(VIDEO) WILL STARK CO COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE TAXPAYER PAID LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STARK COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

UPDATED AT 10:26 AM

VIDEO

STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

CONVENE

ADJOURN

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ON

APPOINTING "SPECIAL COUNSEL"

TO BENEFIT STARK DEM PARTY INTERESTS?

A couple of days ago the SCPR got wind that Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero might be about to recommend to the Stark County commissioners that they join him in asking the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to appoint "special counsel" at Stark County taxpayer expense to represent Stark County Democratic Party appointed members of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr in a proceeding now pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. (LINK to filing)

Really?

Why?

Well, follow this sequence of events, you will get the picture!

• January, 2013
• Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez calls a meeting with Democratic Stark County commissioner Thomas Bernabei and Democratic sheriff Tim Swanson at the Stark County Office Building suite of offices occupied by the commissioners,
• TOPIC:  How to fix Gonzalez favorite for Stark County sheriff George T. Maier's deficiencies in qualifying to be sheriff under the criteria set forth in Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(8) and (9),
• Swanson refuses to participate in the repair and Maier goes to Harrison County to serve as a deputy sheriff for two weekends in order to solve at least one of Maier 311.01 problems,
• Maier had told local media that he "guaranteed" he would be qualified to be sheriff under ORC 311.01 or he would not apply to be appointed,
• February 5, 2013
• Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC, Dems) meets to appoint a sheriff to replace Democrat Mike McDonald who had been elected in November, 2012 but who could not take office on January 7, 2013 because of an illness that cost him his life on February 22, 2013,
• Democratic Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero files an affidavit with the SCDP-CC saying that Maier is NOT qualified under 311.01 to be sheriff,
• The Dems appoint Maier in a surprisingly close vote 92 to 84 over Democrat Lou Darrow,
• February 12, 2013
• Interim sheriff Tim Swanson files a quo warranto with the Ohio Supreme Court alleging Maier to be unqualified under 311.01 to be sheriff,
• November 6, 2013
• The Ohio Supreme Court agrees with Swanson and ousts Maier from office saying that he had usurped Swanson's right to be sheriff,
• November 8, 2013
• Maier goes back to Harrison County, Ohio and puts in another stint as deputy sheriff through December 5, 2013,
• December 11, 2013
• Stark Dems reappoint Maier sheriff by a 101 to 65 vote again over fellow Democrat Lou Darrow,
• February 5, 2014
• The filing deadline for candidates to fill out the term (through January, 2017) of Mike McDonald finds that George T. Maier has filed petitions,
• Ohio law provides that the Stark BOE determines whether or not candidates qualify under ORC 311.01 to run for sheriff,
• Republican Larry Dordea passes the test "with flying colors,"
• February 11, 2014
• Local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (a registered Republican, by the way) agreed to represent one Cynthia Balas-Bratton  (a Massillon Ward 2A Democratic precinct committeewoman) "pro bono"  (for the public good, i.e. free of cost to Stark County taxpayers) in "protesting" the candidacy of Democrat George T. Maier for Stark County sheriff in a proceeding provided for under Ohio law,
• SCPR Note:  Conley says he agreed to do so in the interest of "the rule of law" alleging that Maier does not meet the criteria of Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(9) mandatory qualification factors of Ohio law,
• February 21, 2014
• The Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) deadlock 2 to 2 (Republicans Curt Braden and William Cline for disqualifying Maier; Democrats Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr for qualifying Maier),
• March 7, 2014
• Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted breaks the tie as provided for under Ohio law in favor of the Democrat St. John/Ferruccio position,
• Husted refuses to apply ORC 311.01 to Maier's candidacy and instead orders him on to the ballot saying he was "erring on the side of ballot access,"
• March 11, 2014
• Conley files an action on behalf of Balas-Bratton in Prohibition (i.e. Writ of Prohibition) with the Ohio Supreme Court,

Back to square one, to wit:

(Repeating the first paragraph of this blog)

A couple of days ago the SCPR got wind that Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero might be about to recommend to the Stark County commissioners that they join him in asking the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to appoint "special counsel" at Stark County taxpayer expense to represent Stark County Democratic Party appointed members of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr in a proceeding now pending before the Ohio Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the commissioners met in executive session in what the SCPR believes to be in consideration of the Ferrero recommendation.

Simple enough, no?

Not really!

As he is wont to do, Conley really complicated the consideration by commissioners with the following two letters fired off before meeting time (1:30 p.m.),

Before moving on though, readers are advised that if the Stark commissioners decline to provide the Dem BOE members special counsel, their point of view will be represented in the form of the Ohio attorney general's office representing Secretary Husted, to wit:

THE BACKGROUND RE:

CONLEY'S THINKING ON THE COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERING APPOINTING "SPECIAL COUNSEL"

Re: Appointment of special prosecutor in BOE OSC cases

FROM Brant Luther TO You Tues, 4:18 PM
Show Details

From:  Brant Luther

To:  Martin Olson

Martin,

The Commissioners will most likely address this issue tomorrow at their regular meeting.  There will probably be an executive session at the conclusion of the Commissioner's meeting with action likely to follow.

Thanks,
brant [sic]

Brant A. Luther, Esq.
Stark County Administrator
110 Central Plaza South, Suite 240
Canton, Ohio 44702
330-451-7581

>>> Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> 3/11/2014 1:40 PM >>>

Brant,

I understand that the commissioners are being asked to appoint special prosecutor on representing Stark BOE on Balas-Bratton v. Stark BOE/Deametrious St. John case.

True or untrue?

