(VIDEO: RICK CAMPBELL - STARK RECORDER) MAN! DOES THIS GUY WANT FOUR (NO, NOT FOUR BUT SEVEN) MORE EMPLOYEES! OVERWHELMS STARK COMMISSIONERS WITH NUMBERS GALORE?

UPDATE:  12:15 PM

RECORDER WANTS TO GO UP "7" NOT "4" NEW EMPLOYEES 2012 TO 2013

This morning the Stark County commissioners held a work session on the upcoming 2013 county budget.

In the original blog today, The Report had understood that Stark County Recorder Rick Campbell was asking for an increase of four employees over 2012 for 2013.

Wrong!

That's how (to be charitable) confusing the department presentation was last week when made.

Apparently, the commissioners were confused themselves inasmuch as they had Campbell's chief deputy (Gonazalez) back in today to provide clarification as to the exact number of employee increase the recorder's office was requesting.

For the recorder's office itself the number is four (4), but when you add in an additional request for three (3) for the department's microfilming operation the grand total is seven (7).

Here is an excerpt from a document provided by Gonzalez today.

ORIGINAL BLOG

VIDEO:  SEE "TESTY" CREIGHTON/CAMPBELL EXCHANGE

What an experience!

Stark County Recorder Rick Campbell and his chief deputy recorder Kody Gonzalez putting the numbers on the Stark County commissioners.

Most people who know Stark County Commissioner Tom Bernabei think that he is "one smart cookie."

But yours truly detected that his eyes were glazing over as Campbell and Gonzalez presented their Powerpoint "fog of numbers" at last Tuesday's commissioner work session on the upcoming 2013 budget.

Alternatively, Bernabei was wrinkling his forehead as one typically does when things don't seem quite right and demand further scrutiny.

So what were Campbell and Gonzalez up to with their kaleidoscope of numbers?

How about "bury them (the commissioners) with carefully contexted numbers?"

The SCPR believes the  presentation was so "over the top" in terms of orchestration that Campbell and Gonzalez and therefore condescending to the commissioner that they will be lucky to get half of what they asked for.

Well, what did they ask for?

They asked for an increase of four (4) new employees to be hired in 2013.

(Update note:  recorder's office only, request includes 3 for the microfilm operation of the recorder's office for a total of 7)

How many recorder's office employees are there now?

Well, it took about 20 minutes for the actual number to come out.

(Update note:  it really wasn't clear until today how many total employees (recording employees and microfilming employees) work for Rick Campbell)

In the Powerpoint, a slide implied that there are four, to wit:

(Update note:  actually there are 7.8 [see update chart above]; as far as the SCPR can determine the chart below showing 4 does not square up with the new chart provided today by Gonzalez).

And its chest thumping time if you are Campbell and Gonzalez, no?

A 73% savings to Stark County! 

Well, the SCPR believes not exactly.

(Update note:  SCPR original skepticism turned out to be well-founded)

Notwithstanding that Campbell said at the beginning of Tuesday's discussion that they (he and Gonzalez) had worked hard to provide "accurate" numbers.

Apparently, the presenters didn't figure that the hearers and readers of their numbers just might have the ability to understand that while a given number (or numbers, as the case might be) may be accurate in a limited sense and certain contexts, when one factors in an out-of-appropriate-context presentation, the accuracy vanishes.

For instance,  in questioning initiated by Commissioner Bernabei (again, some 20 minutes into the presentation - see the video below), it came out that "no," there are more than four in the "total" of the recorder's department employment as one might imply (that is, the four number) from the chart displayed above.

How about 10 or 8 or maybe even 7 (depending on whether or not one counts Campbell and Gonzalez and another unnamed employee)?

So if the four seven requested 2013 hires are added to the existing number of employees (pick your number:  10, 8 or 7), then the total is either 14, 12 or 11 17, 15 or 14 to be compared to the 2010 level (one has to ask is that number accurate?) of 12 13 employees which means:  (see Update chart above)

Hardly a 73% decrease?

(Update note:  how about a 47% decrease [8/15]?)

Nothing like spinning (or burying) the numbers (the real numbers) so as to become incredible?

The SCPR does not see any reason why Campbell and Gonzalez should not be included in the total numbers on the job in the recorder's office.

If, however, one believes Stark County auditor Alan Harold, it would meaningless to count Campbell, in terms of his pitching in and helping out the working class employees of the office when things get dicey with vacations and sick days; inasmuch as Harold says that he estimates that Campbell spends relatively little time at the recorder's office.

How does Harold know that?  He didn't explain.  But knowing Harold, he has his "in a position to know" sources who are feeding him information. 

It does appear that Gonzalez is "the brains behind the operation" in the recorder's office.

As well he should be, no?

A few years ago when the SCPR questioned Campbell on the Gonzalez hire as chief deputy recorder, he responded that it had nothing to do (as did Gonzalez's father) with father Randy being the chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.  Rather, he said, it had to do with obvious leadership qualities and skills that were apparent to him in the course of his contact with him in the years before the hire.  And when you add in a family tradition of public service, it becomes a "no-brainer," no?

Coming full circle, it makes sense that a person who reeks of talent, skills and other employable qualities should be the brains of the operation, no?

He does appear to have a lot of talent.  Especially in constructing the numbers to support Campbell's insistence that the office needs four  seven more employees:  a 40% (4/10) 87.5% (7/8) jump in numbers of employees.  (see Update above)

For very close to a solid hour (most presentations last anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes), Campbell and Gonzalez did a tag-team act playing (in the opinion of the SCPR) "fast" with the numbers in order to "spin" a tale they hoped would be bought by the commissioners.

Moreover, time after time during the work session Campbell deferred to Gonzalez.

Who is the elected Stark County recorder?

One slide they had was "cute," real cute.

In it they tried to show that the department's request for 2013 of $655,590.71 was "in their imaginary world" was really the equivalent of being $472,782.90 which was under the 2011 budget appropriation of $500,856.11 thus saving the commissioners (and, by the way, Stark County taxpayers)  $28,073.21.

All one has to do to get down to the $472,782.90 is to remove from the $655,590.71 is to:

• deduct $13,460.51 (the 27th pay,  given the 2013 calendar pay cycle,
• deduct $4,901.31 (a 2% employee pay increase likely to approved),
• deduct $164,446.98 (cost of 4 new employees Campbell asks for)

Duh!  duh!  duh! duh! & duh! again.

Talk about circular reasoning that is like a cat chasing its tail?

The truth of the matter is not a savings, but rather a whopping! 62.6% increase over 2011 for 2013 if commissioners were to give Campbell his way.

Noticeably missing from the recorder's presentation was a historical chart showing the historical numbers compared to the requested 2013 appropriation.

The Report's recollection is that every other 2013 budget work session so included such a chart generated by the presenting Stark County department of government.

The SCPR is pleased to have put together such a chart which is displayed above.

Message to Stark County recorder Rick Campbell:  "Don't hire any new employees, just yet!"

Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II should note the "spin" skill that Campbell and Gonzalez demonstrated in the budget presentation and should seek to hire them immediately.

The duo demonstrated that Healy really does have something to worry about in terms of being Stark County's foremost spinmeister.

Commissioner Janet Creighton told the SCPR that she had seven employees and an office budget in a $180,000 or so range when she was Stark County recorder back in 1985.

And The Report understands that 2013 is not 1985.

But in Creighton's day as recorder (in the old Stark County Office Building [what used to be the Saint Francis Hotel] there was no technology to speak of and recording the official documents of Stark County was a highly labor intensive enterprise.

As if the number manipulation were not enough, Campbell went through a litany of reasons why the commissioners should comply with his request for four additional employees.

The list:

• [the recorder's office] has saved the county money in doing the microfilming work inasmuch as the alternative is outsourcing which is much more expensive in that the county would have to spend $4.3 dollars for outsourcing compared to $1.0 dollars (according to Campbell's Powerpoint graph) for the recorder's office to do the microfilming (outsource microfilming costs 30 cents a page, so says Campbell err Gonzalez),
• If the commissioners do not approve the additional employees for microfilming, then they will be costing the county more in the long run because the county will have to outsource for the microfilming overload,
• the more that is microfilmed reduces the amount to storage that John Runion of the records center has to come up with as well as the expense thereof,
• the recorder's office is recording/microfilming more documents with less people, (which Commissioner Creighton turned on Campbell)
• if a recorder's office employee gets sick or goes on vacation or is training other employees, it presents a huge staffing problem to the office,
• the recorder's office has plans to take on other projects (e.g. the Probate Court, the Stark County clerk of courts) for the county, if the commissioners agree to provide general fund funding for the additional employees,
• the recorder has to work existing employees through their breaks which puts us in violation of law and the office is vulnerable to being sued,
• it takes one and one half (1-1/2) years to train new employees and two years before they are as proficient as they are going to be,
• Stark County is Ohio's seventh largest county and the recorder's office needs to be staffed accordingly,
• the recorder's office has deferred on capital equipment (i.e. a new duplicator at a cost of $11,000, which, Gonzalez says, will pay for itself within two years in avoiding the need to outsource) purchases for five years and can no longer abide that situation

The kindest thing one can say about it is that in his zeal to protect his employment base Campbell with his presentation "oversold" his case and likely thereby was his own worst enemy in endeavoring to persuade the commissioners that it is essential that he be permitted to hire four new employees.

All-in-all, The Report's opinion of this presentation? It one of the most manipulative, intellectually insulting, and disingenuous reports that yours truly has ever witnessed.

But it is no surprise to the SCPR that Campbell would be behind such an effort.

In the end, it is likely to be counterproductive to presentation's intended purpose at least in terms of pushing the commissioners into doing his will.

Here is a highlight of excerpts of the back and forth between the commissioners and the Campbell/Gonzalez tandem.

CIVIC ACTIVIST & ATTORNEY CRAIG T. CONLEY URGES PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO TO SUE JUDGE FRANK FORCHIONE. WILL HE DO IT?

You talk about chutzpah, local civic activist and local attorney Craig T. Conley has it in spades.

Reacting to an order recently put on by Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione in the Scott D. Studer case that as part of his sentence on having pled guilty in multiple counts Illegal Use of a Minor in a Nudity-Oriented Material or Performance [R.C. 21907.323(A)(1)](F2) included a requirement that he pay a fine of $5,000.00 "to be forwarded the victims of Newtown, Connecticut tragedy," Conley fired off a letter (January 23rd) to Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero asking him, on behalf of a client, to institute a civil action against Forchione to recover the money to the Stark County treasury.

Readers will recall as reported in local media that Studer (a former Jackson High School freshman basketball coach) had videotaped numerous student athletes (since 2005) taking showers.

There were various other sentences handed down by Judge Forchione in his order of December 31st including a 15 year prison sentence.

Here is the text of Conley's letter to Ferrero:

January 23, 2013

VIA FACSIMILE (3 PAGES TO 330/451-7965) ONLY

Hon. John D. Ferrero
Stark County Prosecuting Attorney
STARK COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE
P.O. Box 20049
Canton, Ohio 44701-0049

Re: State of Ohio v. Scott D. Studer
    Stark County Common Pleas Court Case No.  2012 CR 1790

Dear Mr. Ferrero:

As you are aware, in the above-referenced high-profile criminal action, Judge Forchione (with your formal approval) ordered Mr. Studer to “pay a fine in the amount of Five thousand dollars ($5000.00) . . . to be forwarded to the victims of Newtown, Connecticut tragedy”.  (Reference the Court’s December 19, 2012 Journal Entry Sentencing Form and December 31, 2012 Judgment Entry/imposition of sentence.)

As you are also aware, on January 2, 2013, under cover of his Court-stationery letter of that same date, Judge Forchione forwarded Mr. Studer’s $5,000.00 check in payment of that fine to the Sandy Hook School Support Fund.(Reference the Court’s January 2, 2013 Judgement Entry, to which Judge Forchione attached his aforesaid cover letter and a copy of Mr. Studer’s $5,000.00 check.)

As you are also aware, Judge Forchione thereafter promptly informed the media of the Fund’s receipt of that check.  (See, e.g., a news article entitled “Studer’s check for $5,000 sent to Sand Hook support fund” which was electronically published in The Repository on January 8, 2013.)

Grandstanding issues aside, as I reasonably presume is the case

Hon.  John D. Ferrero,
Stark County Prosecuting Attorney
January 23, 2013
Page 2 of 3

with you, I am unaware of any Ohio Revised Code Section authorizing Judge Forchione’s tender of Mr. Studer’s $5,000.00 fine to any entity other than that specified in O.R.C. 2949.11 (effective May 6, 1986 and not since amended), which Code Section provides, in pertinent part, that “. . . an officer who collects a fine shall pay it into the treasury of the county in which such fine was assessed,  within twenty days after receipt of the fine, to the credit of the county general fund”. (emphasis supplied)

Indeed, in Ohio v. Cooper (2001), 144 Ohio App. 3d 316, the Eighth District Court of Appeals, citing (at 320 and 321) to that same Code Section, appropriately held “This statute mandates that all fines be paid into the county treasury; a trial court therefore does not have the statutory authority to direct payment of a fine to a charitable organization”.  (emphasis supplied)

Along those same lines, in Lane v. Phillabaum (12th Dist. 2008), 182 Ohio App. 3d 145, 2008-Ohio-2502, that Court, citing to that same Code Section, held (at ¶ 18) that “. . . it was improper for the court to order the students to make donations to a particular charity or nonprofit organization . . . rather than paying a fine into the county treasury”.  (See also State v. Short (12th Dist. 1992), 1992 WL 158413, for that same basic proposition of law.)

