WHO WILL ACHIEVE STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT "STARDOM" THIS CHRISTMAS?

 COMING TUESDAY!

6TH ANNUAL "LUMP OF COAL AWARD"

YOU CAN PARTICIPATE

On December 25th of 2008 the Stark County Report initiated a "Lump of Coal Award in honor of former Repository Ohio Statehouse reporter Paul Kostyu.

This year will be the sixth year that the SCPR has awarded a "Lump of Coal" Award to a deserving Stark County public official or public figure.

The "Lump of Coal" Award complements The Report retinue of recognitions of Stark's public officials/figures which also include an annual Thanksgiving Award and SCPR suggested New Years Resolutions that various Stark political personalities ought to - in the estimate of The Report - be making.

Although the SCPR already has a person in mind to receive the 2013 6th Annual "Lump of Coal" Award, The Report is open to consider your nominee.

E-mail your choice and the reasons for your selection The Report.

Kostyu was known to single out state representatives and senators who embarrassed themselves during their terms in office as meriting a "bah-humbug-esque" award some time during the Christmas season.

Kostyu spent some eight (8) years in the employ of The Repository/Gatehouse before being "unceremoniously" (in the opinion of the SCPR) dumped by the folks at 500 Market Avenue, South.

In honor of Kostyu's work at the Statehouse, the SCPR has picked up on his awarding of a "lump of coal" idea.

His departure created a Repository void on political/government reporting and editorializing that the SCPR seized upon with great success.

A BIG  SCPR thank you! to the "bigs" running The Repository.

A VERY, VERY "MERRY CHRISTMAS" to the chiefs at The Rep.

Paul Kostyu has returned to academia (where he started his employment some 25 years ago) as shown in his "Linked In" biography.

MARCELLI/CONLEY STRIKE OUT AT MAIER & ROSENBERG

STARK COMMISSIONERS 

MET IN "EXECUTIVE SESSION"
WITH
STARK CO. PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO

YESTERDAY

TO CONSIDER 

SWANSON REQUEST ON

GEORGE T. MAIER

UPDATE:  11:40 AM

Attorney Conley did file a Marcelli Motion to Strike earlier this morning.

The last few paragraphs of the motion provide readers with an excellent summary of the tone of the entire document, to wit:

In sum, if this Court does not strike Defendant’s pre-answer Motion to Dismiss, it should deny same for all and any of the reasons set forth hereinabove.

“Bottom line”, Usurper Maier is not, as he would have this Court believe, a hapless and blameless “victim” here, “immunized” by legitimate color of law and good faith.

Rather, the real victim here is the collective body of Stark Count taxpayers, who are out $129,301.75 and who, unlike Maier, are not already (before their 50th birthdays) retired and receiving a very generous “double-dipping” State pension and attendant lifetime of taxpayer-guaranteed financial independence and security.

ORIGINAL BLOG

One has to wonder whether or not it has dawned on Thomas Rosenberg of Roetzel & Andress and representing George T. Maier in his battle to be sheriff of Stark County that he is, perhaps, in for one his biggest challenges in his legal face-off against local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley.

Conley is representing Stark County taxpayer Thomas M. Marceilli in Marcell's question to recover for Stark County taxpayers the nearly $130,000 that Maier received/expended as, what Conley has coined in expression in recent pleadings, being the "usurper sheriff" for the period February 12, 2013 through November 6, 2013.

The February through November timeline is the period of time that Maier occupied 4500 Atlantic Boulevard as the illegal (according to the Ohio Supreme Court, Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, filed February 12, 2013; decided November 6, 2013) occupant of the sheriff's digs.

Yesterday, Conley filed an "amended" complaint on behalf of Marcelli (the original having been filed November 27, 2013).

Here is the essence of the original filing:

Conley says he found it expedient to file an "amended" complaint for various reasons chief among which is the fact that he under covered new numbers that raised the original pleading from about $120,000 to nearly $130,000 as the amount his client wants to recover for Stark County taxpayers.

Maier's attorney (Rosenberg), who the SCPR thinks connected with Maier on the basis of a recommendation by Massillon Municipal Court judge Eddie Elum, Elum thought to have - in an overlapping time period context - worked with Rosenberg in the Ohio attorney general's office (1980s into the 1990s), "moved to dismiss" Conley's original complaint on December 10th.

To complete the connection, Elum is thought among a number of Stark County political observers, including the SCPR, to be politically close to George Maier's brother, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

A SCPR source has provided a copy of a Columbus Dispatch report published that shows a Elum/Johnnie A. Maier, Jr political connection going back to 1988, to wit:

Rosenberg may well now want to rethink whether or not the "motion to dismiss" was the best way to deal with the Marcelli complaint.

It is clear to the SCPR from looking at Conley's original complaint compared to the "amended" complaint that the original may have been deficient in certain regards and susceptible to telling legal attack some time during the proceedings.

It appears as if Rosenberg's "motion to dismiss" made it apparent to Conley that some "legal repair" was in order and that such was also a reason why the original complaint was amended.

With the filing of the "amended complaint" Rosenberg will have to rethink his response.

Will he renew his "motion to dismiss" or will he go in a different direction.

How he reacts to the "amended" complaint could be a tip-off on how the Marcelli (Conley) versus Maier (Rosenberg) battle is going to unwind, if it does in fact continue.

