(VIDEO) SCPR SERIES ON 2014 STARK CO. BUDGET - Q & A COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

VIDEO

BUDGET DIRECTOR NICHOLS

&

COMMISSIONER TOM BERNABEI

Q&A ON BUDGET PRESENTATION

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

COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA

ON

"PLANNING ASPECT OF BUDGET"
==============================

COMMISSIONER JANET CREIGHTON

ON

THE NEED TO BE FRUGAL IN BUDGETING
 

As "a public service" the SCPR brings to everyday Stark Countians a multi-part series (eight blogs in all) on the "proposed" (see disclaimer in graphic above) 2014 Stark County budget.

Today, The Report presents "Volume Question & Answer (including Commissioner Regula and Creighton comments)" of Stark County Commissioners' Budget Director Chris Nichols' 2014 Stark County "proposed" budget.

Readers of this blog to get a full appreciation of Nichols' presentation should make sure that they have read prior blogs in order as listed below:

1. Volume 1
2. Volume 2 
3. Volume 3 
4. Volume 4
5. Volume 5 
6. Volume 6

In Volume 1, Commissioner Thomas Bernabei appears in the video and outlines the four (4) guidelines that he and fellow commissioners Janet Creighton and Richard Regula laid out to Nichols in formulating the 2014 budget, to wit:

1. The county must live within its means,
2. New revenue for the year must support the operation budget of the county through 2019,
3. Carry-over funds cannot be used to fund the day-to-day operations of government,
4. He must build a 2014 budget that forms a viable base on which budgets through 2019 can be realistically projected as being "sustainable budgets"

After about a 45 minute budget presentation (see Volumes 1 through 6), Budget Director Chris Nichols and Commissioner Tom Bernabei (president of the Stark County Board of County Commissioners) take questions from county employees in various aspects of the budget.

Also, in the video which appears at the end of this video, Commissioners Regula and Creighton weigh-in on various aspects of the budgeting process.

Regula has high words of praise for the five years out planning of Director Nichols.  Regula was commissioner from 2003 through 2006 and therefore has something to compare Nichols' presentation to.

As for Commissioner Creighton, she was at her "salty best" in reminding Stark County employees including elected Stark County officials that the commissioners will not be letting up on their oversight of county finances.

And finally a note (received by the SCPR late yesterday) from the "lead-man" of the entire budgeting process; namely, Chris Nichols, to wit:

Martin:
... .

As of now, it does not appear there will be any material changes, just a few small tweaks.

I think your blogs have been a good and accurate representation of the proposed budget.  

The only comment/note on an interpretation I would have is regarding the revenue estimates of Casino Revenue.  

I agree that Casino Revenues are well behind what the state had initially forecast.  In my budget model, I am not utilizing any of the state's forecast numbers.  I am using last year's Actual Casino revenues received by Stark County as the baseline, so the assumption is that the actual revenue received by Stark County remains somewhat consistent to 2013.

... .

Chris

The Report joins Commissioner Regula is handing out kudos to Nichols.

As readers of the SCPR know, it is rarity for The Report to hand out accolades to public employees.  To The Report, they are doing what they are paid to do.  And, as compared to the private sector (when one includes benefits), they are paid rather handsomely.

Only those like Nichols, whom The Report sees so far as going beyond the call of expected duty, merit special recognition.

That's why the SCPR wants to gag when the likes of former Canton Municipal Court chief deputy Randy Gonzalez (also Jackson Township fiscal officer and Stark County Democratic Party chairman) wants to attribute to himself (and, apparently, other family members in government employment) as rendering a "public service" as a matter of family tradition.

While he has been involved in some notable Stark County enhancing achievements:

• The rehab of Stark County's 9-1-1 call receiving and dispatch emergency services,
• The cobbling together of the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS), and
• The formulation of an economic development pact among Jackson, Plain and Canton,

in doing so, there is nothing extraordinary about his contribution. It has been "all in a day's work" for which he has been richly rewarded.

Accordingly, Gonzalez has to try the "public service" self-promotion routine on someone other than the SCPR. 

The SCPR has demonstrated journalistic "due diligence," as a matter of uncompensated "public service" to providing Stark Countians with insight into county budgeting process so that everyday citizens are in a position to judge how well or how poorly the commissioners and other elected and appointed public officials are doing with taxpayer provided resources.

Most readers of the SCPR recognize the diligence and thoroughness of The Report.