If true, when will the Board of Commissioners meet to consider request?

MartinOlson/SCPR


MARCH 12, 2014 (8:41 AM)  
LETTER #1

TO:        Stark County Board of Commissioners
FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE:        State ex rel.   Cynthia Balas-Bratton  v. Hon. Jon  Husted, et al., Ohio Supreme Court  Case No.   2014-0374
 
It is my (unconfirmed) understanding that Prosecuting Attorney Ferrero has determined that he is "conflicted-cut" from representing Respondent the Board of Elections ("B0E") in the above-referenced action in prohibition and that he therefore will be requesting, during your meeting this afternoon, that your Board appoint a special prosecutor in his stead pursuant to O.R.C. 305.14(A).

I respectfully suggest that appointment, and the attendant unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds ought not be made for the following reasons (not necessarily presented in order of importance):

1.  The primary Respondent involved is the Ohio Secretary of State not the BOE, which is essentially a "nominal" Respondent.

2.  The Court will decide the matter on its merits with or without either Respondent's involvement, noting that the Relator, even in the absence cf an answer having been filed by Respondents, is required under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(2)(a) to file her evidence and merit brief by a finite date.

3.  Under S.Ct. Prac.R. 12.08(A)(3), motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings are not permitted, which I presume means, on the "flip side", that Relator may not move for default judgment in the event no timely answers are filed.

4.  Assuming, as anticipated, Respondents are served Summons and Complaint today, I calculate their answers to be due this coming Monday, March 17, 2014, which hardly provides a special prosecutor sufficient time to review the BOE's voluminous file, the applicable statutes and the applicable jurisprudence in a meaningful manner (which, of course, is not a problem for the Secretary of State's counsel, the Ohio Attorney General).

5.  Given the BOE's tie vote, a special prosecutor would be in an automatic position cf conflict with his own client for purposes of either supporting or opposing the relief requested by Relator.
In sum, the Secretary of State, not the BOE, is responsible to "defend" his decision; and the BOE, because of its tie vote, is certainly not in a position to do so for him.

It therefore is again respectfully suggested that no O.R.C. 335.14(A) application for appointment of a special prosecutor should be made, noting that said Revised Code Subsection does not mandate either such an application or the Court' s subsequent grant of same.

MARCH 12, 2014 (10:17 AM)  
LETTER #2

TO:        Stark County Board of Commissioners
FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE:        State, ex rel.   Cynthia Balas-Bratton  v. Hon. Jon Husted, et al., Ohio Supreme Court Case No.   2014-0374.
 
With reference to item no. 5 of my earlier memo of this date to you, I respectfully direct your attention to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(1), which provides, in pertinent part, that "A lawyer's acceptance or continuation of representation of a client creates a conflict of interest if . . . the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another current client''.

I also respectfully direct your attention to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(c)(2), which provides, in pertinent part, that "Even if each affected client consents, the lawyer shall not accept or continue the representation if . . . the representation would involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same proceeding".

In short, under the instant circumstances of the BOE's tie vote, any special prosecutor appointed would have, as I opined previously, an automatic" conflict.

Therefore, such a special prosecutor may not, under the aforesaid Rules of Professional Conduct, enter an appearance in the above-referenced action in prohibition; and should he or she nonetheless do so, I will move for his or her disqualification under the Ohio Supreme Court's jurisprudence in, inter alia, Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. Rubin, et al. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 256.

In sum, it would be both a waste of taxpayer money and an exercise
in futility to appoint a special prosecutor in Prosecutor Ferrero's stead.

I therefore again respectfully urge you tc refrain from seeking such an appointment.

MARCH 13, 2014 (7:01 AM)  
LETTER #3

TO:        Stark County Beard of Commissioners  
FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE:        Stats ex rei. Cynthia Baias-Bratton v.   Hon.   Jon Husted, et al.,   Ohio Supreme Court Case No.   2014-0374

Noting that the Ohio Secretary of State ("Secretary"), as Ohio's chief elections officer, is in essence the "fifth" tie-breaking member of all County Beards of Elections/ it may well be that an attorney representing the BOE under the instant circumstances is representing the majority of the "five-member" BOE and therefore does not have a conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

If arguendo that is a correct proposition of law (noting that I am unaware of any jurisprudence supporting same)f there obviously is no need to use Stark County taxpayer funds to replicate the same arguments/filings that will be made by the Secretary's counsel, who, under that same proposition cf law, will in essence be representing both the Secretary and the B0E.

I therefore again respectfully urge you, conflict or not, to refrain from appointing a special prosecutor, as same clearly would be but a waste of our County's taxpayer dollars and would only serve to otherwise needlessly "muddy the waters".

In short, let the Secretary's statutory counsel (the Ohio Attorney General) *carry the ball" here.

MARCH 12, 2014 (2:09 PM - 3:59 PM)

STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONVENE/ADJOURN "EXECUTIVE SESSION"

The video:



Hmm?

No decision.

But that the meeting lasted one hour and 50 minutes (1:50) tells one that there was a hot and heavy controversy going on in the meeting, no?

One theory is that one or more commissioners want to appoint taxpayer subsidized legal counsel for the Dems whereas at least one does not with the result being the realization of a "bad" motive to make an already messy situation even messier.

Another theory is that Conley has made his mark with at least one of the commissioners that for an appointment to be made would be a waste of taxpayer money.

The commissioners will try again today at 4:00 p.m. to resolve their obvious differences.

And, of course, the SCPR will be there to videotape the decision.