Accordingly, on behalf of the taxpayers of Stark County, and more particularly on behalf of my client, Thomas M. Marcelli (a County resident, taxpayer and electorate), I request you immediately institute a civil action against Judge Forchione for the recovery of and payment into the Stark County Treasury of Mr. Studer’s $5,000.00 fine, plus interest from January 2, 2012 to the date of such recovery and payment.  (Reference O.R.C. 309.12 and 309.13.)

In that regard, because you, as the Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, signed your approval of Judge Forchione’s December 31, 2012 Judgment Entry (and/or because of the effect of O.R.C 309.09(A)), I respectfully suggest you should forthwith recuse yourself from any and all future involvement in this matter and

Hon.  John D. Ferrero,
Stark County Prosecuting Attorney
January 23, 2013
Page 3 of 3

should request the appointment of a special (out-of-County) prosecutor.

Please promptly advise.  Thank you.

                           Sincerely,



                           Craig T. Conley

CTC/mps

cc: Thomas M. Marcelli
       Stark County Auditor
       Stark County Board of Commissioners
       Stark County Treasurer

Conley says that his/his client's initiative has gone national, indeed, international (e.g. GOOGLE LINK).

A Repository piece (Attorney challenges judge's decision to sent $5,000 fine to Newtown, January 23, 2013 by Matt Rink) spells out Ferrero's response to the Conley letter, to wit:

Ferrero said his office has reviewed the issue and will amend the judgment entry, a change that won’t require the money to be returned.

“We will recommend that an amended entry be filed to reflect Judge Forchione’s intentions,” he said. “It will still be payable to the fund the judge wanted. It will be designated as a fine, but to be paid in lieu of paying it to the court. ... We feel that will cure the problem that Mr. Conley is bringing up.”

To which Conley has fired off another letter to Ferrero which in essence says "you cannot do that."

Conley says that the only permissible-in-law reason for a judge's order to be amended is to correct a clerical error (commonly referred to as being a nunc pro tunc [now for then] order by attorneys).

Conley goes on to claim that Judge Forchione has no jurisdiction to change his issued "final, appealable order" on his own initiative and that the only recourse now is for Ferrero to see to it that the $5,000 gets put in Stark County treasury.

And to fortify the authorities cited in his first letter to Ferrero, he cites an Ohio Supreme Court ethics opinion.

This opinion appears to yours truly to be along the lines of prior legal citations by Conley in the first letter which he says stands for the proposition of law: absent specific statutory authorization. judges cannot order defendants to make charitable contributions as part of their sentencing.

There is a factual difference between Opinion 2010-4 and Studer.  In the Opinion, the defendant makes the request to be allowed to make the contribution whereas in Studer the Court takes the initiative.

Is this a significant difference?

We all shall find out in time as Conley pursues his remedy of compelling the payment of the Studer fine into the Stark treasury rather than to the Newtown charity.

Conley and Ferrero have a testy interpersonal history going back at least to the end of June, 2010 (LINK to SCPR on Conley demand letter to Ferrero).

Allegations surfaced on April 1, 2009 that Stark treasury chief deputy Vince Frustaci had stolen Stark County taxpayer funds.  Frustaci pled guilty to having stolen $2.45 million of county funds on June 25, 2010.

Zeigler was not implicated in the Frustaci theft.

By existing Ohio law the-then treasurer Gary Zeigler had potential personal liability for any funds coming up missing for whatever reason while he was treasurer.

Eventually the Zeigler and Stark County commissioners reached a settlement agreement on financial issues and Zeigler resigned/retired on October 19, 2011.

The SCPR believes that Conley was a critical factor in enhancing Stark County's ability to recover lost funds at the level it did.

Until he stepped forward, it looked as if Prosecutor Ferrero would be sitting on his hands for a long, long time.  Perhaps too long for Stark County to be able (in terms of availability of assets) to have an opportunity to satisfy as much of the loss it did from available resources that existed at the time of Conley's agitation.

As far as Ferrero is concerned with regard to Conley surfacing in the Studer matter, one has to believe he is experiencing a Yogi Berra-esque "deja vu all over again."

The SCPR has attempted to contact Judge Forchione for his reaction to the correspondence.    But so far, no response.

The Report would contact Ferrero.  However, he - the public official he is - is unwilling to take the SCPR's questions.  Yours truly has a history with him of asking tough questions and critiquing the administration/management of his office.

Unfortunately for Stark Countians, Ferrero was reelected to office this past November.  Stark's organized Republicans have been unable to find a viable candidate to take him on.  In fact, they fielded no candidate is 2008.

But if he ever thinks better of his rash and retributive stance vis-a-vis the SCPR, yours truly stands ready to take his unedited video statement or, if he would rather, his unedited e-mail in response to the Conley demand.

Conley tells The Report that he will give Ferrero a couple of weeks to respond but that his failing to do so would prompt him to file a lawsuit on behalf of his client and long time Stark County civic activist Tom Marcelli.

Moreover, he says it is not a matter of the worthiness of a cause (i.e. Sandy Hook victims) in terms of having fines diverted from the county treasurer nor is it the amount of the money.   He assured The Report that he and his client's reaction would be the same if the amount were $5 and the charity was Stark County sited.

Conley says the law is clear on the matter and that he stands ready to ensure by his client's contemplated legal action to see that the $5,000 gets deposited in the Stark treasury.

There are not many Stark County citizens who will go where Conley goes and do what he does in terms of civic activism.  It takes a cast iron stomach and an unique ability to more forward in the face of pressure from those who do not cotton up to civic activism.

Whether one agrees with or disagrees with the substance of his effort, he certainly deserves accolades for being willing to take on issues such as the Zeigler matter and the $5,000 Sandy Hook fine payment issue.

Stark County could be in for a protracted battle.

Stay tuned folks!

(VIDEO: BERNABEI) THE SEARCH IS ON FOR A HANKE EQUIVALENT AS STARK COUNTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR. IS ONE OF THE FIVE FINALISTS THE PERFECT FIND?

UPDATE:  6:00 PM

The SCPR has learned that all interviews went well and that it is likely that Stark County's next chief administrator will be selected from among the five finalists interviewed Wednesday (Lair) and Thursday (Cozy, Luther, Marion and Nichols).

The Report has learned that commissioners are likely on Monday to announce the process going forward on such things as to whether or not additional interviews are needed to get to a final determination.

On Monday of this week, in a videotaped interview with the SCPR (see below), Commissioner Bernabei announced a timetable for the hiring process which is designed to put a new administrator in place a week or so before retiring administrator Mike Hanke's departure on March 1 so that there is a coordinating overlap.

ORIGINAL BLOG
 
Yesterday, the Stark County commissioners were in executive session interviewing Geauga County administrator David Lair in their quest to replace the seemingly irreplaceable Michael Hanke as Stark County's chief administrator.

Lair was one of five candidates that the commissioners narrowed a list of about 30 applicants to in determining whom to interview.

From the list of 30, SCPR could easily have picked Luther, Cozy and Nichols as finalists.

But Vince Marion of Alliance city government and Lair of Geauga County were surprises to The Report.

