(VIDEOS: COM'R BERNABEI ON BOND & A FOLLOW UP VIDEO OF COM'R CREIGHTON) BERNABEI RESPONDS TO "SUGGESTION" THAT COMMISSIONERS UP ZEIGLER BOND TO $1,000,000

Last week local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley sent a letter to Stark County commissioners asking them to consider raising Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler's bond from $500,000 to $1 million.

Commissioner Creighton on video (LINK here to prior blog which contains her video) told the SCPR that she would consider Conley's request.

By yesterday, her point of view had evolved to being definitely in favor of supporting Conley's suggestion and even going beyond a $1 million bond.  Without prodding by the SCPR she went on to say:  "I don't want him [Zeigler] to ever come back.  Sounds like Stark County Auditor Alan Harold's statement of several weeks ago where he said on the SCPR VideoCam:  "I just want Zeigler to be gone!"

Here is a video clip of Creighton making her statement yesterday:



The Report then turned to Commissioner Bernabei for a response.   He declined to respond at that time as he said he had not read Conley's letter.

Yesterday, the Stark County Political Report caught up with Commissioner Bernabei after a commissioner work session concluded and he did have a response as promised to The Report on Tuesday.    Here is a video of Bernabei addressing the Conley request.



The Report interprets Bernabei's response to be indicative of the commissioners "putting first things first" and that getting a bond, any bond, to allow Zeigler to become a full fledged treasurer once again.

For those readers who need to know the history of Zeigler's troubles, CLICK HERE to view a prior SCPR blog which goes into the background of how Zeigler got to where he is now, that is to say:  less than a fully functioning county treasurer in search of a bond (via the commissioners) so that he can once again be a fulfledged Stark County treasurer.

Where is Commissioner Pete Ferguson on the issue?

Well, the SCPR tried to ask him at yesterday's regular weekly meeting, but he had to excuse himself after adjourning the meeting (he is the president of the board of commissioners) to attend to a pressing matter.

However, The Report conjectures that he is likely to be in line with Bernabei.  While it appears that he gets along well with Commissioner Creighton, the SCPR's take is that he looks to Bernabei for guidance on controversial issues that come before the commissioners.

The Report has contacted Conley and shared with him Bernabei's response.

Conley's reaction?

Bernabei makes the case all the more as to why the commissioners should go for - at a minimum - his suggested $1 million bond.

The Report asked Chief Administrator Mike Hanke when the local insurance agency (Sirack-Moore) might becoming in to see the commissioners to entertain their questions of where the agency stands in its effort to find an underwriter for the Zeigler bond.  Readers of The Report will recall that an agency representative was scheduled to be in last Tuesday (the 9th), but begged off.

Hanke's response:  Whenever Sirack-Moore has some news to share.  Even at that, he offered that the response might come through assistant Stark County Prosecutor Ross Rhodes.  In either event, yours truly will be right on top of that story when it breaks.

Stay tuned, folks!

CRAIG CONLEY: ON A MISSION TO DRIVE ZEIGLER FROM OFFICE?

UPDATE & REPUBLICATION  08/11/2011 AT 8:00 AM

At yesterday's Stark County commissioners' meeting, the SCPR asked Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton (Commissioner Ferguson was not available) whether or not they were considering local attorney and civic activists Craig T. Conley's request that they increase Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler's bond from $500,000 to $1,000,000.


Before viewing the video of their responses, go to this LINK and take in a short lesson of what a bond is and how it differs from insurance.


Here is the Creighton/Bernabei video:






ORIGINAL BLOG

Today, Stark County civic activist and attorney Craig T. Conley (who coined the term "Zeiglergate") hand-delivered a letter to Stark County commissioners asking them to increase the bond required of Gary D. Zeigler before he re-assumes his full duties and Stark County treasurer.

Here is a copy of the letter:

 

Zeigler is having trouble getting a $500,000 bond; let alone get a $1,000,000 bond.

Obviously, Conley knows that.  

The SCPR believes that what Conley's request really is all about is to keep Zeigler from becoming treasurer again.  If Zeigler cannot get the bond (which the commissioners have the full statutory authority to set), the office is deemed vacant and his victory in the Ohio Supreme Court becomes a bragging rights victory which never acquires substance.