So at the end of all that high drama yesterday, nothing, absolutely nothing is decided as to whether or not the Stark Dems are going to be benefited at taxpayer expense.

Talk about coming full circle.

Back in January, 2013 Stark County Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez enlists the support of Democratic commissioner Bernabei within the confines of official taxpayer supported seat of county government (i.e. the Stark County Office Building) to help the Democrats seat Stark County's next sheriff.

While it is unlikely that Gonzalez will be back today, there is no doubt with the SCPR that politics is at play today in some way, shape or form on the questions of whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Stark County Taxpayer will be asked to fund the interests of the Stark County Democratic Party.

Prosecutor Ferrero denies that there is a conflict in interest in terms of the Democrat BOE members position being represented by "somebody" before the Prohibition writ now before the Ohio Supreme Court.

He says that with the secretary of state breaking the tie in favor of the Dems that their position is majority position and therefore there is no conflict in interest in having a tie between the two competing GOP and Dem positions in the context of the original 2 to 2 vote.

And Craig Conley tells the SCPR he agrees with that position.

But he maintains that it still is a waste of Stark County taxpayer money for the commissioners to agree to appoint legal counsel to represent the St. John/Ferruccio position.

It is somewhat ironical that the commissioners will be making a decision on whether or not to fund the Stark Democratic Party interest with taxpayer funds today.

How's that.

Well, at noon today, Stark County Budget Director Chris Nichols (also a Republican who serves on the Canton Township Board of Township Trustees) will be presenting the "final" 2014 Stark County Budget at a public meeting to be held in the third floor conference room of the Stark County Office Building.

At that meeting the commissioners will be preaching austerity.

The question will be if you are Craig T. Conley is this:

Will the commissioners practice what they preach?

(VIDEOS) SHERIFF GEORGE T. MAIER STARTING TO "CLEAN HOUSE" OF SWANSON PEOPLE?

UPDATED:  10/29/2013 AT 10:30 A.M.

As the Stark County Political Report always does, when a reader writes "responsive to the substance of" a given blog and does not resort to personal attacks that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of the blog, The Report presents - in full - a email-sent to The Report in which he praises the public work of Sheriff George T. Maier and Commissioner Tom Bernabei.

Readers should, however, note that the writer, Ron Devies, Marlboro Township police chief does, it seems to the SCPR,  have reason to have hard feelings towards the Swanson administration of the sheriff's department.

Swanson's chief deputy Rick Perez testified in the trial against Devies and his son Kyle (which resulted in a dismissal "at the end of the prosecutor's case-in-chief;" [talk about a legal slamdunk] by now-retired Court of Common Pleas judge Lee Sinclair) that when he was investigating complaints by two of Marlboro's trustees (Wise and Woof) that "he wore a 'hidden' [of course] wire" in interviewing Devies.

The SCPR has written prolifically as to The Report's opinion that the Marlboro matter was nothing more than a communication problem over computer equipment and software that should never have seen the light of day in terms of leading to a criminal prosecution including, unbelievably to me, fourth degree felonies.

The Report believes and has editorialized repeatedly that the more blameworthy party, for what the SCPR believes was a case of bad judgment, is Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero who made the decision to submit the matter to a Stark County Grand Jury which, predictably (a la the adage:  "a prosecutor worth his salt can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich) the Grand Jury indicted.

But needless to say, Rick Perez did not endear himself to Stark County law enforcement in his wearing of a wire.

So in that light and context here is the Devies e-mail:

Good Morning Martin,

             Just read your article on the Sheriff and as always, found it to be insightful. I just wanted to let you know, for what it is worth, my relationship with both of these gentleman. [sic]


              Next April will mark my 30th anniversary in law enforcement. In all of those preceding years, my agency has never enjoyed a good working relationship with the hierarchy of the Sheriff staff...............until George Maier. Prior to his appointment to the office, I had never even heard of George Maier, I knew his brother, but that was it. I first met him at a Stark County Police Chief's Meeting I hosted after his appointment. 

Martin, this man has in just a few months changed the entire working relationship my department has with the Sheriff. Stark County law enforcement now functions as a team like I have never before seen. 

Swanson always dictated to Stark's law enforcement how it was going to be and if you don't like it ......tough! 
Sheriff Maier works with us, he offers his resources without pushing them or reminding us just who he is, unlike his pompous predecessor. I have found Sheriff Maier's leadership a refreshing change from the old cold war we used to endure in Stark County Law Enforcement.  

As a police chief and a life long Stark Countian, I hope he gets to stay in his position, I have a lot of respect for him.

I share the same accolades for Tom Bernabei and the Commissioners. Prior to this board, I can honestly say I had never voted for an incumbent commissioner. Now I write this as a dyed in the wool life long Republican, but both of these men have made me look beyond party line
In closing, as I said before, this is MY experience with these men and my opinion is again, for what it is worth. 

As always, I enjoy your blog, but felt compelled to share my experience with both men.

Sincerely,

 Ron Devies

ORIGINAL BLOG

There may have been others before her, but there is no doubt in the thinking of the Stark County Political Report that with the firing of 13-year Stark County Sheriff legal counsel Vivianne Whalen Duffrin on October 11, "politically appointed" Sheriff George T. Maier has begun a purge of anyone working at the department closely connected to former Sheriff Tim Swanson.

It was interesting how the SCPR learned of the Maier move against Swanson associate Duffrin.

In a report from a normally reliable source that "as the source and I spoke on Thursday" of last week, a meeting was underway involving Maier, Duffrin, Swanson and a commissioner (thought to be Tom Bernabei) wherein Duffrin was dismissed in a heated exchange between those in attendance.