First of all take a look and a listen to Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei as he described on Monday to yours truly what the commissioners would be seeking in a new chief administrator.



Today, the commissioners will once again go into executive session to interview:

• Brant Luther - the head of the Stark County Family Court guardian program,
• Mark Cozy - city manager of Canal Fulton,
• Chris Nichols - a Canton Township trustee,
• Vince Marion - director of planning and development for Alliance

RE:  LAIR

Before yesterday's session, The Report had an opportunity to chat with Lair as he waited to be interviewed by the commissioners.

The Report learned that Lair is originally from Massillon but moved away at a young age to eventually end up in Geauga County where he has been  county administrator for nine years. Prior to becoming involved in Geauga County office holding, Lair tells the SCPR that he worked in information technology in the private sector.

The News-Harold reports that Geauga County commissioners on December 12, 2012 approved a general fund budget of little over $27 million for 2013.  This compares to Stark's expected $54 million budget which is obviously twice what Lair is used to working with.

He is also the fiscal officer for Newbury Township and in the words of the township's website "has been responsible for the township’s financials since January, 1988."

The Burton Blog (LINK) indicates that Lair makes about in the range of $100,000 annually as administrator and also some $23,631.15 (2011 numbers) as Newbury Township fiscal officer (township LINK).

While the SCPR was impressed with Lair in the 15 minutes or so of conversation; if the income numbers cited above are accurate, one wonders how Stark County could possibly afford him given that Hanke is signing out making $78,000 annually.

RE:  LUTHER

Brant Luther has a number of  jobs since his first listed employment according to his Linked-In listing, to wit:

• Director, CASA/GAL [guardianship] Program Stark County Family Court
  January 2007 – Present (6 years 1 month),
• Part-Time Private Law PracticeMay 2002 – Present (10 years 9 months),
• Magistrate / Staff Attorney Stark County Probate Court
  January 2005 – December 2006 (2 years),
• County Auditor [Republican] November 2003 – December 2004 (1 year 2 months) [having been appointed to succeed current Commissioner Janet Creighton when she was elected mayor of Canton and which he lost to Democrat Kim Perez in November, 2004],
• Chief Fiscal Officer of Stark County, Ohio,
• First Ward Councilman Alliance City Council, Alliance, Ohio
  January 2000 – November 2003 (3 years 11 months)
• Law Clerk Stark County Family Court
  January 2000 – April 2003 (3 years 4 months)

In April 2011, he applied for the Stark County  judgeship that went to Rosemary Hall.

He ran an unsuccessful campaign as the Republican candidate state representative (the "old" 61st Ohio House District) in 2006.

RE:  COZY

Mark Cozy appears to be another candidate (reference Lair) that has credentials that are directly relevant to Stark's administrator position.  Here his Linked-In listing, to wit:

• City Manager City of Canal Fulton January 2006 – Present (7 years 1 month)
• Township Administrator Plain Township September 2000 – January 2006 (5 years 5 months), and
• Public Service Director City of Green April 1999 – September 2000 (1 year 6 months)

Noteworthy also is the specific listing of his responsibilities for Canal Fulton as set forth on the Canal Fulton website:

The City Manager is the chief executive and administrative officer of the City.  He is responsible to and subject to control, supervision and direction of the Mayor.  The City Manager is responsible to City Council for the day-to-day operations of the City.   Other responsibilities include advising Council  regarding the financial status and future needs of the City and reporting to Council on the general operation of City departments, offices, boards and commissions, as well as exercising leadership in the development of City projects and economic development.

RE:  NICHOLS

Chris Nichols is an interesting candidate mostly on the basis of his having been a Canton Township trustee (Republican) for over 12 years.   But his administrative experience has all been in the private sector.  The Report believes that the commissioners are looking to hire someone who has government administrative experience.

Here is his Linked-In listed experience:

• Director, Revenue Assurance First Communications Privately Held; 201-500 employees; FCOM; Telecommunications industry May 2002 – Present (10 years 9 months 
• Township Trustee Canton Township January 2001 – Present (12 years 1 month) Canton, Ohio Area

RE:  MARION

Vince Marion is an intriguing possibility to succeed Hanke.  His bio includes the following:

• Alliance Director of Development from January 2001 to present.  He describes his duties thusly:
• My office oversees all Economic and Community Development in the City of Alliance, Ohio. While I have a staff that manages the day to day activities of Community Development, my duties are focused on business attraction, retention and expansion. My office manages economic development incentives, financing and working with clients to guide them through the development process.
• He is president of Stark County Regional Planning for the past 13 months.  
• He was administrator for Plain Township from 1994 into 1998

His connection with Stark County Regional Planning (SCPRC) could be very helpful to him in his endeavor to land the county administrator position inasmuch as the commissioners have a lot of interaction with SCPRC.

If the commissioners elect to select from among this group, this is how the SCPR would rank them just on their actual job experience.

1. David Lair (if they can afford him),
2. Vince Marion,
3. Mark Cozy,
4. Brant Luther,
5. Chris Nichols

We should know soon as to whether or not any of these five measure up the very high standard that Mike Hanke has marked this position with.

As Commissioner Bernabei said on the video, if they do not the commissioners are set on reformulating the search until the find a candidate who does.

As well they should.  For the chief administrator is a key figure as to whether or not they succeed as commissioners.

DARROW SUPPORTERS STEP FORWARD. COULD THE "LEAST" POLITICAL OF THE SHERIFF CANDIDATES ACTUALLY BECOME SHERIFF?

NOTE:  The SCPR is focusing on the naming of a new Stark County sheriff.  With each new blog, The Report will include links to other blogs written since Friday, January 4th.
 

 SUBTOPICS

FOP ENDORSES DARROW

  

DORDEA HAS A STRANGE STRATEGY

GEORGE MAIER'S TRUMP CARD

HIS POLITICAL OPERATIVE BROTHER - JOHNNIE, JR.

LINKS

• January 18, 2013 blog
• January 11, 2013 blog
• January 10, 2013 blog,
• January 8, 2013 blog,
• January 5, 2013 blog,
• January 4, 2013 blog,

********** MOST RECENT BLOG **********

As of Monday, Chairman Randy Gonzalez (Stark Dems) says he has not set the time or place for determining who will replace Mike McDonald (the resigned sheriff-elect).

In recent days the supporters of the "least" political of the so far three announced candidates have surfaced.

Who would be the "least" political of the three?

Louis A. Darrow is the man!

The SCPR's assessment is that the other two candidates (Larry Dordea and George T. Maier) have a rich history of being involved in partisan politics.

DORDEA

A Republican through and through who in addition to wanting to be sheriff has perched himself in a partisan slot as one of two Republican councilpersons-at-large (the other being Julie Jakimedes) on the Alliance City Council.

Besides that he is police chief of largely Republican Hartville where he enjoys the support of Hartville's most prominent Republicans (e.g. Mayor Richard Currie, letter to the editor of the Akron Beacon Journal - October 17, 2012 endorsing him for sheriff).

