POLITICAL PARTY FACTOR IN SELECTION OF JUDGES DAMAGES PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF INTEGRITY OF OHIO JUDICIARY, NO?

SUBTOPICS

THE O'CONNOR INITIATIVE

THE "O'DONNELL" APPOINTMENT
IN
FRANKLIN COUNTY 

STARK COUNTY CONNECTION

- MORE OR LESS -

BENEFITING 

FROM

POLITICAL I.D. 

IN

BECOMING

JUDGE?

Farmer

Hall

REPLACING JUDGE LEE SINCLAIR

WAITING IN THE WINGS?
COREY-MINOR SMITH

THE O'CONNOR INITIATIVE

Few have ridden the coattails of political partisanship to personal public office holding success than Ohio Supreme Court chief justice Maureen O'Connor.

As a Republican, she began her rise to be lieutenant governor of Ohio and ultimately being chief justice gaining an appointment from now retired Republican Summit County probate judge Willard F. Spicer in 1985 as a court magistrate.

An interesting political phenomenon in American history is how various public figures who have benefited from partisan or ideological ties/positions, have become advocates for considerations of factors based on merit or "realpolitik" once they reach the pinnacle of their personal partisan-politically based achievement.

No better example of this marvel of political flip-flopping exists than the Richard M. Nixon (as congressman) turnaround from being virulent witch-hunting anti-communist of the 1950s into the Richard M. Nixon (as president) who in 1972 opened U.S. doors to the Peoples Republic of [Communist] China.  (LINK)

Generally, Americans accept these "Road to Damacus" conversions even if skeptically.

And the SCPR advocates that Ohioans (necessarily including, of course, Stark Countians) should do the same thing for Chief Justice O'Connor's embrace of less politics and more merit in the selection of Ohio's as articulated by her in a speech at the May, 2013 Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA) convention (LINK) held recently in Cleveland.

O'Connor posed her proposal for changes in a question format, to wit:  (LINK)

• Ohio Courts 2013:  A Plan for Strengthening Judicial Elections:

1. Should Ohio Change the Law So Judicial Races Are No Longer Listed at the End of the Ballot?
2. Should All Judicial Elections be Held in Odd-Numbered Years?
3. Should Ohio Centralize & Expand the Civic Education Programming and Institute a Judicial Voter Guide?
4. Should Ohio Eliminate Party Affiliation on the Ballot in Judicial Primaries?
5. Should Ohio Join the Other States that Have a Formal, Non-Partisan System for Recommending Nominees to the Governor to Fill Judicial Vacancies?
6. Should Appointments to the Ohio Supreme Court Require the Advice and Consent of the Ohio Senate?
7. Should Ohio Increase the Basic Qualifications for Serving as a Judge?
8. Should Ohio increase the Length of Judges' Terms? (emphasis added)

However, O'Connor - apparently - as indicated in the case of fellow Justice Terrence O'Donnell (see below) and - clearly - in the instance of Justice William O'Neill (see below) has work to do in convincing her fellows on the high court that her proposal has merit.

THE O'DONNELL APPOINTMENT

Word came down on May 9 of this year (LINK) that Republican Governor John Kasich had appointed Republican Colleen O'Donnell (daughter of Ohio Supreme Court Associate Justice Terrence O'Donnell) to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

To the SCPR, this obviously was a "political connections-based appointment."

Colleen O'Donnell's qualifications for the appointment are very unconvincing to yours truly.  Just take a look at this Columbus Dispatch piece that details her legal career history (e.g. she has just barely over the minimum 5 years as a lawyer to be eligible for a judgeship in the first place) and by implication her political connections (LINK).

While undoubtedly her father uttered not a word to the governor that he ought to appoint daughter Colleen to the bench of Ohio's second largest county, it is obvious to those of us who populate the hoi polloi that he did not have to.

Kasich and his advisers were surely well aware of who Colleen is and notwithstanding any denials that the governor may make to the significance of her political and legal pedigree in her gaining the appointment, such denials fall in the category of "who in the whole wide world would believe them?"

For example, locally, Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez denies that he had anything to do with son Kody being appointed Rick Campbell's chief deputy recorder in 2007.

To which the SCPR responds:

That may be and probably is the case.  However, like in the O'Donnell situation, direct advocacy is not needed.  Those in a position to appoint are all to aware of whom they are appointing and the SCPR believes that it is fair to question that motivation to appoint reeks of being politically based and not on the basis of merit.  In the Gonzalez case, Recorder Campbell insists to yours truly that the Gonzalez political overlay had nothing whatsoever to do with the appointment.  Nonetheless, the SCPR simply is not buying the denial.

The Report believes that when such appointments take place, the appointing authority creates a public perception that merit was not the primary criterion in making the appointment.

Over time and repeated as often as politically inspired appointments are done across the American governmental landscape, drip-by-drip public officials undermine their own credibility and inch-by-inch make it more difficult for themselves and their appointees to govern.

Inevitably, the politically connected who get public jobs primarily because of their political connectedness find occasion to comment on and lament upon how unruly the American public is becoming in terms of wielding the authority of their offices and having it respected by the governed.

The SCPR for one does not want to hear their bellyaching.

They do it to themselves and just plain have to live with the consequences of having participated successfully in a sort of political sweepstakes.

The SCPR senses an undertone among the American electorate which is growing increasingly alienated from the governing class and manifests itself in subtle resistances.

So it is helpful for the health of our democratic-republic for a figure such as Maureen O'Connor to step forward and in effect to say "enough is enough."

Indeed, the Ohio Supreme Court should be the catalyst for implementing something like the "Courts 2013 Plan and in the process Centralize & Expand the Civic Education Programming and Institute a Judicial Voter Guide.

Moreover, voters should focus on those who appear to have obtained public positions through political influence and make that a prime factor in determining whether or not to vote for that person at the next succeeding election as well has the person doing the appointing.

STARK COUNTY CONNECTIONS TO THE QUESTION OF JUDICIAL REFORM

THE KRISTIN FARMER (BAIR) APPOINTMENT

Stark County has its own history of judges who appear to have obtained gubernatorial appointments to the Stark County bench through primarily political factors and not so much on the merit of their qualifications.

In the opinion of the SCPR, the prime appointee who fills that category is Kristin G. Farmer (Bair) who is the daughter of Fifth District Court of Appeals Judge Sheila Farmer.

Last year Judge Charles Brown announced his retirement from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas bench.

Farmer (Bair) does have more legal career seasoning than does O'Donnell, but it is far from impressive.

In his appointment of December 21, 2012 (she was sworn-in on January 18, 2013), Kasich cited that as a matter of legal experience she:

• served as a magistrate (Judge Sinclair/Sara Lioi) and law clerk in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas

And that's it!

Actually, she does have a bit more in her resume.  But not much.

