(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  Voters overwhelmingly repealed the tax.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.

LOCAL ACTIVIST & ATTY CRAIG T. CONLEY "DEMANDS" THAT CANTON LAW DIRECTOR JOE MARTUCIO PROSECUTE REINSTATED STARK CO. TREAS. GARY D. ZEIGLER. WILL HE?

Earlier today, the SCPR received a copy of a five-page letter from local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley to Canton Law Director demanding that Martuccio file misdemeanor charges against reinstated (by the Ohio Supreme Court) Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler.

Zeigler has to be feeling pretty good about having been reinstated by the high court, and perhaps even thinking he has Stark County government by the vitals, in that the Supreme Court found that county commissioners had removed him illegally in that he was not accorded "due process of law" under the removing authority statutes invoked by the commissioners (Ohio Revised Code Sections 321.37 & 321.38).  Accordingly, the removal failed to square up with Article II, Section 38 of the Ohio Constitution.

Ousted treasurer Alex Zumbar has asked the Supreme Court (Court) to reconsider its decision.  The matter is now pending.  But most legal observers do not expect the Court to change its ruling.

Zeigler's attorney has told area media that his client is looking at being paid his back wages and benefits and, perhaps, to file a wrongful termination civil suit against the county.  Moreover, Zeigler is seeking to avoid having to repay the county about $1.5 million (by the SCPR's estimate) in unrecovered losses on account of the theft of by Zeigler's former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci of what is believed to be a total of $2.96 million (Frustaci has admitted to $2.46 million).

Zeigler points out that county and federal prosecutors have exonerated him of any involvement in the theft.

Zeigler goes one step further.  He says that he did nothing wrong in the administration of his office and therefore should not face any civil liability for the losses.

It is the unwillingness of Zeigler to admit that he did not institute procedural safeguards to ensure that events like the Frustaci theft could not happen that drives the likes of Craig Conley into a tizzy.

Conley from the very beginning has pushed authorities (the commissioners, the auditor and John Ferrero, the county prosecutor) to get moving on:  #1 removing Zeigler from office, and #2 recovering any money not covered by bonds and insurance directly from Zeigler himself.

Now that the Ohio Supreme Court has reinstated Zeigler, Conley has put on his legal thinking cap and pushed for either the Stark Republican Party or the Stark Democratic Party to initiate a petition drive pursuant to ORC 3.07/3.08 (which would require about 20,000 valid Stark County voter signatures) as the signatory authority on a complaint filed with the Stark County Court of Common Pleas in order to try Zeigler for removal for alleged nonfeasance.  Zeigler would be entitled to a jury, if he wanted one.

However, both parties have refused to use their central committee structure to collect the needed signatures thus leaving Conley looking for other ways and means to get Zeigler out of office.

His thinking seems to be that of keeping pressure on Zeigler to resign.

There has been talk of a settlement of the lawsuit seeking recovery of losses from Zeigler of the remaining missing money whereby a part of the deal would be Zeigler resigning.

The SCPR has spoken with Law Director Martuccio and he indicates that he has the Conley letters (there is a second one sent this afternoon which provides more details which Conley thinks Martuccio will find helpful in his deliberations) and will be going over them with his two prosecutors who try criminal cases in the Canton Municipal Court.

The Conley/Zeigler face-off is an interesting ongoing phenomenon and is one for Stark Countians to watch closely.

The SCPR believes that Conley is the one Stark Countian who is every bit as pugnacious as many believe Zeigler is and seems to demonstrate.

It could be that Zeigler has met his match in Craig T. Conley!!!

Here is the main Conley letter:

A SCPR WELCOME BACK! TO REINSTATED STARK COUNTY TREASURER GARY D. ZEIGLER - WHAT A DIFFERENCE 12 YEARS HAS WROUGHT?

According to area media report, reinstated (by the Ohio Supreme Court) Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler is to show up for work today - not as a mere visit as on a day last week - but for the duration of his term remaining in office (which runs until September, 2013).

This happening suggests that a historical review of the Zeigler political and officeholding is in order.

The date:

As an Akron Beacon Journal article (Andale Gross, May 28, 1999) put it:

"Member of the Stark County Democratic Central Committee last night elected real estate investor Gary Zeigler of Plain Township as county treasurer."

Predecessor Mark Roach had been removed from office in April, 1999 because he had failed to take state of Ohio required education courses.  An ironic twist to the Mark Roach departure was a finding the Ohio Auditor's office on doing an exit audit of the Stark treasury on Roach's leaving office (ousted by county commissioner presumably under ORC 321.37/321.38) in April, 1999 that $1,000 was missing.

He ran for and was elected treasurer in 1992 on the retirement of his father, Harold, in 1993.

While Mark Roach was not accused of taking the money, he was cited and he did repay the missing money as required by Ohio law.