In 2008 (versus Swanson) and 2012 (versus McDonald) he ran as the Republican candidate for Stark County sheriff.

As a Republican, Dordea has virtually no chance to get the appointment from the Stark County Central Committee later this month or some time early to mid February (within 45 days of McDonald's stepping down).

Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez has confirmed with The Report that he had received Dordea's application for the appointment.

Dordea had promised to supply the SCPR a copy of his application, but has failed to do so.

Must have forgotten?

Hmm? 

Dordea chose a strange way indeed to promote his candidacy.

He wrote a letter to the editor to Stark County newspapers, to wit:

My sympathy and prayers have been with the McDonald family for months and it is a very sad situation that is now upon us. I have great respect for Mike’s strength and commitment but he has acknowledged that someone else must step up and take his place as sheriff. Now we must find a leader who will serve all of Stark County, not just the Republicans or the Democrats. We need a leader who is confident enough in their abilities to have announced their candidacy and shared their vision for the development of the sheriff’s office on the countywide campaign trail. I want all of Stark County to know that I have done so and I remain very willing and able to serve as your sheriff.

Having recently run for the sheriff’s office twice, I continue to maintain that my qualifications for the office provide a unique combination of experience, leadership and fiscal responsibility. I have a proven track record of aggressive law enforcement that gets results and reduces crime while maintaining fiscal responsibility. It is not often that we are forced to revisit such an important decision but we find ourselves placed in that very unfortunate situation.

The outcome of the most recent election was close with Mike McDonald receiving 89,054 votes and Lawrence Dordea receiving 82,075. I truly regret the reason that there is a scramble to appoint a new sheriff but this is a fact that will not change. I am appealing to the 82,075 people who voted for me and the others who have been left voiceless as to who the next Stark County Sheriff will be, please step up and make your voice heard. Your safety weighs in the outcome and I am ready, experienced and very capable of serving you as your sheriff.

To The Report's way of thinking, Dordea makes a persuasive case, but there is absolutely no way that Dems Chairman Gonzalez is going to preside over a second Democratic assembly (the first being selecting Republican Alex Zumbar to replace Gary Zeigler as Stark treasurer, October 19, 2011) that selects a Republican for countywide office.

If Dordea had any chance with the Dems (which The Report thinks he never did), the "going over their head to the people" will go over like a ? (yes!) a lead balloon.

You have to hand it to Dordea for making the try.

But if he is ever going to be Stark County sheriff it will have to be by winning the election in November, 2014 when the Dems' appointee must stand for retention by the voters.

Right now Dordea is waffling as to whether he will on won't be a candidate.  The SCPR's sense is that he will not be UNLESS, of course, the Dems fool everybody and appoint him.

MAIER

A failure of George T. Maier (LINK:  http://www.massillonohio.com/ssd.htm for background information for as long as he is safety director) to background) to get the appointment would be a major, major, major political blow to his brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. (JAM) who is a former Stark Dems chairman and is now comfortably ensconced in the clerk of courts office in Massillon "as THE clerk" alongside his political brains Shane Jackson (son of former Stark County commissioners and Strickland administration appointee [likely engineered by JAM] Gayle Jackson).

In May, 2007 (early in the Strickland administration, Maier was appointed by the governor to be the assistant director in the Ohio Department of Public Safety.  The SCPR believes that the appointment was the handiwork of brother Johnnie who likely had favors owing from Strickland inasmuch as Johnnie was the very first party chairman to endorse Strickland in 2006 in the Democratic primary gubernatorial race.

In January, 2012 he became safety director in Massillon.

How did that happen?

Any guesses?

Brother Johnnie enters the picture once again?

Many think he and political protege Shane Jackson plucked Kathy Catazaro-Perry from relative political obscurity with the specific intent to take down long time Massillon Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr.

And it worked!

In the 2011 Massillon Democratic primary, she ousted Cicchinelli.

A number of folks including yours truly does not think that Catazaro-Perry has the experience and the wherewithal to be an effective executive in Tigerland.

But she need not worry.

She had the Maiers to fall back on.

And the visible Maier to prop her up has been George as safety director.  There is speculation that should George become sheriff then son Michael, currently on the Massillon Police Department (ironically, on the approval of Cicchinelli) may become her new safety director.

Few doubt that she has frequent and continuing conversations with Johnnie and Shane as to how she ought to be administering the city.

But that's not quite having a Maier actually in the office next door.

Does anyone doubt George T. Maier's political connections?

The Report says that he is the odds on favorite to become Stark's next sheriff.

DARROW

Lt. Louis A. Darrow of the Stark County sheriff's department (26 years) appears to the SCPR to have little, if any, political clout.

It is hard to find any political connections for Darrow.

An examination of Stark County voter registration records does show that he took a Democratic ballot in a couple of primaries for the period 1999 through 2012.

But not recent enough to be labeled by the Stark County Board of Elections as being a Democrat.   The default for one either not voting in partisan elections (such as yours truly) or within the past three years (?) is to be designated as being "non-partisan" as far as Ohio election registration records are concerned.  So Darrow appears to fall in the non-partisan category.

Hmm?  Isn't that interesting?

Most telling for Darrow is that he is the guy that the McKinley Lodge, No. 2 of the Fraternal Order of Police has endorsed for the Democratic appointment.

The same organization that endorsed Mike McDonald over Dordea.

Here is what Darrow has to say about himself.

Though he is largely nonpolitical, Darrow does have some political supporters.  However, The Report does not consider to be the equal of the Johnnie A. Maier Massillon political machine.

There is Sheriff Swanson and Massillon Law Director Perry Stergios.

Swanson is a political lame duck and likely has the personal respect of the central committeepersons but not their ears.

Surprising to see Stergios as a Darrow endorser.  The Report seems him as a cautious type that does not go out on the political limb.

Most importantly for Darrow is the SCPR's good friend: Prosecutor John Ferrero (who has strong Massillon ties).

Recently, he, through his right-hand-man John Kurtzman (his chief counsel), has been the lead in battling Mayor Catazaro-Perry on whether or not Massillon is to reduce its income tax credit to those like Fererro and Kurtzman live in Massillon but pay income taxes (between the two of them on income not that far from a-quarter-of-million-dollars) to Canton.

And believe it or not, Ferrero is winning that battle in the hearts and minds of Massillon city councilpersons.

But it is kind of weird that he does not want to spare a few extra bucks for his hometown, no?

Who says that The Report cannot find anything good to say about John Ferrero.

Here goes!

Way to go John; Darrow the non-politician a terrific choice for the highly political (in the opinion of the SCPR) John Ferrero. 

Political irony at its finest!

On mulling it over, the SCPR, after learning more about Lt. Darrow, thinks that he is the best choice of the two three candidate (sorry about that Larry) and that he is the "most" qualified when one takes politics out of the equation.

So the Dems do have a choice.

They can choose the Democrat that has police and political credentials or they can choose a guy who just wants to be a good policeman.