It turns out that the report in terms of the particulars was not correct and was likely the product of someone's (the SCPR source's source) - let's be kind - "overactive imagination."

But the core substance of the report (Duffrin's compelled departure) was correct.

As told to the SCPR by Duffrin herself in a conversation on this Saturday past; on October 11th, "out-of-the-blue," Maier brought Duffrin into his office and told her he was dismissing her from employment.

His explanation to her?

He decided to go in a different direction!

So Duffrin "gathered her belongings" and left without so much as being afforded the opportunity "to say her goodbyes" to the many friends she has at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard that she had cutivated over 13 years at Stark County's version of "the big house."

What does "going in a different direction" mean?

Nobody but George Maier and his political confidants (undoubtedly his brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. who is former Stark County Democratic Party chairman and still an officer with the Stark Dems and his tag-along and Stark County Dems political director Shane Jackson) know.


It is apparent to the SCPR that Sheriff George T. Maier has embarked on an elimination of folks he questions the personal political loyalty of.

Duffrin was vulnerable and a big, big target because she is an "unclassified" employee meaning that she can be fired without cause.

And, as the SCPR sees it, she got dismissed because of her ties to Swanson.

She says that she had no indication whatsoever during the eight plus months (February 4th through October 11th) she worked under Maier that anything was amiss in her job performance.

While Maier cannot touch those under employment protection (i.e. union contract and the like) at least in a direct sense, one wonders what kind of pressure he might be bringing (indirectly, of course) on the likes of Lou Darrow to step down.

When the Stark Dems chose a successor to Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (election of November, 2012), who could not take office due to what turned out to be a final illness, Darrow (supported by the-then sheriff Tim Swanson) vigorously opposed Maier in a hotly contested February, 2013 meeting of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee.

It was a big time Stark County political fight when Maier with brother Maier, Jackson and Randy Gonzalez (current Stark County Democratic Party chairman) teamed up to put George over the top narrowly over Darrow.

The closeness of the intra-party fight shows that not everybody in the Stark County Democratic party loves and adores George Maier.

Sheriff Swanson certainly did not.  He filed a lawsuit in Feburary with the Ohio Supreme Court in an effort to block Maier's continuance as sheriff.

Even before the Dems met, Darrow had filed a lawsuit with the high court to block the selection process itself.

The issue?

George Maier's qualification under pertinent Ohio statutory law to serve as sheriff.

But apparently Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei is enamored with Maier.

I have had a number of discussions with Bernabei about the sheriff and Commissioner Tom falls all over himself with accolades about Sheriff George.

I have had to pinch myself and say:  "Is this the man, I know?"

Is this the same guy who as service director and chief-of-staff for Canton mayor William J. Healy, II (early on in the administration, before Healy had had enough and fired him) would berate the mayor for his foolhardy and ridiculous maneuvering as Canton's chief executive?

To boot, Bernabei is known to be the "watchdog-in-chief" about how Stark's departments of government are being run, including those whose head has their own elective political base.

Bernabei is known to jawbone peers of his with whom he disagrees.

So it is interesting that Bernabei seems somehow able to suspend his critical faculties when it comes to George T. Maier when such is not typical of his style of governing.

Credential-wise, in a de facto sense, (which is to say, perhaps, not meeting the de jure Ohio Revised Code statutory requirements [an issue currently being decided by the Ohio Supreme Court in Swanson's Quo Warranto action against Maier]), it does appear that Maier has impressive experience over many years of policing experience including considerable time with Ohio Highway Patrol rising (in a political context - during Democratic governor Ted Strickland's tenure) to second-in-command and - even - for a matter of a few days in the waning days of Strickland's term,  to the top position.

My thinking is that experience and credential analysis is not complete enough to evaluate Maier on.

For me, it is critically important that a sheriff (though part of Ohio's election scheme of things) distance himself from politics as much as possible and still be able to get elected.

There is no doubt about it, it is a tough balancing act.

Judges in Ohio have the same problem.

The SCPR thinks that George T. Maier has way too many close connections with "the utterly political" and appears to be "too influenced by them" to strike the aforementioned balance.

Moreover, The Report questions his temperament.

There was a problem in terms of allegations of temperament allegations/issues when he was with the Ohio Highway Patrol and the SCPR has blogged about an incident with former Massillon streets and roads supervisor Michael Stevens (under the Cicchinelli administration; Stevens is also a Lawrence Township trustee) over campaign sign issues.  An occurrence in which there appears to have been an "over-the-top" George T. Maier temper tantrum. 

If Bernabei chooses to ignore Maier's full presentation (i.e. the political and temperament factors in addition to his de facto credentials), then I think, despite my overall well-regarding of Bernabei and his critical faculties; such is an example of this commissioner having a blind spot.

It would be one thing if Bernabei were to say "I have considered these factors and, on balance, I think he is the best that Stark County can come up with as sheriff."

But that is not his tone.

My take is that he thinks the political side and temperament of Maier factors are irrelevant.

A curious bit of thinking for a man who usually demonstrates a healthy skepticism, no?

I acknowledge that George T. Maier "on-the-face-of-it" from a policing experiencing standpoint seems to be a guy that is hard to beat in terms of prima facie qualifications.

Nonetheless, I come down on the side "I think we can do better" unless and until George addresses the political/temperament factors.

Because I am not an adorer of anybody (except for my wife); especially political types, the likes of George Maier will not talk to me.

I consider such to be a compliment.  The SCPR does not shill for anyone. 

