BOSLEY: (OHIO HOUSE - THE 50TH) NEARLY $316,000.00 IN CONTRIBUTIONS & IN-KIND FOR PRE-GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT. WOW! WILL SNITCHLER TOP THIS?

PARTIAL LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

(VIDEOS) STARK COUNTY AUDITOR RACE - PEREZ ANSWERS HAROLD CHARGE OF "INEFFICIENCY?"

In August, the SCPR wrote about Alan Harold's (Harold is the Republican candidate for county auditor) charge that a State of Ohio Auditor (SOA) report showed the Stark County Auditor's office (run by Harold's Democratic opponent and incumbent officeholder Kim Perez) to be highly inefficient. 

Yesterday, the SCPR sat down with Perez and discussed Harold's charges with Perez.

Perez's defense is two-fold.

First, he says that the "peer group" developed by the SOA is not an apples-to-apples comparison.  A main substantiation of Perez's point is that whereas his peers farm out their appraisal function, Stark County does its six and three year appraisals (and ongoing adjustments) in-house thereby keeping the jobs in Stark County at a lesser cost to taxpayers.  Moreover, he says that Stark has a map department, a Bureau of Motor Vehicle operation and a geographic information system (GIS) to run as extra over and beyond what the peer group does.

Second, he says that his peers serve much larger populations and, therefore, by virtue of "economies of scale;" they would have more efficiency.

Watch (from last night's League of Women Voters [LWV] debate) Perez and Harold discuss the efficiencies of auditor office operations.



Somehow the SCPR does not believe that this campaign is being conducted on a rational plane. 

It seems to The Report that it is more about Perez emotionally defending his performance in the light of the recently revealed problems in the Stark treasury.

Moreover, from the Harold perspective it appears to be about his implementing a primary political strategy to tap into the Stark County public's disgust with the goings on in the Stark treasurer's office. Readers will recall that former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci (according to federal Judge John Adams) made off with $2.96 million of Stark County taxpayer money and some blame Perez for failing to follow through on two occasions that his office spotted "balancing accounts" problems with treasury and failed to push hard enough to get an earlier detection of Frustaci's theft.

Here is Perez's opening statement at the LWV debate at Timken High School last night which provides Perez's overall take of his office's operations under his administration.



Interestingly, at the end of the video he uses former auditor Janet Creighton to exonerate him and his office from any responsibility for the failure to ferret out Frustaci.

Harold, in his opening statement,  focuses on changes he will make if elected auditor and deferring to later in the debate to address his perceived failure of Auditor Perez's stewardship of the auditor's office.



A question was presented by Moderator Dick Kuhn of the LWV, to wit:  "Given what happened in the treasurer's office, what policies or standards that could be implemented weren't, and what policies or statutes would you like to come in the future to prevent what happened?"

What follows is a video of the Harold/Perez responses.



With the election less than two weeks away, Stark Countians will be making a choice between a fresh face candidate and one who has pretty much spent most of his adult life as a public official.

Which way will county voters choose?

It is hard to say.  Perez is, in the opinion of the SCPR, the Democrats' most successful voter getter over the years.

If he does lose, then remaining Democratic countywide office holders had better brace themselves for more of the same come 2012!

(VIDEO) KEN KOHER - INTERIM STARK CO. TREASURER - "A POLITICALLY SAVVY NON-POLITICIAN?" AN EXAMPLE FOR ALL STARK COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS?

Interim Stark County Treasurer Kenneth Koher surprised all of us who attend the weekly Stark County commissioners meeting several weeks ago when he showed up and asked the commissioners whether or not he could give them a report on the progress in fixing what ailed the treasury under the management of former treasurer Gary Zeigler.

Zeigler, we all know too well, was removed from office by the commissioners pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 321.17 after the loss from his office of $2.96 million.  Federal Judge John Adams says he believes it was all stolen by former treasury Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci.  He sentenced Frustaci to 10 years in federal prision.  Frustaci admitted to stealing $2.46 million of the total $2.96 million loss.

Zeigler maintained that his office was in proper running order and that there was nothing he could have done (procedurally and structurally within the office) to prevent the theft.

It appears to The Report that Koher is proving him wrong.

Here is a paper copy of Koher's fourth weekly report to commissioners made yesterday.  Koher's report shows manifold changes for the better notwithstanding Zeigler's contention.

