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.
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.
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.
This SCPR blog is written as a political analysis regarding the political fallout, should the Ohio Supreme Court decide to restore former Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler to his position as treasurer, from which he was removed by the then Stark County commissioners (Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) on August 23, 2010.
In the pre-revelation Vince Frustaci theft of county fund days (meaning before April 1, 2009), Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero were seemingly on very friendly terms from the standpoint of political identity.
Gary Zeigler has been exonerated of any involvement whatsoever in the Frustaci theft.
Ferrero's/Zeigler's terms in office are some what equivalent (Ferrero: February, 2003 - present; Zeigler: 1999 to August 23, 2010). Moreover, Ferrero was chairman when Stark's organized Democrats appointed Zeigler
county treasurer in 1999 to replace Democrat Mark Roach who was removed
from office for not completing required treasurer educational
requirements.
Ferrero recently revealed at a Stark County commissioner in one of a series of "out-in-the-community-meetings," that he was just then celebrating his 8th year in office. The year was 2003. Prosecutor Bob Horowitz had moved onto being judge in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas - Probate Division and Ferrero stepped as chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party effective March 11, 2003 to focus on his job as newly appointed Stark County prosecutor by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee on February 15th.
Earlier on in their political relationship, Ferrero teamed up with Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson and Zeigler to run a coordinated campaign. Interestingly enough, The Report hears that there was a rub between Swanson and Ferrero and the political alliance fell apart.
It is interesting to note that one of Zeigler's prime defenders as a Stark County officeholder was none other than Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson.
It is more than a touch ironical that Ferrero's political fate come the 2012 elections may hinge on whether or not the Ohio Supreme Court decides to restore Zeigler to office.
Undoubtedly, if Zeigler is restored to office, the event will reopen old political wounds with the Stark County public.
The Report's take on the public view is that Stark Countians are convinced that one - Ferrero, Swanson, former Stark County Auditor Kim Perez, Zeigler and most, if not all, of Stark's other Democratic officeholders were politically thick with one another; and, two - that the appointed Zeigler was mostly a political phenomenon with thin credentials, if any, for the office of county treasurer.
However, once one gets appointed, the publicity and power of holding an office is usually enough to propel them in becoming "elected" officials.
Appointee Zeigler was elected in 2000, 2004 and 2008 (unopposed). Prosecutor John Ferrero, who was appointed, was elected in 2004 and 2008 (unopposed).
Should the Ohio Supreme Court restore Zeigler, Stark Countians are likely to be rekindled in their recollection that the State of Ohio Auditor's office (SOA) made findings in its Frustaci investigation to the effect that Zeigler failed to take basic steps to safeguard taxpayer money.
The Report recall of Zeigler's response to the SOA report as being was pretty much "I've done what has always been done by previous treasurers."
The SCPR believes that political control of the prosecutor's office and the sheriff's office and, perhaps offices held countywide by other Democrats could turn over to Republicans in 2012. In The Report's view, the likelihood magnifies many times over if Zeigler gets to re-assume office.
It is hard to tell from the oral argument that took place on Wednesday which way the Supreme Court will swing on the decision. In a surface view, it seems to The Report to be a 50/50 proposition.
The case seems to boil down to a head-to-head failure to comply (in the removal process) with Article 2, Section 38 of the Ohio Constitution (i.e. "upon complaint and hearing" - whether or not Stark County followed such) versus Zeigler "sleeping on his rights" (latches, [a Latin expression] in legal parlance).
Accordingly, The Report believes that the debate within chambers of the Ohio Supreme Court will be vigorous as to which will prevail) and is the basis for the SCRP thinking that Zeigler has about a 50/50 chance to get his office back.
If Zeigler comes back, the ramifications are manifold in Stark County government. In addition to Ferrero and other countywide Democrat officeholders looking at an enhanced likelihood of re-election defeat in 2012; Stark County Auditor Alan Harold (Republican, who defeated incumbent Democratic officeholder Kim Perez [rightly or wrongly perceived by the public to be a Zeigler political pal] will have a different relationship with the treasurer's office.
