(VIDEOS) CAN YOU FAULT AUDITOR ALAN HAROLD FOR NOT BEING WILLING TO ASSUME "FAMILY" LIABILITY RISK ON HIS HANDLING (AS PUBLIC OFFICIAL) OF STARK COUNTY'S BMV LICENSE PLATE OPERATION?

The political bitterness appears to remain with some who were part of the Kim Perez regime when the current Canton city treasurer was Stark County auditor (2005 through 2011).

In the November, 2004 Democrat Perez defeated former Stark County auditor Janet Creighton's pick (Brant Luther, current Stark County chief administrator) to succeed her as auditor.

In November 2003, Creighton (now Stark County commissioner) ran for and was elected mayor of Canton.

The Republicans had held the auditor's office under Creighton and her predecessors before Democratic interloper Perez upset Luther in 2004.

Stark County's organized Democrats were besides themselves with joy (especially, the-then chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr) when the Dems won the auditor's office which is one the of the largest offices in Stark County government and offers rich, rich opportunities for handing out political patronage jobs.

Life does not get any better for the likes of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

Well, unfortunately, for the Dems along came what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (a Republican) calls Zeiglergate.

Because he was perceived in the public mind as being a political "bosom-buddy" of Zeigler, Perez was one of the casualties of Zeiglergate and went down to defeat to Republican Alan Harold, Stark's current auditor.

And the Perez/Harold face-off was a bitter, bitter campaign with the highlight of Harold buying billboard space featuring a picture of Perez on an golf outing with Zeigler and former chief deputy Vince Frustaci [who was convicted in 2009 of having stolen upwards of $3 million from the county treasury).

Zeigler has never been implicated in the Frustaci theft but the SCPR believes that most Stark Countinans thought, as of the election of 2010, that he had not put effective policies, practices, programs and facility reform measures in place during his tenure as treasurer (beginning in 1999) to have, hopefully, prevented Frustaci's theft.

Coming full circle, Perez suffered electorally from a public perception that he was a "political pal" of Zeigler's.  Moreover, more than a few Stark Countians appear to believe that Perez should have spotted trouble in the county treasury (which it seems he did) and moved more aggressively than he is generally perceived to have done to bring his concerns to the attention of Stark County/State of Ohio authorities.

Ever since Perez was defeated (November, 2010), some of his former "political patronage-esque" appointees have been carping at Harold on one thing or another.

The Report thinks that the latest manifestation of "nipping at the heels" of Harold is an indication that some of Perez's lieutenants are still sore at Harold for having defeated Perez in 2010.

Notwithstanding what the SCPR believes to be a political motive, when approached by the Perez ally, The Report confronted Harold with the ally's question:  "How could Stark County auditor Harold give up on some $400,000 to $500,000 ($50,000 in net profits) in revenue to the county treasury?"

First, the background.

Yesterday, Auditor Harold was in to see the Stark County commissioners to describe and to explain his action of "abandoning" being deputy registration for the State of Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Bureau) in what is the Bureau's largest Stark County operation.



Afterwards, the SCPR cornered Harold outside the commissioners' office and asked him to explain to Stark Countians in greater detail than he provided the commissioners.



So what is the SCPR's conclusion?

To The Report it is understandable that Harold would not want to jeopardize his personal financial security in continuing as the deputy registrar.

While Ohio statutory law does hold him as well as any other public official liable for the loss of taxpayer funds in the administration of public office,  when the Bureau insisted that his wife join him in signing off on the bond required for one to be a deputy registrar, then that was quite a different matter.

Some public officials put their major family assets in the names of the spouses so that the family will not be wiped out if that official is held liable for the misfeasance/malfeasance of an employee or for some other basis that results in a loss of taxpayer funds.

But when the spouse is compelled to join in, that is a different matter and The Report believes that Harold is fully justified in not assuming such a risk.

On the face of it, a 10%, more or less, annual profit is "nothing to sneeze at," but when one digs into the details it often proves out that the "devil - indeed - is in the details."

If The Report was in Harold's shoes, its a "no-brainer" that in no way, shape or form, should a spouse  be subjected to liability for what may occur in the public workplace.

Some folks may think that a bond protects the liable party.

But it does not.  A bond does not function like insurance.

What happens is that the insurance/bonding company who issues the bond pays legally sufficient claims made on the bond but, in turn, goes after the person(s) bonded for indemnification for the amounts so paid.

A bond is not the equivalent of an insurance policy.

And the SCPR doubts there are many Stark Countians who would risk family assets.

At the end of the day, the Perez ally, in the judgment of the SCPR, is showing political comeuppance in complaining about Harold's action.

Such is the nature of politics, no?

And it is a game played by both political parties to the detriment of the public's confidence in county government, no?

CONTINUING SERIES ON STARK CO. FINANCES: THE AUDTOR'S OFFICE - WHO AUDITS THE AUDITOR?

 UPDATED AT 2:00 PM

So far in the Stark County Political Report's comprehensive series of analyzing county officeholders' success/failure in responsibly "holding the line" in the management of "new monies" provided to county government by Stark County taxpayers in their passage of a 0.5% county sales tax in November, 20011, The Report has given the following grades:

• The county commissioners themselves, a C-,
• The Stark County recorder, a C-,
• The Stark County treasurer, a A+

Today, I deal with the Stark County auditor.

In my estimate, Alan Harold is one of the bright up and coming leaders in Stark County government.

Though he clearly wears his Republicanism "on his sleeve," I think he is one of those "make no bones about it" partisans who can work through their bias and in the end be fair and responsive to all; notwithstanding any partisan difference they may have with him.

However, though he denies it, the SCPR thinks that there must have been a political advantage factor at play in his hiring of past Canton Republican 2011 mayoral candidate A.R. "Chip" Conde as property tax supervisor in February of this year.

I have indication that when Republican Party decisions are being made, that along with Stark GOP chairman and Stark Board of Elections chief Jeff Matthews and Republican Stark County commissioner Janet Creighton; Harold is right "in the thick" of the decision making and probably is "neck-and-neck" with Creighton in terms of intra-party respected political acumen.

Jeff Matthews gets very little regard.

So how do I assess his management of his office?

The SCPR gives Stark County auditor Alan Harold a:

Contrary to what the name of this county department of government might suggest, the formal job of the county auditor's office is not to keep tabs on other Stark County departments of government.

As put by Harold himself on the auditor website, the mission of his office is:

dedicated to providing efficient and courteous service to the public while ensuring the highest possible standards for accountability, accuracy, and attention to detail in support of Stark County’s financial systems.

But you can be sure that Harold, in view of points made by him in his successful 2010 campaign to unseat Democrat Kim Perez, will "unofficially" be looking at his peers' operations (except maybe the Republicans [only kidding]) throughout county government and if he sees anything he thinks might not be "according to Hoyle," he will react in terms of the powers he has as county auditor or, alternatively, bringing the questions his has  - persistently and loudly - to the attention of federal, state/county government that he thinks has a say in what he perceives may be amiss.