Area media reports cite her serving as assistant prosecutor for the first two years out of law school for Alliance law director and Republican Andrew Zumbar who is the brother of Stark County treasurer and Republican Alex Zumbar.

So two years out of law school she is a Common Pleas Court magistrate (a job that some lawyers wait years to obtain) on her way to becoming a judge herself.

Of course, it does not hurt that your mother is a former assistant prosecutor in Canton and Cleveland and is a judge in the Massillon Municipal Court and the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

The politically skeptical likely think that family political connects played into her becoming an Alliance prosecutor and then a Common Pleas magistrate.

The person who should have been appointed in the assessment of the SCPR - if legal experience (not political connectedness) is the primary criterion -  is Democrat and Stark County Assistant Prosecutor Chryssa Hartnett.

To her credit notwithstanding that she as a Democrat was beseeching a Republican governor, Hartnett did (LINK) apply with the Stark County GOP for a recommendation that Governor Kasich appoint her to replace Brown.  But politics being what they are, the Jeff Matthews-led Stark Republicans did not give her a smell.

These are the same folks that asked Democrats to put partisanship aside and appoint Republican Alex Zumbar (October 31, 2011) to replace Democrat Gary Zeigler when he resigned (October 19, 2011).

Very obviously the Stark County Republican Party Executive Committee does not care one whit about putting Stark's most qualified before the governor when it is their turn to be part of the public official replacement process.

But again, one does not want to hear them complain about the reality that more and more Americans are finding neither of the major political parties to be credible instruments of putting America's most capable and most professionally qualified citizens in public positions.

Both organized political parties are increasingly discredited entities in the eyes of many Americans which makes it more and more difficult for the parties to get everyday citizens involved in their activities.

Sure the parties are hurting more and more in terms of getting everydays involved.

Increasingly, Americans are eschewing party labels in voter registration roles.  And such is definitely the case in Stark County and across Ohio.  In most if not all Ohio voting precincts, non-party aligned voters outnumber registered Rs and Ds (often, even if combined).

And, one might say, who cares about the fortunes of political parties?

Unfortunately, the demise of the parties as being trusted agents of government in putting forth the very best that America has to offer in public service is highly damaging to the legitimacy of our most important institutions of government.

One remaining avenue to correct the parties' strong propensity to consider political connectedness and qualifications (e.g. "the name Farmer in Stark County) in obtaining and retaining office is the good old fashioned American election process.

Hopefully, Stark's Democrats will put up a worthy opponent (how about Chryssa Hartnett?) against Farmer (Bair) in November, 2014.

Note that though she is married to Sergeant David W. Bair of the Alliance Police Department.

But being entitled to a political/legal name like Farmer, no way she is running as Kristin Bair.

Kind of cements the political factor perhaps as having been prime, no?

THE ROSEMARIE HALL APPOINTMENT

Rosemarie Hall does much better on the credentials and experience side of things (LINK) than either O'Donnell or Farmer (Bair).

Appointed by Kasich in August, 2011, she boasts of having being a Stark County Family Court magistrate since 2004.  Moreover, she did have significant experience as a private practitioner of law in her husband's law firm on family law issues prior to becoming a magistrate.

She has gained recognition by her peers as being a jurist who thinks through the complexities of family life as she encounters troubled Stark County families who process through her court.  Two scholarly efforts grace her resume.

Hall clearly was the best qualified of all the candidates on the list submitted by the Stark GOP to Governor Kasich for consideration.

Other candidates (Kristin Farmer [Bair], Lori Flowers (who was serving as Judge Brown's magistrate at the time) and Brant Luther (who ran the Family Court's guardianship program).

The SCPR was certainly glad to see that Flowers did not get the appointment.

Why?

Her comment when vying with Hall, Farmer (Bair) and Luther:

(From a prior SCPR blog LINK)   

"She also said she has been a loyal Republican her entire adult life and is up for the challenge of keeping the seat, if selected."

What should being "a loyal Republican" have to do with being a judge in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas?

Hall has been validated by Stark County voters as having superior Family Court credentials.  In November, 2012 she bested Canton Law Department assistant prosecutor credible candidate Kristen Bates Aylward.

But kudos go out to Bates-Ayward for having tested Hall at the polls.  Maybe she will consider running against the expected "loyal Republican" Sinclair replacement to come soon from the desk of John Kasich?

THE SINCLAIR REPLACEMENT

Any day now, the Kasich administration will be handing down its decision on with who to replace the retiring Common Pleas Court judge V. Lee Sinclair.

It is upwards of five months since the local Republicans sent their list of three to Columbus.

If he follows merit over all else, Governor Kasich should select Jean Madden to be Sinclair's replacement from about the Stark GOP recommended list of candidates.

As stated above, second listee Lori Flowers sees herself as the most politically viable candidate in terming herself "a loyal Republican" which raises a red flag insofar as the SCPR is concerned.

It is hard to see how being CEO of the Stark Chapter of the American Red Cross Curt Werren (the third of three candidates) qualifies him as a top candidate for the judgeship.

Is he just another case of a candidate having a politically connected parent in his corner?

Madden, on the other hand, is an ideal candidate.

She has labored hard and effectively as a Stark County Public Defender.  Moreover, she is an Alliance Municipal Court magistrate.

Being a public defender, she does not quite fit the stereotypical Republican legal pedigrees.

And she has run countywide having taken on Frank Forchione in November, 2008.  The SCPR thinks that she did reasonably well against Forchione who for some reason unknown to The Report appears to be "the darling" of the Stark County legal establishment.

Yours truly has had enough contact with the two to assess that Madden would have been the better judge.

IN THE WINGS:  COREY-MINOR SMITH?

Democrat and former Healy administration employee Corey Minor-Smith is taking on Republican Canton Municipal Court judge Richard Kubilus.

The Report is told that a number of Democratic attorneys are upset that Minor-Smith is making the challenge.

The SCPR does not agree with them.

Yours truly agrees with Chief Justice O'Connor who told the Plain Dealer (Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor says party labels have no place in judicial elections, Tom Feran, May 9, 2013):

We should elect our judges"  ...  "Voters have reaffirmed by large margins that they want judges to be accountable in competitive elections.

Though The Report likes Kubilus and thinks he stands "head over shoulders" above Minor-Smith in terms of experience and judicial attributes, every candidate for office - judges included - need to go through competitive elections in the context of a vigorous vetting process to help voters figure out who has real qualifications and who is primarily a political phenom.

The most disturbing thing that yours truly hears about Minor-Smith is that she is thought by some to be running at the urging of Mayor William J. Healy, II of Canton (she served as his Director of Compliance [January, 2008 - July, 2011]) not so much because he thinks she can knock off Kubilus, but rather that she put herself in position to get a Democratic gubernatorial appointment should the Democrat candidate in the November, 2014 election win.

