(VIDEO: COM'R BERNABEI) PROSECUTOR FERRERO REFUSES CONLEY DEMAND TO FILE SUIT AGAINST STARK COMMON PLEAS JUDGE FRANK FORCHIONE ON ORDER FOR STUDER FINE DONATION TO SANDY HOOK VICTIMS. WILL CONLEY'S CLIENT (MARCELLI) FOLLOW THROUGH WITH A SUIT OF HIS OWN?

 VIDEO

COMMISSIONER & BOARD PRESIDENT

TOM BERNABEI

EXPLAINS

WHY

EXECUTIVE SESSION CANCELLED

CRAIG CONLEY FORCED CANCELLATION?

From a January 25, 2013 SCPR blog:

Reacting to an order recently put on by Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione in the Scott D. Studer case that as part of his sentence on having pled guilty in multiple counts Illegal Use of a Minor in a Nudity-Oriented Material or Performance [R.C. 21907.323(A)(1)](F2) included a requirement that he pay a fine of $5,000.00 "to be forwarded the victims of Newtown, Connecticut tragedy," [civic activist and local attorney] Conley fired off a letter (January 23rd) to Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero asking him, on behalf of a client, to institute a civil action against Forchione to recover the money to the Stark County treasury.

Readers will recall as reported in local media that Studer (a former Jackson High School freshman basketball coach) had videotaped numerous student athletes (since 2005) taking showers.

Fast forward to today.

Conley was poised to have his office administrative person at the filing station of the Stark County clerk of courts this morning at 8:30 a.m. in order to file a law suit on behalf of client Thomas Marcelli against Forchione should the action demanded of Stark prosecutor John Ferrero go unheeded.

For more background on the demand, here are links to two prior blogs written by the SCPR detailing the reasons why Conley  has pressed Ferrero's office for action.

• Blog of January 25, 2013, and 
• Blog of January 29, 2013

Well, yesterday at 2:15 p.m.  Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Ross Rhodes (chief of the civil division) wrote Conley this letter of refusal to sue Forchione:

Rhodes letter was enough to give Conley "pause for thought."

Why?

Conley says so that he has time to read and analyze the Rhodes legal citation of Wilson v. Neu (LINK).

Moreover, Conley says that if his analysis leads him believe that Rhodes is correct in his statement "it is doubtful that such an action can be maintained," then a suit will not be filed.

The case has to do with whether or not a judge is immune from lawsuit for the type of order that Judge Forchione made in the Studer case.

Other important language in the Rhodes letter for Conley to digest has to do with a possible determination that the prosecutor's office deems itself to have a conflict in interest (as previously posited by Conley and implication that the Board of Stark County Commissioners would become a party in interest because appointing a special counsel  (and the appointment of a visiting judge) would entail expenditures from the county treasury.

Presumably, Rhodes is setting up a justification for whomever serves as counsel to qualify to meet in executive session with the commissioners as the case proceeds.

The SCPR believes that impliedly he is suggesting to Conley that he could be responsible to reimburse the county for those costs should he proceed with the case and lose.

Another interesting development in the matter today was the cancellation by commissioners of a scheduled executive session to discuss the Conley demand.

On Tuesday Conley wrote the commissioners (excerpts) to wit:

Bingo!

The first thing asked by President Tom Bernabei when he convenes a commissioners meeting is whether or not any amendments to the meeting agenda are requested by parties to the meeting.

Chief Administrator Mike Hanke piped in that he did indeed have an amendment.  The amendment was to excise the executive session from the agenda.  (see video below).

Even if Conley concludes that he does not have an effective means to hold Judge Forchione accountable for what he believes the judge was not entitled as a matter of law to do, Conley performed a public service by raising the issue.

The Report believes that most everyday Stark Countians support Forchione's order.  So what Conley has stirred up is not a popular thing for him to have done. 

The Report takes Conley at his word.

He raised the issue not because he personally objected to a charity being benefited.  But because he is first and foremost dedicated to the "rule of law."

Even those who support what Judge Forchione did should honor our system of jurisprudence and respect those who have the courage to take unpopular actions.

After the meeting, the SCPR sat down and talked to Commissioner Bernabei about the decision to remove the executive session from the agenda.

HAVE THE JACKSON TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES GOTTEN THEMSELVES "INTO A PICKLE" ON ZINK SITUATION? IS THE WAY OUT FOR JACKSON TO FOLLOW PLAIN TOWNSHIP'S MODEL?

Could it be that Jackson Township is going to have two new trustees come January 1, 2014?

Its looking like it more and more to the SCPR.

Why?

Over the handling of the Chief David Zink matter, that's why?

