NORTH CANTON BATTLE CONTINUES: FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF IT!

Whether one agrees with the legal positions of Jamie McCleaster and Hillary Mueller or not, they should be admired for pursuing vindication of their respective campaigns for North Canton City Council this past November.

They did lose on ethics violation complaints filed with the Ohio Elections Commission (LINK to prior SCPR blog) days before the November 5th general election.

For a full refresher on the gist of the Snyder and Kiesling complaints go to this SCPR blog LINK.

The two offending pieces (from the Kiesling and Snyder perspective of campaign literature  were these:

The two highlighted areas of the above-graphics zero in on the core of the Kiesling/Snyder complaints in terms of the allegation of their falsity.

McCleaster ran against Councilwoman at Large Marcia Kiesling and Mueller took on Ward 4 councilman and president of council Jon Snyder.

As if losing the ethics complaint were not enough, both McCleaster and Mueller lost in the election to their respective opponents.

While the Elections Commission decision was made by the commission on November 4th, the actual orders were not issued until December 19th.

Here is an extract of the order made in McCleaster's case:

On Monday, Warren Price ("Of Counsel":  Allen Schulman and Associates) filed on a pro bono (the SCPR is told) basis an appeal of both the McCleaster and Mueller decisions.

Focusing on once again on McCleaster (so far as the SCPR can determine, a identical filing was done in the Mueller case), here is a copy of the Notice of Appeal (Note:  Source of document is the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas website):

Interesting, no?

Here you have two Stark County citizens who having had the disappointment of losing elections but who are determined to be vindicated on their belief that they did nothing wrong in publishing the campaign literature that they did.

Here is McCleaster's full press release commenting on the filing:

Media Contact
Jamie McCleaster
+1 330 806 7381
Rmccleaster@aol.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

1/3/2014

FORMER CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE TO APPEAL OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION DECISION OVER CAMPAIGN LITERATURE

North Canton – Attorneys for North Canton resident and candidate for Council At-Large in last November’s election, Robert J “Jamie” McCleaster filed an appeal Friday in Columbus against the Ohio Elections Commission over a ruling in regards to McCleaster’s campaign literature. 

The week before the November 5, 2013 election, McCleaster’s opponent, North Canton City Council Vice President Marcia Kiesling filed two complaints with the Ohio Elections Commission. 

Her complaints were in regards to McCleaster listing Kiesling’s public meeting attendance rate of 72%, which was later found to be accurate by the Commission, and his wording used to describe ordinance 47-13 which granted raises for the city’s elected officials upon the start of the new term in December. The verbiage around the raises was deemed to be false, the appeal calls that decision into question.

When asked why he’s pursuing the appeal McCleaster said, “I still firmly believe that the words I chose for my campaign literature are accurate. I’m appealing this solely to right the wrong, and fight for what I believe is right!”

Robert J “Jamie” McCleaster is a lifelong (3rd generation) resident of North Canton, and a graduate of Hoover High School and The University of Akron. An engaged North Canton resident, Jamie has been active within the community for many years, serving on city committees and as the President/Board member of the North Canton Jaycees. Jamie lives on Pierce Ave with his wonderful wife Katie, their daughter Hailey, and son Jack. 

For more information, please visit www.facebook.com/mccleaster. 

While the Stark County Political Report does not take a position on the merits of the contest between Kiesling/McCleaster and Snyder/Mueller, the Report is impressed that McCleaster and Mueller believe so much in the rightness of their case that they are willing to forge ahead seeking vindication of their legal position.

Moreover, Warren Price ("Of Counsel, Allen Schulman and Associates [Schulman is Canton City Council president]) is to be commended for providing free legal representation.

One the confusing things about Price's work for McCleaster and Mueller in the original hearing is the effort (reportedly by Sndyer) to challenge Price's right to represent.  Sndyer, as the SCPR understands his position, is said to be saying that because Price had accepted employment (which turned out not to be the case) that a conflict in interest existed and that therefore Price should not be permitted by the Elections Commission to represent.

The SCPR lauds Price for pressing ahead and providing McCleaster and Mueller with their right to defend themselves in our democratic-republican system of government.

Of course, the SCPR, like no other Stark County media, will stay with this case so that Stark Countians can see it it progress - in all its detail - to the end.