But because Gonzalez and his friends (i.e. the Maier Loyalty Club) are not used to being scrutinized by anybody, he and his ilk whine and complain when the SCPR spotlight gets turned on them.  Gonzalez, in particular, seems to The Report to have an expectation that media types act as his public relations agent.  And, by way of example, Ponder of WHBC, the SCPR thinks, accommodates.

The SCPR counts it as a good thing to be criticized by Gonzalez et al.  It is one of those situations that if Gonzalez and company were to say anything positive about the work of The Report; such would be a cause for alarm.

The Report has been covering the commissioners since 2008 and has seen numerous county budgeting processes.

The Report's take on the current Board of Stark County Commissioners is that the board is far and away leaps and bounds over any previous boards which have served since 2008 and, perhaps, going back a ways beyond 2008.

Much better than the likes of Todd Bosley, Tom Harmon, Steve Meeks and Gayle Jackson of more recent times.

Commissioner Creighton to the SCPR is the leading "jawboning" commissioner in relation to tamping down on several (not all) Stark County department heads and their tendency to disdain frugality with taxpayer provided funds.

During the department budget hearings held in the commissioners' meeting room in January and February of the year, Creighton is seen to be the most "in-your-face" of the three commissioners for those department heads who appeared to be "gaming" the commissioners on their budget numbers.

Back in Volume 1, Director Nichols is to be seen talking about there being $64 million requested on what turns out to be about a $60 million appropriated in the 2014 budget.

The excess $64 million request (remember, by some $4 million to $5 million) highlight the fact that Nichols and the commissioners have their work cut out for them as managers of county finances in staying on track for maintaining budgets 2015 through 2019 that will keep expenses within revenues without totally depleting the carry over.

With the "due diligence" they have demonstrated, the current $10 million carryover is projected to dip to $6.1 million.

The question going forward is, and, of course, the SCPR will be watching:  Can the commissioners and Nichols keep the county solvent through 2019?

Only the passage of time will tell the story, but the SCPR is betting on this board of commissioners and Director Nichols getting the job done.

Here is the last Thursday's Q&A video (led by Director Nichols and Commissioner Bernabei) with comments by Commissioners Regula and Creighton.

In order, the first video is on the Regula and Creighton comments followed second by the Q&A session.

(VIDEO) COMMISSIONER JANET CREIGHTON ON NEW YEAR'S DAY REVIEW OF 2013 & A LOOK AHEAD INTO 2014

Stark County Commissioner Janet Creighton sat down with the Stark County Political Report on Monday to discuss where the county has been in 2013 and how the county has dealt with matters that came up in 2013.

Beyond the 2013 discussion, Commissioner Creighton also looked forward into 2014 and provided a glimpse at what Stark Countians can expect to see in terms of practices, programs and policies from county government.

The full (almost 30 minute) interview can be viewed at the end of this blog.

Commissioner Creighton described 2013 as being a "year of restoration."

While a critical piece in county officials restoring the full range of county services to Stark Countians, that is to say the November, 2011 passed 0.5% sales tax increase (the Justice System sales tax [JSST]), started being collected in 2012, it was not until fiscal year 2013 that the full complement of a year's revenue was collected.

In 2013 - the year of restoration - Commissioner Creighton articulated three effects of the commissioners having the benefit of the additional revenue, to wit:

• a better feeling where the county is heading,
• getting a better handle on the safety and security of Stark County, and
• a realization of Stark County financial stability

She expressed what transpired over fiscal year 2013 (January 1 - December 31, 2013) in a triad context of being like "three silos."

2013

ACTUAL CHANGES SILO

Having money, Commissioner Creighton says, has had a "chemical effect" on county government operations in terms of affecting - in a positive way - the interactions among county employees and in the relationship between county employees and the general Stark County public.

She further refines 2013 (the year of restoration) as being "a year of change."

Stark Countians, Creighton says, are beginning to see better services.

BUDGET AND FINANCE SILO

Creighton says that Stark's commissioners have embraced "smart money management" practices in the context of a commitment of the county "living within its means" and also finding ways to put money aside (i.e. "a rainy day fund").

Because of these fundamental budgeting and financing changes, Stark County in 2013 was able to fund what she calls "quality of life" factors of county government.

THE SURPRISE SILO

The message here, it seems to the SCPR, is that the commissioners have taken "surprises" such as the roof more or less collapsing at the Board of Elections (BOE) facility on 3rd Street NE and turned them into positives for the county.

County officials have known for years that the 3rd Street facilities had seen their better days.  But nonetheless prior boards of commissioners seemed content with nursing the decrepit building along from year-to-year hoping against hope that they could get through yet another year.