According to area media reports, the trustees on November 30, 2012 hired Attorney John Hill (Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs/Akron, Ohio) to investigate allegations that the chief (a 26 year veteran of the department who became its head in 2010) had made unwanted sexual advances towards one of the Jackson Police Department's employees.

The investigative report was back to the trustees by their December 18th meeting and after spending a lengthy time in executive session considering the report on how to react came out of the session (having reached an accord with Zink) and in the voice of the trustees' president (James N. Walters) made the following pronouncement:  (an extract from the minutes of the meeting)

Walters:  After reading and hearing the independent report from the out of County investigator, this Board determines that, I move that Chief Zink be suspended for one month, that he payback the time that he has been out on administrative leave during the investigation and that he engage in training and counseling.

Walters moved and Pizzino seconded a motion that Chief Zink be suspended for one month, that he pay back the time he has been on administrative leave during the investigation and that he engage in training and counseling.

                                                                            Hawke      yes
                                                                            Walters     yes
                                                                            Pizzino      yes

Hmm?

So what did Hill's report have to say?

Again, according to media reports, that Chief Zink violated the township's sexual harassment policy going back to 2007, in that he:

• tried to have a physical or dating relationship with a Jackson PD female police officer who he supervises,
• knew that the advances were unwanted by her

The report also indicated that Hill determined that "the employee made poor judgements about reporting and addressing the advances ... [and] in that respect, she shares some responsibility for the situation continuing and deteriorating — but her responsibility is secondary to Zink’s and ultimately attributable to the inappropriate environment he initiated and fostered."

Insofar as the trustees are concerned, the political spillover to them is:

• what took them so long to figure out that there was a problem?
• why did they elect to keep Zink on the job?

So far it appears that trustees have no answer and with the elections less than a year away Hawke and Pizzino could be paying the price come November.

In keeping Zink on the job, the trustees have created a lightning rod effect that will migrate to them each and every time civic lighting strikes.

Individual citizens are weighing in with "why didn't the trustees fire him?" and on January 22nd, the Jackson police union wrote a letter that spells nothing but troubles between the trustees and the union.

Some of the key points of union dissatisfaction:

• "Chief Zink's actions are significantly disruptive to the effective functioning of the police force and suggest and utter incapacity to function as a leader and as Chief Executive of [the Jackson] Police Department,"
• "Zink's actions which occurred over a number of year ... ."
•  "Chief Zink treats his position as an opportunity for personal gain as opposed as to an opportunity to serve the citizens of [Jackson] Township,"
• "Chief Zink's standards with regard to other officers of the Police Department seem to far exceed the standards to which he holds himself. ... Township trustees seem to be willing to hold Chief Zink to such a low standard themselves" [which disparity in application of standards. according to Piotrowski, will be used by the union in the future to the advantage of its Jackson sited members], 
• [That the complaining party and witnesses being transferred involuntarily] "from preferred assignments .... is clear evidence of additional retaliation [which could lead to them] pursuing EEOC complaints ... ."

Pretty heavy stuff, no?

So do you think the trustees are "in a pickle?"

There does appear to be the possibility of wiggle room for the trustees to take additional action against Zink.

Township officials have referred to an allegation that Chief Zink, sometime in 2007, improperly (for personal reasons) used the  Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS) database to state officials for investigation.

If the state investigation comes back with a finding against Zink, perhaps, township will be revisiting the matter of his discipline?

Another ramification may be that in their handling of the Zink matter, the trustees have irreparably harmed the public's confidence in Jackson township policing in terms of the trustees' ability to manage it and that therefore it is time for trustees to abandon having its own police department in favor of contracting  policing out to the Stark County sheriff a la Plain Township.

Plain Township (28 square miles) which is about 25% larger than Jackson Township (36 square miles) population wise (51,000 to 40,000)  gets first rate police services from the Stark County sheriff without all the headaches (according to Trustee Louis Giavasis) that Jackson officials have brought on themselves for about $1.5 million.

What is Jackson paying?

How about $7.5 million!

Here are the key provisions of the Plain/Stark County Sheriff agreement:

For all the trials and tribulations that Jacksonians are currently undergoing with its police department and paying at a premium ($7.5 million to $1.5 million) to boot; isn't it time for the trustees to consider solving the township's policing problem by going the Plain Township route?

COMMISSIONERS DOWN TO TWO CANDIDATES FOR STARK CO. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR!

The Stark County Political Report learned a short time ago that the Stark County commissioners have narrowed their choice for chief county administrator to Brant Luther and Chris Nichols.

Commissioners will conduct a second interview of the two finalists Wednesday morning in a special executive session.

President of the Stark County commissioners Tom Bernabei told the report that it is possible that the commissioners will announce a selection at tomorrow's regular weekly meeting, it is not likely.

