(VIDEOS: BURGASSER, GONZALEZ & CONCATTO) IS JOE CONCATTO'S DREAM OF A STARK CO. CENTRALIZED DISPATCH "FAR-FETCHED?"

UPDATED:  09:00 AM

 VIDEOS

Gonzalez:  The Original Purpose

Burgasser:  The Selfishess

Concatto:  The Dream

Concatto:  The Nuts & Bolts 
 

A week ago yesterday, the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) Governance Committee (chaired by Jackson Township Fiscal Officer Randy Gonzalez) met at the training room of the Stark County Sheriff Department regarding the seemingly eternal quest of SCOG to realize a centralized, countywide 9-1-1 state-of-the-art dispatching center.

This is news?

It is.

How so?

First of all, the effort has been stalled for months.  No meetings, no nothing!

Secondly, the topics discussed.

An important starting point is a statement made by Chairman Gonzalez during the meeting in reminding the members that the first and foremost goal of the committee starting out was to make Stark County a safer community in terms of providing emergency services to Stark Countians.



In that regard the discussion turned to: 

What is Stark County going to do with the approximately $2.35 million sitting in a "9-1-1 fund" within the county general fund?

Is SCOG going to purchase a state-of-the-art Computed Aid Dispatch (CAD) system or to apply the money towards getting all Stark County safety forces "up-to-snuff" on state-the-art 800 mhz radios?

This is money that remains from tax revenues collected from the-then (December, 2008) Bosley, Harmon and Vignos Stark County Board of Commissioners' imposed 0.5% sales tax.

Readers will recall that the public presentation was that the tax was primarily for a rehab of a broken county 9-1-1 system (according to a report commissioned by SCOG).

However, on deeper scrutiny, it was discovered that the tax also included half of the revenues generated going to the county general fund.

This discovery together with the tax being "imposed" was enough to get the blood of a band of irate citizens boiling to the point of successfully circulating petitions for a ballot initiative to repeal the tax on the November, 2009 ballot.

The rest is well known history,  The repeal was overwhelmingly approved.

As it turns out the Bosley, Harmon and Vignos group of commissioners were exercising vision in providing for a rehabbed Stark County CAD and radio system.

But they got greedy in tagging on the general fund money.

And they got arrogant in "imposing" the tax.

But for those fatal flaws, the necessary financing was in place and Stark County might well have by now realized Concatto's dream. 

In a little bit of an ironical twist, one of the attendees at last Thursday's meeting was former Commissioner Jane Vignos.

Another factor in the interruption in the march towards having one Stark County dispatch has been Mayor William J. Healy, II of Canton.

After saying that he was for countywide centralized dispatch with Canton's Communications Center and the Stark County Sheriff's dispatch hub serving has redundant physical infrastructure to house operations, when presented with a lease by SCOG he backed away.

Reason?

The SCPR's take is that Healy would no longer be in charge after the convergence and therefore, as - seemingly - always,  if Hizzoner is not the chief of things post-merger then it (whatever the project is) is "no go."

So what did the Thursday, April 11 produce?

Well, to tell the truth, it is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Some of Stark County's safety force gurus want the CAD system, some want the radios and a number want a mix of the two.

And this division of desires is another key component of Stark County's 9-1-1 consolidation problem!

Fragmentation, fragmentation and fragmentation, once again.

One could also say turfism, turfism and turfism, once again.

The frustration of fragmentation or turfism, whichever term one might use, was best articulated at the meeting by Fire Chief Tom Burgasser of Massillon.



The SCPR's take on the April 11th meeting at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard was that there was "no big picture to emerge."

Such was the case even though the the assembly had the advantage of having RCC Consultants, Inc's Leo Birbilas (PMP, ENP) present.

The fallback position?

More inquiry, more surveying of the Stark's safety forces and more consultation.

But then this past Tuesday (April 16) 9-1-1 Project Coordinator Joe Concatto (on a contract basis) appeared at one of the Stark County commissioners' work sessions to give an overview of where SCOG Governance is in developing and implementing a plan to use the $2.35 million.

In an overall sense the encouraging thing about Concatto's commissioners' meeting appearance was his articulation of still having a dream for Stark County to achieve a state-of-the-art centralized dispatch system.



Encouraging?  Yes.  For those of us who think 9-1-1 is not yet what it ought to be and for the enhanced safety of Stark Countians:

• a new centralized CAD system needs to be purchased and implemented whereby all of Stark's dispatchers are centrally located, and
• Stark's village, city and township police, fire and EMS workers and  deputy sheriffs, are connected on state-of-the-art radios communicating over a state-of-the-art broadcasting system (e.g. MARCS - "Multi-Agency Radio Communications System" LINK to slide presentation)

Realistic?  Probably not.

Why not?

In the view of the SCPR because of:

• the lack of a visionary, take charge person who will take ownership of bringing Stark County into the 21st century with its emergency services communication system,
• the lack of a leadership person with the commitment and dedication to find:
• the lack of necessary monies to purchase the CAD system and to fund the system's annual maintenance costs,
• (probably about $1.5 million capital purchase and $0.6 to $0.9 million or so in maintenance over a five year period of time),
• the lack of necessary monies to get every safety service provider (police, fire and emergency forces) on 800 megahertzP25 radios,
• (probably about $2.5 million in capital purchase costs [between new radios {$3,000 to $4,000 each} and upgraded radios {$300 each}] constituting a total of approximately 1500 radios across Stark County)
• the lack of necessary monies to hook on the State of Ohio MARCS radio network

The Stark County Political Report also makes available (see at the end of this blog) the rest of Concatto's entire presentation which goes into the details of his effort to put together a plan to use the $2.35 million.

Time seems to be of the essence.

The CAD bids, Concatto says, have a limited life span.

Reviewing Concatto's presentation to the commissioners, the following points stick out:

• the State of Ohio's CAD system is not a cost effective for Stark County to join.  Other negatives include:
• Stark County being the first non-state agency on the state CAD and therefore would experience integration pains that being the first would ential,
• Ohio's system, though a good system, would "compromise" Stark County's "perhaps, best in Ohio" GIS (Graphic Information System) mapping system,
• SCOG is narrowing down (to be done in 30 days or less) from the nine bids to two or three bids to choose from ($1.5 million for the capital purchase [paid for from the $2.35 million currently held in the county general fund by the commissioners] and $0.6 to $0.9 million spread over a five year period in annual maintenance costs [to be borne in fees charged to participating Stark County-based dispatch centers],
• Stark County currently has eight such centers with the main three in terms of projected participation would be:
• the Stark County sheriff,
• the Canton Communications Center, and
• the Regional Emergency Dispatch (RED) Center (located in Jackson Township's government complex)
• there is (and the SCPR adds in Concatto's estimate) "renewed hope" among the SCOG membership growing out of last Thursday meeting (something the SCPR did not catch) of renewing the effort to go to a one-dispatch-center as originally envisioned when the imposed 0.5% sales tax occurred,
• (SCPR note:  apparently Concatto bases the "renewed hope" with the introduction of George T. Maier as sheriff (appointed to replace Mike McDonald by Stark Democrats on February 5th) and with Warren Price taking on the duties of safety director in Canton
• acknowledged that SCOG cannot continue to "talk about renewed hope, but that the have to do new hope,"
• competitive to buying a CAD system with the $2.35 million in funds available is upgrading the the $20 million in cost 800 mhz city/county radio system purchased over recent years with local, state and federal dollars,
• but that like CAD, Stark County's 800 mhz radio system is a hodgepodge of differentiated systems some of which cannot talk to each other,
• e.g. North Canton has a 800 mhz system that is with the State of Ohio MARCS system, and
• Canton Township has a 800 mhz system and the township is looking to join MARCS,
• that the wave of the future is for the county to join MARCS in its Tier II mode and that the county is zeroing in on that cost.
• (Note:  Concatto gave an example of MARCS telling Stark County that MARCS needed 5 of Stark County's 10 towers for MARCS to upgrade (so that the system and be accessed from within fire, police and ems stations) at perhaps a cost of $2 million 50% of which would be rebated to the county in the form of credits for ongoing annual maintenance costs,
•  e.g. MARCS charges $20 per month per radio, so using the estimate that there are 1500 Stark County-based radios the annual fees would be about $360,000  (a SCPR calculation; not Concatto's),
•  Concatto also revealed that going to MARCS and 800 mhz P25 X7 platform would entail the purchase of 20 work stations at a cost of $1.4 million as necessary hardware to handle the 800 mhz radio traffic,
• there would also be a "connection cost" from Stark County dispatch to the Lake County site of MARCS,
• that the need to go to MARCS is based on the current cost to Stark County of spending about $700,000 a year in tower maintenance and 800 mhz system maintenance not that Stark County's 800 mhz does not have additional life (perhaps, as much as 4 to 5 years),