Knowing William J. Healy, II as the SCPR does, it is quite believable that the Minor-Smith candidacy is his brainchild.

This is more of the same that the current system of governor appointments bring as we see in the O'Donnell and Farmer (Bair) appointments.

Judge O'Connor is right to suggest that Ohio needs a "[f]ormal, Non-Partisan System for Recommending Nominees to the Governor to Fill Judicial Vacancies."

The SCPR would go one step further.  And it might take an Ohio constitutional amendment (due to separation of powers concerns).   We (the people of Ohio) should REQUIRE whomever the governor is to appoint be from something like a "non-partisan system for recommending" list.

Stark Countians should be embarrassed to read what one of the Stark GOP nominees (Canton Municipal Court judge Stephen F. Belden) is quoted as saying what happened when he interviewed with the governor's people for opportunity to replace Judge Charles Brown, to wit:

Recounting his interview in Columbus for that position, Belden told the executive committee [as he was withdrawing his name for consideration for the Sinclair vacancy]  that he “crashed and burned.” 

He said one of the primary issues was the controversy that resulted from him ordering that the mouth of an argumentative defendant be muzzled with duct tape in 2009. The order was captured on the courtroom’s audio and video system. 

“Being the realist I’m supposed to be, I’m never going to get appointed,” Belden said. “And it would be selfish of me and unfair (to the other candidates) ... to send me (to Columbus.)”  (LINK)

Credit Belden at least for a moment of reflective honesty.

However, for him to say "I'm never going to get appointed" in our current system of putting names before the governor in the opinion of the SCPR is not necessarily so.

Undoubtedly, Judge Belden is a well-intentioned guy.

But from many reports that the SCPR gets from a number of attorneys, he should not be on the Canton Municipal Court bench.

In one assessment by a highly prominent Stark County attorney to the SCPR (in an effort to be kind), termed Judge Belden as being quirky.

Hmm?

Under our current system, The Report believes that there are all too many judges across Ohio who have no business being on the bench.

And, yes, Judge O'Connor, Ohio should " ... Centralize & Expand the Civic Education Programming and Institute a Judicial Voter Guide.

Ohioans need a reliable source to go to in order to determine "on the merits" (not political connectedness) who to vote for in judicial races.

The current system of local bar associations having its membership rate candidates for judge is wholly inadequate.

Take the impending Minor-Smith/Kubilus match up.

The Stark County Bar Association has released the results of its evaluation of the two, to wit:

"Fifty-five percent (55%) or greater of the total membership of the [Judiciary] committee present shall receive a 'recommended' rating."

Hmm?

Who thinks this kind of a rating system tells voters anything?

The SCPR could pose a thousand questions to the committee members to probe exactly what "recommended" or "highly recommended" actually means in terms of the likelihood that a given candidate will turn out to be a distinguished jurist.

But this is a system that the partisan political folks (i.e. Chris Redfern, chair of the Ohio Democratic Party and and the leadership of the Ohio GOP think adequately serves the voters?

What it serves is those political party types who want to insinuate into our system of justice partisan, biased people; presumably well-intended, who are ambitious to achieve the prestige of being a judge primarily to achieve personal satisfaction.

And it appears that the Redferns of the world primarily want to continue the system of political patronage in appoint judges.

Supreme Court Associate Justice and Democrat William O'Neill can criticize the O'Connor "Ohio Courts 2013:  A Plan for Strengthening Judicial Elections" plan all he wants, to wit:

Any serious proposal to change the elections must address the money issue.  Money and judges don't mix. The perception among voters is overwhelmingly that money buys influence in the judiciary in Ohio.

One who knows the political history of O'Neill has to think that his criticism in-and-of-itself may be an R & D thing rather than a well thought out opposition with a suggestion for improvement.

One would think that a sitting Ohio Supreme Court judge being specially situated would think he has an obligation to offer up improvements/additions to the plan.

If O'Neill has something to offer to solve the "[money and judges don't mix" problem (which the SCPR agrees is a problem), then what is his solution?

It has always mystified yours truly how sitting judges and candidates for judge can accept financial contributions from lawyers who have, do or who will be appearing before them.

In meantime, Ohio needs to take a cue from Judge O'Connor and get to work in reforming the way we select judges!

KASICH ADMINISTRATION BANS VIDEOTAPING OF A PUBLIC MEETING IN VIOLATION OF OHIO'S OPEN MEETINGS LAW?

UPDATE & CORRECTION:

In the original blog yours truly inadvertently referred to Bob Downing (the actual author of the article referred to) as being Bob Dyer.  A SCPR apology to Mr. Dyer for the error.

ORIGINAL BLOG

It is beginning to appear that Republican Governor John Kasich only favors democracy when it is convenient to his purposes.  Like being elected governor.

Last Friday, the SCPR reported (LINK) on the legislation that his administration ramrodded through the Ohio General Assembly to prevent Republican State Auditor David Yost from auditing Jobs Ohio (a private entity which has taken over economic development for Ohio). 

He was aided in passing the legislation by Stark County Republicans Scott Oelslager (R, Plain, the 29th Ohio Senate District), Kirk Schuring (R, Jackson, the 48th Ohio House District) and Christina Hagan (Republican, the 50th Ohio House District).

So much for transparency in government, no?

And speaking of Oelslager, who in large part has made his legislative reputation by authoring several bills beefing up open "public' meetings and thereby has been thought (until his anti-transparency co-sponsorship of the audit ban of Job Ohio) to favor public accountability; one has to wonder what he thinks of the activity of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) ban on basic democratic rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution and Ohio's Open Meetings law in its administration of fracking-related issues.

For a definition of fracking for those readers who are not familiar with the term,  here is a LINK.

And a disclaimer on the SCPR's position on the issue.

Yours truly neither favors nor opposes fracking.

The Report's tack is to require the oil and gas industry as a matter of law to provide bonds/insurances in amounts to that will pay for any accidents that occur with which to fairly and adequately compensate Ohioans who suffer damages on account an mishaps which happen.  Moreover, the industry needs to be required as a matter of law to compensate local government entities through bonds/insurances for any damages which is sustained as a consequence of harm done to local government owned and managed infrastructure (e.g.roads, bridges, water supplies and the like). Finally, the industry must be made by state/federal government rules and regulations to reveal to the general public each and every chemical they use in the fracking process.

No matter what a particular issue may be, The Report is committed to the enhancement of the processes and procedures of our democratic-republic.

It is seeming more and more that the Kasich administration is willing to sacrifice democratic principles to achieving command and control of its overall state government agenda as most recently evidenced by the shutting down of audits of Jobs Ohio and ODNR's "chilling" of democratic give and take in its interaction with the Ohio public over a range of fracking issues.

