CONTINUING SERIES (STARK COUNTY GOV'T FINANCES) STARK COUNTY'S MOST VALUABLE EMPLOYEE - TREASURER ALEX ZUMBAR

With all due respect Deputy Cooner/Pathologist Renee Robinson, for The Stark County Political Report's money Treasurer Alex Zumbar is clearly the best value for Stark County taxpayers.

As seen in the graphic above, Zumbar makes a mere $68,275 and sits about #150 among all Stark County's full and part-time employees in terms of how they rank on a "fresh-off-the-presses" listing of the salaries (hourly income) of Stark County employees.

Zumbar who has held office since 2010, more or less, has completely restructured the Stark County treasurer during his time in office.

Restructuring was a critical and immediate need when he took office.

Zumbar's predecessor, Gary Zeigler was cited in 2010 by the Ohio State of Auditor for not having structures, policies, programs and practices in place to have made it more difficult if not impossible for his chief deputy treasurer Vince Frustaci to have stolen what turned out to be upwards of $3 million in Stark County taxpayer funds.

Zumbar not only serves as county treasurer but also as chairman of the Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation (aka "the Land Bank") which was formed in 2012 as a quasi-government entity tasked with dealing with "blighted" properties throughout Stark County.

Another interesting note about the database spreadsheet provided below for readers to search is #4 ranking Stark County employee John Ferrero at $127,560.16 annually is now an official double-dipper inasmuch as he retired immediately before the beginning of his elected narrowly in November, 2016 term that began on or about the first day of January, 2017.

Jeff Jakmides had predicted in the run up to the election that Ferrero would do what he in fact did.

Here is the spreadsheet reference below with the data coming from the Stark County auditor's office as of yesterday (July 25).

• Note:  The Report eliminated from the list county and other political subdivision employees who received only part of their annual salaries from the Stark County treasury.

(VIDEOS) PART 2: COMMISSIONERS "KNUCKLE DOWN" ON DEPARTMENT HEADS & COUNTY EMPLOYEE RAISES

UPDATE:  09:25 AM

 VIDEOS

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

P.S. MURTHY

CORONER

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

TAMMI JOHNSON

PUBLIC DEFENDER 

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

GARY ICKES

VETERANS SERVICE COMMISSION 

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

ALEX ZUMBAR

TREASURER

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

NANCY REINBOLD

CLERK OF COURTS 

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

UPDATE NOTE

A SCPR reader (in an email earlier today) makes an important point about certain pay increases to some county employees.  These are employees under union contract with Stark County.  Their raises ARE NOT SUBJECT to the commissioners 2% guideline because, of course, they are determine by contract language.

Sheriff George Maier was in to see the commissioners yesterday with his budget presentation.

He informed the commissioners that nearly all the sheriff department employees (except for about a dozen non-bargaining employees) are subject to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.  So the numbers for sheriff department employees posted by the SCPR (LINK) in the January 15th blog fall into the category indicated in the readers email, to wit:

I appreciate your thoroughness in digging into the county's finances. I am a daily reader who usually enjoys your posts.

However, I think you may be missing something about these list of people. You state that the names on the list are those who received more than a 2% raise. What you seem to fail to recognize, is that these are contracted raises, which where set in motion years ago before the 2% guidelines ever existed, and approved by these very commissioners, save Regula.

Take the Sheriff's office for example. The Corrections, Communications, Maintenance workers, and others received raises based on a contract going back 3 years. Accordingly,neither the employees nor the Sheriff have any control about the percentage they received for these last 3 years. Once the contract was signed, and again, agreed upon BY THE COMMISSIONERS, it was set in stone.

And these aren't outright raises. Most of the percentage comes from step increases based on time served in the position, until they reach the positions top-out pay rate. So an employee who gets a 1% raise, and also gains a step due to years of service, will appear on your list as getting a 7% raise. Very misleading.

This goes for many of the department heads you seem to be lambasting here on your blog. How could they possibly abide by a 2% guideline, when such a guideline didn't even exist back when the union contracts were approved...by the commissioners?

They are locked into giving these employees the agreed upon percentage, no matter how much the commissioners scold them.

I know you look out for the common taxpaying citizen, so perhaps you would bring this little fact up to the commissioners. that they are actually the ones responsible for these percentages, as they were the ones who approved them in the first place.

A SCPR thank you to this reader.

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

ORIGINAL BLOG

THE BACKGROUND

In the continuing Stark County Political Report series, today's coverage of the Stark County commissioners' budget hearings focuses on:

• P.S. Murthy of the Coroner's office,
• Tammi Johnson of the Public Defender's office,
• Gary Ickes of the Veterans Service Commission,
• Alex Zumbar of the Treasurer's office,
• Nancy Reinbold of the Clerk of Courts, and
• Tim Warstler of Stark's Emergency Management office

SCPR Note:  The listing of department employees presented in today's blog is based on information collected by Chris Nichols of the commissioners' office for use by the commissioners in understanding "trends" of raises in the offices as they review budget matters with department leaders.

The list is not intended to list each and every department employee and the SCPR has pared it down to include only those receiving more that the 2% commissioner recommended raises for fiscal year 2013.

As the commissioners gain experience and hear the "tales of woe" from many of the the department heads, to wit:

• employees have not had pay raises in 3, 4 or 5 years,
• pay raises are "a must" to prevent an exodus of employees,
• the pay raises do not come out of general fund money,
• such and such employee is critically important above all others in the operation of the department, and,
• the department is returning "unused" money from last fiscal year
• SCPR NOTE:  The commissioners suspect that in some cases department heads over request in a given year so that the are always returning money and thereby give the illusion they are being frugal

they are developing rejoinders that effective blunt the justifications all of which seem to be on a "list of reasons" that seems to be circulating among department heads as a sort of "cheat sheet" or "talking points" when a particular department head appears before the commissioners.