He loudly and vigorously accused Perez of not being diligent and persistent enough in asking questions and making public issues out of numbers coming out of the Stark County treasurer's office (provided by Vince Frustaci) that were not matching up with the auditor's internal numbers.

Frustaci, as we all are too painfully aware of, for acts committed over the space of about a six-year span, when he was Stark's chief deputy treasurer was convicted in 2009 of having stolen upwards of $3 million of Stark County taxpayer money.

While there has never been any implication whatsoever that the-then treasurer Gary Zeigler had anything to do with the theft; Zeigler was criticized by Harold, the state of Ohio auditor, and others for not "running a tight enough ship" in terms of policies, practices, and oversight mechanisms either to deal with the possibility that an employee might try to make off with taxpayer money.

Some of Harold's county-level peers might think is he somewhat of a "busybody," I think that Stark County taxpayers should be comforted by the fact that Harold appears to be and acts in an vigilant "protect the taxpayers" manner.

However, notwithstanding my "in-general" being well-taken with Harold, I am not all that impressed with his management of his office in terms of employee turnover (eleven (11) employee departures; sixteen (16) "new" employees [in a timeframe of December 19, 2012 through September 11, 2013]).

Nor am I well taken with my suspicion that fellow Republican Conde was put "at the head of the line" at the expense, perhaps, of other "non-politically-connected Stark Countians who are entitled to an opportunity at publicly funded jobs.

The SCPR has some anecdotal indication that Harold is a highly demanding boss who can be difficult to work for.

But that might not be a bad thing from the taxpayers' standpoint.  Taxpayers want county bosses who get the "most bang for the 'wages' buck" from county employees.

That may or may not be the case for Harold.

In terms of accessibility, ability to take criticism (i.e. his political maturity), transparency and other democracy enhancing characteristics, Harold does well.

He stands "heads and shoulders" over the likes of Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero and Rick Campbell in on the political maturity factor.

On the day-to-day management of his office, according to my computations from records provided by Harold himself, he is up a net of five (5) employees in 2013 over 2012 and his payroll is up about $300,000.

My computation indicates that Harold went from 92 employees to 97 employees.

Moreover, he has more that doubled the commissioners' guideline for giving raises from revenues generated out of the 2011 sales tax passage monies.

They recommended 2% which, by and large, they met for their office.

Harold's mathematical "mean" pay raises was five percent (5 %); again, more than double what the commissioners' thought would be indicative of "holding the line" on county finances.

In all the SCPR's analyses, I think that next year's (2014) will present a clearer picture of how prudent Stark County's bosses are managing funds provided courtesy of the Stark County taxpayers.

What follows is a detailed listing of personnel factors in the auditor's office for the December, 2012 through September, 2013 time period.

Readers need to keep in mind that the wages indicated are only for that (i.e. wages).  Harold has told me that he - in general - agrees with fringe benefits (health insurance, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation and pensions) cost government employers about 35% of the wage base.

The December, 2012 payroll:

As compared to the September, 2013 payroll:

(VIDEO OF FERRERO) A BIZZARE TWIST? COUNTY OFFICIALS WHO FAILED TO "EFFECTIVELY" COLLECT DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES OVER MANY YEARS SAY PASSING A SALES TAX INCREASE IS NEEDED TO ENABLE THEM TO DO WHAT THEY FAILED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE. GO FIGURE!

Back on September 19th Stark County officials from the treasury, the prosecutor's office and, of course, the commissioners themselves sat down to review the progress being made to collect upwards of $40 million in back property taxes owned by Stark Countians.

It is unclear whether or not any net progress is being made on the collection of the $40 million in unpaid property taxes.  For every collection being made, it could be that it is offset by new delinquencies coming on the list.  Stark County Auditor Alan Harold says that whether or not progress is being made will not be known until about the end of October.

The fact there is $40 million, more or less, in back taxes owed is in and of itself an indictment of county officials to the effect that they have not been exercising "due diligence" on behalf the "we pay our taxes and pay them on time" segment of Stark taxpayers.

Also, hurt by the lack of "due diligence" has been local school district, township, village, city and other property tax dependent local government entities who are being shorted by the failure of the Stark treasury and the Stark prosecutor's office.

Now comes Stark County Prosecutor John D. Ferrero (who the SCPR sees as a principal county officeholder who, along with Treasurer Zeigler, as not getting the job done in collecting the back taxes), appearing at a July meeting of elected county officials and spoke of the impending reduction of his professional staff to a skeleton-esque operation should an increase in the county sales tax fail this November.

The obvious implication of a sales tax increase failure for back property tax collection going forward into 2012:  "forget it!"

Had it not been for local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley bringing the arrearage front and center to Stark County political dialogue, you can bet your bottom dollar that the September 19th commissioners' work session would not have happened in the first place:  "out-of-sight; out-of-mind!"

Also to be commended is former or "usurper" (as Zeigler's attorney describes him in court pleadings but who the SCPR sees as having been a first-rate public official) Republican Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumber.  He is the treasurer who got the ball rolling on collecting delinquencies. 

it was a bit much for yours truly to sit and listen to Ferrero on September 19th (see video at the end of this paragraph) point out that only 3.58% of property taxes collected go to the county.



The apparent Ferrero intended message is that collecting the back property taxes will not solve the county's impending financial/fiscal problems.

Obviously, Ferrero doesn't see or is conveniently ignoring that "the other side of the coin" message is that since Stark County profits so little (i.e. 3.58%), what incentive has there been and continues to be for county officials to push for collection of the monies.

In doing so, he is setting up yet another "distrust" of county government factor.

Both Ferrero and Zeigler originally were political appointees (Ferrero a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman who was chairman when Zeigler was appointed by the Party's central committee) who, in the opinion of yours truly, are mainly interested in their own personal political longevity and not in serving the Stark County public and taxpayer interest effectively.

Both ran "unopposed" in 2008, and in the case of Zeigler, the now Stark County Auditor Alan Harold has let it be known he (Harold) believes that Zeigler put pressure on Harold's then employer - Huntington Bank - to force him out of his projected race against Zeigler.

Though it is breaking apart these days, the SCPR sees Zeigler and Ferrero as having been (and Ferrero, in the judgment of The Report, continues to be) quintessential members of the Stark County Democratic Party's "good ole boys" network.

Whether it is a Democratic Party "good ole boy" network, or a Republican one at work (e.g. Stark GOP Chair Jeff Matthews seeing to it that former Stark GOP Executive Director Travis Secrest gets a Stark Board of Elections job), the ramification on a county government that house these folks is that of growing distrust.

