COULD SHERIFF MAIER
AND
A SCPR "SUSPECTED" HIS HAVING LACK OF MANAGEMENT SKILLS
COST
STARK COUNTY TAXPAYERS
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?
LINK TO PRIOR BLOGS IN THIS SERIES
Earlier this year, an asking for $10 million in damages lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court - Northern District of Ohio (USDC- NO) for injuries allegedly sustained by Minerva resident Tyler King as a consequence of April 25, 2017 incident at the Stark County jail in which deputy sheriffs are seen on video tape taking King down. (see the entire video at this LINK)
Note that the lawsuit was filed on March 26, 2018 and so far as the SCPR knows, not a word in The Repository. And, again, the last the SCPR knows, The Rep has a reporter assigned to cover federal, state and local cases.
Of course, maybe the SCPR just missed it.
This blogger gets a lot of information from readers but only within the last several weeks learned of the litigation.
And interesting enough, Stark Countian Sara Lioi has been assigned the case.
The Stark County Political Report has learned that should the county be found in the lawsuit to be liable for $10 million in damages; only about $750,000 would be payable by the county's insurance coverage and that Stark County taxpayers could be left "holding the bag" for some:
Sit down everybody
NINE MILLION TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($9,250,000).
That possibility (not necessarily likelihood) gets one attention, no?
If the county treasury were to take a $9,250,000 hit, it would make the upwards of $3 million that Vince Frustaci (former Stark County chief deputy treasurer) was convicted of having stolen of Stark County taxpayer money during his stint as a Stark County treasurer employee seem, in relative terms, "small potatoes."
To put the "possible" $9.25 million perspective in perspective, the commissioners carryover about $15 million these days on the unappropriated part of the county budget and have done so for the last several years.
Poof! 66% of the carryover gone in "in one fell swoop!"
Stark Countians did not consider the Frustaci theft to be "small potatoes" in their reaction to county elected officials (focused on then county auditor Kim Perez and, of course, Treasurer Gary Zeigler for, in the opinion some county and state officials) not having done all they could of done to have prevented the theft.
Note that the lawsuit was filed on March 26, 2018 and so far as the SCPR knows, not a word in The Repository. And, again, the last the SCPR knows, The Rep has a reporter assigned to cover federal, state and local cases.
Of course, maybe the SCPR just missed it.
This blogger gets a lot of information from readers but only within the last several weeks learned of the litigation.
And interesting enough, Stark Countian Sara Lioi has been assigned the case.
The Stark County Political Report has learned that should the county be found in the lawsuit to be liable for $10 million in damages; only about $750,000 would be payable by the county's insurance coverage and that Stark County taxpayers could be left "holding the bag" for some:
Sit down everybody
NINE MILLION TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($9,250,000).
That possibility (not necessarily likelihood) gets one attention, no?
If the county treasury were to take a $9,250,000 hit, it would make the upwards of $3 million that Vince Frustaci (former Stark County chief deputy treasurer) was convicted of having stolen of Stark County taxpayer money during his stint as a Stark County treasurer employee seem, in relative terms, "small potatoes."
To put the "possible" $9.25 million perspective in perspective, the commissioners carryover about $15 million these days on the unappropriated part of the county budget and have done so for the last several years.
Poof! 66% of the carryover gone in "in one fell swoop!"
Stark Countians did not consider the Frustaci theft to be "small potatoes" in their reaction to county elected officials (focused on then county auditor Kim Perez and, of course, Treasurer Gary Zeigler for, in the opinion some county and state officials) not having done all they could of done to have prevented the theft.
To refresh readers on the act which precipitated the King lawsuit here is a 25 second video of the incident in which it is alleged King suffered monumental injuries.
Stark Countians may or may not see a copy of the video coupled with audio.
Rhodes response to the SCPR Public Records Request for a copy of the mashup:
From: Ross A. Rhodes
To: Martin Olson
Cc: John D. Ferrero
Janet Weir Creighton
Richard Regula
Bill C. Smith
Stephan P. Babik
Dec 11 at 4:36 PM
Martin –
The “complete” video you are referring to is a mash-up of the video you have, and the audio from a body can, which I believe you also have. It is attorney work product of this office, which would not be subject to a public records request. It has been supplied to plaintiff’s counsel in the litigation.
The county has outside counsel handling that litigation, and we are not prepared to supply our mash-up to a third person without their input. We have inquired, but have not heard back from them yet.
Accordingly, your request is under review, pending the advice of counsel.
Best,
Ross
Rhodes response to the SCPR Public Records Request for a copy of the mashup:
From: Ross A. Rhodes
To: Martin Olson
Cc: John D. Ferrero
Janet Weir Creighton
Richard Regula
Bill C. Smith
Stephan P. Babik
Dec 11 at 4:36 PM
Martin –
The “complete” video you are referring to is a mash-up of the video you have, and the audio from a body can, which I believe you also have. It is attorney work product of this office, which would not be subject to a public records request. It has been supplied to plaintiff’s counsel in the litigation.
The county has outside counsel handling that litigation, and we are not prepared to supply our mash-up to a third person without their input. We have inquired, but have not heard back from them yet.
Accordingly, your request is under review, pending the advice of counsel.
