DEMOCRAT COMMISSIONER BERNABERI: STARK CO. "PROBABLY" NOT JOINING OAG MIKE DEWINE LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMACARE!

UPDATE:  7:30 PM - NEW INFORMATION ON THE CONTACTS BETWEEN WARREN AND STARK COUNTY BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

VIDEO

COMMISSIONER THOMAS BERNABEI

ON

WHETHER OR NOT

STARK COUNTY

IS STILL CONTEMPLATING

JOINING OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL

LAWSUIT

ON

OBAMACARE

Ever since Democratic President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act  (labeled "Obamacare" by Republicans which label has been accepted by President Obama) into law on March 23, 2010, it has become a political rallying point for many elected Republicans in expression their loyal opposition to our nation's Democratic-controlled executive branch of government.

Since President Obama signed the measure into law, there have been some 67 Republican attempts in the U.S. House of Representatives to undo Obamacare to one degree or another.

The fight has pretty much been limited to the national level of our federal (i.e. national, state and local government) structure of government.

However, the fight did filter down to the state of Ohio level with a 2011 Constitutional ballot initiative.

And the-then Democratic Congressman John Boccieri (then a resident of Alliance) likely lost his 16 Congressional District seat (when the district included all of Stark County) in November 2012 to Republican Jim Renacci because of Boccieri's 2010 vote for Obamacare.

Now we learn that there has been an effort to get Stark County involved in a lawsuit filed on January 26, 2015 by Republican Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine.

• (SCPR note:  lawsuit also includes Warren County and several Ohio universities)

Where did the effort to involve Stark County come from?

At yesterday's Stark County commissioners' regular meeting, Commissioner Thomas Bernabei said in answer to a SCPR question (see video below) that it came from the Warren County commissioners.  Warren County is a county as of 2010 of some 212,000 residents.

And here is verification that the initiative came from Warren County administrator Dave Gully.

And here is an interesting response to Gully from Stark County Chief Administrator Brant Luther.

Hmm?

Luther:  "Having said that ... we still have a little division here in Stark, making the outcome unpredictable."

So the question is "whom knows whom" (in the politically connectedness sense of the expression - Stark County to Warren County or vice versa - for Stark to be solicited by Warren?

We may never know, but readers of the SCPR can depend on The Report to keep digging.

While he didn't say so expressly, the SCPR thinks that the only reason that Stark County did not join the lawsuit is because of Commissioner Tom Bernabei's opposition.

Of course, Stark County's two Republican commissioners (Creighton and Regula) could override what the SCPR thinks is a Bernabei opposition.

It is interesting that they did not pass a resolution to join the-then contemplated lawsuit at the commissioners' regularly scheduled meeting of December 30, 2014 when Bernabei was absent.

In a videotaped Q&A with commissioners at the conclusion of yesterday's meeting, Commissioner Bernabei (as president of the board and the only commissioner heretofore who had not articulated his position) took most of the questions of The Report.



And the SCPR agrees with his assessment.

Moreover, Stark Countians should not be paying perhaps as much as $85,000 of Stark County Democrat, Republican, independent and "not registered to vote" taxpayer dollars to litigate on a question that has strong political overtones to it and has no better than 50/50 chance of succeeding.

The SCPR believes that DeWine's and the Warren County commissioners' motivation suspiciously reeks of the Republican Party's obsession to undo Obamacare piece by piece.

It is intriguing that the only county among Ohio's 88 counties to sign on with DeWine is Warren.

Here is some material that the SCPR has gathered from various sources on the Internet which some readers might think is strong evidence of The Report's suspicions, at least on the part of Warren County officials.

In a press release, here, in part, is what the Warren County gave as their reasons for joining DeWine's lawsuit initiative:

Warren County, like many other counties and states, has self-insured health care coverage, and utilizes a third party administration company to administer its plan.  It is therefore not exempt from these fees. 

