MAIER CAMPAIGN CROSSES "THE BLUE LINE?"

UPDATE:  12:12 P.M.

        lougiavasis1
        Today at 12:08 PM

To:  THE REPORT Martin Olson

Martin,

When I read your blog today I was amazed, no shocked at what you reported as to my reaction to your questioning about the picture and topic of your blog. At no time did I react in a manner or state that I thought it was funny. I did in fact state to that I saw it was posted on Facebook by someone else and mearly shared the photo onto my own Facebook page because I thought it was kind of a cool picture.

That was the exact word I used when asked by you was I thought it was kind of a cool picture, I never used the words I thought it was funny. When you asked me if I thought it appropriate for the officers holding the shirt on duty I stated clearly that I thought it was just a couple of officers having fun with the crowd and being over zealous in showing their own personal support for the Sheriff.  I also told you I was not present at the Hall of Fame Parade and did not and do not know who took the picture.

The only thing you got correct in your blog was the fact yes I did have the photo on my page and Yes, I am 110% support Sheriff Maier and his election.

Lou Giavasis

ORIGINAL BLOG

George T. Maier (the Stark County Democratic Party appointee as sheriff) probably - personally - had nothing to do with an incident during Pro Football Hall of Fame parade festivities whereby two auxiliary Canton Police officers appear to have been enticed by Maier campaign workers into displaying a Maier for Sheriff campaign t-shirt outside the window of the driver's side window of Canton Police Department cruiser.

However, the SCPR believes that he and his super-politically attuned brother - Johnnie A. Maier, Jr - a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman, have created a political culture within the campaign whereby the prime operating structure is understood by one and all:  "ya gotta do, what you gotta do! - no matter who might get hurt in "doing what ya gotta do" in order to get George T. Maier elected.

The photograph was published almost immediately on Democrat and Plain Township trustee Louis Giavasis' Facebook (FB) page.

Okay!  Okay! The Report knows.

All the clicking on the link above only gets a reader this:

That's because likely on the insistence of Canton safety forces personnel Louis Giavasis felt he had no alternative.

The SCPR talked with Louie as soon as The Report was emailed by a source with the link and had checked it out.

Louie (the brother of current Stark County Democratic Party chairman and Canton clerk of courts Phil Giavasis) initially conveyed an impression the SCPR that he didn't know who took the photo, who posted the photo but that he thought it was funny

(SCPR Note: [See Giavasis response at the beginning of this blog] "funny" may not have been the exact word Giavasis used, but, if not, the take away impression for The Report was that at the very least he was humored by the photo).

Well, Canton's safety director (Andrea Perry) and Lieutenant Greg Boudreaux were not laughing.

The Report spoke with Director Perry within a day or so of the incident occurring and she assured the SCPR that she was aware of the incident and had dealt with it.

However, as readers of the SCPR know, your truly wanted much more in detail that the brief conversation with Perry entailed.

So here is the entire e-mail exchange between Boudreaux and The Stark County Political Report:

Greg Boudreaux
        Aug 18 at 3:47 PM

To   Martin Olson
        Martuccio, Joseph

Mr. Olson

I'm sorry, I had assumed you had seen the photos. [Editor’s note: The SCPR, of course, had seen the photos; however, The Report wanted to confirm that both officers were involved in the incident] Yes, two Auxiliary officers were involved who were working together in one police cruiser (one incident involving two Aux. officers). Concerning your questions:

1. No, the Aux. officers did not have the shirts with them prior to duty.

2. The person(s) who gave them the shirt are unknown.

3. The t-shirts were given in exchange for the pictures being taken. The details of this are as follows: The officers were assigned to work the pre-parade route and were driving in the 2500blk of Cleveland Ave. N.W. They saw several people with Meier for Sheriff t-shirts. They casually asked how they could get a shirt. Someone in the group (apparently at least three people were handing out shirts) gave them a shirt and asked to take a picture of them with the shirt. The officers complied, had their pictures taken.

4. Answered above. Yes, whomever gave them the shirt requested to photograph them with the shirt.

5. No, neither officer had anything to do with the photos being put on FB.

6. Unknown. I can only assume that a supporter of Sheriff Meier posted the photos.

7. Unknown who took the photos

8. Both Aux. Officers expressed remorse over the incident and did not realize that their actions were a violation of the rules of the department. One offered his resignation and both expressed that they would not have done it had they known that it was against the rules. Both denied that this was in anyway an effort on their part to show that that the CPD has officially endorsed Sheriff Meier.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Lt. Greg Boudreaux
Canton Police Department
Training Bureau
(330) 438-4512