Obviously, Conley knows that too.

The Report's take is that if Conley had not been birddogging Zeigler from the day the Frustaci theft was revealed (April 1, 2009) that life would have been a lot more comfortable than it has been.

Had it not been for Conley, who knows when Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero would have gotten off his hind end and went after Zeigler under the provisions of Ohio Revised Code Section 321.37 to recover the $2.96 million that has come up missing during Zeigler's tenure.

Conley has been in detailed and frequent communication with Ferrero's office pushing them each step of the way in his endeavor to get Zeigler out of office (August 23, 2010) and to keep him out (failure with the Ohio Supreme Court - June 23, 2011).

Recently, he started an effort to get Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio to prosecute Zeigler for dereliction of duty (a second degree misdemeanor).

The Report hears, that at the urging of Conley, Martuccio has contacted Ferrero's office and is getting Ferrero's cooperation (in terms of the files that Ferrero has on hand from the local, state and federal investigation of the Frustaci matter) as he looks into whether or not a provable case can be brought against Zeigler.

Zeigler's attorney (Nakon) has complained about the county's pursuit of his client saying in a Stark County Court of Common Pleas brief that Zeigler is the victim and that county officials are out to make a martyr of him.

Nakon doesn't say a word about Conley.  Interesting?

If Zeigler ends up resigning or if he is unable to get a bond and therefore the office becomes vacant, Stark Countians like Stark County Auditor Alan Harold who think Zeigler ought to go should not be thanking the commissioners or Prosecutor Ferrero.

The person who deserves the credit will be:  local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley!!!

IS CONLEY OPPOSITION A "KILLER" FOR COMMISSIONER PROPOSED 1/2 CENT INCREASE IN SALES TAX?

 

On the heels of a smashing defeat at the polls in November 2009 of a December 2008 "imposed" 1/2 cent sales tax levy split between a countywide 9-1-1 rehab and the county general fund, Stark County commissioners started talking about forming a group of Stark County citizens (April, 2010 - Commissioners Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) "to review county government operations and make recommendations to the Stark County Commissioners (sic) and other elected officials."

Among those asked to and agreeing to serve was the leader of the repeal movement:  local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (who, if not the formal leader of the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee was clearly the de facto leader).

At the time, the Stark County Political Report mused that putting Conley on the committee was an attempt to co-opt his opposition.

Well, if it was:  it did not work.

On Friday, Conley sent Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson a letter.

In the hand-delivered letter, he tells them that he opposes their proposed 1/2 cent sales tax increase for the following reasons:

• "[W]ay too generous and actuarially unsustainable retirement and health care benefits,"
• "no mention [in area media reports] of wage or benefit decreases,"
• [the use of] "the usual scare tactic that, without the sales tax, criminals will be free to rape, pillage, plunder and murder."

Conley's opposition has to be terrible news for commissioners.

While he is just one person; he is a person of enormous influence in certain sectors of the Stark County population.  The only good news coming out of the Conley missive was a no-mention of the revival of the Vote No Increased Taxes Committee to join him in a formal way in opposing the sales tax increase.

It could be that he did not take this extra step  (reconstituting "Vote No") because (in the words of the communication) of his happiness that the "Board [including new commissioners Bernabei and Creighton and carryover Ferguson] implement[ed] a new era of openness and dialogue in County government and for steadfastly refusing to impose any sales tax."

The SCPR believes that had Conley done so (rebirthed "Vote No"), then the defeat of the sales tax issue would be guaranteed.

Nonetheless, many Stark Countians are telling the SCPR that the 1/2 cent sales tax has no chance whatsoever to pass.

What would it take to turnaround the thinking of the likes of Conley and get the attention of Stark Countians, generally that the county is serious about getting the expenditure side of its budget in proper Conely-esque proportions?

In conversations with Conley, The Report recalls his mentioning that it would be better for Stark County employees to agree to a 20% decrease in their wages than to risk losing their jobs altogether.  Moreover, he has repeatedly talked about getting benefits trimmed to match those of the private sector.  His focus has been on the benefits that unions get.

In fact, in his letter to the commissioners he attached a copy of an editorial from the Wall Street Journal (A City Unended by Unions - CLICK HERE TO READ) as "succinctly set[ting] forth the true cause of political subdivision budgetary problems.

