GEORGE MAIER TO FACE LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 14, 15 & 16?

Now that the Ohio Supreme Court has decided that George T. Maier is going to be on the May 6th ballot as the Democratic candidate for Stark County sheriff, he is likely thinking that the legal wars have come to an end and the only hurdle he has to clear is defeating Republican Larry Dordea in the November election.

How about a federal court action asking the federal courts to intervene in the election on the grounds that Stark Board of Election protestor Cynthia Balas-Bratton was denied "due process of law" on the allegations that Democratic BOE member Deametrious St. John had predetermined his vote on the matter of Maier's qualification and that therefore his participation in the February 21, 2014 hearing on the protest violated Balas-Bratton U.S. Constitution rights?

How about a second interim Sheriff Tim Swanson quo warranto on the issue of Maier qualifying under ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a)  - being a 'fulltime' peace officer - which the Supreme Court found he was not on the basis of his having served as a deputy sheriff for his "friend forever" (per Myers' deposition in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto), namely; Sheriff Ronald J. Myers of Harrison County?

How about - if a second quo warranto is successful - a third quo warranto filed by Larry Dordea should he lose the general election in November?

Those, readers of the SCPR, are the possibilities of further challenges to Maier notwithstanding yesterday's decision not only upholding Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted's tie-braking vote of March 7th siding with the Democratic BOE members in allowing Maier on the ballot but also closing off a quo warranto challenge to Maier for not meeting the criteria of ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) [a supervisor at corporal or above for two years].

The Report is told by Craig Conley (Balas Bratton's protest attorney and Tim Swanson's attorney in a civil suit to recover lost wages and benefits)  that George T. Maier was not properly sworn in as deputy sheriff in Harrison County for the period November 8, 2013 through December 5, 2013 that he worked once again for his "friend forever."

So?  A mere technicality, no?

Not according to Conley.

He says that the Ohio Constitution require swearing in and if an official is not sworn in, then if is as if the official was never a public official to the position to which appointed.

Conley says that had Maier been sworn in his November/December stint in Harrison County would have cut off any additional challenge on quo warrantos to Maier's right to be sheriff.

Hmm, no?

In the SCPR's conversation with Conley post-denial of the Balas-Bratton Writ of Prohibition, he was not interested in rehashing the rationale of the decision other than to say that he disagrees with it.

The Report has picked up on an expression that Conley often uses, to wit:  "The Supreme Court doesn't have to be correct [in its decision], it just has to be the Supreme Court."

But it was obvious to The Report that he thinks that Swanson and Balas-Bratton have merely been sidetracked on the respective tracks and that they may well wish to pursue further legal action.

And Conley is game to represent them "pro bono" (i.e. without charge "as a public service")

Conley sounded to the SCPR like someone not at all inclined to counsel his clients to quietly slink away.

After hearing the disappointing news of yesterday Supreme Court decision, Conley, if anything, was fired up and ready to continue the "all out 'legal' warfare" George T. Maier has been besieged with.

On March 11, staunch Maier ally Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez (may The Report say it) "whined" about George's legal hassles in a letter addressed to the Stark County commissioners thusly:

In closing, I would like to point out that 13 legal and administrative actions have been undertaken regarding the position of the Stark County Sheriff, none of them brought forth by Sheriff George Maier. He has taken each of these head on while continuing to make the safety of the citizens of Stark County his top priority. He deserves, no he has earned the opportunity to face the voters, and the Stark citizens deserve this final legal challenge to be fair, where both sides have legal counsel vigorously representing their client's case.

In the letter (which the SCPR publishes in full at the end of this blog), Gonzalez  wherein he is pushing for the commissioners to appoint Don McTigue (a Columbus attorney unnamed in the letter) to be hired by the commissioners (at $8,000 [also not specifically pointed out in the letter])

But the commissioners (Creighton and Regula) refused on March 13th to join Commissioner Bernabei in his desire to go along with the Dems' McTigue request.

In a March 14th e-mail to the commissioners (see the full text of the e-mail at the end of this blog), Gonzalez does what he does best, he bellyaches about how unfair he thought it was that the commissioners would not take $8,000 of Stark County taxpayer money to hire Don McTigue to advocate for the Stark County Democratic Party BOE position.

He even accuses Commissioners Janet Creighton and Richard Regula of voting on a partisan basis.

Hmm?

The Report's recollection is that Commissioners Creighton and Regula both said that they were not going to put $8,000 more of taxpayer money in the the legal contests on whether or not George T. Maier is qualified to be sheriff.

Back in March of 2013, the commissioners did authorize and, eventually, actually paid $20,000 to Thomas L. Rosenberg of Roetzel & Andress (Columbus Branch) to represent Maier in his losing effort in Swanson's February 12, 2013 filed quo warranto which resulted in Maier's ouster as sheriff on November 6th.

Craig Conley went to great pains to examine the billings that Rosenberg made against the $20,000 set aside and raised questions as to why the commissioners paid quite of number of the line items on the billings.

It is pretty obvious that the commissioners did not do their "due diligence" in making sure that the line items on the billings were ones that Stark County taxpayers ought to be footing the bill for.

To the SCPR, such is out-of-character for the commissioners.

It could be that they decided they were going to pay $20,000 for whatever and that would be it.  However, they are dealing with taxpayer money and are not entitled to adopt such an attitude.

Rosenberg did ask for more money but was refused by the commissioners.

Apparently, Gonzalez did not hear what the commissioners Creighton and Regula said (i.e. it is a money thing) in refusing the Democrat BOE members on McTigue being hired on the Balas-Bratton Writ of Prohibition case.

Could it be that Chairman Gonzalez cannot get his facts straight?

He may believe the Creighton/Regula votes were a political partisanship thing.

But Creighton and Regula did not say or otherwise indicate that their "no" on hiring McTigue vote was because they are Republicans and George T. Maier is a Democrat.

While The Report is on the "fact" thing which is what Gonzalez whines about when someone like the SCPR sees things differently than he does, let's look at another thing in the e-mail that The Report does not think Gonzalez got right is his statement:

Billy Sherer, Jr. (the replacement for St. John whose term expired on February 28, 2013) was present. 

Maybe the SCPR missed something, but when did Billy Sherer, Jr ask to address the commissioners at the meeting in question?

And why would Sherer be brought in as the spokesman for the Stark Dems BOE members anyway?  St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr were the two who voted on the Democrat position on February 21st.

But to repeat.  Had Billy Sherer stood up in the meeting of the 13th and started speaking, the SCPR has no doubt that he would have been allowed to proceed.

At the end of the meeting as he was walking out, George Maier did speak.  He objected to Prosecutor Deborah Dawson being part of the executive session.

Nobody tried to cut him off.

The SCPR has enough experience with the current commissioners to be satisfied that Gonzalez's assertion is total nonsense.

As readers of the SCPR know, The Report attends nearly every Stark County commissioners meeting and never has The Report witnessed these commissioners ever, ever refusing to hear someone who wants to address them.

Absolutely, never!

And there is no three or five minute rule that many Stark County subdivision governments impose on their citizens.

They are generous to a fault in letting citizens vent themselves.

The Report does think that "Mr. Stickler for the Facts Gonzalez" has plenty of problems with facts himself and ought to address his shortcomings when his version of the facts do not square up with the public record.

The Report thinks Gonzalez is pretty much the clone of one William J. Healy, II (mayor of Canton) who is constantly spinning things the way he sees them and parlays them as being "the official facts" and, of course, abides no other take on what others think the facts are.

The SCPR suspects that Gonzalez has fed The Report a line on a number of occasions.

Given his bent to whine and bellyache, it could be that Gonzalez will go ballistic when he learns that his words "the Stark citizens deserve this final legal challenge to be fair' may be a bit premature.

