PART "2" OF A MULTI-PART SERIES: AN EDUCATORS' "POLITICAL BATTLE, ROYALE?" CANTON CITY SCHOOLS, STARK ESC & THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION?

The "silver lining" of this SCPR series for Stark County board of education voters is to see for themselves the ugly underbelly of "politics at play" in the oversight (the board members themselves) and administration (superintendents and their staffs) of our taxpayer funded public schools.

First, readers of this blog need to - in order to get the full breath and scope of The Report's dissection of boards of education and school administration - make sure they have read previous blogs.

Here are links to those blogs:

• September 15, 2015 blog,

And let the SCPR credit Stark County auditor Alan Harold for pushing to get the story out about the unseemly way that:

• the Canton City Schools (CCS) Board of Education, in the corporate sense (meaning majority voting pattern),
• the Stark County Educational Service Center Governing Board, in the corporate sense (ESC, which includes yours truly's spouse),
• the upper level management of the CCS (with a focus on the treasurer and superintendent), and
• the upper level management of the ESC with a focus on the legal and superintendent aspects of the regional service center

appear to The Stark County Political Report to have handled what yours truly has tabbed as being "the Allison matter."

But make no mistake about it, the CCS/ESC debacle is only "the icing on the cake" of what The Report thinks has been a decades and decades long deficiency in oversight functioning of the ESC board, the 17 local boards of education and the respective administrations; especially in the superintendent to superintendent connection between local school districts and the county level superintendents going back many years.

Yours truly first started out as a community engaged citizen in the early 1980s in attending and engaging Lake Local School District and Lake Board of Trustees members.

Accordingly, as far as Stark County schools are concerned, yours truly goes back to the Herm Sims administration of the Stark County level of school administration.

Additionally, yours truly has the huge advantage of having been married to Mary for 49 years now who is:

• a 35 year retired teacher as an elementary school teacher in the Akron Public School system,
• a ten year long consultant with the former Carson-Dellosa education publishing company,
• one of Ohio's very first board certified teachers by the National Board Professional Standard - Early Childhood Generalist,
• an adjunct professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of Akron,
• a member of the Lake Board of Education (1991 - 1995, elected again in 2006)
• a member of the Stark County Education Service Center in 2007 and is unopposed for an additional four years in the election upcoming on November 3rd,

The Olsons have had three daughters graduate from the Lake Local School District and go on to achieve advanced professional degrees from various universities both in Ohio and across the nation.

In today's blog, the focus is the insights that the SCPR has garnered since the early 1980s base on the foregoing recitation so as to be in a position to credibly assess the state of boardmanship and superintendency in the Stark County school system.

One of the SCPR's latest treatments of Stark County school systems has to do with the situation in the Canton Local School District in which there has been in place in the opinion of The Report a board of education that is in lock step with the recently retired superintendent.

Readers of this series would do well by themselves to read the blogs on the Canton Local situation to get a sense of how The Report covers local school boardmanship, the links:

• August 15, 2015,
• June, 17 2014,

Moreover, there are other Stark County local school districts which have come under the scrutiny of the SCPR and in future blogs yours truly will refresh those coverages so as to underscore The Report's continuing interest in the quality of Stark County educational leadership from the superintendents' standpoint and from the board of education membership standpoint.

Over decades of exposure to and involvement with local boards of education and the county level board of education (now, education service centers), yours truly has one overwhelming take-away on the functioning of boards of education vis-a-vis superintendents, to wit:

Superintendents of education, though not elected by the public to anything, are every bit the politician of those folks from Stark County's cities, villages, townships and, of course, boards of education who do have to account to the public in the American process of getting elected by majority/plurality of registered voters in their respective districts.

Moreover, by and large, many if not most of these superintendents cultivate a political relationship with individual members of board of educations designed to dampen member zeal for pursuing incisive questioning of the recommendations of superintendents to ensure that the recommendations are in the public interest as opposed to any parochial interest (e.g. the superintendents' ease of operation, teacher unions, undue athletic prominence, et cetera).

In this ongoing series, sparked by the CCS/ESC controversy, the SCPR will be sharing with the Stark County public how "education sausage" is made among and between superintendents of local school districts, their respective boards of education as they interact with educational officials at the county level.

The Report has already had input from everyday Stark Countians with stories of how their superintendents and boards of education have not given "the public interest" the first priority it must have inasmuch as public education is financed by the Stark County taxpaying public.

Readers can add to this series by sending your anecdotal "education at the local lever story" to tramols@att.net.

PART 1 OF A MULTI-PART SERIES: AN EDUCATORS' "POLITICAL BATTLE, ROYALE?" CANTON CITY SCHOOLS, STARK ESC & THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION?

UPDATED AT 12:05 P.M.

POLITICAL INTRIGUE

GALORE!!!

DISCLAIMER:  Yours truly's wife is an elected member of the Stark County Educational Service Center.  The views expressed in this blog in no way are a statement of her views on the Allison controversy.

The Stark County Political Report has known about the rift between the Canton City Schools (CCS) and the Stark County Educational Service Center (ESC) for sometime on what yours truly labels as "the Allison matter" (Allison) over whether or not the ESC was going to be reimbursed for putting Canton superintendent of schools Adrian Allison's wife Krista on the ESC payroll in order to make her hiring and working at least indirectly for Adrian legal.

Last night in a contentious session, the CCS Board of Education voted 3 to 2 to reimburse the ESC some $237,000 for amounts paid to Allison's wife for her work for the CCS but as an employee of the ESC.

A significant aspect of the reimbursement is that it was approved "as a moral obligation."

The arrangement is somewhat like (in that there was no formal contractual arrangement) one between the cities of Alliance and Massillon with Stark County officials over the rate that the cities would be paying for the housing of prisoners at the Stark County jail in exchange for law enforcement officials getting behind a county levy effort.

The understanding was based on "verbal" assurances.

You have got to be kidding, no!

Government officials dealing with taxpayer dollars without formal, written agreements.

Wow!

Administrative officials at the ESC need to address these questions posed by Stark County auditor Harold to the SCPR, to wit:

[P]erhaps also a question for the ESC Board on why they allowed this debt to grow so large?  [over an two year or so span]


I have all the records and was told in February/March this would be addressed at/around the time Mr. Morgan retired.  