Any public official or public figure who comes within the sights of the SCPR camera will get asked "uncomfortable" questions.

Soon the Ohio Supreme Court will make a decision one way or the other on Maier's fate.

One would think that he would proceed with prudence until the high court makes its decision.

The SCPR thinks he has not.

He reportedly has gone out and spent thousands of thousands of taxpayer dollars emblazoning George T. Maier on official property all which would likely be changed if the high court turns him out of office.

Now he has fired the department's chief legal counsel in the middle of contract negotiations with the deputies.

Vivianne Whalen Duffrin tells me that the completed captains, lieutenants, and sergeants contracts are her handiwork as chief negotiator.

These contracts were approved at the October 23rd regular weekly meeting of the Stark County commissioners.

If one listens closely to the following video, Brant Luther and Commissioner Bernabei subtly allude to the fact that Duffrin is no longer a part of the negotiation process.   A point that I missed at the time.



At the conclusion of the meeting, I did ask questions of Commissioner Bernabei (and of sheriff department Human Resources person, namely, Teresa Wilson) as to the final cost/savings of the contracts.



Answer?

We will not know until the deputies' contract is negotiated because the contracts' costs/savings will be based on "the financial base package" negotiated by the county (i.e. the sheriff's department) on behalf of Stark County taxpayers.

Well, guess who was "up to her eyeballs" in negotiating the deputies' contract until her dismissal on October 11th?

Of course!

Vivianne Whalen Duffrin.

Asked if her summary dismissal and the concomitant disruption will delay the timetable for achieving a contract, Duffrin said she felt that it will.

One the most disconcerting things that has occurred in my examination of what I believe to have been a "political" firing of Duffrin, is the dissembling that I think that Commissioner Bernabei engaged in with me.

My take on his initial response to my question:  "I heard that a meeting took place between you, Maier, Duffrin and Swanson and in the context of some sharp words she got fired" was that no such meeting took place.

The impression I got was that he knew nothing - as we spoke - of Duffrin being on the outside looking in.

As it turns out he did know.

He chose to stop on "the ceremony of the question itself" which is to say "the non-occurrence of the meeting itself."

In a follow-up with him after I had talked with Duffrin, he then tells me "Oh, I knew Duffrin was no longer legal counsel for the sheriff as of October 11th.  I learned about it on my returning from my trip to Italy and I did meet with her afterwards to get the context of her dismissal from her perspective." (paraphrase)

From what he tells me, it seems that she gave him the same account as I got from her in my Saturday last interview.

As readers of the SCPR know, I think Commissioner Bernabei and Creighton have done a terrific job of restoring public confidence in the operations of county government since they were both elected in November, 2010 (Bernabei was reelected in November, 2012).

However, this incident with Bernabei and (as I see it) his getting hyper technical with me is noteworthy to me as to the fullness of his responses to questions in general when he knows he has information "highly" relevant to the line of inquiry.

It is likely that Maier and the commissioners wanted Duffrin's firing to be pass unnoticed.

The question is why?

All of which suggests to me that there is more to this story than the Stark County public is not being told.

And the dismissal of Duffrin occurring in the midst of contract negotiations that will impact all Stark County taxpayer wallets, positive or negative, sounds really odd.

To me, it was a pretty dumb thing on Maier's part to have Duffrin negotiate the captains, lieutenants and sergeants contracts when he had to know that he was about to axe her.

And what about the continuity rupture between the two contracts negotiated to finality and, probably, the most important one (the deputies contract) in terms of setting the standard for determining cost/savings to Stark County taxpayers.

Seems quite reckless to me.

If Maier is not retained in office (the Supreme Court decision is due any day now), where does that leave Stark County in terms of wrapping things up with the deputy sheriff contract and other matters under way in the department?

Bernabei tells me that the commissioners have asked their designated lawyer (David Bridenstine) to begin looking into their role, if any, in selecting a successor should the Supreme Court bounce Maier out of office.

In the light of the abrupt departure of Duffrin at a critical time and seemingly on a political basis, shouldn't Stark Countians be shaken in their confidence that Stark County officials (the sheriff and the commissioners [in their oversight function]) are operating in the best interest of Stark Countians?

While I retain a regard for Commissioner Bernabei, the Duffrin matter shows the that he will game you if it suits his purpose.

Such is shades of another Stark County politician that Commissioner Bernabei really, really does not like.

(VIDEO) UNDERSTANDING THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' BUDGET. CAN THE COMMISSIONERS KEEP JOHN FERRERO AND HIS LIKE IN LINE?

VIDEOS

COMMISSIONER TOM BERNABEI

TELLS

COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA

"NO!"

ON COUNTY SPENEDING REQUESTS

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

CHRIS NICHOLS

COUNTY MANAGEMENT BUDGET DIRECTOR

MAKES

COUNTY FINANCES UNDERSTANDABLE

TO

ONE & ALL

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

ALSO

CLICK ON LINKS

TO PRIOR SCPR BLOGS

TO

SEE

FERRERO & CAMPBELL

PERFORMANCES

AT 2013 BUDGET HEARINGS

It was not all that long ago that Stark County government was in crisis.

But it is amazing what a new set of commissioners can do in a relatively short period of time to restore the electorate's confidence and, to boot,  get a sorely needed tax issue passed.

Only 8 votes shy of a 14,000 vote victory.  Quite impressive, no?

As the SCPR sees it, the commissioner handiwork was largely that of Democrat Thomas Bernabei and Republican Janet Creighton.

Most of us have an experience of government that strongly suggests that once a political victory like the levy effort is fought and won, it will not be long for a reversion process takes hold that presages a march back to the conditions that precipitated the crisis in the first place.