The SCPR would be surprised if the Balas-Bratton Writ of Prohibition is the last litigation George T. Maier has to deal with.

Here are the Gonazlez communications in their entirety.

First, the letter:

3/11/2014

Dear Honorable Commissioner's, [sic]

I am writhing in regards to the question of appointment of legal counsel for the Stark County Board of Elections due to a conflict of interest held by the Stark County Prosecutor. There is a 3-2 decision denying the claim that Sheriff Maier is not qualified to be placed on the May primary ballot. As of now he will be on the ballot.

I'm confident you are all familiar with the history behind the case, so i will not waste your time reiterating specific details. The fact is we do have a decision to place Sheriff George Maier on the 2014 Primary Ballot and it is being challenged. The members of the Board of Elections need to stand behind that decision. The seriousness of the ramifications associated with this legal challenge and outcome will reverberate throughout our community for many years.

The Secretary of State's ruling affirmed the democratic right of allowing the people to choose who their next sheriff should be. I think we can all agree this is one of the most important and treasured privileges of our democracy. When choosing the council for the Board of Elections in this matter I hope you will consider the following factors.

This is not a neutral issue, the ruling was pro Maier and therefore an attorney with the most well versed background of the pertinent arguments for the Maier side of the case would be the most resourceful. This knowledge may also prove to be the most economical in the long run as this saga continues to unfold.

I strongly urge you to consider asking the Board of Elections, the true client in this case, for their recommendation. Any referral from the Prosecutor's office or retaining any attorney who has in the past, or Is employed by John Ferrero presents a severe conflict of interest. The last thing we need with over a year invested into this issue is any semblance of another conflict of interest, or any reason for further litigation.

In closing, I would like to point out that 13 legal and administrative actions have been undertaken regarding the position of the Stark County Sheriff, none of them brought forth by Sheriff George Maier. He has taken each of these head on while continuing to make the safety of the citizens of Stark County his top priority. He deserves, no he has earned the opportunity to face the voters, and the Stark SS citizens deserve this final legal challenge to be fair, where both sides have legal counsel vigorously representing their client's case.

Thank You for Your Consideration
Randy Gonzalez, Chairman

Second, the e-mail:

Thomas Bernabei

From:    Randy Gonzalez ...
To:    Janet Creighton ...Date:    3/14/20146:3:$ AM
CC:    ... 

After reading the Repository the facts there are not correct. Attorney McTigue was not at any meeting in reference to the Sheriff he he [sic] was asked to review the Sheriffs [sic] qualification and wrote a letter before he was appointed the second time. Others who reviewed Sheriff Mailers [sic] qualification were attorneys Schulman, Warren Price, Mike Thompson, and Steve Okey and all of them were present to answer question of the DCC at the second election of the Sheriff. The Sheriff also had his own legal counsel and later Attorney Ferruccio did an in depth review and also confirmed the qualification. Only after extensive review did Sheriff Maier apply [sic as to sentence structure] he certainly did not want what has taken place nor did I. The rule of law has been followed he is the Sheriff, [sic as to sentence structure] he is on the ballot and he is qualified.

The idea that McTigue should not be part of mis because he participated in the past is also flawed. Do you mink the AG is going to say "hey let's find someone neural [sic], someone who's background on the case is from the other side of the argument or better yet someone who doesn't even believe in his client is ruling.  [sic as to sentence structure] Hell no, he is going to find the person who can best support and believe in Mr Husted's ruling. Like it or not their  is a 3-2 ruling and as a Board I'm sure you understand that.

The majority of what has taken place in opposition to his qualification have come directly from the Prosecutor and his staff members one being a former Sheriff employee. [sic as to sentence structure]  Now Stark County has a longtime former assistaj it Prosecutor representing the BOE because he was free? There could have been a 3 or 4 to choose from that also could have been free if the BOE members would have signed off. That was not discussed publicly or any conversation from the client here, the BOE. There was a BOE member present at your meeting who also was not given the opportunity to speak.

Lastly we are all sick of tax dollars being spent. The Sheriff enough that he was willing to put his money where his mouth is. When I was asked to get the Democrats to endorse the sales tax we did, [sic as to sentence structure] help on the campaign we did we did, [sic] and in fact Kody did a great deal at no charge and when we appointed a Republican to a County office we did because the voters put him there. Now in return we get strict party line votes from the Board of Commissioners and the BOE. This decision was not fair, nor justified or properly publicly discussed. And by the way Commissioner Creighton [sic as to sentence structure] was the only one who acknowledged the letter l emailed you [sic as to sentence structure] did the others get it?

IS MASSILLON ABOUT TO PAY TWICE FOR AN "EXTRA" SERGEANT'S POSITION IN THE MASSILLON POLICE DEPARTMENT?

MASSILLON LOSES COURT CASE
ON
PROMOTION TO SERGEANT CONTROVERSY

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

CATAZARO-PERRY & HER ADVISERS

HAVE MADE A REAL MESS OF

MASSILLON FINANCES?

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

STATE OF OHIO AUDITOR

SAYS

MASSILLON CAN SAVE

$628,600 ANNUALLY!

UPDATE:  5:45 PM

Here is a follow up e-mail from Massillon Councilman Milan Chovan on the situation of Michael Maier.

From:  Milan Chovan   (Wednesday, April 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM)

To:  Martin Olson

Hi, Martin. 

I read the update to your blog that was made after my voicemail this morning.  I'd like to explain further to clear up a few things that I might not have made clear in the voicemail.

First of all, the city ordinance regarding staffing levels sets the number of sergeants at 6, not 7.  Rogers would have been number 7 without the retirement of an existing sergeant.  In that case, it would appear that Maier would have had to have been demoted, according to the city's Codified Ordinances. 

Earlier today, I found out that there might be another issue regarding Maier. As I understand it, if two officers pass the sergeant's test as did Maier and Rogers, the results are good for one year.  So, if the more senior sergeant candidate that passed the test is promoted, then another sergeant opening occurs within one year from the test date,  the junior officer could be promoted without retaking the test. I was informed today that, if Rogers would have been promoted when Maier was, well over a year ago, Maier's previous test results would now be expired.  The contention is that Maier should not have been made a sergeant  when he was and, therefore, does not have a valid test result to allow him to be a sergeant now, even though there would only be 6 sergeants on the department.  

In effect, right now, there should only be 5 sergeants with Rogers as one of them and an opening for a 6th sergeant that should be filled after a new test is administered to any officer qualified to take it.  If another officer with more seniority than Maier passes the test, he would be promoted before Maier.  At least that's what I was told. Confusing isn't it?

Thanks for the follow up Milan. 

It is confusing and that's why I wanted SCPR readers to hear from you in your capacity as chairman of Massillon City Council's Police and Fire Committee.

UPDATE:  9:15 AM

Republican Councilman-at-Large Milan Chovan (chairman of Massillon City Council's Police & Fire Committee) this morning in response to a SCPR inquiry as to whether or not Massillon's Fifth District Court of Appeals loss on the Rogers case is likely to result in Michael Maier being demoted said that he does not think so.

He explained that Massillon very recently had its full ordinance authorized seven sergeants on staff and that until the very recent retirement of one of the sergeants, a promotion of Thomas Rogers to sergeant would have put Massillon over the seven sergeant authorization.  Accordingly, it appears that Maier will be remaining a sergeant.

Chovan did say that the matter of retroactive pay to Rogers at the grade of sergeant is something else and he believes that it is an issue that Massillon government will have to deal with.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The Stark County Political Report thinks that if you had asked Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (executive vice chair of the Stark County Democratic Party) in January, 2013 if the family fortunes were flying high in terms of being dominant factors in Stark County police work (also Ohio:  2007 - 2011, George T. Maier, assistant director/director [for a few days] of the Department of Public Safety),  he most likely would have had ONE BIG SMILE on his face.