The SCPR believes that the current board of commissioners (as Conley says) have opened a "new era of openness and dialogue in County government."

However, they are still saddled with county officials who have not bought into their new standard and Conley's standards.

County officials have pledged an all-out-effort to convince Stark Countians to vote yes on the 1/2 cent proposed increase.

But to what avail?

What may work is for county officials to get to work between now and November in implementing Conley's prescription for what ails Stark County government!

(VIDEO) CANTON LAW DIRECTOR RESPONDS TO CITIZEN CONLEY'S DEMAND THAT HE PROSECUTE REINSTATED STARK COUNTY TREASURER GARY ZEIGLER FOR "DERELICTION OF DUTY"

Reinstated Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler probably cannot believe that Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio is considering the possibility of bringing criminal charges (2nd degree misdemeanor) against him for dereliction of duties in his management of the Stark treasury before he was illegally (according to the Ohio Supreme Court) removed from office on August 23, 2010 by the then commissioners Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks because they did not accord Zeigler his due process of law rights as required by Article II, Section 38 of the Ohio Constitution.

After all, county and federal prosecutors made findings that Zeigler was not involved in the theft of what some believe to have been as much as $2.96 million of taxpayer money by his - up until April 1, 2009 -  Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci.

But Martuccio is.

No, Canton's law director is not retreading the ground already covered by the county and federal prosecutors.  His consideration is solely on Zeigler's steadfast and consistent contention that he did nothing wrong in terms of the controls, structures and management style he had in place before his ouster.

Last Thursday local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley fired off a letter to Martuccio outlining why he thought the law director should proceed with charges against Zeigler, to wit:

 

It appears to the SCPR that Conley is outraged by Zeigler's persistent denials that he failed to take appropriate management and administrative actions to prevent a theft like Frustaci's from happening.  Moreover, it seems that he will not rest until there is some sort of finding by a court of law that Zeigler failed Stark County taxpayers.

This is the same Craig Conley who took great offense at the Stark commissioners (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos circa December, 2008) imposing a 1/2 sales tax on Stark Countians and who was instrumental in forming a "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee" that caused the issue to be placed on the November, 2009 ballot.  Voters overwhelmingly repealed the tax.

This is the same Craig Conley who took great offense at Sheriff Tim Swanson dissing of the Stark County public ("poop on the public") in speaking in support of the imposed tax and took him to task in the media.  

This is the same Craig Conley who initiated litigation (since taken over by Stark County prosecutors) to recover the missing monies from Frustaci and Zeigler in a civil action which is in progress in Stark County Common Pleas Court (visiting Judge Inderlied). 

So Conley isn't somebody one would want to be a target of.  It could be that Zeigler has met his match in Conley.  

As a sidenote, here is a copy of a check representing Frustaci's pension fund from the U.S. District Court for Northern Ohio sent recently to Stark County commissioners.

The SCPR caught up with Martuccio at last night's Canton City Council meeting and videotaped his response to the Conley letter in terms of the actions he is taking.  He says that his consideration could take weeks if not months to come to a determination.

NEGOTIATIONS UNDERWAY TO SECURE REINSTATED TREASURER ZEIGLER'S RESIGNATION? CRAIG T. CONLEY SAYS THAT "HE WILL NOT" BE SPEARHEADING A ORC 3.07/3.08 ACTION TO REMOVE ZEIGLER FROM OFFICE.

The Stark County Political Report has learned from a Stark County elected official in a position to know that negotiations are underway between the county prosecutor's office and legal counsel for reinstated Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler to secure Zeigler's resignation.

Apparently, the platform for the settlement discussions is the lawsuit filed by prosecutor's pursuant to a demand by then Stark County Auditor Kim Perez pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 321.37 that action be taken to recover from Zeigler about $2.96 million in missing county money believed to be stolen by former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci.  In pleading guilty to an information filed by federal prosecutors filed in June, 2010, Frustaci admitted to stealing $2.46 million.

Zeigler himself was exonerated by county and federal prosecutors of any involvement in the theft.

However, issues remain as to Zeigler's liability for unrecovered portions of the $2.96 million of missing money from the county treasury.  From bonds and insurance and miscellaneous assets of Frustaci, about $1.5 million have been recovered.

