NORTHWEST SCHOOLS SERIES: VOLUME 1 - DID THE BOARD OF EDUCATION NEED TO SPEND $13,000 THEY DON'T HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THAT THEY HAVE A TRUST PROBLEM?

Recently, the Northwest schools decided it need to get out in the community to do a survey to document what almost certainly the board members already intuitively knew: Northwest schools have a community credibility problem.

So you have a school district on financial "life support" that somehow could did up $13,000 plus to learn what they already knew but did not get into the core of the opposition group of voters to the 10 time failed levies.

Over a period of time the SCPR is going to be slicing and dicing that survey for which the field work was done June 11 through June 13, 2009.

It might come to mind to SCPR readers that this series only pertains to Canal Fulton, Clinton and Lawrence Township readers of the blog.

But hold on a minute.

There are problems out there across Stark County with all of the 17 school districts. Jackson and Plain schools only recently passed "survivor" level levies. Soon they will be back for more. Minerva, Fairless and Norrtwest face immediate financial crises.

However, there are more waiting in the wings. Most likely all of the remaining districts with North Canton at the head of the list.

Lake schools have to be particularly nervous given the fact that they were bounced by the voters 70% to 30% on a school bond issue within the past year.

So all you readers need to be applying the lessons of this serious to your own school district.

BACK TO NORTHWEST.

To the SCPR, to get rejected by the voters in 10 straight elections is proof enough in and of itself to establish that the voters do not trust the judgment of school administrators and board members to take their word for it that more funds are needed to keep the schools afloat and that they will be spent judiciously and wisely.

The SCPR has scanned through through the "Northwest Local Schools 2009 Community Survey" (NLS2009CS) and over the coming weeks and, perhaps, months will go over the survey with a fine toothed comb.

What strikes the SCPR right out of the gate is how clearly "cherry-picked" the participants of the survey were. Obviously, this survey went in the main to school district constituents who support the schools election-in and election-out. Knowing him as yours truly does, yours truly can see from the make up the survey that Northwest superintendent William Stetler has the major role if not the only role in working with The Impact Group of Hudson, Ohio to put the survey together.

Stetler is a "pollyanish" type who is typical of superintendents these days who are more politician than they are administrator. No doubt there are strong political and public relations factors to getting school levies passed this day and age. However, it has come to a "political and public relations" approach because school administrators and board members have not stayed in close contact with the basic attitude of school district voters.

Also interesting is how The Impact Group describes itself, to wit:

The SCPR's initial take on this believed to be Stetler public relations/political based survey, is that it is not designed to get to the core of community dissatisfaction, but rather to finesse the matter enough to get a "survivor" levy passed.

Stetler really (in the opinion of the SCPR) wanted to try again this November to get a levy passed as witness by the calling of and holding of a special board meeting to air out reported "community interest" in going right back at it with a November effort even in the light a increased voter opposition in November, 2008.

But the Stetler "closet" (in the sense he referred to a phantom groundswell - noted by their absence at the August 5th "special" board meeting) effort failed and the board wisely decided to embark on a "rebuilding public trust" initiative before trying again.

The SCPR has already suggested a mechanism that the board (if they are up to a "roll of the sleeves" effort) can implement to really and truly turn things around in the school district so that passing levies will again be doable. Not easy, but doable.

The same can be done throughout Stark County. Alliance, Canton, Massillon, Jackson, Plain and Lake could be difficult because the populations are significantly larger than most Stark school districts but by employing focus, determination and persistence; even the larger school districts could really get into the nitty gritty of their constituents.

Even though is not impressed with the selected base of The Impact Group survey on the Northwest schools, in the coming time period the SCPR will be parsing the survey with an analysis of what it says about Northwest schools from a cherry-picked - on the whole - respondent group.

SHOULDN'T STARK TREASURER GARY ZEIGLER "REIMBURSE" STARK COUNTY FOR HIS INCREASED BOND COSTS?

Within the past few days it came to light that the Stark County commissioners had to pay $4,000.00 more county taxpayer dollars to purchase a mandatory bond before Zeigler could assume office for his newly elected term (November, 2008) because of Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler failed to prevent the suspected theft of $2 million to $3 million dollars by Vince Frustaci (the person accused by Zeigler) going back - how long? Nobody knows for sure at this point how long the theft went undetected.