The Report's take on this former chairman of the Stark Dems is that he is a firm believer that "might makes right" and he has what it takes to play the political bully to take himself and his political allies to the apex of Stark County politics and government.

Maier, Jr learned power politics from one of Ohio's all time masters.

But these days, Johnnie might have a more sober look on his face.

Yesterday, the Fifth District Court of Appeals (5DCOA) came down with a decision which might result in his nephew Massillon policeman Michael Maier (George's son) losing his rank of sergeant in the Massillon Police Department (MPD).

Here's how Rogers attorney (Conley) put the significance of the 5DCOA ruling:

Yesterday, the Fifth District Court of Appeals issued its Opinion in the above-referenced cause affirming the Trial Court's (Judge Haas) reversal of the City of Massillon Civil Service Commission's decision denying Massillon Police Officer Rogers' promotion to Sergeant.

Accordingly, barring an unlikely successful appeal to' the Ohio Supreme Court, the City of Massillon is now obliged to retroactively promote Officer Rogers to Sergeant and to pay him back wages and fringe benefits therefor.

Ironically enough, the Massillon Police Officer unlawfully appointed sergeant in Officer Rogers' stead was George T. Maier's son, Michael Maier, noting that the younger Maier's promotion was effectuated while his father was the Massillon Safety Service Director.

To get a full appreciation of the full background on this story, readers of this SCPR blog should click on this LINK to access a blog published by The Report on April 29, 2013 providing quite a bit of background own how Micheal came to be promoted sergeant at the MPD by Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry over one Thomas Rogers even though the Stark Court of Common Pleas (Judge John Haas) and now the 5DCOA has found "as a matter of law" that Rogers has more seniority than Maier.

Originally the Massillon Civil Service Commission disregarded Rogers seniority factor (3 to 0) in coming to a decision as to recommend to Mayor Catazaro-Perry whom to promote.

And the SCPR believes that the commission was not politically motivated but was merely misinformed as to what the operative law was at the time of its determination.

How did that happen?

Well, that is a good question which the SCPR does not have an answer for.

Perhaps it is that there is something in the water in certain parts of Massillon?

But the disconnect between the law as it is - and how the Maiers and others think it is - seems to be common phenomenon at play when it comes to Michael and father George qualifying for public policing positions.

The erroneous Massillon Civil Service Commissioner interpretation of the law (at least at the Stark Common Pleas and 5DCOA levels) was rendered on November 27, 2012.

A couple months or so later, Michael's father George, after guaranteeing Stark Countians that if he applied to succeed November, 2012 Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (who, due to illness, could not take office on January 7, 2013) he would be qualified, was proved to be wrong (after being appointed sheriff on February 5, 2013 by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee) when on November 6, 2013 the Ohio Supreme Court (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) said he failed to meet the criteria of Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b).

Now George is under challenge once again in the Ohio Supreme Court as to whether or not he is qualified to be the Stark County Democratic Party's candidate for sheriff in the upcoming May 6, 2014 primary election.  (Balas-Bratton v. Maier, Writ of Prohibition, filed March 11, 2014)

The main point of this blog is to examine the financial implications to Massillon City finances in what appears to the SCPR to have been too hasty of a decision on the part of Mayor Catazaro-Perry to exercising her executive power to do so in promoting Michael to sergeant given the legal challenge that was surely to follow.

Presumably readers know about the dire financial condition that the city of Massillon is in these days.

Even before she took office as mayor (elected in November, 2011), Catazaro-Perry was trying to get the State of Ohio Auditor's (SOA) office to making an official finding that Massillon was in some sort of financial condition.

But the SOA rejected her overture.

If Catazaro-Perry has anything going for her, it is her doggedness.  And that could come from her political protege and sponsor Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

Finally, she did persuade the SOA in 2013 to declare Massillon to be in fiscal emergency.  On May 13, 2013 she wrote SOA David Yost and on October 8th, he accommodated her.

Ironically, yesterday the SOA came out with the requested audit and here is its recommendation "savings" list:

Hmm?

$628,600 in "Annual Cost Savings/Revenue Enhancements."

Interestingly enough, the mayor is reported be saying that Massillon may not implement all the SOA's recommendations.

Hmm?

Who asked for the audit?

Of course, even if Massillon were to implement all the SOA recommendations, the savings will have to be reduced by the amount of money the Catazaro-Perry administration will likely have to pay Thomas Rogers.

And it has been one big merry-go-round and she (as the SCPR sees it) has chosen to lock horns with Massillon City Council over coming up with a plan to present to the Massillon Financial Planning Commission (set up as part of the SOA declaring Massillon to be in fiscal emergency) for its approval.

The Report hears that the mayor convinced her fellows on the commission to disapprove council's plan submitted to the commission recently.

Which in light of the recommendations of the SOA yesterday and the "miraculous" reduction in the deficit from $2.6 million to $1.1 million reported recently makes one wonder whether or not a declaration fiscal emergency was merited in the first place.

Nevertheless Catazaro-Perry and council are at loggerheads and who knows if, when and how the stand off will end.

The Report is told by a knowledgeable source that the State of Ohio member of the commission (having met with council at a work session on Monday night) may be changing her view of council's plan.

With all the financial hubbub going on, it cannot be good news that it is looking pretty certain (the 5DCOA decision is susceptible of being appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court) that Massillon will now have to promote Thomas Rogers to sergeant with retroactive pay and benefits.

In light of Massillon's financial problems, it will be interesting to see how much Massillon will be set back because of Catazaro-Perry's premature action on the sergeant promotion.

And, the SCPR is told, that it may be that Massillon's code of ordinances does not allow both Rogers and Maier to be sergeants.  (See UPDATE above).

If such proves to be the case, it appears that Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry (one would think under the advice of Maier, Jr [who is Massillon's clerk of courts] and his appendage and deputy clerk R. Shane Jackson) has made a real mess of things in Massillon.

While Johnnie, Jr and his political friends and allies may think that they can muscle their way through every situation; maybe, just maybe, political power has it limits.

If things have gotten worse for Johnnie, Jr and his political pals with the adverse 5DCOA decision - so what - might be the response. They only getting what they deserve.

And that may be.

But what should not be acceptable to the voters in Massillon and across Stark County (i.e. the sheriff thing) is for political power mongers to drag all of us into the consequences of losing the political power game.

There is yet a chance that the exercise of executive and political power may in the end prevail.

If they do or do not succeed, the play of ill-advised executive action and power politics will have markedly damaged Massillon (re:  its safety forces) and Stark County (the sheriff's situation) in terms of the public perception of the priorities of interests.

Which is prevailing, the public must be saying:  the public interest or somebody's personal interest?

(VIDEO) GEORGE T. MAIER TO STARK COMMISSIONERS: KEEP FERRERO'S FOLKS OUT OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION!

NEW VIDEOS POSTED SINCE ORIGINAL BLOG POSTED

12:13 PM - COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA ON WHY HE DID NOT SUPPORT BERNABEI MOVE TO APPOINT McTIGUE

10:31 AM - COMMISSIONERS BERNABEI & CREIGHTON TALK ABOUT BALAS-BRATTON ATTORNEY FACTOR IN DECISION NOT TO HIRE McTIGUE

09:49 AM - COMMISSIONER CREIGHTON ON WHY SHE WOULD NOT SECOND BERNABEI MOTION ON McTIGUE

09:31 AM - COMMISSIONER BERNABEI ON WHO RECOMMENDED 
McTIGUE

09:11 AM  "I OBJECT" GEORGE T. MAIER TO COMMISSIONERS

 VIDEOS

STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(CREIGHTON & REGULA)

REJECT

MAIER/STARK DEMS BOE MEMBERS

COUNSEL OF CHOICE

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

ENCORE PRESENTATION

BILL DEMORA

12/11/2013

READS

McTIGUE OPINION LETTER

==================================
CHECK BACK FOR ADDITIONAL VIDEO
FOOTAGE FROM YESTERDAY'S ACTIVITIES

In a surprise move to the SCPR, George T. Maier showed up yesterday at the Stark County commissioners' special called meeting to consider whether or not to appoint "special counsel" for the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board).