It is clear to the SCPR that those running the Yes for Safety Issue 29 campaign are focusing on documenting "need" using "fear of consequences" messages if the 1/2 cent issues does not pass as their approach.

What they are not focusing on is whether or not Stark Countians trust county government to have 1/2 cent more on the dollar.

For if they did, Issue 29 surely would not pass?

(VIDEO OF ALAN HAROLD) FOLLOW UP - DID ZEIGLER HAVE OR NOT HAVE COMPUTER/TELEPHONE ACCESS DURING HIS 30 MINUTES IN THE STARK TREASURER'S OFFICE ON 06/28/2011?

 

Earlier today the SCPR did a blog to the effect that putative Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler (not officially treasurer because he is requited to get a bond by Ohio law) paid a visit to the Stark County treasury yesterday and took up his place in the treasurer's office within the treasury office complex located on the second floor of the Stark County Office Building.

Moreover, The Report shared a story with readers as told to yours truly by a highly reliable source (which The Report now believes was embellished by the source, as even the best of human beings are wont to do here and there) in which Zeigler was said to be without a computer and a telephone while at the office.  

Today, The Report, Nancy Molnar of the Akron Beacon Journal and Kelli Young of The Repository held an impromptu news conference with Auditor Harold after the Stark County commissioners' weekly Wednesday meeting.  Harold had come into the commissioners meeting early on during the session.

A focus of the news conference was a list that Harold is compiling about all the changes that have been made in the Stark treasury and Stark auditor's office since Gary Zeigler was removed as treasurer by commissioners on August 23rd and Kim Perez's relinquishing of office in March of this year (having been defeated by Harold in last November's general election).

Near the end of the conference, Molnar asked (obviously referring to the SCPR blog on the matter) Harold whether or not it was true that Zeigler was without a computer and telephone during his brief visit to the Stark treasury on Tuesday.

Answer:  Not true, Zeigler had both a computer and telephone.

Yours truly was astounded to hear him say that.  

For what appeared in the first blog was as the tale (Zeigler:  no computer, no telephone) was told to The Report by an impeccable source (in terms of being in a position to know).

The computer.

As it turns out (see Harold's explanation in the video press conference below), in the effective sense, Zeigler was without a computer because when it gets turned on all one gets is a log-on screen that requires a password to gain access to office/county files and presumably the county network.  Well, Zeigler's was terminated on his removal back in August, 2010.

So yes,  Zeigler could turn the computer on, but that was it.  

Harold goes on to say that had Zeigler contacted him for a new password he (Harold) would not have issued it because he is unbonded and therefore not treasurer and not entitled participate in county business as a public official/employee.

The telephone.  

Although the telephone was operative on Tuesday, according to Harold today, (contrary to what The Report was clearly told by the source on Tuesday evening) sometime Wednesday morning Harold had his Informational Technology folks take the office phone of the treasurer out of the loop (in other words:  deadened it).  Harold seems to suggest in the video that this was part of a countywide review of needed phones and that unused phones are taken out of the loop.

Taking Harold at his word, the SCPR finds it more than coincidental that what The Report was told on Tuesday evening about earlier in the day Tuesday about Zeigler's phone status became reality on Wednesday morning.

So if Zeigler were to visit his office tomorrow, he would not have access to a "live" telephone in the office he called home as treasurer over the past ten years or so.  Nor will Harold reconnect the telephone unless and until he is presented with a bond from Gary Zeigler.

The SCPR stands by the account given (in terms of its substance as delivered by the source) in the first blog on whether or not Zeigler had access to a computer and telephone during Tuesday's visit to the Stark treasury.

As stated above, it is clear to The Report that the Tuesday source account was an embellishment.  Such is the life of anyone who deals with public figures.

Whenever the SCPR learns of misstatements, embellishments, et cetera  from sources, The Report will be quick to set the record straight.

Here is Auditory Alan Harold in his own words:

ZEIGLER VISITS TREASURER'S OFFICE. REPORTEDLY PULLS SHADES CLOSED - LIKE IN THE OLD DAYS. GETS TELEPHONE AND COMPUTER SHUT DOWN. REPUBLICANS CONSIDERING A ORC 3.07 & 3.08 ACTION AGAINST HIM. HMM?

It appears that there are people in county government who "really" do not want to see reinstated Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler return to office.  But return he will, if county commissioners can get a bond issued to cover him as required by Ohio law.

The Report is told Zeigler "visited" his office yesterday for about thirty minutes.

While Zeigler was in office prior to being illegally removed by Commissioners Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks on August 23, 2010 according to the Ohio Supreme Court because they did not accord him "due process of law" in an ORC 321.38 removal process, he was known (according to a SCPR source) to hunker down in his office with window blinds closed.

His illegally elected replacement Alex Zumbar, on the other hand, is said to have always kept the blinds open for all to see him at all times.

Among the first things Zeigler did in his visit yesterday  - according to The Report's source - is to enter the vacant treasurer's  office with his attorney and did what?  You've got it:  closed the window blinds.

The SCPR is told that Zeigler's trip to the Stark treasury is being termed a visit because no bond has been secured yet and for him to be officially back as treasurer:   a bond is a mandatory condition.

Apparently on the theory that only official county employees are entitled to use county equipment,   it seems that within minutes of taking up occupancy in the vacant office the office phone and computer were shut down by county Information technology personnel.

'Wow!  No phone, no computer!!  Undoubtedly, Zeigler had to feel unwelcome!!!

The feeling is running so strong (at least among Alex Zumbar supporters) against Zeigler that (according to a Republican public official) the Stark County Republican Party is considering filing an ORC 3.07/3.08 action to remove him from office once again.

"Considering" is the appropriate word. 

The SCPR's read of the Republican official? It is unlikely that a ORC 3.07/3.08 action will be undertaken.

The reasons?

• About 20,000 valid voter signatures (15% of those voting in Stark County in the 2010 Kasich/Strickland race) would have to be collected and made part of a complaint filed in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.
• Even if the signatures were to be collected and the complaint filed and ultimately  the case won (i.e. Zeigler is once again removed), very little would be gained in terms of removing Zeigler prior to the end of this current term (September, 2013).  Estimates indicate about six months.  With the appellate process (which one would think Zeigler would invoke), it could be that the matter would be strung out in the legal processes so that nothing - time wise - is gained.

Anti-Zeiglerites should not get their hopes up that Zeigler is not going to re-assume office.  The Report believes that commissioners will be able to get Zeigler's bond.  After all, they were able to get his bond renewed post-discovery of the Frustaci theft of county funds.

And why should they.  He was completely exonerated of any involvement whatsoever in the theft of the funds by county and federal prosecutors.

Really the only question now is whether or not Zeigler will seek re-election to another term as county treasurer.

The Report expects that he will.  That's how dug in this guy is.