Well, that hope came crashing down on April 10th when there was a partial roof collapse at the BOE.

The roof collapse was all that the Bernabei/Creighton/Regula Board of Stark County Commissioners needed to get the ball rolling for renovations at the Cohen-Joliet Building out on Atlantic Boulevard (Route 62) so that the BOE can relocate there in 2014.

Creighton also said the "surprises" of the commissioners having to deal with the destabilizing factor of Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (November, 2012) not being able to take office on January 7, 2013 due to what turned out to be a terminal illness.

While not a surprise, she cites the completion of renovations of the Bow Building (Cleveland Ave & 2nd St SW) as being indicative of how the commissioners have taken available assets (transferred from the federal government to commissioners for $1) and benefited Stark County taxpayers by thereby efficiently providing for sorely needed space requirements for county departments of government,which, of course, makes government more accessible to Stark Countians.

2014

Commissioner Creighton also framed her (and fellow commissioners Thomas Bernabei and Richard Regula) take on what 2014 holds for the improvement of Stark County government in another triad of silos.

FISCAL DISCIPLINE SILO

Creighton aptly defined fiscal discipline within the finances of county government in saying "I have the right ... you [a county taxpayer] have the right] as a citizen" to question the use of county funds and to insist upon self-discipline on the part of county officials on their use of taxpayer dollars.


CAPITAL REPAIRS SILO

Recently Commissioner Creighton went to a County Commissions Association meeting at which she learned that Franklin County has a $190 million "rainy day" fund.

Of course, Stark County is in no position to and likely has no need to have a $190 million "rainy day" fund.  However, witness the BOE roofing problem (April, 2013) and ongoing drainage problems (e.g. Zimber Ditch); the county does need to have a "rain day" fund.

Developing criteria for such a fund is a top concern of the commissioners for 2014 and Stark Countians will be hearing more on the specifics of dealing with what the targeted amount of the fund will be and how the county will come up with the money within budget constraints to fund it.

SOUND MANAGEMENT SILO

One of the major faults Commissioner Creighton sees with how the commissioners' of yesteryear have managed the county has to do with their having sat back and waited for situations to develop and then "react" to them.


The current Board of Stark County Commissioners, according to Creighton, is committed to changing that style of management into an anticipative proactive model.

To get to being a proactive body, Creighton says that the commissioners are implementing much more planning than the county has ever known before.

Right now the management approach is "by project" to catch up on what the SCPR thinks (Creighton did not specifically say this) has not been done by prior boards of commissioners in a "planning ahead" mode but, rather, in a "reactive" - "crisis management" modality.

However, as the SCPR interprets Creighton's words, Stark Countians should expect 2014 to be a year in which the commissioners start talking about and implementing plans on which Stark Countians can hold them accountable.

Commissioner Janet Creighton via video:

(VIDEO) MARCELLI V. MAIER TO BE FILED TODAY? (A LAWSUIT DESIGNED TO RECOVER STARK COUNTY TAXPAYER MONIES)

UPDATED:  AT 2:30 P.M.

FILING CONFIRMED

 VIDEO

COMMISSIONER THOMAS BERNABEI

EXPLAINS WHY

THE STARK CO. COMMISSIONERS

ARE IGNORING

PROSECUTOR JOHN FERREO'S

LETTER 

ON

"CIVILLY" PURSUING

GEORGE T. MAIER

ON BEHALF OF

STARK CO. TAXPAYERS

The Stark County Political Report has learned (weather permitting) that Stark County resident Thomas M. Marcelli will be filing a civil lawsuit today against "ousted-from-the-sheriff's office" George T. Maier to recover for Stark County taxpayers sums received/spent by Maier during his time (February 11, 2013 through November 6, 2013) at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

Marcelli's attorney, Craig T. Conley, back on November 12th sent Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero demanding that he seek recovery of monies received by and paid by or on behalf of Maier.

Ferrero declined to do so on his own initiative.

He did offer to join with the Stark County commissioners in requesting the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to appoint a "special prosecutor" to assess whether or not legal action be initiated to recover Conley thinks is some $120,000 that ought to be retrieved from Maier and restored to county revenues for the benefit of Stark County taxpayers.

However, after last Wednesday's regular weekly meeting, Commissioner Tom Bernabei tells the SCPR in the following video that the commissioners to be in the nature of "an informational letter" of Ferrero's willingness but not an "actual" request that the commissioners join him.

Bernabei added that the commissioners saw no need to pursue Maier for recovery of taxpayer funds and therefore would not be taking Ferrero up on his offer.