Despite what an area newspaper editorial board has written, many Stark Countians (certainly a goodly number votes political party) did not vote for a political party to make the selection in electing Mike McDonald last November.

These folks voted for whom they thought would the best Stark County top cop as between McDonald and Dordea.

Had McDonald said during the campaign:  "You know what, I am hopeful that my health is on the rebound and I will be able to serve out a four year term, but in case I don't - trust the Stark Democratic Party to appoint a worthy successor;"  would the results in November had been different?

The Report thinks so.  Enough people actually vote the person not the party that had they known they were in effect giving carte blanche to the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee to select Stark's next sheriff; surely Dordea would have won.

The general public is not known to trust political parties nor politicians (e.g. between 9% and 17% of the American public trusts Congress).

It is well known how utterly self-serving many if not most politicians are.

One can sense that serving the party interest and the interests of those (including family members and friends) who control the party weighs in big time over the public interest in the Stark County sheriff selection process.

There are denials all over the place.  But who believes them?

It's a long shot (Dordea has no shot at all), but with the support of the FOP, the SCPR hopes that the Stark Dems will select the non-politican Louis A. Darrow as Stark County's next sheriff.

But it is likely a hope that is between Slim and None with Slim having just left town.

(VIDEOS) STARK COMMISSIONERS PONDER BUDGET REQUESTS: PROSECUTOR, FAIR BOARD & STARK CO. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY BOARD. ARE THEY ASKING THE TOUGH QUESTIONS?

VIDEOS

Zantene & Locker
Stark County Fair Board

Green & Parramore
Stark County  Board of Developmental Disabilities

One of the more impressive things about the current Stark County Board of commissioners is their willingness to dig in on presentations made to them for their action on this thing or that thing.

The SCPR has been following the board closely for nearly five years now and can say without equivocation that the current one composed of Tom Bernabei, Janet Creighton and Richard Regula (on whom, individually, the jury is still out on in that he just took office this month) may be the best at vetting whomever comes before them with a request for action.

But let's just pause a moment and back off from any suggestion that the collection of Bernabei, Creighton and Regula (a former commissioner:  2003 through the end of 2006) is a nearing a state of perfection.

Far from it.

For instance, it still rankles yours truly the way the commissioners treated the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB).

As far as The Report can determine, the treatment has to do with:

1. that the SCDPAB was apparently the brainchild of former commissioner Todd Bosley seemingly done to bring him political support of those Stark Countians for whom the care of canines is a top priority, and
2. the lack of statutory authority (according to Commissioner Creighton) for creation of the advisory board in the first place.

Either way, the SCPR maintains that the good folks who agreed to serve on the Bosley initiated board deserve better treatment than they are receiving from the current body of commissioners, that is, except Regula, as he has not weighed in on the matter being in office for about three weeks now.

As far as The Report knows, the SCDPAB with just a few remaining members has not been officially shut done.  

They had nothing to do with Bosley's action and, accordingly, deserve better treatment than they are receiving from Bernabei and Creighton.

And there are other instances where the commissioners (again, excluding Regula, because he wasn't a commissioner) have come up short, but by and large they are dramatically improved over previous editions.

Back to the board's virtue of doing a relatively better job of questioning those who appear before them asking for Stark County taxpayer dollars.

While it can be excruciatingly painful to sit through budget hearings for their inherent boredom, three have occurred this cycle which have implanted a tinge of drama to them.

First, of course, which the SCPR has already written about had to do with Prosecutor John Ferrero's sort of (in the opinion of The Report) "in your face" presentation.  And this Ferrero caper was not the the first for him.  His pugnacious bearing was all too present at last year's budget hearings.

The commissioners have made it clear to all Stark departments of government which get general fund dollars that the expectation is that they are to come in with budget requests somewhere between current funding and 2010 funding and to project a 2% increase since county employees have not had an increase for a number of years.

So what does Ferrero, the non-team-player do?  You've got it!  He comes in with 2010 budget and and he projected a 3% raise.

Little bit of a disconnect here, no?  He expects others to play by the rules, but apparently his office is exempt?

Second, you have the Stark County Fair Board ([SCFB], also referred herein as being the "Fair Board" but which is formally titled as being the Stark County Agricultural Society).

The SCFB was represented at the commissioner hearings by President Darrell Zantene and Treasurer William Locker.

A main message:  the facilities at the county fairgrounds are deteriorating rapidly.   While no one said that the facilities (especially the grandstand - built in 1934) are at the "unsafe" level, it appears to The Report that such is where the grandstand is heading unless something is done and done within the next few years.

The Fair Board is at the point that they think have pared their budget (about $1 million annual) and that they are desperately seeking ways and means to increase income, reduce expenditures and find capital resources to make building/grounds repairs.

Some of the things they have done include:

• getting into using the fair grounds for boat storage,
• building a reserve (i.e. increased the fair ticket price by $1 with with 20 cents of each dollar going to a capital reserve fund and 80 cents going to operating expenses), but the the board has had to use some of the 20 cents to keep the fair going,
• trying to attract new events,
• trying to find lower costs for the rides portion of the fair but have been stymied because of the limited number of ride companies available to bid on providing rides,
• looking at raising fees for use of fair grounds which is not in the cards because of competition from other Stark County-based facilities,
• applying for grants but have been unsuccessful because they do not fit within the qualifying factors of grantors,
• building a sponsorship program whereby area organizations and businesses pay to sponsor certain buildings, and
• making some attempt to get agriculture devotees to make voluntary capital contributions

Some of the reductions in income have to do with:

• slowed down by "trending down" fair attendance owing to competing forms of entertainment occurring during the same timeframe as the fair,
• the loss of "mom and pop" members who cannot afford increasing fees to be at the fair,
• the cost of entertainment (big name) is, according Treasurer William Locker, "is getting completely out of line" in that it is currently about 1/3rd the fair's annual income,
• the harness racing business being on the decline,
• the fair experiencing "a rainy day" which Locker says cripples the income factor,
• increasing utility expenses despite completely shutting down the electric and gas when it is prudent to do so,
  

The folks who staff the SCFB are really nice folks with the best of intentions, but it seems obvious that previous boards and administrations have not properly maintained the fair's physical plant and now it is likely that we are likely to be going to hear a clamor for the commissioners to put massive amounts of taxpayer money in the getting the buildings and whatnot up to minimally acceptable standards.

One glaring deficiency of the Fair Board pointed out by Commissioner Creighton is the age the those serving on the board.

Her implied suggestion?

Maybe some youth and vigor on the board would inject visionary thinking that just might be the salvation of the fair going forward, no?

Take a look at its request made of the Stark County commissioners:  asking for $414,900 in 2013.  Hmm?

For 2012, the Fair Board received about 8.5% of it request from the commissioners.

Let's say that this year the commissioners get real generous and give it 20% of its request.  The SCFB gets about $83,000. How much more does it have to raise to get its house in order?  About $332,000.  Hmm?