So what was Maier up to?

"I object to anybody from the Stark County prosecutor's office being allowed into the executive session because of conflict in interest problems" (paraphrase)



And, indeed, Ferrero does have a conflict.

Back on February 5th he filed an affidavit with the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) saying that as prosecutor he had come to the conclusion that the SCDP brass's choice candidate for appointment; namely, George T. Maier was not qualified under Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01 to be sheriff.

The Dems were selecting a replacement for Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald who was unable to take office on January 7, 2013 as scheduled because of an illness which cost him is life on February 22, 2013.

It would be unreal for Ferrero (the buck stops with him on representation strategy) to having anything whatsoever to do with representing George Maier's interest before any court anywhere.

With Secretary of State Jon Husted  having broken a February 21, 2013 tie-vote between Republican BOE members Curt Braden and William Cline (saying Maier was not qualified) and Democratic members Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr (saying Maier was qualified) in favor the the Democrats, a question arose as to whether or not Stark County taxpayers should pay for the Maier interest to be represented in a Writ of Prohibition action filed this past Tuesday with the Ohio Supreme Court asking that the court prohibit the BOE from placing Maier's name on the May primary election ballot.

On February 11th, Massillon Ward 2A Democratic Central Committeewoman filed a protest with the Board on the Maier candidacy.

Aside from the affidavit, there is a lot of political bad blood between Ferrero and the Maiers.

The SCPR had thought that the animus between Ferrero and the Maiers was not so much George or others in the Maiers' political entourage but rather at Ferrero successor as Stark County Democratic chairman (2003) and George T. Maier brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

But now it appears that George has adopted Johnnie's seeming hatred of "all things Ferrero" as The Report believe this video of yesterday's objection indicates.

Included in yesterday's Maier supporters was Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez was at his "whining" best.

When the SCPR or likely anyone in the media sees things differently than Gonzalez, he, above any other Stark County public official goes into a snit of bellyaching.

It must work for him in some circles, but it does not with The Report.

The Report sees Gonzalez much in the same light as this writer does Canton mayor William J. Healy, II.

Healy is generally known in the Stark County political community for being a political spin artist whereas Gonzalez has generally evaded that tag - except - with the SCPR.

Gonzalez is more disarming with it than Healy.

The Report suspects that Gonzalez bobs and weaves, omits important details and otherwise massages situations every bit the equal of Healy.

On another measure of the two men, the SCPR thinks that Healy is not nearly the whiner that Gonzalez is.

One has to wonder why Gonzalez was at yesterday's meeting.  If it was to put pressure - by his mere presence - on Republican commissioners Janet Creighton and Richard Regula to give Maier interests the attorney they wanted at a cost of 8,000 Stark County taxpayer dollars, he may as well stayed in Jackson Township where he is the township's fiscal officer.

On another note, the SCPR hears that Stark County Democratic Party officials (presumably including Gonzalez) are accusing John Ferrero of destroying the Stark County "organized" Democratic Party.

Go Figure!

The very folks who thought they could steamroller an unqualified (reference, Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, November 6, 2013 Ohio Supreme Court decision) now want to blame a man who stood tall for "the rule of law" as being a political traitor.

Gonzalez yesterday as we waited for the commissioners to come out of executive session went into a rant of sorts about being sick and tired of all the talk about "the rule of law."

Now isn't that interesting?

It wasn't long after the Gonzalez diatribe that the commissioners reconvened.

In the following video, Commissioners Creighton and Regula are seen as refusing to second Democratic commissioner Thomas Bernabei's motion/resolution to hire Tigue, a so-called elections law expert located in Columbus.




Bernabei says that he came up with Donald McTigue on the recommendation of Maier attorney Thomas L. Rosenberg and Stark Dem BOE member Sam Ferruccio, Jr.  He denied that Gonzalez had any input on the matter.



The SCPR also captured the commissioners addressing the influence or lack thereof the series of letters sent to them by Balas-Bratton's attorney (Conley) on their decision to appoint David Bridenstine rather than Donald McTigue.



While the commissioners were in executive session,  Gonzalez was whining (if The Report may use that term again) to a reporter about the commissioners' expected commissioners' denial of McTigue as the Stark Dems BOE members' legal counsel at taxpayer expense.

Commissioners Creighton and Regula both said that they could not see paying a cap of $8,000 to McTigue when they had available highly respected and former prosecuting attorney (civil division) David Bridenstine to do the work.



Bridenstine, recently retired, spent many, many years in the prosecutor's office.  

He was hired last year on an annual cap of $65,000 to perform various and sundry legal work for the commissioners and other departments of Stark County government (e.g. the sanitary engineer). For non-county-commissioner work, Stark County commission financial guru Chris Nichols says there is a charge back.  However, he confirmed yesterday that Bridenstine, is, in fact, a general fund employee.

The cost to Stark County taxpayers will likely not be an additional taxpayer outlay for legal work (i.e. equivalent to paying McTigue $8,000) but in opportunity cost.

Opportunity cost?

Yes.

To the degree Bridenstine works on for the Maier/Stark BOE Dems interests, he is not available to work on other Stark County government projects.

The SCPR can hear Gonzalez bellyaching about how Bridenstine has a conflict because he once worked for Ferrero.

What an insult!

But Gonzalez is quite adept at handing out insults in a back handed non-confrontation way that does not get him the negative press that Healy experiences.

Balas-Bratton attorney Craig T. Conley put a lot of pressure on the commissioners "not to hire" anybody to advocate in the Ohio Supreme Court for the Maier/Stark Dems interests on the theory that tie-breaker Husted in already represented by Ohio attorney general Mike DeWine's office.

Conley's position makes sense to the SCPR.

But if the commissioners were to do anything in terms of providing the Maier/Stark Dems interests, the Bridenstine choice is excellent in terms of the quality of attorney he is and saving most of if not all of the $8,000 it would have taken to hire McTigue.

Maier and the Stark Dems may end up thanking Commissioners Creighton and Regula for the Bridenstine choice.

The SCPR was totally unimpressed with the McTigue legal opinion letter read by Ohio Democratic Party representative Bill DeMora at the second appointment of George T. Maier, to wit:  (from the SCPR 12/12/2013 blog)

A key piece in the orchestrated "dog and pony show" performance by Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez was the obtaining of and reading of a "legal opinion" by Ohio Democratic Party attorney Don McTigue.

This little ditty (i.e. the McTigue letter) apparently was designed to overwhelm the non-attorney segment of the gathering of SCDP-CC members.

As expert as McTigue supposedly is, he didn't even do enough research to know (see motion to hear Beck video below) that the original qualification date was February 6th (30 days from the January 7th McDonald failure to take office date). 

See/hear McTigue for yourself.



As for Maier, he once again demonstrated to the SCPR yesterday that he is not ready for "prime time" as Stark County sheriff.

As before, when the press gathers around him to ask questions, he stops answering questions when the SCPR approaches and acts the role of a two-year-old in throwing a fit at the prospect of having to answer really tough questions.

And this guy thinks he's ready to be sheriff of "all the people."

No, he is only prepared to be the sheriff of people prepared to kiss his posterior.

When Tim Swanson was sheriff, the SCPR wrote many critical blogs about some aspects of his handling of the sheriff's department and his elevation (e.g. Rick Perez) as key members of his administration.

Nevertheless, Swanson always answered The Report's questions.

Some people think that George T. Maier is vastly superior to Timothy Swanson.

These are folks who buy into the "splash and dash" showman style of Maier, the former Ohio Highway Patrol officer.