It appears to The Report that Commissioner Bernabei is the "guardian-in-chief" of the Stark County treasurer.

In a lighter moment in the August 28th meeting, Bernabei in a kidding but in a pointedly way chided Commissioner Richard Regula (Republican elected in November, 2012; but previously served as commissioner from 2003 - 2006) about his tendency to promise any and everything to commissioner constituents when he is beseeched to fix this or that problem.

Watch this exchange.



Insofar as the SCPR can determine, the reversion phenomenon described above appears not to have taken hold in the instance of the 2011 levy passing.

However, there are pressures being brought to bear.

Chief of the pressurers are Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero and Stark County recorder Rick Campbell.

Ferrero, in particular, in the view of the SCPR, wants to resume his "king of the hill"  take on himself insofar as Stark County politics and government are concerned.

The county's financial crisis of 2010 through early 2012 had the effect of rolling back much of his public sector financial resources avaraciousness.

He appears to The Report to be an empire builder who has to be the biggest, the baddest and the most belligerent (in underlying attitude) politician/administrator in all of the county.   Yours truly would rank him right up there with Canton mayor William J. Healy, II in this regard.  It would be interesting to see the fireworks erupt should their paths ever cross in a competitive context.

A former Stark County Democratic Party chairman;  he has never, in the opinion of yours truly, divorced politics (in all its forms) from the administration of his office.

One of the forms of his political activities is the infighting which the SCPR believes he engages as he seeks to get more than his fair share of county resources in support of his aggrandizement of office.

So politicized (as a seeming primary "way-of-life") is John Ferrero that he is "knee deep" in the politics of Massillon, his hometown.  Tiger-town is the place where he "cut his 'political' teeth."

One has to wonder if there is anything much more to Ferrero than being political.

It is against this background (the Ferreros of Stark County) that the SCPR has concerns as to whether or not the commissioners can "hold the line" in keeping Stark County fiscally responsible.

The Report felt former administrator Mike Hanke (with the support of Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton) proved to be up to the task.

It remains to be seen whether or not Hanke successor Brant Luther - himself a relatively new hire - can keep the likes of Ferrero "at bay"

At last Wednesday's commissioners' meeting, new Stark County hire Chris Nichols, as director of management and budget (June 19th), appeared before the commissioners and presented what he termed as Civics 101 on the Stark County budgeting process.



It has never been clear to yours truly (notwithstanding having covered the commissioners meetings since 2008)  as to how - exactly - the Stark County budget process works.

Some people have the gift of making things - as Richard Nixon liked to say - "perfectly clear."

And Nichols did precisely that in last Wednesday's meeting.

He graphed out a time line of the process and in doing so showed how forthright the county's budget procedures are.

First, in late summer (which is occurring right now for the 2014 budges), the departments of Stark County government submit requests to the commissioners for 2014 appropriations,

(Source:  Chris Nichols)

Second, in the early fall the requests go through a three-stage filtering process:

• Review by The Stark County Budget Commission:
• the county treasurer, (Republican Alex Zumbar),
• the county auditor, (Republican Alan Harold), and
• the county prosecutor, (Democrat John Ferrero) *
•  "certifies the full amount of existing tax rates and millage are needed to meet the  estimated financial needs of" Stark County government,
• * NOTE:  In a large part of the county fiscal crisis days the Stark County Budget Commission was made up of Democrat Gary Zeigler, Democrat Kim Perez and Ferrero).  Hmm?
• Formal Budget Process within Stark County departments of government begins (e.g. auditor's office, treasurer's office, prosecutor's office, recorder's office et cetera),
• departmental needs (first identified in Step 1) are refined to be in greater detail and resubmitted to the Stark County commissioners,
• Certificate of Estimated Resources provided by the Stark County auditor's office,
• Shows the actual amount of revenue that the Stark County Budget Commission (and the Stark County commissioners) have to work with in meeting requests for appropriations,

Third, in December of each year:

• Stark County commissioners hold "budget hearings" for each and every Stark County department of government,
• at these hearing the departments provide more details (see Step 1 and Step 2) of their needs and justification for their requests,
• at these hearings the commissioners question and probe department presenting personnel (usually the department head (e.g. Stark County recorder Rick Campbell) on the particulars of their requests,

 

All of the foregoing steps coalesce into a timeline which in toto has this look:

And here are the numbers running from 2010 through 2014 projections.

For 2013, the Stark County commissioners did not adopt a final budget until March 20th.

It will be interesting to see whether or not with Nichols on board they will do better with the 2014 budget timeline.

Before Bernabei and Creighton the budgeting process (particularly, the actual holding of "open-to-the-public-scrutiny" hearings was "a hit and miss" proposition.

Now it is mandatory that elected and unelected county officials who get county general fund money in any amount be openly accountable to the Stark County public.

It is quite a treat to see the likes of John Ferrero in with seeming "hat in hand." The word "seeming" is the operative word for yours truly would wager that Ferrero doesn't seem himself in that vein by any stretch of the imagination.

The transparency of the county budgeting process is a good thing.  

A Stark County Political Report "Hats Off" to the commissioners for continuing their longstanding and abiding efforts to be accountable, transparent, communicative and open.

While The Report thinks that the commissioners are generally trustworthy to "hold the fort" against those who would take us back to the days of fiscal irresponsibility, the key is the Ronald Reagan expression:  "Trust but verify!"

SIGNS GALORE AT THE STARK CO. SHERIFF'S OFFICE: "GEORGE T. MAIER" IS THE STARK COUNTY SHERIFF! HMM?