And Mr. Nero's [ass't superintendent of CCS since July, 2014] comment about "just coming to our attention" is disingenuous at best.  

Interestingly, the primary if not the entire origin of the controversial Allison spouse hiring came to the SCPR from either Harold (a one time candidate for a slot on the ESC board) and/or reports in The Repository and not spouse and ESC board member Mary.

So it is somewhat ironic that Harold, who is one of the chief critics of how former ESC superintendent Larry Morgan administered the Service Center, came within 249 votes of being one of Morgan's five bosses along with, of course, one Mary J. Olson.

Harold, who is currently #2 on the SCPR "Top 10 List" of effective Stark County elected officials, has since his election in 2012 been at odds with Morgan in his role as the ESC's chief administrator over the valuation of key Stark County real estate which is the fundamental base of revenues for Stark's 17 school districts.

One battle that stands out is the one written about by the SCPR which involved the valuation by the Stark County auditor's office of the Huntington Bank and adjacent properties on Market Avenue in downtown Canton purchased in recent years by a corporation by the name of Amerimar (prior blog LINK).

A repeated point of criticism of Morgan's managemetnt of the ESC by Harold (and other county officials) is the ESC's huge positive balance of about $100 millon carryover from year to year in the ESC's balance sheet.

Morgan, who manages the ESC's health care program in a manner which many think is "state of the art" and which the Ohio Department of Education has taken an interest in in emulating, says that the payouts for catastrophic medical events beneficiaries is the primary reason for the very large positive balance.

The SCPR does agree with Harold and others who criticize the $100 million plus balance in that there needs to be an audit by qualified financial people to determine whether or not that Morgan's point of actuarial responsibility dictates such a large carryover.

The is no doubt about it.

Compared to 1914 when the Stark ESC (then the county board of education), large amounts of federal/Ohio/Stark County tax dollars processing through the ESC annual budget in now the order of the day.

And by all means readers of this blog should read in its entirety (LINK) entire 2013-2014 SCESC Annual Report.

Let's pause just a moment and define "the Allison matter" which is high level expression of a process whereby the Stark ESC hires and pays for various educational officials to work in/for Stark's 17 school districts.

The ESC should be thought of as a resource center which - used to - provide many "free" educational services to Stark local and city school districts.

Such is no longer the case.

With State of Ohio education and local government reduced funding, ESCs across Ohio (including, of course, Stark County) are under increasing pressure to change their fiscal model to one where districts benefiting from ESC services now have to pay for them.

Which means, of course, that the Stark ESC could ill-afford to absorb an approximate $237,000 loss in funding the hire of Canton City Schools superintendent Adrian Allison's wife (Krista) from her job at the Ohio Department of Education from whence, naturally, her husband came when the CCS hired Adrian in November 2012.

And, nowadays, the SCPR has learned, ESCs across Ohio have to - according to a State of Ohio structural setup - compete with one on another for the business of individual school districts.

So such constitutes the chief reason that "the Allison matter" has become such a huge, huge, huge controversy.

Ohio law prohibits relatives working for relatives which made it dicey (from the perspective of many local observers) indeed when the decision was made by Morgan to recommend to the ESC board that ESC hire.

To the SCPR, the decision was beyond "dicey" and while complying with "the letter of the law" was in yours truly a violation of "the spirit of the law."

The Ohio General Assembly needs to pass legislation prohibiting "work-arounds" like these.

The SCPR has complained long, hard and frequently about how frequently relatives of key Stark County political subdivision elected officials show up on some other "of the same political party" elected officials payroll.

And yet prime Stark County Ohio General Assembly delegation members Slesnick, Hagan, Oelslager and Schuring have not lifted one finger to make work-arounds illegal as a matter of Ohio law.

After all, any one of them may going forward or perhaps in the past has needed a helping hand like that invoked in the Allision case and others that the SCPR has written about over the past eight years, no?

This phenomenon is one of a growing list of why day-in, day-out Stark Countians along with many other Ohioans and Americans find appeal in a simplistic Donald Trump-esque approach (i.e. fix things on my say so or the snap of my fingers) and are increasingly cynical about the motivations of all too many of our public officials.

The Report believes that there are other Stark County officialdom players other than Harold and Morgan and the ESC board in the political intrigue that envelops "the Allison matter" and the bigger picture of how Stark County local and city school districts are staffed.

And, to repeat, "the insider" problem appears to be systemic at all levels of the Stark County political subdivision level that ought to make the Stark County taxpayers to wince more than just a bit.

In "the Allison matter" in the SCPR's assessment is that "the other players" include:

• the CCS Board of Education(BOE), 
• its treasurer Jeff Gruber, 
• BOE president John Rinaldi, and 
• candidates for the CCS BOE in November's election including, in particular and, perhaps, primarily former board member Eric Resnick 
• SCPR Note:  Resnick lost out in 2013 (SCPR Blog LINK) in a bitter political feud of an election to Rinaldi.

In ensuing parts of this series, the SCPR continues to unfold "the politics at play" in the operation of the CCS and other Stark County city and local school districts in relation to the Stark County Education Service Center and the staffing of those districts.

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR LAKE TRUSTEE JOHN ARNOLD TO RIGHT A "POLITICAL" WRONG?

One of the most citizen friendly bodies of Stark County government will make an appearance at Lake Township Hall a week from tomorrow night; namely, the Stark County commissioners:  political "independent" Thomas M. Bernabei and Republicans Janet Creighton and Richard Regula.

From the commissioners website:

Latest News
Stark County Commissioners to Host Series of Informational Meetings Across the County

8/24/2015 9:01 a.m.

The Board of Stark County Commissioners will meet with County residents and give an overview of the current state of Stark County Government and will answer questions.  

All Stark  County citizens are welcome at any of these meetings regardless of where they reside in the County.

(text color and typeface altered for emphasis sake)

One such meeting shall take place in the home area of The Stark County Political Report a week from tomorrow which is to say:  September 22, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. at Lake Township Hall located 12360 Market Avenue, North with a mailing address of Hartville.