In recent history, the quality of the work of the Stark treasury was flawless.  Mark's father Harold S. Roach took over (via political appointment in 1982, having been in the treasurer's office since 1969 in a non-elected capacity) from John Hoffman and served until his retirement in September, 1993.  The highly respected Harold Roach went on to serve on Canton City Council until 1999 when he again retired.  He passed away on August 19, 2006.

Given the experience with Mark Roach, it was important that the Stark County Democratic Central Committee appoint a successor with impeccable credentials.

While not all of the candidates vying to succeed Roach were all that prepared to be treasurer, there were three who were.

Likely the most qualified was Linda Karman (who became interim treasurer until the appointment) who had worked her way up through the ranks (as Mark Roach's father Harold had done) and on being appointed interim treasurer held the position of head cashier.  She retired on June 30, 1999.

A second person who should have been above Zeigler is Hartville resident Steven Nestor who at the time was chief deputy for the Summit County treasury.

However, there was another name in the mix that should have trumped Zeigler that will be familiar to Stark Countians.

Who might that have been?  None other than Ken Koher (at the time a former bank president from Navarre) who the Democrats finally had the wisdom to make interim treasurer when Zeigler was ousted by Stark County Commissioners Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks on August 23, 2010 pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Sections 321.37/321.38 on the heels of the Stark County treasury coming up $2.96 million short (a little more than $1,000, huh?) due to a theft (at least $2.46 million of the loss) by the then Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci.  Zeigler was found by county and federal prosecutors not to have been involved in the theft.

Of course hindsight is 20/20, but looking at the credentials of Zeigler, he in the opinion of the SCPR, pales by comparison to Karman, Nestor and Koher.

The Report does not believe Zeigler was the least qualified (next to last in the opinion of the SCPR) to have been appointed treasurer.  Others contending for the spot include former Perry Township Trustee Jim Holmes (now a member of the Stark County Educational Service Center) and Jimmy Babcock (a former employee of Auditor Kim Perez and currently running for a council-at-large seat on Canton City Council).

Yours truly will leave up to readers of the SCPR to guess who The Report thinks Zeigler bested to avoid being dead last in qualifications of the six candidates.

The SCPR has never taken Zeigler seriously as a substantive person who is qualified to hold elective office.

The Report thinks that Commissioner Janet Creighton - when she talks about the Stark County Democratic Party "good ole boys" has her sights squarely on Gary Zeigler as a prime person filling the bill, at least that is, until what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley terms as being "Zeiglergate" got going.  He ran four times for county commissioner:  1990, 1994, 1996; losing all four times (the 1990 results are not available online).

His tenaciousness in running for political office is a sign to the SCPR that Zeigler does not go away easy.

So it should surprise none that he refused to resign in the face of overwhelming negative Stark County perception and concomitant public opinion (in terms of his failure to have safeguards in place at the Stark treasury) on his performance in office after the Frustaci revelations.

Although The Report has been told by a county elected official that negotiations are underway to try to get Zeigler to resign, one has to be skeptical that they will be successful.  His attorney denies that Zeigler is negotiating terms and conditions (under the cover of a civil liability suit to hold liable for missing money that the county has not yet recovered) which could lead to his resignation.  Time will tell the tale on this one.

One wouldn't think he would have the temerity to run for re-election.

But if he does, it should surprise no one!  Zeigler has a very thick hide.  He just might be unrealistic enough to think he can get reelected.

Generally, the party chairman has a person in mind who he wants when party central committee appointments come up.  Yours truly knows first hand that Johnnie A. Maier, Jr definitely weighed in on central committee persons to vote for his person.  And The Report has to believe that Ferrero (party chairman at the time the Roach successor was appointed) did the same thing.

But (even for him - if only he could have divined the future) the appointment of Zeigler has turned out to be a nightmare.  Ferrero's chief attorney in representing the county put the best face on it in this excerpt from a piece done by Laurie Huffman of the Alliance Review, to wit:

A main point of this blog is to compare what Zeigler said/did on taking office in 1999 in making reforms in light of the $1,000 in missing money during the Mark Roach tenure and what others were saying about Zeigler's administration of the office as time wore on with a focus on the latter part of his administration.

Here are a series of quotes by Zeigler from a follow up Akron Beacon Journal piece (August 13, 1999), again by Andale Gross):

Despite multiple findings by the State of Ohio Auditor that all was not administratively and procedurally well with the Stark County treasury, Zeigler has always said that he properly administered his office and therefore there was no reason to resign.

Moreover, despite the fact that his successors (Allbritain, Koher and Zumbar) have made quite a few changes (from what Zeigler did and did not have in place), Zeigler continues to insist that he ran a shipshape office.

So those Stark Countians who are awaiting the day that Zeigler will own up to a articulated "I could have done better," appear to have a better chance of seeing _____?

Yes!

"Hell freezing over!!!"

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: