record.  For its part, the Auditor's office claim immunity from the letter's discovery because it was part of an ongoing investigation.

Today we learn in a Repository piece by Kelli Young (Stark treasurer receives state report on special audit) that the Ohio Auditor and Zeigler are claiming confidentiality in revealing the contents of the report which specifically states how much money is missing from the Stark treasury.

The SCPR has this question to ask of Auditor Mary Taylor and Treasurer Zeigler:  Do we live in a Democracy or not? 

Are the American and Stark County people entitled to know about the content of their government operations or not?

Taylor is up for election this year as the running mate of John Kasich as the Republican lieutenant governor candidate.  Hmm?  Election of a person who withholds information of government operations from the voting public? 

Voters should pause for thought before voting for a Kasich/Taylor ticket.  Not fair to Kasich?  You bet.  But he can always remove her from the ticket.  The way she runs the auditor's office is not as a small "d"emocrat.

Zeigler can point to Taylor's auditor operation all he wants to as a reason for his withholding information that the public ought to have.  But as he demonstrated in the "letter of arrangement" situation, he had the right (according to the state Auditor) to release the information.  Under public pressure, he eventually did so.  Are we in for a deja vu, all over again Yogi Berra-esque maneuver?

Young in another piece entitled Stark treasurer makes changes in wake of investigation (June 14), describes 14 changes made in the procedures of the Stark treasury.

Hmm?

The question that these changes leaves the SCPR with is this:  Is there a 15th change coming?

The answer:  Likely, yes.  But it will be a while before that change is coming.  And, the 15th change will not be one that Treasurer Zeigler effects.

It will be done by the voters of Stark County!

SHALL WE CRY WOLF "ONE MORE TIME?" THE FRUSTACI INVESTIGATION RESULTS ABOUT TO BREAK?

Maybe the frustration of county officials is about to end.

The SCPR has learned that the Stark County Prosecutor's office had one of its attorneys in Cleveland recently going over the progress of the Vince Frustaci investigation with the U.S. Attorney's office.

Readers will recall that on April 1, 2009 Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler fired Frustaci (his chief deputy) making allegations that Frustaci had stolen from the county treasury.

Stark County has spent $209,000 plus a little in fees paid to State of Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor's office for service rendered in conducting a forensic audit of the county treasury.  Results of the audit is in the hands of the United States Attorney.

Several weeks ago there was a big flap among the Stark County commissioners over the authority of the commissioners to pay the $209,000.  As far as the SCPR is concerned, the flap - started by the folks at The Repository - was "much ado about nothing."

The genesis of The Rep story was an agreement between the Ohio Auditor's office and Treasurer Zeigler regarding the outlining of and provision for payment of the auditor's services.

So what was the problem?

Zeigler's office chose not to share the existence of the agreement with county commissioners.

The Repository editors blasted county commissioners (blaming the failure to ferret out on the fact that the three commissioners are "all" Democrats" - how thin can you get in your reasoning?)  for not being on top of the situation and knowing about an agreement that Zeigler's office held out of public view on the suggestion of the Ohio Auditor's office itself.

If anyone thinks that the county commissioners were not going to have to pay the $209,000 plus out of county general fund dollars, then please see The Report about the sale of some swamp land in Florida.

A well placed source tells The Report that Stark Countians are likely to learn about the federal investigation within the next week to ten days.

Although The Report source is highly reliable, as we all know - "there is many a slip between the cup and the lip," and one has to be skeptical of any reports.

A BELLWEATHER RACE: IF ALAN HAROLD DEFEATS KIM PEREZ IN THE STARK COUNTY AUDITOR RACE, LOOK FOR WHOLESALE DEMOCRATIC LOSSES AT THE COUNTY LEVEL IN 2012?

Revised at 11:15 AM

Is the Stark County "organized" Democratic Party close to collapsing?

Hmm?

Collapsing?

A Party which has every non-judicial countywide office under its control, on the brink of collapse?

Not likely, but there are some "nervous nellies" surfacing these days among Stark Dems.  Nervous Nellies?  Nervous about what?

Nervous about the "imminent" unfolding of the legal consequences of the alleged theft of taxpayer money from the Stark County treasury!  Nervous about being the Party (via Commissioner Todd Bosley and former Commissioner Tom Harmon) that imposed a 0.50 sales/use tax on Stark Countians taking away the fundamental democratic right of citizens!!