What follows in a spreadsheet in which the Stark County Political Report projects costs of implementing a state-of-the-art CAD and 800 Mhz radio system.

While it is Joe Concatto's dream to have a state-of-the-art countywide central dispatching system; given:

• the current rivalries among Stark County political subdivisions 
• Prime culprits are (in the opinion of the SCPR):
• Nimishillen Township's CenCom headed up by Fire Chief Rich Peterson), and
• Canton's Mayor William J. Healy, II (as mentioned above),
• the lack of dynamic, committed leadership in terms of fashioning a vision of moving persistently towards realizing what might be,
• While the currently Stark County of Board Commissioners is likely to stick to their plan to spend the remaining monies from the "imposed" sales tax on 9-1-1 improvement in some way, shape or form, they are not visionaries who might put together a financial plan to complete the project.
• The SCPR believes that the commissioners were very conservative in putting forth a 0.5% sales tax in November, 2011 which passed by a comfortable margin.  The Report believes that their shortsightedness and their lack of fortitude in making tax a 1% increase will haunt Stark County government for years to come.
• the lack of a skilled leader who can generate funding mechanisms that are essential ingredients if capital and maintenance needs are to have adequate financial resources, and
• One has to wonder where the leaders are that Leadership Stark County (a Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce project) is supposed to be producing.  The Report's take is that Leadership Stark County is mostly a "splash and dash" effort that participants are using to build impressive sounding resumes with little to show in actual leadership for projects such as the 9-1-1.
• local interests prevailing over countywide interests,

it is likely that Joe Concatto will have to "dream away!"

Definition of expression Dream Away:  "to waste away a period of time having fantasies."

Is "Dream Away" what Concatto is into on his vision that Stark County one day soon might have centralized, countywide state-of-the-art dispatch center with Stark's police, fire and EMT workers having state-of-the-art communication?

Or will someone in the Stark County pool of leadership talent step forward and make it a "dream realized?"

Here is the rest of the Concatto video in which he explains (in detail) what it will take to realize his dream.

IS CANTON'S 9TH WARD ELECTION A MID-TERM MINI-REFERENDUM ON MAYOR HEALY?

Mayor William J. Healy, II is not on the upcoming May 7th ballot in a literal sense but the SCPR posits that he is figuratively.

His proxy, by accident, is Councilman Joe Cole (currently, at-large) who got hoodwinked into giving up his at-large seat by Councilwoman Mary Cirelli in one of the most humorous, vaudevillian-esque cloak and dagger political dramas in the all time political annals of Stark County.

An excerpt from a prior SCPR blog, to wit:

Probably due to a SCPR political analysis blog showing that if Bill Smuckler, Jimmy Babcock, Mary Cirelli, and Joe Cole were to run for the three slots up for election in Canton's council-at-large race this coming May that Councilman Cole would be the "odd man out," he apparently decided to play a game of "political musical chairs" with Cirelli on Wednesday, February 6, 2013.

A SCPR source (confirmed by Mary Cirelli herself) says that Cirelli and Cole (along with his fellow councilman and pal Jimmy Babcock) were camped out in their cars in front of the the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) as the 4:00 p.m. filing deadline for the 2013 elections neared.

Cole seemed intent on waiting for Cirelli to declare herself as to whether she was going to run to be Canton's next treasurer or seek to retain her seat as councilwoman-at-large.

And any one who knows Mary Cirelli has to know she would not be outdone.

Cole had taken out petitions for his current seat (council-at-large) and to run against incumbent Democratic 9th ward Councilman Frank Morris.

Finally, Cole enters the BOE and Cirelli follows.

But she does not see Cole when she gets into the building.

She assumes Cole has already filed.  But que sera, que sera, Cirelli tells the SCPR.

She plomps her petitions for council-at-large down on the counter and asks the nearby Jeanette Mullane (deputy director of the BOE) to check them out as to accuracy.

While Mullane is doing the checking, Cirelli excuses herself to go to the ladies room.

Meanwhile, Cole makes his appearance at the counter of the BOE.

Likely, Cole sees Mary's council-at-large petitions laying on the counter and ASSUMES thereby that she has opted to run for re-election as councilwoman-at-large.

So Cole files for the 9th ward against Morris apparently figuring that running in the 9th was his best chance to stay on council.

Out comes Mary Cirelli.  She asked Mullane if the petitions appeared to be in order.

Mullane responds:  "Yes".

Whereupon Cirelli whips out her treasurer's petitions and said:  "Okay, then these must be alright, too."

And she files for treasurer.

Cole has to be utterly shocked.

What a hoot!, no?

Cole is among a gaggle of Healy loyalists (i.e. Babcock, Cole, Dougherty, Griffin, Smith and West) on Canton City Council.

If Cole loses his council seat, Healy most likely is going to be on the down side of a 7 to 5 mix on council, and so the mayor has to go all out for Cole in the Ward 9 race just to have political equilibrium on council in hopes he can get Allen Schulman (council president) to vote his way in a tie-breaker (the only time he votes).

So that is why The Report believes that to some degree, the outcome of the Cole/Morris match up might well be indicative of Healy's political heft in Canton.

The mayor's stakes could not be higher.

To add to the bizarre humor of the Cole situation was his coming out about a week ago to eliminate the council-at-large seats.

To the SCPR, Cole's ploy is so Healy-esque (i.e. spinning a given matter his way no matter how unbelievable, self-serving) that it is as if Cole is the political clone of the mayor.

From Matt Rink's (The Repository) Cole: Reduce size of Canton City Council, April 12th:

• “Since I’ve been on council I’ve always worked to streamline government and make things more efficient,” Cole said. “People have told me, ‘Joe you can’t do this.’ But it is something we can do, and I just don’t think having nine ward council members and three at-large is the best use of our resources.”
• Cole said he’s not using the issue as an excuse for running for a ward seat, rather than running for reelection for his at-large position, which he’s held for two terms.
• “This is why I took out two petitions,” [Cole] said, “because (the idea) took a lot of thought and consideration. This is doable. Your political opponents are always going to say things. You’ve got to have thick skin in this business, so that’s of no concern to me.”
• Mayor William J. Healy II, an ally of Cole’s, supports the concept.
  