Harold was one of Zeigler's severest critics during his campaign against Perez and focused his campaign in joining Perez with Zeigler at the hip. Undoubtedly, a restored Zeigler will have a legally correct relationship with Harold, but does anyone think that the quality of the relationship will equal that which currently exists with fellow Republican Alex Zumbar?
And how about Zumbar himself?
Zumbar appears by virtue of his credentials (being Alliance finance director and North Canton finance director) to be well qualified for the treasury job he now holds. His opponent in the November election (Democrat - Ken Koher) was equally "credentials impressive." For political parties to select candidates for appointment to office or in the case of Zumbar to run for office is in the SCPR's experience a rare phenomenon. Now that Zumbar has been in office (and Koher before him) and made the OAO changes plus, only to have Zeigler come back to office to reap the benefits of the changes, would be a hard pill to swallow.
Moreover, Zumbar is out of a job. His replacement (Karen Alger) is already in place in North Canton.
While courts of jurisprudence do not take up and decide "political questions" and clearly the Ohio Supreme Court will not either; however, the political implications of the Court's decision in Case No. 2010-1570 State ex rel. Gary D. Zeigler, Stark County
Treasurer v. Jaime Allbritain [Kenneth N. Koher, Alexander Zumbar] Stark County Treasurer for Stark County are enormous.
Not intending to equate the eminent jurists sitting on the Ohio Supreme Court of "fat ladies," but only using the expression because of the message it communicates in terms of the finality of an event occurring or not occurring; Stark Countians can bet that a number of Stark County officeholders are awaiting the decision "with baited breath!"
Recently, yours truly was among a group of high ranking Stark County elected and appointed officials. In light of press reports that former Stark County Treasurer's appeal to be reinstated has been selected by the Ohio Supreme Court for its docket to come up for hearing on March 23, 2011, the Report posed this question: (question and responses are paraphrased)
"What if Gary Zeigler comes back as treasurer?"
One response: "It is what it is, we'll just have to deal with it if it comes about."
Another: "If the Supreme Court orders it, we have no choice; we'll adapt."
When Ziegler was under fire by many local government and political figures for what they claimed to be inadequate procedural safeguards in the treasurer's offices to have prevented his chief deputy Vince Frustaci from stealing several millions of taxpayer dollars, they were virtually of one accord in calling for his resignation.
Whatever else one thinks of Gary Zeigler, you have to admire his spunk and perseverance.
He never did directly admit that treasury office procedural inadequacies played any role in providing the opportunity for Frustaci to make off with county money. However, he did adopt the recommendations made by the State of Ohio Auditor's post-theft forensic audit.
Federal and Stark County prosecutors cleared Zeigler of any involvement in the theft.
He insisted that there was no basis at all for Stark County commissioners (then Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) to remove him under chapter 321 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Nonetheless, the commissioners removed him under the statute (ORC 321.38) and Zeigler's main argument seems to be that the statute that the commissions cite is unconstitutional.
Obviously, prosecutors disagree on the constitutionality question and moreover make the argument which essentially boils down to "what is done is done, to undo it would create a mess in Stark County government"
Yours truly doubts that the Ohio Supreme Court will be impressed with an argument the "what is done is done" argument. County officials and "others with an interest" in seeing Zeigler not coming back as Stark County treasurer better hope that the constitutionality of ORC 321.38 sticks.
When talk first began of commissioners' removing Zeigler from office, most lawyers yours truly talked with, doubted that the law providing for his removal was constitutional. After all, Democrat Zeigler (appointed by Stark County Democrats in 1999 to replace his predecessor who was forced from office) was elected in 2000, 2004 and 2008 as Stark County treasurer and how is it that "peers" (in the elected sense) get to remove him from office.
Accordingly, the SCPR would not be surprised in the least to see Zeigler ordered reinstated by the Supreme Court.
