SCPR: LEANING "NO" ON ISSUE #2, BUT UNCOMFORTABLE BEING ON SIDE OF "BIG PHARMA"

COMMUNITY FORUM HELPFUL IN DECIDING
"YES" OR "NO"
ON
STATE ISSUE #2

VIDEOS

FEATURING

Repository Executive Editor Rich Desrosiers

LWV President Amy Striver-Dreussi

Ohio Alliance of Retired Americans

Dan Fonte

Moderator Ron Ponder

Stark County Citizens

Did the Forum Help Them in Deciding?

By The Stark County Political Report's (SCPR) count, some 75 Stark Countians, more or less, crammed into the McKinley Room of the Stark County District Library—Main Branch, 715 Market Ave., North in Canton last night to hear the "experts" weigh-in on whether or not Ohio's voters should vote yes or no on Statewide Issue #2.

Here is a copy of Issue #2 as it will appear on the November 7, 2018 Ohio ballot:

The event was sponsored by the Canton League of Women Voters and The Repository.

Which way to vote on Issue 2 is about as clear as mud as articulated by Repository executive editor Rich Desrosiers in his opening remarks.

Desrosiers followed Canton League of Women Voters (LWV) president Amy Shriver Dreussi who crisply and clearly explained the primary LWV purpose of being a vehicle for voters to become "informed" voters.

To the SCPR, the most informed person in the room was former Local 94 Plumbers and Pipefitters union official Dan Fonte.

Fonte was present last night as a representative of the American Alliance of Retired Persons who like Desrosiers and The Repository editorial board has been wrestling with which side to come down on in recommending how voters vote on Issue 2.

Fonte says that organization that he is affiliated with has been discussing which way to go in advising its clientele on how to vote on Issue #2.

He says that he individually is leaning in the direction of voting "no" because of the uncertainty of how Issue #2 would be implemented should the issue pass.

As can be seen in his own words in the following video clip, Fonte says he has concerns that Big Pharma will do everything in its power to cause implementation to fail which appears likely to include manipulating the available formulas and thereby forcing price increases for those affected by passage of the issue.



The Stark County Political Report is convinced that Fonte's take is on the mark and accordingly is now leaning towards believing that a "no" vote is likely the best vote for the welfare of any Ohioan who will be affected by Issue #2.

The Stark County Political feels uncomfortable in siding up with Big Pharma on which way to vote.

One of the reasons that Issue #2 might pass is that there are likely many Ohioans who suspect that Big Pharma is all about enhancing the industry's profit level which already is astronomical.

Ballotpedia is in the judgment of the SCPR the best source for citizens to get a handle on what facts are available in the fight over whether or not Issue #2 should pass.

Here is a Ballotpedia graphic on the campaign financing on the issue as of September 15th:

Another interesting Ballotpedia graphic is polling in August showing that at that time Ohio voters were likely to pass the measure:

Given the extremely large 54% undecided vote, the most that the "yes" folks can take from the poll is that at one time they had a leg up on the "no" vote opposition.

The two campaign groups:

• Ohio Taxpayers for Lower Drug Prices
• Chris Galloway
• Ohioans Against the Deceptive Rx Ballot Issue
• Victoria Zyp
• Tracy Jones

both had representatives at last night forum.

Here are the opening and closing arguments by each side.

First, Galloway, then (the open), then Zyp and Jones followed by Galloway (the close).

Ron Ponder was the facilitator of the the discussion last evening, and as always effectively moderated the event.

The correct protocol was for audience members to submit written questions so as to avoid duplicate or unseemly questions.

There were a number of times that audience members injected from the floor and Ponder handled the intrusion deftly.

One such interruption was between an "from the audience" person directed at Chris Galloway which could have turned ugly but which Ponder using his experience as a moderator turned into a positive for those attending, to wit:

After the forum concluded and the audience filed out of the SCDL McKinley room,  the SCPR asked three members of the audience whether or not the forum helped them gather information for a decision on how they would vote, to wit:



The SCPR thinks that the "yes" group needs to find a way to convince voters that passage of Issue 2 will not boomerang on voters to their prescription drug pricing detriment a la 

Fonte's fear which The Report shares.

If the "yes" folks cannot assure voters that they have a legal strategy to keep Big Pharma from using passage to reach "unintended by the 'yes' folks adverse to prescription drug users consequences, then as a matter of self-interest, it is hard to see why a voter would take a risk that their "yes" vote could backfire on affected prescription drug users.

The "vote yes" folks clearly have the higher moral ground.

But can they protect their voters and, indeed, all affected Ohioans from the unintended consequences of Issue #2 getting passed?

That is the big question on the Big Pharma seemingly leverage.

Can the "vote yes" advocates convince enough of the 54% undecideds in light of the attendant risks of voting "yes."

It certainly appears that it is unfair that Big Phama has the clout that it does.

But such is strong strain in American politics.

Unfortunately, "might" does often make "right" in the world of power politics.

A "NEW' SCPR FEATURE: "POLITICAL SATIRE"—The Rep's Rich Desrosiers

Many of The Stark County Political Report's blogs have a tinge of political sarcasm scattered among its letters, words and headlines.

But sarcasm is a little harsh, and, it gets missed by readers all too often.

I decided I needed to change my ways and go to a milder form of getting my point of view across in my blogs.

A master of satire is The New Yorker's Andy Borowitz.

He is my inspiration for doing political satire on local political and public figures.

So brace yourself Stark County elected officials and public figures.

You are about to become the stars of Stark County's only political satire outlet.

Every once in a while political satire will be the order of the day at the SCPR.

The honor of being my very first object of satire is The Repository's executive editor Rich Desrosiers.

Desrosiers has been on the job for two years, almost to the day.

It is obvious that he is just hitting his stride as executive editor.

God love him.

On July 28th, he wrote about my absolutely favorite grocery store of all time.

Well, sort of.

Until it went "belly up" in November, 2015, A&P was my favorite.  As a boy in the 1950s, mom and I would walk the two and one-half blocks from our home on East Middle Street once a week to smack dab in the middle of Gettysburg, Pa to the A&P located on Baltimore Street, a mere half a block away from where Abraham Lincoln put the finishing touches on his famed "Gettysburg Address."

What a weekly trip for mom and I.  A "special event" time of bonding.

Three pounds of hamburg for $1!

And served up (in the 1950s) Deli style except in G-burg there were no Delis.  But the "behind the meat counter" employee made us feel like we were we were being serviced by a grocery store Deli that likely in those days only graced the skyline of America's really be cities.

La di da di da.