  “We’ve got 13 members for a city under 75,000 population,” he said. “Columbus has seven council members and they have a population of more than 785,000 people. They (Canton’s seats) probably should have been eliminated years ago. ... It’s a long time coming, but people are afraid of change.

While Cole and his patron are fighting hard to keep him on council, it appears to the SCPR that he is likely in for a political trouncing.

Ardent Frank Morris supporter C. David Morgan (Morris is the incumbent Ward 9 councilman and Democrat as is Cole), recently put out a letter to the ward's voters imploring the reelection of Morris.

Excerpts from the letter:

Joe Cole is Not “Our” Councilman.  Recently you may have received a piece of political literature touting candidate Joe Cole as “our Councilman” and urging us to “Keep Joe Cole.”  In my opinion, this is another piece of misleading advertising from a guy who continues to try to bamboozle the public into supporting him.  Joe Cole is NOT our Ward 9 Councilman.  ...

Joe Cole Does Not Stand for Our Neighborhoods.  Who is this Joe Cole guy?  He says he's standing up for neighborhoods and families, but have you ever seen him at your neighborhood meetings (except when he is running for election)?   ... .

Joe Cole Does Not Stand with Police.  Joe Cole says he supports “intelligence led policing” but does nothing to increase the number of police officers who are to be so led.  In fact, Joe Cole used his position as Council Finance Chairman to quash efforts by hard-working Council members to make starting police salaries more competitive and attract more police officers.  .... .

Joe Cole Does Not Care About Canton Ward 9.  Friends, do not be fooled by Joe Cole.  Since moving to Canton in 2005, his only idea to become a piece of legislation was the one buying foreign-made hats and shirts through a Summit County vendor to “promote” the City of Canton.   

...  I think Joe Cole is a slick politician - a political hack who makes promises he will not keep to people whose concerns he does not share in order to take taxpayer monies he does not earn and hold on to a position of public trust he does not deserve.

Yesterday, another Ward 9 key civic activist Bruce Nordman, who heads up the Group 175 Vassar Park-based initiative to get Canton police strength up to 175 officers, told the SCPR he is squarely behind Morris and figures that that Cole is in for a political beating.

If Nordman is correct, and the SCPR suspects he is, then Mayor Healy, because of his out-and-out support of Cole, will be sharing in the result.

It appears to The Report that as Canton continues to deteriorate and Healy's non-stop spin of blaming others becomes recognized for what it really is:  excuse making; his Stark County based future political prospects are growing dimmer and dimmer.

Cole is likely to be fading from the local political scene come May 7th.

Can his protege Healy be all that far behind?

After all, "birds of a feather, [do] flock together, no?"

QUO WARRANTO: SWANSON V. MAIER - "SWANSON'S SOLID BRIEF!" SHOULD GEORGE MAIER BE PLANNING A NEW CAREER - AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING?

REVISED & UPDATED

In the opinion of the SCPR, it is looking awfully good that Timothy Swanson is going to be returning as Stark County sheriff.

At least until the Stark County commissioners appoint a replacement which should occur in pretty rapid order.

But first, a word of caution.

"The Supreme Court doesn't have to be right, it just has to be The Supreme Court."

If the Ohio Supreme Court follows the law as neatly laid out by Greg Beck (legal counsel for Tim), George T. Maier (the appointee of the Stark County Democratic Party on February 5, 2013) will prove to be a short time sheriff.

Of course, there i the matter of Maier's lawyers filing their brief in 20 days.

And the SCPR is excited to see what they (Roetzel & Andress) possibly could do to counter Beck's outstanding legal work filed on Monday, April 15th (LINK).

Undoubtedly, they will cobble something together.  And "cobble together" may be the appropriate expression.  For as far as yours truly can see, they do not have much to work with from the evidence submitted and in light of the Swanson brief.

It was interesting in viewing the depositions of Swanson, Maier and Harrison County Sheriff Ronald Myers, to read as Maier's attorneys quizzed Swanson about who was "really" paying for his challenge of Maier's right to stay put at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

Interesting?  Why?

Because Stark County taxpayers are set to pay the bill for Maier up to $20,000.

At today's Stark County commissioners meeting, commissioners are likely to approve the initial billing for Maier's attorney fees in the amount of $9,175.55

One local attorney suggests to the SCPR that if Maier loses:  the decision is likely to be that the Stark Dems' appointment will be ruled void ab initio:  a latin expression (ab initio:  "from the beginning") meaning in effect that he never was sheriff.

According to that attorney, it is likely, in the event of such a ruling, that Maier will have to foot the bill for defending his right to be in office.

Hmm?

From a political analysis standpoint, the SCPR believes that should Maier be turned out of office by the high court, you can bet your bottom dollar he will be running for sheriff come 2014.

And in the meantime, he likely would be returning to Massillon to be Massillon's public safety/service director, once again.  Interesting enough, his replacement (he quit February 7th to take on being sheriff) is the "interim" safety/service director.

Hmm?

Is brother Johnnie hedging his bets and using his influence with the Catazaro-Perry administration (his candidate for mayor in 2011 who successfully took down Johnnie's "down through the years rival:" and long time Massillon mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr.) to keep the safety/service directorship open in the sense of the mayor having named an interim appointee - just in case?

Moreover, there is another interesting tidbit.

There is speculation that Catazaro-Perry herself is looking to leave Massillon.  Things are not going well for Mayor Kathy and there is conjecture that she is negotiating with folks in Washington to become an employee of the United States Department of Transportation.

Hmm?

So what does that have to do with George T. Maier?

Well, the same folks who are speculating on the D.C. thing are thinking that he gets turned out as sheriff, Maier becomes mayor of Massillon.

But such is not doable under the succession scheme that Massillon is under.

If Catazaro-Perry were to step-down, the SCPR is told (by Massillonian Scott Graber, who cited the appropriate authorities referred to below) that council president Tony Townsend would become mayor until the next election cycle which depending on the timing of a resignation could be in the 2014 election cycle.

How about a scenario in which Tony Townsend becomes the Maier faction stand-in for election should Catazaro-Perry resign.

Wouldn't that be a sight to behold?

This revised/updated blog is a correction of yesterday's version of this blog in which yours truly erroneously applied Ohio Revised Code Section (ORC) 705.81 as being applicable.

However, Massillon City Council has adopted Rules of Council Rule 14 (being a ORC 731/733 city) which reads:

Rule 14.     In case of the death, resignation, or removal of the Mayor, the President of the legislative authority of the City shall become the Mayor, and shall hold the office for the unexpired term.  Thereupon the President Pro Tempore of such legislative authority shall become President thereof for the unexpired term, and shall have the same rights, duties, and powers as his predecessor.  The vacancy thus created in the legislative authority shall be filled for the unexpired term as provided in Ohio R. C. 731.43, and such legislative authority shall elect another President Pro Tempore to hold such office for the unexpired term.

In any event, the SCPR does not believe George Maier would have any interest whatsoever in being mayor if somehow it were possible in let's say an election scenario (to fill the unfilled term) should the conjecture about a Catazaro-Perry resignation materialize.

Why not?