First, the Zeigler matter.

More and more one hears a castigation of Party officials for not learning hard on Treasurer Gary Zeigler to resign.  These folks apparently feel that as long as Zeigler remains an a elected Democratic official, his presence will "rub-off" on the likes of Auditor Kim Perez and could cause their defeat in upcoming elections.

The SCPR does have indication that a least one key Democrat has been pressuring Zeigler to step down, but Zeigler is adamant that he has done nothing wrong and therefore is not about to quit.

A early test case of whether or not the controversy surrounding the Democrat-controlled treasurer's office will be the Republican Alan Harold versus Democrat Kim Perez auditor's contest coming up this November.  Perez, rightly or wrongly, seems to The Report to be publicly perceived as being a close political ally.

If Perez were to fall in November, then political analysts will be turning their attention to November, 2012.  Who could be next?  Zeigler, the treasurer?  Campbell, the recorder?  Ferrero, the prosecutor?  Swanson or Perez, the sheriff?  Murthy, the coroner?  Reinbold, the clerk of courts? Maybe even Engineer Bennett? (who seems most impervious, because of the requirement of special qualifications)

If Perez falls, will Stark's Republicans be emboldened to go all out to capture more countywide offices?

The SCPR has already chalked the Creighton/Meeks match up as going the Republicans' way.  But it will be a relatively close race.  In the work up to November, it will be interesting to see whether or not former Canton mayor Creighton tries to associate Meeks in any way, shape or form with the goings on in the treasurer's office.

Creighton has queried previously to the SCPR (a kind of thinking out loud type of question), whether or not county offcials should be looking to attempt to recover any deficiencies in county money (the loss, projected by some to be about $3 million, less any bond money recovered) from Treasurer Zeigler himself.

Perhaps, Creighton was thinking of Ohio Revised Code Section 321.04 Ohio's law on the subject since October 1, 1953 which was referred to the SCPR by Attorney Craig T. Conley), to wit:

321.04 Deputies. Each county treasurer may appoint one or more deputies, and he shall be liable and accountable for their proceedings and misconduct in office.  Effective Date: 10-01-1953

Will she be applying pressure on Meeks during the campaign to become a advocate of such an attempt?  If so, how does Meeks respond?

Remember, Zeigler maintains he has done nothing wrong, and, in fact, affirmatively did what the law requires of him in reporting the alleged theft to law enforcement authorities.  Notwithstanding Zeigler's position, the political reality among the Stark County electorate appears to be that Zeigler is in a "the buck stops here" modality and therefore should be held accountable.

Does Meeks say:  "Treasurer Zeigler has said he's done nothing wrong, in fact, everything right.  The alleged theft is an unfortunate incident.  I have no basis to challenge Zeigler's position and therefore there is nothing to be done."

Or does Meeks say:  "I understand what Treasurer Zeigler has to say about his non-culpability in the matter.  I respectfully disagree with him and in terms of "the buck stopping with him" as the head of the Stark treasury, I think the county should consult with legal counsel with a eye towards pursuing a civil recovery from Zeigler for any deficiency and let a judge or jury decide whether or not Zeigler, in his performance as treasurer, bears any legal liability."

Second, the imposed sales/use tax.

While the SCPR does not believe that the Stark Democrats will suffer wholesale losses 2010/2012 election cycle, it could happen.  Especially, if one adds into the political equation, the 0.50 county commissioner imposed sales/use tax increase as being a Democratic gig.

Yes, Republican Jane Vignos did support the imposed tax and she still stands by it as having been the right thing to do.  But isn't the public perception, in the main, that it was a Democrat (Bosley, Harmon) thing?

Will Republican Harold press Perez and will Republican Creighton needle Meeks into disavowing the Bosley and Harmon decision?

How about the survivor of the Republican primary for the two-year commissioner term?:  Windham or Jackson trustee James N. Walter.  Will the nominated candidate join Harold an Creighton and force Democrat Tom Bernabei to stand up or stand down on the Bosley/Harmon action?

And there is one more dimension to the sales/use tax aspect of this blog?  How will it impact on Bosley himself?  Commissioner Bosley is running against Republican state Representative Todd Snitchler in Ohio's 50th House District.

