SCPR ADVOCACY NOTE
THE STARK COUNTY PROSECUTOR
OR
"SPECIALLY APPOINTED 'INDEPENDENT' COUNSEL"
OR
THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
SHOULD
DO
A
ORC 124.57 INVESTIGATION
UPDATE: 12:25 PM
Here is an e-mail received by the SCPR this morning, to wit:
Another great in-depth look at the Sheriff situation.
There is a online petition as well you might not be aware of.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/321/201/999/let-the-voters-decide-put-sheriff-george-maier-on-the-ballot/?taf_id=10714407&cid=fb_na
If you compare the names to those on your list posted today, you will see many, many deputies on there match, plus many more not on the posted list.
You are also right about the pressure and poor work environment being placed on the employees at the Sheriff's Office to support Maier, ... .. Those petitions were passed around in person, and you were basically in a no win situation.
...
Lose lose situation for sure.
Thanks again for what must be hours of research and information gathering. It is appreciated.
Note: The SCPR excised from the e-mail published above what The Report interprets as allegations of illegality and ethics violations inasmuch as whether or not such is the case is why The Report is calling for the Stark County prosecutor or an appointed “independent” special prosecutor or the Ohio attorney general’s office to conduct an inquiry to make a determination one way or another on the illegality/ethics issues.
ORIGINAL BLOG
The Stark County Political Report is absolutely "bananas" for the RULE OF LAW.
But, different than some, The Report thinks that the RULE OF LAW should apply "equally" to everybody.
George T. Maier attorney Thomas Rosenberg may have opened the proverbial "Pandora's Box" in suggesting, perhaps, that Stark County sheriff department lieutenant Lou Darrow violated the law in applying for the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointment as Stark County sheriff on December 11, 2013?
As we all know now, there is quite a bit of controversy in the Dems' finding someone to fill out Mike McDonald's term as Stark County sheriff.
Though elected in November, 2012, McDonald could not take office on January 7, 2013 because of an terminal illness which claimed his life on February 22, 2013.
The Dems selected Massillonian George T. Maier on February 5, 2013 but the appointment was found to have been illegal (a violation of Ohio statutory law) on November 6, 2013 by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Dems - the SCPR thinks - made the mistake all over again on December 11th in re-appointing Maier.
But if Rosenberg had his way, Lou Darrow would have been excluded.
Never mind that a number of Stark Countians think that Maier has exactly the same problem.
Double standards do not seem to trouble Rosenberg.
In yesterday's blog, the SCPR opined that Rosenberg seems to have a penchant to one standard applying to others but not to his client.
Today, the SCPR is focusing on the Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57 "Pandora's Box" that Rosenberg introduced into the "all matters Maier" equation back on November 13, 2013.
Here is an extract of ORC 124.57:
124.57 Prohibition against partisan political activity.
(A) No officer or employee in the classified service of the state, the several counties, cities, and city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state shall directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, solicit or receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving, any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political party or for any candidate for public office; nor shall any person solicit directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting, any such assessment, contribution, or payment from any officer or employee in the classified service of the state, the several counties, cities, or city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state; nor shall any officer or employee in the classified service of the state, the several counties, cities, and city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state be an officer in any political organization or take part in politics other than to vote as the officer or employee pleases and to express freely political opinions.
Well, insofar as the SCPR can determine, so was George T. Maier a member of "Classified Civil" service when he applied to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas on November 26, 2013 (thirteen days after the his "stop" Lou Darrow letter).
But The Report's take on Rosenberg is that "what's good for the goose, IS NOT good for the gander."
The "rule of law" may or may not apply to a huge number of deputy sheriffs working out of 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.
And, perhaps, to Democratic Party "write-in" candidate Lt. (Summit County sheriff's department) Douglas S. Smith.
Here is an extract of a "Concerned Citizen" letter sent to Summit County Sheriff Steve Brady on Wednesday of this week:
Sheriff Steve Brady
County of Summit
53 University Ave.
Akron, Ohio 44308
RE: Lt. Douglas S. Smith write-in candidacy for partisan ofiice and potential violation of\/~ the Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57, County of Summit Codified Ordinance 169.18 and County of Summit Ordinance 2011-207.