On 8/18/2014 2:05 PM, Martin Olson wrote:
> Regarding your description :
>
> "I can assure you that this was just a use of bad judgment on their part and a spur of the moment incident."
>
> "Their?"
>
> Am I to assume that there were two auxiliaries who displayed the Maier campaign sign?
>
> If so, the follow questions apply to both of them:
>
> Did he have the shirt with him when he reported to duty that day?
>
> Whom did he get the shirt from?
>
> Did anyone one other than a CPD connected person (again, your use of the word "their" indicates to me a fellow auxiliary officer may have been involved) prompt the the display of the Maier campaign shirt?
>
> In your interview with the auxiliary officers, was there any indication that the auxiliaries were put up to doing the displaying by persons outside the CPD?
>
> Did either of the auxiliaries have anything to do withe posting of the photo on Louis Giavasis Facebook (FB) page?
>
> If so, what/who prompted them to post the photo on the FB page?
>
> If not, who took the photo?
>
> Please provide me with any other details that convinced you that the displaying was a "spur of the moment incident" and not part of a pre planned prompting on the part of non CPD persons.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Martin Olson
> SCPR
>
> From: Greg Boudreaux <greg.boudreaux@cantonohio.gov>
> To: tramols@att.net
> Cc: "Martuccio, Joseph" <Joe.Martuccio@cantonohio.gov>
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 1:29 PM
> Subject: Canton Police Auxiliary Officers
>
> Mr. Olsen - Mr. Martuccio asked me to contact you directly regarding the Auxiliary police officers and their being photographed with "Meir [sic] for Sheriff" T-Shirts. 

I have spoken with the officers involved and they have been disciplined. I can assure you that this was just a use of bad judgment on their part and a spur of the moment incident. 

Auxiliary Officers are all volunteers who provide numerous hours of volunteer service to the City. They provide business checks, home checks, security details, patrols, and work numerous hours during the HOF events. 

While we do go over policy matters, they are not as familiar with the Rules and Regulations of the department as a regular, full time police officer.
>
> It is unfortunate that these officers had this lapse in judgment and I sincerely apologize for their actions in this matter. We are continuing training with all of our Auxiliary officers to ensure that this issue is not repeated.
>
> Thank you for your concern and I appreciate the diligence in the work that you do.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Lt. Greg Boudreaux
> Canton Police Department
> Training Bureau
> (330) 438-4512

The SCPR thinks that it ought to be more than a tad disconcerting to everyday, voting Stark Countians that a man who would be sheriff seems to have embraced and promoted a culture that it is understood that "ya gotta do, what ya gotta do" in the way of politiking.

It would be nice if the Maier campaign would be in a position to adopt and adapt via a press release of Boudreaux's statement:

It is unfortunate that these campaign workers/supporters had this lapse in judgment and I sincerely apologize for their actions in this matter. We are continuing training with all of our campaign workers and supporters to ensure that this issue is not repeated.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if the following photo (doctored by the SCPR for blog political commentary illustration purposes) was an actual photo of the work of a rogue Dordea campaign worker, Maier and his brother Johnnie, Jr would be clamoring for an investigation to find the miscreant to be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.

Maybe the SCPR has missed an outcry of outrage on the part of the Maier campaign leaders (including, of course, George himself), but The Report is not aware of an effort by the Maier forces to find out the identity of the Maier supporters who are said by a Canton police lieutenant to have prompted the violation of Canton Police Department rules by two of the department's auxiliary officers.

As can be seen in the Boudreaux response, the "political prank" zeal of Maier supporters has been costly to the auxiliaries involved and was a huge embarrassment to the Canton Police Department.

Louis Giavasis thought it was funny, but the SCPR did not, does not and nor should any other Stark County who thinks that official law enforcement should stay out of political campaigns think that such a photo is a proper topic for humor.

Certainly, no elected public official should treat "the crossing of the blue line" as a matter humor.

In fairness to Giavasis, he did pause for thought after the SCPR continued with him as to the ramifications of a campaign via workers/supporters having "crossed the blue line" and involved law enforcement in partisan political activity.

Giavasis is a main player in the Maier campaign.

While he denied knowing anything about the particulars of the incident, the SCPR for one is skeptical that such is the case.

CANTON POLICING: IS CANTON A PLACE WHERE YOU WOULD WANT TO LIVE? CANTON POLICE GET IN WAY OF CITIZEN TRYING TO MAKE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFER? HMM?

CANTON'S POLICE & PROSECUTOR

Under the category of "no good deed goes unpunished," the Canton Police Department, apparently (a SCPR opinion) not having been thoroughly checked out by the Canton Law Department's prosecutor's office (in terms of the quality of police department's case), recently proceeded against a Mister Tony Porterfield of 12th Street, Northeast on a misdemeanor charge of obstructing official business.