A full blown emergence of an anti-democracy tilt of the ODNR was apparent by November 28, 2012.

The SCPR can trace the beginnings of the ODND adversion to democratic dialogue on fracking issues way back to December, 2010/January, 2011 when Plain Township trustee Louis Giavasis sponsored public meetings on the issue at a Plain schools site (LINK).

According to a report by Columbus Dispatch (LINK) on November 28th,  the ODNR held, at its regional office on East State Street in Athens, a meeting which it termed to be "an open house" on an issue that some Athens Countians had with the issuance of an fracking residue disposal "injection well" permit.

Originally, the Athens County Fracking Action Network (ACFAN) had asked for a "public hearing, but were denied and ODNR substituted the "open house" which theACFAN folks termed as being an effort "designed to diffuse agency accountability and community solidarity."

On the 28th, some 50 people crammed into the ODNR provided room and promptly took control of the meeting from ODNR officials (including Stark County [Lake Township] resident and Chief of the Division of Oil and Gas Resource Management Rick Simmers), in an attempt to convert into a de facto public hearing.

Simmers' (appointed division chief by ODNR Director James Zehringer [who is, of course, a Kasich appointee]) responsibilities include:

(1) enforcing Ohio’s laws related to oil and gas drilling,

(2) production,

(3) plugging,

(4) orphan wells,

(5) solution mining,

(6) ethanol recovery,

gas storage, and

(7) underground injection control operations.

A report of the event by the Frackfree America National Coalition (FANC - LINK) indicated that there were numerous law enforcement types at the meeting and the anti-frackers were ordered out of the "open house" where they were joined by some 100 protestors (pictured above) who had marched to the scene.

As relevant to this blog and the anti-democratic flavor of the "open house," catch this blurb from the Frackfree article, to wit:

Underscoring how opposed they were to receiving public input, ODNR designated an outdoor, “free speech zone” for the ralliers, and forbade the public from bringing in signs, banners, backpacks, or audio or videocameras.  One citizen was ordered to leave after recording officials' comments.  Ralliers brought their own solar-powered sound system, stage, and roster of speakers. "We will challenge these intolerable restrictions on our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly," said Smiles Welch, the emcee of the event.

Fast forward to May 30, 2013 and see how the November 28th  "open house" euphemism morphed into being an "availability session."

The notice which appeared in area newspapers:

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is holding a meeting Thursday evening at Wingfoot Lake State Park to answer questions from the public about the state’s Class II injection wells.

Class II injection wells are used to dispose of wastewater produced by oil and natural gas wells.
The meeting will be held 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the Pine Tree Lodge, 993 Goodyear Park Blvd., Mogadore [Portage County].

No video cameras, demonstrations, signs or banners are allowed inside the venue and all bags may be subject to inspection by law enforcement, according to ODNR. (emphasis added)

Here is the first e-mail report about the the "availability session" that came into the hands of the SCPR:

"Just left the meeting.  What a useless dog & pony show with 14 armed guards and a dog.  ... .

Bob Downing of the Akron Beacon Journal penned a piece (Security heavy at injection well meeting at Wingfoot Lake, May 30 (LINK) which focused on the extraordinary number of armed ODNR staffers (14) which were present at the meeting of a total of 30 staffers and the resentment that their presence engendered among the 55 community activists concerned about injection well safety.

Seven wells are presently in plans for Portage County.

Interesting enough Downing (the journalist he is)  chose to ignore the ODNR prohibition on videotaping, and on audio recording.

Sounds like he is a real stand up guy for government accountability and transparency, no?  (sarcasm)

It seems to the SCPR that if challenged in court, the ODNR would not impress Ohio's judiciary with the game playing it is doing with dubbing public meetings as being an "open house" or an "availability session" in a obvious legal technicality effort to avoid the Ohio attorney general's interpretation of Ohio Open Meeting Law as informed by existing case law to effect that public officials cannot prohibit videotaping and audio recording.

What appears to be an apt survey of the law of Ohio was published in an email which the SCPR received a copy of, to wit:

The Ohio Open Meetings Act
Chapter Two: Duties of a Public Body
A. Openness

4.0 Audio and Video Recording

A public body cannot prohibit the public from audio or video recording a public meeting.*843 A public body may, however, establish reasonable rules regulating the use of recording equipment, such as requiring equipment to be silent, unobtrusive, self-contained, and self-powered to limit interference with the ability of others to hear, see, and participate in the meeting.844

• *843 McVey v. Carthage Twp. Trs., 2005-Ohio-2869, ¶¶ 14-15 (4th Dist.) (trustees violated R.C. 121.22 by banning videotaping). 
• 844 Kline v. Davis, 2001-Ohio-2625 (4th Dist.) (blanket prohibition on recording a public meeting not justified); 1988 Ohio Op. Att’y Gen. No. 087 (opining that trustees have authority to adopt reasonable rules for use of recording equipment at their meetings). 
• See also Mahajan v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 2011-Ohio-6728 (10th Dist.) (where rule allowed board to designate reasonable location for placement of recording equipment, requiring appellant’s court reporter to move to the back of the room was reasonable, given the need to transact board business).

Shame on:

• Governor John Kasich,
• ODNR Director James Zehringer, and
• Stark Countian [Lake Township] Chief of the Division of Oil and Gas Resource Management Rick Simmers

for trifling with our rights as citizens to have accountability and transparency and to exercise our First Amendment guarantees.

Let's hope that someone will step forward and take them to court.

Those who favor fracking say that the ODNR can be trusted to protect Ohioans from a fracking disaster?

Doesn't the agency's apparent zeal to trample on the citizens' rights via the nuancing of meeting labels in service of legal sophistry put that confidence in question?

Certainly not be be counted among those trusting the ODNR is long time Stark County Concerned Citizens leader Chris Borello who lives in Stark County's Plain Township.

Here is her reaction to Thursday's Wingfoot Lake ODNR goings on.

First big oil/gas bombards the air waves/media night and day with their promotion of fracking to seemingly in part drown out any descent.   Now, it appears more stories are being put forth like the one below out of Youngstown, [LINK]  to plant the seeds that American citizens are to be feared and more, yes, even be armed against -  if they dare to exercise their right to speak out in order to raise public awareness about their legitimate and very real concerns regarding fracking & the accompanying waste disposal practices potentially destroying our country, via posing threats to communities'  health, safety, &  properties.  Great strategy to keep people in line:  Float articles like the one below suggesting these concerned Americans are possible domestic terrorists,  to instill fear and intimidation to hopefully prevent them from speaking out; demanding answers.