Conley (who considered Rosenberg's original "motion to dismiss" to be a personal attack on him) has made a legal pleading move (filed December 13th) to disqualify Rosenberg on the basis of Rosenberg having a "conflict-in-interest."

Key in Marcelli's (verified, in other words - sworn under oath - "amended" complaint (an argument that may not have been all that apparent in Conley's original pleading) is his alleging that in assuming the office of Stark County sheriff, George T. Maier, acted in "bad faith."

In "bad faith?"

In setting up the allegation of Maier assuming the office on February 12th as being "in bad faith," Marcelli recites to several key factors:

• Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero's "sworn statement" (February 4, 2013) to the Stark County Democratic Central Committee (SCDP-CC), which met on February 5th to consider appointing a sheriff to replace November, 2012 sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (link to background as to why McDonald was being replaced).
• The "sworn statement" by Ferrero asserted that George T. Maier did not meet statutory requirements to be qualified for appointment as sheriff and which document was filed with the Ohio Supreme Court in Swanson v. Maier (see cite above)
• Ferrero and two assistant prosecutors (all SCDP-CC members) spoke of their belief that Maier was disqualified,
• Maier was present at the meeting but notwithstanding the legal opinions accepted the SCDP-CC appointment.
• The Ohio Supreme Court in its Swanson v. Maier decision made the statement:
• "Despite concerns expressed by several members of the DCC meeting that Maier did not meet the qualifications for sheriff, the DCC appointed him."
• Maier, "purportedly acting under the color of law had no authority to so act ... ."

As a consequence of Marcelli's amended filing, here is a comparison (in addition to the allegation that Maier acted in "bad faith" and not under the "color of law" in the sense of having reason to believe he had the legal authority to do so) of the outlining of the particular Maier receipts/expenditures that Marcell seeks to recover for Stark County taxpayers.  (Note:  one additional item has been added from the original November 27th pleading)

Conley tells that the SCPR that first thing this morning he will be filing a motion to strike Rosenberg's motion to dismiss on the basis that the motion to dismiss is no longer applicable in view of Marcelli's having filed his "amended" - verified - complaint yesterday.

So there you have it folks.

The ongoing battle between Conley and Rosenberg on behalf of their respective clients.

Yesterday, Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero met with the county commissioners in "executive session" to discuss Tim Swanson's letter of December 12th (received by the prosecutor on the 13th) whereby Swanson re-asserted his February 7th request that Ferrero make a determination of whether or not George T. Maier holds office lawfully and to act according to his finding.

So, in addition to the Marcelli civil action, there is still plenty going on in the back and forth between the Swanson and Maier factors.

The SCPR expects a final determination by Swanson - no later than tomorrow - as to whether or not to pursue a new quo warranto.

Stay tuned!

(VIDEOS) FRANK MORRIS & CHRIS SMITH TO BE NEW CANTON COUNCIL LEADERS?

 VIDEOS

ALL VIDEOS ARE NOW POSTED

"An Aspiration Meeting of Canton City Council?"

EXECUTIVE SESSION VOTE
POSTED AT 07:13 AM 
 
(POST - SESSION VOTE)

POSTED AT 08:20 AM  

===================

COUNCIL WOMAN CHRIS SMITH

"First Female/African-American Leader of Council"

===================

COUNCILMAN-ELECT RICHARD HART

'His Role as a Politically Independent Councilman"

=================== 

 

COUNCILMAN FRANK MORRIS

"Consensus New Majority Leader"

===================

COUNCILMAN KEVIN FISHER

"A Review of Past 2 Years & Looking Forward"

===================

COUNCILMAN JOHN MARIOL

"A Review of Past 2 Years & Looking Forward"

====================== 

COUNCILMAN EDMOND MACK

"A Review of Past 2 Years & Looking Forward"

======================= 
 

In a August 30, 2012 blog the Stark County Political Report dubbed Canton City Council's newest members as being "the four young turks."

The Report is pleased that these members (Frank Morris - Ward 9, Edmond Mack - Ward 8, John Mariol - Ward 7 and Kevin Fisher - Ward 5) have taken to "the young turk" description.

For the expression is meant as a high SCPR compliment indicating their energy, zeal, vision and persistence in what appears to be a dogged determination they have to slowly but surely bring Canton back to a semblance of her former greatness.

While "not young enough" to be included in the 'young' aggregation, Councilman-at-Large elect Bill Smuckler and Councilman Greg Hawk (Ward 1) are empathetic with the aspirations of "the four young turks" and are likely to join forces with the four in critical votes determinative of the direction that Canton city government takes going forward.

A key councilman and, perhaps - a pivotal factor - is likely to be former Republican Canton city councilman Richard Hart who was elected "at-large" this past November.

It could be that Hart will be a difference-maker between "the four young turks and their allies" and a bloc of remaining councilpersons; which the SCPR dubs as being "the Smith bloc," namely;

• Jimmy Babcock, at-large,
• Tom West,Ward 2,
• a candidate to be leader this time around,
• Jim Griffin, Ward 3,
• former "assistant majority leader,"
• Chris Smith, Ward 4,
• likely to be voted "assistant majority leader," on January 6th,
• David Daugherty, Ward 6
• the former leader who wanted to be leader again,

Hart could join either bloc of council persons on "key" issues that come up on council, but the SCPR expects him to side mostly with Morris-led bloc.

Council President Allen Schulman will likely continue to be tie-breaker when a tie vote occurs.