(See Despite run-in with police, man still wants a better neighborhood, The Repository, Shane Hoover, 11/22/2012)

CITIZEN PORTERFIELD

Mr. Porterfield in recent years purchased and moved into a residence on 12th Street right in the heart of 2nd Ward Councilman Thomas West's neighborhood.

His motive?  To have a quality home of his own and to help himself and his neighbors reclaim their neighborhood from the criminals and thugs who seem to have the run of Canton's inner wards.

Talk about a counterintuitive move, Porterfield's move into Mister West's neighborhood has to be a prime example.

CANTON'S CRIME DATA

That is, if the website "Neighborhood Scout" data is to be believed.

According to the website, Canton has a safety "crime index of 4."  Yes, "4" out of a possible maximum index of 100 which at 100 would be a completely safe neighborhood.

Of course, at the other end:  "4," - the neighborhood is completely unsafe.

CANTON'S HEALY ADMINISTRATION

So much for the Healy administration's Zero Tolerance program now that he has been reelected mayor for a second term, no?

Hmm?

February 9, 2010?

It's been nearly three years since Healy has been trumpeting on the city's website his crime interdiction success (i.e. Canton crime rate down 19.5%).

Hmm?

CITIZEN PORTERFIELD

Porterfield seems to be a "good Samaritan" of sorts.  He says in Hoover's report of his acquittal by jury of his peers (eight Canton Municipal Court jurisdiction citizens) within minutes their getting the case (as quoted in the Hoover article):

“I was looking for a place to reside and stay forever,” the 43-year-old Alliance native said.

The bushes and grass around his home are neatly trimmed. A flag hangs from a corner of the porch. A red metal roof is the most visible sign of Porterfield’s effort to remodel the house and a building next door.

The neighbors on his block look out for each other. If a strange car is parked in the neighborhood, he will get a call or a text from a neighbor asking him to check it out, Porterfield said.

THE INCIDENT

On July 9th of this year, a couple of Canton's finest parked their unmarked vehicle close to Porterfield's home on a mission to document an undercover police drug buy.

Unmarked car?

Police presumably in plain clothes?

In a neighborhood that is one of the most crime infested in all of America?

A man and neighbors who are determined to take their neighborhood back from the criminals?

Of course, the highly civic minded Porterfield is going to be asking questions, no?

And, indeed, he does!

Perfectly understandable and as it turns out, in the view of The Report, heroic.

According to Hoover, the police said:

• "they politely explained they were conducting an investigation and showed their badges, but Porterfield refused to leave and began talking loudly and drawing attention to their vehicle,"
• Porterfield refused to stop drawing attention to their vehicle, and persisted to the point of trying to record the license plate number of the unmarked vehicle whereupon he was arrested

Porterfield's account was quite different, to wit:

• he was sworn at and told to get back in his house, and
• the policemen never showed him a badge

The Report finds Porterfield's account more believable than the officers on the basis of:

• his motivation to make the neighborhood a safer one,
• a reading of Hoover's report (the actual lines and between the lines), and
• a lifetime of experience of dealing with policemen

A DEEPER LOOK AT HOOVER'S REPORT

The SCPR picks out some key points from the report to chew on just a little:

• KEY POINT ONE - If Tony Porterfield had his way, a police cruiser would be parked on his street and officers would get to know the neighborhood by patrolling on foot.
• COMMENT:  A man who not only does not resent a police presence in his neighborhood but wants them there and on foot to boot.  Hardly, someone who going to get testy with police, unprovoked.
• KEY POINT TWO - What exactly happened to Porterfield is in dispute — he has his version, the police have theirs and a jury acquitted him [within minutes of receiving the case] of misdemeanor obstructing official business — but the incident comes at a time when officer conduct and the department’s relationship with the community have been under scrutiny.
• COMMENT 1:   "... acquitted him [within minutes of the jury having received the case]... ."   Hmm?  Within minutes?   Doesn't take a rocket scientist, err legal professional, to tell one something about the quality of the case notwithstanding what Chief Lawver and what Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio say about the unpredictability of jury decisions.
• COMMENT 2:  "... incident comes at a time when officer conduct [e.g. Daniel Harless] and the department's relationship with the community [outbreak of summer shootings] have been under scrutiny."  Hmm?  Perhaps Chief Lawver is feeling a bit defensive these days and in no mood to square up with the Canton public and admit that he has some major reform to do within the Canton Police Department (CPD) in terms of how to connect to, relate to, and work with everyday Cantonians?

SCPR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF POLICING IN CANTON

The SCPR believes that the Healy administration has politicized the effectiveness of policing in Canton.