Fatty ground beef:  exactly what a family of eight kids needed to sup on as chili or spaghetti or burgers and the like for the following week.

There was none of this fancy, mancy cellophaned wrapped 90% fat free ground chuck to be had at least for the Olson family.

It was fat-laced and good!  Absolutely delicious to a kid (me) that was about as skinny as one could be and still survive.

In 1964, after four years in the USAF, I relocated to Akron where I met the spellbinding Mary Joy Harless.  And what can I say.  51 years later: we are still at it.

Isn't life great!!!

The second best thing that happened to me on becoming an Akronite was the annual Acme-Zip game (1954-2001.)

Wow!

Two tickets for a buck.  What a deal!  All courtesy of Fred Albrecht's Acme grocery chain.

A hometown grocery chain that now has 16 stores spread throughout northeast Ohio.

Though second on my list of favorite grocery stores, Acme was definitely number 2 only awaiting the death of A&P (remember, November, 2015) to catapult into being NUMBER ONE.

In 1971 as the Acme sponsored extravaganza, some 43,171 filled the Rubber Bowl to defeat the mighty Butler Bulldogs and ya know what?

I and my cherished bride were there!

Can you believe it?

If we weren't there, instead of 43,171 fans; there would only have been 43,169 fans.

So proud to have been there.  Supporting Acme (the Ellet store our store at the time) and supporting our school:  "the Zips."  Mary graduated in 1966; me 1968 (undergrad), law school in 1973.

So when I saw this editorial on July 22, 2017, was I excited!

BIG TIME  had arrived for the grocery store that (thank you Kathy Bates) I was a NUMBER ONE FAN of.

Whoop de doo!

And THANK YOU!  thank you, thank you again REPOSITORY EXECUTIVE EDITOR RICH DESROSIERS.

Awesome!  Simply awesome.

A gigantic space upgrade for a Stark County-based Acme.

You talk about bodacious news, man:  expanding floor space at Acme IS it!

For Mary and I; we shop at Acme in North Canton.  And I have this sneaky hunch that the Desrosiers family does, too.

The Olsons and Desrosiers both live in Lake Township.

The space upgrade at Acme Everhard/Whipple is big time news, but just call Martin and Mary Olson sentimental.

Acme North Canton is OUR store.  Every Wednesday Mary makes her way to OUR Acme to by five ears of corn, a bag of green beans and super delicious fresh tomatoes.

Think maybe there is a lot of joy in the Olson household, Martin and Mary chomping away on those Acme provided groceries.

Eating terrific Acme groceries and remembering those stupendous Acme Zip games.

Life is absolutely wonderful, no?

I used to think The Repository had the worst editorial board of any major Ohio metropolitan area.

BUT NO MORE!

Desrosiers certainly showed me that he has his editorial priorities right where they ought to be.

It's not everyday that a major Ohio newspaper devotes editorial space to an expanding grocery store story.

Maybe our hometown newspaper The Hartville News.  But The Repository?

But anyway.

Thanks, Rich!!!

And keep those Acme-esque grocery store stories coming.

STARK COUNTY: THE QUALITY OF POLICE ADMINISTRATION?

Last weekend The Repository's Kelli Young and Matt Rink broke out with a series of articles which should raise to "inquiring minds" the question of the quality of police administration in Stark County.

To the SCPR, there is very little that is more scary than a person authorized to carry a gun driving through the neighborhoods of Stark County when the person may be a rogue cop.

After digesting the Young/Rink work, it strikes The Report that too many of those in charge of getting "the bad apples" off Stark's police forces are not doing an effective job.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule and for these exceptional police leaders Stark Countians should be thankful.

But for those not getting the job done, public pressure should be brought to bear on the political leaders (i.e. those we elect) to ratchet up the quality of leadership needed to ensure that you or I are not going to be a victim of a cop gone bad.

And, to be sure, it is not just about police persons going bad.  There are other "appointed to their positions" public officials who should not be in their public jobs but are not effectively dealt with in terms of on going scrutiny in terms of their negative interactions with John and Jane Q. Public.

Hopefully, the days are gone in which Stark County/city/village and board of education elected officials have not put in place adequate safeguards to ensure that a public employee cannot walk off with taxpayer dollars.

But, of course, these folks do not carry guns.

Alarming to the Stark County public should be the fact that public official police supervisory types and their legal advisers have been largely unsuccessful in winning arbitration cases in those instances where supervisors have determined that particular police officers should not continue to be so employed.

From Taking away the badge:  Fired officers often return to duty:

The Repository’s analysis found that 34 law-enforcement officers (including a sheriff deputy) have been fired in Stark County since 2003. Nineteen of those officers appealed and more than half of them returned to their jobs — largely due to arbitrators. 

Of the 13 appeals that went to arbitration, 10 of the firings were reversed. About half of the reinstated officers also received back pay for the time they missed from the job.

Yours truly remembers years ago (early 1980s) hearing ad nauseam the complaints of a local school district board of education member about all the bad (in terms of effectiveness) teachers the district had on board.

And yet the district was not documenting the deficiencies to a legally sufficient degree to get rid of teachers who were not up to the job of educating our kids.

In the district you had teachers who yours truly witnessed saying such things as:

"Oh, but Mr. Olson if only your daughter had handed in her homework she would have gotten one grade higher."

The obvious question:  "Why didn't I know that she wasn't handing in her homework?"

Answer:  "Oh, but Mr. Olson if I had to notify each parent of a student that was not handing in homework of such I would have to work an hour or two more a week."

And there were the teachers who routinely called 13/14 year old students orangutans and the like.

Or the teacher who got upset with the classroom question: Why is "Pi" is 3.14?

Undoubtedly the readers of the SCPR have many, many similar stories which should at least bring up the question of whether or not the offending teacher belongs in the classroom.

But by and large such stories are dismissed as the teacher having a bad day or we don't have the personnel to adequately monitor what is going on in the classroom or like in the Stark County police dismissal stories, it is those unions and those arbitrators who keep ineffective or undesirable employees in place.

The SCPR is not buying the line that disses unions and arbitrators.

Rather The Report thinks it is more a case of the supervisors and their legal advisers not being up to the task of protecting the public from having on the public payroll employees who should not be there for a variety of reasons.

Particularly offensive in this regard is the quote in the Young/Rink series attributed to Jackson Township trustee James N. Walter with regard to the township's efforts in arbitration, to wit:

I think the arbitration system is seriously broke.  To shove this down the community’s throat is indefensible.  

Young attributes to Walters:

Walters believes employment decisions should be made by elected officials who are accountable to the public, not by an out-of-area arbitrator who answers to no one. 