One thing that The Report notices about the commissioners is that one of the three, sometimes a couple of them, do seem to bore in on some officials with just a little extra "umph" over others.

Readers will see in the coverage of Treasurer Alex Zumbar and CEO Gary Ickes of the Veterans Service Commission that the seeming extra "umph" is in play whereas others get more benign treatment.

SPECIFIC OFFICEHOLDERS (ELECTED & UNELECTED)

CORONER P.S. MURTHY

It was a sight to behold as the commissioners parried back and forth with Coroner P.S. Murthy.

As readers know from the January 15th opening blog in this series, the focus of the budget hearings is on the percentage of raises that is given in each department of Stark County government.

The commissioners and Murthy are seen in the following video contending over a raise given to one of Murthy's "key" employees (John Williams) getting an 8% raise in 2014 out of the general fund (in violation of the commissioners' guidelines of 2%) with a proposal for another 10% raise in 2014.



PUBLIC DEFENDER TAMMI JOHNSON

Compared to what Stark County area attorneys make in income, Stark's public defenders are clearly underpaid.

Consequently, the commissioners seem sympathetic with the "in excess of 2%" raises (2013 as seen above) in apparent violation of the commissioners' guideline and did not - in the opinion of the SCPR - "bring the hammer down"  (a well known quip uttered by Cleveland Cavalier analyst Austin Carr) on top Public Defender Tammi Johnson.

Moreover, the Defender's plan for 2014 is projected at 2% "across-the-board" increase which had to ingratiate them with the commissioners which is likely another reason why Director Johnson did not get any flak.



VETERANS SERVICE COMMISSION DIRECTOR GARY ICKES

Ickes has only been the head guy at the Veterans Service Commission (VSC) since January 1st, but he had a pretty rough outing with the Stark commissioners in the commission's budget presentation.

But there is a history between the commissioners and former executive director Bob Toth.

To get a full appreciation of what the SCPR thinks is "bad blood" that exists between the  commissioners and the VSC, readers of this blog need to read The Report's June 8, 2011 blog (LINK).

While much of the accompanying video is an amiable exchange between Director Ickes and Diane Caswell (executive secretary) and two of the VSC's board members, Commissioner Creighton gets pointed with the VSC representatives (see video at 13:30 mark) over his "history" based frustrations on dealing with the Veterans Service Commission.



STARK COUNTY TREASURER ALEX ZUMBAR

Probably of all the budget hearings, the one between the commissioners and Treasurer Alex Zumbar was the most contentions.

At one point n the discussion, Commissioner Bernabei remembered that in addition to being president of the Board of Stark County commissioners, he is an attorney.  For many years Bernabei was Canton's law director.

He honed in on Zumbar and kept coming back with question after question after question in what he thought was smoking Zumbar out in terms of forcing him to give a direct answer on projected pay increases for 2014 and the source of those expected raises as between the county general fund (which Zumbar is accountable to the commissioners on) and "special revenue resources" (i.e. DTAC:  "Delinquent Tax & Assessment Collection" funds) which he is not.

Commissioners Creighton and Regula also joined in on grilling Zumbar.

The SCPR focuses on the sharp exchanges in the following video.





The SCPR talked with Zumbar a day or so after the budget hearing and The Report's recalled impression is that Treasury Zumbar was not a very happy camper as to the way commissioners treated him.  The Report has gotten the sense that Zumbar is not the only county - independent of the commissioners - "elected" official who feel like they are being "grandstanded upon" on the "raises" issue and are more than "just a little ticked" about how the hearings are being handled.

Particularly troublesome and irritating to these officials is the commissioners pulling out the 2013 raise schedule provided to them by the auditor's office under parameters devised by Budget Director Chris Nichols.

As noted, the "note" above, the 2013 schedule is not designed to deal with the nuances of why certain employees (not all) getting raises got them (e.g. a promotion, a reconfiguration of job title and the like) or any other factor (e.g. Coroner Murthy on "how utterly important and heretofore "under paid" employee John Williams is).

The SCPR's take is that "the unhappy campers" are distressed at the commissioners' focus on numbers to the exclusion of extenuating circumstances is "on-the-face-of-it" unfair.

The Report's take on the commissioners is that they are listening to the justifications given on the "excessive" (in their minds) raises but that they are skeptical and suspicious that some officials are "playing games with them" which is somewhat like the proverbial "shell game."

CLERK OF COURTS NANCY REINBOLD

Clerk of Courts Reinbold "takes the prize" has being the most aggressive department head in terms of asking for "more money" with which to give her employees an "across the board" 5% increase.

And this is on top of many of her employees receiving a 3% increase last year.

Of course, the commissioners turned her down and will be sticking to the 2% guideline they have told department heads that they were going to have to be satisfied with.

Like other department heads, Reinbold had the "stock" reasons why her employees deserve the 5%.

However, she did have a novel one.  That being that her employees are "more important" than others because they deal with critical matters (e.g. the courts handling criminal defendants). 

The commissioners did make it clear to her that there would be no 5% and she told the news with ease in saying "Well, if you don't ask you're not going to get what you think you ought to have" (paraphrase).



The SCPR heard before she was reelected in November, 2012 that she would be retiring not too long after she took her new term of office.

And this week conjecture about her retirement surfaced anew.  However, this time there was more specificity.  What is being said is that she will wait until after the May primary election before making the announcement.

Division Administrator and Plan Township trustee Louis Giavasis (brother of Canton clerk of courts Phil Giavasis [a former Stark County clerk of courts who The Report designated Reinbold as his successor when he moved over to Canton]) tells the SCPR that Nancy has never told him that she plans on retiring, but if she does, he says that he is going to contend to be her successor.