As the SCPR sees it, the "commissioner coming to town event" is a perfect opportunity for Lake trustee John Arnold (a voter registration Republican who is supposed to be non-partisan in his functioning as a public official) to right what The Report thinks was "a political wrong" sanctioned by Arnold and other township officials on the occasion of the ribbon cutting ceremony of August 19, 2015 of the newly relocated Uniontown Police Department (UPD) to the former site of the Lake Senior Citizen facility at 1630 Edison Street, Northeast.

"Political wrong?"

That's how yours truly sees it.

To hear Trustee Arnold's version of events at the August 19th UPD event, it was mere happenstance that Republican appointee to the Canton Municipal Court Curtis Werren showed up at the event and ended up being featured along with Arnold and various Lake Chamber of Commerce officials at the ceremony.

Werren's Democratic opponent Kristen Guardado was nowhere to be seen nor was any official or "elected" judge of the Canton Municipal Court nor official of the Canton Law Department (with whom the UPD collaborates criminal prosecutions) present.

Werren, (now on his second gubernatorial appointment as a politically appointed judge at the hand of Republican governor John Kasich) who seemingly can do very little on his own, appears to have had the help of his wife Stephanie who is an official with the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce (director of Leadership Stark County) in providing him with the advantage of being the only "outside Lake Township public official" who just happened to be "[Curtis] on the spot" on August 19th.

While the event itself was a non-political event in terms of the official agenda, does anybody doubt that the "photo op" will show up on a Lake Township tailored political flyer in about four to six week if not right on the eve of the November 3rd election which Werren must win in order to remain a judge.

To somewhat balance things out, the SCPR encourages Democratic opponent Kristen Guardado to just "happen" to make an appearance next Tuesday evening (... Commissioners will meet with County residents  ...) and position herself to have her picture take with not only the Lake trustees but also the Stark County commissioners for October distribution in a political flyer come next month.

Of course, yours truly is "poking fun" at "officially 'non-partisan'" Trustee Arnold and various other Lake political and government officials (including, perhaps UPD chief Harold Britt, who according to voter registration records is a Republican) for what the SCPR thinks is their disingenuous attempt to portray Werren's August 19th appearance as being innocent of politics.

It could be true as Arnold maintains, but The Report doubts him and thinks he is like the person who has been spied with "his hand in the cookie jar."

The "smoking gun" of politics being at play yours truly thinks is Arnold taking offense in a series of e-mails (see all the e-mails below) that took place between the SCPR, Arnold, Britt and Kozy (the president of the Lake Chamber of Commerce) in which:

• Arnold takes offense at the mere questioning of his role and the role of others as a factor in the "happenstance" of Werren's appearance,
• Arnold in a sort of way "blames the victim" (yours truly is a taxpaying citizen of the Uniontown Police Department) in saying that the SCPR in asking questions and writing about the apparent politicization of the August 19 event is to blame if the public takes a dim view of how it was put together,
• Britt's errant answer to a SCPR e-mail (later corrected) and then his refusal to follow up with detailed answers to yours truly's question, and 
• Kozy's refusal as the Lake Chamber's top official to respond to the SCPR's inquiry

To the SCPR, the combined reaction as described in the above-bullet points in pregnant with a likelihood that The Report has hit a sore point with the various actors which who yours truly suspects orchestrated the August 19th Werren appearance.

One of the frustrations of the commissioners getting outside "the Canton government beltway" is that oft times only a hand full of citizens take advantage of the opportunity to meet with the commissioners to:

• learn about county government,
• ask questions (is that okay Trustee Arnold) of the commissioners,
• compliment the commissioners, or, maybe even
• roast the commissioner over this or that action, policy or program of commissioner administered county government

So were Guardado to appear and undoubtedly if word filters out that she will show up, then does anybody doubt that Werren will be "hot on her heels?"

Such a occurrence could bring "a full house" to next Tuesday's commissioners' Lake Township appearance, no?

To add spice to the evening, you can be sure that The Stark County Political Report will be there to film every second.

So as the sayin' goes:  "You-all come!"

Here are the emails referred to above.

Note:  The Report thinks there must have been a flurry of telephone conversations between Arnold, Britt and Kozy in support of having an cogent, united response or lack thereof.

If so, of course the content thereof will never "see the light of day," right?

INITIAL SCPR E-MAILS to Trustee Arnold, Chief Britt and Lake Chamber of Commerce president Kozy:

Who invited Judge Werren to participate in the opening of the new Uniontown Police Facility?

Martin Olson  Aug 27
To: John Arnold

Trustee Arnold,

Just received my copy of the August 28th edition of The Hartville News.

I want to  know who invited Werren (up for election in November) to participate in this event.

Martin Olson
Stark County Political Report
tramols@att.net

RESPONSES

ARNOLD #1

Re: Curt Werren

John  Aug 28

To:  Martin Olson

The community was invited. It was a chamber of commerce morning connections meeting and the public was invited for the ribbon cutting. Announcements were made at twp meetings and numerous other community meetings.

Sent from my iPhone

SCPR FOLLOW UP

On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:54 PM, Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> wrote:

Was Werren [t]he only elected official (from Lake, the Canton Municipal Court District and Stark County in general) other than yourself and Stoll who showed up?

ARNOLD #2

Re: Curt Werren
John  Aug 29
To:  Martin Olson

Yes

Sent from my iPhone

Arnold #3 (as a follow on to SCPR Britt e-mail copied to Arnold)

Mr. Olson, the Chamber event was open to the public. I cannot control who does or does not show up anymore than I can control who the press takes pictures of or writes about. If you have any police concerns the chief will answer them. Your line of questions are shedding a dark cloud over a very positive move the UPD made and celebrated last week.

(text size and color change for emphasis sake)

 SCPR follow up

Re: Police Dept ribbon cutting

Martin Olson  Sep 1

To:  John Arnold

I will keep digging on this.

Questions are a good thing.  It is interesting that public official would discourage the mere asking of questions.

What am I not being told about background discussions between you (as a chamber official and as a government official), Kozy, (who still has not answered by e-mail to her), Werren's wife (in her capacity as a CRCOC official), and the chief?