When he was safety director of Massillon, the SCPR is told than Maier had his Highway Patrol uniform on a mannequin located in his office.

Isn't that just a tad strange?

Certainly Stark County can do better than this guy as our sheriff!

If Maier does survive to make it to the ballot, "let be written, let it be said" the SCPR will be pushing hard for Stark Countians to elect Larry Dordea as the county's next sheriff.

Larry has answered many tough SCPR questions and been the topic of criticism in these pages (e.g. most recently, his signing "secret ballots" as an Alliance city councilman).  But he manned up and answered them)

But he understands that it is not the role of media to ingratiate themselves to public officials.

This is a lesson that George T. Maier has yet to learn.

Yesterday he pulled out a line from his brother Johnnie and started ragging on bloggers.  As a BOE member back in 2010, Johnnie was part of a Board which tried to deny SCPR right to videotape BOE public meetings.  On that occasion, Johnnie in reference to the SCPR could be overheard mumbling the same line that George parroted yesterday.

The SCPR believes that Johnnie and his appendage Shane Jackson were behind the apparently now defunct Massillon Review.  Pre-SCPR they had tried (never a chance that was ever going to happen) get me to be a front guy for an anti-Stark-Republican Party political attack blog.

Nobody who knows quality blogging says the Stark County Political Report and the Massillon Review in the same breath.

But the Maiers know whereof they speak when they talk of a bad, bad blog.  From personal experience, no?

To show how-out-of-touch he is with anyone taking a close look at him, he made a point to tell me that he prays for me each and every morning.  Moreover, he respects the media, (except - impliedly) any that drill in on him.

The SCPR is flattered that Maier has made me such a big factor in his life.

But The Report takes the prayer thing as being about as  phony as a guy can get.

Pure and simple, the invoking of the pious is nothing more than defense mechanism to show in an obvious self-serving way what a long suffering, good guy George T. Maier is and that he is - to the extent he gets scrutinized - a media martyr. 

The more the SCPR gets to know George T. Maier, the more his warts start popping out plain as day.

That he is Stark County sheriff, even a politically appointed one, the SCPR thinks, is not good for the county.
 
In Larry Dodea, Stark County has someone who at a very minimum is the match of George T. Maier in policing and administrative ability.

The bonus with Dordea that he is truefully respective of all and understands that it is the role of a public official to have to answer to the public - all of the public - not just his friends.

One final note.

It is regrettable that Commissioner Tom Bernabei got roped into doing the Gonzalez/Maier/Ferruccio/St. John bidding.

The SCPR has enormous respect for Bernabei.

As a long time highly respected Canton Democratic office holder (law director, councilman and service director), he generally demonstrates to the satisfaction of The Report that politics is secondary to him and the well being of Stark Countians is his first priority.

In his referring (in the video) to putting another good man - David Bridenstine - into the political mess that Gonzalez, Maier et al have created, it is clear to the SCPR that Bernabei himself understands that he too has been made a victim of the sheriff appointment process.

While he undoubtedly would not lay it at the feet of Gonzalez and friends, the SCPR does.

Gonzalez, Maier and friends, have in the view of the SCPR, ganged up and mustered up all of the political power they can find in order to force George T. Maier in as sheriff.

Down the line, Commissioner Bernabei - the good man he is - needs to square up with understand who really has caused the mess that he and, indeed, all Stark Countians find themselves it.

And the culprits are not John Ferrero, Tim Swanson, Cynthia Balas-Bratton or Craig T. Conley.

If anything, they are heroic figures for the principle of the rule of law.

For the SCPR's money, it all goes back to George T. Maier brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and Stark Dems' political director Shane Jackson and their apparently misguided calculation that the could politically bully George into the digs at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

That is where Commissioner Bernabei ought be focusing his attention!

(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?

HUSTED FAILURE TO MAKE A "TOUCHDOWN/FIRST DOWN," TO COST MAIER A PLACE ON MAY BALLOT?

"Block that punt!" in football metaphor terms has to be the cry coming from the lips of Cynthia Balas-Bratton these days.

And it appears that such is exactly what may happen on the next play of her protest (filed February 11, 2014) of George T. Maier being the Democratic candidate for Stark County sheriff.

Coming out of the Stark Board of Elections (BOE, Board) hearing of February 21, 2013, the SCPR figures that Team Balas-Bratton had Team Maier pinned back on its own ten yard line with a 4th and 20 yards to go for a first down; 4th and 80 yards to go for a touchdown.

Yesterday, Balas-Bratton attorney Craig T. Conley sent in "the play" which could result in the Ohio Supreme Court knocking down Secretary of State Jon Husted's effort (a punt) to get Maier onto May's primary ballot without having scored a winning touchdown for Team Maier.

Husted rejected "let's go for a touchdown play" sent him by Team Maier (Stark Board of Elections members Deametrious "I Learned Politics from George Forbes" St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr) a week ago today.

Husted elected in his March 7, 2014 decision to "play it safe" and punt the ball (Maier's fulfilling ORC 311.01(B(8) [re:  a second quo warranto] & (9) requirements) out of harm's way, to wit:

While I am not confident that Mr. Maier meets the legal qualifications in the Ohio Revised Code, I am also unable to clearly conclude he does not. Given the law and the facts in this case, I choose to err on the side of ballot access.

In "playing it safe," Husted utterly failed to discharge the duty imposed on him by Ohio's statutory law to determine - from the evidence presented him through the Stark Board of Elections - whether or not George T. Maier is entitled to be on the ballot.

In "err[ing] on the side of ballot access" he ignored the law and in effect said "Supreme Court, you look at that evidence anew and the legal arguments thereon" and decide.  I will not."

Another critical mistake that Husted made was to misidentify the central issues before himself and the Stark BOE.

He says: The central issue of the protest is whether Mr. Maier satisfies the educational or supervisory requirements of R.C. 311.01(B)(9).

But in reality the effect of the Balas-Bratton protest hearing case was to persuasively challenge George T. Maier's meeting any of the criteria of ORC 311.01(B)(8) and (9).

Moreover, in his decision, Husted says not one word about St. John's right as a matter of law given his self-articulated bias in area media reports of having disqualified himself to sit in judgment of Maier's qualifications.

Nonetheless, punting the ball in the fashion he did could work for Team Maier (i.e. "the Supreme Court does not have to be correct in its decision, it only has to be the Supreme Court).

In doing so, he once again reduces the Maier forces to "the hope and a prayer" status that they had in awaiting his decision.

But punting also presents an opportunity that otherwise would not have been available to Team Balas-Bratton had Husted gone for and made a touchdown, or at the very least a first down in terms of strength of argument to get the BOE tie (Republican members Braden and Cline for keeping Maier off the ballot;  Democratic members St. John and Ferruccio for placing him on the ballot) broken by the ultimate decider in Team Maier's favor.

How is Team Balas-Bratton (through the Ohio Supreme Court) to get through the Team Maier defense to "block the punt?"

Answer?

• St. John is ineligible to be a team member and thereby provides Team Balas-Bratton with a "gap in the defensive line" through which to "block that punt," and/or
• Ferruccio being "out-of-position" and having called the wrong blocking scheme to prevent a blocked punt,

either of which puts Team Balas-Bratton in a position to trump (via Supreme Court decision) the Husted attempt via his "err on the side of ballot access" decision of March 7th to "advantage" Team Maier in keeping sheriff candidate George T. Maier "on the field of play."

So that is the football metaphor of things to come.

For the SCPR readers who prefer a non-sports approach here are the actual Balas-Bratton arguments.  (LINK to Ohio Supreme Court filed Writ of Prohibition)

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(WRIT OF PROHIBITION)

     32.  Relator incorporates by reference herein paragraphs nos. 1 through 31, inclusive, hereinabove.

     33.  By and through his active participation in the subject
Protest hearing, BOE Member St. John denied Relator her due process right to a non-biased guasi-judicial tribunal.  