Apparently, it will take the voters either in the Democratic primary in March/May 2012 or in the general election in November to get Zeigler out of office.

So Stark Countians have to wait 14 months before they can move on from Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler to remove him should he choose to run.

And Zeigler should not fantasize that the Stark County voting public will somehow change their perception that he did not properly manage the treasury so as to minimize the opportunity for the likes of Vince Frustaci to make off with Stark County taxpayer money.

OHIO SUPREME COURT ORDERS GARY ZEIGLER'S RETURN AS STARK TREASURER - CONSEQUENCE: POLITICAL FALLOUT GALORE!

The more appealing part of the Ohio Supreme Court opinion on whether or not Gary D. Zeigler should be restored as treasurer of Stark County was not the majority opinion, but rather the dissenting opinion - if you are sitting Treasurer Alex Zumbar.

The majority (5 - 2) voted to restore Zeigler.  The dissent would have ruled otherwise, the reasoning - in part - (very practical reasoning the SCPR thinks), to wit:

Justice Pfeifer says:  "[t]he world has moved on."  Indeed, it has in Stark County.

Now that the majority has spoken, Stark County will likely sink into political chaos. 

It appears that Treasurer Zumbar has not given up hope that some how, some way, Zeigler will hit one snag or another so that he cannot re-assume office.

He talked to the SCPR about:

• Zeigler's bondability,
• Zeigler's certifiability (in terms of having kept up with his continuing education requirements), and
• the insurability of the office with Zeigler at the helm.

The Report believes that Zeigler will find a way to surmount these barriers, if indeed, they are problematical.

Assuming that Gary Zeigler will once again be Stark County treasurer in a matter of weeks, it is time to assess the political consequences of his resurrection.

First, a number of Stark Countians are saying the the commissioners' move to place a 0.5% sales tax on November's ballot is DOA.  If that is so, then being a county official come 2012 is going to be excruciating.  The political infighting for what dollars are remain ($36 million in 2012, $33 million in 2013) will be ferocious.  And, criminal justice will have to take a much bigger hit than it did this year (sheriff - 41 laid off; prosecutor 11 laid off).  This could pit Stark's Common Pleas Court judges against the commissioners (a conflict which neither, obviously, wants).  The judges have the power to order general fund monies for criminal justice purposes.  But can they order "blood from a turnip?"

Second, Zeigler's term is up for re-election in March or May of 2012 (the primary) and, of course, in November. 

• Question:  will the Democrats choose to put up an opponent (let's say former interim Treasurer Ken Koher) should Zeigler run for re-election (which The Report thinks is highly likely)?
• Likely answer:  Yes.  Gary Zeigler cannot get elected the proverbial "dog catcher" in Stark County and the Democrats do have a viable candidate in Ken Koher to rematch with Republican.  Unless the Dems want to throw in the towel, the will try to talk Koher in giving it another try against Zumbar.

Alex Zumbar tells The Report that he is definitely running to retain his office.  Of course, whether or not Zeigler got restored to office, the Zumbar/Koher 2010 race was for Zeigler's unexpired term.  Accordingly, Zumbar would be running anyway to retain office.

Third, Zeigler being in office (1:  if he decides not to run for re-election or 2:  if he loses in the Democratic primary or 3:  should the Dems not contest him in the primary) is likely (1:), probable (2:), and certain (3:) to spill over onto the Stark prosecutor office and sheriff contests. 

The prosecutor because there are some Stark Countians who think Ferrero's office has not effectively handled what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (a Republican) terms "Zeiglergate," and the sheriff because Sheriff Swanson has been a close political confidant of Zeigler.  While Swanson himself appears not to be running, his long time Chief Deputy Mike McDonald is and - deserved or not - Swanson's endorsement will bring with it Swanson's political baggage.

Finally, what, if any, consequences will be visited on Commissioner Pete Ferguson and Tom Bernabei (Democrats) who are up for election in 2012?  If the levy fails (remember, many think a levy defeat is assured with the return of Zeigler to office), they will know the horror that awaits them in 2013 and beyond being without sufficient money to fund the basic operations of the county and The Report believes they will opt out of running for re-election.

The Supreme Court 's decision was not good for either party, but it was far worse for the Democrats than for the Republicans.

Come January 1, 2013 Stark's countywide offices will be controlled by Republicans.  It is just a question of the degree to which they controll. 

All but two commissioner posts, the coroner and the engineer?

All but the coroner and engineer?

Tis a puzzlement!

WHEN DID PUBLIC DISTRUST OF STARK COUNTY GOV'T ACCELERATE? DECEMBER 30, 2008 OR APRIL 1, 2009?

Today - APRIL 1ST -  is a anniversary date of dubious distinction for Stark County government.

News broke on April 1, 2009 that Chief Deputy Stark County Treasurer Vince Frustaci was accused by Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler of stealing taxpayer money which resulted in Zeigler firing Frustaci.

Many Stark Countians believe that this revelation was the onset of a cascade of revelations which was the beginning of the almost total disintegration of trust that Stark Countians have for their government.

Others say:  "Hold on a minute, the real date of the unraveling of the trust that Stark Countians have for their government actually began on December 30, 2008 when Stark County Commissioners Todd Bosley, Tom Harmon and Jane Vignos 'imposed' a 0.50 of 1% sales/use tax."

The truth of the matter is that the two occurrences combined (as the primary cause) to wipe out any residual trust that Stark Countians formerly had in county government.

Of course, it is basic civics that the American system of government is built on basic distrust of government.  Checks and balances in the constitutional framework of government amounts to an institutionalization of the framers' (of the Constitution) distrust of government.

So, in a sense, it can never be said that the citizenry trusts government.  But, it can be said that trust in government has it high points and it has its low points.  At the local level, Stark Countian trust of county government may be at its lowest level EVER!

The SCPR believes that Stark Countians were absolutely stunned when they learned that Frustaci had stolen from them.  While the treasurer himself was completely exonerated by county and federal prosecutors of having any part whatsoever in the theft, Stark Countians were aghast that measures were not in place to prevent the theft which occurred over an approximate six years period of time.

Zeigler (who was removed from office by county commissioners on August 23, 2010 by the provisions of Ohio Revised Code Section 321.38) has steadfastly denied that he was remiss in terms of having in place safeguards to prevent employee thefts.  It appears to the Stark County Political Report that he stands alone  among former and current Stark County officials (and state auditor officials) in that point of view.

The State of Ohio Auditor (SOA) on June 25, 2010 (as part of the theft investigation) issued a report citing a number of deficiencies in procedures and standards within the Stark treasury.  Moreover, successor treasurers (Allbritain, Koher and Zumber [who was elected in November, 2010]) have made judgments agreeing with the SOA assessments, as well as having made their own determinations of additional safeguarding changes needed and have instituted them.