It took forever for the chief to get back to me and that was with the same blandishments (after erroneously terming Werren as a Common Pleas Court judge) that you are dishing out.  He still has not answered the specific questions I put him in the response to his e-mail to me.

I have been around this kind of block a time or two over my eight years of doing the Stark County Political Report.  To boot, as a resident and taxpayer of the UPD since 1975, I think I have all the more reason to be asking questions.

My experience John is in doing the SCPR is that when I am on to something, I get something like your "dark cloud" talk.   Folks like you typically try and make a person asking questions as being the problem.

The problem sir is that this whole matter appears to me to have been handled inappropriately.

I do not buy that all of this was just happenstance as you are portraying.

Since you are in the Lake Chamber as an official, why don't you contact Kozy and ask her to answer my questions e-mailed yesterday?

Remember, John, government scrutiny and oversight is a good thing.

It should be disturbing to your Lake Township constituents that you are now on record as objecting to the mere asking of questions.

It could be that I ultimately will find that the Werren thing was just him doing his political thing and taking advantage of an otherwise non-political event for his political advantage and you as township trustee and the chief were not savvy enough to figure that out and merely ask him to step aside from the publicity thing.

Either way I come out on the issue, you, sir, will not be looking too good on this matter on a couple of counts.  The "blame the victim" approach and either you know more than you willing to tell me or you don't but failed to see the political dynamics at play with politician, running for office Werren being front and center.

It's you and the chief  (and I think mostly you) who bear responsibility for the dark cloud metaphor.

That technique may have served you well with others, but not with me.

BRITT RESPONSE #1

Lake Chamber of Commerce Meeting.
Harold Britt  Aug 31
To: Tramols@att.net

Ref: Response to e-mail sent August 28, 2015 at 1406 hours.

Mr. Olson.

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the Lake Township Chamber of Commerce meeting that was held at the Uniontown Police Station on August 19, 2015.  

The Lake Chamber of Commerce holds their bi-monthly meetings at different locations around Lake Twp.  

The Uniontown Police Department hosted  the August 19, 2015 meeting as we have several times in the past. 

The Lake Chamber of Commerce posted the location of the August 19,2015 meeting on their web site. and this meeting was open to the public. 

The Uniontown Police Department requested time after the Lake Chamber of Commerce Meeting to hold a small ribbon cutting ceremony in recognition of the opening of our new building. 

 In attendance at the Lake Chamber of Commerce meeting was Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge Curt Werren.  

Having the utmost respect for all of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judges and the job they do in supporting local law enforcement, it was an honor to have a representative of the court at this meeting.

If you have any further question please feel free to contact me.

Thank you

Chief Harold Britt        

BRITT FOLLOW UP (to correct error)

Lake Chamber of Commerce Meeting
Harold Britt  Aug 31

To:  tramols@att.net

Mr. Olson as you may understand, I have to respond to a lot of e-mails throughout the day and not all of them are perfect, please accept my apology for the delayed e-mail and referring to Judge Werren as a Common Pleas Judge.  As always you are welcome to come by the office if you have any concerns.    
 
SCPR FOLLOW UP

To   
Harold Britt
cc:   [John Arnold]

For the record Werren is not a Stark County Court of Common pleas judge.  He was defeated for that position as a Kasich appointee in last November's (2014) general election by Chryssa Hartnett.

I note in a follow up e-mail you do correct the erroneous attribution.

The implication of the correction is that you have known all along that Werren is presently a Kasich political appointee and is standing for election in just over two months (November 3rd) in opposition to Canton Law Department prosecutor Kristen Guardado.

Or is that not the case?

Were you not aware of the political sensitivity of having an unelected judge/candidate for office featured at the ceremony?

Were you told before the event that Werren was going to be present"?

If so, who was it that told you?

If not, why would you not ascertain his exact status correctly (i.e. he is a political candidate for office) before allowing him take advantage of the UPD opportunity in pursuit of his personal political interests?

I am quite skeptical of what I am getting from you and John Arnold as to how Werren came to be prominently featured in the ribbon cutting with media present taking photos that undoubtedly will show up in a political campaign flyer between now and the election in Lake Township.

Werren's wife is the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce's director of LeadershipStark County.

And, Trustee John Arnold, is also a key figure in the Lake Chamber of Commerce.

There are just too many co-incidences for me to accept at face value what you and Arnold are portraying.

As a police officer who presumably focuses on law enforcement matters and not on politics, it may be that you were oblivious to the political undercurrents I suspect are at play in Werren just happening to show up at the ribbon cutting event. That you erroneously identify Werren as a sitting Common Pleas Court judge leads me in the direction of thinking  "it may be that you were oblivious."  But if that is the case, I want confirmation of such.

So my e-mail inquiries are designed to provide me with a full opportunity to explain what you did or did not know about Werren's appearing.

For something as significant as this event it seems to me that either the trustees or you as chief should have obtained a judge who has been elected to the Canton Municipal Court or alternatively one of the criminal prosecutors that UPD  police officers work with on a continuing basis as the notable public figure to be featured.

In any event, please answer the questions I pose in this e-mail.

By the way, I am copying John Arnold with a copy of this e-mail so that he fully understands my skepticism about the account I am being given by you and him.

I plan to keep digging until I am satisfied that I have an accurate and complete account of how Werren came to be the only non-Lake Township public official at the ribbon cutting who by virtue of the political nature of his interest in being at the ribbon cutting event should have been treated courteously but not accorded the notoriety that unfolded for him in the local media insofar as taxpayer facilities and functions are concerned.

From public officials, I expect complete transparency.   Hence I want communication between you, me and Arnold to be in writing.

Again, please go over my questions and provide me with detailed responses.

Martin Olson
as a UPD resident and taxpayer
and also of  The Stark County Political Report

BRITT DOES NOT RESPOND TO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS

ALSO, KOZY  NEVER RESPONDS TO SCPR QUESTIONS

"ORGANIZED" STARK COUNTY - DEMOCRATIC - PARTY IS ANYTHING BUT "democratic."

Updated:  2:35 p.m. (E-mail to SCPR on "organized" Dems calling for Bernabei to resign NOW)

BERNABEI & CICCHINELLI CASES PROVE THAT!

