STARK CO TO ISSUE CREDIT/PROCUREMENT CARDS TO SOME 30 TO 50 COUNTY EMPLOYEES. CAN AUDITOR HAROLD: PREVENT MISUSE? HOLD COUNTY TAXPAYERS HARMLESS ON ANY LOSSES?

VIDEOS

AUDITOR ALAN HAROLD

PRESENTS TO COMMISSIONERS

ON

ISSUING CREDIT/PROCUREMENT CARDS

TO

COUNTY EMPLOYEES 

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

AUDITOR ALAN HAROLD

ANSWERS

SCPR QUESTIONS

 ON

REASON FOR ISSUING CARDS

WHO IS TO GET CARDS

TIMETABLE FOR  ISSUING CARDS

SECURITY CONCERNS

IN LIGHT OF

CANTON CIC CREDIT CARD PROBLEM

MASSILLON CREDIT CARD PROBLEM

At Monday's Stark County commissioners' work session, the commissioners heard a presentation by Stark County auditor Alan Harold advocating that Stark County get into the credit card issuing business.

THE VIDEO PRESENTATION



THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL



Given the revelation in 2009 that then Stark County Chief Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci had stolen upwards of $3 million from Stark County taxpayers, when one hears a proposal to entrust a select group of county employees with the ability to trade on Stark County's credit questions of security rush to the head of the line of due diligence consideration.

While Frustaci did not steal from the county with the use of a credit card, he did build up "trust" among the-then treasurer Gary Zeigler, banking officials with banks with whom the county did business and others so that he was able to pull of his theft right under their  noses.

It is thought by some that Frustaci did the theft to support a gambling habit.

State auditing officials issued a report post-theft to the effect that it was their assessment that Treasurer Zeigler did not have in place adequate physical facility and policies, practices and procedures to go a long way towards preventing not only Frustaci but any county employee from stealing taxpayer funds.

Beyond the Frustaci situation, there have been at least two other incidents (the Canton CIC and in Massillon government) in which there have been questions as to whether or not adequate safeguards were in place to prevent misuse of credit by government employees.

Beyond Auditor Harold's presentation to commissioners and the publication of the proposed policy, The Stark County Political Report sat down with him immediately after his "to the commissioners" presentation in an Q&A session to focus on—in view of Stark County political subdivision difficulties with the security of taxpayer monies—security, "due diligence" aspects of the proposal.

The videos that follow are broken down on a single Q&A.

QUESTION #1

WHERE DID THE IDEA FOR A COUNTY ISSUED CREDIT CARD COME FROM?



QUESTION #2

DISTRIBUTION OF THE CARDS? WHO DECIDES WHO GETS CARDS? HOW MANY WILL BE ISSUED? TO WHOM, ETC. 



QUESTION #3

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN "CREDIT CARD" & "PROCUREMENT CARD"



QUESTION #4

TIMETABLE FOR DISPERSING CARDS


  
QUESTION #5

SECURITY CONCERNS

• PURCHASE ORDERS STILL NEEDED?
• MONITORING USE OF CARDS 
• REFERENCE:  CANTON CIC PROBLEM, MASSILLON GOVT PROBLEM

As one will note from the foregoing videotaped Q&A with Auditor Harold, he does not seem all that concerned about potential misuse of  Stark County government issued credit/procurement cards.

The SCPR thinks he may be a bit to optimistic on that point.

The Report thinks that part of the process of determining who does and who does not get cards should include documentation that those getting taxpayer funded credit/procurement cards have been vetted for any personal history of financial difficulties and any lifestyle that might tempt a county employee to misuse a card.

It's all well and good that Harold has confidence in the Stark County prosecutor's office to recover funds lost through misuse of the cards, but if the employee in judgment proof (i.e. has not assets for the county to be made whole for); the best attorney in the world will be of no help.

Perhaps, if not already in place,  bonding/insurance should be obtained to ensure that in the case of misuse, the county will not be out any taxpayer provided funds.

And beyond that, Stark County's delegation to the Ohio General Assembly should look into (if legislation is not already in existence) department heads approving issuance of cards personally liable specifically on local government credit/procurement cards as sort of a guarantor of the safety of taxpayer provided funds.