Dear Sheriff Brady:
I am writing this communication to you to request that you as the appointing authority conduct an inquiry and investigation into a potential violation allegedly committed by Lt. Douglas S. Smith who is an employee of the County of Summit, Akron, Ohio - Sheriff Office.
Lt Douglas S. Smith is currently employed by the County of Summit, Akron, Ohio Sheriff Office in a classified position. Lt Douglas S. Smith currently resides at 1222 Hiddenview St., N.W. North Canton, Ohio 44720.
The allegation is that as an employee of the Sheriff Department for the County of Summit, Akron, Ohio, Lt Douglas S. Smith most recently and also on prior occasions knowingly and continuously participated in partisan politics. Please see the attached newspaper articles which are attached as exhibits and supporting evidence or proof of the alleged violations.
This is contrary to the following State of Ohio and County of Summit, Akron, Ohio law: The Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57 - Prohibition against partisan political activity. Ordinance 2011-207, Section 169.18 "Political Activity" County of Summit, Akron, Ohio. County of Summit, Akron, Ohio Codified Ordinances Section 169.18, "Political Activity".
(SCPR Note: Yesterday The Report spoke with Douglas Smith and came away with the following impressions:
- Smith is coordinating in a loose construction of "coordinating:"
- He has talked with Stark Dems' chairman Randy Gonzalez and George T. Maier himself about running as a "write-in" candidate before filing,
- Both Gonzalez and Maier are telling him that they are confident that they will win before Ohio's secretary of state,
- Neither endorsed his filing, but both were seemingly understanding that the Democrats would not want to have nobody on the ballot should the secretary of state surprise them and vote to keep Maier off the ballot,
- Smith seem "highly" fluid on whether or not he will stay in the race because
- He worries that the fact that he is an employee of the Summit County sheriff's department and has not established any kind of political base in Stark County and therefore would have a difficult time raising money to have a competitive campaign against Republican Larry Dordea, that it may not be practical for him to stay in the campaign should Maier not make it to the ballot,
- He does not plan to but is open to stepping aside should Maier not make it to the ballot so that the Stark Dems can appoint someone else in his stead,
- He does not think he has an ORC 124.57 problem, but is not sure of it and would be quick to exit if it became apparent that he does,
Here is the content. of an e-mail that the SCPR received last Thursday:
Hello,Speaking of the "petitions" (called a letter by the writer), here they are:
Regardless whether someone supports George T. Maier as Sheriff or not. I do not believe any Deputy Sheriff (whether ON or OFF duty) should have been attending this weeks meeting. Unless they were on "Official Business", such as testifying or providing security.
Most of the uniformed deputies shown on your short video, appeared to be Reserve Deputies, and Administrator's. I don't find it shocking that George T. Maier was using the Reserve Deputies to show force or support. Whatever he may call it. Apparently George T. Maier has been having Reserve Deputies volunteer their time to replace his name on county property and vehicles.
Something I do find a little shocking. Apparently George T. Maier's administration assistant, Derrick Loy has been circulating a letter around the Sheriff's Office asking for deputies/employees to sign in support of Maier. The letter is supposed to be presented to the BOE. I believe this practice not only violates department policy but possibly the law.
I find it shocking that Deputies would attend a BOE meeting on their own and volunteer to sign a letter supporting George T. Maier. Except that the Deputies are currently in contract negotiations with George T. Maier. The tentative contract George T. Maier recently presented to the deputies union was rejected.
I've been a long time reader of your blog and enjoy it most of the time. I'm not employed at the Sheriff's Office. However I have family and close friends that work there. Most of the employees are amazing people and could careless about the politics. They just want to do their job. I wanted to share some of my thoughts and observations.
Thanks for you time.
First, from the deputies:
Stark County Board of Elections
2013"* Street NE Floor 1
Canton, Ohio 44702
Please accept this letter from the following deputies of the Stark County Sheriff's Office as our statement of confidence in the qualifications of Stark County Sheriff George T. Maier. As law enforcement officers, we believe George Maier to be well qualified for the Office of Sheriff and we respectfully request that Sheriff Maier's nominating petition and substantial qualifications be certified in the affirmative.