This is the juncture at which the "what if" scenarios come into play.
Now you have Republican (Alex Zumbar) who gave up his position as North Canton finance director to run for and ultimately be elected as Stark County treasurer. Before him, two other treasurers had very brief stints in office. All three treasurers have made extensive changes to the structure and procedures of the treasury which, of course, a "returned to office" Gary Zeigler would inherit.
One of Zeigler's most antagonistic critics was and likely remains newly elected Stark County auditor Alan Harold. Can you imagine what a Harold/Zeigler relationship will be in the light of the Harold campaign venom spewed on Zeigler?
See this video Harold at the Navarre Tea Party event held on Sunday, June 27, 2010.
As The Report sees it, Harold was elected on a combination of factors:
the problems in the Stark treasury and the public perception that Zeigler and Perez (the incumbent Democrat auditor that Harold defeated) were close personally and politically,
it appears that Stark County voters may be perceiving a high degree of political cronyism having taken up resident among a number of the elected Democrats who still hold countywide office,
the fact that Democrats were the majority vote (Bosley and Harmon) when commissioners, (including Republican Jane Vignos) imposed a 0.50 percent sales tax in December, 2008, and which was soundly rejected in November, 2009)
the general Republican sweep across the nation including Ohio and Stark County in 2010.
Ditto for Alex Zumbar and his election.
Stark County Democratic elected officials have to be feeling highly insecure for next year's election; especially if Gary Zeigler takes up again as Stark County treasurer.
Among the offices that are up in 2010 include Stark County sheriff, prosecutor, recorder and clerk of courts. Only the Stark County coroner and engineer seem to be safe havens for elected Democrats in Stark these days.
Of course, the SCPR has been in the lead in criticizing elected officials (Democrat and Republican) for making appointments to office that seem to justify a public perception that political cronyism has been in full bloom in Stark County for a long time.
Neither political party is enamored with The Report, but the Democrats have been markedly reactive to The Report's blogs, of late.
Yesterday, Chairman Randy Gonzalez (Stark County Democratic Party) fired off a vitriolic e-mail to yours truly complaining about how "unfair" The Report has been in covering the Stark Dems. What's more, he suggested that The Report's critiques of government are not an authentic concern on the part of The Report for quality Stark County political subdivision government but a venting of personal frustration of not being a Stark County political insider.
It was somewhat surprising to yours truly to receive the Gonzalez e-mail as he seemed to be one of the more politically mature of Stark's leading organized Democrats. Has the SCPR misgauged Gonzalez?
Perhaps and perhaps not.
The Report chooses to see - for now - the e-mail being a manifestation of anxiety on the part of the likes of Swanson (sheriff), Campbell (recorder), Ferrero (prosecutor) Reinbold (clerk of courts), Ferguson (commissioner) that they or their political successor (in the case of Swanson), that the tide has swung in Stark County and it is becoming increasingly likely that the Stark Republican Party will come to dominate county offices as an outcome of the upcoming 2012 elections.
Should the Ohio Supreme Court reinstate Zeigler, if memory serves correctly, he - should he decide to run for reelection - would be on the 2012 ballot (although his term would not actually end until the first Monday in September, 2013 [ORC 321.01]). Wouldn't the Democrats have to have someone run against him in the 2012 Democratic primary?
Should Zeigler be returned to local government and concomitantly reintroduced into the Stark County political equation, the consequences to the Stark County organized Democratic Party could be devastating at the polls.
Undoubtedly, the Dems are wringing their hands over this possibility, no?
B.A. - Political Science
J.D.
AN INDEPENDENT MINDED POLITICAL COMMENTATOR
Until 1976 I was a Republican. Since then I have considered myself a Democrat. So after long term stints of being a Republican, then a Democrat, I have come to the political position I feel most comfortable with - being an INDEPENDENT MINDED ANALYST who demands effectiveness of our politicians - Republican, Democrat or whatever.
I have changed my political affiliation to "non-partisan" by not voting in either political party primary election.