Why should Zeigler reimburse the county?

The SCPR believes there were two reasons.

First, Zeigler has alleged that his chief deputy Vince Frustaci is responsible for the theft and fired him on April 1st.

Well, who hired Frustaci?

Gary Zeigler did. Some nine years ago. Zeigler claimed to the SCPR back in April that he barely knew Frustaci when he hired him. "Just some guy he vaguely knew from being out on the golf course" that just happened to apply for a county job with Zeigler and who just happened to metorically rose in the treasurer's office to reach the position chief deputy.

An FBI investigation is underway.

It appears to the SCPR that Zeigler did not keep an adequate eye on internal operations and his key personnel. Because he dropped the scrutiny and supervision ball, the SCPR believes Zeigler created conditions for a theft to occur and therefore it should not be the burden of Stark County taxpayers to pay the higher bond premium which the commissioner had no choice but to pay.

Second, the SCPR understands that the books at the county treasurer's office were a mess during the period in which the alleged theft occurred.

Who should have identified this problem and taken immediate corrective action?

The SCPR says Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler. If the allegation on the conditions of internal treasury books is true, Zeigler should have been all over this one.

So there you have it folks, the SCPR's reasons why yours truly agrees with Stark Joe and Stark Sally.

We, the taxpayers of Stark County, should not have to bear the expense of a higher bond premium for Treasurer Zeigler.

Gary Zeigler himself should be!

PETE FERGUSON HIT WITH STATE OF OHIO PERSONAL INCOME TAX JUNDMENT LIEN OF $13,164.31 SOME 36 DAYS AFTER BEING ELECTED COUNTY COMMISSIONER

Follow the unclosed circle and check marks added by the SCPR to a judgment lien filed by the State of Ohio against Pete Ferguson.

Note that the lien was filed on December 11, 2008. Ferguson was elected Stark County commissioner November 4, 2008. Nothing was said by Ferguson during the campaign about owing Ohio taxes.

Now do you think he knew in the run up to the election that he owed Ohio $13,164.31 in personal income taxes and that Ohio would be filing a lien against any property he owns which is located in Stark County?

Are voters entitled to know about material like this concerning a candidate for public office?

Do you think that maybe just maybe so folks who voted for Ferguson might have made a different choice had they known about the tax arrears?

Remember that the SCPR has already written a blog revealing that Ferguson is the subject of lawsuit in foreclosure by National City Bank (NCB) saying that Ferguson made a loan with the bank on May 1, 2007 alleges he is now in default on to the tune of some $458,000.00 plus.

In the NCB situation, it is less clear whether or not it is likely he knew (during the period he was campaigning) the lawsuit was coming post election. The SCPR believes that likely he did know and made a decision not to inform the voters.

The SCPR is of the opinion that his handling of personal finances is directly relevant to whether or not voters should have entrusted Ferguson to be part of the three person decision making processes in county budget formulation and appropriations to the tune of some $55 million annually.

Of course, we now know and only could have known as of April 3, 2009 and the foreclosure lawsuit (5 months after the election) that Ferguson has been having difficulties coping with his personal finances.

The question is: when did Ferguson first know between May 1, 2007 and November 4, 2009 that he was going to or likely to end up as a defendant in a foreclosure action.

Also, when did Ferguson first know in the context of this campaign for commissioner that the Ohio Department of Taxation would be filing a tax lien to recover $13,364.31 in personal income taxes? Hmm? Filed December 11, 2008. Does Ferguson mean to suggest to us that he was surprised when Ohio filed the lien on the 11th. The SCPR believes that the is awfully hard to swallow for most Stark Countians.

On the tax lien question, the SCPR asked Ferguson how much he owed Ohio on taxes. He pleaded ignorance only saying that he was in the process of paying the taxes.

The SCPR (which did not have a copy of the lien at the time) asked Ferguson on Wednesday how much money was the lien filed for. Again, he said he could not remember.

Another interesting thing about Ferguson's response to the SCPR's inquiry is that he refused to provide any background information as to extenuating circumstances (e.g. health care issues, etc) as an explanation for his financial difficulties.