It seems to the SCPR that "the young turk coalition" will not want a question to come out a tie because in The Report's view, Schulman in his votes over the past two years - in The Report's perception - have been mostly with the Mayor William J. Healy, II administration position (which also, more or less, is supported by "the Smith bloc).

Last evening Canton City Council met under what the SCPR in what President Schulman termed as being "an aspirational meeting" to determine a consensus of who is going to be council's next majority leader and assistant leader.

The prospective new leaders are:

Frank Morris (Ward 9) as "majority leader:" also known as the vice president of council.

Chris Smith (Ward 4) as "assistant majority leader:" also known as first vice president.

It appears that neither the SCPR,  Matt Rink of The Repository, nor the general public may have been afforded the necessary pre-meeting notice to have been a properly called and conducted meeting.

The Report opted not to file an objection because the meeting held in "executive session" on the motion of David Daugherty was pretty much an extension of "informal" discussions which have gone on among the various players for majority leader (Morris, Daugherty and West) pretty much from November 7th (the day after this fall's general election).

It should be disturbing to the Canton voting public that Leader Daugherty moved to go into executive session on the matter, that is to say:

A vote as to whether or not to go into executive session the vote breakdown?

As seen in the SCPR video (see below) of the session:

• For:
• Babcock,
• West,
• Griffin,
• Smith,
• Daugherty

• Against:
• Hawk,
• Fisher,
• Mariol,
• Mack
• Morris

Here is video on Daugherty's "lets' go into executive session" motion vote.

 Here is the post-executive session video.



Hmm?

Five (5) to five (5).

A harbinger of things to come, no?

And guess how Allen Schulman voted?

You've got it:  with "the Smith bloc."

No surprise here to the SCPR.

While The Report likes Schulman and thinks he does a superlative job in terms of civilities, courtesies and his "citizen-friendly" demeanor amply demonstrated in the "public speaks" segment of council meetings, there is little doubt with The Report that substantively he is more or less aligned with the Healy administration viewpoint.

The SCPR sees Schulman as one of Stark County's most zealous small letter "d" democrats (he being, perhaps, Stark County's most "liberal" Democrat) and all that the small letter "d" democrats connotes which includes among a large list of democratic values the value of "openness."

Last night was an opportunity for Schulman "to put his money where his mouth is" on democratic values and The Report thinks that he failed that test and denied the Canton citizenry the opportunity to see exactly what Councilman Daugherty wanted to hide from the public.

The Report asked Schulman for an interview after last night's meeting to ask him on camera - under critical questioning - the reason(s) for his siding with closing the meeting to the public.  However, he declined to be interview.

The SCPR has known for some time that a consensus had been reached among Canton's councilpersons that Frank Morris and Chris Smith are to be the new leadership of city council and that a lot of wrangling has occurred among council members to get to the consense.

Moreover, the SCPR also has known that Daugherty was not going down easily.

The Report's take on Daugherty is that he only has himself to blame.

Over the past two years of SCPR coverage of Canton city council, there is a good sprinkling of blogs featuring Daugherty which indicate a surly, "inconsiderate of others' feelings" (including the general public when citizens use council's public speaks forum, when he has substituted for Schulman) demeanor.

Hardly, what one wants of a leader of council, no?

One can only imagine what he is like when not in the public view and not on camera?

Hopefully, as far as the SCPR is concerned; residents in the 6th ward will find an alternative to Daugherty come November, 2015.

Which is a shame.

Because the SCPR is told by a number of his fellow councilpersons that David Daugherty is a very bright guy who has provided high quality substance in terms of policy and practice.

But the guy needs to learn civility, courtesy and how to deal effectively and with political maturity with those with who he disagrees.

The SCPR did take advantage of last night's session to talk with "the four young turks, prospective new "assistant majority leader" Chris Smith and new councilman-at-large Richard Hart "on camera."

Here are those interview.

First, Chris Smith, who is breaking ground as the prospective new assistant majority leader as being the first female and African-American as a leader of Canton Council.



Second, Richard Hart and his perspective on his role as the only non-Democrat on council.



Third, Frank Morris, the expected to be elected at council's next regular meeting (January 6, 2014) majority leader.



Fourth, Kevin Fisher, Ward 5.



Fifth, Edmund Mack, Ward 8.



Sixth, John Mariol.



Canton mayor William J. Healy, II will be challenged as never before by the 2014-2015 version of Canton City Council with "the four young turks" who have learned their political lessons well over the past two years.

He can choose to fight with them (which the SCPR predicts he will do) or seek to find "common ground."

The Report would like Healy to "turn over a new leaf" and demonstrate a political maturity that he has never seemingly shown before.

But if he does not, the SCPR is confident that the new leadership of Canton City Council will forge ahead with programs, practices and policies that bode well for the future of Canton.

GEORGE MAIER SHOULD BE BEGGING TIM SWANSON TO FILE A SECOND QUO WARRANTO?

UPDATED AT 12:00 PM

SWANSON LETTER TO FERRERO OF 12/13/2013 SUBSTITUTED IN

After thinking about it again, the SCPR thinks that there is a case for "a changed mind" about whether or not the George Maier ought to be begging Swanson not to file a new quo warranto.

A few days ago, The Report wrote:

So The Report thinks that the establishment [Gonzalez et al] leadership should have been more conciliatory on Wednesday to Darrow's supporters and, even now, should be rushing to conciliate with Swanson before he goes off on another quo warranto mission.