The SCPR has every reason to believe that Bosley will stand squarely behind his December, 2008 "impose the tax" vote as the right thing to have done.  Accordingly, this race - though covering only about one-third of the county - could be at least a partial measure of how much the Stark County electorate are disaffected with Stark County Democrat politicians.

Conclusion.

To repeat, the SCPR does not expect the Stark County "organized" Democratic Party to collapse between now and the 2012 election and lose all of its currently held non-judicial county posts.

But it could happen.

It all depends on how skilled the political players involved turn out to be defining/positioning each other.

November, 2010 could be the election year that local politicos long remember?

IS THIS ANOTHER FALSE ALARM OR IS IT "NO FOOLIN" THIS TIME IN TERMS OF GETTING RESULTS FROM THE FBI INVESTIGATION OF THE ALLEGED THEFT IN THE STARK COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE

The SCPR is once again being told that results could come any minute in the FBI's investigation to an alleged theft of taxpayer money out of the Stark County treasurer's office.

Today is the first anniversary (obviously not a day to celebrate as far as Stark County government is concerned) of allegations made by Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler - to local media - that his chief deputy Vince Frustaci had stolen county money from the treasurer's office.  Zeigler also announced that he had fired Frustaci on the basis of the allegations.

County officials have wanted the investigation of the matter to have been completed long before now.  it appears that the next two weeks may well be the time frame within which Stark Countians will learn the results of the FBI investigation.

Two sources are reporting the imminence of an announcement by law enforcement officials on the outcome of the investigation.

One source used the figure $3,000,000 as the amount missing.

If true, such a loss further complicates the county's desperate financial picture.

Most knowledgeable Stark County political observers (including the SCPR) believe that there is no chance that the county can convince Stark voters to pass a new sales/use tax issue and base their analysis on the fact that the county imposed 0.50% tax increase in December, 2008 only to have it rescinded by voters in November, 2009 by an overwhelming majority and the economic reality of local, state and national economies being in the dumper.

Add missing money, and the political complications grow, perhaps, to the point that not even a renewal will pass when it comes up which most certainly will be in November of this year

Once the investigation results are announced, the SCPR believes that there will be a renewed outburst from the Stark County public of indignation at the loss in terms of wondering how it could possibly have happened under Zeigler's watch.  Moreover, the public may want to punish the entire county government operations over the failure from within the Stark treasury to have adequate safeguards in place to have prevented the alleged loss.

The Report is told that there are some within Stark County government who are putting pressure on Treasurer Zeigler to step down.  The Report has previously stated that, in the opinion of yours truly, Zeigler should resign.

For him to do so might make it easier for other county officials to convince voters to approve at least a renewal of the existing 0.25 sales/tax add-on which is due to expire on June 30, 2011.

GOLLY GEE! HOW MANY AUDITS IS STATE AUDITOR MARY TAYLOR GOING TO DO ON THE STARK COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE?

 UPDATE:  01/06/2010 - 9:20 AM

UPDATE:  01/05/2010 - 2:00 PM

From the Stark County Treasurer's office:

HI MARTIN 

THIS IS ROTA, FROM THE STARK COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE SPECIAL AUDIT TOTAL IS $210,000., THE INFORMATION THAT WAS IN THE REPOSITORY, ABOUT THE AMOUNT BEING $360,000, PLUS WAS WRONG INFORMATION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONFIRM IT, CALL RICK FLOREY, AT THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, WELCOME, TO CALL ME AT THE TREASURER'S OFFICE, THERE IS A CONTRACT AGREEMENT, THAT THE TREASURERDEPARTMENT, HAD TO SIGN FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE AUDIT. 

 ORIGINAL POST

According to Terry (who emailed the SCPR yesterday), Treasurer Zeigler has already passed seven state of Ohio audits, to wit:

The treasures [sic] last 7 audits are in perfect or very good shape with very few suggestions from the State''' They are public record and I suggest you read them before making your comments'''' You will change your tune'' don;t you think the rep' read them'''    READ"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" They could not find anything wrong or you would have read about it'     Terry

Yeah Terry, so why is Ohio spending anywhere from $210,000 to nearly $400,000 (depending on whose estimate you believe) on an eighth audit - a forensic audit?