ROUND 5: JAKMIDES V. FERRERO, AND THE DEBATE WINNER-ACCORDING TO THE SCPR-WAS?

UPDATED (ADDED TO) 09:00 AM

VIDEOS

(Average Video Length:  07:00)

THE NEXT CHAPTER OFFICIALS

Dan Braxton

Chad Minor

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

CANDIDATES

John Ferrero

&

Jeff Jakmides

 Opening Statements

The Heroin Epidemic

Drug & Mental Health Courts

Decriminalization of Recreational Marijuana

Eliminating Revealing of Criminal Record

on

Employment Application

Institutionalization & Poverty

Adequacy of Public Defender Funding

Pursuing the Death Penalty

Reparations for the Wrongfully Convicted

Closing Statements

On Saturday evening (May 14, 2016), Next Chapter Bookstore located in the "Arts in Stark" District of Canton held the second in a series of debates between candidates for "countywide" office in which 13 year incumbent prosecutor squared off against veteran criminal defense and family law attorney Jeff Jakmides in a spirited debate that centered on the heroin epidemic problem that plagues Stark County, Ohio and likely the entire American body politic landscape.

This event complements the four blogs of the SCPR series (tabbed as being "rounds") on the Jakmides/Ferrero matchup which readers can access through the following links:

• Blog of March 28 (LINK),
• Blog of March 30 (LINK),
• Blog of April 19 (LINK),
• Blog of May, 6 (LINK),

The previous four previous SCPR blogs (to today's) centered on:

• their personal/legal backgrounds,
• the candidates' positions on "direct indictments" (and claimed by Jakmides huge taxpayer dollar savings to be had), and 
• what the two of them would do as prosecutor (or in Ferrero's case, has done) with respect to the many, many "charged with crimes" persons who live in our Stark County neighborhoods but have not been served with arrest warrants,

Any discussion between the candidates prior to Saturday's debate was voice and written communications in response to SCPR questions.

By The Stark County Political Report's assessment, the clear winner in the Next Chapters sponsored face-to-face was challenger Jakmides.

But before going through the debate question by question in a video/commentary format, this blog focuses on the good folks at Next Chapter.

Take a few minutes (7:52) to get acquainted with the background of the genesis of and the future plans that Next Chapter has for providing Stark Countians "in the candidates own words" as basis for voting for one candidate as opposed to the other.

Speaking for Next Chapter is Dan Braxton:



Braxton, a motion graphics/graphics designer, has in his short period of time of being in Canton has put his skills to work promoting Canton and Stark County.

Take a look at this video published by Braxton on YouTube as an example of his work.



And here is Braxton's colleague Chad Minor (who with his wife have committed themselves to bringing hope to Canton for a better day [LINK])  adding to the background of The Next Chapter's getting involved in sponsoring debates for candidates seeking election to various countywide public office this coming November.



Next Chapter has put on a Q&A for Stark County commissioner candidates Richard Regula (the Republican incumbent) had his Democratic opponent John Mariol who is currently Canton Ward 7 councilman.

On June 25th, Republican Bill Smith (currently a Canton Township trustee) and Democrat Stephen Slesnick, a term-limited-out state representative as December 31st.

Now to the debate of this past Saturday between Democratic incumbent John Ferrero and his Republican challenger Jeff Jakmides (a rematch of a 2004 race won by Ferrero).

INTRO & OPENING STATEMENTS




QUESTION #1

What does [each candidate] see as the benefits/shortcomings  of the current strategy of addressing the heroin epidemic?



QUESTION #2

How do [the candidates] view the effectiveness of the drug and mental health courts currently operating in Stark County?  As prosecutor, how would you improve them?



 
QUESTION #3

Candidates stand on the possible decriminalization of recreational Marijuana?  If use of Marijuana is not decriminalized, the candidates views on sentencing on conviction?



QUESTION #4

In view of President Obama's initiative of the matter, where does [each candidate] stand on the issue of disclosing criminal records on employment applications?



QUESTION #5

On the topic of institutionalization, what ideas do [each of the candidates] to curb the cycle of poverty generally associated with institutionalization?



QUESTION #6

With respect to fairness and justice in [Stark] County, do [the candidates] believe that the Public Defender's office is adequately funded?  If yes, why?  If not, what would [the candidates recommend?