Because:

• he has now had the taste of being sheriff,
• he reportedly is well liked by the deputies and has their full confidence, 
• he has been making reforms (interesting enough, pretty much those promised by Hartville Police Chief Larry Dordea had he defeated Mike McDonald in November, 2012), and
• he has "being a policeman" in his blood.  Remember, with the Maier family police work deeply embedded in their sinews/bones going back to the family patriarch.

The SCPR believes Catzaro-Perry's speculated departure in just that (speculated) and that it is likely that Catazaro-Perry family and business circumstances are such that leaving Massillon simply does not make sense for her.

And, of course, there still is the possibility that Maier's attorneys will "pull a rabbit out of the hat" and he wins and remains Stark County sheriff.

A number of Stark Countians with law enforcement/legal community connections are impressed with Maier's de facto qualifications to be sheriff (and the SCPR agrees, except maybe for his temperament) even if the Ohio Supreme Court may well say he lacks the de jure (as a matter of law) qualifications of Ohio Revised Code Sections 311.01(8) and (9).

Moreover, they (the supportive law enforcement/law enforcement types) like how he has handled his two and one-half months in office.

So one should never forget, and as his supporters may be wishing:

"The Supreme Court doesn't have to be right, it just has to be The Supreme Court!"

(VIDEOS: COUNCILMEN SNYDER & FOLTZ) A FESTERING SORE CONTINUES IN NORTH CANTON OVER WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY COUNCIL IS A "RESPECTER OF PERSONS" IN ITS "PUBLIC SPEAKS" FORUM

REVISED & UPDATED:  12:15 PM

See Osborne's exception to Snyder at the end of the original blog.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The Stark County Political Report can understand why certain members of North Canton City Council get irritated with civic activist Chuck Osborne (a former city councilman himself [December 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003] corrected), but to single him out for different treatment when he accesses council's Public Speaks forum is totally unacceptable, IF singling out is occurring.

Assessing whether or not the former city councilman's claim of discrimination is borne out by the facts is sort of like figuring out "which comes first:  the chicken or the egg."

The SCPR's perception - from having attended many North Canton City Council meetings over the last five years - is that the relationship is a little like "it takes two to tango."

The SCPR for one finds Osborne to be a whiny, "How can you possibly see things differently than I do" type who thereby stretches the patience of his hearers to the limit of their tolerance of being annoyed.

Here are links to a number of blogs that the SCPR has done relative to Mr. Osborne and his interaction various North Canton officials:

• On a city sweepings issue, December 15, 2009,
• On Maple Street Commerce LLC/North Canton agreement,  June 24, 2009,
• On Maple Street Commerce complex redevelopment plans (access to public records), June 9, 2009,
• On dispute with North Canton Veterans Memorial Committee (Revoldt had Osborne police escorted from council)

It appears to The Report that council (mostly personified by Councilman Doug Foltz (re:  meeting 8/23/2010, Foltz wanted Osborne banned from council for a period of time:  LINK) and now council president Jon Snyder are at the end of their patience with one of Stark County's leading gadflies.

And The Report believes that to some degree Osborne has brought the "by the rules" administration of North Canton's "Public Speaks" forum down upon himself by his from time-to-time interjections from the audience when things are not going his way in council deliberations, considerations and responses regarding his public speaking forays.

Yesterday, Osborne e-mailed a local reporter (with a copy to the SCPR) his viewpoint on how he thinks he has been treated by North Canton City Council in its "Public Speaks" forum (in part) to wit:

The bigger picture, which you should be reporting on is the bold and brazen inequality that exists in the way I am treated.

You were there three weeks ago when Mr. Wechter spoke. Mr. Wechter was not even flagged for exceeding his allotted five minutes until after six minutes had elapsed. And when he was alerted that his time had elapsed, Councilmember Foltz quickly called for allowing Mr. Wechter to be able to continue and the five council members who were present, (two could not even bother to attend the council meeting) voted to allow Mr. Wechter to continue. Mr. Wechter was allowed to continue. His remarks to council lasted a total of 20-25 minutes. 

[SCPR note:  see transcript of exchange below in this blog]

Several weeks earlier, the individual (Tom Besozzi) who assaulted me and who later apologized publicly with the approval of the Canton City Prosecutor, was never advised he had exceeded his five minutes. The overflowing audience shouted him down after six minutes.

This country is all about equal treatment under the law. If the law says five minutes for Public Speaks, it should be five minutes for everyone.

North Canton City Council has repeatedly played favorites and this has gone on for years.

Just last week there was a new incident of an Osborne outburst in which he narrowly missed being "police escorted" out of council's meeting that earned him the ire of Councilman Snyder, to wit:



Moreover, it is the SCPR's assessment that Osborne has antagonized council members and members of the Held administration (and the mayor himself) with his from time-to-time "in your face" style.

If such were not enough, he has, on at least two occasions, more or less taken over council's legislative function as evidenced by his legislative initiative drives designed to get the people of North Canton to approve ordinances over the head of council as a body.

One of the initiatives passed last November.  The ordinance prohibits council members (as part-time elected officials) from participating in North Canton's health care plan.

Back in November, 2005 Osborne's initiative petition ballot quest to curb use of city funds for its Community Improvement Corporation operations was rejected by North Cantonians.

Still further back (2003) Osborne failed in an effort to get to the ballot a referendum of whether or not North Canton should purchase Arrowhead Country Club.

At last check, Osborne says that North Canton has yet to include the healthcare ordinance in its codification of North Canton law.

So it appears to the SCPR that there is plenty of "bad blood" between him and North Canton officialdom and that he may now be paying the price.

It may well be that council members are not consciously singling Osborne out.  But it is hard to believe that clash, after clash, after clash does not taint the way that council views him and, perhaps, deals with him.

On March 25th of this year, several speakers appeared at North Canton's regular meeting to address council as participants in the Public Speaks forum.

One was Gary Wechter a former North Canton councilman (like Osborne) who wanted to express his concern to council about how American Electric Power was handling the trimming of trees as they affect electric power lines.

Turning to a transcript of the meeting, follow along:

Fox: (Tim Fox, North Canton law director)

Excuse me sir. 

Wechter:  Yeah ...

Fox:  I apologize.  You have reached the five-minute point.

Wechter:  Okay.

Fox:  But if the Chair wishes, it can extend ...

Snyder:  (Jon Snyder, council president)  I'll allow him to speak.

Foltz:  (Doug Foltz, Ward 1)

(The same Doug Foltz who wanted to ban former Councilman Chuck Osborne from council for a time back in August, 2010)

I'll make a motion to approve the additional time for Gary Wechter.  He is a former councilman and a great community activist here so I'll make a motion to do that.

Clerk's note:  Mr. Foltz moved and Mrs. Werren seconded to all Mr. Wechter additional speaking time [no limit?  hmm?].  All members present voting:  Yes:  Griffith, Kiesling, Snyder, Peters and Foltz.  No:  0.

Fast forward to Chuck Osborne and his use of Public Speaks.

Osborne:  (after having made his substantive points to council)

And also Mr. Foltz.  I'd like to thank you for extending the extended time to Mr. Wechter.  It was only the right thing to do.  It shouldn't be an ordeal for anybody to come up here and speak and if they have anything intelligent to say.  I'm a former councilman myself.  I'm battered up here every time I come to speak.  And I only hope I get the same courtesy the next time I come up here to speak.

Foltz:  I was afraid of that, Chuck.  But I think Gary is [the] exception rather than the rule.  So we're going to leave it at that. As long as there are four votes on Council, we can discuss that.  Okay?