The fees are $63 for employees and dependents for 2015, with the per person charge estimated at $44 for 2016, and $27 for 2017. Warren County’s plan covers about 1,808 employees and dependents, which means we are being taxed $113,904 in 2015, $79,552 in 2016, and $48,816 in 2017.

Warren County Commissioners opted to make the initial payment of $94,710.00 on January 15, 2015 because the ACA’s penalty for non-compliance with remitting the Transitional Reinsurance Fee is $100 per day, per covered life.  Had Warren County not made the initial payment, our penalty would be $100 x 1,808 (current employees and dependents) = $180,800 A DAY!

"The Obama administration has to understand that we don't work for them – county government is a government for the tax-paying county citizens," said David Young, Warren County Board of
Commissioners President. "We, the county commissioners, as all local county officials should, operate and fight for the honest and effective governing of county taxpayer money."

"The Obama Administration’s cavalier approach to funding the Affordable Care Act is reckless, risky, unethical and, we believe, unconstitutional."  (color added for emphasis sake)

• SCPR note:  Stark County paid a little over $218,000 in coverage of over 3,000 employees

The last paragraph, the SCPR thinks, betrays a political vitriol as a strong factor playing into the decision to be a party-plaintiff against the United States government.

As the graphics above indicate, it appears that Warren County is a "one-party-county" in which only Republicans run for county commissioner (at least, in 2012 and 2014) which seemingly encourages them to have the chutzpah to use "local" taxpayer money to advance a political party agenda.

Commissioner Tom Grossman is a former Warren County Republican Party chairman.

Stark County is quite a different story on the matter of not supporting/supporting President Obama before Obamacare and even after Obamacare.

Recently, a SCPR reader e-mailed yours truly requesting that the SCPR get into statements made by Republican commissioners Creighton and Regula as well as Canton's local newspaper to tell the full story on why Stark County getting into the DeWine/Warren County legal initiative might not be a good idea.

At issue was a January 27th Repository editorial advocating that the Stark County commissioners join the lawsuit.

Here is a copy of that readers letter to the editor of The Repository:

The Repository’s editorial board failed to tell readers important information when it urged Stark County to join Ohio Attorney General DeWine’s transitional reinsurance fee litigation (“DeWine files lawsuit over Affordable Care Act fee,” Jan. 27).

First, the editorial board failed to mention the cost of this litigation. For example, DeWine’s staff will spend thousands of hours on this litigation.  Time that could be spent putting criminals in jail and keeping us safe, as promised during DeWine’s election campaign. Further, Ohio’s Warren County has hired a Washington lawyer to be the brains behind the litigation. Top tier Washington lawyers can bill out at $1,000 per hour.

Second, the editorial board failed to discuss the likelihood of success of the litigation. The odds of DeWine winning his litigation are slim to none. 

Already a leading health care expert has told The Cleveland Plain Dealer, and confirmed to me by email, that DeWine is misreading the law. This error may cause DeWine’s litigation to fail.

Third, the editorial board failed to tell readers that what is possibly driving the litigation is DeWine’s political ambition and desire to burnish his conservative credentials. The media has speculated that DeWine will run for governor in 2018. So DeWine is using our tax money to pay for his litigation that keeps him in the public’s eye.

The editorial board should have explained the above factors to readers rather than simply cheerleading expensive litigation that seems to be driven more by ideology and political ambition than common sense.

ROBERT S. MELSON, NAVARRE

It is interesting that Mr. Melson thinks he has to turn to The Stark County Political Report in order to get "the rest of the story" out before the Stark County public.

The Report thinks Melson makes telling points.

As SCPR readers know, yours truly thinks that highly partisan Republicans and Democrats are ruining our democratic-republic as they jockey with one another for political advantage.

That is what The Report thinks this fight is about.

It is a sad day indeed when our local newspaper weighs in on the TRP issue making a recommendation without telling the complete story.

But that is what we have all come to expect from The Canton Repository.

(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) 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?