QUESTION #7

As county prosecutor, how strenuously would [each candidate pursue the death penalty in appropriate cases?  What [does each candidate] consider appropriate cases?



QUESTION #8

Hypothetically, [each of the candidates as prosecutor] charge and see convicted someone who is later proven innocent; what reparations do you think would be appropriate and what are [the candidates'] thoughts about such circumstances?



CLOSING STATEMENTS



SCPR ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATE

John Ferrerro has been a prosecutor (Massillon and Stark County) for 28 years.

And it showed in spades Saturday evening in terms of the lack of vigor in his handling of questions.

His Republican opponent was much more animated and obviously "chomping at the bit" to get going with a style of leadership which is likely to infuse the prosecutor's office with an energy and determination that Stark Countians have not seen in years.

Jeff Jakmides makes a telling point that what Ferrero has really been, at least as Stark County prosecutor, is an administrator.

Effective and skilled trial lawyers who lead by example are far more rare that competent or better administrators.

Ferrero left unchallenged Jakmides's statement that Prosecutor Ferrero has not prosecuted one single case during his years as Stark County prosecutor.

Though its been 35 years since Jakmides has been a prosecutor (under Jim Unger), he apparently has more prosecutorial trial experience than Ferrero.

If true, isn't that amazing?

Counting his work as one of Stark County's leading criminal defense attorneys with a heavy dose of family law practice added, there is no question that Jakmides is vastly better qualified and experienced as a trial attorney than incumbent prosecutor Ferrero.

He has the indicia from his prolific trial experience to be a "lead by example" prosecutor and should entrust the ministerial side of the office to an efficient and effective administrator who likely would not be a lawyer.

The implication of Jakmides' style is that he will be lead counsel in the tough cases that every prosecutor's office experiences from time to time.

It could be that Prosecutor Ferrero eventually will come up with better reasons why he deserves to be and Stark County would be better off if he were to be reelected.

For those reasons were largely missing on Saturday.

Ferrero conceded that Jakmides (with a tone of sarcasm, The Report thinks) as compared to himself was the expert on Heroin addiction in Stark County by virtue of his training (i.e. his master's degree in corrections and a former probation officer) and as a consequence of his representing many, many clients charged with drug offenses.

A number of county law enforcement officials and judges say that Heroin addiction is Stark County's number one problem.

He may have said it "tongue in cheek," but in "on-the-face-of-it" conceding Jakmides' has better credentials to deal will the county's illicit drug epidemic, John Ferrero seemingly made a strong case for Stark Countians to think of Jakmides as being the man to make a dent in the festering Heroin problem.

So on two counts:  the trial experience factor and being "in the know" on how to deal with Heroin addicts and their suppliers, Jeff Jakmides—the SCPR assesses—had the better of it on Saturday at Next Chapter.

But Saturday was Saturday.

Maybe Stark sitting prosecutor just had a bad night.

November is still over five months away.

Time will tell!

A final note.

Kudos! to Rising Hope (LINK to RisingHope website)/Next Chapter for hosting Saturday night's public service event.

"JUDGE EDDIE AT BAT:" IS STRIKE "3" HEADING ELUM'S WAY?

Updated/Revised:  11:20 a. m

May 6, 2015 has come and gone for Massillon Municipal Court judge Edward J. Elum and now the wait to see what the future has in store for him.

 



It could be up to a year before we know anything about the outcome of last Friday's hearing if the October, 2012 decision on whether or not Elum should be disciplined is any indication of the timeframe for the current charges to be resolved.

The SCPR considers the 2012 decision to have been "Strike Two" in Stark County's version of "Casey at Bat" (LINK).

For the Board of Professional Conduct heard that matter in September, 2011 and the decision on the Board's recommendation was not forthcoming until October 18, 2012.



In a report for the Massillon Independent

• prepared by a Columbus-based journalist [David Harpster], Harpster is a former Massillon Independent sports reporter who now lives in Columbus.

it was reported that a contrite Elum stipulated to  violations of:

• Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2: A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
  
• Judicial Conduct Rule 3.1(C): A judge shall not participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality.
  
• Judicial Conduct Rule 3.1(D): A judge shall not engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive.
  
• Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(D): A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

It appears that it will be May or June of 2017 before we know if Casey Judge Eddie has struck out.