In the lawsuit, the SCPR has reason to believe that the following allegations will be made:

• During Maier's unlawful and void ab initio [from the beginning] tenure as Sheriff, he was, with taxpayer funds, was paid salary and benefits as though he were lawfully Sheriff; i.e., Maier was, upon information and belief,  and was compensated in the total amount amount of $88,511.75,
• [D]uring Maier's unlawful and void ab initio tenure as Sheriff, he caused taxpayer funds to be expended to change and "re-brand" with his name inter alia [among other things] building and vehicle signage and stationery, and in doing so, Maier, upon information and belief, used $13,671.37 in public funds,
• [D]uring Maier's unlawful and void ab initio tenure as Sheriff, a bond was, with taxpayer funds, obtained for him at, upon information and belief, a cost of $1,399.88,
• [D]uring Maier's unlawful and void ab initio tenure as Sheriff, his attorney's fees related to Swanson quo warranto action, with taxpayer funds, were directly paid or reimbursed to him in the amount of, upon information and belief, of $20,000

An interesting sidelight to the Marcelli lawsuit is the possibility (speculated by the SCPR) that Conley may be going up against pre-eminent and highly regarded Stark County personal injury attorney Allen Schulman.

Conley (a conservative Republican) is an excellent attorney his his own right and has considerable experience in bringing taxpayer lawsuits.

The two know each other well and are said to have a history in engaging each other on various and sundry political and philosophical issues (Schulman is a liberal Democrat) in a number of encounters over the years.

Moreover, Schulman is one of Stark County's foremost Democrats who serves as president of Canton City Council and is currently one of a team of Stark County attorneys (i.e. Warren Price [of Schulman's firm], Steve Okey and Michael Thompson) representing the Stark County Democratic Party and its chairman Randy Gonzalez in a mandamus lawsuit filed by interim sheriff Tim Swanson and Lieutenant Lou Darrow in the Ohio Supreme Court on November 22nd.

Of course, the Stark County Political Report will be covering this political/legal drama as it unfolds - in thoroughgoing detail.

The November 22nd action is a follow on to the high court's ruling on November 6th (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) wherein the court removed Maier from the sheriff's office and ordered the Stark Dems' Central Committee to re-do it February 5, 2013 original appointment.

At dispute in the mandamus is whether or not the articulated,  in the Swanson v. Maier decision "qualification date" of February 6, 20 is binding on the Stark Dems in its re-do meeting scheduled for December 11th.

But that is "all beside the point" as far as Conley is concerned inasmuch as he believes that by the Swanson v. Maier decision Maier was never "as a matter of law" sheriff of Stark County and therefore was not entitled to be paid direct or on his behalf or for him to spend any taxpayer dollars that are tied to his personhood (i.e. signs/stationery and the like displaying his name as sheriff).

Stark County auditor Alan Harold balked at paying Maier any county monies at the outset of Maier's appointment but the state of Ohio auditor overruled Harold.

It is going to be awfully embarrassing to the state auditor (Republican David Yost) and to the Stark County commissioners if Conley prevails for Marcelli in the name of Stark County's taxpayers.

One of the things that the commissioners have staked their reputation on as county governors is their watchdog function of taxpayer funds.

They are on record now as giving Maier a pass on the need to recover any monies from him.

If Conley/Marcelli succeed, then the commissioners will certainly have a "political" black eye.

Republican commissioner Janet Creighton has taken out a petition to run for reelection.

Could it be that in the run up to the 2014 elections she might have some "explainin" to do?

COMMISSIONER CREIGHTON ON SUPREME COURT MAIER OUSTER: "THREE STEPS FORWARD; FIVE STEPS BACKWARDS"

CIVIC ACTIVIST & LOCAL ATTORNEY

CRAIG T. CONLEY

TO

DEMAND

MAIER

REIMBURSE

STARK COUNTY

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

VIDEOS 

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

COMMISSIONER

JANET CREIGHTON

SPEAKS

ON

MAIER OUSTER

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

CONLEY

ON

DEMAND

FOR
GEORGE T. MAIER

STARK CO. TAXPAYER

REIMBURSEMENT

========================
STARK CO. PROSECUTOR
JOHN FERRERO
RAISING
MAIER QUALIFICATION OBJECTION

 UPDATED:  10:30 AM

There are two questions on the mind of many Stark Countians today.

First:  Why did it take the Ohio Supreme Court nearly nine (9) months to decide that George T. Maier is was not (as of the qualification date - February 6, 2013) not qualified to be Stark County sheriff?