Clerk's note:  (Laughter)

Snyder:  Thank you, Mr. Osborne.

Osborne:  (Apparently directed to Foltz)  You never cease to amaze me.

To the SCPR,  this vignette encapsulates the acerbic relationship between council and North Canton's leading provocateur.

Note the sarcasm initiated by Osborne:  "I'd like to thank you for extending the extended time to Mr. Wechter. ... And I only hope I get the same courtesy the next time I come up here to speak."

To be contrasted to laughter (apparently directed at Osborne).

Laughter, hmm? Who was laughing?  Hopefully, no one on council the democratically elected body it is, was participating in the laughter.

Fairness and equal application of the rule of law gets laughter?

But Osborne's unhelplful injection of sarcasm is an example of his fanning the fires of council antagonism going forward.

It would have been constructive and helpful for either President Snyder or Councilman Foltz to admonish that the laughter apparently directed at Osborne was unwarranted.

Here is what Councilman Foltz did have to say to the SCPR last evening.



The SCPR is inclined to say that North Canton Council demonstrates in its relationship with the former councilman of being respecters of persons but said assessment is far from clear.

Yours truly is struck by the numerous times over the years that councilpersons have praised Osborne for his ongoing contribution to the public discussion on issues that council has to deal with.

He has demonstrated that he can be a constructive force.

While The Report knows full well that Osborne can be a proverbial "pain in the _ ss; in our democratic republic, he is entitled to be such to some degree.

On the other hand, council does have a responsibility to the orderliness of public proceedings to keep dialogue from getting out of hand.

Small letter "d" democrats treasure citizen-generated corrections in a "check and balance" way that "Public Speaks" utilizers from time-to-time bring to bear on our government.

The answer to the seeming loggerheads appears to the SCPR to be that each (council, in its implementation of the "Public Speaks" rule of five minutes each) and Osborne (as a speaker) think twice, perhaps three times, about drawing lines which lead to confrontation.

So here we are at the end of the blog and yours truly still cannot say who is to blame.

Yes, we are stuck on "which comes first:  the chicken or the egg" and "it takes two to tango."

It does nobody any good to try to place blame on who is at fault in the clearly deteriorated relationship.

What is needed is for both council and Mr. Osborne to strive to build a constructive relationship going forward!

The SCPR liked Councilman Foltz (in the video) putting his "ban Osborne for a time" threat in the past, not to be acted upon for now.

Osborne should take the Foltz position as the offering of an olive branch.

Why shouldn't he, why can't he tone down the rhetoric?

Why shouldn't council, why can't council soften its seeming hostility?

There is no reason why there cannot be a healthy give and take that benefits the citizens of North Canton.

OSBORNE'S RESPONSE:

Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:14 AM

Hello Martin

I have looked at your video interview with Mr. Snyder and his account of the treatment of me at last week’s council meeting differs from what the record will show when the council clerk completes the transcript of the meeting.

First Mr. Snyder says the issue had been discussed for 55 minutes prior to my remarks and seems to say there was no reason to repeat that discussion. Public Speaks occurs in the first five minutes of every council meeting, shortly after the Pledge of Allegiance. When I hear gross distortions of facts from any individual, I very quickly begin to discount what it is they say on the subject at hand.

Second, Mr. Snyder’s assertion that I spoke for 11 minutes is also incorrect. Time was quickly called on me at five minutes. There is absolutely no doubt about that as well. There is no way on God’s green earth that they would have let me or anyone go on for 11 minutes without an act of council and probable an act of Congress as well.

I did advise Mr. Snyder that I was almost done and he said he would give me thirty seconds to finish. With interruptions from the Law Director, I am not really sure if I got thirty seconds. I only had two sentences to finish my prepared remarks but was unable to finish.

My remarks were prepared and they addressed the Mayor’s public actions as Mayor. They were critical of the Mayor’s conduct of public business, but the remarks were civil. You have a copy of my prepared remarks.

City Council cannot defend their actions and now they have to distort their account of the meeting to justify their conduct. As an attorney yourself, if Mr. Snyder were cross-examined in a court of law, his testimony would easily be questioned and discounted by any juror. Sad commentary regarding an elected public official.

Mr. Snyder is generally a very likable individual who I enjoy talking with. I have told him many times that when he reaches his days of retirement that I hope he can look back on his days as a representative of the people and remember that he always did right by his constituents while conducting the public’s business.

Thank you,
Chuck Osborne

A "PROBABLE CAUSE" HEARING (ON "ALLEGED" THEFT-IN-OFFICE) SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 23RD ON CONSEQUENCES OF STARK CO. COMMON PLEAS JUDGE FORCHIONE ORDER IN THE STUDER CASE. HMM?

UPDATE:  04:45 p.m.

The SCPR has learned that Judge Frank Forchione nemesis Craig T. Conley has been retained (on a pro bono basis) to provide legal advice and counsel to Louis W. Demis with regard to his affidavit (see full affidavit below) vis-a-vis Forchione and his allegation that Forchione's re-directing of fine money ($5,000) via his order in the Scott D. Studer case from the Stark County treasury general fund to the Sandy Hook Support Fund amounted to a theft-in-office by the case law of Ohio.

Conley says that Demis is committed to pursuing his allegation to a successful conclusion.

Conley tells the SCPR that he will be in contact with Akron prosecutor Craig Morgan soon in a coordinating sort of way in preparation for a "probable cause hearing" set for April 23, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in the Canton Municipal Court with former Barberton judge Michael McNulty presiding.

SUBTOPIC

REPOSITORY SITS ON STORY

What is the expression about getting more than one bargained for?

Oh!  How about?  "Be careful what you wish for — you just might get more than you bargained for."

Well, as it turns out, "getting more than one bargained for" may be the ultimate consequence for Judge Francis (Frank) G. Forchione of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas in his sentencing of Scott D. Studer.

The, let's say, the "unorthodox" (to be euphemistic) original sentencing (December 19, 2012) was done in the full glare of media attention and Forchione - as a ramification of the sentencing hearing - garnered local, statewide, national, and, indeed, international attention.

Here is a SCPR LINK for those SCPR readers who are not familiar with the details of a matter in which Forchione ordered a convicted felon (Studer pled guilty to several felony counts) to pay a $5,000 fine NOT through the Common Pleas Court Clerk of Courts TO be forwarded on to the Stark County treasury and then deposited in the Stark County general fund as required by Ohio law, BUT TO the Sandy Hook School Support Fund in order to aid the families of the victims of the December 14, 2012 mass shooting/killing of 20 students and 6 teachers in Newtown, Connecticut.

Within days local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley accused Forchione of grandstanding (SCPR LINK).  Moreover, a Bethlehem Township resident stepped forward and asked Conley to file a lawsuit in order to get the money to where it belonged, he said: to the Stark County general fund.

Conley agreed to do so pro bono (for the public good).

For his civic-mindedness, Conley was rewarded by being named the subject of a ethics complaint filed by an anonymous (SCPR LINK) person on January 28, 2013.

Ultimately, Forchione found a way (SCPR LINK) to retrieve the $5,000 fine from Newtown and amended the original Studer case order and by the amendment had Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold forward the $5,000 onto Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar for deposit in the county general fund. 

The Marcelli complaint was voluntarily dismissed on February 15th.