We only need to look to what happened in Portage County in Ohio the other night.  Thirteen armed guards and dogs hired by Ohio DNR  for a supposed public information meeting to discuss injections wells, with each citizen reportedly having a wand waved over them prior.....  Purportedly this armed back up was to  "protect" this Ohio agency from these terrible Ohio citizens, who simply came to ask questions/express their concerns about the massive amounts of what drilling poisons will be disposed underneath their area's water supplies, including dangerous, long lived radiation - Radium -  that one radiation expert said in their opinion was more harmful to a body than ingesting Plutonium because it is bone seeking.
Just bet the industry really loved that show of force on ODNR's part which served to nicely compliment the gist of the below article.

What would those armed officials have done, had citizens brought signs to protest outside the meeting, OR,  God forbid, insisted this public agency merely FOLLOW Ohio's SUNSHINE LAWS allowing recordings of such meetings, which had been denied by ODNR?  )

Yep.  It certainly appears the stage is being carefully set in America the Heartland here in Ohio,  to paint good, caring folks who don't want to see innocent children develop cancer and Leukemia as the villains, once again, for standing up to industry and these agencies.

I believe many of us would like to know:   If a foreign enemy came over here and dumped radiation/toxins near our water supplies, what would our government's response be then?  Wouldn't the FBI, Homeland Security  et al be called in?  But,  if this dumping is done by  "friendly fire", somehow it is not only apparently "ok" to do, but citizens should keep quiet and accept it all without a fuss, or risk being labeled/treated like this?!

WILL STARK CO. DELEGATION TO OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY BE EFFECTIVE FOR COUNTY IN KASICH TURNPIKE FUNDING PLAN FIGHT THAT IS SURE TO COME?

Tom Suddes of The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote a column (LINK) over the weekend that members of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly should be paying close attention to.

That is, if they want to make sure that Stark County gets Governor Kasich's defined share of bond revenues for bonds (underwritten by Ohio Turnpike ["Turnpike"] tolls).

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) plans to float bonds to leverage up revenues available to local governments across Ohio and, of course, the state government itself to maintain and upgrade Ohio's highways.

Since Kasich (Republican - Columbus) has been governor, he has endeavored to carry out his underlying philosophy that government should be stripped of everything not fastened down that can be moved and shuttled off to the private sector.

Accordingly, speculation has been rampant that he would move the Ohio General Assembly for authority to lease (long term) the Ohio Turnpike to the private sector.

Ohioans will remember that such is what losing Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell proposed doing in his 2006 campaign, had he been elected.

But lo and behold! Kasich has fooled us all.

On Friday last, Kasich began his campaign for reelection; not that any incumbent in less obvious ways ever ceases campaigning.

The governor unveiled his bond-underwritten-revenue-generation program as a "free lunch" for all Ohioans.  And, of course, Republican officeholders as a generality like to say that "there is no such thing as a 'free lunch.'"

Free lunch?  Indeed!

Bond interest and set up fees will come off the top of Turnpike revenues.

Not a dime is to be taken out of the pocket of any Ohioan.  And a high percentage of Turnpike revenues come from guess who?  You've got it:  out-of-staters who travel portal to portal across the Buckeye state.

Kasich aides, in his political barnstorming trip Friday across the Ohio Turnpike corridor running across Ohio's northern most counties, said that the Kasich "tax free to the taxpaying Ohioans highway funds plan" will raise about $3 billion.

And, get this.

Some 90% plus of the $3 billion or about $2.7 billion is to go to "northern" Ohio community roads and highways.  Northern Ohio?  Yes, "northern" Ohio.

And "northern Ohio" is defined to mean?

According to Kasich aides, the area of Ohio north of U.S. Route 30 otherwise known as The Lincoln Highway.

Terrific for Stark County, no?

But not so fast.

Does anyone believe that there will not be a fight in the Ohio General Assembly (OGA) when the Kasich proposal comes up for consideration after the first of the year in its new session (the 130th) on:

• how "northern" gets defined, or
• whether or not northern gets expanded into "the funds are to be distributed over all of Ohio."

Suddes, being Cuyahoga County tied, seems to be suggesting if not advocating that "northern" should be the area north of U.S. 224 (including, of course the Turnpike itself), which, of course, cuts Stark County out of the 90% plus factor.

Under the U.S. 224 and north scenario, Stark would share in $300 million with 61 other Ohio counties.   Compare this with about $2.7 billion with 32 other counties under the U.S. 30 and north Kasich administration plan.

Hmm?

Question to the  Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly:  

• Oelslager (Ohio Senate - R/Plain, the 29th),  
• Schuring (Ohio House - R/Jackson, the 48th),  
• Slesnick (Ohio House - D/Canton, the 49th) and
• Hagan (Ohio House - R/Marlboro, the 50th):   

Is a pie of $2.7 billion (spread over 33 counties) over one that is $300 million (spread over 61 counties) one worth fighting for?

If Suddes is merely suggesting the north of U.S. 224, then obviously he is hearing from some Cuyahoga County legislators/northern Ohio legislators representing legislative districts right along the path of the Ohio Turnpike that since the revenues are coming from the Turnpike that the lion's share of revenues should go to a more limited area (i.e. U.S. 224 and north) rather than the more expansive U.S. 30 and north.

Moreover, isn't it predictable that the legislative fight will involve more than the 33 north of U.S. 30 counties versus the 26 north of U.S. 224 counties.

Does anyone believe that those 61 counties out of both definitions won't be advancing arguments as to why there should be "an equal distribution" across all of Ohio?

In 2008, the-then governor, Democrat Ted Strickland, came out in favor of doing an equal distribution statewide.  He failed, but citing his action is evidence that such sentiment does exist in Ohio political circles that the fair thing to do is to distribute the money across all 88 Ohio counties.

Citation authority on Strickland action:

Kasich, for his part, has a total win-win-win reelection equation to work with.

If the "north of U.S. 224" plan wins out, he has enhanced his chances to cut into the traditional Democratic majorities (particularly in Cuyahoga, Lucas and Summit counties) against a Democratic candidate for governor in 2014.

If the "north of U.S. 30" plan wins out, he is in about the same shape, plus he picks up Stark County which can go either way in statewide elections.

If it ends up an "all of Ohio" plan, he still wins.  He can say and will say to the 26/33 counties that he tried to advantage them on a rational basis since the Turnpike runs across the northern most counties of Ohio

Summit, but that politics internal (i.e. rural counties dominate) to the Ohio General Assembly prevailed.

Of course, the latter prevailing means he gets the least political benefit, but he still will benefit in his quest to stay in the governor's mansion.

The SCPR thinks Kasich's plan is "a political stroke of genius."  In a close race, it could be the difference maker come November, 2014.

And get this quote from the Suddes piece:

Then aides [of Kasich] showered [northern] Ohio with endorsements, including -- very significantly -- one from Democratic Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, and another from Gary Tiboni, president of Teamsters Local 436, which represents 688 turnpike employees.