If the October, 2012 decision sanctioning Elum with a suspended suspension of his license, was Strike "2" as the SCPR proffers that it was, what was Strike "1"?

For the SCPR's part is is when Elum embarrassed then Attorney General Tony Celebrezze wit Celebrezze having to apologize for Elum (then an attorney general office employee as a lawyer) in doing political work for then candidate for Ohio's then 49th House District from the AG's office.

From a January 5, 2015 SCPR Blog:

This from 1988:  [LINK]

From Columbus Dispatch Archive:

1) CELEBREZZE APOLOGIZES FOR ELUM'S ERROR

Date: August 28, 1988
Publication: Columbus Dispatch, The (OH) Page: 6D
Word Count: 457
Document ID: 11B95F72895A9F70

Ohio Attorney General Anthony J. Celebrezze Jr. apologized for "inappropriate behavior" by one of his lawyers who used state facilities to campaign for a candidate for the Ohio House of Representatives.

State Rep. Charles "Red" Ash, R-North Industry, complained to Celebrezze that Assistant Attorney General Edward J. Elum was going too far to promote Johnnie A. Maier of Massillon, Ash's Democratic opponent in the Nov. 8... (reference LINK) 

Here are links to a number of blogs that the SCPR has written which include Elum that detail a number of sins that some Massillonians think Elum has committed over his years as a Massillon community leader:

• March 8, 2010,
• March 16, 2010 (repeated "link" as source for pre-March 16th SCPR blogs)

Maier, Jr. is now the Massillon clerk of courts and as such is the right hand man of Elum. In fact, Maier testified as to Elum's overall character in October, 2012 decided ethics complaint on the judge.

Which is interesting to me inasmuch as I have heard circa 2002 through 2005 Maier, Jr. complain about the easily irritated Judge Edward J. Elum.

Being a lawyer at the time, in 1988 the SCPR thinks Elum should have been brought up on ethics charges going back to the 1988 incident.

Hence, the 1988 matter qualifies as Strike "1" in the book of The Report.

So it remains to be seen whether or not the Board of Professional Conduct/Ohio Supreme Court throws Elum a pitch he cannot it.

The SCPR for thinks that the gig should be up for Elum.

The Report believes that the ethical charges that Elum has been brought upon on are merely the tip of the iceberg of what he could have been brought up on over his many years as a judge.

And who knows.

He may have in his record a number of complaints in the "not for public view" file of Ohio's Disciplinary Counsel that Disciplinary Counsel did not move forward on.

The SCPR believes that it is likely that such is the case.

It has been reported that access to Elum is being restricted so as to protect Elum from himself (the SCPR's interpretation).

That in and of itself is clear indication to yours truly that the Ohio Supreme Court ought to foreclose the possibility that Elum continue to serve as a judge notwithstanding his many good works in Stark County society.

While lawyers are typically dealt with in much harsher ways than judges by Disciplinary Counsel, the Board of Professional Conduct and indeed, the Ohio Supreme Court; the Elum case merits a pitch being thrown which proves unhitable, un-foulable.

A called or swinging "Strike-3" is the only thing that will put Elum off-the-bench (judicial) and onto-the-bench (baseball) which is where the SCPR thinks he ought to be because of his inability to manage himself.

IN HIS "HEART OF HEARTS," MAYOR BERNABEI WANTS TO BE A POLICEMAN?

JUST LIKE HIS PREDECESSOR WILLIAM J. HEALY, II?

Who can forget the episode in the life of William J. Healy, II as mayor of Canton when he decided to play the role of policeman in making a traffic stop.

On July 2, 2013, Healy used an "unmarked" Canton City Police Department vehicle to stop a motorist who the former mayor spotted running a stop sign.  While he did not issue a citation or arrest the driver, he did express his safety concerns.

And the Ohio attorney general's office cleared Healy of having done anything unlawful.

But it was fun to write about as suggested by this graphic which was the lead on a July 8, 2013 blog.

At the time, Healy was under a great deal of pressure from some Cantonians to beef up policing in Canton to 175 officers.  A number that had been the norm at the time he took office on January 1, 2008.  But over the years of his first term and into the second (January 1, 2012), the number slipped considerably off that 175 standard.