But on second thought, perhaps not.

It would, of course, be politically devastating to Maier to lose again in the Ohio Supreme Court.

And, depending on the timing of a negative on qualification outcome, could make it impossible to be deemed qualified even in a primary election scenario.

If he doesn't get in front of the court again at interim Sheriff Swanson's initiative, his next trip to the court might have to be at his own initiative.

And it could be an effort that comes too late for him to be certified as a qualified primary election candidate or, alternatively, one in which the general election comes and goes without the court having made a decision.

How's that?

If Swanson does not challenge Maier via a "by what authority he holds office" a second time, Maier's next qualification test will be at the hand of the Stark County Board of Elections (Board/BOE) as part of Ohio's "election of a sheriff qualification process," for the primary election set for May 6, 2014, to wit:

311.01 Election and qualifications of sheriff

(F)(2) 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, or a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate meets the qualifications specified in divisions (B) and (C) of this section.  (emphasis added)

So?

The Stark County Board of Elections "ain't" the Gonzalez/Johnnie A. Maier, Jr controlled Stark County Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee.

And, without a favorable to George T. Maier ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court on his qualification before they rule, it is not hard to see the two Republican members of the Board voting "not to certify him" thereby making him ineligible to gain the Democratic Party nomination.

Okay. Let's see. There are two Democrat BOE members who, undoubtedly, will vote that he is certifiable as qualified and the two Republicans, who, likely, are to vote that he is not certifiable.

Hmm?

Two to two, the candidate wins the tie!

Not so quick.

There is a tie breaker vote provided for in Ohio's statutes.

Hmm?

Who is the tie breaker?

The Ohio secretary of state who is REPUBLICAN Jon Husted.

Hmm?

Might be a problem for George, no?

So maybe, just maybe, George would be better off getting the matter resolved sooner than later with one more effort to convince the Supreme Court that he is qualified.  Courtesy of guess whom?

You've got it.

Interim Sheriff Tim Swanson!

And indications are that Maier may be accommodated by Swanson.

Friday is the "drop-dead" date on whether or not a second Swanson challenge is in the offing, the SCPR is told.

On December 10th,  the Maier legal team has filed a motion with the Ohio Supreme Court for it to dismiss Swanson's Writ of Mandamus filed on November 18th and under which the court refused (on December 10th) to order the removal of George Maier's name from consideration at the Stark County Democratic Party's central committee (SCDP-CC) selection meeting last Wednesday.

Maier went on to win his second appointment by a 101 to 65 vote over Lou Darrow.

Last Friday Tim Swanson sent a letter to Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero, to wit:

"I am again 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." (emphasis added)

 

As emphasized by the green highlighting, Swanson added that should Prosecutor Ferrero find that Maier is unqualified then he wants a determination of "whether any improper expenditure of funds has taken place."

A well placed source tells The Report that it would reasonable to infer from his sending of the letter, that Swanson will file a second quo warranto to remove George T. Maier from office if Ferrero or a specially appointed prosecutor (Ferrero has maintained that he has a conflict in interest) fails to file.

Ferrero, in February, did not seek to have a special prosecutor appointed.

He sort of did when Craig T. Conley (on behalf of Stark County taxpayer Thomas Marcelli) demanded that he do so in order to recover to the public county treasury monies received (salary and benefits) and spent (on rebranding the office his name) during the time Maier was in office as a usurper as determined by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 6th.

However, the Stark County commissioners seems to the SCPR to be solidly behind Maier and waived aside Ferrero's suggestion that they and he might jointly accede to Conley's demand.

Consequently, Conley in late November filed Marcelli's civil suit against Maier.

One of Stark's commissioners is Republican Janet Creighton.  She "makes no bones about it," she is committed to supporting Republican candidates across Stark County who run for elective office.

There is no doubt with the SCPR that the person for the Republicans to run against Maier in 2014 is former Alliance police chief and current Hartville police chief Larry Dordea.

Dordea, in the judgment of The Report, is the only Republican law enforcement officer up to taking on Maier.

He ran against Tim Swanson (2008) and Mike McDonald (2012) and was very competitive in doing so in a county which tilts Democratic in countywide elections except if the Democratic candidate has political roots in the city of Canton.

But for some reason, Dordea does not seem to garner the enthusiasm of folks like Creighton and Stark County GOP chairman Jeff Matthews.

The SCPR had a discussion with Commissioner Creighton on the topic of a third Dordea candidacy about a week ago and she did indicate that if it came down to Dordea v. Maier, she would be supporting Dordea.

However, she inter-spliced into the conversation a comment that "there are other Republicans interested in contesting Dordea for the GOP nomination in May, 2014."

All of which leads The Report to believe that Dordea may only get "official" support from the likes of Creighton.  Hardly, a basis for rosy prospects for Dordea to defeat Maier if Maier makes it to the 2014 general election.

Could it be that if Swanson declines to challenge Maier a second time that one or, perhaps, both Republicans (William Cline and Curt Braden [a former chairman] on the BOE would join the Democrats to certify Maier as being qualified when even in the light of the November 6th Ohio Supreme Court decision to the contrary?

Perhaps.

But wouldn't Maier have a more certain shot at being deemed qualified in stating his case anew in a second Swanson Supreme Court challenge?