CONLEY V. BERNABEI MATCHUP FOR COMMISSIONER IS "DEJA VU - ALL OVER AGAIN" ON COUNTY SALES TAX?

BACKGROUND

It was somewhat surprising to the SCPR when Craig Conley revealed to yours truly in a pre-filing telephone conversation that he had decided to run for county commissioner against incumbent Tom Bernabei.

Here is his entire press release making the announcement:

Earlier today [December 7, 2011], I filed with the Stark County Board of Elections my Declaration of  Candidacy Petition as a Republican Candidate for Stark County Commissioner in the March 6, 2012 primary.

I am private sector attorney and business man.  I am not a career politician and I am not a public sector employee.

I am a fiscal conservative, mindful that tax money belongs to the public, not to politicians, not to any special interst group that supports any particular politican.

In short, it is my position that the County, as is the case with the private sector. must learn to live within its means without further burndening its already hardpressed taxpayers.

Therefore, if elected Stark County Commissioner, I will neither support nor vote for any Stark County tax and fee increases and I will not ask the public to do so.

As The Report told Ron Ponder of WHBC 1480's Points to Ponder in an appearance last Friday and has said directly to Conley himself, - so far as the SCPR is concerned -  he would have been better advised to run against Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero.

After all it was Conley (who, in addition to being a Stark County civic activist, is a Stark County grounded attorney of long standing) who wouldn't let Ferrero rest on the situation that Conley termed as being Zeiglergate.

While federal and local prosecutors did not find evidence that former Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler (resigned/retired on October 19th) had done anything criminally wrong; state of Ohio auditor officials and many Stark Countians (including Stark County Auditor Alan Harold) believe that Zeigler did not properly manage the Stark treasury (denied by Zeigler) in that he did not have the physical configurations and appropriate administrative practices, policies, and processes in place to have, perhaps, prevented his Chief Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci from making off with at least $2.46 million of Stark County taxpayer money.  Some believe the amount was actually $2.96 million or so.

It was Conley who forced Ferrero to take action to recover the missing money from bonding/insurance companies and Zeigler himself (pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 327.37) which The Report believes was the key as to why Zeigler was ultimately amenable to retiring/resigning from office on October 19th.

There were a whole series of pressure applying tactics instituted by Conley to keep Ferrero's office on the move in recovering the missing moneys and securing Zeigler's removal from office.  And the sparks flew between the two at the time.

While it was the Stark County Board of Commissioners who made the deal to obtain Zeigler's resignation, they did so on the counsel and advice of Presecutor Ferrero.

Interestingly enough, Conley tells the SCPR that one of his campaign points against Bernabei will be "the bad deal" that he thinks that the commissioners got for Stark Countians in getting Zeigler to step down from office. It was a deal in which Zeigler walked off with about $200,000 (which attorney fees are included) of Stark County taxpayer money.

The Report believes that Conley would have stood a much better chance to unseat Ferrero than he does Bernabei.  What the SCPR knows of Stark GOP candidate Michael J. Grady for prosecutor is impressive and suggests that he does have a chance (once his credentials get known), if he puts together an effective campaign, to unseat Ferrero.  However, as The Report sees it, that likelihood is a lot less than a Conley candidacy would have posed.

The main question posed by this blog is:  how vulnerable is Commissioner Tom Bernabei to being unseated by Conley?

Answer:  Conley has an uphill fight, at best, on his hands!

A better possibility of defeating Bernabei would have been Jackson Township Trustee James N. Walters.  Recently re-elected as trustee by a huge margin, it is strange indeed to the SCPR that Walters did not take on Bernabei once again.

Back in November, 2010, Walters - in the opinion of the SCPR - had the highly conservative and independent Stephen Todd not been in the race, would have defeated Bernabei.

Whereas a November, 2012 replay would be much more difficult for Walters than the 2010 race (even as assuming he would get most of the 12,285 Todd votes), he at least has a political base to build upon that Conley does not have.