We strongly encourage the Stark County Board of Elections to put politics aside, and place him on the ballot as his qualifications demand, thus providing the voters of Stark County the fundamental democratic right to decide who is best suited to serve as their Sheriff. Rejecting Sheriff Major's candidacy denies the public a choice in this election, removes from the ballot a law enforcement leader we wholeheartedly believe to be qualified, and furthers the purely political motivation of a few detractors who seek to limit the public's choice in this election.
This letter is not a political endorsement for, or against any particular candidate. It is simply a statement of our desire to place the selection of our Sheriff where it rightly belongs - in the hands of the voters of Stark County.
Second, from some of the administrators working at the Stark County sheriff's office:
Please accept this letter from the following employees of the Stark Countv Sheriff's Office as our statement of confidence in the excellent performance of Stark County Sheriff George T. Maier. As employees having a diverse range of responsibilities and duties throughout the Stark County Sheriffs Office, we feel Sheriff Maier has transformed the agency's focus on service to the public. We respectfully request that Sheriff Maier's nominating petition and substantial qualifications be certified as provided by Ohio law.
We strongly encourage the Stark County Board of Elections to leave politics aside, and place Sheriff Maier on the ballot as his qualifications duly merit. This allows the people of Stark County the opportunity to decide who should serve as Stark County Sheriff. Rejecting Sheriff Maier's candidacy would deny the public a choice in this election and remove from the ballot a law enforcement leader we wholeheartedly believe has demonstrated his wealth of qualifications and capabilities during the past year.
This letter is not a political endorsement for, or against any particular candidate. It is simply a statement of our desire to place the selection of our Sheriff where it rightly belongs - in the hands of the voters of Stark County.
And, of course, there are the "Contributors in the Officeholders' Employee" campaign finance report required by the law of Ohio, to wit:
(SCPR Note: this list is independent of the petition signatures list)
Of course, the SCPR always tries to the other side of the story.
So, The Report sent this e-mail to the "named in the e-mail" Derrick Loy, to wit:
Derrick:The Report thought that Loy might respond in a meaningful way to the e-mail because he was quick to use the SCPR in his campaigning for Mike McDonald when he ran against Republican Larry Dordea in 2012.
A excerpt from an e-mail I received this afternoon:
Apparently George T. Maier's administration assistant, Derrick Loy has been circulating a letter around the Sheriff's Office asking for deputies/employees to sign in support of Maier. The letter is supposed to be presented to the BOE.
True or untrue?
If true, please explain in detail the facts and circumstances surrounding your involvement.
Thanks,
Martin Olson
SCPR
Moreover, Loy recently became a center of controversy with Alliance City Council because he was one of a number of subjects on a "secret ballot" taken on January 13, 2014 during a council meeting as to whether or not Loy would be re-appointed to the Alliance Water & Sewer Advisory Board.
The SCPR asked Loy for his side of the story and sent in a responsive e-mail which The Report published in full.
Well, it now seems to the SCPR that Loy has been told by someone in the George T. Maier entourage to clam up with The Report, to wit: (Loy's response to the SCPR e-mail)
Martin,Oh what a terrific guy that Derrick Loy is! "Be well," he says.
Sorry for the delay in responding to your email, I don't check my personal email as often as I should.
Concerning your inquiry, I have never hid behind my positions or statements with you, as I believe in openness and transparency. With that said, I do not feel compelled to respond to statements made by people who lack courage and/or people hiding behind anonymity.
Be well,
Derrick
But no answer!
He can forget the "laced with sarcasm niceties," just answer the questions! Stark County's taxpayers are entitled to have answers from a guy who works for the taxpayers, no?
Seems like he may have consulted with Stark County recorder Rick Campbell on how he should respond to SCPR inquiries. Loy's response in right out of Campbell's playbook.
No matter the truth or falsity of the allegation(s), "I do not respond to anonymous allegation."
Hmm?
Well, Derrick, THE E-MAIL PASSED ON TO THE STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT IS NOT ANONYMOUS BUT the SCPR, since the sender says he/she has friends and relatives working in the sheriff's department, does not want to make the writer's friends/family vulnerable to retaliation.
Now why in the world would the SCPR be concerned that the folks in charge at the Stark County sheriff's office might be in a mood for some retribution on the writer's friends/family if his/her identity were known?
Maybe, in light of this new information and the SCPR's concern for the well-being of the friends and family of the sender, Loy will reconsider and tell all HE knows about the facts and circumstances surrounding the circulating of the petition.