 Here is the video of Koher's October 20th presentation:

BETWEEN $2.7 MILLION IN "EXTRA" EMPLOYEE PENSION PICK-UPS AND $1.4 MILLION IN "ENRICHED" HEALTH CARE BENEFITS; NO WONDER STARK COUNTY IS IN FISCAL CRISIS?

For the last two days, the SCPR has done blogs on the fact that Stark County - over the years - has negotiated with its union-represented workforce for the county "to pick" a portion of that part of state mandated Ohio Public Employees System (OPERS) employee contributions as being the employee's share.

Now The Report learns that nearly 2400 county employees enjoy health care benefits "that is a bit rich" (according to one county official in a position to know) when compared to everyday Stark Countians who have health care benefits through their private employers or who buy them on their own. 

The spreadsheet above shows that - by conservative estimates - (because the county has some employees who pay only 3% of their health care insurance premiums) Stark County is likely overpaying by some $1.4 million when comparing what you and I have as health care insurance benefits according to average health care insurance plans published by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF).

County commissioner candidate James N. Walters (Republican - Jackson Township) brought the disparity to The Report's attention. 

Who is to blame for a failure in stewardship of county funds to the Stark County taxpayers?

In general, the Stark County commissioners, but probably not any of the current commissioners.

Stark County is a "self-insured" entity (meaning the county pays any and all claims) and only gets AultCare and Summa involved to do the administration of the claims at rates of $13.95 and $19.25 respectively per claim.  So far this year there have been 200 Summa-administered claims and 1100 AultCare administrated claims.

The Stark County Political Report believes that the most culpable former commissioners - in terms of oversight failure -  have been Republicans Jane Vignos, Richard Regula and John Dougherty as well as Democrat Gayle Jackson (who is now a lottery commission employee at the appointment of Governor Strickland).

The SCPR has learned that when commissioners appointed former Repository managing editor Michael Hanke as chief administrator in 2007, he was told about "the rich health care benefits" that county employees were getting and that he wanted to pursue a retrenchment to scale down benefits.

Apparently, only Hanke (and his county administrative support staff) foresaw that the county did not have a sustainable health care package.

One of Hanke's administrators responded to Hanke's expressed desire to reorder the county's health care benefit plan to make it more comparable to what average Stark Countians are getting:  "You can't turn the Queen Mary around in a day."

So true.

While Stark County's citizens were not watching, The Report believes that former county commissioners played "sugar daddy" to county employees and now "chickens are coming home to roost."

To be sure, the county is making a modest effort to recover from the unsustainable.  Next year county employees will be paying 10% of the cost of their medical and dental needs.  However, the 10% will still be a far cry from the average 22% (single and family coverage) that KFF says is the norm for those getting coverage through private employers or buying coverage on their own.

Between the OPERS and the health care situation, the SCPR believes that there is  total overpay (in the sense of what the county "ought" to be doing) of at least $3.1 million per year.

Apparently, the county has paid millions of dollars in unsustainable benefits to county employees covered by the "commissioners plan" (Department of Disability, the Stark County Health Department employees and sheriff deputies under the "Deputies Plan" are not); at least in recent years.

Such underscores why Stark Countians need to be careful as to whom they elect Stark County commissioner.  Voters need to know what a commissioner candidates know what fiscal responsibility is  and when they meet them while they are campaigning, ask them questions such as:  what is an appropriate level of  salary and benefits for county employees and please Mr./Ms. candidate address the question with the taxpayer in mind.

While the SCPR believes it was irresponsible for former commissioners to approve unsustainable employee benefits, it is also irresponsible for citizens not to ask scrutinizing questions.

This election year voters have a prime opportunity to determine who has the better answers on this question.

In selecting between Creighton and Meeks (the full term) and between Walters and Bernabei (the remaining two years of the Harmon term), who will be the most fiscally responsible should be right at the top of considerations as to whom a voter will vote for.

YESTERDAY THE SCPR TABBED COMMISSIONER CANDIDATE WALTERS AS "CAPTAIN COURAGEOUS," A READER SUGGESTS THAT HE IS A HYPOCRITE? HMM?