Initially, it was not known how much Frustaci had stolen.  Eventually, it came out that he stole either $2.46 million (the SOA finding) or $2.96 million (in the opinion of federal judge John Adams).

The financial implications for Stark County?  Devastating!

This is the point at which the missing money combines with the commissioners imposition of the 0.50 of 1% sales tax (December 30, 2008) to deal county finances a lethal blow.

How's that?

Well, there were a group of citizens who called themselves the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee ("VoteNos") that formed to gather signatures to repeal the imposed tax.

They were not taken seriously by many county officials (especially Commissioner Bosley, so it seems) until "lo and behold" they - the VoteNos - collected the necessary thousands of valid signatures to force the matter onto the ballot.

Well, with the revelation of the theft of county monies, it was a "walk in the park" for the VoteNos in their quest to convince Stark Countians to repeal the imposed sales tax.  By a 2 to 1 margin, the tax was repealed in November, 2009.

The job of repealing the tax was made easier by the campaign of those promoting retention of the tax.  In their campaign, almost nothing was said about the fact that most of the money collected by the tax was going to county general fund operations.

The VoteNos jumped all over what they said was a deception by county officials as to what the publicized  purpose of the imposed tax was, to wit:  "fix Stark County's broken 9-1-1 system."

So now you have:

• the loss of $2.96 million in taxpayer money and the public perception that adequate safeguards were not in place to prevent it or to discover it early on,
• an imposed sales/use tax, and
• a downplaying of the "general fund" revenue generating aspect of the tax which many Stark Countians took as a act of government deception

And the question rises: which was the beginning of the plummeting of Stark Countians trusting their government?

Answer:  A combination of the two.  Moreover, the SCPR would add the phenomenon whereby all too many local government officials have plied the public payrolls with their political loyalists, friends and neighbors and have had the good fortune to have relatives - in some instances - hired by non-relative government officials as Ohio ethics law forbids the direct hire of relatives.

Restoring trust is is the utmost importance for the financial health of county government.

With the loss of the $2,96 million and the determination of county commissioners (the current board:  Creighton, Bernabei and Ferguson) that public trust is so low that they dare not ask for a renewal of 0.250 of 1 percent tax passed initially in 2003 on the May, 2011 primary election ballot, the county has just completed a round of 16% cuts across county government.  A new round of more severe cuts (perhaps as high as 30%) are in the offing in 2012, if a replacement 0.250 is not politically viable by November, 2011.

The Report believes that the current Board of Stark County Commissioners is making progress on restoring trust to county government, but "the jury is still out" (i.e. the Stark County public perception) as to how soon the public trust will be restored to such a degree that commissioners can consider asking the public to approve sorely needed additional revenues to county government.

Let's throw in a wild card into this whole discussion.

The SCPR believes that former Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler has a 50/50 chance to win his Quo Warranto original action in the Ohio Supreme Court based on the legal arguments presented in the case.  Arguments were held on March 23rd and the decision could be out relatively soon.

So the "wild card" discussion point is:  How will the Stark County public respond to Zeigler being restored to office, if such happens?

The commissioners reaction to the possibility?

Pretty much, to paraphrase:  "We'll cross that bridge if it comes up on our path."

THINGS APPEAR TO BE GETTING UGLY IN MARCELLI (CONLEY) VERSUS ZEIGLER (THOMPSON) LAWSUIT. ALSO, ZEIGLER ASKS STARK COUNTY TO PROVIDE LEGAL COUNSEL?

It appears to the SCPR that Bethlehem Township resident Tom Marcelli's lawsuit (on behalf of Stark County taxpayers) against Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler claiming, in the heart of the case, that by virtue of Zeigler being treasurer while former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci stole $2.46 million in county funds; Zeigler is "strictly" liable to Stark Countians for any deficiencies in taxpayer funds after bonds, insurances and other resources have been collected on.

The Report has been particularly impressed with Marcelli's pro bono legal counsel Craig T. Conley.  In all conversations with Conley, The Report's take is that he is trying to keep any "personal" factor between Marcelli and Zeigler out of the lawsuit.

Personal?

For Stark Countians who have followed Tom Marcelli in local media at all, it is apparent that there is little love lost between Marcelli and various county officials, most notably, Zeigler, Stark County Auditor Kim Perez and Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley.

So when Conley filed the "time is of the essence" (before Zeigler assets become unreachable) in Marcelli's name, the SCPR expected that eventually there would be sparks flying before long.

Now it appears to The Report that the expectation is becoming reality.

The Report believes that Stark County Common Pleas Judge Haas also understands the potential volatility of this Marcelli/Zeigler legal confrontation and took immediate steps to keep the lawsuit on a purely legal basis.

Haas engaged the filing immediately by having the parties into chambers soon after the July 2, 2010 filing to nudge the parties (through their attorneys Conley and Dennis Thompson [out of Akron]) to come to some basic accords like staying the proceedings for 90 days to give Stark County Prosecutor Ferrero an opportunity to assess whether or not he was going to take the case over, and the issuance of an injunction to set the parties into an agreed status pending the outcome of litigation.

As a consequence of the initial meeting and other conversations, Judge Haas did issue an order on July 14 in which he issued a 90 day stay of proceedings which, in the July 14 order, he said would be incorporated into a more complete "agreed" order being worked upon by the Court and the parties.

Right out of the chute, Thompson (in what the SCPR believes was a major miscalculation of how to deal with Craig Conley) started, to use Conley's words, "saber rattling."  He threatened the Marcelli side with Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit.


Here is Rule 11:

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation...

If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney's fee (emphasis added).

The latest exchange (yesterday) between Conley and Thompson, if anything, indicate an escalation of hostilities between the two sides.

What follows is some excerpts of the more provocative language from Thompson's letters (July 13 and July 20) to Conley:

Regardless, while we are not required to under Ohio law, this gives us the opportunity to advise you and your client of your Civil Rule 11 and ORC 2323.51 liabilities. (July 13) (emphasis added)

As you must be aware, Mr. Zeigler has engaged in no misconduct or wrongdoing.  No less than 4 (sic) federal and state agencies, including the FBI, U.S. Attorneys office, Stark County Prosecutor and the Ohio State Auditor, have review the facts and none of them have implicated Mr. Zeigler in an fashion to Mr. Frustaci's criminal conspiracy.  From your pleadings, it is clear that you have no facts to support such a contention, either. (July 13) (emphasis added)

Also, to be noted from Thompson's letter is his claim that the statutory bases for the Marcelli lawsuit apply to Zeigler as a public official and that Zeigler is qualifiedly immune from any such lawsuits.  Moreover, it is clear from Thompson's July 20 letter that Zeigler has asked Stark County to provide a defense to the Marcelli lawsuit.  Apparently, this is why Stark County commissioners, last Wednesday, brought Zeigler and Thompson into executive session.