Some of us thought perhaps Healy frustrated in his inability to keep the staffing of the Canton Police Department (CPD) at 175, on July 2, 2013 decided to take matters into his own hands to demonstrate that he was just as into policing and security for Canton as any of his critics if not moreso.

It could be that in his "heart of hearts" he saw himself has a policeman of sorts ensuring the safety and security of all of us.

Well, current mayor Thomas M. Bernabei, who, many of us, fancy to be heads and his shoulders above Healy in terms their respective qualities, demonstrated in the vicinity of the security checkpoint area of Monday night's Canton City Council meeting that he too may possess a "heart of hearts" penchant to be a law enforcement official.

In what turned out to be a humorous incident, as I entered the security checkpoint at Canton City Hall on this past Monday evening, after placing my briefcase containing the SCPR camera and other important material) needed to cover Stark County government and politics, I was notified by
a officer who stood nearby that I needed to be wanded and frisked even though no alarm bells had been triggered.

Knowing Bernabei from the days I have covered him as a Stark County commissioner (mid November, 2010 through December, 31, 2015), I should have known something was up.

During that time span, the SCPR witnessed and recorded many Thomas M. Bernabei's "unique" expressions of humor at the expense of many officials, citizens and media attending Stark County commissioner meetings.

The "real" officer  on duty at the checkpoint asked me to turnaround to be wanded and frisked.

Being the "cut-up" that he often is, guess who stepped in to do the frisking part of the operation?

You've got it!  Canton mayor turned security official Thomas M. Bernabei.

The incident spread like wildfire at Canton City Hall.

Such is life with Mayor Bernabei.

Undoubtedly, those who work with him day-in, day-out have to always be on the lookout for some Bernabei humor and hilarious incidents that I experience Monday evening.

Maybe, just maybe, Thomas M. Bernabei would rather be a policeman as a matter of his "heart of hearts" than mayor of Canton.

But this particular incident may have implications of more than that.

Especially these days.

For Bernabei himself told me that grants providing funding for a number of Canton police officers will be expiring soon.

Could it be that going forward, there will be a real need for the mayor double down at Canton City Council meetings as a security presence?

Just kidding, Tom!

IS STATE REP. CHRISTINA HAGAN UNTRUSTWORTHY?

Were Christina Hagan to send The Stark County Political Report a press release on the status of her effort to be re-reelected 50th Ohio House District state representative, The Report likely would print it word-for-word.

But, of course, I would actually read any such release word-for-word even it I trusted the writer.

As a journalist, I am very much of the Ronald Reagan school of "trust but verify."

The print word-for-word is not an absolute.  In some instances there is a need to blank out "known to be untruthful/inaccurate information."  Or, at a minimum, to interlineate the actual facts of the matter.

It seems to me that the good folks who own and publish The Hartville News (HN, News)—a newspaper I have subscribed to most of my 41 years of living in Lake Township— trusted Christina Hagan too much.

In its bailiwick, the News a does terrific job of keeping Hartville and Lake Township readers informed about community matters.

However, the publishers/editors should be very wary of getting into journalistic areas in which "angels fear to tread."

One of those areas is allowing politicians free reign to say this or that thing about their accomplishments as politicians.

Such self-aggrandizing access is likely in my experience with the politicos to result in a unvarnished political propaganda piece that goes unchallenged by the exercise of any editorial vetting process except of course by the likes of The Stark County Political Report.

On April 27th, the HN published a column sent in by Christina which contained "commonly known to be untruthful/inaccurate information."

Either the HN folks assumed Hagan would do "due diligence" to ensure that her column not include untruthful/inaccurate information or did not know what just about anybody with any sense of awareness of the history of Stark County government operations has known since June 25, 2010 (LINK):

Because the HN trusted Representative Hagan to do "due diligence" in order to be accurate with information contained in her column, this local weekly periodical—at the very least—ended up with "egg on its face."

Here is a correction to Hagan's column which The Hartville News published last Wednesday:

Notice that there is nary of word from Representative Hagan on how she could make such error.

Moreover, in the correction there is no reciting of the braggadocio by politician Hagan:  "Citizens were wronged, and now we know that there are safeguards to protect House District 50 and Ohio from such financial harm occurring again."

A better approach for Hagan would have been to use the language of a June 17, 2014 press release (LINK).