 UPDATE:  10/20/2010

ORIGINAL POST

Yesterday the SCPR wrote a commentary on a Repository piece reporting county commissioner candidate James N. Walters making the point that Stark County is paying out $2.7 million annually in "extra" contributions to the Ohio Public Employment System (OPERS) by "picking-up" a part of the state law mandated employee share of contributions to the pension plan.

Walters when on record in the article as being committed to correcting this phenomenon over time as contracts get re-negotiated.

The Report supports the Walters' promised initiative and believes that Commissioner Ferguson (who is not up for election this time around) should adopt the Walters' approach as should sitting Commissioner Steve Meeks and his opponent Janet Creighton.

It is a simple matter of the math.

If something is not done on the revenue side of funding county government soon, Stark County is about to plummet from a current budget of about $55 million to about $35* million in a couple of years. (* - according to Walters' opponent Tom Bernabei).

Nearly $3 million a year is significant money and needs to be recovered to the Stark County coffers.

The Report received the following e-mail yesterday suggesting that Walters' is a political hypocrite:

So The Report contacted Walters and this is what he had to say.

• He did vote to continue employee pick-up for employees that are on the township payroll, however, he did so in the pursuit of a larger objective.
• By agreeing to leave existing employees untouched, the township achieved a concession whereby "new" employees would have to pay the entire 10% that state law mandates be paid by the employee or alternatively in the name of the employee.
• Over time, the township will be relieved of the "extra pension payments" and will save the township hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In any event the e-mail writer's 27% of employee income number to be paid to OPERS cannot be correct.  Walters says, depending on which employees are involved, the number would be either 34% (24% - the township; 10% the employee share - for firefighters) or 24% (14% - the township; 10% the employee share - all other employees).

Another important factor is the fact that trustees decided to extend the same standard to non-union employees of the township.

So is James N. Walters being a political hypocrite?

The Report thinks not.

Disadvantageously negotiated union contracts do take time to repair.  And Walters is not advocating draconian action even at the county level.  So his position seems to be consistent whether it the township situation or the county situation.

The only troublesome part of Walters' position is for the non-union employees.  That change could be made immediately.  Undoubtedly, doing such would cause a firestorm at township hall.

Apparently, Walters does not have the stomach to advocate for that.

So being Captain Courageous only goes so far.

But political courage is so lacking among elected government officials this day and age, we have to be thankful whenever it surfaces.

AT LEAST ONE COUNTY COMMISSIONER CANDIDATE HAS POLITICAL COURAGE, NO?

 

Nearly 62%  (1621 of 2640) of all Stark County employees get the county to pick up part of the employee's share of annual pension contributions to their respective state retirement systems.  This according to a Repository report:  Commissioners candidates weigh-in on extra pension payments, October 14th - a staff report.

For an employee making $50,000 annually, the reported 4.25% pick up amounts to $2,125.

Cumulatively, the "partial pick up" costs Stark County's taxpayers $2.7 million annually.

Obviously, prior Stark County commissioners have allowed the "extra" payments to be negotiated by county officeholders from county coffers while knowing full well that Stark County was heading for a fiscal crisis which will hit full force in 2012.

In fiscal year 2011 county offices are being required to cut their budgets by about 16% and in 2012 they are likely to be asked to cut an additional 30 to 35%.  

In December, 2008, county commissioners (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) voted to impose a 0.50 sales tax increase which was to be split 50/50 between the county general fund and the rehab of countywide 9-1-1.  In hindsight, the county general fund's share would go in significant share to pay for the "extra" pension payments.

In December, 2009, Stark Countians voted overwhelmingly to end the additional tax and so now county officeholders are left holding the bag for increases they negotiated with employee unions without ascertaining that the county has the revenue to pay the increased share.  So it appears that county services will be cut to the taxpaying Stark County general public as a consequence of county officials' irresponsible fiscal action. 

Jackson Township Trustee and Republican James N. Walters (running for the remaining two years on Tom Harmon's term against Democrat Tom Bernabei) has blown the whistle on the irresponsible fiscal action by county officeholders as sanctioned by county commissioners.

The SCPR has written previously that Walters has very little chance to defeat Bernabei.  And by calling county officeholders and past commissioners out on their irresponsible negotiating/approval behavior, he likely has even less chance.

Less chance?

Yes, less chance.

Why would that be?  Sounds like he's a stand-up guy and should be rewarded by the electorate.