After all, the original decision was 5 to 2 in favor of Swanson.   Maier is only two votes away from having a smoother path to being elected as Mike McDonald's successor.

Readers will recall, of course, that the whole reason for this jockeying as to who will be Stark County's next sheriff is due to the fact that Mike McDonald, elected in November, 2012, could not take office on January 7, 2013 (as scheduled) due to an illness which turned out to be terminal (February 22nd).

Of course, there are two sides to that coin whereby Swanson files a second quo warranto and that is if it turns up  Maier "not-qualified" a second time.

Does anybody doubt George Maier would be finished as a candidate?

Even if the decision comes before the primary election, it is hard to see how even "unenthusiastic" (presuming Cline and Braden share what the SCPR thinks is Creighton misgivings about Dordea) Republicans can ignore two Ohio Supreme Court determinations that Maier is unqualified and vote (one or both) to certify him.

Certainly,with John Kasich running for reelection in 2014, one would think that Ohio Secretary of State would not want to aid the Democratic Party cause in Stark County in helping Maier to qualify him for office.

All of which would leave George T. Maier in the unenviable position of putting himself before the high court for a third time on the qualification issue in context of another Democrat (presumably Lou Darrow) being the party nominee.

So it seems to the SCPR - on rethinking the matter - that rather than discourage Tim Swanson from filing a second quo warranto, perhaps, the Maier supporters ought to be encouraging him?

2ND TIME APPOINTED SHERIFF GEORGE T. MAIER STILL IN LEGAL FIGHTS. WILL THEY EVER END?

UPDATED:  2:56 PM

SEE LIST OF 101 WHO VOTED FOR MAIER

While Stark Countians are waiting to learn whether or not George T. Maier will face yet another legal challenge to his right as "a matter of being qualified" by virtue of criteria laid out in Ohio statutory law, there is no need for those who are following the Maier saga to be bored.

No need to be bored?

Right!

Back on November 27, the SCPR did a blog on Stark County Thomas Marcelli prevailing on local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley to file a lawsuit against Maier to recoup to the Stark County treasury some $120,000 plus in wages, benefits and "unnecessary/unwarranted" (in the opinion of The Report)  expenses while he was - according to the Ohio Supreme Court - a "usurper" sheriff who, in legal effect, was never sheriff of Stark County during the time-span February 12, 2013 through November 6, 2013.

Apparently, Maier has learned his lesson as being taught by Conley.  At least, that is, on making certain expenditures.

Since, being reappointed a second time (and, perhaps, illegally again) by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC), in a proceeding that the SCPR has tabbed as being "a dog and pony show;" it has been reported in local media that Maier plans on being more circumspect in making expenditures tied to his personal identity as being the sheriff.

It the SCPR's view, Chairman Gonzalez's contrived and orchestrated Wednesday's "rump session" detracts from his credibility as a Stark County governance leader.

The Report does not separate politics from governance in evaluating public officials who serve both in public office and key "unpaid" political party posts.  In "rightly dividing," one always hopes that governing in the public interest trumps the drive for personal political benefits.

While, as previously pointed out by the SCPR, Gonzalez does have some notable governance achievements, to wit:

• CJIS [Criminal Justice Information System], 
• 9-1-1 emergency call receiving/dispatch rehab, and
• being a major force in the recently announced Canton, North Canton, Jackson Township and Plain Township economic development cooperation pact

[N]evertheless, one should look "behind the curtain" and make an assessment when it comes to figures like Gonzalez (including, by way of specific example, a guy like Republican chairman Jeff Matthews and the belief by the SCPR that he has used his role as Stark GOP chairman to personal political advantage) as to which (i.e. governance in the public interest or personal political advantage) predominate.

Wednesday night's Stark Dems' charade was a spectacle to behold.

Others are to be heard describing the Wednesday event as being akin to "a kangaroo court."

Isn't that something in the United States of America?

There is a gem to be found in the intra-party fight between the "pro-George T. Maier forces" and those who supported Lou Darrow.

It is those 65 brave souls who - though it was obvious they were going to lose - stood fast and "fought the good fight" for the "rule of law" over political expedience.

In a special tribute, the SCPR lists those 65.

So that they will not feel slighted, here is a list of the 101 Maier supporters.

It is astounding to the SCPR that such a large number of active Democrats would support a candidate for sheriff who may yet be subject to another challenge as to his qualifications to be sheriff.

Apparently, they have more confidence in Gonzalez, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr et al that they (the precinct committee persons) are not being led down - once again - "the primrose path by the Stark Dems' executive committee's leadership than The Report thinks is merited.

If Gonzalez and his cohorts are proved wrong again, which the SCPR thinks is likely to be the outcome with the Ohio Supreme Court if Tim Swanson has the stomach to do another quo warranto challenge; will the 101 get an apology from the chairman?

Will the 101 then join with the 65 to visit political comeuppance on the chairman?

In the matter of being a contrast to what happened last Wednesday night, Stark Countians should be appreciate the efforts of Craig Conley as he has endeavored over quite a number of years (even pre-dating the arrival of the Stark County Political Report in March, 2008) taking on unpopular causes in advance what his a really big deal to him:  "preserving the rule of law."

His attempt to restore to the public treasury the $120,000 or so that the George T. Maier received/spent, in combo, while illegally (according to the Ohio Supreme Court) in office is laudable.