Tell us all about it Mister Trustee Walters.

Walters as an "elected" Jackson trustee is a part of a board that the SCPR thinks has fumbled and bumbled the matter of David Zink being appointed as police chief in the first instance and has been decidedly ineffective in dealing with sexual harassment allegations that have been made against Zink.

The Zink situation is not an arbitration situation, is it?

The SCPR only hopes that Jacksonians will hold the Board of Trustees accountable.  It is interesting that Walters himself is not up for election this time around.

Walters and his disingenuous "hold us accountable" is akin to "the pot calling the kettle black."

Except the only reason that the arbitration kettle may be black in terms of not working is because those who have to make the case are proving in spades they do not have the skills needed to win a vast majority of arbitrations.

What if prosecutors had a track record of losing 77% (10 out 13) of their cases?

There would be a public outrage, no?

As far as the SCPR is concerned, it should take first-rate preparation and the accumulation/presentation of compelling evidence for a person subject to arbitration to lose his/her job.

For those who are losing arbitration cases at the aforementioned alarming rate, it is high time for them to take a look at themselves and doing a "gut check time" and honestly facing up to the question as to whether or not they are in over their heads and are not up to the task at hand.

The Stark County Political Report posits that as they would if prosecutors lost 77% of their cases, the Stark County public should demand of those Stark County elected officials who have put in place supervisors and legal advisers that are not getting the arbitration job done, that changes be made.

And there is one final thought.

There are police administrators that have an amazing track record of getting resignations from those police officers who do not measure up to the very high standards that they have in place for those who wear "blue."

The resignation route is a "win-win" for the officer in question and the public.

Maybe just maybe Stark County policing officials should be putting together some training sessions staffed by the successful police administrators so that the number of arbitrations get diminished.

But, where the resignation route does not work, it is imperative that those employed to manage the employer's side of arbitration get better at doing what they do.

And, if they do not, then some heads should roll.

If heads do not roll, then the appointing elected official authority should be held accountable come election time.

EMPTY WORDS. THE REPOSITORY EDITORIAL BOARD?

When one lacks the knowledge or courage to get specific and directed in writing or speech, the alternative is to tail off with the vague generality "blah, blah, blah ... ."

When it comes to getting pointed with members of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly (OGA) over "chapter and verse" legislative deficiencies on their part, such is what Stark Countians generally experience at the hand of the county's only countywide newspaper editorial board and to a certain extent, the executive-editor-directed focus of the reporter staff.

That is the thought that came to mind as the SCPR's took in The Rep's recent editorial (Bureaucracy 1, common sense 0, 06/27/2013) about how Plain Township taxpayers will have to spend a totally unjustifiable $100,000 because of a defect in Ohio's building code law.

The lead line under Reason No. 1 in the editorial:  "Someone should have known ... ."

Someone? The equivalent of:  "blah, blah, blah ...," no?

Maybe just maybe - in a specific accountability mode - :  the editors' should have named state Senator Scott Oelslager (R-the 29th-Plain), state Reps Christina Hagan (R-the 50th-Marlboro), Kirk Schuring, (R-48th-Jackson) and Stephen Slesnick (D-49th-Canton)?

These are folks who, when they sponsor a bill to name a section of a highway that runs through Stark County or to authorize the issuance of license plates to recognize the Massillon Tigers and the like, send out their press releases and which The Rep pretty much prints word-for-word.

This is the kind of stuff that a newspaper like The Hartville News dutifully prints and makes it very clear that such is what it is doing.

For The Rep, these press releases often come off having been the work product of a vigorous news gathering organization.

But generally it is not.

What it is amounts to is:  a "feet up on the desk; this is like falling off a wet log journalism" type of newspaper operation that anyone with journalistic experience could do with ease.

Canton's only newspaper can't even seem to get all over the likes of Scott Oelslager who inserted in the Ohio's budget bill (HB 59) a provision curtailing Ohioans (and, of course, Stark Countians) knowing what local governments are up to with taxpayer dollars in negotiating economic development packages.

Such is telling inasmuch as ensuring "openness in government" is supposed to be a prime mission of newspapers.

The editors did ask the governor to line-item-veto the measure.

Guess what he did?

He left it in!

The Rep and the Ohio Newspaper Association has so little clout these days that Kasich felt he could politically afford to blow them off without a second thought.

When The Rep brought in a new executive editor (Therese Hayt, October 2012), one could only hope that she would begin to turn our only local broadly based newspaper around to a state of more effectiveness.

Here is what Brad Dennison (GateHouse Media vice president of publishing, who oversees The Repository and  said of Hayt (on the occasion of her appointment as Rep executive editor:

[She] is one of the best newspaper editors out there.
“We are fortunate to have her as executive editor of The Repository and GateHouse Ohio, and our readers are in for a treat, ... I think you can expect to see more enterprising project journalism with Teri at the helm, and I have no doubt our watchdog status will be kicked up another notch — that’s a real strength of hers.”  (emphasis added)

Hmm?

"[N]o doubt our watchdog status will be kicked up another notch - that's a real strength of hers."

Really?

When are Stark Countians going to see it.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the Bureaucracy 1, common sense 0 editorial is a current indication that nothing has changed at The Rep since the days of Jeff Gauger.

So it appears to The Report that under Hayt, Stark's only countywide newspaper will continue to be respecters of persons and fearful of offending day-in, day-out news sources (i.e. public officials), and keep its editorializing and reporting at a banal, safe level.

Apparently, the beat is to continue a la:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ... ad infinitum?

PLAIN TWP TRUSTEE (GIAVASIS) QUESTIONS REPOSITORY'S COMMITMENT TO "SUNSHINE"

At Tuesday night's regular township meeting (uncovered by Stark County's only countywide newspaper), Plain Township trustees (Stark County's largest township) announced that they, beginning Tuesday (which was in and of itself a demonstration project put on by Trustee Lou Giavasis) are making available to the interested public a videocast (on YouTube linked up on the township's website) of the township's regular meeting, zoning commission meetings and board of zoning appeals meetings.

Such is a major step forward, in the opinion of the Stark County Political Report, in making local government more accountable, transparent and accessible to everyday Plain Township citizens.

Councilman Kevin Fisher (Democrat - Ward 5) tells the SCPR that he wants to do a similar thing with Canton City Council meetings.

The SCPR applauds Giavasis' leadership on "letting the sunshine in" on Plain Township government and also recognizes Trustees Al Leno and Scott Haws for supporting the board president's lead.