He said it is more probable that the announcement will be made some time within the next week.

RE:  LUTHER

Brant Luther has a number of  jobs since his first listed employment according to his Linked-In listing, to wit:

• Director, CASA/GAL [guardianship] Program Stark County Family Court
  January 2007 – Present (6 years 1 month),
• Part-Time Private Law PracticeMay 2002 – Present (10 years 9 months),
• Magistrate / Staff Attorney Stark County Probate Court
  January 2005 – December 2006 (2 years),
• County Auditor [Republican] November 2003 – December 2004 (1 year 2 months) [having been appointed to succeed current Commissioner Janet Creighton when she was elected mayor of Canton and which he lost to Democrat Kim Perez in November, 2004],
• Chief Fiscal Officer of Stark County, Ohio,
• First Ward Councilman Alliance City Council, Alliance, Ohio
  January 2000 – November 2003 (3 years 11 months)
• Law Clerk Stark County Family Court
  January 2000 – April 2003 (3 years 4 months)

In April 2011, he applied for the Stark County  judgeship that went to Rosemary Hall.

He ran an unsuccessful campaign as the Republican candidate state representative (the "old" 61st Ohio House District) in 2006.

RE:  NICHOLS

Chris Nichols is an interesting candidate mostly on the basis of his having been a Canton Township trustee (Republican) for over 12 years.   But his administrative experience has all been in the private sector.  The Report believes that the commissioners are looking to hire someone who has government administrative experience.

Here is his Linked-In listed experience:

• Director, Revenue Assurance First Communications Privately Held; 201-500 employees; FCOM; Telecommunications industry May 2002 – Present (10 years 9 months 
• Township Trustee Canton Township January 2001 – Present (12 years 1 month) Canton, Ohio Area

IS CONLEY CHALLENGE TO FORCHIONE SANDY HOOK ORDER "SOUR GRAPES?"

Several days ago the SCPR published a blog (LINK) about civic activist and local attorney Craig T. Conley demand to Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero that he initiate a legal action against Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione to recover to the Stark County treasury the sum of $5,000 ordered paid by one Scott Studer (having pled guilty in multiple counts Illegal Use of a Minor in a Nudity-Oriented Material or Performance [R.C. 21907.323(A)(1)](F2)) for the benefit of the shooting victims of the Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

Readers will recall as reported in local media that Studer (a former Jackson High School freshman basketball coach) had videotaped numerous student athletes (since 2005) taking showers.

Here are copies of Judge Forchione's order, letter of transmittal to the Sandy Hook School Support Fund.
 

A consequence of Conley initiative is that folks are weighing in pro and con on the matter in the comments section of the Repository article:   Attorney challenges judge’s decision to send $5,000 fine to Newtown, Matt Rink, January 23, 2013.

One particular commenter  (going under the screen name warmsunshine) stands out in that he seems to have information that is unique to his prior involvement with Conley and perhaps even Judged Forchione.

The comments:  

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black Conley never missed a chance to get his name in the paper. This is just another opportunity for HIM to grandstand. This is the same attorney who tried to stop government funds going to help build a YMCA and now he is offended money is going to families of very young children who were slaughtered. His client is on here daily complaining about everything and never saw good thing in any Government at any level. Your thoughts and heart were in the right place Judge. 

 and

TMM he did file to run for Commissioner and chickened out. He also had a case infront [sic] of this Judge that went to the Supreme court and that did not go his way. Now he is putting himself in a position that he never has to go infront [sic] of him again and gets free press out of it too. He is using you to promote himself. Did you go to him or did he come to you?  (emphasis added)

Conley tells the SCPR that he is pretty certain he knows who warmsunshine is.  The suspect is a public official and well known Stark County political figure who likely (according to Conley) has a rich association with Judge Forchione. 

The Report did check with the named individual who denies he merits Conley's suspicion.  

It is fair enough for those who unhappy with a person such as Conley to question his motivation for acting.

Conley got sued for malpractice (Estate of Cletus P. McCauley et al vs. Craig T. Conley, et al (Stark County, 2011 CV 02325).in 2011 in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas and Judge Forchione was assigned by the court's random selection process to hear the case (which is still in progress).

Because he had a difficult experience (from his perspective) with Judge Forchione in a case encaptioned Public Salt Company v. Diane Varavvyas, (Stark County, 2010 CV 01992), Conley elected to file on November 14, 2011 an Affidavit of Disqualification in the Ohio Supreme Court against the judge asking that he be disqualified from hearing the McCauley case.

And Judge Forchione filed a response which, of course, was at odds with Conley's account.

The Supreme Court refused to disqualify Forchione on December 30, 2011. (LINK to the decision)

Interestingly enough, Forchione decided to recuse himself 9-1/2 months later.