To the SCPR, Ferguson is not credible on "not remembering" how much a lien filed only about 8 months ago was for in terms of dollars. It is equally unbelievable that he does not know how much remains to be paid on the back Ohio taxes.

Yours truly certainly would have such information fresh in mind as would most readers of this blog, if similarly situated.

According our common human experience, Commissioner Ferguson simply is not believable on his claimed ignorance on the tax lien questions posed by yours truly.

Apparently, he thinks that we Stark Countians were "born yesterday," and he can spin matters any way he wishes and the account be accepted as believable.

Think again, Commissioner Ferguson!

One other point.

As politicians are wont to do, Ferguson, playing the role of "the magnanimous one," promised to give a part of his commissioner salary - if elected - to charity.

And he may or may have actually done so. However, the SCPR is skeptical enough of this guy to want documentation and will not assume he has kept his promise.

What are the chances he will provide documentation?

If he acts like he has on e-mails (not answering an e-mail sent 3/6/09) asking specific questions and your truly's telephone conversation with him Wednesday about his financial troubles (highly unresponsive and incredible), the chances of him providing documentation on charitable giving are between "Slim and None" and "Slim" just left town.

Obviously, he doesn't understand as a public official he is accountable to his Stark County constituents. One has to wonder if he is getting counsel and advice from Canton's Mayor Healy. Because Ferguson's modus operandi is very Healy-esque.

At the end of the day the SCPR feels that Ferguson may well have run for commissioner to generate income to deal with his financial problems. And, for yours truly, this is not acceptable.

Ferguson has not come into office demonstrating a lot of initiative in coming up with ways and means to solve Stark County's many problems.

Stark County can ill afford to have Pete Ferguson as a Stark County official!

NORTHWEST SCHOOLS: CAN SCHOOL OFFICIALS RE-BUILD TRUST?

A major problem in Stark County these days, is the build up of mistrust by many of our citizens of Stark's local units of government.

Mistrust is all around us.

Canton and its mayor. Marlboro Township and its trustees. North Canton and some of its citizens. And Canal Fulton/Lawrence Township citizens and their schools.

To be sure, there are quite a number of other examples.

But you get the point.

As does board member Gindlesberger of the Northwest Board of Education.

Gindlesberger is quoted in The Massillon Independent piece No action means no Nov. levy for N'West (at yesterday's meeting [August 5, 2009], which was billed as an exploratory meeting as to whether or not Northwest should make another levy attempt in the face of ten consecutive defeats, as follows:

The trust issue is huge. It’s something that we may not even correct by May. We are not one community. We are two communities and we have to fix that.

Northwest will not pass a levy until it makes substantial progress in re-building trust. Superintendent Stetler can pontificate all he wants to, to wit:

What we are doing is verging on immoral. We can’t do this to our children just because adults can’t get along. We’re going to fight like heck to get an issue passed.

Gindlesberer appears to be, and hopefully the rest of the board is, way ahead of Stetler who talks about a "new strategy - a new offensive plan."

It is about trust and it is not about politically outmaneuvering the voting public as "Stetler talk" seems to suggest.

Let's see, there about 5,000 households in Canal Fulton and Lawrence Township. There are 5 board members. 5,000 divided by 5 equals 1,000. So if each board member were to take on being in touch (via e-mail, snail mail, home visits, telephone calls - whatever works for a particular household) with 1,000 households over the course of a calendar year, maybe just maybe, you would have the beginnings of re-building trust in the Northwest Local School District.

Over a five year cycle (by switching 1000 blocks), each board member will have endeavored to be in touch with each and every household in the Canal Fulton/Lawrence Township community.

Rebuilding trust would mean "really listening" to willing community participants. It would mean communicating the "partnership aspect of educating children" to the willing. It would mean a constructing "a climate of willingness to change my point-of-view in the context of rational, factually based dialogue."

The is a huge difference between the "rebuilding trust" model and the Stetler model of "finessing the voter for this election" model.

Board members will remain in the community. The superintendent is not likely to.

The will have continuing accountability, the superintendent will not.