BREAKING NEWS! NORTH CANTON ELECTION VIOLATION CASES UNDERWAY!

UPDATE:  3:27 PM

The SCPR's source tells me that the Ohio Elections Commission did find Hillary Mueller and Robert "Jamie" McCleaster to have violated Ohio election law as complained of by North Canton Councilman Jon Snyder (Ward 4) and Marcia Kiesling (at-large) with respect to "the pay raise issue."

However, this preliminary (unofficial) report is to the effect that neither Mueller nor McCleaster were fined nor is the Commission reported to have referred the complaints for prosecution.

UPDATE:  1:37 PM

The Report has learned that there is a "hitch" in proceeding with the hearings on the Snyder (Mueller) and Kiesling (McCleaster) complaints before the Ohio Election Commission.

The SCPR is being told by a third party source (i.e. NOT Snyder, Kiesling, Mueller or McCleaster) now confirmed by a second third party source that a question has arisen (at the suggestion of Jon Snyder) as to whether or not legal counsel retained by Mueller and McCleaster to represent them in their respective hearings (former Canton safety director, services director and chief-of-staff Warren Price) has a "conflict-in-interest" and therefore should not be permitted to represent Mueller and McCleaster in the proceedings before the Commission.

The Report is being told that North Canton offered Price the job of being its Water Treatment Plant director some weeks ago and that city officials are under the impression that Price is set to take the job.

The Report is further being told that Price is saying that he rejected the job two weeks ago and therefore is taking the position that there is no conflict.

Price works at the law firm of Allen Schulman & Associates and The Report is told that he is happy with his current employment status and has no intention of going anywhere.

The Report's understanding is the question of conflict-in-interest or not is to be decided by the entire panel of the Ohio Election Commission.

Should there be a finding of a conflict, it appears that the hearings may be put off until another day.

Of course, election day is tomorrow.

One of The Report's sources is saying that Snyder and Kiesling are not represented by legal counsel.

UPDATE:  1:12 PM

Hearings have been delayed from this morning until at least this afternoon.

The Report is further being told that Tim Fox (North Canton's law director) is saying that his presence is that of merely being an observer and that he is at the hearing on his own time.

ORIGINAL POST

The Stark County Political Report has just been informed that Jon Snyder (Ward 4 and council president) and Marcia Kiesling have appeared at the Ohio Elections Commission this morning for hearings on their complaints against opponents Hillary Mueller (Snyder's Ward 4 opponent) and Robert "Jamie" McCleaster (one of Kiesling's at-large opponents)

Snyder and Kiesling have alleged election law violations and last Thursday the Commission found "probable cause" to inquire further into both Snyder's and Kiesling's allegation that Mueller and McCleaster knowingly (or, alternatively, in "reckless disregard of the truthfulness)  made false statements that they had given themselves raises during their current term as council members.

It is a violation of Ohio and North Canton Charter law for such to happen.

The raises voted by council in July of this year do not begin until the "newly elected" council takes office on December 1, 2013.

However, both Mueller and McCleaster deny that such (current council members voting themselves an in-term pay raise) was the import of the complaint-targeted campaign literature statements.

Curiously, the SCPR has been told that North Canton Law Director Tim Fox is appears to be with Snyder and Kiesling.  However, The Report's source did not specifically know at the time of the contact exactly what Fox's role would be.

Here is a LINK to a prior SCPR blog on the controversy.

As reports come in from Columbus, the SCPR will, of course, pass them on to SCPR blog readers.

Check back for updates as they come into the SCPR.

NORTH CANTON'S POLITICAL FIGHT: SNYDER (INCUMBENT) & KIESLING (INCUMBENT) VERSUS MUELLER & McCLEASTER; ARE THE INCUMBENTS RUNNING SCARED?

The SCPR in today's graphic uses the expression "probable cause" in a political sense.

And The Report believes that it is unlikely that North Canton Ward 4 Republican councilman Jon Snyder (the current president of North Canton City Council) will be replaced by challenger Hillary Mueller.  Snyder has been a councilman for some 15 years.

The same SCPR analysis goes for Republican Councilwoman Marcia Kiesling (at-large).  She has been on council about 10-1/2 years.

However, smart politicians run scared or they may find themselves on the outside looking in.

It appears that Snyder and Kiesling have no intention of giving up their seats and they are doing their "political - due diligence" to prevent a surprise come Tuesday's election.