* Note:  Whether or not George T. Maier is the lawfully constituted sheriff of Stark County is being considered by the Ohio Supreme Court in the case:  2013-0274, State of Ohio ex rel. Timothy A. Swanson v. George T. Maier (LINK).

One of the most imperial preambles ever uttered is that of the Pharoah of Egypt:  LET IT BE WRITTEN, LET IT BE SAID!

Hmm?

What does that have to do with Stark County Sheriff* George T. Maier?

Well, yesterday the SCPR received a telephone call from one of many Stark County tipsters (this one particularly being in a position to know what he is talking about) who let it be known that SheriffI* Maier is spending "thousands upon thousands" of Stark County taxpayer money (reference:  Stark Countinans passed a 0.5% sales tax specifically for the "Criminal Justice System" in November, 2011) for the sole purpose of self-aggrandizement.

Apparently, Sheriff Maier's personal insecurity (in terms of whether or not he is to remain sheriff) is a motivating factor in engaging a Stark County version of LET IT BE WRITTEN, LET IT BE SAID as if the self-heralding will have any effect on the Supreme Court's decision.

The message from the SCPR source:

"I have been getting some calls about Sheriff Maier and the complaints that I have been getting is that he has been spending thousands of dollars of putting his name on everything."

"Parking passes for the Stark County sheriff employees which is absurd because they have their own parking lot.  What do they need a parking pass for?  But it has his name all over it."

"... $1,700 to paint his door, new signs, stickers.  Just spending thousands and thousands of the taxpayers money just for self-promotion that he is the sheriff which is really absurd that after ... [one reads] those briefs [in Swanson v. Maier] he is not going to be in office very much longer."

Evidence of what the SCPR source is talking about comes in the form of a grandiose rework of the front page of the Stark County Sheriff's Office webpage (LINK).

More corroborative evidence?

Several weeks ago yours truly was in discussion with Stark Countian Bruce Nordman (a Canton Vassar Park resident) who is highly enamored with Sheriff Maier on the basis of having worked with him on getting the Stark County jail up to full capacity (501 beds).

This citizen almost single handedly organized a job fair for returned (returning) military veterans to staff numerous unfilled deputy sheriff positions (about 41 or so) vacated by layoffs when Stark County was in full financial crisis in 2010/2011 so that the jail could be brought up to capacity.

Nordman and a collection of Vassar Park residents believe getting criminals in jail is part of the solution to solving what they believe is a rampant crime problem in Canton.

During the discussion Nordman flashed out a post card sized "thank you" note from Maier to Nordman for his help in putting the job fair togther.

So?

Well, the note was not just written on a scrap of paper.  It was one "fancy Dan" post card which had to have a significant expense tied to it if the sheriff is using it as a matter of course to thank those many Stark Countians that help Stark County law enforcement.

The SCPR has brought the matter to the attention of Stark County Commissioner Tom Bernabei.

Why Commissioner Bernabei?

Because he and fellow Commissioners Janet Creighton and Richard Regula have gone to great pains to assure Stark County taxpayers that they would monitor the spending of new monies flowing into the county treasury to ensure that they were spent wisely, prudently and efficiently.

Unfortunately, the commissioners have no direct control over the likes of Sheriff Maier and other Stark County elected officials who receive Stark County taxpayer money in the annual Stark County budgeting and appropriation process.

For instance, during the process the commissioners (especially Creighton) have made a big deal out of their expectation that department heads not grant employees (many of whom who had not received a pay raise for perhaps four/five years) pay raises during the 2013 budget cycle in excess of 2% with the hope that the "'for raises' built into the appropriation" money would not go by and large to a few preferred employees (i.e. 4, 5 or higher percentages) which others getting less or no increase.

Well, the SCPR has indications that the commissioners' desire on the matter is being ignored.  Yours truly is already working on an analysis of Stark County auditor generated numbers in an endeavor to establish chapter and verse verification of The Report's suspicion.

It will be interesting to see whether or not the commissioners publicly call out the sheriff on his apparently wholesale expenditure of the plastering of his name Sheriff George T. Maier all over creation.

The SCPR doubts that the commissioners will utter a word.

Reason?

Because they all seem to be enamored with George T. Maier.

So they had better hope that the Ohio Supreme Court validates Maier as sheriff for if he is not, then the county faces a double expense of undoing all the signage that Maier as done when a new sheriff takes office.

Even folks favorable to Maier think he has no better than a 50/50 chance to remain as sheriff.

Others, including the SCPR, think the chances are significantly less than that.

Perhaps a saving grace (which, in and of itself, is no better than 50/50 or less that it will materialize) will be that if Maier is removed from office is that he will become the Democratic nominee in the 2014 primary election and go on to defeat the Republican candidate (presumably Hartville Chief of Police Larry Dordea) and then can pick up where he left off so that Stark County taxpayers will not be out "thousands upon thousands of dollars."

The commissioners should call Sheriff Maier into a commissioner work session and have him detail exactly what he has spent in county taxpayer dollars and to provide a justification for having done so in light of his tenuous hold on being Stark County sheriff?

Such, folks, would be real accountability.

Rhetoric is one thing, action on one word is quite another.

Will the commissioners call Sheriff Maier out on his - premature, at best - expenditures in letting the people of Stark County know - "George T. Maier Stark County sheriff?"

(VIDEO: BERNABEI & CREIGHTON ON COUNTY EMPLOYEE PAY RAISES) DO ELECTED COUNTY OFFICIALS FEEL SOMEONE LOOKING OVER THEIR SHOULDERS?