Second:  Are the taxpayers of Stark County entitled to be reimbursed by Maier for certain Stark County taxpayer expenditures made during his time of "illegally" being in office?

THE TIME FACTOR

Commissioner Janet Creighton said it best at yesterday at the Stark County commissioners regular weekly meeting.

... Everytime we [Stark County government] have taken three steps forward, we take five steps back, it seems.  The county, I thought, was on a roll.  We had a great team in place.  

The Public I hope understands that this [George Maier's ouster by the Ohio Supreme Court as Stark County sheriff] is out of our control. 

... We will abide by the court's decision.  But I feel that it's another set back for the county.

I do appreciate the service he [George Maier] has given.  

I think he has gained respect from both sides of the aisle [Creighton is a leading Stark County Republican; Maier is a Democrat].  I think that's a high compliment to anyone.

STEPS BACK?

The "steps back" that Creighton refers to is a reference to the extreme turmoil that Stark County went through went it was revealed in April, 2009 that the-then chief deputy of the Stark County treasurer Vince Frustaci had stolen upwards of $3 million in taxpayer dollars.

Ultimately, in October, 2011 (2-1/2 years later) the-then treasurer Gary D. Zeigler (2000 - 2011) retired/resigned as treasurer amid allegations that he did not adequately safeguard taxpayer funds with appropriate polices, practices and facilities.  

Zeigler has never been implicated in the Frustaci theft and had denied that he was in any way remiss in the administration of this office.

A lead person in attempting to protect Stark County taxpayer interests in recovering insurance, bonds and civilly "responsible persons" (according to Ohio statutory law) to the greatest extent possible was local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley.

He appears again in this blog via a videotaped interview below in addressing his intent to pursue taxpayer interests in recovering monies that may have been illegally paid to or on behalf of Maier.

STEPS-FORWARD?

Maier took office back in early February of this year in a highly controversial appointment by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDCC).

At the time county prosecutor John Ferrero (himself a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman) challenged current chairman Randy Gonzalez on the appropriateness of the Maier candidacy on the question of whether or not Maier is qualified by the statutory law of Ohio to be a sheriff.

In the view of the SCPR, Gonzalez and Maier's brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (a former Stark County chairman and currently an executive vice president) spearheaded a move in the SCDCC proceeding to ramrod George Maier through the process and into the appointment as sheriff.

With all that political firepower at his command, George Maier narrowly bested Stark County sheriff's captain Lou Darrow for the appointment.  Maier got 92 votes; Darrow 84 and Republican Larry Dordea received 1 vote.

To The Report, the closeness of the vote is evidence that "at the time" there was a sense among the precinct committee persons that there was a legitimate question about Maier's qualifications.

There is no doubt, the SCPR thinks, that there were a lot of politics involved (e.g. Ferrero's historic competition with the Maiers for political supremacy within the Massillon Democratic Party) in the contest.

However, to emphasize the point, Maier's qualification was a major "bone of contention" and in my view Chairman Gonzalez and his ally Johnnie A. Maier, Jr simply brushed it aside with a cursory and almost laughable appeal to several lawyers among the SCDCC members to opine [which a few did] affirming their "opinion" that Maier was qualified.

CONSEQUENCES OF MAIER APPOINTMENT?

Today, Stark County is paying the price for the Gonzalez/Maier "brush-off" of the huge importance of ensuring that the Dems appointee was "as a matter of law" qualified.

Gonzalez and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and their political allies should be apologizing profusely to Stark Countians for the disruption in safety services that we Stark Countians are experiencing as the sheriff's department transitions once again to new leadership.

The Report believes that Gonzalez as party chairman should have proceeded with much more caution in entertaining the Maier application for the appointment.

Because of the "rush to appointment," the SCPR thinks that Commissioner Creighton is "right on the mark" in saying that the Maier ouster is a blow to the stability of Stark County government.

And, of course, the Ohio Supreme Court justices and the court's administrators should have expedited proceedings.

Do they not understand that it is not a good thing to have an "unqualified" person as the county sheriff for the better part of nine (9) months while they sort things out?

Ohio's political parties can file litigation with the high court over questions like redistricting and get the "almost immediate attention" of the court.  Everything else gets put on back-burner.  

So what's the message Madamme Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor?  Counties and the stability of their government operations are not as important as the stakes of political parties?

Beyond the unsettling part of the Maier ouster that Commissioner Creighton address in her comments yesterday, questions arose immediately as to the consequences of Maier's having served illegally.

For an opinion of an answer to some of these questions, the SCPR turned to local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley.