But even the claims in the Hagan press release deserve journalistic scrutiny and challenging questions.

The real reason that taxpayer funds are more secure in the Stark County treasury are the changes in policies, practices, procedures and the physical facilities instituted by Zeigler successor Alex Zumbar.

In fact, at a recent Stark County commissioner meeting, Zumbar reminded commissioners of the mess in terms of policies, practices, procedures and physical facilities he inherited and that he and his treasury team of leadership as a matter of reality—not in the sense of "how great I am" (Christina Hagan)—had made many modifications to secure county held taxpayer monies.

The Stark County Political Report has endeavored to delve into how the inaccurate information got into Hagan's column.  This e-mail sent to Hagan yesterday:

But Hagan has yet to respond.  And it is likely that she will not even though she says she is a proponent of transparent government.  (LINK)

The SCPR's take on Hagan is that she surrounds and subjects herself only to those who do not ask her challenging questions.

The Hartville News folks would have done themselves and Hagan a huge good turn if they had wrinkled their foreheads and brought to her attention the inaccuracy of her Zeigler statement.

And, apparently, Hagan herself did not screen the column for accuracy.

The Report suspects that the piece was actually written by a Hagan staffer who did not nail down the actual facts of the situation.

Even if so, the buck stops at the desk of State Representative Christina Hagan.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO W. SCOTT OELSLAGER'S "ZEAL" ON OPEN RECORDS?

Updated & Added to Monday,  May 9, 2016 at:  7:35 a.m.

(SOURCE:  PHOTOS OHIO OGA WEBSITE)

It appears to The Stark County Political Report that since he has moved in the political big time on being named as chairman of the Ohio Senate finance committee, 29th Ohio Senate and Representative W. Scott Oelslager (a member of the Ohio General Assembly since 1985 not withstanding term limits) has gone MISSING IN ACTION on Open Records legislation.

If one goes online and searches for Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43:  Availability of Public Records for Inspection and Copying one finds the following as legislation passed by the Ohio General Assembly as affecting 149.43 going back to 2004.

If Oelslager has a "claim to fame" as a legislator, it has been his legendary work on Open Records legislation.

In recent years  Ohio Auditor Dave Yost (LINK), Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (LINK) and in recent days Ohio Senate president Keith Faber (LINK) to take the lead on empowering Ohioans who want to participate in holding all levels of Ohio government accountable.

An interesting note on Faber.  Being term limited out (sound familiar? learned from Oelslager and Schuring?) as of December 31, 2016, he is running for the Ohio House so as to have a political perch (some think) for him to run in 2018 for Ohio auditor.

There is much left to be done on beefing up citizen empowerment in Ohio and Stark County (just look this blog [LINK] about North Canton law director Tim Fox and his enablers [i.e. most members of North Canton City Council, Stark County worst city council]) to bring the point home right to Stark County.

A recent Akron Beacon Journal editorial (LINK) makes telling points about the deficiency of Ohio's Open Records law as a consequence (the SCPR's opinion) of Scott Oelslager having made his legislative name on advocating for citizen empowerment only to jettison pushing for improvemenint and extension of law for something more fitting for the "powerful" finance committee chairman.

While Faber is at it in correcting the deficiencies on Open Records, he would take away from Tim Fox one of his favorite refrains in denying to some North Canton requesters of North Canton information, to wit:  "We only have to provide existing records (apparently meaning sitting in North Canton filing cabinets in 'written' form)."

In 2016 many "should be available to the public records" only exist in electronic form which are easily transmitted to any requester.

For Mayor David Held and a majority of North Canton council to allow Fox to dodge the spirit and intent of the Open Records law as it exists is an outrage and the North Canton voting public should take note of the elected officials' enabling of Fox at next years elections. 

Faber can end the Fox's toying with requesters over hypertechnical distinctions by putting clear language in to a modified Open Records law that make it abundantly clear that Fox's dodge is not a valid legal basis for denying "only in electronic form" information to the requesting public.

To The Report, enhancing and facilitating citizen access to public records so as to make government officials more accountable to the voting/taxpaying citizenry is of the highest order of importance in our democratic/republican system of government and Oelslager's apparent abandonment of his "what brought me to the dance" of government effective prominence is a  step down for him notwithstanding his current high-falutin finance committee chairmanship which according to Ballotpedia has made him a behemoth campaign finance fundraiser:

Oelslager has seemed to lose his interest in things Stark County unless there some glad-handing to be done or some honor to be bestowed.