     34.  By and through the Secretary's failure and refusal to remove or suspend BOE Member St, John from participating in the subject Protest hearing, he denied Relator her due process right to a non-biased quasi-judicial tribunal.  

     35.  Had the denial of due process referred to in paragraphs nos, 33 and 34 hereinabove not occurred, BOE Member St. John's aforesaid motion would have failed for want of a second and the BOE's vote on Relator's Protest would have been 2 to 1 in favor of granting that Protest; i.e., there would have been no tie vote for the Secretary to break.

     36.  In allowing BOE Member St, John's Protest hearing participation and attendant motion and vote, the Secretary exercised and continues to exercise quasi-judicial power, which exercise was and is unauthorized by law; and, the denial of the herein requested Writ will result in.injury to Relator for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law due to the rapidly upcoming primary election, with, as noted by the Secretary in his aforesaid decision, its attendant "deadline for military and overseas ballots just weeks away".

     37.  Relator is therefore entitled to a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Secretary from recognizing BOE Member St. John's motion and vote against her Protest.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(WRIT OF PROHIBITION)

     38.  Relator incorporates by reference herein paragraphs nos. 1 through 37, inclusive, hereinabove.

     39.  Via his aforesaid decision, the Secretary exercised and continues to exercise quasi-judicial power, which exercise was and is unauthorized by law; and, the denial of the herein requested Writ will result in injury to Relator for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law due to the rapidly upcoming primary election, with, as noted by the Secretary in his aforesaid decision, its attendant "deadline for military and overseas ballots just weeks away".

     40.  Because of the Secretary's aforesaid decision, the BOE is about to exercise quasi-judicial power, which exercise is unauthorized by law/ and, the denial of the herein requested Writ will result in injury to Relator for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law due to the rapidly upcoming primary election, with, as noted by the Secretary in his aforesaid decision, its attendant "deadline for military and overseas ballots just weeks away".

     41.  Relator is therefore entitled to a writ of prohibition prohibiting the BOE and the Secretary from including Maier on the May Democratic primary ballot as a candidate for Stark County Sheriff.

Within a very few days, Team Maier leader and attorney Thomas Rosenberg (with the Ohio attorney general's office and the BOE's legal counsel in the mix) will be responding to the Balas-Bratton arguments.

The question is whether or not Rosenberg can fix the holes created by St. John and Ferruccio?

The SCPR thinks not.

However, remember:  "the Supreme Court does not have to be correct, it just has to be the Supreme Court."

Therein lies yet another opportunity for the Maier factor to realize once again (as with Husted) "a hope and prayer!"

SCPR COMMENTARY ON OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE DECISION ON BALAS-BRATTON V. MAIER STARK BOE PROTEST

WORDS OF BALAS-BRATTON ATTORNEY - CONLEY

Craig T. Conley (attorney for Cynthia Balas-Bratton) says that he will be filing with the Ohio Supreme Court early next week a Writ of Prohibition asking that the high court prohibit the Stark County Board of Elections from placing the name of George T. Maier on the Stark County Democratic Party primary ballot for the office of Stark County sheriff.


Conley's words:

I don't want to minimize the burden.  The burden of getting the secretary of state reversed is a significant one. 

It is akin to but not quite an 'abuse of discretion.'  ... 

But the secretary of state made my burden somewhat easier because he is so 'wishy-washy' in that he does not say affirmatively yes or no.  And that makes my burden a lot easier.

It is a difficult burden to overcome, but it has been done.  This secretary of state and his predecessor [Democrat Jennifer Brunner] have been reversed under similar circumstances by the Supreme Court.

I feel pretty confident ... [on the basis of George Maier] in his qualification document [submitted to the Stark BOE] wherein he relied on only 23 months [of supervisory experience {under ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a)}] and that could very well be dispositive [on the Writ of Prohibition that Conley plans to file early next week].

I don't have to demonstrate to the court that his [Husted's] affirmative decision was wrong.  All I have to point out to the court is 'that he [Husted] really didn't know.

The court really has become the tie-breaker.

I still have a St. John issue [in his Writs of Prohibition/Writs of Mandamus, two of which each] the denial of which I am going to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Obviously, Balas-Bratton would have wanted the secretary of state to rule her way.

But he didn't

His decision was a mimic of Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione's in opening up ("I want to err on the side of Democracy') the second Stark Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointment process for George T. Maier to reapply notwithstanding the the law of the case seemed to preclude his doing so.

Somewhere along the line, the Ohio Supreme Court will have to rule that Maier is qualified under ORC 311.01 to be Stark County sheriff.

The secretary of state clearly states in his reasons for ruling Maier onto the ballot that he is not making  a qualification determination.

In failing to making a forthright determination that George T. Maier is qualified under his reading of ORC 311.0 in the context of the evidence presented by both the protestor and Maier, Secretary of State Husted failed to discharge the responsibility placed with the Board of Elections by the Ohio General Assembly in making ORC 311.01 the law of the land.

Both sides should be unhappy with the secretary.

His decision is a clear case of political waffling.

Of course, he is a candidate for reelection himself this year and may face a stiff challenge from the dynamic Nina Turner.  And beyond this year, he has to be looking at the possibility he might be a candidate for governor in 2016 on the chance that John Kasich will be the Republican standard bearer for president.

Candidates - especially statewide ones - are prone to political fence riding whenever they get the opportunity.

That is what the SCPR thinks John Husted has done.

And, while the Maier camp may take solace in having the Secretary's decision go his way; they should be more than a little bit upset with the weaseling he did in coming to his determination.

The SCPR thinks Conley is correct.

Husted's decision is "wishy-washy" and the SCPR thinks it was purposely so in order to throw a sop to a powerful Stark County Republican or two who have to be outraged with his siding with the Democrats.

He knows that in not being forthright and unequivocal in doing his job to decide clearly - one way or the other - whether George T. Maier is qualified that he did give the Balas-Bratton side (which clearly benefits Stark's Republicans in their effort to capture the sheriff's office in November) a much easier path to getting a Supreme Court reversal of today's decision.

And if he gets reversed, he will not shed one tear.

For he has done what it is typical of politicians to aspire to do:  "having it every which way!"

THERE NEEDS TO BE AN "OFFICIAL" INVESTIGATION! ARE WHOLESALE VIOLATIONS OF THE ORC 124.57 GOING ON IN THE STARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT?

SCPR ADVOCACY NOTE

THE STARK COUNTY PROSECUTOR

OR

"SPECIALLY APPOINTED 'INDEPENDENT' COUNSEL"

OR

THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL

SHOULD 

DO 

A

ORC 124.57 INVESTIGATION

UPDATE:  12:25 PM

Here is an e-mail received by the SCPR this morning, to wit:

Another great in-depth look at the Sheriff situation.

There is a online petition as well you might not be aware of.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/321/201/999/let-the-voters-decide-put-sheriff-george-maier-on-the-ballot/?taf_id=10714407&cid=fb_na

If you compare the names to those on your list posted today, you will see many, many deputies on there match, plus many more not on the posted list.

You are also right about the pressure and poor work environment being placed on the employees at the Sheriff's Office to support Maier, ... .. Those petitions were passed around in person, and you were basically in a no win situation.

...

Lose lose situation for sure.

Thanks again for what must be hours of research and information gathering. It is appreciated.

Note:  The SCPR excised from the e-mail published  above what The Report interprets as allegations of illegality and ethics violations inasmuch as whether or not such is the case is why The Report is calling for the Stark County prosecutor or an appointed “independent” special prosecutor or the Ohio attorney general’s office to conduct an inquiry to make a determination one way or another on the illegality/ethics issues.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The Stark County Political Report is absolutely "bananas" for the RULE OF LAW.