Conley on March 26, 2013 was exonerated (SCPR LINK) by Ohio State Bar Association ethics counsel on the ethics complaint "as being unfounded."

End of matter?

Apparently not!

The SCPR learned on Friday (late in the day) that a Columbus resident (Louis W. Demis) has filed an affidavit with local authorities on February 28th alleging that Judge Forchione had in ordering (and in following through in seeing that the order was effectuated [re:  Letter of Transmittal, January 3, 2013]) that the $5,000 be paid to the Sandy Hook victims relief fund rather than to the Stark County treasury committed the criminal offense of "theft in office," to wit:

The SCPR has further learned that Stark County's only countywide newspaper has known of the affidavit being filed for some time and has decided (a least for the time being) not to inform Stark Countians of the pending action.

This is the same newspaper who saw fit to publish an article about Mayor Healy's wife and her being arrested on October 13, 2011 on a matter that had absolutely no relevance to the mayor's performance in office.

Pray tell?  How many standards are in effect at The Repository?

Of course, local authorities treated the affidavit as if it was the hottest potato to hit the Stark County in many a moon.  Forchione served as the top prosecutor in Canton during his 13 years in the Canton Law Department where he served his full legal career (other than also maintaining a private practice) until he was elected to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas bench in November, 2008.

Canton Law Director Martuccio tells the SCPR that immediately on receiving the affidavit, Canton Municipal Court Clerk of Courts Phil Giavasis telephoned him with the question:  "What am I to do with this affidavit?"

Answer:  Martuccio directed his Canton Law Department staff find non-Stark Countian criminal justice folks to take a look at questions compelled by the filing of the affidavit; namely:

• whether or not to prosecute (who turned out to be Assistant Akron Chief Assistant Criminal Prosecutor Craig Morgan) on the basis of the affidavit, and 
• whether or not a viable judiciable complaint (i.e. probable cause) has been made (who turned out to be the retired but formerly long time Barberton Municipal Court Judge Michael McNulty).

Martuccio agreed with The Report's assessment that the filing of the affidavit was consonant with Ohio statutory authority which seemingly is Ohio's version of "citizen arrest" legislation (Ohio Revised Code Sections 2835.09 and 2835.10) that is prevalent across America.

Moreover, he told The Report that over his years in the Canton Law Department only few of such affidavits have been filed.

This past Tuesday, April 9, 2013, Canton Municipal Court acting presiding and administrative judge Stephen Belden set a  "probable cause hearing" on the Demis affidavit for Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge McNulty.

Martuccio said that it is not likely that Judge Forchione will be appearing at the hearing.  However, he added that if probable cause is found, then Judge Forchione will be processed through the criminal justice system the same way as any other citizen.

If this matter passes the "probable cause" hurdle, one has to wonder how Prosecutor John Ferrero (Stark County's prosecutor) handles the matter inasmuch as felonies get prosecuted at the county level and not the municipal court level.

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly, like Sheriff Tim Swanson, does not have a lot of faith (LINK) in how Ferrero runs his office.

However, this one, if it gets that far, appears to be a "no brainer" that Ferrero's office would not be touching this one with the proverbial "ten foot pole."   The office provided legal advice to Judge Forchione during the Marcelli challenge of his sentencing of Studer.

Undoubtedly, the matter would not be presided over by a sitting nor former Stark County Common Pleas Court judge.

The SCPR has learned that a local (Canton-based) lawyer is looking at taking on the case (apparently in advisory role to Mr. Demis since only prosecutors try criminal cases in Ohio) on a pro bono basis.

There probably is no more apt way to describe what Judge Forchione has gotten himself into other than to use the "tar baby story" (not the SCPR's idea, rather an idea borrowed from another) from the collection of Uncle Remus stories many of us "older" folks were subjected to in elementary school decades and decades ago.

Nowadays it is not cool to use these stories because some think they are racist expressions.

The SCPR's use of the tar baby story is designed to vivify the sticky situation that Judge Forchione apparently has created for himself in grandstanding (Conley's accusation) in having Scott Studer pay his fine - not to the Stark County treasury as required by law - but rather to the Sand Hook Foundation.

From Wikipedia here is the essence of the story:

Br'er Rabbit ("Brother Rabbit") is the main character of the stories, a likable character, prone to tricks and trouble-making who is often opposed by Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear.

In one tale, Br'er Fox constructs a lump of tar and puts clothing on it. When Br'er Rabbit comes along he addresses the "tar baby" amiably, but receives no response. Br'er Rabbit becomes offended by what he perceives as Tar Baby's lack of manners, punches it, and becomes stuck.

So the question becomes with the filing of the Demis affidavit: Is Judge Forchione about to become stuck to a problem that he gave birth to beyond anything anyone dreamed of?

Will he be pondering the adage: 

"Be careful what you wish for (i.e. publicity? in making the order) — you just might get more than you bargained for."  Or will the affidavit prove to be "a tempest in a teapot?"

Only time will tell.

Stayed tuned to the SCPR where you can depend on hearing Stark County news and analysis when it breaks!

SWANSON V. MAIER "QUO WARRANTO" - SCPR FIRST IMPRESSIONS ON THE EVIDENCE. WHAT ARE THEY?

UPDATED:  9:45 AM

For the SCPR, the only way to look at the February 5, 2013 conclave of the Stark County Democratic Party session to pick a successor to Mike McDonald is through the prism of politics.

All three candidates had very impressive "on the merits" qualities to emerge as the selectee.

So on the 5th "the winnah" was going to be the one of the three who had the most political clout and the savviest political gendarmes at his disposal.

Which of course meant that Republican Larry Dordea had no chance at all.

When the unfortunate need of McDonald to send in his letter of resignation arose, "believe me you:"  the wheels of politics got to turning real quick!

According to testimony (i.e. a deposition of former Sheriff Tim Swanson) filed with the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday, it appears that Randy Gonzalez (chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party) asked for the help of Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei in finding a successor to McDonald.

A meeting was called (at Bernabei's commissioners' office) that included, of course, Bernabei himself, the-then Sheriff Tim Swanson and Gonzalez.

Swanson seems to be surprised to learn that Massillon Safety Director George T. Maier had been settled upon as the person to succeed McDonald.

Settled up by whom?

By those who fancy themselves to be the "the powers that be" within in the Stark County Democratic Party hierarchy, perhaps?

• Note:  The SCRP has talked with Bernabei and he tells your truly that he is NOT part of a effort on the part of Stark County Democratic Party insider leadership to intervene on behalf of George Maier. 
• Once he has had a chance to look at the Swanson and Maier depositions in Swanson v. Maier, he says he will get back The Report with more details (i.e. to questions unasked by legal counsel) and with his perspective. 
• As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly always solicits input from those who are subjects of SCPR blogs availing the full and unfettered opportunity to state their side of the matter.

Swanson was asked by perhaps? the faces of the Party poobahs to help Maier qualify by his appointing Maier for one day as a "full-time" deputy Stark County sheriff.

Why this strange request?

Well, there is a provision in Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(8)(a) and (b) (Election and Qualification of Sheriff) that an appointee as county sheriff:

• must have from within four (4) years back from February 17, 2013 (the qualification date by the SCPR's calculation) have held obtained a certificate of peace officer training, and
• must have from within four (4) years back from February 17, 2013 (the qualification date) have been a full-time peace officer engaged in enforcing statutes, ordinances or codes.