For starters:
Who suggested that it be written?
Who authored it?
Were the signatures collected while the deputies/administrators were on the taxpayer dime?
Who hand carried a copy down to the Board of Elections?
Why wasn't Balas-Bratton's attorney provided with a copy by the Maier supporter and/or the Stark County Board of Elections?
It is highly unlikely that Loy or other person on the staff at the Stark County sheriff's department will answer the questions.
For it appears to The Reprt that Loy is one of the SCPR's regular readers and maybe, just maybe the amplification of the reasons for "no name as to the commenter" in this blog just might prompt him to reconsider, no?
Probably not. But we shall see.
There is no doubt in the thinking of The Report that Loy is a George Maier's "main man" when it comes to doing the bidding of the Democratic Party appointed sheriff.
If the SCPR were to inquire of the "bossman," George T. Maier himself - there is no doubt that The Report would get "zippo" from a man who is paid by Stark County taxpayers (as is Loy) and who apparently thinks that he is unaccountable to the Stark County public.
Maier goes out of his way to make it plain to the SCPR (in a taunting-esque fashion) that he is willing to talk to the "easily put off" reporters at The Repository and to "bonkers for George Maier" Ron Ponder of WHBC but not to the SCPR
Now why would that be?
Of course, the SCPR is not having a love-in with Maier as Ponder is and does not ask "I don't want to offend you" questions that way too many of The Repository reporters seem to ask him.
But Maier has no compunction about accepting taxpayer dollars as public official compensation (unless, of course, the Ohio Supreme Court finds him - once again - to be in office illegally) and not subject himself to incisive questioning that the SCPR is so well known for asking questions that put the likes of Maier to be publicly accountable.
Back to the ORC 124.57 question.
At the beginning of this blog in the headline section, The Report calls for the Stark County prosecutor and/or the Ohio Attorney General to conduct an investigation into the conduct of Darrow, Maier and the other classified civil service employees working out of 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.
And, in particular, to focus on the petition referred to in the e-mail above.
Note the "multiple assurances" in the petition that the deputies "are not being political."
That whoever wrote the petition had to repeatedly assert that the petition was not a political statement while dissing opponents of Maier as being political (the deputies letter), is in and of itself to the SCPR a tacit admission that Maier's supporters in petitioning were attempting to apply political pressure to effect the outcome of Balas-Bratton v. Maier in Maier's favor.
Ohio's BOE structure, is such (i.e. two Republican members, two Democratic members and an evenly divided between Republican and Democratic support staff) as set up, to, by its very nature to engage in "Cold War-esque" political warfare with the secretary of state (be that person a Democrat or Republican) being empowered by "the rule of law" (as bad as the SCPR thinks the law is) is to step in and break any tie votes that occur among the four partisan members.
And, of course, those behind the petitions know that Ohio's Board of Elections reek of politics and so why wouldn't you try to apply political pressure?
Whoever was the genius behind the petitions forgot two things:
One, in their handling of election/candidacy protests, BOEs need to get about as far away as they can from their inherently political structure for in this role they are "quasi-judicial" bodies subject to review by the courts of Ohio.
To the degree that BOEs in their role as "sort of" jurists appear to be influenced by arbitrary political considerations, they run a very high degree of having their decisions overturned by the courts.
Two, the deputies/sheriff administrators' ORC 124.57 concerns.
Whoever, the petition (letter) genius was, may have put 73 hard working sheriffs in harms way on 124.57.
They are not deserving of what may be about to come their way in the way of an investigation on the 124.57 issue.
Maier, is a different matter.
His attorney (Rosenberg) laid down the standard for his own client in writing Ferrero on November 13th of last year.
Could it be that Maier himself will get hoisted by his own attorney's petard?
And, of course, Lt. Douglas Smith should be included in the lot.
If Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57 is to mean anything in terms of "the rule of law" prevailing in Stark County, then it is incumbent on Stark County's prosecutor (or, a special "independent" appointed counsel") and/or Ohio's attorney general (DeWine) to launch an investigation of whether or not any 124.57 prohibited political activities have emanated from the Stark County sheriff's department under the reign of George T. Maier?
Let it be written, let it be said!
No comments:
Post a Comment