Hmm?

Could it have something to do with Zelgler firng Vince Frustaci (his chief deputy) after alleging that Frustaci had made off with county money back in the spring?

So what are you suggesting Terry?

Something like:  "Since the state auditors in their previous seven audits and The Repository (via the opportunity to do or the actual doing of a public records check) didn't catch the missing money,  taxpayers have no right to determine exactly how much is missing?"

Is that it, Terry?

Remember, Terry, Zeigler himself says money is missing.

Somehow the SCPR doesn't think Stark County taxpayers agree with you Terry. if that is what you are suggesting.

Sources are saying that maybe as much as $2 to 3 million is missing?  However, a county official has been saying of late to the SCPR that with bond money ($500,000, according to media reports) might cover most of the missing money.

And perhaps $2 to 3 million is missing, but nothing is wrong with the books?

Really?

Might merit some checking via an eighth "forensic" audit - don't ya think?

If the $2 to 3 million turns out be the missing amount and there is only a $500,000 bond, who do ya suppose might be looked to make up the difference?

Maybe the person elected by Stark County voters and taxpayers to mind the store?

Nobody?

After all Ohio's auditors and The Rep didn't catch it in those seven previous audits!

WHY HAS THE FBI SHOWN UP AT THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE?

The SCPR has learned through a law enforcement source that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has shown up at the Stark County Office Building a couple of days this week to question Stark County commissioner Pete Ferguson (elected in November, 2008).

Why?

The source does not know.

There is no indication that Ferguson has done anything wrong.

The conjecture is that the questioning has something to do with the Vince Frustaci investigation that Mary Taylor of Ohio auditor's office requested when Frustaci was fired as chief deputy by Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler on April 1st amid allegations by Zeigler that he suspected Frustaci had stolen money from the county treasury.

Ferguson is said to have known Frustaci for a long time.

If the questioning is related to the Frustaci matter, it gives credence to those who do not think that indictments will be coming down any time soon.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that The Repository recently did a story (County finds that seeking bond for treasurer amid probe to be problematical, July 17)to the effect that Treasurer Zeigler may not be able to be sworn-in for his new term as county treasurer because of difficulties in securing a $1 million bond set by the county commmissioners.

If Frustaci gets charged with taking the county money, it is interesting to note that he was covered by a $500,000 bond. The allegations are that $2 to 3 million is missing from the treasurer's office.

These, indeed, are troubling times for Stark County government.

The SCPR believes this is the price citizens pay when they vote in "one-party-rule."

Only Democrats serve in countywide office (except for judicial office).

THE HAMMER IS ABOUT TO FALL IN THE FRUSTACI INVESTIGATION - WHO & HOW MANY WILL BE INDICTED?

UPDATE: JULY 16, 2009 AT 4:30 PM

The SCPR has new information which suggests that the number of indictments will more likely be on the low side of the estimates in the original piece below. Right now the SCPR believes the indictments will most likely be two in number and that the end of July is probably too early to expect indictments to be handed down.

The SCPR will update this blog as more information is forthcoming.

ORIGINAL BLOG


The Stark County Political Report (SCPR/The Report) has learned that as many as seven indictments may be coming down in the investigation of the Stark County Treasurer's office and the reported loss of $2 to 3 million in taxpayer funds.

County treasurer Gary Zeigler fired his chief deputy Vince Frustaci alleging that Frustaci pilfered the money. The firing occurred on April 1, 2009.

The SCPR has two primary sources on the question of who and how many Stark Countians will be indicted as a consequence of an investigation being conducted by the FBI.

One source says seven people will likely be indicted, but could not definitely say that all seven would be Stark Countians.

The other SCPR source says that seven is too high.

But both agree that indictments could be forthcoming soon. Perhaps, by the end of July.

The SCPR believes that one of the persons to be indicted will be Frustaci and that another highly likely indictment will be of a high ranking Stark County bank official who allegedly facilitated the theft.

The bill is in on Ohio auditor Mary Taylor's forensic audit of the Stark County treasury in light of the FBI investigation and it will total $150,000.

This $150,000 coupled with the likely $100,000 deductible that the county will likely pay on the reported settlement of the Hope Steffy case is not exactly news that Stark County taxpayers want to hear.