A question:  Is it a proper use of executive session to discuss whether or not Stark County has to provide a county official with legal representation?

Moreover, wouldn't it be "a real kick in the pants" for Stark County taxpayers to have to pay for "any" Zeigler legal fees?

Back to the Thompson letters:

Your concerns about any mortgage or an other issues are overshadowed by the fact that you have filed a suit that fails to state a claim for relief. (July 20) (emphasis added)

Since Stark County will be required to provide Mr. Zeigler with a defense, we will also be seeking reimbursement for the attorney fees expended in his defense, which is entirely compatible with your ostensible concern for the taxpayers of Stark County--of which your client [Marcelli] only recently joined the ranks after being delinquent for so many years. (July 20) (emphasis added)

At this point, we believe it would be a wiser course of action to consider your realistic alternatives in this case.  As we see it, none are very attractive or beneficial to you or your client.  This is not saber rattling; it is a legitimate response to a suit without basis in law or fact brought by an individual [Marcelli] with a strong public personal animus towards Gary Zeigler.  We are providing notice to you as a professional courtesy so that one one can say that we came out of the blue or that our responses are a surprise, nothing more nothing less.  It is time for you to take a step back from this. (July 20) (emphasis added)

If anyone - from the tone of this letter - thinks that Gary Zeigler is going to step down as treasurer, they had better think again.

It will take one of three things to get Zeigler out of office.

First, the petition being circulated by Stark County Republicans will have to produce enough signatures in a legally timely timeframe and get a court of law to remove him,

Second, the Stark County commissioners will have to find a legal basis on which to remove him and act to do so, or

Third, Stark Democrats (in the 2012 primary election) will have to find a candidate to defeat Zeigler in that election.

In the meantime, the SCPR is pleased to see Conley/Marcelli proceeding as they are.  Thompson's legal opinions are just that with an emphasis on the word "opinion."  In time, we will have a legal authority who counts (the judge in the case) determine the issue.

NO DOUBT THAT ZEIGLER SHOULD RESIGN; BUT HOW ABOUT COUNTY AUDITOR PEREZ AND STATE AUDITOR TAYLOR?

UPDATE 06/27/2010 at 6:50 AM

A video of Mary Taylor's presentation at the Frustaci press conference has been added to this blog.  It is incredible to watch Taylor's sleight-of-hand on how authorities got onto Frustaci.

Yesterday, Governor Ted Strickland complained that Taylor's office has yet to produce "a performance audit" being done on the Ohio Lottery. 

Hmm?

Maybe a performance audit needs to be done of the State of Ohio Auditor's office?

The Report has had another email from Pat DeLuca (Q92) informing that none of the commissioners nor Perez nor Zeigler have responded to his request that they appear on air Monday morning to answer questions about the Frustaci matter.

Here's the Taylor video.

ORIGINAL POST

Without benefit of Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor's Supplement to the Special Audit Report for the period January 1, 2005 to April 13,2009 handed out at today's press conference, the SCPR called for Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler's resignation months ago.

Anytime over $2 million dollars can come up missing in any government agency, the head of the unit of government bears responsibility for not having safety measures in place to ensure that money does not get stolen.

Accordingly, it is no surprise that Taylor's report confirmed what The Report suspected had to be the case.

Auditor Taylor's office found, among other things, that in the Stark treasury there were insufficient checks and balances to ensure the correspondence of money collected, money deposited in banks and money reported to the Stark County auditor. 

Repeatedly, in making recommendations for changes (which have since been made), Taylor's auditors cite that the way monies were being handled made them more vulnerable to theft.  It was hard to believe that cashiers' drawers were left unlocked and therefore vulnerable to being pilfered when a cashier stepped away momentarily.

Gary D. Zeigler is the boss at Stark treasury.  And, the procedural deficiencies cited by Taylor have been in place since he took office and were only recently corrected after money came up missing, to wit:

There definitely is a groundswell of public opinion and public official opinion that Zeigler should resign including Stark County Commissioners Bosley, Meeks and Ferguson, Stark County Democratic Party Chairman (also Jackson fiscal officer and chief deputy - Canton Municipal clerk of courts) Gonzalez, and Stark County Auditor Kim Perez.

Yesterday, Zeigler was saying he will not resign.

If he doesn't, then the healing that Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero called for today in his remarks at the press conference will not begin until January 1, 2013 when a new treasurer takes office when voters presumably select the replacement in November, 2012.

Take a listen at Ferrero is this video.

Moreover, if Zeigler hangs in and does not resign; look for Democrats to challenge him in any re-election try in that year's Democratic primary.  It is hard to see how Zeigler could survive a primary among Democrats with party chairman Gonzalez already calling for his resignation.

ON PEREZ

How about county auditor Kim Perez, should he resign?  Although some Stark citizens have somehow associated Perez with the problems at the Stark treasury, the SCPR is not aware of any public official who has made such a call.

However, Perez received an e-mail from radio personality Pat DeLuca (whose show yours truly has appeared on in the past) demanding his resignation, to wit:

Patrick DeLuca ... 6/25/2010 2:43 PM >>>

As a citizen, homeowner, voter, and taxpayer in Stark county I hearby (sic) demand the resignation of county Treasurer Gary Zeigler and Auditor Kim Perez.

The actions demonstrated by both departments, as detailed in State Auditor Mary Taylor's Special Audit Report, call in to question the competance(sic)and ability for both Kim Perez and Gary Zeigler to serve the citizens of this county.

I am disgusted and enraged by the lack of accountablity afforded to my hard earned and much paid tax dollars.

Sincerely,
Patrick DeLuca 

The SCPR did contact Pat via e-mail and confirmed the sentiments reflected in the e-mail cited above.

Moreover, DeLuca has issued a scathing "open letter" on Zeigler and Perez which can seen on his DeLuca Show facebook page.

The Perez folks tell yours truly that they have trying to get in touch with DeLuca (without success) to explain Perez's role.  Apparently, they believe that if DeLuca hears them out, he will think differently.

Well, the SCPR went to the Taylor report and examined it in detail re:  Perez.

The Report interprets Taylor's auditors to be saying that Perez failed to be an effective "checks and balances" on the treasury and that he merely took the data submitted to his office at face value and made no effort to get original source documents. 

In light of the Taylor report description of the Stark County auditor's office failure, Perez should make a public explanation as to why DeLuca is wrong on his demand that Perez resign.

As f0r talking DeLuca out of his take on Auditor Perez, the SCPR does not see that happening.


ON TAYLOR

To the SCPR, Taylor's office has been a major failure in this whole debacle.  But who audits the auditor?

Note from the Prosecutor Dettelbach's chart above, the thefts have been going on since 2003.  Six years, mind you.   All the while the Ohio Auditor has been doing "routine" audits annually.

What kind of audits were these?  Unbelievable!  And Taylor wants to be lieutenant governor.