The Report hears that another well connected Democrat is being set up by his high political connection to succeed Reinbold, should she retire according to the speculated timetable.

It could be that Stark Countians will see another occurrence of political infighting within the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee for the appointment if Reinbold does not serve out a full term.

CONCLUSION

While the commissioners' scrutiny of the pay issue appears to be bewildering if not irritating to some of the officials who appeared before Bernabei, Creighton and Regula, that the commissioners' dig in and persist in getting answers should be reassuring to Stark County taxpayers.

One can understand that department heads are under pressure from the employee base to find money for raises, however, the fact of the matter is that Stark County went bare bones in asking for a 0.5% sales tax increase in November, 2011 and the county is ill equipment in terms of available revenues to do much on that front.

Under the spartan funding situation that Stark County finds itself in, it seems to The Report that the commissioners have embraced "being the cop on the beat" (as uncomfortable as it surely is for them) in dispensing discipline over the funds they control (i.e. "the county general fund").

Six years down the road will come sooner than anybody now thinks.

The question then will be up to the voters of Stark Countians.

And that question will be whether or not the voting public thinks that county officeholder leaders have been frugal stewards of public monies and therefore deserving of the public's trust for a continuation of the 2011 Justice System Sales Tax.

From the SCPR's perspective, the commissioners are slowly but surely getting the frugality/efficiency model firmly implanted in the minds and more importantly, the practices of department heads and in achieving such should have the county in good stead with Stark's voters come 2019.

WILL IT BE ANOTHER - MAIER "DEJA VU - ALL OVER AGAIN" MISTAKE - BY STARK DEMS?

VIDEO

ENCORE PRESENTATION

COMMISSIONER BERNABEI

 EXPLAINS

ROETZEL & ANDRESS

"FOR GEORGE MAIER"

REPRESENTATION

CONTRACT

UPDATED AT 11:00 AM

If you buy Attorney Greg Beck's version of the law based on Tuesday's Ohio Supreme Court's decision ousting George T. Maier from occupying the office of Stark County sheriff, then the Stark County Democratic Central Committee (SCDCC) has under the guidance of Chairman Randy Gonzalez virtually no choice but to appoint Lt. Lou Darrow as the sitting Stark County sheriff.

And, the SCPR has learned on good authority (multiple sources) that current sheriff Tim Swanson has placed Darrow in charge of operations as his chief deputy.  Moreover, Vivianne Duffrin (Swanson's chief legal counsel who was summarily dismissed by Maier on October 11th in the midst of contract negotiations with the Stark County deputies union) has been restored to her office at 4500 Atlantic Blvd that Maier had placed Lt. Tim George in.

The Report is being told that Maier has gone to Harrison County to serve as a full-time deputy sheriff.

The SCPR has asked Harrison County sheriff Ronald J. Myers (who testified via deposition in Sheriff Swanson's quo warranto action to have Maier removed from the Stark sheriff's office) to confirm/disaffirm the Maier hiring.

As the SCPR understands it, Maier and Myers are longtime friends from the days when Maier was in the Ohio Highway Patrol and serving the Harrison County area.

If the hiring is confirmed, such combined with Stark County Democratic Party chairman's (as reported in local media) that he intends to pursue Maier's reappointment as Stark's sheriff sets up a gigantic political fight within the Stark County Democratic Party which is reminiscent of the fight that occurred when the Dems "swallowed hard" (especially Gonzalez) and appointed Republican Alex Zumbar to become Stark County treasurer when Gary Zeigler retired/resigned on October 19, 2011.

Just as the local Dems were settling down from all the hubbub attendant the treasurer replacement fight, they now find themselves embroiled in another internal political fight which threatens to bring down the current leadership of the Stark County Democratic Party.

Another unconfirmed report that the SCPR has is that when Democrats meet within the next 45 days to redo the appointment process of a successor to Mike McDonald (sheriff-elect, November, 2012) who was unable due to illness (which regrettably and tragically resulted in his death on Feburary 24, 2013), they will not only be selecting a sheriff but - perhaps, beforehand - a new Dems chairman.

If the latter report is accurate, the SCPR thinks that "stepping down" is the "right thing for Chairman Gonzalez to do" given his out front and vigorous support of Maier to be sheriff.

The Dems demonstrated in their vote (92 Maier, 84 Darrow) on February 5, 2013 that they were then nearly evenly divided on the question between Maier and Darrow who should be the sheriff.

It is amazing to the SCPR that the vote was that close given Gonzalez's highly active effort in support of Maier while serving as moderator and ruling parliamentarian in terms of function.

Critical decisions that Gonzalez (presumably in concert with his fellow executive committee officer corps) made in this - obvious to the SCPR - conflict-in-interest situation included requiring (they say in accordance with Stark County/Ohio Democratic Party rules) that SCDCC members declare their identity in order to have their votes recorded.

Moreover, he made decisions on various motions that were offered up by various members of the SCDCC.

Democrat and Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero (a former chairman himself; hardly a favorite of The Report) "did the right thing" (heroically in the opinion of the SCPR) in bringing to the floor of the February 5th conclave the question of Maier's qualification to be sheriff.

One of the attorneys that Gonzalez cited in his insistence that Maier was qualified under Ohio's statutory law was well-known Canton attorney Steven Okey.  (Also cited was an attorney Michael Thompson whom Gonzalez had retained to defend him in his role as party chairman in Darrow v. Gonzalez, Writ of Prohibition)

It appears to the SCPR that the Maier forces were not banking on one of the eligible Stark County officeholders (which included Ferrero and Sheriff Tim Swanson) to file a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court challenging Maier's qualifications.