In the news article about the August 5th meeting, there is way to much focus on the superintendent. He is a transitory figure. Stetler has already retired and rehired at Lake. He took a education job in Columbus based on his Republican political ties. When Strickland bounced the Republican, Stetler was history. That's how he ended up back in Stark County to the only superintendent job available to him at the time.

Northwest board members need to reassert control of their schools. The day of the "expert" superintendent fostered by the likes of Stetler and Lambes before him are gone forever. School superintendents are fast losing the public confidence because for the most part they are not community people but merely professional moving through.

So it is up to the abiding Canal Fulton/Northwest element to re-build trust: the local board of education members, that's who.

Can Northwest do it by February?

Probably not.

But today is the day for each and every member of the Northwest Board of Education to begin the challenging task of rebuilding trust in the Canal Fulton/Lawrence Township community!

TRACKING OUR LEGISLATORS SERIES - BOCCIERI: "FAILS TO GET GULFSTREAM 550s OUT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL?"

There is no doubt with the SCPR that John Boccieri, if he had been in office, would have been part of the congressional chorus lambasting the CEOs of automakers, who had their hands out for a congressional bailout, when they flew to congressional hearings in private jets.

As well he would have been.

Most of us agree that "what is good for goose, is good for the gander."

But apparently not Congressman Boccieri.

Only Dennis Kucinich among the Ohio congressional delegation voted against H.R. 3326. Kucinich is well known for his opposition to defense spending.

No one expects U.S. Air Force Reserve major John Boccieri (Democrat 16th, which includes Stark County) to be voting against a defense appropriations bill. In fact, the SCPR believes that most Stark, Ashland, Medina and Wayne County constituents wanted Boccieri to vote for the bill.

However, a question remains.

Did Boccieri to have fight tooth and nail to get self-serving congressional excesses (the purchase of Gulfstream 550s) out of the bill?

The U.S. Air Force asked for one. So congress decided to piggyback under the cover of a defense appropriation bill to pad the bill to the tune of about $140 million.

What, if anything, did Boccieri do to stop this outrageous expenditure?

Did Boccieri's office send out a press release bragging about the "porkish" expenditure designed to have congressmen fly in style at taxpayer expense?

Of course, not.

But neither did we see a press release extolling Boccieri for his fight against the excess.

In the background we hear rumblings that Congress may consider raising middle income persons taxes to pay for all the stimulus and bailout monies coming to congressional districts across the nation including Stark and which Boccieri does crank out press release after press release on.

When taxpayers see $140 million in pork for congress itself, are they going to sit by and allow folks like Boccieri to vote for increased middle class taxes?

Somehow SCPR believes that we won't hear a word from Boccieri on the $140 million and his sitting idly by and just watching it happen.

For those of you who want to know how special this plane is, the SCPR has embedded the following video:

WHY CAN'T MARLBORO TRUSTEE DO LIKE TRUSTEE DAVE WOLF HAS DONE? "GET OFF" POLICE CHIEF RON DEVIES' BACK?

UPDATE: 08/06/2009 at 5:35 A.M.

A COMMENT FROM A SCPR READER:

I hope that all of those who crowded the Marlboro township hall in support of Chief Devies will remind their friends and fellow voters of the smarmy tactics employed by Tim Wise during his tenure as trustee. We can only guess at his reason for wanting a key to the police department! Really, would anyone with a brain want this guy to have access to sensitive information! What possible reason would there be for him to have access to it? Considering what this guy has already cost the township, not just in dollars, but in disruption, I would hope that this latest irrational request is nipped in the bud! It is a known fact that abused women, children and even animals return to their abuser just because they think any attention is better than NO attention. This must surely be the reason Tim Wise has had the audacity to file as a candidate for trustee. I guess he revels in attention, even when it is negative. What a pathetic creature! Marlboro has indicated, very strongly that we like and respect our police chief. I personally do not have a shred of respect for Tim Wise who in my opinion has proven himself unworthy of holding any public office.

THE ORIGINAL POST

Trustee Tim Wise (Marlboro Township) repeatedly says there is nothing "personal" about his bird dogging of Police Chief Ron Devies. Wise says he is just doing his job as a public official.

The SCPR for one does not believe Wise's protestations.

