IT TOOK READING THE ACTUAL COMPLAINT TO FIGURE OUT THAT STARK CO. TREASURER ZEIGLER (THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY) ACCUSED FORMER BD. OF COMMISSIONERS (BOSLEY, MEEKS AND FERGUSON) OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT. HMM?

One of the dangers of living in a one-newspaper-town which is also Stark County's only countywide newspaper (The Repository) is that readers are at the mercy how writers choose to write their stories.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, it is important news that Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler through his attorney in a August 29, 2011 court pleading for civil damages accuses/alleges that former Commissioners Todd Bosley, Steven Meeks and Pete Ferguson (who also sits on the current board) of having committed a crime (a first degree misdemeanor) under Ohio Revised Section 2921.45, in removing Zeigler from office on August 23, 2010 - to wit:

2921.45 Interfering with civil rights.

(A) No public servant, under color of his office, employment, or authority, shall knowingly deprive, or conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of interfering with civil rights, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Effective Date: 01-01-1974

Of course, in the SCPR readers get unvarnished reality.  Some material may make for uncomfortable reading.  But those who want to be fully informed, brace up for the reality of life.

The Report has no idea why The Rep writer(s) wrote up this portion of the interpretation of Zeigler's complaint the way it was.  It appears to have been done the way it was done for aesthetic/euphemistic purposes.  It could have been an oversight?  The answer lies in the mind of the writer(s).  Who can go there and figure that out?

The SCPR thinks that the reading public has the right to know - as near as possible - the real deal.

Yours truly has read and re-read (and using word search)  the referenced piece and finds no mention of the "violates his [Zeigler's] constitutional rights" in the context of being an alleged violation of Ohio criminal law.

It could be that Hoover (and, perhaps, Wang - Hoover lists Wang as a contributor [whatever that means]) wanted to write about the criminal allegations but were overridden by higher ups.  Again, this is something that The Rep nor the writer(s) would not likely share with Stark Countians.  Remember, Canton is a "one-newspaper-town."

One could say:  "Well, the general public can go down to the courthouse and look at the pleadings themselves."  And they could.  But, realistically, how many will?

Despite being a non-commercial, one person operation, the SCPR does its very best to say it like it "really" is!