 ... [T]he way the Dems continue to squawk and call on Bernabei to resign as a Commissioner seems only to confirm that this is what it is about.

I deduce that the current calls for resignation NOW are really about setting up a court case later to challenge anyone but Dem central committee appointing a new Commissioner, hinging future complaint on Bernabei election to Commissioner post as a Dem and leaving that office before he is elected as an "Independent" thus (in their reasoning) maintaining the Dems "right" to pick the successor Commissioner. It appears to me that the Supremes in their opinion have clearly indicated the Dems will not have a winning argument here.......but as you well know anyone can sue anyone else for anything at anytime - one needs only to find a willing lawyer!

Thanks again for your blog and helping keep eyes open and focussed on the way government works!

 ORIGINAL BLOG

"Organized" Democrats and more particularly the Stark County variety love to extol the political virtues of the third president of the United States  -Thomas Jefferson - and the seventh president of the United States - Andrew Jackson.

But given what we Stark Countians just went through at the hand of the Stark County Democratic Party leadership and its challenge and the challenge of some of the party's chief operatives to the right of Thomas Bernabei and Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. to change their political status from "Democrat" to "independent," it hardly fits that we should view the likes of party chairman Phil Giavasis, former chairman Randy Gonzalez and former chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr as small letter "d" [d]emocrats.

It is more than a tad ironic that the local Dems were outed as being anti-democratic by the Republican members of the Stark County Board of Elections; namely, Curt Braden and William S. Cline (pictured below).

By virtue of their name, we know that "organized" Republicans (meaning those who favor "representative government" as opposed to "direct participation of citizens in decision making) are distrustful of everyday people having direct political power.

And yet in a bizarre twist, Braden and Cline led the way for the Constitution of the United States of America to reign supreme in the Dems' challenge to Bernabei and Cicchinelli (both staunch and long time Democrats) and their quest to disassociate with the "organized" Democratic Party and to don the more "for the citizens, and not first and foremost a political party" status of being a political "independent."

Braden and Cline, whether wittingly or not, in voting as BOE members in voting to certify Bernabei (July 6th) and Cicchinelli (July 13th) as aided in breaking a BOE tie vote between them and Democrats Sam Ferruccio, Jr. and William V. Sherer, II by Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted come out of the challenges as the true supporters of American Democracy; not the Democrats.

Today's focus will be on certain parts of the Ohio Supreme Court (by the a 6 to 1 majority Republican) cases decided yesterday validating the Republican Party generated certification of Bernabei and Cicchinelli which highlight why Stark Countians should hold the Stark County Republican Party connected (indeed, appointed) BOE in high regard for having enabled both Canton and Massillon to have meaningful elections on November 3rd.

Though the high court did not reach Constitutional Law questions but rather decided that Secretary of State Jon Husted had not "abused his discretion" in breaking the tie in voting with fellow Republicans Braden and Cline; the SCPR believes had the court found an abuse of discretion it then would have had to address the Constitutional Law questions and both sets of protesters would have lost at that level on the First Amendment's freedom of association provision.

It could be that Braden and Cline were not primarily interested in preserving fundamental democratic-republican right but were merely protecting perceived Republican Party interests.

However, it is indisputable that regardless of their underlying motivation, the net effect of their supporting certification is the enhancement of democratic values.

It is clear that the Stark Democrats were motivated to enforce political party discipline on two of former stalwarts.

Accordingly, Jefferson and Jackson "ought now" with the Ohio Supreme Court decisions of yesterday "to be rolling over in their graves" at the attempt of 2015 organized Democrats to deny basic fundamental Constitutional rights to Bernabei and Cicchinelli.

THE SUPREME COURT ON BERNABEI

(Note:  The SCPR does not deal with the residency question inasmuch as it is only tangentially at best related to the primary issue, to wit:  "the permanency of political party affiliation."  It was however the most powerful part of the protesters argument and the court ended up saying - in effect - that the justices could not get into the mind of Thomas Bernabei and therefore must take his word for it as to his intent to be a resident of Canton)

POINT 1:  Political Parties have no claim on government office.

If one is elected to an office as a Democrat but changes parties or becomes an "independent," who appoints the successor?

Note:  The following "Supreme Court Answers" are extracts from the full opinion and highlights have been added by the SCPR for emphasis sake.

Supreme Court Answer:



In Bernbei's case, it appears to the SCPR that if he is elected mayor of Canton that his successor will be appointed by remaining commissioners (Republicans) Janet Crieghton and Richard Regula.

A position that The Report has taken from the get-go.

POINT 2:  Disaffiliation action does not require: 

• that one roll back affiliation action taken BEFORE one has declared disaffiliation,
• that one take action to undo affiliation identification controlled by others,
• that denial of receipt of attempted disaffiliation does not negate the affirmative action taken

What impact does "before" disaffiliation action have on one's ability to disaffiliate?

Supreme Court Answer:




The clear implication of the Supreme Court's opinion is that partisan connection before disaffiliation  is virtually worthless.

THE SUPREME COURT OF CICCHINELLI

In Cicchinelli, protester attorney Steve Okey seemed aghast (objecting to the question as The Report recalls) as Cicchinelli attorney Craig T. Conley's questioned Cicchinelli (paraphrase) "So you did take a 'blood oath' to stay a Democrat forever and ever when you became a Democrat?"

The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday answered that question with a resounding no.

The "Only" Point

As a matter of technical Ohio law, there is no way to show concretely that one is a political "independent" or non-partisan other than no voting in a partisan primary election

Did Frank Cicchinelli in his testimony (as claimed by Okey in the protest hearing of July 13th) that he became an "independent" in voting a non-partisan ballot on May 5, 2015 admit as a matter of law that when he filed his "independent" candidacy petitions on May 4, 2015 he was not then an "independent?"

The Supreme Court Answer:



It is interesting to note that the court in a kind way scolded protesters' attorney Okey for not asking a precise enough question.

Why didn't Okey dig deeper as the court said he should have?