Many Stark County Republican politicians including Todd Snitchler (Ohio House - 50th), Republican North Canton Mayor David Held, are big believers in having Taylor's office audits done at state and local levels.

Really?  In light of the six years of failing to spot the thefts occurring at the Stark Treasury.

Should Taylor resign?

Not as auditor, as she only has months to go as Ohio's auditor.  All that would do is disrupt the functioning of the office for very little, if any, public benefit.  But she might want to get off the Republican gubernatorial ticket.  Kasich has his own problems with the Lehman Brothers thing.

Will the Taylor auditing failure in Stark County cost him in a close election with the vulnerable Ted Strickland?

Could Mary Taylor have lost it all for the Republicans, if Stark Countians are the deciders in the Kasich/Strickland match up?

IS COMMISSIONER BOSLEY "SPOILING" FOR A FIGHT? IS SALES/USE TAX ISSUE THE BEGINING OF "COUNTY OFFICIALS" VERSUS "THE PEOPLE?"

Recently Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote told the Massillon Independent that he is ready to file the group's signatures to put the December, 2008 Stark County commissioners imposed 0.50 county sales/use tax to a vote of the people.

Of course, just the notion of a ballot box fight is exciting to those of us who follow Stark County politics.

But this fight has an added dimension.

The leader of the Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote (Tom Marcelli) has a history, chronicled in local media, of challenging various county officials to "duke it out" over his differences with them over things such as the imposed tax (Bosley) and how various officials (particularly, Auditor Kim Perez and Treasurer Gary Zeigler) administrate their offices.

While not opposed to the ballot initiative, the SCPR has been skeptical of the Marceill-led group to pull off getting nearly 14,000 valid signatures.

A SCPR source tells yours truly that if Marcelli was the only person providing leadership to the group, the SCPR could be right. But, the source adds, there have been Stark County "heavy hitters" working sub rosa to make sure the Stark Citizens Right to Vote cohort is successful.

Could one of these sub rosa people be Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) deputy director and Stark County Republican Party chairman Jeff Matthews?

Readers are reminded that Matthews (who asks county commissioners, from time-to-time, in capacity with the BOE for more money for the BOE) appeared at "Tea Day, Tax Day - April 15, 2009" encouraging those assembled to support the petition drive.

What's more, his sidekick at Stark County Republican headquarters (Jason Wise) was the local leader of "Tea Day, Tax Day."

The SCPR believes Matthews has a huge conflict in interest on this matter.

So if the SCPR's source is correct, Commissioner Bosley is about to embark on a fight for his political life beginning August 20th.

The next date in what could be a "political Waterloo" for Bosley is November 3, 2009 should Round One go to the Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote.

Bosley worries a lot as to who will be running against him in November, 2010. The SCPR believes - that should "the repeal the imposed sales/use tax" make it to the ballot and then lose - Bosley will have an all out challenge from the Stark Republicans come 2010.

So it's not only Stark County financial solvency and 9-1-1 funding that is at state in this political fight, but it could mean the end of Todd Bosley as an elected Stark County official.

Bosley is already lining up county officials to take on the Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote. He presumes that the repeal issue will make it to the ballot. And, he is structuring the fight as an "us" against "them" tiff.

The SCPR believes that Bosley statements appearing in Stark County media that lend credence to a sort of "us" against "them" approach are "unthought" and could give the anti-forces the ammo they need.

To rephrase the point: Is it wise to make this issue one that appears to be county officeholders and their employees versus Joe and Sally Smith?

If they are on the ballot in November and the Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote can fix in the public mind that they represent the people and Bosley et al the established political order, then the odds favor the citizen action group.

From the county perspective, they need to frame the contest in the context of convincing voters that 9-1-1 is broken and voters' personal safety is tied to fixing it and that if the tax is repealed the county will be in a financial crisis that Stark has never seen before which could lead to draconian cuts in county government services.

It is beginning to look as if Stark Countians need to brace themselves for one of the biggest political fights this county has ever seen.

WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT? HAROLD WITHDRAWS FROM RUN AGAINST ZEIGLER; NOW HE'S PILING ON?

UPDATE: 05/01/2009 at 5:30 PM

Interesting enough, Stark County Treasurer office staff attorney Lem Green responded lickety-split on Alan Harold's letter regarding the use of potentially misleading language by Harold.

Green's point?

If Frustaci is charged and is convicted in connection the theft of funds from the Stark County treasury, Treasurer Gary Zeigler is NOT required to resign as some may infer from Harold's declaration that Zeigler "must" resign.

Yours truly has the advantage of being an attorney and therefore always took Harold's use of the word "must" to mean "should;" not that the law required resignation if the conditions materialize.

This is an appropriate occasion to take a dig at Repository editorial page editor Gayle Beck. Ms. Beck scrutinizes some letter to the editor writers very closely and refuses to publish their pieces for the most arbitrary and asinine reasons or at least delay the publication until the writer knuckles under to her editorial demands.

In any event, Lem Green did the right thing in writing to make up for Editor Beck's failure and help Alan Harold get to the correct word usage.

Original article follows

Leading Stark County Republican Alan Harold had a letter to the editor published (Treasurer must resign if chief deputy is charged, convicted) in The Repository yesterday castigating current Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler for his handling of the operations of the county treasury and for his failure to adequately supervise former chief deputy Vince Frustaci.

Although the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) agrees with Harold's assessment and his prescription, The Report is less than impressed with Harold for bailing out of running against Zeigler in 2008, when (according to both Republican and Democrat sources) pressure was brought to bear by his employer (Huntington Bank) for him to withdraw.

The Report asked Harold direct whether or not the sources are correct. He declined to answer saying that he and his employer have a confidentiality agreement prohibiting him from discussing the substance of their discussions with third parties.

Harold seems to be an impressive person who could be the type of individual that the Stark GOP needs to bring along if it is to bring competitive politics back to Stark County.

But is he?

There is the Republican-activist Alan Harold who appeared at a John Boccieri campaign event on July 1, 2008 as one among a group of Stark Republicans sent to politically harass Boccieri.

And then there is the Huntington Bank VP Alan Harold who can't withstand pressure to get out of the treasurer's race.

Republicans offer the excuse that Harold was the victim of Democrat incumbent treasurer Gary Zeigler putting pressure on Huntington through then Ohio treasurer Richard Cordray (Democrat) to ask Harold to stand aside. A key Stark Democrat elected official tells The Report that Zeigler substantiates the Republican account.

One can empathize with Harold, if indeed Huntington was putting on pressure on. It is understandable that he would yield. Most people would.

However, in The Report's book, doing so disqualifies him from running for public office when he will end up as the person in charge.

When one holds political office, pressure comes fast and furious from many different interest groups and persons. It is essential that the officeholder be able to stand his/her ground on behalf of the public interest. The Report doubts that Harold could handle the pressure.