A couple of years ago, Canton City Council president Allen Schulman initiated a series of pleas for
federal and state legislators to come to Canton and weigh-in on what might be done to help Canton government with remedies for the draconian cuts in local government funding by the Kasich administration and Republican supermajority dominated Ohio General Assembly.

Oelslager's response:  "I'm too busy."

A sure sign that W. Scott Oelslager considers his de facto primary abode as being the "Columbus political beltway" and not Stark County, no?

Oelslager does not seem on the face of personal interaction to be excessively personally politically ambitious.

But such could be a misreading of the 31 years in the Ohio General Assembly Oleslager.

Stark County's "organized" Democrats has only been able to offer "cannon fodder" in opposition to Oelslager and he narrowly defeated "now" federal judge James Gwin in 1985.

And perhaps Oelslager has gotten the "big head" over his easy, sometimes uncontested, pathway to become one of if not the longest standing members of the Ohio General Assembly (OGA).

He and Kirk Schuring (Republican, the 49th Ohio House District) have played a version of musical chairs with one another to avoid the intended consequences of the voters in 1992 (and, to boot, it was a Republican idea as a mechanism to wrest control of the OGA from the-then dominate Vern  Riffe built Democratic majority) in voting in eight year term limits in both the House and Senate.

In the Oelslager/Schuring version of musical chairs, each gets a seat; just a different seat and thereby defying the intent of Ohio voters.

Moreover, it is said by some that early on in his political career—as a follow on to his being an aide to the-then Congressman Ralph Regula, his ambition was to be the successor to Regula as congressman from the old 16th District that included all of Stark County.

It is further said that he got so brazen in his quest as manifested in suggestions that Ralph retire that he annoyed Regula's wife Mary to the degree that he, Oleslager, was pushed out of the Regula inner circle.

The SCPR recently asked son Richard Regula (now a Stark County commissioner) about the Oelslager/Regula contention and he denied that such was the case.

Nonetheless, The Report's sources are of such a quality that the Richard Regula denial is taken as a politically correct thing to do.

The political playing around with fundamental citizen rights such as a meaningful and easily accessible public records as a basis to hold elected officeholders and appointed government officials accountable is a primary ingredient in the growing disaffection, disrespect and disregard that many Ohioans/Stark Countians have towards government these days.

ROUND 4: JAKMIDES VERSUS FERRERO, NOVEMBER 2016

AUDIO

Jakmides

on

Ferrero Upsurge of Direct Indictments

Canton Municipal Court

From now through the November general election, The Stark County Political Report will be covering the Stark County prosecutor's race in detail.

A goal of the SCPR is to provide the Stark County voting public with thoroughgoing information to base a vote upon in voting for various elective office this coming November.

So far the SCPR has opened up a far ranging consideration of the election for Stark County prosecutor:

• Blog of March 28 (LINK),
• Blog of March 30 (LINK),
• Blog of April 19 (LINK),

But the focus has been on Prosecutor John Ferrero's reluctance to full fledged direct indictment program.

Another issue which Ferrero has refused to address, is the role that the prosecutor and for that matter the sheriff should be taking to get accused felons and misdemeants off Stark County streets and out of our neighborhoods and into the county's criminal justice system so that a final determination can be made as to whether or not they belong in the general citizen population.

Here is a copy of an e-mail the SCPR has sent Ferrero:

Martin Olson <tramols@att.net>
Apr 18 at 9:05 AM
To:  Ferrero

John,

You undoubtedly read The Rep's recent article on the backlog of warrants among various police jurisdictions across Stark County.

My questions to you:

Is the Stark County prosecutor's office doing anything in terms of working with these police agencies to abate the backlog and to create ways and means to keep the service of warrants on a no significant backlog status.

If so, what specifically is being done.

If   not, why not?

Thanks,
Martin/SCPR

Though his office is the recipient of several millions of taxpayer dollars as part of the 2009 passed dedicated Justice System Sales Tax (1/2 cent), Ferrero apparently feels that as one of Stark County's leading law enforcement officials (Sheriff George T. Maier, being the other) has no role to play in getting those charged of crimes into Stark's criminal justice system for a resolution of guilt or innocence.