It is big news when Republicans get Democratic mayors and union officials supporting their projects.

Kasich in 2011 bloodied his political standing in north/northeast Ohio with his politically "unwise" Senate Bill 5/Issue 2 plan to deal with public unions last year.

Perhaps his Turnpike plan with help him mitigate the lingering adverse political effect from having inartfully attacked public unions in the guise of Senate Bill 5.

And the good news for Stark County Republicans Oelslager, Schuring and Hagan is that they can get on the governor's bandwagon and in doing so help themselves and the governor politically.

But most importantly for the well-being of Stark Countians and our transportation artery infrastructure work to make sure that Stark County is part of the $2.7 billion and not the $300 million.

STARK GOP CHAIR JEFF MATTHEWS - MIA - IN OHIO GOP FIGHT?

Late yesterday the leaders of Ohio's urban areas sent a letter to Ohio GOP Chairman to step down immediately and not wait 10 months.

DeWine in a small concession to Republican Ohio Governor John Kasich as promised to run for re-election in 10 months as the chairman of Ohio's Republican Party.

Kasich came out months ago saying he wanted DeWine out and someone more to his liking in.

The Ohio Tea Party has taken up Kasich's cause and ran candidates in opposition to perceived DeWine supporters who were running for state central committeeman/woman back on March 6th in the primary election. 

DeWine antagonized the Tea Party by pushing through a rule change at the state party which requires elected central committee persons to have voted Republican in the last two successive GOP primaries in order to be eligible to vote in a party chairman election contest.

However, it is hard to figure out why the Tea Party ran an opponent (Beth A. Williams) to long time Stark GOP stalwart Sarah Brown of Alliance (wife of Stark County Court of Common Please Judge Charles E. Brown, Jr.).
 
Pre-election, Brown told the SCPR that she is wholeheartedly in support of the Governor.

Had Williams won, she would not have been eligible to participate in a chairman election event.  But as predicted by The Report that did not happen.  Brown won by a landslide.

A mystery about the letter sent out yesterday (a copy of which is included below) is why Stark County GOP Chairman Jeff Matthews was not included.  Stark County is Ohio's 8th largest urban area.

The SCPR has attempted to contact Matthews by e-mail and will publish his response via update should he choose to respond.

The letter:

GOP STATE SENATOR SCOTT OELSLAGER "SKEPTICAL" OF KASICH NEW FOUND BIPARTISANSHIP?

One expects Ohio's Democratic Minority Leader Armond Budish to say:  "He (Republican Governor John Kasich)  asks us to put aside partisanship and yet he rams through the most extreme radical agenda in quite a long time."

One does not expect a Republican  lawmaker to say:  “... the proof will be in the pudding. The next 12 months will he be reaching out to try to bridge that gap? There were gaps the first year of the session. There was no question about that. ... we’ll just wait to see and give him the benefit of the doubt.”  (Stark area legislators react to State of State address, Robert Wang, The Repository, February 7, 2012).

That is unless the lawmaker is not a consummate Republican politician.

Although state Senator Scott W. Oelslager (the 29th - Stark County) certainly qualifies as a loyal Republican, he has proved periodically over his more than 20 years in the Ohio legislature that he will take on "over-the-top" partisan political positions.

Oelslager did exactly that when he voted no on the Kasich administration overreach in presenting Senate Bill No. 5 (SB 5) as its marque piece of legislation designed to gut Ohio's police, fire, educator and other public worker unions in order to weaken the unions' ability to support Democratic candidates.

Kasich et al tried to convince the Ohio public that SB 5 was for the public good.  But the Ohio electorate wasn't buying.

Ohioans saw that the real underlying motivation of Kasich was partisan politics and was having none of it.

Ditto for Scott Oelslager.

While his Stark County delegation Republican colleagues were voting for SB 5, Oelslager was voting no.

It is apparently dawning on Governor Kasich that there is no way he and the Republican dominated state government is going to be able to pull Ohio out of the economic dumping grounds of America without all out "across-the-political-isle" support.

But as Senator Oelslager's skepticism highlights:

"the proof will be in the pudding ... ."

IS THE KASICH/DEWINE FIGHT OVER DEWINE REMAINING CHAIR OF THE OHIO GOP SPILLING OVER INTO STARK COUNTY?

IS THE KASICH/DEWINE FIGHT OVER DEWINE REMAINING CHAIR OF THE OHIO GOP SPILLING OVER INTO STARK COUNTY?

In two words, "apparently not."

With a battle going on between Republican Governor John Kasich and Ohio Republican Party Chairman Kevin DeWine on whether or not DeWine would remain as chairman, it was tempting to read into the fact that long term 33rd District Republican State Committeewoman Sarah Brown is being opposed for re-election (now in the 29th due to Alliance - where Sarah lives - being redistricted into the 29th from the 33rd this year) that the competition was a local spillover.

But such does not appear to be the case.

As far as the Stark County Political Report can determine, both Brown and her opponent Beth A. Williams are supporting the Kasich side of the state GOP chairmanship argument.

In a conversation with Brown yesterday, she told the SCPR that she sees Kasich as the titular head of the Ohio Republican Party and has been totally supportive of him as governor.

So why did Williams decide to take on the politically experienced (as a former councilperson on Alliance City Council), connected (married to former Stark County Republican Party Chairman Charles E. Brown, Jr. [now a Stark County Common Pleas Court judge], savvy and Republican passionate Sarah Brown?

The Report has been unable to contact Williams but has exchanged e-mails with Jim Woods and The Report believes that Woods has shed light as to why Williams has filed to contest the Republican 29th District state committeewoman seat.

The Report's interest in the Brown/Williams was piqued on receiving a broadcast e-mail yesterday from Woods.  Witness these extracts:

• For our part, this divisiveness began when DeWine "broke the bank" to defeat "Tea Party" Republicans in the 2010 primary, leaving the party short of funds to defeat democrats in the fall.
• [H]e [DeWine] will not step down as Chairman.  Not in order to prevent a costly Primary battle for state central committee seats, consuming resources that should be applied to the general election.  Again, as he did in 2010.  
• He is adamant that he will remain Chairman no matter what, until January 2013.  Not if the war between him and the rest of the party continues right through the general election, with all the implications of infighting and intrigue within the party has on the Ohio Presidential election, and the possibility that the divisiveness in Ohio may result in Obama's re-election. 
• This is not the action of a man who is committed to the cause.  It is the action of a man who has put himself first.  Conservative Republicans, liberal Republicans, social conservatives, and the "Tea Party" may disagree on many things, but one thing I think we can all agree upon is that a person who is in it for their own self-interest above all else, is not "one of us". 

Hmm?