So the county is looking to Zeigler to make the treasury whole for the remaining uncovered losses.  His attorneys say that he has done nothing wrong and therefore are fighting the county claim against their client.

The Report's source says that Judge Inderlied (the out-of-county judge assigned to the case by the Ohio Supreme Court) has asked attorneys for the county and Zeigler to resolve their differences.  Apparently, with Zeigler's reinstatement as county treasurer (he only needs a bond to officially resume his office), the settlement discussions have been expanded to secure Zeigler's resignation.

But there is a sticking point on Zeigler agreeing to resign.

The SCPR is told that Zeigler is insisting on being paid not only on back pay and benefits (which The Report is told is undisputed by the county) but also for pay and benefits running through September, 2013.  One county official tells The Report that such (payments for unprovided - in terms of actual service - future services as treasurer) is a killer as far as that official is concerned.  For if the county were to agree to include such in a settlement package to Zeigler, the county would be paying twice for a county treasurer.

It will be interesting to see where these negotiations go, if anywhere.  For the SCPR's part, Zeigler agreeing to resign would be a Godsend for Stark County and the county could finally get on with healing a rift between itself and the Stark County public.  As long as what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has coined as being "Zeiglergate," festers, The Report believes there is no chance that the commissioners' proposed 1/2 cent sales tax issue that most certainly will be on the November ballot is DOA.

However, if the situation in the county treasury has some finality to it, there just may be a glimmer of hope that Stark Countians will be of a mind to give commissioners a financial fresh start which coupled with the new board of commissioners' clearly improved accountability, transparency, and accessibility might actually get the county on a pathway to a full and complete recovery in the context of a hopefully improving state and national economy.

If Zeigler does resign, then it will be up to the Stark County Democratic Party (SCDP) to appoint an interim treasurer to serve out Zeigler's term.

What the SCDP ought to do if called upon to replace Zeigler is to show that in the public interest it can overcome politics and appoint Republican Alex Zumbar to the post that he was elected to (illegally, according to the Ohio Supreme Court) over Democrat Ken Koher.

Yours truly can hear Stark County Democratic leaders already saying:  "Olson is off his rocker, no way Jose!"  And nobody understands realpoltik better than The Report.  However, it would be nice if political parties could put self-interest aside for the public good. 

Alternatively, the Dems should reappoint Ken Koher as a replacement.

On another front in the myriad of issues/actions surround the Zeigler situation, Crag Conley told The Report "he will not" be spearheading an Ohio Revised Code Section 3.07/3.08 action against Zeigler.  It was reported in area media yesterday that Conley "might" take the matter on.

Conley does dispute Zeigler's attorneys contention that Zeigler has done nothing wrong in the "civil law" context.  Conley (who is an attorney) believes that it is highly plausible that - were a ORC 3.07/3.08 initiated - a civil wrong (e.g. non-feasance) could be proved.


Others who question Zeigler's contention that "I did nothing wrong," (in the context of how he administratively managed the treasurer's office) include Stark County Auditor Alan Harold and the State of Ohio Auditor's office.  No one disputes (including Conley, Harold and the Ohio auditor) the county and federal findings that Zeigler did nothing criminally wrong.

Here is a copy of a communication sent out by Alan Harold yesterday that should shed more light to the Stark County public  on contentions made by Harold, former treasurer Alex Zumbar among others of measures that have been taken in the treasurer's office to cure perceived deficiencies that carried over from the Zeigler administration of the office, to wit:

$40 MILLION + IN UNCOLLECTED REAL PROPERTY TAXES COULD SOLVE STARK COUNTY'S FISCAL CRISIS IN A HURRY, NO? ALSO, WHEN IS CLERK OF COURTS NANCY REINBOLD GOING TO LET STARK COUNTIANS KNOW HOW MUCH IS OUTSTANDING (UNCOLLECTED) FROM HER OFFICE & DEVELOP A PLAN TO ACCELERATE A COLLECTION?

It appears that Stark County government is at the beginning of full blown fiscal crisis because of the voters' rejection (in November, 2009) of retaining a 0.50 sales tax imposed by former Stark County Commissioners Todd Bosley, Tom Harmon and Jane Vignos in December, 2008.