The Plain Township initiative is a model for other township, village, city, and board of education to follow.  Fisher of Canton undoubtedly will be in touch with Giavasis for assistance in figuring out "the nuts and bolts" in constructing and configuring a meeting videotaping operation.

The Plain effort and the Fisher ambition deserves the support of local media.

It appears to the SCPR that Giavasis questions, as Stark County's only countywide media outlet, The Repository's commitment to promoting beams of sunshine illuminating the processes of local government except, perhaps, when The Rep itself is having difficulty with something like an unhonored public records request.

He told The Report that he and his fellow trustees' motivation is to get Plain residents more involved in their local government.

He said that the board of trustees recognize that people's lives are filled with loads of everyday responsibilities and that videotaping the meetings is a move by the board to make township meetings available to citizens on their timetable.

The SCPR sees that more and more Stark County political subdivisions are enhancing their interaction with their constituents.

North Canton, for instance, held a townhall-esque meeting, also Tuesday night, attended by some 175 citizens at the North Canton Civic Center hosted by Ward 4 councilman and Council President Jon Snyder and Ward 1 Councilman Doug Foltz (Councilwoman Marcia Kiesling and Mayor David Held were also present) in which city police, fire and EMS officials counseled North Cantonians on ways and means to protect themselves from the ravages of crime, fires and emergency medical incidents.

Since Tom Bernabei (November, 2010) and Janet Creighton (January, 2011) took office, Stark County government has become much more accountable, transparent and accessible.

A recent interaction with Canton/Vassar Park citizen Bruce Nordman resulted in the commissioners facilitating with Sheriff George T. Maier an immediate increase of bed utilization at the Stark County jail from 400 beds to 450 on the way to full use which will be 501 beds.

Until Nordman got involved, the sheriff was saying it could take months to have a significant increase in bed utilization because of difficulties in finding qualified candidates to hire as deputy sheriffs.

Nordman has also seized the initiative (he calls his effort:  Group 175) with Canton City Council and the mayor (with whom he meets on April 16th) to dramatically increase the number of police from its soon to be 150 to 175.

When (in 2007) Canton's force was last at 175, the city had to be safer because the 175 made about twice the arrests that they are making now.

One sees very little if any editorial support of the efforts to bring more accountability to local government by The Rep.  Moreover, it appears to The Report that the newspaper affords scant recognition of Stark County citizens who take on local government when it is not being responsive to citizen needs.

Trustee Giavasis felt strongly, and the SCPR agrees, that Plain trustees deserved coverage/recognition of its Tuesday night initiative.

And, of course, in writing this blog (as yours truly has often done before), The Report regularly and actively exhorts local governments and officials to be more be more accountable, transparent and accessible.

Usually the blogs are critical of the lack of thereof in Stark County political subdivision government.

But not always and the Plain Township example is one worthy of laudation.

Though he gave The Rep a "heads-up" on the initiative, he says nobody showed up to cover the event.

Here is summation of what he had to say to The Report about The Rep's failure:

• He got of phone call from The Rep that they could not cover Tuesday's township meeting because they did not have enough reporters to cover Plain, North Canton and Jackson Township at the same time,
• However, what particularly disturbed him was that there was no follow up, as of the time yours truly was talking with him on Wednesday, by the folks at The Rep wanting to know whether or not the trustees had passed a resolution providing for the taping of township's meetings for citizens to view at their leisure,
• "And this is the one that preaches openness and transparency."

Two weeks ago the SCPR attended a Plain Township meeting which had a couple of zoning change request hearings as part of the overall meeting.  Impressive to The Report was that the trustees let affected citizens who showed up as much time as they wanted to make their case.  Moreover, the Stark County sheriff took second place to the citizens in terms of placement on the overall meeting agenda.  It seems to The Report that the Plain trustees have their priorities right.

Not only does Plain Township lead the way for local governments to follow in terms of accountability, transparency and access, but appears to the SCPR to be the most fiscally responsible board of township trustees.

As indicate above it is uncommon for the SCPR to write a blog holding up any public official or government body as an example to be followed. 

However, Plain Township and its commitment to making local government processes accessible Plain citizens and thereby making those processes transparent which, of course, ultimately leads to accountability is a model that should be given the highest accolades and support.

A SCPR "hats off" to the Plain Township trustees!

All of Stark County local governments should pattern themselves after the Plain Township example.

CHIEF CIVIL DIVISION PROSECUTOR ROSS RHODES SAID THAT MARCELLI LAWSUIT TO RECOVER $5,000 TO COUNTY GENERAL FUND IS"... A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME." REALLY?????

UPDATE:  10:00 AM

INQUIRY OF CLERK OF COURTS
NANCY REINBOLD

HER RESPONSE

********************************************

 BLOG TOPICS

Is Ross Rhodes eating his words today?

Conley:  correctly identifies his online detractor?

The Repository's "double standard!"

Judge Forchione's temperament? 

Conley has a motive? LINK 

 
****************************************

ADDED MATERIAL

Email from SCPR to Stark County clerk of courts Nancy Reinbold

>>> Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> 2/8/2013 9:12 AM >>>
Clerk Reinbold,

What do you plan to do with the $5,000 returned by the agent for the Sandy Hook Support Fund in response to Judge Forchione's request?

Do you have any indication [that Judge Forchione] is going to (or, perhaps, already has) amended his original order to empower/direct you as clerk to place the money in the Stark County general fund.

MartinOlson/SCPR

Response from Clerk Reinbold:

It will be held on deposit on the Studer case until an order is signed and filed by Judge Forchione directing distribution.

Nancy S. Reinbold
Stark County Clerk of Courts
110 Central Plaza North Ste 160
Canton, OH 44702
(330) 451-7622nsreinbo@co.stark.oh.us

ORIGINAL BLOG

First,  Stark County chief civil prosecutor Ross Rhodes said the judge had absolute immunity when there was speculation in the media that civic activist and local attorney Craig T. Conley would be filing a lawsuit on behalf of Thomas Marcelli seeking to compel Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione to see to it that a $5,000 fine he ordered convicted criminal defendant Scott D. Studer to pay for the Sandy Hook shooting victims was repaid to the Stark County treasury and into the county general fund.

Secondly, in what the SCPR took as an implied intimidation to Conley proceeding with the lawsuit was Rhodes' statement to the effect that if Conley lost the case, he might be looking at paying costs of the action out of his (Conley's) own pocket.

The suit in declaratory judgment (LINK to SCPR blog providing more details of underlying facts of case) was filed on February 1st in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.  And wouldn't you know it, guess who gets assigned the case by the court's lottery system of assigning cases?