As was his successful effort to compel Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione to retrieve $5,000 of taxpayer money (assessed as a fine in the Studer case) he had sent off to his designated charity in Newtown, Massachusetts.

Readers will recall how Conley was rewarded for his "stand up for 'the rule of law'" stance.

For having the audacity of exercising his Constitutional right of "free speech" in labeling Forchione as being a "grandstander" in his Studer/Newtown action, an anonymous and thereby, by definition, a cowardly person (presumably an attorney) filed an ethics complaint against him, which, was found to be unjustified.

As The Report sees it, Conley is again under personal attack for his having the temerity to try to hold Maier accountable for having received/spent public money while not (according to the Ohio Supreme Court, Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) the legal sheriff of Stark County.

This time the attacker is not a cowardly, "sink into the shadows" type.

Amazingly enough, Conley's ad hominem attacker (prominent attorney Thomas Rosenberg of Roetzel & Andress/Columbus) reveals himself and his "over-the-top," the SCPR thinks, largely personal attack on Conley in his motion to dismiss Marcelli's complaint.

To go back just a bit and summarize, Conley's (for client Tom Marcelli's) complaint, to wit:

Shortly after Conley filed the civil complaint against Maier, local talk show host Ron Ponder invited him to come on his show to talk about the filing.

As a consequence of his having been on Ponder's show on December 3, 2013, Conley tells the SCPR that he was contacted by Ponder afterwards to let him know that one of the attorneys representing Maier (the aforenamed Thomas Rosenberg) in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto e-mailed Ponder telling him that Conley may have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct (for lawyers) in being on the radio and talking about "a pending case."

A charge that Conley forcefully refutes (see below).

And, folks, that is probably the mildest thing of all that Rosenberg has had to say about Conley.

Getting so personal with Conley might - just might - prove to have been one huge Rosenberg mistake.

The SCPR thinks that Rosenberg is in for "the treat of his life" in having to deal with Conley.

The word is that Conley has gotten out his slingshot and is scouring the legal landscape for "legal nuggets" to hurl Rosenberg's way.

In order to graphically lay out the "knock down and drag out" legal fight that is apparently underway between Conley and Rosenberg, The Report combs through the pleadings.

First of all, let's get introduced to the legal protagonists.

Rosenberg (of the large [13 offices mainly in Ohio and Florida but also as a presence in NYC, Chicago and D.C.], prestigious Roetzel & Andress) has responded to the Marcelli complaint via a motion to dismiss.

So how is it that George T. Maier got hooked up with the hoity-toity Rosenberg?

It has been suggested to The Report that the connection may be Massillon Municipal Court judge Eddie Elum who is said to be a long time acquaintance of Rosenberg's.

A check of biography information indicates that their acquaintance likely goes back to their overlapping stints in the Ohio Attorney General office.

And, of course, it is generally well known in local political circles that Elum is long standing political ally of Massillon clerk of courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

When Elum was charged with ethics violations in 2012, Johnnie was one of those who vouched for Elum ("attesting to his commitment to his community and his devotion to the law") in a letter submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court for its consideration in the ethics case.

So it appears to the SCPR that it is plausible that Rosenberg and George T. Maier found each other through an Eddie Elum connection.

You talk about a David v. Goliath match up, Conley (a sole practitioner) doesn't even have a website.  But he is licensed to practice in Florida.

Just being funny, of course, but maybe they should - by mutual agreement - try this case in Florida during the winter months.  Roetzel & Andress has quite a few offices in Florida.

What a case for relatively new Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Kristin Farmer to have to handle.

The SCPR thinks that Judge Farmer will acquit herself well.  As The Report has already written, she did "a simply impressive" job in handling North Canton Councilman-at-Large Mark Cerreta case against the Stark County Board of elections.

ROSENBERG'S MOTION TO DISMISS MARCELLI'S COMPLAINT

In his motion to dismiss (filed December 10th), Rosenberg comes out "for the Conley's jugular."

How is this for openers?

In his motion, Rosenberg goes on to outline his rejoinders to Marcelli's complaint, to wit:

First, (underlining added) with respect to a portion of the funds referred to in the Complaint, Plaintiff [SCPR note:  Marcelli acting for Stark County's taxpayers] improperly seeks recover against Maier, because Maier never personally received said funds.

Second, (underlining added) because Maier was, at all relevant times, acting as the de facto Sheriff of Stark County, Plaintiff's Complaint fails as a matter of law,

Third, (underling added) all funds referenced in the Complaint were paid and/or accepted in good faith and under color of law, preventing the relief sought in Plaintiff's Complaint,

Fourth, (underlining added) with respect to Maier's salary, the bond payment, and legal fees, because those services were actually performed and/or the benefit was actually received, it is inquitable to permit the recover Plaintiff seeks, and

Finally, (underlining added)  Plaintiff's prayer for attorneys' fees is without legal support and should be dismissed, even if the Court refuses to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint outright.


CONLEY'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ROSENBERG

To say that Craig T. Conley was ticked off at Rosenberg for sending off the e-mail to Ponder suggesting that Conley may have violated Ohio rules of ethical behavior is to understate big time Conley's reaction.

Rather than file a direct legal response (which certainly is in the offing) to Rosenberg's motion as most attorneys would do first, Conley sat down an penned a powerful legal attack on Rosenberg's right to continue to represent Maier in Marcelli's lawsuit.