So why should the commissioner throw good money after bad?

County administration assistant Rick Flory shared with the commissioners on Commissioner Bernabei inquiry the amounts which Stark County taxpayers have subsidized the fair with, to wit:

• $2,800 (2012),
• $22,500 (2011),
• $22,500 (2010),
• $22,500 (2009),
• $134,500 (2008)

This is a budget item to watch for everyday Stark Countians to begin to understand how well the commissioners are doing a stewards of the taxpayers money, no?

Here is a video summary of the discussion that took place between Fair Board president Darrell Zantene and its treasurer William Locker.



Finally, item number three being pondered by the commissioners.

Whether or not to allow the Stark County Developmental Disability Board (SCDD) to put a levy on in May of this year?

Here is what SCDD wants to do:  (from its fact sheet)

The Stark County Board of Developmental Disabilities has a 1.9 mil renewal with a 1.4 mil additional levy request on the May 7, 2013, ballot. The levy will benefit children and adults in Stark County who have developmental disabilities. This levy maintains the same millage that is in place and will result in NO NEW TAXES. The 1.9 mil renewal request renews a levy that expires in 2013, while the 1.4 additional includes the same 1.4 mil levy that expires in 2014. This eliminates the need to be on the ballot in both 2013 and 2014. The good news for the taxpayer - NO NEW TAXES. 

After the restructuring of the levies, SCDD (currently have 5 levies in place for 6.8 mills) reduces to 4 levies but maintains the 6.8 mills.

On the surface of the proposal, it seems as if this is a win/win for the SCDD and for Stark taxpayers.

It especially appears so when one considers this statement from SCDD's superintendent Bill Green, to wit:

From current calculations, it is our understanding that combining the two expiring levies will result in lower tax revenues because of the property revaluation that Stark County just went through.    Regardless, if we requested two separate renewals or not, we will be receiving $1.1 million less than what we collect now with the same millage.

But there is a catch that caught the ear of Commissioner Creighton during SCDD's presentation.

Catch?

Yes.  In the conversation between the commissioners and SCDD officials is the fact coming out that SCDD is carrying over some $32 million into 2013 against an annual budget of approximately $50 million.

Well, the obvious question that voters would be asking is this:  how is it that a agency that is carrying over about 60% of its annual budget needs to renew its levies (2013 - 1.4 mill; 2014 - 1.9 mill) for 10 years.

SCDD answer?

(Paraphrase)  "We're being prudent in looking down the road so as to prevent a financial crisis in the near term."  And, according to Superintendent Green that $1.1 less combined with other revenue losses [the state of Ohio including the Department of Education) means that going forward the SCDD is looking at 10 year life of the combined levy to offset about $7.2 million in the space of about two years (i.e. by the end of 2015) in total losses from the current budget level of $50 million.

Other points emphasized by Green to the commissioners include:

• that the SCDD is trying to change it business model,
• that the SCDD is only sustainable to 2017 with the status quo,
• getting SCDD customers out of segregated environment to the degree they exist,
• changing the SCDD's role from primarily being a provider of services to being a funder of services and thereby leverage more services for the retarded, developmentally disabled and intellectually disable,
• converting the SCDD from being a reactive organization into being a proactive one witness the plan to restructure long term funding of the agency,
• making the business model into one that is sustainable

It is surely rare that any government department or agency looks long term.  So the SCDD deserves plaudits for doing so.

But are the times such that the commissioners and ultimately the voters will be willing to allow such a strategy to become reality?

The commissioners did ask incisive questions of Green and yours truly followed up after the meeting with additional questions.

First, the SCPR video of the exchange between Green and the commissioners:



Second, after the commissioners' meeting Green's interview with The Report:



There are two things that stand out about the SCDD's whole process.

Number one, again, is the forward thinking going on at SCDD.

Number two is that the Stark County commissioners are not being a rubber stamp. 

Stark Countians should take heart that their county commissioners are asking pointed questions of the fellow county officials who are coming before them with their budget requests.

The Report believes that the commissioners' asking of meaningful questions is different from previous boards.

Yours truly's take on the prior boards is that the fellow county officials were their friends and therefore the commissioners merely went through the motions in their questioning.

The current board is much improved in this regard!

STARK COUNTY BD OF ELECTIONS TO DETERMINE WHO IS QUALIFIED TO BE APPOINTED BY STARK DEMS CENTRAL COMMITTEE AS McDONALD SUCCESSOR. COULD THE SHERIFF SELECTION END UP IN THE COURTS AS A CONTESTED LEGAL MATTER? ZEIGLER: "DEJA VU & ALL OVER AGAIN?"

NOTE:  The SCPR is focusing on the naming of a new Stark County sheriff.  With each new blog, The Report will include links to other blogs written since Friday, January 4th.
 

 SUBTOPICS

GEORGE MAIER SENDS OUT LETTER TO DEMS

CENTRAL COMMITTEE SEEKING SUPPORT

(SEE COPY OF LETTER IN THIS BLOG)
  

FORCHIONE DOES NOT DECIDE, MERELY COLLECTS/TRANSMITS
INFORMATION TO THE STARK BOARD OF ELECTIONS

LINKS

• January 11, 2013 blog
• January 10, 2013 blog,
• January 8, 2013 blog,
• January 5, 2013 blog,
• January 4, 2013 blog,

********** MOST RECENT BLOG **********

The Stark County Political Report has learned that so far two candidates for the appointment of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDPCC) have been interviewed (and submitted statutorily required information and finger prints) by Stark County Court of Common Pleas Administrative Judge Frank Forchione.

The two interviewed are Lt. Louis A. Darrow (currently serving in the sheriff's department and current Sheriff Tim Swanson's choice) and Massillon Safety Director George T. Maier who formerly served in the Ohio State Highway Patrol.

Such is a pre-condition (among a number of qualification factors) for anyone to be considered by the SCDPCC as its appointee to replace Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (who was victorious over Republican Larry Dordea in November) to take the oath of office as sheriff and to serve through 2014.

But the interview and the satisfaction of statutory requirements attested (sworn to) by the candidate for appointment does not put Judge Forchione in a position to determine whether or not Darrow and Maier or any other applicant (Dordea has told the SCPR that his application to the Stark Dems is in the mail) are qualified to be appointed by the Stark Dems.

Judge Forchione tells the SCPR that the qualification decision is to made by the Stark County Board of Elections (Stark BOE).

Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01(F)(2), in part, reads:

Each board of elections shall certify whether or not a candidate for the office of sheriff who has filed a declaration of candidacy, a statement of candidacy, ... meets the qualifications specified in divisions (B) and (C) of this section.

The qualifications of 311.01(F)(2) (listed by the SCPR as being items 1 through 8 below particularized to Stark County) are the easy part.