Of course, who else, in a case of super-irony:  Judge Forchione.

Thirdly, after the suit was filed Rhodes said "[i]t was a complete waste of time."

Obviously, if the case continues on, the judge will be recusing himself as will the entire panel of Stark County judges.

Conley tells the SCPR that his/his client's intention was for the $5,000 to come out of the judge's pocket.  Moreover, he says for the judge to deprive the victims of the money already paid to the Sandy Hook Support Fund was disgraceful.

So when news broke last night (LINK) that the agent for the Sandy Hook Support Fund had returned the $5,000 at Judge Forchione's request, one would think that Conley would pack up the lawsuit as being moot and he and his client go away.

For any of us thinking that is not to know Craig T. Conley.

Conley is a guy who pretty much says what he means and means what he says.

His client's (under the counsel of Conley) primary reason for filing the suit in the first place was because of his all consuming passion to "the rule of law" in American jurisprudence.

And Conley is doing all of this pro bono (without charge - for the public good).

He has advanced $300 in filing fees to file the case which he may or may not recover as part of the resolution of the case.


And in filing the case, Conley has incurred the ire of at least a couple of Stark County attorneys (one of whom Conley says has a matter pending before Forchione and the other of which has received some four appointments to cases over the last year or so at the hand of Judge Forchione) and members of the general public.

To boot, Conley believes that Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez chimed in on the comments section of The Repository in support of Judge Forchione under the screenname "warmsunshine."

The Report has asked Gonzalez whether or not Conley's suspicion was well founded.

Gonzalez answered with an emphatic NO!

Conley says that his suspicion is grounded in his belief that information shared in the comment was information that it is likely is uniquely ready at hand to Gonzalez.  Moreover, he points out that as an official in the Canton Municipal clerk of courts office, he thinks Gonzalez would have developed a government interaction relationship with Forchione as a consequence being a prosecutor in the Canton law department.

Conley indicates to The Report that he has put his mouth where his suspicion is as a testament to his certainty of the identity of the anonymous commenter.  He compiled a packet of information on the Judge's order and sent it to Gonzalez without comment.

Finally, Conley tells the SCPR that as far as he can determine, warmsunshine has not commented on the Forchione fine situation or any other Repository story since he transmitted the packet to Gonzalez.

Could be a mere co-incidence, no?

But Conely does not think so.

The Report repeats, that notwithstanding Conley's suspicion, Gonzalez has denied to the SCPR that Conley's speculation is true.

The main point of the foregoing discursive is to share with SCPR readers that folks like Conley are brought under enormous pressure by friends of those he holds to public account to back off.

And for a guy like Ross Rhodes to suggest that Conley's work "... is a complete waste of time" is outrageous for a person who is obligated to cherish the rule of law.

Lawyers 101 in law school is very clear in instruction that the way lawyers determine what the rules of law are, when disagreed upon, is through litigation.

Rhodes undoubtedly knows such to be the case and for him to suggest that Marcelli through Conley accessing the courts is "a waste" is the equivalent of placing himself in a three-in-one role of being jury, judge and executioner.  Pretty arrogant, no?

Nonetheless, Conley having an underlying motivation for participating in the filing the lawsuit merits examination.  This the SCPR has done.  Here is a LINK to that blog.

Beyond Rhodes, there is the conduct of The Repository editorial board in its processing letters to the editors on the Forchione fine issue.

Conley alleges (and has provided substantiation to the satisfaction of The Report) that two attorney letter to editor writers have connections with Judge Forchione.

One, Conley says, has gotten case appointments from the judge.  The other has a case pending before Forchione.

For Gayle Beck (the chief) and her fellow editorial editors to allow those who have a connection to get "letters to the editors" published without the editors having vetted the writers on whether or not they may have a motivation to write the letters they write is astounding.  Had she checked them out and detected Conley's allegations, one would think that she would certainly had inserted an editorial board disclaimer.

For some "letter to the editor" writers, Repository instituted vetting hurdles they have to overcome seem beyond reasonable.  For others, it appears the bar is very low, if not non-existent.

In a one-newspaper-town and in a county which has one-countywide-newspaper; double standarding is unacceptable. 

To The Report, the leadership at The Repository have irresponsibly (from an editorial standpoint) handled their monopoly of Stark County sited media.

The SCPR does not begrudge those with ulterior motives getting their letters published, but the editor, if they are doing proper editorial board journalism, should ensure that letters include disclaimers detailing connections between the writer and the subjects so that readers can make an informed judgment as to how much credibility those writers should be accorded.

So shame on The Repository editorial board for not doing its due diligence!

As it turns out, the Stark County's general fund is ultimately going to get the $5,000 courtesy of Conley and his client Marcelli at no cost to the taxpayers.

A waste, Prosecutor Rhodes?

Judge Forchione's given reason for retrieving the $5,000 is so that the Marcelli/Conley litigation will fade away for mootness thereby saving Stark's taxpayers the expense of protracted litigation.

For Conley, this is not good enough.

He is insisting that the judge correct his order so as to be in compliance with ORC 2949.11 and thereby, at least impliedly, admit that he did not have the legal authority to do what he did in ordering Studer to monetarily assist the victims of Sandy Hook.

In a letter to Prosecutor John Ferrero, Conley lays you his requirements to resolve the declaratory judgment action:

Conley has filed an amended complaint so as to include developments whereby Forchione asked for and received (via the clerk of courts office) the Sandy Hook money back.

Conley says that it is his intent to, by legal redress, compel Judge Forchione to restructure the order so as to put Stark County Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold in a plausible legal position to deposit the $5,000 with the Stark County treasury on it way into the county general fund.

While he thinks such will not totally cure the problems with the order, he said that he and his client will not stand in the way of the matter coming to an end if the order is restructured.

At the end of this blog, the SCPR has placed a copy of those paragraphs of the amended complaint wherein Conley endeavors to give life beyond the mere fact that Judge Forchione recovered the money from the folks of Newtown, Connecticut.

For Prosecutor Ross Rhodes, he should issue a press release to effect that he misspoke when to termed the complaint as being "a waste of time," which by definition is not accurate witness the recall of the $5,000 by Judge Forchione owing to the Marcelli/Conley complaint being filed.

For The Repository Editorial Board, they should start applying the same vetting standard to all letters to the editor that appears in the pages of The Rep.

For Judge Forchione, he should reconstruct his order to be in full compliance with the provisions of ORC 2949.11 in such as fashion that Clerk Reinbold is on solid footing in terms of forwarding the $5,000 to the Stark treasury or deposit in the Stark County general fund.