The SCPR thinks he undoubtedly understood that Cicchineilli was trying to be "legally correct" with his answer and if he pressed Cicchinelli in questioning when he (not in the technical, legal context) had converted - in his own mind - from being a Democrat to being an "independent," Cicchinelli's answer would have been much earlier than May 5, 2015.

Okey, the SCPR believes, thought that he had a Frank Cicchinelli who had unwittingly - to the undiscerning - trapped himself into an answer that could be - and The Report thinks Okey did attempt to portray - taken as being something that it was not.

Shortly after the Cicchinelli "legalistic" testimony, Okey in his closing statement made the argument (let the SCPR add in highly dramatic fashion - i.e. "I can't believe what I just heard") that it was "a case closed situation" in that Cicchinelli himself had betrayed his "independent" status.

Well, The Ohio Supreme Court is made up of justices who do have the power of discernment and understood Cicchinelli's testimony for what it was and went further in chiding Okey for not having pressed the line of question further.

Not a good day for Attorney Steven Okey before Ohio's "court of last resort" nor for his protester clients and certainly not a good day for Massillon mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry who many of us think was Okey's "real" client.

"But all is well that ends well" for the people of Canton, Massillon, Stark County and indeed all of Ohio.

In Bernabei and Cicchinelli, the law of Ohio favoring the ability of previously partisan Democrats and Republicans  to discard their affiliations has been strengthened.

Neither political party is a a bulwark for democracy.

But in Stark County, whether intentionally or not, the Stark County Republican Party through its appointed Board of Elections members created the conditions for future candidates to do exactly what Martin Olson did in 2008 and took measures to disassociate from either political party having been a member of both (Republican 1963 - 1975; Democratic 1976 - 2008) and in the process to come to understand that by and large political parties are about self-perpetuation and exist chiefly for the personal political benefit of the likes of Phil Giavasis, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr, Randy Gonzalez, Jeff Matthews, Curt Braden and their ilk.

The SCPR has written specifically about Dems' chairman Phil Giavasis of how he thinks he owns the Stark County clerk of courts office.

He more or less bequeathed the office to Nancy Reinbold when she took over.  Now with the coronation of brother Louis in that office (last night) has taken place, "the circle IS unbroken" and it appears to yours truly as being a concrete example of the privatization of public office by Democrats in terms of who will be considered for it.  

Kudos to Cicchinelli spouse Joy for being the sole "no" vote on what to have been a case of a political party loyalist extraordinaire being rewarded for being well connected and a front line soldier in the fight to maintain political party interests over the public interest.

That nobody other than Joy Cicchinelli challenged Louis or voted against the obvious "inside" job, does not speak well for the other 73 precinct committeepersons who showed up and voted the party line.

As the public grows in disgust with "organized" Republicans and Democrats (e.g. Trump and Sanders) and their structures disintegrate primarily because they are abused for personal political advantage; the leaders of these organizations have nobody to blame but themselves as their credibility is spiraling downward.

Both mainline political parties produce way too many mediocre or worse public officials whose first loyalty seem to be to the party chieftains who use well meaning but naive day-in, day-out partisans for the party leaders' selfish purposes.

There has to be a better way to run a democracy than through the "organized" Democratic and Republican political parties, no?

Stark Countians owe Thomas Bernabei and Frank Cicchinelli  a debt of gratitude for having stepped forward as politicians who at their base their own persons.

Such is not what "organized" political parties are good at.

Clearly, to the SCPR, the Bernabei and Cicchinelli cases show the Stark County Democratic Party (as the leadership is presently constituted) to be "anti-[d]emocratic" to the core.

Let's hope there are more Thomas Bernabeis and Frank Cicchinellis out there!

BREAKING NEWS: SUPREME COURT RULES BERNABEI & CICCHINELLI CAN RUN AS "INDEPENDENTS!!!"

UPDATED:  6:00 PM  (MORRIS & MACK REACTIONS)

HEALY & CATAZARO-PERRY REIGNS AS MAYOR AT AN END?

BERNABEI PROTESTER COMMENTS

SCPR OFFERS CANTON CHARTER COMMISSION CANDIDATES 5 MINUTES OF VIDEO TIME TO ANSWER "A KEY QUESTION" AS TO THEIR CANDIDACY

CORRECTION

The videotaping will take place at the Stark County Law Library on the 4th floor of the Stark County Office Building, 110 Central Plaza, Canton, Ohio.

ORIGINAL BLOG

It was last in 1962 when Cantonians were asked to consider whether or not to make Canton "a charter government" city.

The issue failed likely because the proposal by those serving on the charter commission proposed making voluminous changes in the way Cantonians were to be governed going forward.




And make no mistake about it, there likely are those who hope to be elected to the 2015 version of a Canton Charter Commission should voters authorize the preparation of a "new" proposal.

Of course, there are those who, if Canton is to go charter and move off being a statutory city in which the State of Ohio determines a city's authority to govern, want things to stay "exactly as they now are" and only allow changes going forward which have been thorough vetted with citizen participation in the vetting process.

This blog is designed to introduce to Cantonians the SCPR's public service effort for them to be able to identify who the pro-change candidates are as contrasted to the stand-patters are as Cantonians prepare to vote on the issue and the commission make up on November 3rd.
 
Below is a copy of an e-mail that the SCPR sent out to the 54 or so candidates  for the 15 member commission:



Candidate for Canton Charter Commission,

The Stark County Political Report is offering each Charter Commission aspirant 5 minutes of video time to answer the following question, provide additional comments, and have it posted on blogs containing only the video and no commentary by the SCPR or anybody else on the responses.

The question is as follows: 

If Canton voters approve the formation of a Charter Commission and you are selected by them to staff one of the 15 positions what is your point of view on the following:

Do you favor presenting a Canton charter government structure to Canton voters in November, 2016 that mirrors Canton's current statutory government or do you favor the development of a proposal to voters that changes some aspect of the existing statutory structure of Canton government?

If you favor a change, describe the change you would promote in the discussions among the 15 elected commission members and the reasons [why you favor said changes.

The SCPR has reserved space at the Akron [Stark County Law Library, 4th Floor, Stark County Office Building, 110 Central Plaza, Canton, Ohio] for consecutive Wednesdays in two time slots: 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. and 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.  