The thinking likely was that the appointment fight was "a case of Democrats being Democrats" a la the observation of humorist of yesteryear Will Rogers "I am not part of any organized political party, I am a Democrat" and that "after the smoke cleared" the Darrow supporters would "lick their [political] wounds" but they would not seek to continue their fight.

Well, if that was the thinking of Gonazlez, Maier and their allies; they could not have been more wrong.

Swanson (courageously) on February 12th did file a quo warranto with the Ohio Supreme Court asserting that Maier was unqualified and this past Tuesday as between Ferrero and Okey, Ferrero was correct and "had done the right thing" on the part of Stark Countians as citizens and taxpayers to try to keep the Dems from making a legal mistake.

So the question becomes, is it about to be "deja vu, all over again" (a la one of former New York Yankee catcher Yogi Berra's reputed quotes) with the Stark County Democrats in the light of Gonzalez's statement, Beck's letter and Maier's rumored employment relocation to Harrison County?

A key part of Beck's letter is that, if the Dems proceed as Gonzalez says they are going to and reappoint Maier, he will reopen - on behalf of Swanson - the matter with the Supreme Court with a mandamus action requiring that the Dems appoint either Darrow or Republican Larry Dordea as the only remaining eligibles from the original February 5th list.

And get this:  "at Stark County taxpayer expense."

Back on April 17th, the SCPR wrote about the first billing from Roetzel and Andress.  This is the firm that Maier opted to hire to represent him in Swanson quo warranto action.

Stark County's commissioners (Bernabei, Creighton and Regula) have already paid some $33,671.37 (of which $20,000 is for his legal fees incurred in Swanson v. Maier) in expenses above and beyond the normal operating expenses of the Stark County sheriff's department that are attendant to the Stark Dems having put the "unqualified-by-Ohio Supreme Court ruling" in the sheriff's office.

Here is Commissioner Bernabei from a February, 2013 blog explaining what the arrangement with Roetzel and Andress is:

The SCPR by the way alerted Commissioner Tom Bernabei about the $13,671.37 printing, signage and other "publicize George Maier" material incurred by Maier as a consequence of the Dems' appointive action.

Remember, the SCPR knew and predicted from the get-go that Maier would be ousted by the high court.

What was Bernabei's reaction?

A shudder of the shoulders and a musing that perhaps the Supreme Court would leave Maier in place.

As readers of the SCPR know, I have a high regard for Bernabei and Creighton, in particular, as diligent guardians of the county's finances.

But for them to sit by and allow Maier (unless and until he was confirmed by the Supreme Count) to spend our tax dollars without least "jawboning" him on the matter brings their "due diligence" for the taxpayers into question.

Anyone who has worked for Bernabei over-the-years knows that he is a very demanding "get-employment-values" for the taxpayers type of boss.

But for some odd reason, if he gets enamored with someone - like the SCPR believes he has with George Maier- all of a sudden his critical faculties seem to evaporate.

In defense of Bernabei, when he wants to be and if he deems the person he is dealing with to be "important," George can be quite a "charmer."

However, one does expect a "been-there, done that before" type like Bernabei to be capable of better discernment than he is demonstrating with Maier.

Maier is not the only Stark County official who seemingly can do no wrong in Bernabei's eyes.

Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione is another one.

But in that case, Forchione actually worked with/for Bernabei in the Canton law department for a number of years.

Oh, well!  We all have our blind spots, no?

So not only are the taxpayers out about $70,000 in direct salary paid to Maier for his nine months sitting in the sheriff's office; they are out payments made for his fringe benefits and who knows what else.

The SCPR asked Brant Luther, the county's chief administrator, whether or not Maier's attorneys had asked for any more money.

Answer?

Indeed.

How about $4,274.17 for the period through June 30, 2013?

 

Hmm?

Let's see.

July, August, September, October and six days in November plus all the legal hullabaloo that is underway.

Where will the bill end up?

Will the Stark commissioners pay it?

Luther tells the SCPR that "no" Stark County had an up to $20,000 contract with Roetzel and Andress and that is it!  No more!

Well, let's hope that Luther is right and the commissioners "do the right thing" by Stark County taxpayers and stick to their contract limit.

Which, if they do, one would think, could result in Maier/Roetzel and Andress suing the commissioners for the above $20,000 in legal fees, no?

And, of course, there is the story that the SCPR broke exclusively earlier this week, that local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley is entertaining the thought of pursuing Maier (a guy who thinks well of Maier) to pay the county back for Stark County taxpayer compensation (as stated above, about $70,000 plus) because of the Supreme Court ruling that he was never the legal sheriff of Stark County.

There is another "and."

"And" Greg Beck says he is going to ask the commissioners to pay Swanson's legal fees engendered in his fight to have the high court "authenticate" that the Stark Dems erred as a matter of the law of sheriff qualifications in appoint Maier in the first place.

Apparently, an additional reason that the oft-maligned Tim Swanson should be lauded and appreciated by Stark County taxpayers in this instance of fighting for "the rule of law" is that as of last report he does not intend to ask commissioners to be paid that same $70,000 plus that Maier got but which he has not received.

A point that has been missed by area media except, of course, the Stark County Political Report that it may turn out that not only does Sheriff Swanson get vindicated but perhaps also Stark County auditor Alan Harold in his initial decision not to pay Maier when he took office.

On the instruction of state of Ohio auditor David Yost, Harold reversed himself on the matter, to wit: (from a February 15, "update" of the "linked" [above] original blog)

The SCPR talked with Stark County Auditor Alan Harold yesterday about his February 13th letter indicating that he would not be recognizing the Stark County Democratic Party appointment of George Maier as sheriff.  He indicated that he had been is discussion with both the Ohio attorney general's office and the state of Ohio auditor's offices regarding whether or not he should recognize the appointment.  However, he said, neither would put their advice in writing.

Well, that has changed in that the state auditor has communicated with Harold that he believes that the Stark County auditor should recognize Maier.