Mayor William J. Healy's trump card in getting elected in 2007 was to promise zero tolerance of crime in Canton.

Even though it is apparent that his political campaign ploy has not worked, Cantonians nonetheless are putting increasing pressure on the CPD to deliver on the failed Healy administration promise to make Canton's neighborhoods safer.

But the police lack the manpower and financial resources to do so.  Accordingly, you get folks like Porterfield who get directly involved in making neighborhoods safer.  And you have the police turning to community policing efforts to make up for their inadequacies.

It seems to The Report that the newly appointed chief (Lawver) is feeling pressure big time to roll back an apparent upsurge in Canton crime.

And the July 9th incident and its attendant failure to deal effectively with a well-meaning citizen did not help matters any.

Hoover's article insofar as it refers to the chief, reeks (in the opinion of the SCPR) of a man grasping for excuses/justifications (e.g. runaway jury?; uncharacteristic of McWilliams [one of the involved officers]; won't second guess; "highly successful and conscientious officers") and of a public official who may be out-of-touch with the citizenry and communicates such to his rank-and-file policemen/women.

And there may be another factor.

The SCPR addresses the possibility in the form of a question:  Is the Canton city prosecutor's office too tight with the Canton Police Department?

Yours truly addressed that question to Canton law director Joseph Martuccio this past Friday.

With the jury voting to acquit Porterfield "within minutes" of receiving the case, one has to wonder what kind of vetting that the prosecutor's office did on the quality/strength of the McWilliams/Gabbard (the other involved officer) case against Citizen Porterfield?

Yours truly's daughter was a police prosecutor in Georgia for some five years (probably 2005 - 2010) and so thereby The Report does have some insight into a typical prosecutor/police relationship.

One of the things daughter did as prosecutor was to shore up some pretty sloppy police work (before she got on the job) in terms of having a provable case.  Moreover, she always made sure she was the decider-in-chief as to whether or not a prosecution would go forward.

While the Porterfield case is not quite the same thing (i.e. sloppy police work) inasmuch as it boiled down to a "my word against your word" situation; the "within minutes" verdict indicates to a reasonably thinking person that there may have been something very wrong in terms of the Canton prosecutor office's analysis of the quality of the case to be brought to prosecution.

LAW DIRECTOR MARTUCCIO

Back to the SCPR's question of Law Director Martuccio.

The essence of his answer?

"You never know what a jury is going to do."

Additionally, Martuccio denied that if a Canton policeman makes an arrest, it automatically parlays into a prosecution in terms of the relationship between his prosecutors and the police.  However, he added that "it is rare" when an arrest does not result in a prosecution.

As for Martuccio's "you never know what a jury is going to do," such is the identical thing that Canton Police Chief Lawver said to Rep reporter Hoover.

Is that to say that law enforcement/prosecutions are a roll of the dice?

Prosecutions must have a rock-solid basis to them.

After all,  you are dealing with ramifications on the future of citizens who have differences with Canton police officials.

As reported by Hoover:

Porterfield said he does his best to look out for trouble, but a run-in with two undercover city police officers this summer almost cost him his freedom and his military career, and left him with a sense of unease about calling 911.

The Report does not accept, nor should the Canton public, that in prosecuting cases that the police department appear to be treated by the Canton prosecutor's office as being determinative clients.

And, as indicated previously as implied in The Report's reference to daughter-prosecutor; in working closely on quality case preparation prosecutors and police are susceptible of developing too tight of a relationship.  Perhaps, so much so that prosecutors might forget who their real client is.

As the SCPR sees it, prosecutions are always to be pursued on behalf of "the people" in the pursuit of truth and justice; not as vindication of a police decision to arrest.  In fact, in many jurisdictions the cases are captioned:  "People versus John Doe."

The SCPR chooses not to think in terms of the Lawver/Martuccio posited implication.

Rather The Report sees the situation as being a jury of responsible citizens doing their civic duty.

The Report is told that The Repository does not generally cover misdemeanor cases.

That it did in the Porterfield situation, from the SCPR's perspective, is important in terms of The Report's thinking that Canton police and law department officials and the Canton safety director (former Canton policeman Tom Ream) of the Healy administration being put on notice that they all need to clean up their processes.

The Report thinks for Tony Porterfield to have:

• located into a notoriously crime-infested Canton neighborhood,
• spent his hard earned dollars rehabbing the property, and
• working collaboratively with neighbors and the police to clear the community of crime

and to have gotten kicked in the teeth by Canton police officialdom is an outrage.

The Porterfield case should give us all pause for thought.

There but for the grace of God go you and I.

And Canton officials wonder why people are moving out of Canton in droves?