The SCPR believes that Rosenberg, for all his impressive lawyering credentials, has never been up against the likes of Craig T. Conley; especially a "pissed off" Craig T. Conley.

Perhaps he should check with a Stark County attorney or two or three  and even a Stark County judge or two to get a sense of what he is about to experience.

CONLEY'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ROSENBERG

In his motion to disqualify Rosenber (filed this past Friday, December 13th), Conley raises the following assertions:

• That Ohio courts inferior to the Ohio Supreme Court have inherent power to disqualify attorneys for unprofessional conduct,
• That Thomas Rosenberg has engaged in unprofessional conduct as defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct in that in his "motion to dismiss" (i.e. the supporting memorandum of law on the motion):
• he (Rosenberg) "knowingly made a false statement" to [Judge Farmer] in his pleading in alleging that Marcelli sought recover funds of George Maier "while he was the duly appointed Sheriff of Stark County," which Conley said is "untrue."
• Conley cites Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto decided November 6, 2013, to wit:
• "Maier fails to meet the criteria in R.C. 311.01(B) to be a county sheriff," also pointing out that Rosenberg had to have actual knowledge that Maier was not the duly appointed Sheriff by virtue of the fact that Rosenberg was one of two attorneys from Roetzel & Andress (Columbus) representing Maier in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto.
• he (Rosenberg) made ad hominem attacks on Conley in "at least" implying [in the email to Ponder cited above] that Conley had violated Rule 3.6 (Trial Publicity) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that Conley "had participat[ed] in radio call-in shows and writing letters to the media" and that Rosenberg had "mischaracterized as 'one or more letters to newspapers extolling the claims [Conley] made in the [Marcelli complaint" which Rosenberg statements Conley says are irrelevant inadmissible hearsay statements which "are not true."
• Note:  
• Conley admitted he had appeared by invitation on the radio program referred to but he conducted himself in accordance the Rules of Professional Conduct. 
• Conley admitted he had written "published" letters which appeared in the Alliance Review, the Massillon Independent.
• That the letters "made no mention, directly or indirectly, to [the Marcelli complaint]
• That Thomas Rosenberg has a conflict in interest in that he (Rosenberg) has been paid $20,000 in legal fees to represent Maier in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto and that should Marceill prevail then Maier would have an indemnification claim against Rosenberg which Conley says means that Rosenberg has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of Marcelli v. Maier and therefore - coming full circle - has a conflict in interest in representing Maier in Marcelli v. Maier,
• That a further conflict in interest may exist by virtue of Rosenberg having lost Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, which Conley says, might "well" give rise to a malpractice claim accruing to Maier against Rosenberg,
• Note:  Conley cites rules in the Code of Professional Conduct prohibiting representation of a client when a conflict in interest is present,
• That Rosenberg in his assertions that Maier was the "duly appointed Sheriff" and "accepted, in good faith, publicly funded salary and benefits [as Sheriff]" goes to the advice and counsel Rosenberg was giving Maier and would therefore be a 'necessary witness' in Marcell v. Maier.
• Note:  Conley also names Rosenberg's co-counsel Michael Traven and the Roetzel & Andress law firm for disqualification (corrected [at 2:23 p.m. 12/16/2013] from original publication)
• Note:  Conley cites the Rules of Professional Conduct and case law and prohibiting an attorney from being an advocate and a witness for a client.

 CONCLUSION

Is there any doubt that there are going to be legal fireworks going off between Conley and Rosenberg as Marcelli v. Maier progresses?

Stay tuned folks, it appears that there is much more to come over the longer term as aspirants jockey with one another in short term tactics and strategies on the matter of who will end up in November, 2014 being "elected by the Stark County voters" to serve as the next sheriff.

As that drama unfolds, we will have to content ourselves with taking in the Conley/Rosenberg face-off.

And what a show that promises to be!

SEE "UPDATE OF BLOG" RE: SCDP-CC "WEDNESDAY" MEETING

LINK TO UPDATED BLOG

(VIDEOS) THE AFTERMATH OF MAIER V. DARROW: CAN THE WOUNDS BE HEALED WITHIN STARK DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

VIDEOS

STARK CO. PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

=====================================

CANTON COUNCILMAN ELECT  BILL SMUCKLER

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

=====================================

GONZALEZ/STARK DEMS LEGAL COUNSEL

WARREN PRICE

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

ON

POSSIBLE HIRE BY MAIER

======================================

ATTORNEY STEVEN REISCH

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

After George T. Maier defeated Lou Darrow in the contest between the two of the them (Democrat Douglas Smith and Republican Larry Dordea were non-factors) by a vote of 101 to 65 (contrasted to the February 5, 2013 vote of Maier 92  - Darrow 84 - Dordea 1), one has to wonder what residual damage has been done to the Stark County Democratic Party in terms of retaining the sheriff's office come November, 2014.

One unknown factor is the prospect that interim sheriff (at least until Maier is sworn in again) Tim Swanson will be filing a "new" quo warranto in the coming days.

The last information that the SCPR has is that Swanson plans to file a new action given that his counsel Greg Beck is reportedly advising that he feels that the Ohio Supreme Court will bounce Maier from office once again.

The SCPR thinks that the Randy Gonzalez led Stark County "establishment" Democrats could have made a huge political mistake in excluding Swanson's (and Darrow's) legal counsel (Greg Beck) from presenting to the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee a contrary point of view on whether or not George T. Maier is qualified to be Stark County sheriff.  A perspective different than that of the Stark Dems' legal counsel; namely, Allen Schulman, Warren Price, Steve Okey and Michael Thompson.