If Conley does "civilly" go after Maier on behalf of Stark County taxpayers, he tells the SCPR that it will NOT be pro bono ("for the public good - no fee charged) this time around.

So this is a case that Alan Harold "did the right thing" for Stark County taxpayers only to have the bigs down in Columbus lean on him to change his thinking.

So if Conley is compelled to sue Maier to get the Stark County taxpayer money back, it will be the money back less his fees which, I would daresay, could end up being in the thousands of dollars.

On the matter of whether or not the county should pay Gary Zeigler while his case for reinstatement (which he won) was before the Ohio Supreme Court, Harold stood firm.

He even continued beyond the reinstatement because of Zeigler's difficulty of being able to obtain a statutorily required bond.

But he faded fast on Maier.

Hmm?

As the SCPR has written before, I think Gonzalez in his capacity as Stark County Democratic Party chairman and those executive officers of the Stark Dems (including executive vice chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr; George Maier's brother) should apologize to Stark County citizens (especially in their taxpayer role) for all they have put through them because of the illegal appointment of George T. Maier as Stark County sheriff.

It is simply unthinkable that the Dems would put the county through another trip to Columbus, isn't it?

Prosecutor John Ferrero has given some indication that he is going to fight Gonzalez "tooth and nail."

The SCDCC should be squarely behind Ferrero and thereby show Stark Countians that they do care about stability returning to Stark County government and equally important, the county's bank account!

The Stark County Dems should "do the right thing" by Stark Countians!!!

(VIDEO) "THAT'S WHY IT'S NAMED THE "STARK COUNTY LAND REUTILIZATION CORPORATION" - ALEX ZUMBAR, CHAIRMAN

UPDATED:  09:00

VIDEO

See/hear Mayor Healy tell Councilwoman Cirelli and the rest of Canton City Council about his effort to get all $2.3 million of the Stark County Land Reutilization monies

In 1992 Summit County's Green Township became the City of Green.

By his actions, one might think that Canton's mayor William J. Healy, II thinks that Stark County and the city of Canton are one and the same.

Can you imagine Healy as the mayor of a 378,000 metropolis?

Evidence of such possibly being his mindset came out at Monday night's Canton City Council meeting.

The setting was a Q&A between Councilwoman-at-Large Mary Cirelli and the mayor over $1 million that Canton is covering for the Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation (SCLRC) which is Stark's vehicle for handling state of Ohio grant money for demolishing Stark County-based abandoned/foreclosed residential housing.

For those readers who are not familiar with Ohio's program (Moving Ohio Forward Demolition Grant Program), CLICK HERE to see a July 3, 2012 blog explaining the background of the program.

Back in 2012, Mayor Healy was acting like Canton might have to pass on the program because of the necessity of a local match (50/50) required for each SCLRC dollar that a Stark County community gets.

The Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation was formed in 2013.

Two members of the board include Healy antagonists and Stark County commissioners Tom Bernabei and Janet Creighton.

Stark County's grant from Ohio is $2.3 million.

In the last census (2010), Stark County had a population of about 378,000 citizens whereas incorporated Canton has about 73,000 or about 19% of the county's total population.

So it was astonishing to the SCPR that Mayor Healy would be dismissive of the rest of Stark County on Monday in terms of his saying that Canton really should have been granted $2.3 million of the county's $2.3 million, and that had the SCLRC seen it his way, Canton was prepared (remember, at one time [July, 2012] there was a question of whether or not Canton had the financial wherewithal to participate at all) to spend $2 million of its own money to be matched with SCLRC money for a total of $4 million to be spent demolishing Canton dilapidated residential housing.



Canton is currently in the process of demolishing some 517 units by December 31st with the total of $2 million ($1 million in city of Canton money; $1 million in SCLRC money) which  if expanded to $4 million ($2 million/Canton - $2 million/SCLRC) would presumably lead to over 1,000 blighted Canton city properties being demolished.  It is believe that Canton has roughly 5,000 blighted residents that need demolished.

But, of course, there is no way a "Stark County" Land Reutilization Corporation was going to allocate 100% of state of Ohio total funding to an entity that has 19% of the county's population.

Yesterday yours truly crossed paths with Alex Zumbar (chairman of the SCLRC; also Stark County treasurer [Republican - Alliance]) and mentioned to him Healy's Monday night insinuation that the SCLRC had its priorities screwed up and that Canton should have gotten $2.3 million rather than $1 million.

Hence Zumbar's response:  "That's why its named the Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation."

Healy has a history of thinking that the only thing that matters in Stark County is its county seat Canton which he happens to be the chief executive of.

Whether it is named consolidating/merging/collaborating or whatever one wants to label the process, the only way the city of Canton under Mayor William J. Healy, II is going to be part of the effort is if Canton government ends up in charge.

Efforts at bringing efficiency through countywide integration to various health departments, building departments, emergency call dispatch scattered across Stark County seem always to get sidetracked by the city of Canton factor.

Recent progress was reported on the effort to achieve a countywide emergency forces dispatch operation (or at least 75% countywide, since Nimshillen Township's CenCom remains opposed) because Warren Price, at the time newly named as Canton's safety director, had taken charge and convinced Healy that integrating Canton into the operation was the thing to do.

Originally, Canton had been on board with countywide dispatch (2009, 2010) only to change to not being on board in 2011.  Such is life with William J. Healy, II.

But with Price now out as safety director, the SCPR would not be surprised to see Healy reverse himself once again on that matter.

And there is the situation with the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab.

•  LINK - Blog of February 11, 2013,
•  LINK - Blog of February 13, 2013,
•  LINK - Blog of February 21, 2013,

In essence, earlier (February) this year Healy tried to water down the requirements of the director of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab (CSCCL) to non-scientist status so that he could pick Rick Perez as director.