However, items 9 and 10 may prove problematical at least one of the candidates.  The list includes that the candidate for appointment:

1. be a U.S. citizen, *
2. be a resident of Stark County for one year,
3. be a qualified voter, *
4. have a high school degree or its equivalent, *
5. have a conviction record of a felony or first degree misdemeanor, *
6. be finger printed under the direction Judge Forchione who is to have the finger prints compared to local, state and federal databases and  (a process that takes about 7 to 10 days according to Forchione) who turns submits the results to the Stark BOE,
7. submit a list * of:
1. residences going back 6 years,
2. places of employment going back 6 years,
8. have evidence * of a basic peace officer certificate of training [by an approved issuing authority as specified in the statute],
9. have been employed within the past four years as:
1. a state highway patrolman,
2. a full-time police officer, OR
10. have been employed for the past three years as a full-time law enforcement officer

Sheriff Swanson speculated last Friday that George Maier may have difficulty qualifying.  He did not say which of the 10 criteria might be troublesome for Maier.

Could it be that items 9 and 10 are what Swanson was referring to?

On Wednesday Maier sent out a letter to Stark County Democratic Party precinct committeepersons.

Here is a copy of the letter:

In November, 2014, the selected McDonald replacement will have to stand for re-election and win in order to serve beyond 2014 for a full term in office.

The interesting thing to the SCPR is that the Stark County BOE determines who is qualified.

The BOE is membered by two Republicans and two Democrats by design a la the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union for a good number of decades during the 1900s.

And Maier's brother Johnnie, Jr. (a former head of the Stark County Democratic Party and currently the Massillon clerk of courts) was a board member up until he ran for re-election as clerk in 2011.

Ohio law does not permit a person running for political office to serve on the BOE.

So what happens is that the Dems switch out holders of one of the two Democratic positions (which the SCPR calls "the clerk of courts seat") with:

• either Phil Giavasis (Canton clerk of courts - the current holder of the office), 
• Shane Jackson (Johnnie's chief deputy in Massillon), 
• Randy Gonzalez (an Giavasis employee in the clerk's office, and current chairman of the Stark Democratic Party, and fiscal officer in Jackson Township) and, of course, 
• Johnnie himself.

Johnnie stirred up a controversy a number of years ago when he asked long time board member Billy Sherer to step aside (which had become to be known as "the union's seat on the BOE," so that he could appoint an attorney (Sam Ferruccio) (LINK - July 1, 2008 SCPR report on this Maier maneuver) which according to Maier was the wish of the-then Democratic secretary of state Jennifer Brunner who in turn threw Maier under the bus in denying that she requested any such thing.

If there is a tie vote (not uncommon, Republicans William Cline and Curt Braden in a stand off with Dems Giavasis and Ferruccio), it is broken by Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted.

What Ohioans and Stark Countians ought to be asking themselves is what qualifications do board of elections members have to assess whether or not a person is qualified to be sheriff?

And this is not even an antiquated law like the one was under which the Stark County commissioners (Bosely, Meeks and Ferguson) unconstitutionally removed Gary Zeigler as Stark County treasurer.

It was enacted on December 9, 2003?

What dopes the legislators in 2003 were, no?

Yours truly can see that there might well be a disagreement by a party-in-interest (i.e. one the applicants for the appointment) with the determination of the questionably prepared BOE members and we could see a  an appeal of an BOE determination filed pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2506.01.

Or, maybe an appeal gets filed because there is a tie as a consequence of a standoff between Stark Rs and Ds and Husted votes with the Republicans and the Dems take the matter into the courts?

And guess where the initial appeal is heard?

You've got it:  the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

But you have to believe that Judge Forchione will not abide being on the other end of the full circle that he was at the beginning of,  if such a scenario unfolds.

Alternatively, such a case would fall to one of the other judges, or, will they also (a la the Zeigler litigation) defer and we will have yet another Ohio Supreme Court out-of-county judge appointed to deal with the matter.

Are we about to go down that road again?

Could Stark be heading to the Ohio Supreme Court again?

Will Tim Swanson still be sheriff one or two years from now?

STARK AUDITOR GETS A SCPR "A+" FOR HIS BUDGET PRESENTATION. A MODEL FOR ALL STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT!

It was refreshing to sit in on Stark County Auditor Alan Harold's 2013 budget presentation to Stark County commissioners on Monday morning.

Quite a contrast to the one about a week earlier by Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero.

The difference?

Harold showed that he is a team player.  In the opinion of the SCPR, Ferrero has demonstrated that he is not.

Despite passing a sales tax levy in November, 2011, the Stark County commissioners are under the gun to be very frugal with taxpayer dollars.  There simply is not enough money to go around.

Put yourself in the commissioners shoes.  Who would you rather come in?

• A guy who says he wants to go back to 2010 levels of funding and rehire 14 people (Ferrero) and might go from his desired 3% to the commissioners' recommended 2% raise for existing employees or,
• A guy who points out that he has scaled down by 17 employees since 2010 and might need to add a couple in the information section of his department (Harold) and who didn't miss a beat in plugging the 2% figure into projected raises for employees who have had no raises of any kind for a number of years (same situation for the prosecutor's employees)

Is there any doubt?

The commissioners would never say it for themselves, so let yours truly do it.  Of course, Auditor Harold.

The SCPR is impressed with Harold's "let us help the county attitude" and his demonstrated cost cutting that is truly exemplary for all county officials to follow.

What is interesting about the employees that Harold wants to add (a PC Network Technician and a Network Engineer) is that they are in the information technology area.  While the auditor hasn't promoted it this way, it appears to The Report that these are employees who are likely to make the county's technology more effective and efficient and over time will recoup for the county the expense of their remuneration plus.

On the prosecutor's side, it appears from Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar's budget hearing input with commissioners that the "low hanging fruit" on delinquent tax collections has been picked and now that the prosecutor's will have a much tougher time collecting what is owing to the county's revenues.

The Report can see it now. There is likely to be less productiveness out of the prosecutor's office on this score.  But, of course, the number of employees and monies dedicated to the DETAC (Delinquent Tax Assessment Collection) effort will not decrease.

So that is yet another difference the SCPR projects as being a difference between the two departments of Stark County government.

You have seen the numbers for the prosecutor's office on the SCPR (LINK).

Here are Harold's numbers (compared to predecessor Kim Perez's):

.
From a Perez high of 114 in 2008, Harold dropped to 86.  Amazing, no?  A drop in 28 employees.

Harold has added some employees and yet he is still (2012) 17 employees below Perez's lowest number of 108 employees registered in 2010 (Harold defeated Perez in the November, 2010 election)

More numbers.

From Perez's high in 2008 of $7,608,812.50 (that's millions folks), Harold dropped to $6,601,568.16 and reduction of $1,007,244.34.

From Perez's last number registered in 2010 of $7,467.519.54, Harold comes in at a projected 2013 reduction of $804,779.18 even in the face of hiring two new employees and with all employees getting a 2% increase.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the SCPR grades Stark County Auditor Alan Harold as deserving of an A+ in the way he operates his office.

Here is a list of the auditor's office employees and the office pay scale as presented by Auditor Harold.