However, fact of the matter is that Craig T. Conley is the Republican candidate and Walters is a non-factor.

REASONS WHY CONLEY HAS A UPHILL BATTLE

So why is it that the SCPR thinks he has such an uphill fight?

First consideration is what is called the political I.D. factor.

The reason the SCPR was surprised that Walters ran so strong against Bernabei was that Bernabei had the relative advantage of having been on the ballot multiple times in Stark County's biggest city (Canton) and was repeatedly re-elected law director and was also successful council-at-large candidate.  Walters had only been on the ballot once in Jackson township.

At least Walters had some voter I.D.  Conley has none.  To The Report's knowledge, he has never run for office. 

Second, Commissioner Bernabei appears to have distinguished himself as being the chief architect of the successful effort by county officials to convince Stark County voters agree to support a county piggyback (0.5% - Issue 29) on the state of Ohio sales tax (5.5%). Moreover, as architect, he was the de facto leader of some 5,000 plus Stark County employees (Republicans and Democrats alike) who helped him achieve a substantial margin of victory.

Billy Sherer (a former ironworker) who served as co-chair along with Massillon businessman Dan McMasters of Yes for Stark Safety told The Report this past Friday that he credited Bernabei with being the mastermind behind Issue 29's success.

Had the issue not passed, many Stark County business, civic and government officials projected that come 2013 Stark County would have been in financial chaos with quite of a number of county employees losing their jobs.

Is there any doubt that the 5,000 plus county employees will be solidly behind Bernabei's candidacy in 2012?

Third, the SCPR believes that key Stark County Republicans such as Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar, Stark County Auditor Alan Harold, and Stark County Commissioner Janet Creighton will, in a background sort of way, be supporting Democrat Bernabei.

They worked hand-in-glove with Bernabei on the sales tax issue and consequently developed a strong camaraderie with him and confidence in him that The Report believes overcomes their political party label identity with Republican Conley.

Also, Bernabei led the way whereby Stark Democrats selected Zumbar (October 31st) to fill out the term of Zeigler in teaming up with fellow Democrat Commissioner Pete Ferguson and Commissioner Janet Creighton to appoint Zumbar on the 19th, the day that Zeigler resigned.

The Report believes that Bernabei and Ferguson part of the action put Stark Dems Chairman Randy Gonzalez in an impossible political position, given all the political turmoil that Stark has experienced over the past two years or so, and that he had no choice but to ask the Stark County Democratic Central Committee to select Zumbar.

Somehow the SCPR thinks that the magnanimous role that Bernabei played will not be lost on some very powerful Stark County Republicans.

Fourth, Bernabei has the advantage in 2012 in running in a presidential year election in which Democrats and independents leaning Democratic show up in much greater numbers than in non-presidential years.

In fact, 2010 turned out to be a Republican year in Ohio and Stark County in which Democrats were swept from statewide office (governor, auditor, secretary of state, treasurer and both houses of the Ohio General Assembly) and county office (auditor and treasurer).

That Bernabei could survive in the Democratic-hostile 2010 election speaks well of his political durability especially in a year in which the environment is likely to be improved.


WRAP-UP

2012 is likely to be a competitive political environment that will bode better for Stark County Democratic candidates.  Also, it will be helpful that Conley's Zeiglergate will pretty much be out of mind in November, 2012.

The Stark County Political Report likes Craig T. Conley as a Stark County civic activist.

He deserves immense credit for getting Prosecutor Ferrero rightly directed.  Moreover, he has put enormous pressure on county officials to get much more efficient in how they run their offices.

For this, Stark Countians should be grateful.

However, an effective civic activist does not necessarily translate into being a viable political candidate.

Conley chose not to reactivate his Vote No Increased Taxes Committee to oppose Issue 29.

The "Vote Nos" obliterated the "imposed" 0.5% sales tax (December, 2008 by the then Commissioners Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) in the committee's November, 2009 repeal initiative.