Moreover, because of a "public perception" crisis of confidence in county government brought on by the revelation in April, 2009 of the theft of  $2.96 million (in the opinion of federal judge John Adams) by former Stark County treasury Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci (even though neither the treasurer nor any other county official was involved in the theft); county commissioners feel that it would be futile to put a 0.25 renewal sales tax issue on in May of this year.

Accordingly, commissioners have been reaching out to the Stark Countians to rebuild public trust in county government before ascertaining whether or not county voters are open to considering voting for a renewal or a replacement thereof.

The following are several among an impressive list of activities take by the commissioners, to wit:

• leaning on county elected officials and department heads to examine every nuance of the operations of their respective departments in order to uncover areas which could result in savings of county tax dollars.  Commissioners asked for and pretty much achieved a 16% across-the-board reduction in the FY 2011 county budget
• holding work sessions at the county office building (commissioners meeting room - open to the public, of course) on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week and bringing in elected officials and department heads to go over in excruciating detail the specifics of their operations in the belief that another set of eyes and and concomitant inquiry might produce new efficiencies in the operations of the various aspects of county government
• looking at ways to consolidate/merge government operations (e.g. county and municipal building departments) as a service of convenience and efficiencies to county residents who are building new homes/business buildings or making modifications/additions to their current structures
• going out into the Stark County community-at-large to each and every part of Stark County and holding town hall type meetings and taking and responding to any and all questions asked .
• taking direct phone calls from Stark County citizens at their offices
• making field trips to county facilities to check first hand on county department of government operations

Whether or not the commissioners end up putting a tax issue on the Stark County ballot, their trust- building actions need to continue.

There has been an interesting development that it appears commissioners are interested it.  Civic activist and local attorney Craig T. Conley sent a letter to commissioners pointing out to them that the Stark County treasury has a "delinquent taxpayer list" which indicates that Stark is owed over $40 million dollars.  Additionally, he offered his services - pro bono publico (for the public good, in other words, "free") - to put together an effort of like-minded Stark County attorneys to collect a large portion of the outstanding $40 million plus.

The entire letter is reproduced at the end of this blog.

In speaking with Conley, he pointed out to The Report that if his idea can work it offers the prospect (his opinion) of negating the need to have a renewal/replacement levy.  And he is bullish on a "spill-over" effect in which the collection of any part of the $40 million will inure to the benefit of political subdivisions which includes:  villages, cities, townships [fire, police and road levies], park districts, water districts, sewer districts, school districts and even the county.

Commissioners Creighton and Bernabei tell the SCPR that they are interested in Conley's proposal and will be investigating whether or not his proposal or any part thereof is doable.  In the next week or so they will be sitting down with Conley to work out the details of implementing his plan.

So is current Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar.  He tells the SCPR that there are more than 18,000 delinquent parcels.  While the county treasury does have a program in place in coordination with the Stark County prosecutor's office (Prosecutor John Anthony) whereby they collect about $10 million a year, it is usually a wash because about $10 million, sometimes a little more; sometimes a little less, new delinquencies are added each year.

Zumbar is pleased with the prosecutor's office effort but understands that the office is in no position to expand its effort so that over time the county can accelerate collection and achieve significant net reductions in the overall $40 million plus that is owing to Stark County taxpayers.  Recently, the prosecutor's office has had a reduction in force due to the need by all county offices to achieve a 16% reduction in annual operating expenses.

The SCPR is pleased to see citizens like Conley step forward and present viable ideas that have the potential to make a profound contribution to solving county revenue needs for the immediate future (let's say the next two to four years - an SCPR estimate).  To repeat, as a "spill-over," it could also help alleviate the effect of coming state of Ohio cuts to Stark County's political subdivisions.

Needless to say, county officials should have been pursuing these revenues long before Conley entered the picture with his idea.

Another question the SCPR has been assured by Commissioner Janet Creighton is being looked into is to why Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold cannot put a dollar amount on Stark County Common Pleas fees, fines, et cetera that are owed to Stark County taxpayers.

The Report will, on an ongoing, persistent basis,  push the commissioners and Reinbold to get a fix on the amount owed and, beyond that, to develop a plan a la Conley's to bring these revenues into county government to help obviate the need for renewed or replacement levies.

Here is the Conley letter.