While Williams may have a special edge to her in being a member of the Stark 912 Patriots (since April 21, 2011 according to the group's website) and thereby absorbing the intensity of the Tea Party's feeling against DeWine, it is clear to the SCPR that Sarah Brown is firmly ensconced in Kasich's corner and supports his desire to have a person as chairman to his liking.

It appears that Williams candidacy is grounded in the Tea Party's effort to get a prominent place at the table within the Republican Party.

Here is how Woods puts it to The Report:

The Tea Party movement has been encouraging its members to run for central committee positions since 2009, in order to increase our influence in the major political parties.  We also believe that both major party's should be more open, inclusive and responsive to the rank and file members of their party.

 Moreover, he adds this:

I note that the GOP Chairman (DeWine) does not have a candidate of his own for this seat.  Whether either Beth or Sarah decide to withdraw or proceed is up to them.  They are both clearly on the same side of the "Head of the Party" issue.  If neither chooses to withdraw, then may the best woman win!

For her part, Sarah Brown tells The Report that she welcomes the political competition from Williams pointing out she has had numerous opponents in a various runs for Alliance City Council.

You can be sure that those seeking votes in Stark County in future elections are keenly interested in knowing exactly how much clout the Tea Party has in the county.  

Unless one of them withdraws from the race, one thing that the outcome could reveal is an indication of the answer to that question.

ARE KASICH, SCHURING, HAGAN AND OHIO STATEHOUSE REPUBLICANS HAVING A "HAPPY LABOR DAY?"

For Republican Governor John Kasich and Republican state Reps. Kirk Schuring and Christina Hagan, probably not so much?  At least, in a "for public consumption" sort of way.

However, in their "heart of hearts" they are likely pleased that they took a step to do their part to decimate Ohio's union movement.
They have to be worrying these days about the looming November 8th vote by the Ohio electorate on whether or not Senate Bill 5 shall be scraped will spill over onto their personal political futures going down the road.

On the other hand,  many, but certainly not all, Republicans (especially GOP members of Ohio's General Assembly) have long been the enemies of organized labor for quite a few years now.

These Republicans (including Stark Countians Kirk Schuring [R - the 51st - Jackson] and Christina Hagan [R - 50th - Marlboro] undoubtedly see unions, in significant part, responsible for the fact that about one in ten Ohioans are unemployed these days, and moreover, that unions in general have gotten way too powerful in affecting America's and Ohio's economy.  Probably the biggest anti-union motivator for Republican officeholders is the well known fact that unions - almost exclusively - contributes money and manpower to Democratic candidates.

Among SB effects, if retained,  include:

• banning strikes by public unions,
• injects merit into employment pay raise and layoff decisions,
• makes county commissioners the de facto arbitrators in contract negotiation differences,
• prohibit pension pickups by public employers, and
• protects "non-participating" from job loss because he/she elects not to pay union dues.
  

Senate Bill 5 clearly appears headed for a defeat in November.  Current polls are showing that Ohio favor rejection of the measure by about a 50% to 39% margin (Public Policy Polling, August 11 through 14, 2011).

And as politicians are wont to do, Governor Kasich has shown signs of weakening in his resolve.  In the face of the polls such as Public Policy Pollings, Kasich called for compromise on the bill (after having powered it through earlier this year) and set up a political theater event at the statehouse which, of course, was unattended by anyone from organized labor officialdom.  But Kasich and his top officials and the reserved but unsat-in union official chairs were there for the media to photograph.

For Stark Countian representatives Kirk Schuring and Christina Hagan, they have to be concerned how their votes for SB5 will impact their chances in re-election (Schuring), retention (Hagan) come November, 2012.

Hagan, in particular, appears to be vulnerable.  It could be that her district will be reconfigured with Ohio's redistricting that is due to come out on October 5, 2011 so that it is more politically competitive and, moreover, she is an appointee to her post in the Ohio House and therefore may face a primary challenge and, most certainly, stiff opposition on the part of Stark Democrats come the general election of 2012.

Kasich likely is not all that politically worried this far out from his re-election effort which is not until 2014.

Nonetheless, this cannot be that happy of a labor day for either Kasich, Schuring or Hagan.

IS SB 5 HEADED FOR A "SLAM-DUNK" DEFEAT IN STARK COUNTY? OHIO?

There are 261,723 (more or less) registered voters in Stark County.  In an "off-year" election such as 2011, one can expect about 35% of Stark Countians to vote in normal (i.e. no compelling races/issues on the ballot).

2011 does have some excitement to it.  Senate Bill 5 (supported by Stark Countian state Reps. Christina Hagan [R-Marlboro] and Kirk Schuring [R-Jackson] is Republican John Kasich's crown jewel in his fight to gain control of public worker unions.  Apparently, the Kasich administration has miscalculated on the clout that public unions have (firefighters, police and teachers - in the main) and appears on the brink of suffering a major slapdown at the hands of Ohio voters.

Statewide, the anti-SB 5 forces collected about 1.3 million signatures whereas only a little plus of 231,000 signatures were needed to get the issue on the ballot for November 8th.

In Stark County 40,772 signatures were collected.

When one multiplies the 261,723 registered voters by 35% (a typical off-year election turnout), it seems that about 90,000 voters will likely be voting on the issue.  If the anti-SB5 signature collectors can turnout their vote (i.e. GOTV - get those who signed the petition to show up at the polls), then it appears that they are headed for a smashing victory in Stark come election day.  The 40,772 signers would represent about 45% of the total vote if 90,000 voters show up.  That is one heck of a headstart!

Kasich and SB5 supporters have formed their own SB5 election support organization:  Build a Better Ohio.  However, it does not appear to hold a candle in terms of organization, money, workers as does We Are Ohio - the anti-SB5 group.

Kasich and his Republican allies in the Ohio General Assembly (again, including Hagan and Schuring) and strangely enough state Senator Scott Oelslager are trying to muster up their own GOTV but more as an indirect attack on SB5 in trying to get an anti-Affordable Care Act (which Republicans and their Tea Partier allies dub "Obamacare") measure on the ballot.  The idea?  Hype up the numbers of Obamacare opponents who - by the way - are certainly anti-public workers union and kill two birds with one stone.

The SCPR does not believe that the diversionary tactic will work.  The Report believes that SB5 is doomed in Stark County and across Ohio.

Actually, the Ohio GOP could be inviting a devastating blow to their rhetorical anti-Obama campaign.  It may be that the general run of voters are not nearly as anti-Obama as right wing Republicans and the Tea Partiers and the anti-Affordable Care Act measure might get trounced along with SB5.

The significance of this gambit could be that it becomes a harbinger that plays into the 2012 presidential election as to who carries Ohio.

In the law, attorneys worry all the time about appealing losses at the trial court level in terms of unwittingly creating a legal precedent that the deem to be bad law.

In their zeal to help by indirection on SB5, Kasich and his supporters may be creating a problem for the Republican nominee for president come November, 2012.