Moreover, it would be helpful for Judge Forchione (who is held in high esteem by many Stark Countians) to admit point-blank that he overstepped his legal bounds.

But will his general disposition, his demeanor, his temperament allow him allow to do so?

Let's all hope that the Forlchione assessment of one highly placed Stark County elected official to the SCRP is on the mark (i.e. that Judge Forchione is a classy guy) and that Conley's is off-the-mark.

For therein lies a quick solution to what Craig Conley is now calling Forchionegate a la his 2009 - 2011 labeling  of Stark County treasury problems as being Zeiglergate.

Forchione's handling of this matter should go a long way towards answering the question of whether or not he gets re-elected when the next comes on the ballot.

Here is the core of the amended complaint:

"DEJA-VU ALL OVER AGAIN!" SCHURING MAKES REPOSITORY DE FACTO CAMPAIGN PRESS AGENT. THE MARKS OF AN AWARD WINNING NEWSPAPER?

One of the things that political candidates try to do is to make the media (newspapers, television outlets and the like) unwitting (?) allies in the candidates try for office.

Within political campaigns, the manipulation of the press is called "earned media."

For incumbents, the task of using the media is simplified because they have the ability to orchestrate seeming "news events" to finesse a non-discerning news outlets into providing coverage that is not earned but rather is contrived.

Democratic Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II is the grandmaster of doing such and during his recent campaign against Republican A.R. Conde played the folks at The Repository (Stark County's only countywide newspaper) "like a fiddle" on this score.

A close second is Republican state representative Kirk Schuring (R - Jackson, the 51st running for the newly configured 49th House District).

Next is state Senator Scott Oelslager (R - Plain, the 29th Senate District) and quickly learning the technique is state Rep. Christina Hagan (R - Marlboro; the 50th House District).

The inability of the folks at The Rep to discriminate between "real" news and "press release - get me elected - re-elected" concocted news gives incumbents an unfair advantage over their challenger opponents.

Yours truly remembers vividly the campaign between Schuring and Democrat Jan Schwartz in 2002 for the 29th Ohio Senate District.

Remember that Schuring and Oelslager have this "tag-team" thing going in which they exchange the Ohio House and Senate seats when each is respectively term limited out of their existing elected position.  It is kind of an musical chairs exercise with the exception that in the Schuring/Oelslager version each ends up with a seat; just a different seat.

Back in 2002, it was interesting.  During the run up to the May, 2002 primary candidate Jan Schwartz got lots of Repository ink.  Probably as much as Schuring.

However, once the general election season took hold the ink dried up for Schwartz, but the spigots at The Repository remained full throttle for Schuring and it was hard to know (from reading The Rep) who his opponent was.

So it was no surprise that Schuring trounced Schwartz in 2002.  Schuring was likely going to win anyway, but once he was able to co-opt the presses at The Repository, then Schwartz had no chance whatsoever.

It is well established, in the SCPR's view of things, that the Schuring technique is an ensconced a la Yogi Berra "deja vu all over again" pattern that is unbecoming of a news outlet of the supposed sophistication of The Repository.

One can't blame the politicians for trying.  But who is the discerner-in-chief at 500 Market Avenue South?

Apparently, nobody!

Of late, there have been a spate of articles picking up on Christiana Hagan's legislative efforts in the Ohio House in anticipation of her seeking election for the first time  (November 6th) against Democrat Sue Ryan (a Alliance City Council councilwoman-at-large).

Obviously, she has picked up on the well-honed Schuring practice.

Yours truly has wondered as to the timing that we would be subjected to a Schuring-himself plying The Repository exercise?

Well, pretty much "like clockwork" Schuring surfaced this past weekend, to wit:  Boards and Ballots: Schuring introduces 10th bill, May 5th, Robert Wang.

What's interesting about Wang's piece that he does not mention once that Schuring has an opponent (Democrat Amanda Trump).   Of course, voters wouldn't want her reaction to Schuring's legislative record?

It was nice to see that a commenter (going under the Internet name "slimjim" took a critical look at the significance of Schuring's legislative record, in part, to wit:

And like most legislators, Mr. Schuring considers himself successful when Obie gets a license plate, or another blank can be added on the tax return (like we can't give to a cancer fund ourselves - we need the government's help).  ...  These examples of law changes that apply to an ever decreasing number of constituents are what passes for legislation these days.

The heavy lifting is left to others - or simply ignored for another year - or ten.

Here, here! (reference:  "The heavy lifting is left to other - or simply ignored for another year - or ten.")

The SCPR has done quite a lot of work going through the campaign finance reports - "Follow the Money" - of local (village, city, township and board of education) candidates.  One of the differentiating factors between locals and statewide (state reps, state senators, governor, et cetera) on reports is that locals do not have to indicate the vocation/organization that of contributors in excess of $100 as do the statewides.

The Report asked Schuring in 2009 as 29th District state senator (which includes Lake Township, home of  the SCPR) to match up the local requirement with that of state candidates.

Surprise, surprise! He responded in introducing SB 191 to require that local candidate campaign contributions over $100 identify donor's employer/vocation on the campaign finance report.

For a while anyway.

For once he got some opposition, he faded fast.

And definitely was nowhere-to-be-seen on SB 191 when, with the election of November, 2010, he "musical chaired" back into the 51st House District which yours truly is not a constituent of.

Apparently, he is not willing to fight for facilitating Stark County citizens having the right to know who the $100 and up contributors to the likes of Mayor Healy are and what interest groups they may be tied to.

For all of The Repository's picking up on self-serving press release material put out by candidates, it is interesting how the staff misses things like SB 191.

Interesting in light of the newspaper's annual hullabaloo about "Sunshine Week."

"Sunshine Week is defined, in part, by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) a being:

...  a national initiative to promote a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information,

Just how committed are "the powers that be" at The Rep. to the free flow of information in that it could not see fit to holding Schuring feet to the fire on SB 191.  The bill died with the expiration of the 128th Ohio General Assembly on December 31, 2010.

Nor has The Repository followed through on Schuring's promise to get results for Stark County officials on eliminating a specific list of  burdensome "unfunded mandates" that needed to be eliminated by the Legislature.  (See LINK to prior blog on the meeting).

Commissioners had called him and other area legislators (only Christina Hagan failed to show)  to a April 22, 2011 meeting with Stark County officials specifically to discuss the "unfunded mandate" problem.

A last report, Schuring has only gotten action on a item or two on a laundry list of items submitted by a task force of county officials headed by Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge Taryn Heath.