It as if Wise thinks that "mere assertion" is good enough to convince bystanders. But they are not. Many if not most people stand by the adage "actions speak louder than words."

The SCPR is of the opinion that Wise actions bespeak a man who is on a crusade. In other articles readers and search out from the search box on this blog (using various terms such as "Devies," "Wise," Wolf," Marlboro and the like), there are a number of descriptions of actions taken by Wise (and fellow trustee, Dave Wolf - in some but not all instances) which indicate to a reasonable person that Wise's real goal before leaving office is to excise Ron Deives as police chief in Marlboro Township

And even though Wise has filed to run for a second term, it's hard to believe that he believes he can win in Marlboro given all the political turmoil that he and Wolf have generated in this bucolic community.

The last time the SCPR blogged on the Marlboro saga, Wise was after Devies to get competitive bids on a Marlboro police vehicle; an obvious comeuppance on Devies' point that the trustees had not gotten competitive bids before replacing Kyle Devies with Compu-Tek to take care of township computers.

The latest Wise initiative on Devies is to insist that Devies provide him (and presumably all the trustees) with a master key to the Marlboro police facilities.

Devies tells the SCPR that he has heard through a highly credible third party that Wise believes Devies should be fired unless he turns over the master key.

Devies' response to the Wise demand is for Wise to convince his fellow trustees to pass a resolution requiring that he (Devies) provide the key. Devies says he has no choice by to comply, if the trustees so act.

Devies tells the SCPR that Trustee Schilig does not want a key and has publicly stated that it has been the longstanding Marlboro Board of Trustees policy that no trustee have a key. It appears that Trustee Wolf will be the deciding factor, if a resolution is made and seconded.

If the trustees were to get a master key, then they would (according to Devies) have access to locations where evidence gathered in ongoing investigations is housed on a "temporary" basis and would have access to other information that - while not in the "investigatory evidence" category would include information that is not available to the general public.

Many who have followed the Marlboro trustee/Devies saga are highly suspicious that the "apparent" Trustee Wise reason for wanting this or that action from Chief Devies is not the "real" reason.

There is a feeling among some of Wise's critics that he is beginning to square up with the political reality that he is very unlikely to be re-elected. Devies is confident that Wise will not be re-elected.

Could it be that Wise's final mission is to bring down the chief on his way out the door?

On a more positive note, Chief Devies says that he has had no difficulty whatsoever with Trustee Wolf since he was re-instated.

Wouldn't be a fitting end to Trustee Wise's apparent end as a Marlboro trustee come November that he take a page out of Dave Wolf's book?

COUNTY COMMISSIONER PETE FERGUSON NAMED IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS A DEFENDANT ON A FORECLOSURE LAWSUIT?

According to Stark County Court of Common Pleas records, Stark County Commissioner Pete Ferguson is a defendant, in his individual capacity, in a lawsuit filed by National City Bank (NCB) regarding a default in payment on a promissory note in the amount of $368.500.00, dated May 1, 2007 (said in the complaint to be $375,610.35 plus accruing interest as of the date the suit was filed [Ferguson, running as a Democrat, was elected county commissioner in November, 2008]) and mortgage securing same for which Ferguson's property at 3507 Cleveland Avenue NW, Canton is as being collateral.

Moreover, NCB included a claimed default for another $89,600 ($91,336.60 plus accruing interest as the date the suit was filed) on a Business Credit Line and Security Agreement.

Right now the case is in mediation by order of Judge Charles Brown. Ferguson is defended on the suit by Attorney Samuel Ferruccio, Jr. who is one of two Democratic representatives on the Stark County Board of Elections.

The SCPR contacted Ferguson for comment on the suit but Ferguson said he didn't know anything to pass on to yours truly about background factors leading to the suit and the status of the suit except to say that he is confident that matters will be worked out.

The suit was filed on April 3, 2009 and Judge Brown's order putting it into mediation was filed on June 3, 2009.

What is the political significance of this story?

Here's the SCPR take.

Did Ferguson know when he ran for county commissioner that this foreclosure action was in the offing?

If so, had it been revealed to Stark County voters, could we be looking at a Commissioner John Hagan rather than Commissioner Pete Ferguson?