But, different than some, The Report thinks that the RULE OF LAW should apply "equally" to everybody.

George T. Maier attorney Thomas Rosenberg may have opened the proverbial "Pandora's Box" in suggesting, perhaps, that Stark County sheriff department lieutenant Lou Darrow violated the law in applying for the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointment as Stark County sheriff on December 11, 2013?

As we all know now, there is quite a bit of controversy in the Dems' finding someone to fill out Mike McDonald's term as Stark County sheriff.

Though elected in November, 2012, McDonald could not take office on January 7, 2013 because of an terminal illness which claimed his life on February 22, 2013.

The Dems selected Massillonian George T. Maier on February 5, 2013 but the appointment was found to have been illegal (a violation of Ohio statutory law) on November 6, 2013 by the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Dems - the SCPR thinks - made the mistake all over again on December 11th in re-appointing Maier.

But if Rosenberg had his way, Lou Darrow would have been excluded.

Never mind that a number of Stark Countians think that Maier has exactly the same problem.

Double standards do not seem to trouble Rosenberg.

In yesterday's blog, the SCPR opined that Rosenberg seems to have a penchant to one standard applying to others but not to his client.

Today, the SCPR is focusing on the Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57 "Pandora's Box" that Rosenberg introduced into the "all matters Maier" equation back on November 13, 2013.

Here is an extract of ORC 124.57:

124.57 Prohibition against partisan political activity.

(A) No officer or employee in the classified service of the state, the several counties, cities, and city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state shall directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, solicit or receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving, any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political party or for any candidate for public office; nor shall any person solicit directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting, any such assessment, contribution, or payment from any officer or employee in the classified service of the state, the several counties, cities, or city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state; nor shall any officer or employee in the classified service of the state, the several counties, cities, and city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state be an officer in any political organization or take part in politics other than to vote as the officer or employee pleases and to express freely political opinions.

Well, insofar as the SCPR can determine, so was George T. Maier a member of "Classified Civil" service when he applied to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas on November 26, 2013 (thirteen days after the his "stop" Lou Darrow letter).

But The Report's take on Rosenberg is that "what's good for the goose, IS NOT good for the gander."

The "rule of law" may or may not apply to a huge number of deputy sheriffs working out of 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

And, perhaps, to Democratic Party "write-in" candidate Lt. (Summit County sheriff's department) Douglas S. Smith.

Here is an extract of a "Concerned Citizen" letter sent to Summit County Sheriff Steve Brady on Wednesday of this week:

Sheriff Steve Brady
County of Summit
53 University Ave.
Akron, Ohio 44308
   
RE: Lt. Douglas S. Smith write-in candidacy for partisan ofiice and potential violation of\/~ the Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57, County of Summit Codified Ordinance 169.18 and County of Summit Ordinance 2011-207.

Dear Sheriff Brady:

I am writing this communication to you to request that you as the appointing authority conduct an inquiry and investigation into a potential violation allegedly committed by Lt. Douglas S. Smith who is an employee of the County of Summit, Akron, Ohio - Sheriff Office. 

Lt Douglas S. Smith is currently employed by the County of Summit, Akron, Ohio Sheriff Office in a classified position. Lt Douglas S. Smith currently resides at 1222 Hiddenview St., N.W. North Canton, Ohio 44720. 

The allegation is that as an employee of the Sheriff Department for the County of Summit, Akron, Ohio, Lt Douglas S. Smith most recently and also on prior occasions knowingly and continuously participated in partisan politics. Please see the attached newspaper articles which are attached as exhibits and supporting evidence or proof of the alleged violations.

This is contrary to the following State of Ohio and County of Summit, Akron, Ohio law: The Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57 - Prohibition against partisan political activity. Ordinance 2011-207, Section 169.18 "Political Activity" County of Summit, Akron, Ohio. County of Summit, Akron, Ohio Codified Ordinances Section 169.18, "Political Activity".

(SCPR Note:  Yesterday The Report spoke with Douglas Smith and came away with the following impressions:

• Smith is coordinating in a loose construction of "coordinating:"
• He has talked with Stark Dems' chairman Randy Gonzalez and George T. Maier himself about running as a "write-in" candidate before filing,
• Both Gonzalez and Maier are telling him that they are confident that they will win before Ohio's secretary of state,
• Neither endorsed his filing, but both were seemingly understanding that the Democrats would not want to have nobody on the ballot should the secretary of state surprise them and vote to keep Maier off the ballot,
• Smith seem "highly" fluid on whether or not he will stay in the race because
• He worries that the fact that he is an employee of the Summit County sheriff's department and has not established any kind of political base in Stark County and therefore would have a difficult time raising money to have a competitive campaign against Republican Larry Dordea, that it may not be practical for him to stay in the campaign should Maier not make it to the ballot,
• He does not plan to but is open to stepping aside should Maier not make it to the ballot so that the Stark Dems can appoint someone else in his stead,
• He does not think he has an ORC 124.57 problem, but is not sure of it and would be quick to exit if it became apparent that he does,

Last week, the SCPR got word of allegations that some "politiking" was/are going on on behalf of George T. Maier "within the sherff's 'official' abode."

Here is the content. of an e-mail that the SCPR received last Thursday:

Hello,

Regardless whether someone supports George T. Maier as Sheriff or not. I do not believe any Deputy Sheriff (whether ON or OFF duty) should have been attending this weeks meeting. Unless they were on "Official Business", such as testifying or providing security.

Most of the uniformed deputies shown on your short video, appeared to be Reserve Deputies, and Administrator's. I don't find it shocking that George T. Maier was using the Reserve Deputies to show force or support. Whatever he may call it. Apparently George T. Maier has been having Reserve Deputies volunteer their time to replace his name on county property and vehicles.

Something I do find a little shocking. Apparently George T. Maier's administration assistant, Derrick Loy has been circulating a letter around the Sheriff's Office asking for deputies/employees to sign in support of Maier. The letter is supposed to be presented to the BOE. I believe this practice not only violates department policy but possibly the law.

I find it shocking that Deputies would attend a BOE meeting on their own and volunteer to sign a letter supporting George T. Maier. Except that the Deputies are currently in contract negotiations with George T. Maier. The tentative contract George T. Maier recently presented to the deputies union was rejected.

I've been a long time reader of your blog and enjoy it most of the time. I'm not employed at the Sheriff's Office. However I have family and close friends that work there. Most of the employees are amazing people and could careless about the politics. They just want to do their job. I wanted to share some of my thoughts and observations.

Thanks for you time.

Speaking of the "petitions" (called a letter by the writer), here they are:

First, from the deputies:

Stark County Board of Elections 
2013"* Street NE Floor 1 
Canton, Ohio 44702

Please accept this letter from the following deputies of the Stark County Sheriff's Office as our statement of confidence in the qualifications of Stark County Sheriff George T. Maier.  As law enforcement officers, we believe George Maier to be well qualified for the Office of Sheriff and we respectfully request that Sheriff Maier's nominating petition and substantial qualifications be certified in the affirmative.

We strongly encourage the Stark County Board of Elections to put politics aside, and place him on the ballot as his qualifications demand, thus providing the voters of Stark County the fundamental democratic right to decide who is best suited to serve as their Sheriff. Rejecting Sheriff Major's candidacy denies the public a choice in this election, removes from the ballot a law enforcement leader we wholeheartedly believe to be qualified, and furthers the purely political motivation of a few detractors who seek to limit the public's choice in this election.

This letter is not a political endorsement for, or against any particular candidate. It is simply a statement of our desire to place the selection of our Sheriff where it rightly belongs - in the hands of the voters of Stark County.