Had Conley led an organized effort to defeat Issue 29 and succeeded, then it would been an better situation for Conley in a run for a county commissioner seat.  For he would have a "fresh from political battle, victory energized core of campaign workers" at his ready to help catapult him into office to finish the unfinished business (from his point of view) of making Stark County government finances sustainable.

Moreover, The Report thinks, had he won on Issue 29, his opponent would not have been an incumbent Commissioner Tom Bernabei.  Perhaps former Commissioner Todd Bosley?  A much easier political foil?

But Conley did not do what The Report thinks a politically attuned/savvy person should have - would have - done.

Consequently, the SCPR comes back to the main premise:  Craig T. Conley, at best, has an uphill fight on his hands.

Conley is a resourceful guy and therefore yours truly does not count him out. 

In the final analysis, the framework of the Bernabei/Conley match up will not primarily be political in the sense of Democrat versus Republican.

It will be a battle over whether or not Commissioner Bernabei is judged by the Stark County electorate (in the light of the campaign debate) to have been an effective voice in county government for wringing out every last cent of inefficiency from county government and, alternatively, whether or not Conley can deliver on his promise to do more than Bernabei has been able to and thereby put Stark County into a sustainable financial condition.

Conley's major effort will be to show how out of line the county's contribution rate is to county employee pensions and health insurance coverage premiums when compared to the public sector.

He is already talking about the failure of commissioners to require Stark County's 705 non-bargaining employees to pay more than 10% of their health insurance premium when it came up in a November meeting.  On Friday's Points to Ponder, Conley cited the possibility that commissioners could have saved the county about $200,000 per year had they raised the employees' share to 15%. 


Conley does not think that the present county financial picture is sustainable even with the 0.5% sales tax and vows to work to correct what he thinks is an imbalance in county finances.

Another interesting aspect of what Conley says will be part of his campaign is his thought that certain county employees are overworked and underpaid.  He points out county assistant prosecutors as being an example about what he talking about.  

Finally, he says that he will fight to end the practice of having "double-dippers" on the county payroll.

The Report doubts that Conley's nuanced play on employee pay equity will win him much county employee support.  For if he had had his way (i.e. the sales tax going down to defeat), they would be looking at losing their jobs going into 2012/2013.

Undoubtedly, Commissioner Bernabei will press Conley over the next 11 months as to exactly how he proposes to achieve his announced campaign objectives given the limited power of county commissioners, and given the reality that his cures involve the operations of more or less autonomous elected officials.

Will Conley be able to come up with convincing answers?  For if he can, he will be a challenge to Bernabei on the merits of his case that more work needs to be done to achieve county fiscal sustainability and that he, uniquely, is the person that voters should put in place to see to it that the job gets done.

In the end, it could be factors like Bernabei:

• being better known to voters in the sense of frequency of being on the ballot, 
• getting overwhelming support from county workers out of appreciation for his having led the fight to get Issue 29 passed,
• having key Stark County Republican leaders privately, if not publicly, supporting him, and
• running in a better political environment (a presidential election year) for Democrats.

which will be differences that Conley may not be able to overcome.  As he has said, he is not a politician.

It is largely within political factors (not necessarily partisan political) where the SCPR thinks the larger part of Conley's uphill battle lies.

(VIDEO; BERNABEI & CREIGHTON EXAMINE 9-1-1) ----- STARK'S 9-1-1 CENTRALIZED COUNTYWIDE REHAB WILL BE UP AND RUNNING AS A "REMOTE" OPERATION BY ABOUT MAY, 2011; BUT IS IT SUSTAINABLE IN TERMS OF FUTURE COSTS?

In doing their work session study this past Tuesday, Commissioner-elect Janet Creighton and Commissioner Tom Bernabei are providing the "in-process" rehab of Stark County 9-1-1 system its best chance to get off on "the right foot."  That is to say, in a more technical way:  with "sustainable practicality."

Too much, in recent times, what government and business do throughout America is unsustainable.