Best,
Ross
The video without audio is highly disturbing in its own right. What would the audio taken from body mikes of those present during the incident reveal?
Doesn't the Stark County public have a right to know "the full story" of all that transpired in the incident?
Accordingly, the SCPR copied the commissioners and Prosecutor Ferrero on sending to 2nd Request to Rhodes.
The commissioners have prided themselves as being a transparent government body, let's see if they are willing to insist that Rhodes/Ferrero comply with the SCPR public records request?
As if the King lawsuit were not enough, there is another suit (filed less than 30 days ago) pending, to wit:
Doesn't the Stark County public have a right to know "the full story" of all that transpired in the incident?
Accordingly, the SCPR copied the commissioners and Prosecutor Ferrero on sending to 2nd Request to Rhodes.
The commissioners have prided themselves as being a transparent government body, let's see if they are willing to insist that Rhodes/Ferrero comply with the SCPR public records request?
As if the King lawsuit were not enough, there is another suit (filed less than 30 days ago) pending, to wit:
And to tie the lawsuit to Sheriff George T. Maier's management style these excerpts:
The EEOC complaint being filed led to this:
What follows is allegations in the lawsuit which the SCPR to be "core" fact allegations presented to simplify the public's understanding the basis of the Patterson lawsuit. However, a complete copy of the complaint and the answer (denials of liability for the most part) for readers who desire to see all the allegations/denials to do so.
Core Allegation #1 (in the assessment of the SCPR):
Core Allegation #2:
Core Allegations #3 (George T. Maier is now Stark County sheriff) alleging official sheriff's office harassment:
Core Allegations #4 (Patterson alleges that Sheriff Maier was behind decision to put her desk next to sewer line) (Retribution for filing a complaint?)
Core Allegations #5 - the Family Medical Leave claim:
Core Allegations #6 - Sheriff Maier and Plaintiff Patterson direct encounter:
Core Allegations #7 - Patterson claims she was forced to take an employment position which was designed to to put in a position of having to resign from the sheriff's office employment:
LEGAL BASIS OF LAWSUIT
WHAT PLAINTIFF WANTS IF SHE PREVAILS IN LAWSUIT
IF Stark County government on account of how Sheriff Maier himself and various county officials are found to have violated the rights of Plaintiffs King and Patterson, Stark County could (even factoring in liability insurance coverage (an occurrence policy for $1 million per occurrence with a $250,000 per occurrence deductible and a limit of two occurrences) could potentially have to pay out of its annual estimated $15 million carryover some $10 million or better.
If one agrees with the Ohio Auditor of State's assessment that the then county treasurer Gary D. Zeigler re: the Vince Frustaci theft of taxpayer dollars should have done policy, practice and structural reform on his originally taking office through the times of the thefts by Frustaci to enhance security of taxpayer funds, then, perhaps, the thefts were preventable.
As sort of an rough analogy, it might appear to some that it might be that Sheriff George T. Maier is not on the administrative side of being sheriff up to the task and thereby puts the county budget and derivatively taxpayer dollars in jeopardy.
APPENDIX
The entire Patterson complaint:
The EEOC complaint being filed led to this:
What follows is allegations in the lawsuit which the SCPR to be "core" fact allegations presented to simplify the public's understanding the basis of the Patterson lawsuit. However, a complete copy of the complaint and the answer (denials of liability for the most part) for readers who desire to see all the allegations/denials to do so.
Core Allegation #1 (in the assessment of the SCPR):
Core Allegation #2:
Core Allegations #3 (George T. Maier is now Stark County sheriff) alleging official sheriff's office harassment:
Core Allegations #4 (Patterson alleges that Sheriff Maier was behind decision to put her desk next to sewer line) (Retribution for filing a complaint?)
Core Allegations #5 - the Family Medical Leave claim:
Core Allegations #6 - Sheriff Maier and Plaintiff Patterson direct encounter:
Core Allegations #7 - Patterson claims she was forced to take an employment position which was designed to to put in a position of having to resign from the sheriff's office employment:
LEGAL BASIS OF LAWSUIT
WHAT PLAINTIFF WANTS IF SHE PREVAILS IN LAWSUIT
IF Stark County government on account of how Sheriff Maier himself and various county officials are found to have violated the rights of Plaintiffs King and Patterson, Stark County could (even factoring in liability insurance coverage (an occurrence policy for $1 million per occurrence with a $250,000 per occurrence deductible and a limit of two occurrences) could potentially have to pay out of its annual estimated $15 million carryover some $10 million or better.
If one agrees with the Ohio Auditor of State's assessment that the then county treasurer Gary D. Zeigler re: the Vince Frustaci theft of taxpayer dollars should have done policy, practice and structural reform on his originally taking office through the times of the thefts by Frustaci to enhance security of taxpayer funds, then, perhaps, the thefts were preventable.
As sort of an rough analogy, it might appear to some that it might be that Sheriff George T. Maier is not on the administrative side of being sheriff up to the task and thereby puts the county budget and derivatively taxpayer dollars in jeopardy.
APPENDIX
The entire Patterson complaint:
The entire County answer to Patterson complaint:
No comments:
Post a Comment