But perhaps Swanson/Beck will be going forward no matter how badly they may feel that they were treated at Wednesday night's meeting at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church to select a successor to Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald.

McDonald could not take office as scheduled on January 7, 2013 due to an illness that proved to be terminal (February 22nd).

"Full-speed-ahead" appears to have been the conclusion of Gonzalez and his second-in-command Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (2003 - 2009). He is also the brother of George T. Maier.

For it seems to the SCPR that there was no evidence of reconciliation or easing of tension between the Maier supporters and the Darrow supporters at the conclusion of the Holy Trinity assembly.

Moreover, The Report thinks that unhappiness and divisions linger within the Stark Dems organization that runs deeper than the Maier/Swanson/Darrow conflict.

If the Stark County GOP can glom onto and exploit these divisions, then it might be that the Maier/Swanson/Darrow spat will provide an opportunity for the Republicans to win the sheriff's office in November.

However, there are a little over ten months for the Democrats to find a way to heal some of the wounds that have been opened in the McDonald succession fight.

One would think there is very little chance of that happening if there is another period of sitting and waiting to see whether or not the Ohio Supreme Court is going to oust George T. Maier once again.

Beyond the Democrats and their infighting is the answer to the question of how the general public is taking all this in.

While George Maier gets high marks for his "on-the-job" performance from most if not all Stark County law enforcement familiar with his modus operandi, will the political infighting - if it continues -  give the Republicans the edge they need to sneak their candidate (likely to be Larry Dordea, former Alliance chief of police and now serving in the same capacity in Hartville) through the backdoor and into office in next fall's general election?

The SCPR's take on the political demographics of Stark County is that, if properly structured and run, a quality Democratic candidate should win in countywide races.

However, 2014 could turn out to be problematical for Democrats because of the statewide governor's race involving Republican John Kasich (running as an incumbent) and Democratic challenger Ed Fitzgerald.

The Fitzgerald campaign is currently bogged down because of tax arrears problems of his first chosen lieutenant governor running mate who, as a consequence of the press attention given to the tax issue, has decided to leave the ticket.

Troubles at that level of Ohio politics could make it very difficult for any countywide office-seeking Democrat (let alone one plagued with internal county party bickering) to win even if it is a "leans Democratic" county which the SCPR believes Stark is.

So the SCPR has started examining how the Maier/Swanson/Darrow fight might impact either Maier's or Darrow's chance to win next November.

It should be comforting to Maier (the candidate the SCPR thinks has the most concerns), if he ends up as the Dems' nominee, that it appears to the SCPR that he is not likely to lose support from among the 65 or so precinct committee persons who voted against his second appointment as sheriff on Wednesday night.

But if he gets bounced again by the Ohio Supreme Court, that could change.  If a new quo warranto is filed and the high court takes another nine months before making a determination and that decision is to oust Maier again, it is hard to see how he overcomes that with voters across the county.

To be viable next November, he will have to win the Democratic primary in May (and the SCPR sees no problem with that given Darrow's lack of political skills) and trust that there is no Supreme Court ouster between May and November.

Of course, it was Gonzalez' and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr's call, but I think that the rude treatment that Swanson/Darrow and their attorney got Wednesday night at the hand of the the Stark County Dems leadership just might come back and bite George T. Maier in the "political rump" come November, 2014.

If a second Maier ouster occurs, not only will the dissident Stark Democrats surface once again, but the Republicans will be looking at ways to capitalize.

So The Report thinks that the establishment leadership should have been more conciliatory on Wednesday to Darrow's supporters and, even now, should be rushing to conciliate with Swanson before he goes off on another quo warranto mission.

But what does the SCPR know about politics anyway?

After Wednesday's vote, the SCPR talked with four of the participants; one a non-voting participant in order to begin collecting a sense of feelings are running.

JOHN FERRERO

This former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (1996 - 2003) and sitting Stark County prosecutor says that he thinks that the imbroglio over Maier's statutory disqualification has hurt the party.  However, while not naming Maier, he said he would be supporting the Democratic candidate next November.



WILLIAM SMUCKLER

A well known city of Canton politician who knows Canton politics "like one knows the back of his hand" could be a huge help to whomever becomes the Dems' candidate for sheriff.

He has served many years in Canton City Council, has run for mayor and for Stark County commissioner.



WARREN PRICE

A member of the Gonzalez/Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee legal team, Price says that he thought that Wednesday's meeting went reasonably well.

The SCPR sees Price as a mediating person who should be utilized by party leaders to smooth out the currently ruffled political feathers.

Another issue that The Report brought up with Price was the document that came into the SCPR's hands from the sheriff's office showing that he was dickering with Maier during his first stint in sheriff for possible employment in the sheriff's administration either as a direct employee or a contract employee.



STEVEN REISCH

An attorney for 15 years and currently with the Stark County Public Defender's office, Reisch's was dismayed at the way Wednesday's meeting went.  However, the SCPR did not get the impression that Reisch was about to bolt the party come next November.

It was interesting to see how critical Reisch was of Gonzalez/Stark Dems' legal counsel Steve Okey.

Could Reisch's critical evaluation of Okey signal that the man best suited to smooth things over within the party might be Warren Price?