Ferrero did, however, respond to the continuing dispute between him and November Republican political opponent Jeff Jakmides as to whether or not Ferrero has been all over the map on the matter of instituting a countywide direct indictment program which has the potential to save many tax dollars for other public beefit purposes.

The Jakmides campaign has offered the following as evidence to The Stark County Political Report of  Jakmides' claimed Ferrero' willy-nilly approach to implementing direct indictment in Stark County.



Ferrero countered with the following:



The SCPR will leave up to the reader as to whom to believe on the issue of whether or not Ferrero has been consistent.

Jakmides in this audio of a message he left with me yesterday credits:

• himself, 
• The Stark County Political Report, and 
• Ron Ponder of Points to Ponder (WHBC 1480 Newstalk)

with having caused a change in Canton Municipal Court criminal case process procedures as saving taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars.

The audio:



The Report has asked Canton Municipal Court officials to validate/invalidate Jakmides claim with actual comparative numbers.

Here are the actual numbers:

A thank you to Canton Municipal Court Chief Deputy Clerk of Courts Kody Gonzalez for providing the information.

Also weighing-in on the matter of the "status call" on preliminary hearings is evidenced by this communication issued by the Canton Municipal Court judges a couple of weeks ago:



What needs to happened with the Jakmides/Ferrero contest is for the two of them to either do a joint interview with the SCPR and/or Ponder on this very issue.

Undoubtedly, Jakmides will agree.

But John Ferrero likely will not.

One of the questions the SCPR would put to Ferrero on an "on camera" interview would be:  Is the person accused in the following Ferrero Facebook page entry entitled to have legal counsel in the American system of justice:

 Under questioning, Ferrero would have to backtrack big time.

The Report is led to believe that Ferrero rankled the folks at the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel's office over his Facebook comment.

The SCPR thinks it is an unacceptable campaign tactic in light of our American legal tradition (something that Prosecutor Ferrero without a doubt knows) that everybody is entitled to his/her day in court and that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty to a reasonable doubt by a judge or jury, as the case may be.

John Ferrero should issue a retraction of the statement Facebook and tell Stark Countians that Jakmides in representing the accused person was doing what lawyers of the highest ethics do and those who refuse to represent the unpopular are of questionable ethics insofar as the decision rests solely on "what will people think of me."

To try to make a political opponent doing his job as a lawyer an object of citizen contempt is reprehensible, contemptible and for those of us who understand, appreciate and cherish our system of justice and was way over the bounds of propriety of lawyer conduct and therefore is not fair game in a political contest.

Publicly apologize Mister Ferrero!

The Report thinks Prosecutor Ferrero is among that group of Stark County political subdivision (villages, cities, townships and boards of education) that either:

• is selective of what issues they will or will not address for the benefit of the voting public,
• whom (perceived to be friendly or unfriendly) they will take questions from, or, and worst of all not take any questions at all from anybody,

as they view themselves unaccountable to the Stark County public and/or the electorate in their respective political subdivisons.

Ferrero like Canton councilman Thomas West who is running for state representative in the 49th Ohio House District against Republican Dan McMasters probably thinks he has an electoral advantage over Jakmides and therefore cherry picks what he will respond to and to whom he will respond.

The SCPR thinks that as elected officials Ferrero, West and those of that ilk should in the mind of voters  being put on a "suspect" list of candidates for Stark County political office when the seemingly "unaccountable" ones refuse to answer questions period or who will take questions from only some media outlets that they deem friendly towards if not supportive of their candidacies.

Such are the insecurities of many candidates for political office.

Not folks we should want in office, no?

What are they hiding from? should be the question that voters ask themselves.

For today it is a media person.  Tomorrow that same official will not be willing to be accountable to an everyday citizen who asks embarrassing or penetration questions of them.

Ferrero has shown some willingness to engage.  But as said above, he will pick and choose when to answer.

Until John Ferrero:

• opens up to all questions from whatever source on his performance in office and issues relevant to his being one of Stark's chief law enforcement officials, and
• raises the ethical level of his campaign,

 Stark Countians should place him on a high level "to be scrutinized carefully" list.
 There is still time for Prosecutor John Ferrero to redeem himself.

But, will he?