Second, from some of the administrators working at the Stark County sheriff's office:

Please accept this letter from the following employees of the Stark Countv Sheriff's Office as our statement of confidence in the excellent performance of Stark County Sheriff George T. Maier. As employees having a diverse range of responsibilities and duties throughout the Stark County Sheriffs Office, we feel Sheriff Maier has transformed the agency's focus on service to the public. We respectfully request that Sheriff Maier's nominating petition and substantial qualifications be certified as provided by Ohio law.

We strongly encourage the Stark County Board of Elections to leave politics aside, and place Sheriff Maier on the ballot as his qualifications duly merit. This allows the people of Stark County the opportunity to decide who should serve as Stark County Sheriff. Rejecting Sheriff Maier's candidacy would deny the public a choice in this election and remove from the ballot a law enforcement leader we wholeheartedly believe has demonstrated his wealth of qualifications and capabilities during the past year.

This letter is not a political endorsement for, or against any particular candidate.  It is simply a statement of our desire to place the selection of our Sheriff where it rightly belongs - in the hands of the voters of Stark County.

And, of course, there are the "Contributors in the Officeholders' Employee" campaign finance report required by the law of Ohio, to wit:

(SCPR Note:  this list is independent of the petition signatures list)

Of course, the SCPR always tries to the other side of the story.
So, The Report sent this e-mail to the "named in the e-mail" Derrick Loy, to wit:

Derrick:

A excerpt from an e-mail I received this afternoon:

Apparently George T. Maier's administration assistant, Derrick Loy has been circulating a letter around the Sheriff's Office asking for deputies/employees to sign in support of Maier. The letter is supposed to be presented to the BOE.

True or untrue?

If true, please explain in detail the facts and circumstances surrounding your involvement.

Thanks,

Martin Olson
SCPR

The Report thought that Loy might respond in a meaningful way to the e-mail because he was quick to use the SCPR in his campaigning for Mike McDonald when he ran against Republican Larry Dordea in 2012.

Moreover, Loy recently became a center of controversy with Alliance City Council because he was one of a number of subjects on a "secret ballot" taken on January 13, 2014 during a council meeting as to whether or not Loy would be re-appointed to the Alliance Water & Sewer Advisory Board.

The SCPR asked Loy for his side of the story and sent in a responsive e-mail which The Report published in full.

Well, it now seems to the SCPR that Loy has been told by someone in the George T. Maier entourage to clam up with The Report, to wit: (Loy's response to the SCPR e-mail)

Martin,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your email, I don't check my personal email as often as I should.

Concerning your inquiry, I have never hid behind my positions or statements with you, as I believe in openness and transparency.  With that said, I do not feel compelled to respond to statements made by people who  lack courage and/or people hiding behind anonymity.

Be well,

Derrick

Oh what a terrific guy that Derrick Loy is!  "Be well," he says.

But no answer! 

He can forget the "laced with sarcasm niceties," just answer the questions!  Stark County's taxpayers are entitled to have answers from a guy who works for the taxpayers, no?

Seems like he may have consulted with Stark County recorder Rick Campbell on how he should respond to SCPR inquiries.  Loy's response in right out of Campbell's playbook.

No matter the truth or falsity of the allegation(s), "I do not respond to anonymous allegation."

Hmm?

Well, Derrick, THE E-MAIL PASSED ON TO THE STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT IS NOT ANONYMOUS BUT the SCPR, since the sender says he/she has friends and relatives working in the sheriff's department, does not want to make the writer's friends/family vulnerable to retaliation.

Now why in the world would the SCPR be concerned that the folks in charge at the Stark County sheriff's office might be in a mood for some retribution on the writer's friends/family if his/her identity were known?

Maybe, in light of this new information and the SCPR's concern for the well-being of the friends and family of the sender, Loy will reconsider and tell all HE knows about the facts and circumstances surrounding the circulating of the petition.  

For starters:

Who suggested that it be written?

Who authored it?

Were the signatures collected while the deputies/administrators were on the taxpayer dime?

Who hand carried a copy down to the Board of Elections?

Why wasn't Balas-Bratton's attorney provided with a copy by the Maier supporter and/or the Stark County Board of Elections?

It is highly unlikely that Loy or other person on the staff at the Stark County sheriff's department will answer the questions.

For it appears to The Reprt that Loy is one of the SCPR's regular readers and maybe, just maybe the amplification of the reasons for "no name as to the commenter" in this blog just might prompt him to reconsider, no?

Probably not.  But we shall see.

There is no doubt in the thinking of The Report that Loy is a George Maier's "main man" when it comes to doing the bidding of the Democratic Party appointed sheriff.

If the SCPR were to inquire of the "bossman," George T. Maier himself - there is no doubt that The Report would get "zippo" from a man who is paid by Stark County taxpayers (as is Loy) and who apparently thinks that he is unaccountable to the Stark County public.

Maier goes out of his way to make it plain to the SCPR (in a taunting-esque fashion) that he is willing to talk to the "easily put off" reporters at The Repository and to "bonkers for George Maier" Ron Ponder of WHBC but not to the SCPR

Now why would that be?

Of course, the SCPR is not having a love-in with Maier as Ponder is and does not ask "I don't want to offend you" questions that way too many of The Repository reporters seem to ask him.

But Maier has no compunction about accepting taxpayer dollars as public official compensation (unless, of course, the Ohio Supreme Court finds him - once again - to be in office illegally) and not subject himself to incisive questioning that the SCPR is so well known for asking questions that put the likes of Maier to be publicly accountable.

Back to the ORC 124.57 question.
 
At the beginning of this blog in the headline section, The Report calls for the Stark County prosecutor and/or the Ohio Attorney General to conduct an investigation into the conduct of Darrow, Maier and the other classified civil service employees working out of 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

And, in particular, to focus on the petition referred to in the e-mail above.

Note the "multiple assurances" in the petition that the deputies "are not being political."

That whoever wrote the petition had to repeatedly assert that the petition was not a political statement while dissing opponents of Maier as being political (the deputies letter), is in and of itself to the SCPR a tacit admission that Maier's supporters in petitioning were attempting to apply political pressure to effect the outcome of Balas-Bratton v. Maier in Maier's favor.

Ohio's BOE structure, is such  (i.e. two Republican members, two Democratic members and an evenly divided between Republican and Democratic support staff) as set up, to, by its very nature to engage in "Cold War-esque" political warfare with the secretary of state (be that person a Democrat or Republican) being empowered by "the rule of law" (as bad as the SCPR thinks the law is) is to step in and break any tie votes that occur among the four partisan members.

And, of course, those behind the petitions know that Ohio's Board of Elections reek of politics and so why wouldn't you try to apply political pressure?

Whoever was the genius behind the petitions forgot two things:

One, in their handling of election/candidacy protests, BOEs need to get about as far away as they can from their inherently political structure for in this role they are "quasi-judicial" bodies subject to review by the courts of Ohio.

To the degree that BOEs in their role as "sort of" jurists appear to be influenced by arbitrary political considerations, they run a very high degree of having their decisions overturned by the courts.

Two, the deputies/sheriff administrators' ORC 124.57 concerns.

Whoever, the petition (letter) genius was, may have put 73 hard working sheriffs in harms way on 124.57.

They are not deserving of what may be about to come their way in the way of an investigation on the 124.57 issue.

Maier, is a different matter.

His attorney (Rosenberg) laid down the standard for his own client in writing Ferrero on November 13th of last year.

Could it be that Maier himself will get hoisted by his own attorney's petard?

And, of course, Lt. Douglas Smith should be included in the lot.

If Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57 is to mean anything in terms of "the rule of law" prevailing in Stark County, then it is incumbent on Stark County's prosecutor (or, a special "independent" appointed counsel") and/or Ohio's attorney general (DeWine) to launch an investigation of whether or not any 124.57 prohibited political activities have emanated from the Stark County sheriff's department under the reign of George T. Maier?

Let it be written, let it be said!