Slots are available beginning at the top of the hour (e.g. 12:00/2:30 p.m.) and continuing thereafter at 10 minute intervals.  It is critically important that participants be on time for the appointment time.

Available dates for recording candidate interviews are 09/16, 09/23 and 09/30.

Please e-mail the SCPR at tramols@att.net with your preferred time and two alternatives.  Appointments will be allocated on a “first come, first serve” basis.

Canton Councilman Edmond Mack has participated with the SCPR in the development of this project.  Both SCPR and Councilman Mack feel that it is very important for voters to understand each candidate’s positions pre-election so that Canton voters can make an informed choice at the polls on November 3rd.  The SCPR is committed to furthering this objective.

Thank you for your willingness to participate.

Martin Olson
Stark County Political Report
tramols@att.net
330 499 0465
330 838 2341 (fax)

Within 35 minutes of sending out the e-mail, the SCPR received this acceptance:

Martin Olson  Today at 12:57 PM
To:  Nicholas Mussulin

Your time:  09/16/2015 at 12:00 p.m.

Thank you for participating!

From: Nicholas Mussulin 
.... 

To: "tramols@att.net" <tramols@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 12:35 PM
Subject: Canton charter video

Thanks for the opportunity to video my input regarding Canton charter commission. I prefer 9/16/15 at any time. Thanks and please confirm time I am scheduled. Nick Mussulin. Cell: ... .

Kudos! to Mr. Mussulin for being the very first responder.

Soon after, this acceptance:

Martin Olson  Today at 1:52 PM

To:  Roland, Robert E.

Your scheduled time:  09/16 at 12:10 p.m.

Thank you for participating.

From: "Roland, Robert E." ... .
To: "tramols@att.net" <tramols@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 1:34 PM
Subject: Canton Charter

Martin:

Thank you for organizing this effort for the benefit of our City.  I am open any of the days that you have set aside.  Please schedule a 5 minute spot and confirm the date and time with me.  Thanks again.

Robert E. Roland

Another SCPR Kudos! to Mr. Roland.

The Report has not been able to obtain the e-mail addresses for the following candidates.

Jimmy E. Ball Sr.

Katherine L. Baylock

Rosemary Diamond

Peter D. Ferguson

Robert Fisher Jr.

Lemuel R. Green

Nathan Hand

Robert Harper

Patrick M. Harper

Timothy J. Leahy

Raymond Strain

Ryan E. Utterback

Eric Waldrop

Scott N. Warner

Accordingly, this blog will be their first notice of the availability of the opportunity to share their answers to the SCPR posed question(s).

Yours truly asks these folks to e-mail me at tramols@att.net in order to accept the offer which e-mail The Report will respond with a date and time for his/her video session.

A public service of The Stark County Political Report.

SCPR ELECTION SEASON KICKOFF: WERREN USES CANTON REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONNECTIONS FOR A POLITICAL ADVANTAGE IN LAKE TOWNSHIP?

Did Stephanie Werren use her

connections within the Stark County

Chamber of Commerce world to get

husband Curtis "prime time" at a

Uniontown/Lake Township

civic event? 

Will Angela Alexander come back to
haunt Kristen Guardado?

Labor Day has come and gone and according to American political history, it is time to get into Stark County politics in earnest.

The SCPR starts with the Guardado (a Democrat) v. Werren (a Republican) for a Canton Municipal Court judgeship as a consequence of veteran judge Stephen Belden running into political/legal/ethical difficulties last year which played into his resigning his judgeship in December, 2014.

Understandingly, Stephannie Werren wife of Kasich appointee to the Canton Municipal Court Curtis Werren is a main player in Curtis' effort to get elected as judge.

He failed to capitalize on a Kasich appointee to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to replace retired judge V. Lee Sinclair back in June, 2013.

In November, 2014 he lost very narrowly to Democrat and then a high level criminal prosecutor Chryssa Hartnett.  A loss that was predicted by The Report in a June, 2013 blog (LINK).

Stephanie was overheard - post election - at the conclusion of a North Canton City Council meeting saying words to the effect:  "that's not fair, Hartnett already had a job."

As if her husband was somehow "entitled" to being elected!

Just when you thought that entitlement attitudes belong pretty much exclusively to "on welfare types," no?

Such is not really the case. The rich and/or powerful oft times demonstrate the same entitlement attitude as the proverbial Welfare Queen and have the means to use taxpayer finance government office to satisfy that attitude.

Do Canton Municipal Court voters want someone with an entitlement attitude as a judge?

The Werrens are part of the Stark County poobah club in that his father (John Werren) and father-in-law (Randy Snow) are members of prestigious Stark County law firms and big-time rainmakers (bringing in clients and handsome fees for the firm).

Curtis Werren was once a part of the Day Ketterer law firm.

It seems to yours truly that Curtis Werren can't do much of anything in terms of making a way for oneself in life without his father (LINK) or father-in-law or governor or perhaps - as set forth below in this blog - the Chamber of Commerce lending a helping hand.

The SCPR is told that a number of his fellows at the bar think he was asked to move on from Day, Ketterer (after 18 years) because he was not attracting enough business to the law firm.

And where did he end up?

As executive director of the Stark County Branch of the American Red Cross!

We all should be so fortunate, no?
 
Anyhow, it seems clear that wife Stephanie is not about to let husband Curtis lose again after having received another "gift from 'political' heaven:" a gubernatorial appointment.

If Curtis loses to long time Canton Law Department prosecutor Kristen Guardado, one must think he is absolutely done as a prospect for Stark County elected office.

So the stakes in this election are about as high they ever get in any election.

The are reports that the ever loyal spouse Stephanie was blaming everybody but the Kitchen Sink for hubby's loss to Harnett.

The SCPR received an e-mail making a number of allegations re:  Werren and wife Stephanie with respect to:

• his imperial ways on transitioning into his second gubernatorial appointment, this time as Canton Municipal Court judge, and
• her having supposedly vented ire on various Stark County elected officials for not being helpful to him retaining office gained by his first gubernatorial appointment,

Which, if true, the SCPR thinks raises questions about minimal suitability of Werren to be a judge.