Swanson's hosts worried that Maier was not qualified under Ohio statutory law and could Swanson help out by appointing Maier as a full-time deputy sheriff for a day?

To his credit, Swanson refused in this way:  (his testimony)

I said, "George, here is the deal: You qualify, I support you 100 percent." I told him that on the phone. And I still, to this day, if somebody says you are qualified, I support him 100 percent.

I just don't want to circumvent the law.

And I worked for 13 years as a sheriff on the board to get the law to where it was, and I don't want to go around it.

Where did George Maier turn next?

To an old friend (one of his "good ole boys?") who is sheriff of Harrison County.

Sheriff Ronald J. Myers.

As luck would have it for Maier, old pal Ronald was looking for a full-time deputy sheriff because of the booming oil and gas industry in Harrison County which was causing a big increase in traffic.

As it turns out, though he had not hired a new deputy for some time, Maier's serendipitous surfacing triggered a "aha" moment for the Harrison County sheriff who admitted in his deposition in Swanson v. Maier to be somewhat of a fan of Maier's going back to the days that Maier was serving in a Ohio Highway Patrol outpost in one of Ohio's most hinterland-esque areas of the state.

Myers and Maier met in New Philadelphia on January 5, 2013.  Myers talked about needing a new deputy and Maier said "Well, I'd like to get the position if I could get it."  And Myers said:  "Okay."  (LINK to deposition)

According to Myers, talk of the job just sort of came up "out of nowhere."

And he offered these additional details in his examination by Swanson's attorney:

• Maier's application for appointment was granted by him on January 6th (a Sunday),
• he would be an entry level full-time deputy,
• he was required by union contract to work 80 hours within a 14 day time period,
• he (Myers) assigned Maier to work on the following weekend of Saturday, January 12th and Sunday, January 13,
• The appointment papers were not filed with the Harrison County auditor's office until January 14th,
• he hired Maier notwithstanding knowing the fact that Maier was full-time safety director in Massillon at the same time,
• that Maier never worked 80 hours within 14 days, only a total of 16 hours on January 12 and 13, and
• he took as certification of police officer training (ORC 311.(B)(8)(a)) a letter from Ohio attorney general Mike Dewine issue to Sheriff Swanson on July 28, 2011

And yet in his deposition, Maier denied that his two day full-time employment had anything whatsoever to do with his qualifying to be Stark County sheriff.

Hmm?

Does anyone reading this blog believe that?

Does anyone in Stark County other than the SCPR think how arrogant it is for Maier to think that he can spin a tale like he did and have it be taken as credible by just an ordinary inquiring mind?

A man who would be the Lord and Master law enforcer over us all!

Maybe there should be just a little squirming among Stark Countians at the audacity of the spin?

Another thought that the SCPR picked up from a "sounding board" to yours truly is whether or not Maier's two days in Harrison County was enough to make him a full-time employee however brief his full-time status may have been.

How so:  whether or not?

Well, the sounding board opined, in Harrison County it is likely that to actually qualify as a full-timer one must qualify to be and become a union member by negotiated contract language.

Would Maier's brief stay on the sheriff's staff have allowed for enough time for the full cycle to have been realized?

More, from among a number of things, on Sheriff Swanson's deposition (LINK).

• he says he thinks Maier is unqualified under ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) and (b) in that:
• (B)(9)(a):  must have from within five (5) years back from February 17, 2013 (the qualification date) have been a supervisory peace office,
• OR,
• (B(9)(b):  must two years of post-secondary education,
• he acknowledged he was a Lou Darrow (his operations chief) for sheriff supporter at the February 5th sheriff selection event,
• he asserted that he is "the one driving the bus" in challenging, George Maier's qualification to be county sheriff,
• NOTE:  The Report is struck how easily evaded the weak attempt by Maier's high-powered Columbus-based (Roetzel & Andress [R&A])  legal counsel to determine who was paying for the Swanson challenge.  
• Not that it is relevant to the outcome of the case.  
• As far as the SCPR is concerned,  R&A spent an awful lot of time and effort questioning on matter not relevant to the criteria likely to be used by the Ohio Supreme Court in determining the case.
• Remember also R&A is being paid by Stark County taxpayers to represent Maier.
• he sent a letter to Prosecutor John Ferrero, to wit:

February 7, 2013

Dear Prosecutor Ferrero

I am requesting that your office take whatever steps are necessary to begin legal action to determine if George Maier is qualified to assume the position of Stark County Sheriff.   

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely

[Sheriff Timothy Swanson] 

• he gave reasons given for sending the letter, to wit:

I wanted him to publicly be able to say why he wasn't doing anything. How do I want to say

I don't have a lot of faith in Mr. Ferrero. I am not a big John Ferrero fan. I felt this was necessary for me to do.  To put him on the spot of either do your job or bow out.  

Yours truly found intriguing a line of questions by George Maier's attorney which suggests a desire to separate George from his brother Johnnie, to wit:

Hmm?

In George Maier's deposition (LINK), he takes great pains to speak glowingly of his family

So why would he allow his attorney to impliedly make George out (at least the SCPR's take) as being a cut above his brother Johnnie?

Tis a puzzlement.

Because it appears to the SCPR that with the Maiers, "blood is thicker than water!"

So legal counsel's tactic may be a case of "whatever it takes."

This tack may indicate that counsel feels that his client has a very weak case on fulfilling the requirements of the qualification law and therefore he needs to emphasize his deep, deep and impressive list prior police work, his training and the like and to distance from the political.

But all-in-all, The Report's take on evidence filed (the form of depositions and documents [many of which have to do with Maier's credentials/history in police work] with the high court is that it changes not a thing.

The Maier testimony seems to the SCPR to be a desperation attempt to overcome sketchy at best verifiable facts that he meets the statutory criteria of (B)(8) and either of B(9)(a) or (b) of ORC 311.01.

Moreover, readers of area media reports will recall that Maier, when asked before applying for the Stark County Democratic appointment, said that if he did apply that he would "guaranty" that he is qualified.

Well, on reading his deposition it is abundantly clear his guaranty statement was an overstatement to say the very least.

He is very much at the mercy of the Ohio Supreme Court's determination of what "qualified" entails.

In is answers to questions posed to him his answers are saturated with equivocal and nuanced language.  Hardly "guaranty-esque" talk, no?

In sum, it is hard to see how Maier remains sheriff.

Very few, if anyone thinks George Maier as a matter policing experience and vocational experience (de facto) that he is unqualified to be sheriff.  But de jure  (as a matter of law) is quite another thing.

The SCPR's only reservation in the de facto sense about Maier is his temperament.  (LINK to prior SCPR blog which deal with the topic).

As Tim Swanson posits, "the huff and puff" (the SCPR's words; not Swanson's) on Maier's job history and credentials matter little, if at all, in the face of the statutory law requirements of Ohio.

For there is that little thing we call "the rule of law" however inconvenient and frustrating it may be to a person such as George T. Maier in his quest to remain as Stark County sheriff.

It is a touch ironic that it is apparent from Maier's deposition that he seems to have gotten more than a little help from Stark County Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione.

Ironic?

Yes, Forchione himself went through a tussle in last December, 2012 and early 2013 with a Bethlehem Township resident over the judge's order that a defendant who had pled guilty to a number of felonies in his court pay a $5,000 fine to the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.

So, again, how is that ironic?

The legal challenge to the judge was grounded in his having not followed the statutory law of Ohio which requires that fine money be paid into the county treasury to be deposited into the general fund.