Harold demonstrates that he stand across the street and yell at a Democrat candidate with political sign in hand. And he can write pointed letters like the one under discussion in this blog.

On the other hand, it is also clear to the SCPR that Harold cannot handle the "heat in the - political - kitchen."

SHOULD SHERIFF SWANSON AND PROSECUTOR FERRERO BE TAKING A NEW LOOK AT HOW POLITICALLY SENSITIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT MATTERS ARE HANDLED IN STARK?

Recently Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson's office has been involved in three high profile investigations in which the subjects involve political factors.

First, in late 2008, it was the anonymous allegations that Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II had been involved in an inappropriate relationship with a 15/16 year old. Swanson investigated and in collaboration with Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero's office determined that there would be no charges filed against Healy. And then Swanson obtained a legal opinion that the media and public would not have access to the file.

Second, in two Marlboro Township trustees asked Swanson's office to investigate whether or not Marlboro Township police chief Ron Devies and his son Kyle did anything to "criminally" alter township computers. The investigation led to Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero to seat a grand jury which resulted in each of the Devies being indicted for fourth degree felonies.

Third, Treasurer Gary Zeigler (Stark County) in March fired Stark Countian and chief deputy Vince Frustaci accusing Frustaci of stealing county money. Swanson was in the thick of investigative efforts but later announced he was receding to the background.

So?

By the time we get to treasurer's office matter, maybe just maybe, Sheriff Swanson is learning that he is a political figure in Stark County who is a Democrat in which all the elected countywide offices (non-judicial) are Democrats. And through in heavily Democratic Canton and Massillon.

So?

Well, the sheriff is known to be a solid, loyal Democrat who supports many, many locally well known Democrat office holders. He contributes to many of their campaigns and vice-a-versa.

So?

Well, when these political colleagues are subject to criminal investigation, is it in the interest of the impartial administration of justice for Swanson to be leading the investigation?

Moreover, when subjects are the political adversaries of the sheriff (e.g. Ron Devies was a strong supporter of Swanson's last opponent - Republican Dordea), is it in the interest of the impartial administration of justice for Swanson to be leading the investigation?

The Report thinks not.

By the time we get to the Frustaci matter (which occurred soon after Swanson had written a letter to the editor of The Repository supporting the way Zeigler runs his office), apparently the sheriff himself agrees or does he? (Swanson self-describes as being in the background)

It would be easy enough for Sheriff Swanson, and by the way, Prosecutor Ferrero, to recuse themselves from the investigations of high profile cases involving political figures or dynamics and bring in outside law enforcement officials.

Why bring this up now?

Because there is a political fight between Mayor Healy and Canton Councilman Greg Hawk underway which may have law enforcement implications. Healy is trying through others to get Sheriff Swanson's office involved.

Swanson shouldn't bite. If an investigation is merited, it should be done by Republican law enforcement officials from out of county.

The Report does not say that Swanson or Ferrero have let political bias affect any of their work.

But when you have political elements lurking around a law enforcement situation, isn't is best for all including the Stark County system of justice "to avoid the very appearance" that political relationships might be perceived by the public at large to be at play?

DISCUSSION: THE FRUSTACI SAGA - STARK TREASURER & STARK GOP LEADERSHIP FAILS STARK COUNTIANS?

On March 03, 2008, primary election day, there were a number of significant vacancies on the Republican side of the ballot for countywide offices (non-judicial):

Stark County treasurer,
Stark County prosecutor, and
Stark County engineer.

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable! Current Stark GOP chairman Jeff Matthews has failed Stark voters as has his predecessor Curt Braden.

On March 31, 2009, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) received a tip that Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler had fired his chief deputy Vince Frustaci was fired amidst allegations of theft from the treasurer's office.

So the days of March 03, 2008 (primary election day - no Republican candidate for treasurer), November 04, 2008 (as an alternative no independent or write-in candidate for treasurer) and March 31, 2009 are days that signal major failures within Stark County political and governmental leadership.

An aspect of the Stark County treasurer office theft caper not discussed in the media so far (except in The Report) is the lack of leadership in the Stark County treasurer's office in terms of the lack of effective oversight and structure so as to have prevented the theft from taking place in the first place.

Another aspect of the Stark County treasurer office theft caper not discussed so far in the media is the role the Stark County Republican Party and its inability to provide political competition in the Stark County treasurer's race in 2008 played in enabling a lacakadaisical leadership attitude to set in within the Stark Treasury leadership and thereby helping to set up conditions for the theft to occur.

THE STARK GOP FAILURE

While Stark County treasurer bears prime responsibility for not having or not properly monitoring checks on Vince Frustaci, the Stark County Republican bears at least secondary responsibility in the sense of giving Zeigler a "free ride" to another term as treasurer.

Now Zeigler has 3-1/2 years to hope the voters forget his failure in leadership. Had the Stark Republicans.

Listen to the audio below as WHLO-AM (640 on the dial) talk show host and politically supportive of Matthews and Stark Republican candidates presses Stark Republican Party chairman on the question of why the Stark GOP is not competitive countywide in Stark County.

All yours truly hears from Matthews is an excuse.

Stark Republicans can't do any better than this guy?

ZEIGLER'S FAILURE

The Report believes Treasurer Zeigler got way too comfortable somewhere along the way in his ten years as treasurer and lost touch with the day-to-day operations of the office. And, when he had no opposition at all in 2008, he had to be feeling especially relaxed.

But the Stark GOP failure to provide an alternative to Stark voters does not excuse Zeigler.

There had to be signposts along the way (that Zeigler apparently ignored or was oblivious to) that trouble was on the horizon.

First, we now know (and s "due diligence" Zeigler should have known) that he did not have adequate structural safeguards in place within the office and in relations with an area banking institution which housed county money.

Second, despite acting as if he barely knew Frustaci in a brief interview yours truly had with Zeigler; The Report believes that Zeigler and Frustaci had become political pals and Zeigler let down his guard which, when coupled with the structural deficiencies, presented a ripe opportunity for the alleged theft to occur.

Third, a source has told The Report that it was known (certainly Zeigler had to know) that Frustaci liked to play high stakes poker and go to Mountaineer Casino Racetrack and Resort to gamble.

Talk about a red flag? Duh?

The Report has learned that Zeigler is working the Democratic office holding crowd to put out the word that "he is a good guy."

A good guy (in the personal sense) Treasurer Zeigler may well be. That is not the question.

The question is this:

How much money are Stark taxpayers going to be out because he did not adequately lead as Stark County treasurer?

The Report wonders whether or not the thought has ever crossed Zeigler's mind that perhaps he is not up to being treasurer?

Now listen to Stark Republican Party chair Jeff Matthews trying to explain the failure of the Stark GOP to provide political competition in Stark.