On Senate Bill 5, it does seem that the opponents are in the catbird seat getting ready to pounce on the mouse (Kasich et al) that is scurrying to and fro to avoid the inevitable result.

TODD SNITCHLER: A "MADE TO ORDER" KASICH LOYALIST?

If Ohio Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) Chairman Todd Snitchler (formerly Ohio House 50th District representative and Republican from Lake Township) has a fault, it is that he is excessively loyal to core conservative Republican Party doctrine, corporate interest, and certain political figures he sees as having the political oomph to make that doctrine state policy.  Governor John Kasich is one such person.

In this respect he is much like Mayor William J. Healy, II, the mayor of Canton.  Healy only wants advisers around him who are loyal to a fault.  For those who show independent thought for the benefit of the public at large (e.g. Tom Bernabei and Tom Nesbitt) become persona non grata in a hurry.

The Stark County Political Report believes this characteristic is the primary reason Governor Kasich chose Snitchler in February to head the PUCO as well as to be the point man in seeing to it that oil and gas industry get its way in obtaining Ohio Department of Natural Resource (ODNR) approvals to hydraulically frack for natural gas throughout Ohio including Ohio's state park system.  Now it turns out that Snitchler will have yet another "political" assignment.

In appointing Snitchler, Kasich described Snitchler as being "wicked, smart."

Hmm?  Obviously, these are qualities that Kasich prizes.  But why?

It has come to light that Governor Kasich in formulating his 2012 -2013 biennium budget proposal has included the halving of the Ohio Consumers Counsel (OCC) budget (See Ohio Consumers' Counsel prepares for budget battle, John Funk [The Plain Dealer - Cleveland.com], March 27, 2011).

Funk reports that Kasich proposes to slash the OCC budget 50% (from $8.5 million to $4.1 million) which, he says, will cause - if carried through with - huge staff reductions at the OCC.

The SCPR sees the proposed cuts severely weakening the OCC in its ability to protect Ohio consumers from being unfairly taken advantage of by monopolistic public utilities and in the face inadequate protection from the unfairness by the PUCO itself under the leadership of Snitchler who in his heart of hearts disdains regulation of business.

Of particular interest is this excerpt from the Funk piece, to wit:

Snitchler also said in an interview Friday that he has no argument with what he sees as the main role Migden-Ostrander plays -- the leading advocate for consumers in cases before the commission.

"Do we advocate? No. Does she advocate? Yes," he said.

"I just want that to be clear. Her argument is with the budget folks, not the PUCO."

The Report begs to differ with Snitchler.  Because of his added political role with the Kasich administration on the fracking issue and now on scaling down of government oversight of the utilities as one of the core tenets of his brand of conservative Republican political doctrine and his being a Kasich political operative, her (Migden-Ostrander's) argument is with him and the PUCO and ultimately with Governor Kasich himself.

It is also an argument that we all (especially including Stark Countians since Snitchler hails from Stark County) ought to be having with Kasich/Snitchler and their effort to free the utilities up to have their way with Ohio's consumers.

The OCC is not going down without a fight.  Its leader, Janine Migden-Ostrander, says that OCC saved Ohio's consumers $54 million in the period 2009 through 2011 and that the agency is not funded by tax dollars but by fees paid by the utilities themselves.  She hopes to bring public pressure to bear to keep the OCC intact on the basis that no tax savings will be saved by the proposed cut.

That is where Snitchler comes in.

To repeat, the "wicked, smart" one was signed on by Kasich to be his political in fighter from the perch of the PUCO, which is also financed by fees from Ohio's utilities.  These utilities were heavy contributors to both Kasich and to Snitchler in their respective 2010 campaigns.

It appears that the utilities are not too happy with the OCC and behind the scenes they seem to have weighed in successfully with the Kasich administration in an apparent attempt to eviscerate the consumer protection group if not eventually dismantle it in the name of solving a budget crisis.

Being the loyalist he is, Snitchler, as PUCO chair has authorized a press release which is provided in full at the end of this blog.

That Snitchler authorized the press release is confirmation that his role in Kasich administration policy is much more than implementing Kasich's druthers on PUCO policy and enforcement actions.

If the OCC fight is with the budget folks and "he has no dog in this fight," why has Snitchler directed the issuing a press release endorsing and justifying the draconian Kasich administration cuts in OCC's budget which he implicitly admits will mean less oversight of utilities?

Answer:  Snitchler does have a philosophical/political doctrine interest in the matter and he is acting as one of Kasich's chief cheerleaders in promoting the gutting of OCC.  Such means that everyday Stark Countians and Ohioans will be getting the shaft on their utility bills.

Political loyalty (to doctrines, to corporate political interests and leaders) which result in everyday people having to struggle harder to make means meet is not a good thing.

Measured loyalty can be a terrific quality.  But, Snitchler - whose political history indicates dedication beyond reason is not measured.

A "true believer" Snitchler is, so it appears to the SCPR.

Everybody should duck!

IN 1958 STARK COUNTY'S TIMKEN COMPANY WAS PART OF THE "RIGHT-TO-WORK" FIGHT; WILL TIMKEN WEIGH-IN BEHIND REPUBLICAN JOHN KASICH'S EFFORT TO MAKE OHIO'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT "RIGHT-TO-WORK?"

 

One the most unaddressed aspects of the fight going on in Columbus are the 44 words inserted in Senate Bill 5 which, if adopted, will make Ohio a "Right-to-Work" (RTW) state insofar as public employment is concerned.

It could be that this provision is the opening round in renewed union versus management (proxied in a Democrats versus Republicans context) fight in Ohio over whether or not Ohio is to join 28 other states as a "Right-to-Work" state.  Public employment - the first step?  Then all Ohio employment to follow?

Back in 1958 there was a huge fight between Republicans and Democrats over "Right-to-Work."  A big player for Ohio adopting RTW was none other than Stark County's "Timken Roller Bearing Company."

Timken family members have been stalwart Republican campaign contributors over many decades.  Moreover, they are particularly invested in the gubernatorial reign of Republican John Kasich.

From The Huffington Post archives, here is a list of the many contributions made by Timken family members to the Kasich-Taylor campaign.

On Tuesday, February 22nd, Governor Kasich is the speaker at a Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce event:  "A Night with Ohio's Governor."

Undoubtedly, the Timkens will be there in full force.

But also there will be Stark County's unions.  The Timkens and the Governor's hobnobbers will be on the inside whereas the unionist will be on the outside shouting their protests against Kasich's attempt to take away collective bargaining from public employees and his making Ohio a "Right-to-Work" state as far as public employment is concerned.

Stark's unions are aiming for 1,000 to be on the outside.  Tuesday evening promises to be an interesting evening indeed in downtown Canton, Ohio!