In short, the issue (of complainant Tom Marcelli in a declaratory action) with Forchione was a matter of the "rule of law."

Marcelli dismissed his case when he was satisfied that Judge Forchione had complied with Ohio law.

This was the same Judge Forchione, who declared in a pre-processing of applications telephone conversation with the SCPR (LINK) that his role was not to approve or disapprove qualifications of applicants, but merely to accept the applications and their affidavits and move the process along.  The qualifying agent, he said, was to be the Stark Board of Elections.

In the depositions, a point repeatedly made by Maier's counsel to deponee Swanson:  "You are aware, are you not, Judge Forchione says George Maier is qualified?"

The testimony brought out that Maier had had four meetings with the judge and in addition a number of telephone calls.  Moreover, the judge wrote (documentary evidence confirms) to Stark State College officials seeking "apparently?" to clarify whether or not Maier met the provisions of ORC 311.01(B)(9)(b).

Hmm?

All of which may say that he, Democratic Party Chairman Gonzalez, Commissioner Bernabei were part of a vanguard of "let's make George Maier sheriff" movement?  (See Bernabei preliminary disclaimer above)

And who might be - and who the SCPR thinks was- lurking in the background?

You've got it.  None other than brother Johnnie, the accomplished political operative he is.

It is understandable that in a family context that, at least from Johnnie's perspective:  "blood (getting brother George appointed) is thicker than water (i.e. ? "the supremacy of the rule of law").

Nonetheless, if the "rule of law" is to prevail, The Report would be surprised to see Maier remain Stark County sheriff when the Supreme Court rules.

However, a cautionary note is in order.

As local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley likes to say:  "The Supreme Court does not have to be right, it just has to be The Supreme Court!"

(VIDEO: BERNABEI & CREIGHTON ON COUNTY EMPLOYEE PAY RAISES) DO ELECTED COUNTY OFFICIALS FEEL SOMEONE LOOKING OVER THEIR SHOULDERS?

Yesterday, the Stark County commissioners unanimously passed a resolution approving a 2% pay raise for employees under their direct jurisdiction.

Here is Chief County Administrator Brant Luther reading the resolution.



Of course, as anyone with any degree of financial sophistication knows, 2% is really higher than 2% because when one adds in increased pension retirement payments, workers compensation payments, unemployment payments the "real" pay raise could be at least a percentage point higher if not percentage points higher.

Luther tells The Report that the resolution "affects 49 employees in the 6 departments listed (7 Commissioners; 3 EMA; 2 Records Center; 11 Building and Grounds; 1 Dog Warden; and 25 Sanitary Engineer)."

Here are Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton responding on camera to yours truly's questions as to the justification for the raises.



The SCPR believes that there is a case for having raised the salary for most county employees.

However, such is not the case for let's say those making $50,000 or more.

Higher level employees getting raises should follow the model exemplified by what the Ohio General Assembly has done with higher paying judicial salaries.

Missing from the 2007 - 2009 chart is the pay for municipal/county court judges.   However, they too have not had a pay raise since 2007.

Co-incidently, as we all know, September, 2008 was the beginning of what is now called "The Great Recession."

Translation?

Nobody, private sector or public sector, has been getting raises.

Folks have been thrilled to just have a job - period!

Moreover, Stark County has had its own particular problem because of the improvident act of the-then commissioners Bosley, Harmon and Vignos in December, 2008 of "imposing" a 0.5% sales tax.

As we all know, the Stark County public reacted in very strong terms in November, 2009 in repealing the tax (by as much as 2/3rds majority) at the initiative of a citizens group led by local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley.

It took a new board of county commissioners composed of Tom Bernabei (November, 2010) and Janet Creighton (January, 2011) and carryover Pete Ferguson (but not a part of the commissioner group which imposed the tax) to restore public confidence in county government so that a "on the ballot" initiative for a 0.5% sales could pass.

It has been amazing to the SCPR that Bernabei and Creighton could do a turnaround in public confidence in such a short space of time.

Not only did they have the "imposed tax fiasco" to deal with, but they also had to cope with the wrap-up of what Conley coined as being Zeiglergate.

For those readers who do not know how Conley defined Zeiglergate, here is a LINK to a prior SCPR blog as a refresher.

So what is next for the commissioners to do to keep public confidence in county government operations rising?

Answer:  Make sure that elected county officials do not get off the reservation in terms of the pay raises (and other spending practices) that they make.

For if they do, there will be negative consequences in the public eye for all of county government and when the sales tax comes up for a renewal in another six years (the 2011 measure was for eight years) you can be sure that the public will remember in November of 2019 and Stark County will all of sudden be in another financial/fiscal crisis.

To that end the commissioners are and will continue to use their "bully pulpit" and are instituting monitoring measures through the Stark County auditor's office to keep tabs on the spending practices of the independently elected auditor, clerk of courts, coroner, engineer, prosecutor, recorder, sheriff and treasurer offices.

The SCPR asked Auditor Alan Harold several questions, to wit:

Alan,

At today's commissioners' meeting Commissioner Creighton said that they (the commissioners) have asked the county auditor to monitor pay raisesgiven by county department heads (elected and unelected).       

For those under the commissioners' direct authority there was a resolution today for a 2% across the board raise.

For independently elected department heads, to the degree that they exceed the recommended (built into the 2013 appropriation) 2% raise, they will have to find the money within the department's total 2013 appropriation.

My request is that the auditor's department make available to me as a media person a spreadsheet of each and every county employee showing the pre-2013 fiscal year pay scale as compared to the employees' pay post-2013 commissioner appropriation and implementation (of specific pay
raises).

Also, please tell me the mechanism you will be employing in monitoring and sharing with the commissioners data showing whether or not department heads are staying within the recommended 2% cap on pay raises.   

Thank you,

Martin Olson/SCPR

Here is what Auditor Harold has shared with the SCPR as to what his office will be doing:

Martin - thanks for the note.  I will get the reports generated and to you.

As for monitoring, the process of increasing someone's pay is all done on paper submitted by the departments.  When the papers come in, the staff gives me a copy and I share with the County Administrator.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Alan

Yesterday, Commissioner Creighton (speaking for herself) said that for any elected official who violates the commissioners' recommended 2% pay increase may prompt her to push for recompense to the county general fund for Fiscal Year 2014 from that official's request for an appropriation.

And, of course, Stark County taxpayers can depend on the Stark County Political Report to be monitoring the spending practices in general (not just salary increases) of all Stark County offices (elected independently or not) to help ensure that county government is being frugal indeed with taxpayer funds.

Th SCPR is satisfied with the way the commissioners handled the 2013 budgeting process.

However, there are many unmet county needs for funds for capital projects (for example):

• countywide drainage/flooding problems,
• funds to assist in economic development to benefit the entire county, 
• building maintenance, 
• department relocation [note:  part of roof collapsed at Stark Board of Election on last evening], and
• creating a 'rainy day' fund, et cetera)

that remain inadequately or totally unfunded.

There will only be one way for commissioners to meet the unmet needs.

They will have to over the next six years squeeze all county departments budgets like they are "squeezing blood out of a turnip."

Then and only then will they wrestle enough money out of the $50 million plus in county revenues to deal with all county needs, and thereby prove to Stark County voters in November, 2019 that they have earned their trust for the continuation of the 0.5% sales tax or an alternative commensurate with an effective and efficient operating county government.