Going back just a few years and former President Bush's "everybody in America - a home owner" program, as laudable as it was, was unrealistic when it got to the point that it generated "liar loans" and the like which resulted in the massive foreclosure problem that threatened to bring the USA and all of its political subdivisions to their collective economic/financial knees.

Some government leaders have figured out the problem of governments fostering "unsustainable" programs and practices and are taking measures to stop the undermining of the viability of the greatness of America.

Once such effort appears to be taking place right here in Stark County with our newly elected commissioners:  Janet Creighton and Thomas Bernabei.

Former commissioners (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) made an incredible blunder in December, 2008 in "imposing" a 0.50 sales tax for the obstensible purpose of rebuilding Stark County's broken 9-1-1 system.

Imposing the tax was, in the imposing, a "poison" pill which threatened to kill the root goal (fixing 9-1-1) of having the revenues in the first place.  Then the imposing triad decided that the imposition was not enough.  They added a "for the general fund aspect" to the tax and in promoting acceptance of the tax by the Stark County public "downplayed" - to say the very least, the general fund part of the tax increase.  The downplaying gave Stark Countians the idea that their government was not being very forthright with them.

And, then - four months later - came the revelation of the Frustaci theft from the Stark treasury and Stark Countians were in a tizzy about the reliability of Stark County government.

So now it is up to newly elected officials (Bernabei and Creighton) as well as Zumbar at treasury and Harold at the auditor's office and the bevy of political subdivision officials (villiage, city, township and board of education officials) to pick up the pieces and take concerted actions to restore the public's trust in local government.

BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS

In observing the work session of Tuesday past on the 9-1-1 situation, it became apparent to the SCPR that the commissioners' focus was on the viability of the configuration of the project.

While the commissioners are not involved directly in the governance of the project, they could conceivably take the $2.75 million sitting in a general fund account and apply the money to the 16% shortfall of general fund monies for the 2011 budges and in that way kill the rehab of 9-1-1.

The Stark County Political Report does not believe that the diversion of 9-1-1 monies will happen for two reasons:  first, Sheriff Swanson, The Reporth has learned, is on record as saying that he will not be pursuing the $2.75 million to apply to his budget shortfall because it would be like applying a band-aid to a gaping hole.  Secondly, the vetting by commissioners of Concatto/Gonzalez revealed weaknesses in the plan that in taking corrective action upon gives commissioners the assurances they need that a reconfigured 9-1-1 will, indeed, work and move forward with what appears to be a sustainable financial model.

Every Stark County public officials needs to follow the Bernabei/Creighton model of local governing.  For whenever there is a failure in sustainability, it leaves a bad taste in the people's mouths and governing becomes that much more difficult across the governing spectrum.

What have Bernabei and Creighton discovered about the 9-1-1 project in process?  First, there are weaknesses how ongoing personnel costs will be funded and, moreover, secondly, a consideration of whether or not the funds are likely to be there for capital improvements (i.e. the call receiving equipment and the computer assisted dispatch/radio factors) as new technology comes on board.

What remedies for the weaknesses are to be found?

On the personnel costs (call center employees and dispatchers) there are the "wireless fund monies" at 28 cents per cellphone customer in Ohio imposed by the Ohio legislature running through December 31, 2012.  That fund (on The Report's analysis) will generate enough money to pay for the call center (in the sense of receiving calls) employees.  And, on the equipment side, it will generate enough money (when coupled with a 1/10th of one mill property tax levy due to expire in 2012) to pay for an upgrade in the "Plant CML" call receiving system which will likely (according to Stark EMA Director Tim Warstler) be out-of-date five (5) to seven (7) years.

The word is that the Stark County legislative delegation (Oelslager, Schuring, Slesnick and Snitchler) is asking what they can do to help with the future viability of Stark's 9-1-1. 