Now that the county sales tax has passed, the "unfunded mandate list" is no longer important to The bigs at The Rep, the county commissioners and other county officials?

Hmm?

And, of course, we all remember the political ploy by Schuring on contemplating a run for congressional seat of then-retiring Congressman Ralph Regula (the 16th) against Democrat John Boccieri.

Ploy? (See this LINK to prior blog)

Yes.

He made a big to-do about pushing the Ohio General Assembly to solve the Ohio Supreme Court ruling (DeRolfe - four times over) by placing a amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot.

Once the election came and went with Schuring losing.
Not a word from him about about keeping up the fight to solve the persisting public school funding problem.

But he can write a press release about 10 bills of questionable significance to the well being of Stark Countians/Ohians and have it picked up by The Rep without any questions being asked about his past legislative failures.

Hmm?

And The Repository is an award winning newspaper?

Standards sure are slipping these days, aren't they?

(EXTENSIVE "VIDEO" COVERAGE) SCPR ASSESSMENT - HEALY BEING THE EXPERIENCED "INCUMBENT" DEMONSTRATED AN "EDGE UP" IN LAST NIGHT'S CANTON MAYORALTY DEBATE

LIST OF VIDEOS:

1. CONDE CLOSING STATEMENT (BLASTING HEALY FOR BEING EXCESSIVELY POLITICAL)
2. CANDIDATE OPENING STATEMENTS
3. CANDIDATES ON SPENDING PRIORITIES OF HEALY ADMINISTRATION
4. THE POLITICAL HEROS OF THE CANDIDATES
5. CANDIDATE VIEWS ON CANTON'S APPROACH IN DEALING WITH CRIME
6. CANDIDATE TAKES ON THE EFFORT TO BRING JOBS TO CANTON
7. STATE ISSUE #2 (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING):  CANDIDATE POSITIONS
8. ISSUE #29 (STARK CO SALES TAX INCREASE):  CANDIDATE POSITIONS
9. CANTON SCHOOLS 7.9 MILL LEVY:  CANDIDATE POSITIONS
10. QUALITY OF MAYOR HEALY'S DECISIONS
11. ON TEARING DOWN VACANT BUILDINGS
12. TAPPING INTO THE FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME AS A CANTON ASSET
13. HEALY, MILLER AND HART CLOSING STATEMENTS

It was - well - sort of an opponent "tag-team" match last night at the co-sponsored NewsTalk 1480 WHBC and Repository debate at the Palace Theater featuring the candidates running for mayor of Canton.

But, as Republican A.R. "Chip" Conde said in his closing remarks, independent challengers John Miller and Richard Hart realistically have not been nor did they become as a consequence of the debate serious contenders to replace William J. Healy, II as mayor of Canton.

Conde is a serious threat, but even he showed last night that he is at a marked disadvantage in running against Stark County's most consummate politician.  As Conde and Miller tellingly pointed out, Healy has used and continues to use actually being mayor of Canton to his fullest political advantage in his drive to retain office for four more years.

So if anyone was going to get some political body slams on Healy, it was going to have to be Conde.

In the judgment of yours truly, Conde failed to deliver and, barring a miracle, believes that Healy will coast to re-election victory on November 8th.

The SCPR has been, perhaps, Healy's severest critic since coming online in March, 2008 about three and one-half months into Healy having been elected over Conde chief supporter Mayor Janet Creighton November, 2007.

Ever since Healy lost (unbelievably?) to Canton Councilman Bill Smuckler in the 2003 Democratic Primary, Healy has perhaps become - at least within the confines of Canton proper - the Stark Dems' best politician.

A mere 140 votes out of 7,852 cast and Healy would today be seeking a third term as mayor of Canton.   They are now tight political allies, but The Report's analysis is that council-at-large candidate Jimmy Babcock (son of a former Canton Democratic mayor) cost Healy the 2003 Democratic Primary election.

Had Healy won the Democratic Primary, the SCPR believes that Janet Creighton would never have been mayor of Canton.

BACK TO THE CAMPAIGN AT HAND

Rewind Democrat Mayor William J. Healy's tenure as mayor back to the early days of his administration.

It was one snafu after another "in the early days" which Healy attributed last night to be owing to his selecting administration members (Bernabei, Nesbitt and others) by committee rather than by his own gut instinct.

In summing up why voters should vote for him rather than Healy, Miller or Hart, Conde in the following video focuses on the "tripping over his own feet" history of Healy's start up as mayor.



As far as the SCPR is concerned, Conde's closing statement is a case of being "too little, too late."

Conde's major hope (if he had any in a city with a huge Democratic voter registration margin) was to get started much earlier with an intense campaign much along the lines of what he closed with last night but with the addition that - in time - Healy will find a way to get into a self-destruct mode and, unfortunately drag Canton down with him.

However, Conde is not a politician that matches up in any way, shape or form against Healy.  To expect him to get into a political cesspool with Healy, is not to understand "Chip" Conde.  Political skulduggery is not "Chip" Conde.

OPENING STATEMENTS

Healy provides Conde with the opportunity in bringing politics to the forefront (i.e. "I am a Democrat;" "my opponents [apparently including the independents] are Republicans who have failed in the past at governing)" in his opening statement as a basis on which Conde could repeatedly and forcefully make the point that Healy is consummately political and weak on governing.

In his own statement which came before Healy's, Conde signals that he will do just that.  But The Report's take is that he did not successfully do so.  Conde wrapped up nicely in this vein, but the "in between" was pretty much the statesman Conde.



ON THE ISSUES

Quite frankly, though the SCPR is highly troubled by Healy's marked politicization of the mayor's office, "on the issues" Healy appeared to The Report to best Conde.  This notwithstanding some cheerleading going on on the facebook page Democrats and Independents for Chip Conde, to wit:

ISSUE #1
WISDOM OF HEALY ADMINISTRATION SPENDING DECISIONS IN LIGHT OF PROJECTED $6.2 MILLION REVENUE SHORTFALL IN 2012/13

Healy effectively makes the point that the projected shortfall is beyond the mayor's control and sets himself up as the fiscal conservative best positioned to see Canton through the existing and coming tough times.

Conde does point out an internal Healy administration management problem which resulted in the loss of $481,000.  But does not take advantage of this opening to really pounce on Healy for apparently making spending decisions to enhance his getting through the Democratic Primary race and winning re-election.



A NON-ISSUE & ON A LIGHTER NOTE
THE CANDIDATES' POLITICAL HERO



ISSUE #3
CITY'S APPROACH TO FIGHTING CRIME

Conde wins the day on this issue in the sense that it simply is not credible as Mayor Healy asserts that his administration is getting a handle on crime in Canton to the degree that people who grace the streets of Canton, whether a resident of Canton or not, feel safer.