Yours truly did make contact with various principals that were in a position to know whether or not the allegations had any substance.

Yours truly's take on their responses is that they (those in a position to know) were not ever on or off the record going to climb into that political thicket and therefore The Report was unable to get confirmation on the allegations.

But in the assessment of The Report, there was enough equivocation in the responses that one cannot totally dismiss the notion that there just might be a significant

It was interesting that Werren's father-in-law (Randy Snow, who yours truly has known many, many years) was apparently so alarmed when word filtered out that the SCPR was checking out the allegations, e-mailed The Report requesting a telephone call, to wit:

 
The Report's recollection/take on the ensuing conversation was one was of the veiled threat variety in terms that the SCPR should do anything irresponsible.

Which, of course, is ludicrous from the get-go that he would suggest suggest such a thing.

The Report always checks out allegations to determine whether or not they are believable. 

Moreover, insisted that yours truly telephone Judge Werren for his account of things while refusing yours' truly request that he prevail on his daughter Stephannie to submit to a SCPR "on camera" interview on questions raised in the SCPR received e-mail about her post-election alledged recriminatory outbursts against those who she is said to be at partially responsible for her husband losing the close, close Hartnett election.

To which (re: Snow's demand), The Report responded:  "Oh no, the SCPR does not call anybody "on demand" whether by Snow or anybody else."

Werren - as The Report stated to Snow - can call yours truly anytime he wants and The Report will listen.  But that is all he or any other source can count on.

Neither father-in-law Snow nor anybody else has any leverage whatsoever with the SCPR in terms of heeding directives on how this blogger operates.


The SCPR is the ONLY truly independent media outlet in all of Stark County.

Yours truly thinks the Werrens/Snows et al travel social circles that elected Stark County Republicans and Democrats cover for each other.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the allegations in the e-mail were not confirmable and therefore never saw the light of day in this blog.

But that does not mean The Report has stopped digging.

Not at all!

And if The Report can confirm any of the specific allegations, you can bet your bottom dollar that any confirmed part of the e-mail will be published and Attorney Randy L. Snow can call and complain "until he is blue in the face."

There was several lines in the e-mail that were intriguing, to wit:

Further, Ms. Werren and Ms. Guardado are similar personalities who have no problem expressing their opinions in public.

Fireworks will certainly ensue. Stephanie Werren is, quite frankly, worth coverage on her own.

No one in local politics creates more drama or bad blood. Her pettiness is legendary. 

To wrap up this blog, the SCPR  deals with an incident which occurred in Lake Township which is a part of the Canton Municipal Court judicial district.

On August 19th, the Uniontown Police Department (UPD) celebrated opening a new UPD location at the former Lake Senior Center building.

Yours truly has lived in the UPD section of Lake Township since 1975.

Accordingly, in addition to publishing this blog since March, 2008, it piqued interest when in the August 28, 2015 edition to The Hartville News (to which yours truly has be subscribed for many of those 40 years) these photographs appeared, to wit:

Hmm?

Let's see.  Stephannie Werren is the newly appointed director of Leadership Stark County.

She undoubtedly wants to take advantage of every opportunity to ensure that her husband does not lose a second job, no?

The Werrens of course are "card-carrying Republicans" of the first order or Curtis would not have received two Kasich appointments.

Lake Township is one of the most Republican townships in all of Stark County.

All three trustees (Arnold, Erb and Stoll) are Republicans.  Chief of Police Harold Britt is a registered Republican.

The perfect opportunity for Republican candidate Curtis Werren to exploit to his political advantage, no?

Yet to hear it from Lake trustee John Arnold there was no effort on the part of taxpayer supported Lake government officialdom or the Chamber of Commerce to orchestrate a politically beneficial opportunity for Curtis Werren.

In an exchange of e-mails between the SCPR, Arnold and Chief Britt, the official position is that the event was generally made known but that the only Stark County official (appointed though he is and a political candidate for office) who showed up at the event and they imply but do not categorically say that it was mere happenstance and that there were no pre-event communication with Werren nor exclusion of Guardado or other more likely officials (e.g. one of the veteran judges of the Canton Municipal Court, or, the chief criminal prosecutor [who is not Guardado] and with who the UPD works with]) from the event.

Does anybody doubt that the photos above will show up in a flyer put out by the Werren campaign sometime in October?

Of course, the denials of a set up for Werren may be true.

But who is going to believe those denials?

The Stark County Political Report certainly does not.

To The Report, this is just one more example of a guy who needs all the help he can get to be viable in the political realm.

And Democrat Guardado may be the flip side of Werren.

In terms of pure qualifications, The Report thinks that Angela Alexander (LINK) was significantly more qualified to be a judge than Kristen Guardado.

But the "powers that be" in the Stark County "organized" Democratic Party were behind Guardado and the Alexander campaign post-election complained that party leaders were unfair to the Alexander candidacy in the May, 2015 Democratic primary election (LINK).

The perceived unfairness may cost Guardado in November's general election.

Here is what the SCPR wrote on May 13th:

So the choice for judge in the Canton Municipal Court District in November is are consummately politically connected candidates, no?

The Report thinks that Alexander would have had a tougher road to election than Guardado with her Summit County ties.

But if she could have won the primary like Harnett did by a scant 31 votes or even one vote, constituents of the Canton Municipal Court would have had a first rate judge like Stark Countians have in Harnett.

It's not that Guardado or Werren will be a deficient judge.

Both seem to connote that either as victor in November will be "run-of-the-mill."

Such is what political party loyalty as demonstrated by the two of them brings to government.

How many "run-of-the-mill" public officials can Stark County and its townships, villages, cities, boards of education, and court districts absorb without lowering the overall quality of government to an unacceptable level.

We see at the national level how utterly contemptuous the general public is becoming with political party loyalist candidates witness the surge of the Trump and Sanders campaigns.

And, moreover, right here in Stark County where it is likely - if the Ohio Supreme Court validates their candidacies, we are likely to see to "independents" elected as mayor of Stark County's major city and county seat (Canton) and Massillon.

As the SCPR sees it, Guardado and Werren are captives of their respective political parties.

Now isn't that just splendid for dispensers of justice?