And "all Hell broke loose" on Healy at the hand of the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) Executive Committee.

The issue?

Guess?

You've got it:  Who was in charge of the Canton - Stark County Crime Lab?

Most of the money and nearly all of the equipment has been anted up by SCOG, and Canton under Healy wants to be in charge?

Again, Warren Price stepped in and the controversy seemed to be headed towards resolution.

But now that Price is gone, are we back to square one on that issue?

The SCPR asked SCOG chairman Tom Bernabei the question yesterday whether or not 9-1-1 countywide consolidation and figuring out who is in charge of the CSCCL are now off track with Price's departure.

Answer:  "We shall see."

In a way, it is good to see Healy try to dominate Stark County.

Good?

Yes.

Because out in the county there are public officials who have no trouble at all with reining Hizzhonor in.

As Chairman Zumbar says:  "That's why it's named the 'Stark County Reutilization Corporation" Mayor Healy!!!

And look for SCOG chairman Tom Bernabei to do pretty much the same with him on the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab situation.

After Bernabei gets done with Healy, do not look for what remains of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab to be under Canton's control.

CANTON CITY TREASURER RACE: WHO WINS? WHICHEVER CANDIDATE GETS HER/HIS VOTERS TO THE POLLS!

As to who will win the Democratic Primary for Canton city treasurer on May 7th, one veteran Canton politicians tells the SCPR that he thinks:

• Kelly Zachary wins Wards 2 and 4,
• Kim Perez wins Ward 1 (his former ward when he was in council),
• Mary Cirelli wins Ward 3 (which she formerly represented) and Ward 5 and, perhaps 6, and
• Wards 7, 8 and 9 are up for grabs,

The overall winner, he thinks, will be the candidate that gets her/his voters to the polls.

Not a whole lot there to disagree with from the SCPR's vantage point.

But there are a number of things to consider.

First of Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher has sided up with Kim Perez.  He worked for Perez when Perez was county auditor.  And it would have been surprising indeed for Fisher to abandon him in the treasurer's race.

So Mary Cirelli winning Ward 5 with Fisher doing a campaign flyer for Perez?  The SCPR is skeptical.  It makes a lot more sense that Fisher pulls Perez through in Ward 5.

If he doesn't, he may give pause for thought for someone to take him on two years down the road.

The Report believes it is likely that Cirelli comes in a competitive second in the 5th and by coming in second in the wards she does not win could be the key for a squeaker overall victory for her.  Should she slip to third in this ward, it could portend a Perez victory.

Also, Ward 6 is a troublesome spot for Cirelli.  Majority Leader Dougherty is the councilman for Ward 6 and one only has to take in his sighs of exasperation when Cerelli speaks up at council meetings to pretty much know that he (being Healy's point man on council) is going to be supporting the mayor's choice who, of course, is Kim Perez.

So yours truly does not see Cirelli winning Ward 6.  But she does come in a relatively close second.

But she will have to place first somewhere other than in the 3rd to become Canton treasurer.

Cirelli wins the election if she is victorious in Wards 7 and 8. 

They are Canton's largest (in terms of number of voters who show up on election day; election year-in, year-out) voting wards.  And they are Canton's most Republican wards.  Of course, this is not the general election and Republicans do not factor in.

The only question along these lines would be if the Democrats in these wards are more Republican like than any other wards in the city?  If they are, Cirelli wins because Perez is the personification of Democratic establishment politics (i.e. one of the Dems "good ole boys").

Keys in these two wards are Councilmen John Mariol (who is running unopposed in the 7th through the general election) and Edmund Mack (unopposed in the primary in Ward 8).

You have to believe that they are leaning Mary's way inasmuch as they often vote with Mary when opposing controversial Healy administration legislative proposals.

A Cirelli triump in Ward 9 (Frank Morris' ward - likely to have a large turnout because the of the Morris/Cole face off) would be icing on her political cake.  Cirelli is nonstop wearing her Group 175 button in support of Vassar Park (located in the 9th Ward) resident Bruce Nordman's campaign to force Canton to add 25 or so police offices to the Canton force.

The SCPR thinks her solidarity with the Vassar Park folks could be a key to a Ward 9 win for Mary.

Speculation is flying around that Fisher and Councilman-at-Large Jimmy Babcock (who also worked for Perez at the county auditor's office) are in line to work for Perez once again.

Fisher says emphatically that he will not be becoming a Perez employee.

Political sideliners seem convinced that Babcock will be off to the treasurer's office in a heartbeat if Perez wins.  And so he is certainly going all out for his former boss.

Why is the SCPR focusing on Cirelli and Perez and pretty much leaving Kelly Zachary out of the discussion up to this point?

Though she has impressive educational background and has the support of the Stark County Black Caucus (Caucus) and current treasurer Bob Schirak, the SCPR sees her likely to take Wards 2 and 4 and running third in the rest of Canton's wards.

It is hard to see how she has a winning campaign strategy.

She is part of a line up at a  Stark County Black Caucus Candidate Support Gospel Concert Rally to be had at the Mount Olive Baptist Church this coming Saturday beginning at 5:00 p.m.
 

While the Caucus should be able to deliver Wards 2 and 4 to her, the SCPR believes that such a base is a losing proposition citywide in heavily Democratic Canton with the likes of Kim Perez and Mary Cirelli on the ballot.

However, one has to wonder whether or not she might be vulnerable to being upset given her thrashing (though running as the incumbent) at the hand of current Councilwoman Chris Smith in the 2007 Democratic Primary?

Smith is now solidly behind Zachary and a good word from Chris may pull her through to victory.

Cirelli and Perez are proven vote getters citywide in Canton.