In this 10 minute interview, Conley touches on many questions that have to be gracing the minds of many Stark Countians in terms of the continuing fallout that may be in the offing as a consequence of the Maier ouster.

Among his concerns is whether or not there will be moves by Stark County defense attorneys to challenge the validity of arrests by George T. Maier appointed and sworn-in deputies.

But true to past form, he says he is intent on recovering to the benefit of Stark County taxpayers any monies paid to Maier as employment compensation while he staffed the position of county sheriff.

The SCPR thinks that a new "twisting in the wind" is about to envelope Stark County government.

There are concerns in addition to those expressed by Conley.

Many of personnel who are in place at the Stark County sheriff's department have been under both Maier and Swanson.

Unfortunately, some of them have taken sides in the Swanson/Maier dispute and who but the utterly political naive will believe that there will not be ramifications.

And there is likely to be a huge fight break out within the Stark County Democratic Party.



The Report is told by someone very close to Prosecutor John Ferrero that he intends to hold Gonzalez et al politically accountable for the consequences of the Stark Dems' illegally done appointment of Maier.

At the meeting of the Stark Dems on February 5, 2013, The Report believes that Gonzalez humiliated Ferrero in the manner in which he singled him out as being a sort of "fly in the ointment" on the qualification issue.

And anybody who knows John Ferrero knows that he has intense and long memory (warranted or not) when he thinks he has been shown up.

As in the case of the Frustaci matter, the SCPR will be your prime source for in-depth coverage of the nuances, the twists, and the turns, and surprises that are likely to flow from the "after-the-Maier-ouster" in terms of further ramifications and consequences.

WHAT'S NEXT?

The Ohio Supreme Court took care of the immediate situation as to whom is sheriff in yesterday's order reinstating Tim Swanson in a "he was never "not" sheriff" import of its decision (here is a LINK to the "entire" decision).

Beyond Swanson's return, the SCPR takes the position that Chairman Gonzalez should call the SCDCC into session and ask them to appoint Lou Darrow or Larry Dordea (Mike McDonald's Republican opponent in 2012) as Stark's new sheriff.

And he should do it immediately!

It is reported that Darrow's attorney (Darrow filed a Writ of Prohibition against Gonzalez as party chairman on February 4, 2013) plans to ask the Supreme Court to order an immediate appointment if Gonzalez delays unduly.

Again, Gonzalez should act immediately!

Stark County needs a "for the duration (i.e. until December 31, 2014)" sheriff appointed now!

SCDCC members should be besieging Gonzalez with calls for him to call a meeting for that purpose NOW!

ARE THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS "LEADING BY EXAMPLE" IN SPENDING 2011 VOTED-IN SALES TAX INCREASE MONEY?

UPDATED EVALUATION BASED ON NEW DATA (10:00 AM, 09/13/2013)

One of the major headaches in being a Stark County commissioner is getting Stark County departments of governments to "hold the line" and not "rush out" to spend the "newly available" money provided as a consequence of Stark Countians having voted in a 0.5% sales tax increase in November, 2011.

The Stark County Political Report has embarked on an analysis of whether or not county departments of government are heeding the commissioners' admonition made repeatedly by them in the fall 2012 budget hearings that department heads limit department employee pay increases to no more than 2%. Beyond the 2% factor, The Report looks at a department's overall payroll budget,  2013 compared to 2012.

Readers, in addition to focusing on the 2% factor and the overall payroll numbers, need to keep in mind that salary/wages are 65% of a typical government workers' income. A Cleveland Plain Dealer report published yesterday (Public sector workers make more in salary and benefits than those in private sector, Labor Department says, Olivera Perkins) made the point:

Get a good government job. On average, you'll be paid more than your private sector counterparts, according to employee compensation data released Wednesday by the Labor Department. 

•  Employees in private industry received an average of $29.11 per hour in total compensation in June. That included $20.47 in salary and $8.64 in benefits. 
• State and local government workers averaged $42.09 per hour in compensation. That included $27.16 in salary and $14.93 in benefits.

The comparison translates into private industry employees being paid 70% in cash payments and about 30%, on average, in pensions whereas public workers receive their nearly - on average - $13.00 per hour pay advantage 65% in cash and some 35% in benefits.

For the commissioners' office employee overall numbers cited in this blog, readers need to factor up the total payroll numbers 35% to get an accurate picture of actual payroll numbers.  Stark County auditor Alan Harold told the SCRP yesterday that though he has not made an exact computation of the cash payment to benefit payments, his feel for the numbers indicate to him that the 65/35 ratio is pretty much on the mark.