Well, it does make sense that he would be applauded for speaking out and rewarded with votes because he promises to correct the reckless action over time.  However, there are 1, 621 employees who Walters is in effect asking to take a 4.25% pay cut and The Report does not believe that they will be out campaigning for Walters.

Indeed not.

In fact, Walters is probably looking at a phenomenon where the word spreads quickly among the affected public employees to friends and family that Walters must be stopped from becoming a commissioner.

Moreover, it is unlikely that the non-employee connected Stark County voting citizenry will become aware of Walters' condemnation of the "extra" county pension payments so as to collect themselves to act in concert in support of Walters to offset the likely adverse county employee reaction to Walters' promise to do away with the "extras."

While she does not say so in direct language in The Rep's report, Republican candidate Janet Creighton (running for a full four year term against Democrat Steve Meeks - the Bosley vacated seat) seems to be interested in Walters' point.

Do not count on Bernabei and Meeks to show much "for public consumption" interest in excising the county pick-up of part of the employees' share,  Privately, they may be interested.  However, both rely heavily on union support and therefore are unlikely to go on the public record as being in concord with Walters.

It will be interesting to see whether or not Walters' position catches on by November 2nd to translate into net votes to Walters and perhaps a huge surprise on election day.

As a follow up to Walters' point is the need to look into the identity of the officeholders (and approving commissioners) who have handed out the handsome "extra" pension pick-up benefits.  

Stark County voters deserve to know who these irresponsible "public servants?" are.  

Voters should have their say in upcoming elections,

(VIDEO) SCPR PROJECTS BOCCIERI OVER RENACCI "BY A NOSE" BECAUSE OF LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE JEFFREY BLEVINS

The Stark County Political Report projects that first-term congressman John Boccieri will defeat Republican Jim Renacci "by a nose" on November 2nd.

However, if Libertarian Jeffrey Blevins were not in the race, Renacci would ride the Republican tidal wave into Congress.

The Renacci forces are so worried about "the Blevins factor" that Renacci refused to participate in the October 12, 2010 16th Congressional District Debate sponsored by the Canton Jaycees and The Palace Theater.

Well, what is the worry?

That Blevins will convince independents and Republicans that he is a man to vote for those who are dissatisfied about the way things are going in the country under both Democratic and Republican leadership.

And they are probably correct.

Blevins of Wadsworth (interesting, Renacci is from Wadsworth) is a former Republican turned Libertarian.

Implicit in Blevins' presentations is the recognition that he cannot win on November 2nd, but over time 16th District Libertarians will build up the capacity to challenge the Democrats and Republicans for this seat.

If the Libertarians can be identified as the reason Boccieri wins (assuming he does win), then they can and will build upon being significant to turn significance into being competitive with a real chance of winning.

There are very few Libertarians in the 16th, however, there are more and more voters who are disgusted with the Republicans and Democrats, and are looking for an alternative.  Most such voters are on the conservative side of the political spectrum and would likely find Libertarian candidates attractive.

The Report believes that there will be enough of alternative thinking voters to cause Republican Jim Renacci to lose by an eyelash.

Another factor that will weigh in favor of a Boccieri victory is the opportunity that the Boccieri campaign "to get out the vote" for wards that exist in Canton, Alliance and Massillon where there is very little question on who the voters will vote for - if Boccieri campaigners can get them to the polls.

We hear much from the cable talking heads about "the enthusiasm gap" between Democrats and Republicans these days.  The Report believes that if Boccieri works his "automatic" wards, he will end up with some breathing room to win this contest.  If he does not or if he fails to generate excitement among his "sure to vote John Boccieri" part of the electorate, then his win will be scant indeed; perhaps, within the automatic "recount" margin - if not in the single digits.

In his 2008 race, the SCPR predicted a Boccieri win by 10 percentage points way early in the race and turned out to be pretty much on the money.

The Report believes that Renacci did the politically correct thing for his electoral fortunes by refusing to appear with Libertarian Blevins on October 12th.  The mystery is:  why did it take his advisers to figure this out?  Blevins came across as a highly credible alternative in the Wooster debate (September 30th).  Could that blunder have caused Renacci the election?

Here is a video of Boccieri and Blevins doing their opening statements at The Palace Theater on October 12th.