The city treasurer match up will be unlike Zachary's race against Republican Alex Zumbar in November, 2012 in which Zachary ran well against the Republican in Canton (winning by a substantial majority) but losing it once she got out into the townships and burgs of Stark County.

Her real role in the city treasurer's face off, the SCPR believes, revolves around the question:  Can she be a difference maker as between Perez and Cirelli?

Potentially she can be.

However, only in the sense of BUT FOR ZACHARY being in the race, the Caucus undoubtedly (with Councilpersons Smith and West being solid Healy supporters and therefore presumably Perez supporters) would steer the Caucus to endorse Perez which could have produced enough votes for him to edge out Cirelli citywide in a nip and tuck contest.

Other than being in an off-hand spoiler role, the SCPR does not see Zachary as having much to do with the overall outcome of who becomes Canton city treasurer.

(VIDEOS: CREIGHTON, DORDEA, GRADY, REGULA, ZUMBAR) STARK COUNTY GOP CANDIDATES/ELECTED OFFICIALS TALK ABOUT ROMNEY/RYAN & THEIR OWN CAMPAIGNS

Most of the time those Stark Countians pictured above are level-headed, calm-cool-and-collected.  But yesterday they all let their hair down in a burst of enthusiasm for Paul Ryan; number two at the Republican Party national ticket who was at Walsh University for the purpose of revving up the base.

And he succeeded!

The SCPR captured video comments from Stark County Commissioner Janet Creighton, sheriff candidate Larry Dordea, prosecutor candidate Mike Grady, commissioner candidate Richard Regula and treasurer candidate (an incumbent) Alex Zumbar.

The Report presents these videos for readers to get a glimpse of these folks as they express their zeal for the Romney/Ryan ticket and, in the case of those running for Stark County wide office, their assessments of their individual races.

First, the dean of the Stark County Republican Party:  Commissioner Janet Creighton.



Next, here is Larry Dordea who is presently police chief of Hartville and an Alliance city councilman.



And next is Stark County political newcomer Mike Grady who has years of experience as chief legal counsel for Babcock and Wilcox and is running to unseat Democrat John Ferrero who has been in office nearly 10 years and who ran unopposed in 2008.

Grady tells the SCPR that he suffered a heart attack when he was in California in June 2nd.  But he says that there was no heart damage and he is good to go with a vigorous campaign.



Next in line is Richard Regula, son of esteemed former 16th congressional district (when all of Stark County was in the 16th) Ralph Regula.  Richard is trying to reclaim his seat as commissioner which was lost in 2006 to Democrat Todd Bosley.



Finally, but certainly not least, is Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar.  Alex stepped forward for the Republicans to claim the treasurer's office in November, 2010 (only to lose it temporarily when the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated the commissioner removed Gary Zeigler (a Democrat).  On October 19th, the commissioners restored Zumbar to office and he was selected by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee to retain the treasury post (October 31, 2011).

(VIDEO: BERNABEI, BICKIS, GREEN, HAWS, THOMAS & ZUMBAR) STARK COUNTY TREASURER ALEX ZUMBAR MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE STARK COUNTY LAND REUTILIZATION CORPORATION BECAUSE OF ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS? OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY DOESN'T GET THE JOB DONE PROPERLY IN SETTING UP STRUCTURE FOR LAND BANKS?

Ever wonder how inept the Ohio General Assembly is?

Well, you don't have to go far to find out.

We in Stark County have first hand experience with the screw ups in Columbus in formulating laws that don't work.

Remember the situation with former Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler?

Of course you do.

Zeigler had the misfortune of his chief deputy treasurer stealing upwards of $3 million.  A reality that came to light on April 1, 2009.

While Zeigler was not implicated in the theft, Ohio law  (ORC 321.37 and 321.38) provided that if money comes up missing from a county treasurer's office and is lost to the county, then the county commissioner "may" remove the treasurer which the Stark County commissioners did with Zeigler on August 23, 2012.

Trouble was that the Ohio Supreme Court held in a lawsuit initiated by Zeigler to be reinstated:

(June 23, 2011) ...  that R.C. 321.38, which  authorizes a county treasurer’s removal from office  “immediately on the institution of a suit,” is unconstitutional on its face because it  conflicts with Sect. 38 Art. II of the Ohio constitution that requires a complaint and hearing before an officer is removed.  Based on that determination, the Court issued a writ of quo warranto that removes the current Stark County Treasurer, Alexander A. Zumbar, and reinstates ousted Gary D. Zeigler to the remainder of his elected 2008 term. State ex rel. Zeigler v. Zumbar, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2939 (LINK)

Folks, ORC 321.38 became law on October 1, 1953.

While the Stark County prosecutor's office shepherded the commissioners through the process of removing Zeigler (remember the Ohio Supreme Court says the law "is unconstitutional on its face") saying that they (the prosecutors) were relying on the Ohio General Assembly knowing what they were doing in putting the legislation on the books in the first place and not changing it over the course of nearly 60 years, it is obvious now that the prosecutors should have known better than to have relied on the Ohio Legislature being on top of things and making sure that compliance with 321.38 would withstand challenge if followed literally.

Eventually, the commissioners on October 19, 2011 negotiated a deal with Zeigler for him to leave office by resignation and retirement.

Yesterday it came to light in a board meeting held by the Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation (SCLRC) that the law authorizing the creation land reutilization corporations is deficient.

Ohio Revised Code Section 1724.04 (became law in July, 2010), in part, reads:

A county having a population of more than sixty thousand as of the most recent decennial census that elects under section 5722.02 of the Revised Code to adopt and implement the procedures set forth in sections 5722.02 to 5722.15 of the Revised Code may organize a county land reutilization corporation under this chapter and Chapter 1702. of the Revised Code for the purpose of exercising the powers granted to a county under Chapter 5722. of the Revised Code. The county treasurer of the county for the benefit of which the corporation is being organized shall be the incorporator of the county land reutilization corporation. (emphasis added)

Well, our county treasurer Alex Zumbar got all excited about this legislation and took steps in December, 2011 to interest the Stark County commissioners to pass a resolution authorizing the creation of  a Stark County based corporation (which is non-profit and quasi-governmental).