Thirdly, taxpayers should look for staff additions and whether or not they are absolutely needed or merely in the "it would be nice" category when there are more monies made available courtesy of the taxpaying public.

Commissioner Creighton during the campaign to get the sales tax passed, put her fellow county office holders on notice, to wit:

"Right out of the gate" in the budgeting process, Commissioner Creighton and her colleagues were challenged on the 2% cap by a number of department heads.  Predictably, two of them were Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero, Jr. and Stark County recorder Rick Campbell (both favorite county officials of the SCPR).

The Report will get to Ferrero, Campbell, and the remaining department heads in the coming days.

But the place to begin media accountability of "your tax dollars" is with the commissioners themselves.

Take a look.   (Note:  click on the graphic to make it larger)

The Stark County auditor's office has provided the SCPR new data which substantially alters The Report evaluation of the commissioners' "holding the line" and being a good example to other Stark County departments of governments.

At first blush (based on the April data), it appeared to the SCPR that the commissioners have not done all that well in "holding the line" in their overall payroll expenditure increase from 2012 to 2013.

An analysis of the Stark County commissioners payroll deserves and asterisk.

And why an asterisk?

Because they have taken on a significant responsibility from Prosecutor Ferrero's office in their entering into a contract with former prosecutor David Bridenstine who has an expertise that Ferrero apparently cannot match from among the lawyers he currently has on staff.

Obviously, the commissioners have determined that they cannot do without Bridenstine notwithstanding that there has to be someone on Ferrero's staff who could do the work.  Apparently, they do not have confidence that the work would be done at the Bridenstine level of competence.

Bridenstine is limited to earning $65,000 in 2013 according to the commissioners' contract with him.

Beyond the asterisk, (and to The Report chagrin) the commissioners have added to the annual payroll so that now  (as of 09/13/2013) the office is pegged at an increase for 2013 to $796,121.47 from the 2012 number of $652,541:  a 22% increase.

Based on numbers provided by the auditor in April, the commissioners had increased their 2012 cash payroll expenditure of $652,541 to $697,213 (according to information provided the Stark auditor and Chief Administrator Brant Luther) for fiscal year 2013:  a nearly 10% increase overall.

But as the 09/12/2013 numbers show, the 10% was merely a foreshadowing of what was to come.

And, keep in mind that these annual payroll budget numbers do not include fringe benefits which likely boosts the overall numbers by more than a third (i.e. $796,121 becomes $1.07 million and the 2012 number of $652,541 becomes $880,930).

It could be that Bridenstine will not work enough to get up to the $65,000 and, accordingly, the $697,213 straight cash payroll will be adjusted downward.

Included in the projected 22%  overall increase are 2% raises for seven of the department's twelve employees.

The commissioners deserve plaudits for "toeing the line" on their "2% increase.  And they were fair about it.  They gave everyone eligible for an increase the 2%.

Examination of other department's pay scale will determine the fact of the matter, but The Report believes (based on statements (and other reports) made to yours truly that other departments have not distributed pay raises across the board.  Moreover, The Report will be surprised if all department heads heeded the commissioners' recommended cap.  Some of our county department heads are highly egotistic people and "nobody tells them" what to do with regard to the internal operations of their departments.

The SCPR is quite adept at "calling a spade a spade."  If The Report's analysis shows a disregard of the commissioners' cap; readers of the SCPR can be sure that this blog "will lay it out on the table" for all to see.

Returning to the commissioners' 2013 budget number and the Bridenstine factor.

County Administrator Brant Luther questions whether or not Bridenstine counts as against the commissioners' budget.  The Report thinks it does, but as the SCPR always does that other Stark County media hardly ever, if ever, is to allow those with whom yours truly disagrees a full, unfettered opportunity to make his/her case.

Here is what Luther had to say:

All Commissioner's office staff who were here in 2012 (and who remained an employee into 2013), did receive a 2% raise shortly after the 2013 appropriation was approved in March of this year.

The Bridenstine number is wrong [show on the county auditor's report to be $111,280] .  The only thing I can figure is that the number you are showing for David Bridenstine must be an annualized number based on David's previous contract rate of $125 per hour (however that contract was a limited, "not to exceed $20,000 per year" contract).  On July 3, 2013, the Board approved a Contract amendment to lower David's hourly rate to $44.58 per hour and increase the "not to exceed" annual number to $65,000.00.  The Commissioners do provide David with office space to use for County work, and he is available to Commissioners approximately 24 hours per week.  