 
Conley says the recusal puts the matter to rest and shows that he does not have any motivation from the disqualification affair for pursuing the payment of the $5,000 Studer payment to the Stark County treasury.

He further says that even if he had a motive, even a bad motive, which, of course, he denies that he has; such is no answer for Judge Forchione for doing that which he has no judicial authority to do.

Only Craig T. Conley knows for sure in his heart of hearts whether or not he has an ulterior motive in acting on the Studer case fine sentencing matter.

He goes on to say:  "what difference does his motivation or lack of motivation make one way or the other?"

And doesn't he have a point?

We have all heard the saying that "the road to Hell in paved with good intentions."

The converse of that is many times the truth comes from people with ulterior motives.

Conley is not the only person in this mix whose motives could be questioned.

As Conley tells it, warmsunshine may have a motive.

If he is who Conley thinks he is,  Conley asserts that was a member of the YMCA Board of Directors and a member of Jackson Township officialdom when Conley (2004) filed a federal lawsuit against the Jackson trustees.  (LINK)

According to the court:

The gravamen of Plaintiff's seven count Complaint is that Defendants' donations of money and office space and promises to make further donations [$1 million] to the Jackson Township Young Men's Christian Association violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Well, Conley lost the case.

So applying Conley's own standard (i.e. the matter is over and done with), with the alleged motivated being on the winning side nonetheless; doesn't the motivation argument lose its sting?

But in the SCPR's way of thinking, motivations are something to be considered in trying to figure out why people do things and say things.

And it appears likely to The Report that both Conley and warmsunshine are at least tinged with motive. 

Conley says he suspects that the information about his effort to disqualify Judge Forchione may have come from the judge himself because:

• it would be too much to expect that an unconnected person would be delving into case files just as a matter of general curiosity to have spied his [Conley's] affidavit, and 
• the person he suspects has historically had work proximate contact with Forchione

The SCPR thinks that Conley might be underestimating the inclination of a non-Judge Forchione connected person (in terms of being put up to it by the judge) to have nosed around on his cases on CJIS (Criminal Justice Information System) for case names with the name Conley attached to them looking for something that the researcher might deem to be negative on him about.

In any event, it would be fair game for Judge Forchione or any person willing to identify themselves with their real name to bring up the affidavit as possibly being a motivation for having made an issue of the judge's Sandy Hook order.

As it is fair game for Conley to turn tables on warmsunshine.

A key difference here is Conley is willing to be named in making his accusation and warmsunshine is not.  He takes the coward's way:  anonymity.

Cowardice is not a characteristic of one of the SCPR's favorite online Repository front and center commenters; namely,  Don Cirelli.

Here is how he weighed-in on the matter:

I've always considered Frank Forchione to be a straight shooter and a stand-up guy. I have a different opinion about Craig Conley. But having said that, I think Forchione erred in giving this fine to charity, regardless of who received it. Local governments all over this country are struggling to stay afloat, including Stark County. In such times, government officials have no business giving money taxpayers money to charities. That fine belongs to the taxpayers of Stark County. It belongs in the General Fund, period.

"l have a different opinion about Craig Conley," Cirelli says.


Yours truly disagrees with Cirelli on his opinion of Conley and his being a "straight shooter and a stand up guy."

Fair enough.  We're both entitled to our opinions

Cireilli goes on to say:

"I think Forchione erred in giving this fine to charity, regardless of who received it. Local governments all over this country are struggling to stay afloat, including Stark County. In such times, government officials have no business giving money taxpayers money to charities. That fine belongs to the taxpayers of Stark County. It belongs in the General Fund, period."

Amen! Don. 

Most importantly, he uses his name.

Another significant difference between warmsunshine and Conley is that Conley is trying to achieve something with his action for the taxpayers of Stark County and, of course, for the rule of law.

Warmsunshine doesn't appear to have any public purpose with his comments.  His seeming goal is to discredit Conley.

An exercise of:   "When you don't have an answer to the message, attack the messenger?" 

To the SCPR, while motivation is a factor to be noted, in the final analysis the measurement should be whether or not an action/statement has a predominant purpose of serving the public good.

And if, as suggested by Conley, Judge Forchione is implicated with warmsunshine's effort, such is not a good thing.

Forchione has every right in the world to come out publicly against Conley as he did before the Supreme Court in McCauley.

At the end of the day, the SCPR is in favor of speakers and doers who have a public purpose to the speaking and doing and are willing to identify themselves.

Call it "sour grapes," if you will.

But it is through the Conleys of the world that the public figures out whether a saying/doing is a good thing or a bad thing or maybe even beyond that:  "the lawful thing!"