Yesterday, the Stark County commissioners unanimously passed a resolution approving a 2% pay raise for employees under their direct jurisdiction.

Here is Chief County Administrator Brant Luther reading the resolution.



Of course, as anyone with any degree of financial sophistication knows, 2% is really higher than 2% because when one adds in increased pension retirement payments, workers compensation payments, unemployment payments the "real" pay raise could be at least a percentage point higher if not percentage points higher.

Luther tells The Report that the resolution "affects 49 employees in the 6 departments listed (7 Commissioners; 3 EMA; 2 Records Center; 11 Building and Grounds; 1 Dog Warden; and 25 Sanitary Engineer)."

Here are Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton responding on camera to yours truly's questions as to the justification for the raises.



The SCPR believes that there is a case for having raised the salary for most county employees.

However, such is not the case for let's say those making $50,000 or more.

Higher level employees getting raises should follow the model exemplified by what the Ohio General Assembly has done with higher paying judicial salaries.

Missing from the 2007 - 2009 chart is the pay for municipal/county court judges.   However, they too have not had a pay raise since 2007.

Co-incidently, as we all know, September, 2008 was the beginning of what is now called "The Great Recession."

Translation?

Nobody, private sector or public sector, has been getting raises.

Folks have been thrilled to just have a job - period!

Moreover, Stark County has had its own particular problem because of the improvident act of the-then commissioners Bosley, Harmon and Vignos in December, 2008 of "imposing" a 0.5% sales tax.

As we all know, the Stark County public reacted in very strong terms in November, 2009 in repealing the tax (by as much as 2/3rds majority) at the initiative of a citizens group led by local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley.

It took a new board of county commissioners composed of Tom Bernabei (November, 2010) and Janet Creighton (January, 2011) and carryover Pete Ferguson (but not a part of the commissioner group which imposed the tax) to restore public confidence in county government so that a "on the ballot" initiative for a 0.5% sales could pass.

It has been amazing to the SCPR that Bernabei and Creighton could do a turnaround in public confidence in such a short space of time.

Not only did they have the "imposed tax fiasco" to deal with, but they also had to cope with the wrap-up of what Conley coined as being Zeiglergate.

For those readers who do not know how Conley defined Zeiglergate, here is a LINK to a prior SCPR blog as a refresher.

So what is next for the commissioners to do to keep public confidence in county government operations rising?

Answer:  Make sure that elected county officials do not get off the reservation in terms of the pay raises (and other spending practices) that they make.

For if they do, there will be negative consequences in the public eye for all of county government and when the sales tax comes up for a renewal in another six years (the 2011 measure was for eight years) you can be sure that the public will remember in November of 2019 and Stark County will all of sudden be in another financial/fiscal crisis.

To that end the commissioners are and will continue to use their "bully pulpit" and are instituting monitoring measures through the Stark County auditor's office to keep tabs on the spending practices of the independently elected auditor, clerk of courts, coroner, engineer, prosecutor, recorder, sheriff and treasurer offices.

The SCPR asked Auditor Alan Harold several questions, to wit:

Alan,

At today's commissioners' meeting Commissioner Creighton said that they (the commissioners) have asked the county auditor to monitor pay raisesgiven by county department heads (elected and unelected).       

For those under the commissioners' direct authority there was a resolution today for a 2% across the board raise.

For independently elected department heads, to the degree that they exceed the recommended (built into the 2013 appropriation) 2% raise, they will have to find the money within the department's total 2013 appropriation.

My request is that the auditor's department make available to me as a media person a spreadsheet of each and every county employee showing the pre-2013 fiscal year pay scale as compared to the employees' pay post-2013 commissioner appropriation and implementation (of specific pay
raises).

Also, please tell me the mechanism you will be employing in monitoring and sharing with the commissioners data showing whether or not department heads are staying within the recommended 2% cap on pay raises.   

Thank you,

Martin Olson/SCPR

Here is what Auditor Harold has shared with the SCPR as to what his office will be doing:

Martin - thanks for the note.  I will get the reports generated and to you.

As for monitoring, the process of increasing someone's pay is all done on paper submitted by the departments.  When the papers come in, the staff gives me a copy and I share with the County Administrator.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Alan

Yesterday, Commissioner Creighton (speaking for herself) said that for any elected official who violates the commissioners' recommended 2% pay increase may prompt her to push for recompense to the county general fund for Fiscal Year 2014 from that official's request for an appropriation.

And, of course, Stark County taxpayers can depend on the Stark County Political Report to be monitoring the spending practices in general (not just salary increases) of all Stark County offices (elected independently or not) to help ensure that county government is being frugal indeed with taxpayer funds.

Th SCPR is satisfied with the way the commissioners handled the 2013 budgeting process.

However, there are many unmet county needs for funds for capital projects (for example):

• countywide drainage/flooding problems,
• funds to assist in economic development to benefit the entire county, 
• building maintenance, 
• department relocation [note:  part of roof collapsed at Stark Board of Election on last evening], and
• creating a 'rainy day' fund, et cetera)

that remain inadequately or totally unfunded.

There will only be one way for commissioners to meet the unmet needs.

They will have to over the next six years squeeze all county departments budgets like they are "squeezing blood out of a turnip."

Then and only then will they wrestle enough money out of the $50 million plus in county revenues to deal with all county needs, and thereby prove to Stark County voters in November, 2019 that they have earned their trust for the continuation of the 0.5% sales tax or an alternative commensurate with an effective and efficient operating county government.