For efficient payroll administrative purposes, David is listed in the payroll system as an Commissioner's employee, however, he is actually a contract consultant and is not an employee of the Commissioner's office (doesn't receive health benefits etc) and his consulting costs should not be calculated into the Commissioner's office personnel Budget.  To further clarify, if he is working on legal matters involving a revenue or special fund, his salary is reimbursed from that particular fund.  To the extent he is working on strictly general fund matters, his salary is reimbursed from County Obligations.

The SCPR specifically disagrees with Luther that "his [Bridenstine's] consulting costs should not be calculated into the Commissioner's office personnel Budget."

For the commissioners to allow Ferrero to shift the cost of Bridenstine's specialized work and knowledge off of his dime onto theirs is their doing and therefore The Report, for one, looks at the expenditure as being theirs.  Ferrero benefits from the sales tax having been passed exclusively for the benefit of Stark County's criminal justice system and therefore appears to have gotten away with one.

Ferrero had to know that Bridenstine was contemplating retirement and for him as the manager-in-chief of the prosecutor staff to allow a void in quality of representation on Bridenstine's specialized work - post-Bridenstine - is just more evidence that Ferrero does a very poor job of managing his office.

Prior SCPR blogs have scored Ferrero for his "less that superlative" managerial skills.

Had the commissioners not let Ferrero get away with having a Bridenstine-esque expertise void with his retirement, their 2013 spending would be $632,213 which is some $20,000 under the 2012 expenditure of $652,541.

Absent the taking on of the  Bridenstine contract, and, perhaps, the paring down of  the adding $90,000 plus to the county commissioners's payroll numbers  (see Nicholson and Nichols material below) would deserve a rating of A+ and thereby be a clear case of leading by example.

And to carry this topic on just a little futher and how much Ferrero's management deficiencies cost county taxpayers, the SCPR is planning a series on how much money Stark County's townships and boards of education spend on legal fees hiring private counsel.

If it were anyone but John Ferrero sitting as prosecutor, the SCPR would be in favor of a system that the Stark County sheriff's uses in providing policing services to townships (e.g. Plain and Canton townships).

For the money that is available on a contract basis, the Stark County prosecutor's office should be able to put together "one whale of a" legal team to represent township and boards of education interests.

However, while John Ferrero occupies the prosecutor's office; such an idea is a non-starter!

Back to the commissioners and how they fare on The Report's 2012/2013 budget expenditure analysis.

In addition the Bridenstine add on, the commissioners have brought on an administrative assistant (Nicholson) at $32,500 annually and a director of management and budget (Nichols) at $68,000.

While the SCPR does believe that the commissioners' office was understaffed during the Mike Hanke as chief administrator era, the addition of Bridenstine, Nicholson and Nichols appears to be overkill in the opposite direction.

The administrative assistant hire was absolutely needed in the opinion of yours truly.

But was a "big ticket" $68,000 (Nichols) addition (plus a projected post-probationary increase) really needed?

Chief Administrator Brant Luther received a 10% hike over what his predecessor Mike Hanke was making.

What was the justification for giving the new administrator that kind of pay increase?

Why didn't the commissioners insist that Prosecutor Ferrero provide a viable alternative to Bridenstine?

In the original blog, the SCPR evaluated that because of the Bridenstine matter, the commissioners come in at a SCPR grade of a B-.

With the addition of data showing the Nicholson and Nichols hire (which yours truly had overlooked in focusing too much on the April data), the SCPR lowers the commissioners grade to C-.

A C- is hardly a grade that the commissioners can take any pride in and clearly does not set any kind of example for the remaining Stark County departments of government.

It could be that the 2013 22% commissioners' office increased payroll budgeting is a harbinger of a much more to come in The Report's analysis of increases (both in terms of wage increases and total volume of employees) in other Stark County departments of government.

Commissioner Creighton's statement as set forth above in this blog surely will be put to the test in the mind of Stark County taxpayers and the actual performance of county officials comes to light.

To the SCPR, it is not likely that those numbers from other Stark County departments of government are going to present a pretty picture.

It has to be a bitter pill for private sector employees/taxpayers to swallow that "on average" they are paid less both in terms of base compensation and fringe benefits and to a see public employment increase (while, perhaps, justifiable but hardly a demonstration of a focus on efficiency) with some receiving raises that exceed what is going on in entrepreneurial America these days.

Taxpayers need to monitor what happens to increased tax dollars once they are approved.

And The Report is your window into Stark County government.

The SCPR's next analysis will be on the Stark County auditor's office.