The answer?  Very simple.  They need - at the very minimum - to push through an extension of the 28 cents wireless fund assessment.  The assessment generates $900,000 annually for Stark.  Ideally, they will push for an increase.  For if they do, (let's say a doubling to about 60 cents per month per cellphone user), then Stark County will not have to worry whether or not the 1/10th of a mill property tax levy is renewed by Stark Countians, which the SCPR thinks is worrisome given the downward spiraling economic times we now live in.

Another answer that was generated by Benabei/Creighton questioning of Project Manger Joe Concatto and Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) 9-1-1 Countywide Governance Committee chairman Randy Gonzalez is this:  9-1-1 will be financed by "user fees" going forward, and therefore, the fees have to sufficient to pay for the dispatchers (some 80 or so) who will man the system when it becomes narrowed down to two locales (the Canton center and the Sheriff's center) and, moreover, the fees will have to be high enough to generate a "capital improvement fund" so that out-of-production Motorola Centracom Golden Elite consoles that are to be the backbone of the initial setup for the dispatch side of 9-1-1 can be replaced with state-of-the-art equipment in five years or so.

Honing the user fees to provide for future viability and sustainability is no easy task for Concatto, Gonzalez and their fellows.  How is that?

Although all but one local dispatch center (CenCom - sponsored by the Nimishillen trustees) have accepted  Countywide 911's offer of remote hosting equipment to receive calls (i.e. AT&T's Plant CML - which is to been in place at the localized dispatch centers by May, 2011); whether or not Stark County can get to the next step - relocating the local center dispatchers to the Canton Center (nine dispatch consoles staffed with about 40 dispatchers around the clock) and to a redundant center at the Sheriff's facility (also nine dispatch consoles with about 40 dispatchers around the clock) is "still" problematical.

Really?  What is the possible hitch?

Localities (Alliance, Minerva, North Canton, Perry Township, Plain Township and the Red Center) will have to make a determination that it financially pays off for them to merge into the two redundant centers before they will give up their locality-based dispatching centers.

Just as an aside, Nimishillen Township's CenCom and the county fire and police department served by CenCom (in the opinion of the SCPR) - when Stark's countywide systems gets up and running next May (2011) or whenever, will be a step behind the county system.

How so?

A part of the countywide build up to centralized countywide 9-1-1 call receiving and dispatch involves a stage in which all of the current localized dispatch centers (Alliance, Minerva, North Canton, Plain Township, Perry Township and ems, fire and police served by the Red Center) will receive access as Public Safety Access Points (PSAP) remotely.  CenCom's customers (according to 9-1-1 project manager Joe Concatto) will not.   CenCom (despite the best efforts of Trustee Allen Gress) rejected the county's offer of equipment which would enable "remote" dispatching capability and therefore will not have the ability to lessen by one step the process by which an emergency 9-1-1 caller get a dispatcher to send an emergency unit to site of the emergency.

If Stark County gets to a centralized countywide 9-1-1 call receiving and dispatch operation, because of the work of Bernabei and Creighton along with the prior efforts of Stark County's political subdivision police and fire chiefs (including the recalcitrant Rich Peterson of CenCom/Nimishillen Township) it will be one of the very best economically sustainable and viable systems in all of Ohio and, perhaps, even in the nation.

By building government services - in a transparent, accessible manner - like it appears that Stark's 9-1-1 is in the making; local government officials do themselves and all government officials a hugely good turn in restoring citizen confidence in the responsiveness and attentiveness of government to the needs of everydays.

The Report applauds participants in the vetting process (democracy at work) for being part of the mix.  Gonzalez, Concatto and Warstler are singled out for their persistence and flexibility.  Moreover, though they - in the opinion of the SCPR - chose an unwise course for the funding mechanism, Commissioner Todd Bosley and former Commissioners Harmon and Vignos have made significant contributions to the building of a viable countywide 9-1-1 system.

Here is a video of Warstler and Concatto making a recent presentation to county commissioners.



Here is a video showing Creighton and Benabei vetting Concatto and Gonzalez on the cost factor of countywide centralized 9-1-1. It is quite revealing!