Zumbar has done a really good job as far as the SCPR is concerned since, once again, becoming treasurer upon Zeigler's resignation.

He has gone to town on whittling down the $40 million or so of delinquent real estate property taxes owed Stark County and has pushed the Stark County prosecutor's office to step up efforts to collect the back taxes.

However, try as they may, the prosecutor's office does not have a chance to collect taxes on the many, many of the delinquent taxpayers because in many cases the taxes are more than the value of the property most of which have been abandoned because they are uninhabitable.

With the help of former Cuyahoga County treasurer Jim Rokakis (who, when treasurer, worked hard to deal with some 27,000 abandoned and vacant homes in Cuyahoga County and who now leads Thriving Communities Institute, an organization he founded in 2011 with the Western Reserve Land Conservancy) and Robin Darden Thomas (land bank program director at Thriving Communities), Zumbar has taken the lead to develop a similar program for Stark County.

Zumbar has incorporated the Stark County effort under the name Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation (SCLRC) and has put together a board of directors (which includes Zumbar, Stark County Commissioners Tom Bernabei and Janet Creighton, Plain Township Trustee Scott Haws [representing township interests] and Attorney Lemuel Green (representing Stark County's largest city's [Canton] as provided for by Ohio law.  Green, incidentally and ironically (in the view of the SCPR) once worked for Gary Zeigler in the treasurer's office as one of his top lieutenants.

So everything was going swimmingly.

That is until yesterday.

Stark County assistant prosecutor Mike Bickis dropped a bomb shell.

Yes, a bombshell!

Picking up on discussion that the board members of the SCLRC contemplated that Zumbar would be the president of the corporation and would in that capacity be making decisions and recommending to the board that they endorse his determinations on specific actions in terms of what demolition proposals (and, also, later down the road what rehabilitations) would benefit from the infusion of SCLRC funds, Bickis, speaking as the legal adviser to the commissioners, questioned whether or not Zumbar in wearing three hats (county treasurer, a board member of the SCLRC serving as the lead and, if the board has its druthers, as president and a key decision maker in the day-to-day operations of the SCLRC) might put himself in violation of the ethical rules of Ohio (Ohio Ethics Commission) in terms of potential conflicts-in-interest.

It was discomforting to the board members (undoubtedly Zumbar) for Bickis to have raised the ethical questions.  Nobody on the board questions Zumbar's ethics.  Nor does Bickis.  But he sees it as his obligation as the adviser for the two commissioner members of the board (sitting as prescribed by Ohio law) to raise any ethical concerns that occur to him.

Bickis advised that it might be best (again, emphasis he was advising the commissioners as their legal representative) to hold off on making Zumbar the operations leader until the Ohio general attorney responds to a request made by the Mahoning County prosecutor for a clarification of whether or not there are statutes which would not permit/prohibit a county treasurer/auditor to operate a non-profit corporation while holding an official position.

Bickis says that the Ohio Ethics Commission has been asked to weigh in on the ethical aspect of the same question.

The SCPR understands that there are a number of counties which are planning to use the county treasurer or auditor as the non-profits day-in, day-out executive officer.

To return to the initial point of this blog which is the inadequate legal structure provided by the Ohio General Assembly in authorizing the creation of land reutilization corporations.

Bickis told The Report that it should have been apparent to the Legislature that creating a non-profit quasi-governmental entity, there were bound to be concerns about mixing private and public functions especially along potential conflicts-in-interest lines.

The SCPR believes that the "bastard" structure that the Legislature created was born of the Republican party's fixation with privatizing everything in sight.  Had they just made the land reutilization entity totally government, then there would not be the questions prompted by the Mahoning County prosecutor and Prosecutor Bickis.

And, of course, none of Stark County's four legislators at the time (Slesnick, Schuring, Snitchler and Oelslager) were not savvy enough to pick up on the problems they help create with this woefully inadequate legislation.

This episode brings to mind a meeting the Stark County commissioner had in early 2011 in which they brought in Schuring, Slesnick and Schuring (Christina Hagan did not attend) and asked them to do something to get rid of legislative mandates that were a burden to county government some of which are costly.

Schuring promised to tackle the specific list presented by Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Tayrn Heath.

The last The Report knew, Schuring had gotten action on a grand total of two.

Go figure!

Schuring is a man who promised yours truly to get legislation passed to require local candidates who get contributions of $100 or more to have to identify the vocation or employer of the contributor.

Still waiting Representative Schuring?

Does anyone think that he'll keep his promise?

ORC sections 312.38, 1724.04 and the Judge Heath's list of antiquated mandates show the need for the Ohio General Assembly needs to have a permanent task force in place that is constantly reviewing Ohio's statutes for relevancy to 2012 government, conflicts between statutes and inadequately structured statutes and to deal with the problems accordingly.

Now onto the financing of Stark County's LRC.

Stark County commissioners approved a resolution earlier this year to provide the SCLRC with 5 mills of Stark County real property revenues which amount presently to about $500,000 annually.

Moreover, the SCLRC is in line to get about $2 million (likely a one-time grant) from Attorney General DeWine's Moving Ohio Forward Demolition Program later this year.

The SCPR applauds Prosecutor Bickis for his work in making sure all the ethical questions are resolved before the SCLRC gets off and running.

Here is a video of the discussion of the board members, Bickis and Robin Darden Thomas, (the land bank program director at Thriving Communities Institute):