However, it does not appear to the SCPR that Conde has an "outside-of-the-box" solution to the Healy administration's apparent failure on this front.  He says to put more police on the streets.  Duh?  Where is the money to do so in the light of an impending $6.2 million shortfall? A hope and a prayer for grants?

Healy persists in hanging on to FBI reports of a three year decline and piggybacks on to the reports as his administration's police programs and techniques being the reason not withstanding Candidate Miller's list of crime statistics that fly in the face of the FBI report.



ISSUE #4
BRINGING JOBS TO CANTON

Conde is correct.  The Healy administration was not ready to go when it took office on January 1, 2008 especially on the matter of economic development and bringing jobs to Canton.

Of late, there have been some Healy administration success and this is what is going to stick in the mind of Canton's voters.  A good part of the jobs (the telemarketing ones) appear not to be living wage jobs.

These days, the mere appearance of jobs is a political plus.

For his part, Conde had nothing earth shaking to say about how a Mayor Conde would introduce a new dynamic into improving on the Healy so-so record.



ISSUE #5
STATE ISSUE 2 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

The relationship between unions and any administration is a really big deal in Stark County.

Notwithstanding his support of the Canton Professional Firefighters union, with all his equivocation as to whether or not he supports the Republican Kasich administration Senate Bill 5 (on the ballot as state Issue #2), Republican mayoralty candidate Conde likely has hurt himself badly in any hope he may have of getting public employee (including school teachers) support in his effort to unseat Mayor Healy.

Healy himself could not be more forthright in his denunciation of Issue 2.

Candidate Miller (who like Healy is clearly against Issue 2) had a problem squaring up his discussion with describing how he will vote on the issue.  With the help of questioner Ron Ponder (NewsTalk14080 WHBC Points to Ponder)he got it straight that he is "no on Issue 2."



ISSUE #6
STARK COUNTY ISSUE 29 - 1/2% SALES TAX INCREASE

Other than Mayor Healy being the most articulate and committed in support of Issue 29, there was no difference in the positions of the candidate.

It is in the compelling interest of all Canton governance types to be for Issue 29.  For it it fails, Canton stands to lose $400,000 more on top of the expected $6.2 million shortfall ($1.7 through 2012; $4.5 through 2013) that is in the offing for Canton.



ISSUE #7
CANTON SCHOOLS' 7.9 MILL LEVY

Canton Schools levy is really a non-issue.  The Report can't imagine why the question framer did not construct this matter in such a way as to draw some different perspectives from among the candidates.

Candidate Conde did manage to get petty with Healy over whether or not The Mayor's Scholarship Program is the only one in the nation.  But the SCPR does not think that was Conde's real point.

The SCPR takes Conde's criticism to be a subtle and larger issue:  a Healy tendency to exaggerate the beneficial or specialness of his programs and policies?

Rather than look petty, it would have served Conde better to call Healy on his tendency to braggadocio.  Of course, there is the possibility Conde was simply being petty.  The crowd did cheer wildly when Healy talked about the scholarship program.



ISSUE #8
QUALITY OF MAYOR HEALY'S DECISIONS

Prime Healy opponent Conde must have been seeing red as he stood and listened to Mayor Healy go through a list of three decisions he thinks he has made as mayor as possibly being his best (e.g. starting with the Cavaliers, then saying no and then going onto the second, et cetera) in the context of the questioner (Ponder) asking merely for the "best" decision.

Of course, this was a slick way for the consummate politician to remind the audience of his accomplishments.

It must have been a jolt for Healy to hear Miller and Conde say that firing now Stark County Commissioner Bernabei as being the worst Healy decision.  Healy had just got done saying implicitly that hiring Bernabei as part of his cabinet was his worst.

Interesting.  Both sides agree that the Bernabei thing was the worst, but for entirely different reasons.



ISSUE #9
DEMOLITION OF VACANT BUILDINGS

Mayor Healy's administration has made significant progress in demolishing vacant buildings:  500 so far, with another 4,000 on the waiting list.  The buildings breed crime and tearing them down has to help in the fight against crime.



ISSUE #10
MORE EFFECTIVELY USING THE HALL OF FAME AS AN ECONOMIC ASSET



CLOSING STATEMENTS OF HEALY, HART AND MILLER

IT TOOK READING THE ACTUAL COMPLAINT TO FIGURE OUT THAT STARK CO. TREASURER ZEIGLER (THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY) ACCUSED FORMER BD. OF COMMISSIONERS (BOSLEY, MEEKS AND FERGUSON) OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT. HMM?

One of the dangers of living in a one-newspaper-town which is also Stark County's only countywide newspaper (The Repository) is that readers are at the mercy how writers choose to write their stories.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, it is important news that Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler through his attorney in a August 29, 2011 court pleading for civil damages accuses/alleges that former Commissioners Todd Bosley, Steven Meeks and Pete Ferguson (who also sits on the current board) of having committed a crime (a first degree misdemeanor) under Ohio Revised Section 2921.45, in removing Zeigler from office on August 23, 2010 - to wit:

2921.45 Interfering with civil rights.

(A) No public servant, under color of his office, employment, or authority, shall knowingly deprive, or conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of interfering with civil rights, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Effective Date: 01-01-1974

Of course, in the SCPR readers get unvarnished reality.  Some material may make for uncomfortable reading.  But those who want to be fully informed, brace up for the reality of life.

The Report has no idea why The Rep writer(s) wrote up this portion of the interpretation of Zeigler's complaint the way it was.  It appears to have been done the way it was done for aesthetic/euphemistic purposes.  It could have been an oversight?  The answer lies in the mind of the writer(s).  Who can go there and figure that out?

The SCPR thinks that the reading public has the right to know - as near as possible - the real deal.

Yours truly has read and re-read (and using word search)  the referenced piece and finds no mention of the "violates his [Zeigler's] constitutional rights" in the context of being an alleged violation of Ohio criminal law.

It could be that Hoover (and, perhaps, Wang - Hoover lists Wang as a contributor [whatever that means]) wanted to write about the criminal allegations but were overridden by higher ups.  Again, this is something that The Rep nor the writer(s) would not likely share with Stark Countians.  Remember, Canton is a "one-newspaper-town."

One could say:  "Well, the general public can go down to the courthouse and look at the pleadings themselves."  And they could.  But, realistically, how many will?

Despite being a non-commercial, one person operation, the SCPR does its very best to say it like it "really" is!