Recently, Snyder (October 25th) and Kiesling (also October 25th) sent complaints to the Ohio Election Commission (Commission) asking it to find that Mueller and McCleaster had violated Ohio Revised Code Section 3517.21, to wit:

3517.21 Infiltration of campaign - false statements in campaign materials - election of candidate.

(A) No person, during the course of any campaign for nomination or election to public office or office of a political party, shall knowingly and with intent to affect the outcome of such campaign do any of the following:  

... 

(10) Post, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement concerning a candidate, either knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, if the statement is designed to promote the election, nomination, or defeat of the candidate.  ... .

SNYDER'S COMPLAINT

The Mueller campaign piece that prompted Sndyer to file his complaint, to wit:

Mueller's campaign literature generated a two pronged Snyder complaint:

• One being that she knowingly and falsely or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of her statement said in campaign literature mailed to residents of North Canton's Ward 4  that North Canton generated a $700,000 deficit (in year 2013 of Snyder's two year December 1, 2011 through November 30, 2013) whereas Snyder says (in a statement to the SCPR) that the actual number when published after January 1, 2014 will show about a $350,000 surplus.
• On this aspect of the complaint the Ohio Election Commission (at a hearing conducted Thursday, October 31st in Columbus) found "no probable cause" on Candidate Mueller.
• A second one being that Mueller falsely (or according to the "reckless disregard standard") - if believed - indicated that Snyder had voted in favor of a raise in year that caused him and other council members to receive a raise in the current term year 2013 (prior to December 1, 2013; the beginning date of the 2014 - 2015 new council).  
• Such a raise, if it occurred, would be a violation of Ohio and North Canton charter law.  (Note:  such a raise, did not, in fact, occur).
• On this aspect of the complaint the Election Commission did find "probable cause" which means that the Commission will consider additional evidence and arguments in a hearing set for Monday morning in Columbus.

 KEISLING'S COMPLAINT

 

The McCleaster campaign piece that prompted Kiesling to file her complaint, to wit:

McCleaster's campaign literature generated a two pronged Kiesling complaint:

• One being that he knowingly and falsely or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of her statement said in campaign literature mailed to residents of North Canton's at-large voters that Kiesling had an council attendance rate of 72% whereas Kiesling says that the rate is actually 83%.
• On this aspect of the complaint the Ohio Election Commission (at a hearing conducted Thursday, October 31st in Columbus) found "no probable cause" on Candidate Mueller.
• A second one being that McCleaster falsely (or according to the "reckless disregard standard") - if believed - indicated that Kiesling had voted in favor of a raise in the current term year 2013 that caused her and other council members to receive a raise in year 2013 (prior to December 1, 2013; the beginning date of the 2014 - 2015 new council).  
• Such a raise, if it occured, would be a violation of Ohio and North Canton charter law.  (Note:  such a raise, did not, in fact, occur).
• On this aspect of the complaint the Election Commission did find "probable cause" which means that the Commission will consider additional evidence and arguments in a hearing set for Monday morning in Columbus.

WHO IS RIGHT & WHO IS WRONG?

In terms of a finding, of course, that is the job of the Ohio Election commission.

At the hearing on Thursday (October 31st) in Columbus, it is interesting that neither Snyder nor Kiesling showed up.

The Report is told that Snyder sent his wife Kathy Lewis and a CPA (certified public accountant) but that neither was allow to speak on behalf of Snyder inasmuch the Commission only allows the complainant or a complainant's attorney to argue on the complaints.

However, Mueller and McCleaster did appear and are said to have advocated their respective positions for about 10 minutes each.

As indicated above, the result was a finding of "probable cause" to go on to further hearing on the "pay raise issue."

The SCPR has spoken with all the parties:  Snyder and Mueller; Kiesling and McCleaster.

Only McCleaster has provided a written statement, to wit:

One of my opponents Marcia Kiesling levied two complaints against me in regards to my campaign mailer in a filing with the Ohio Elections Commission.  The first complaint was due to me listing Mrs. Kiesling’s public meeting attendance rate of 72%.  This information was verified and found to be accurate by the Ohio Elections Commission in a hearing in Columbus on Thursday October 31st.

Her second complaint involved ordinance 47-13, the ordinance council passed by emergency, that granted pay raises for the city’s elected officials.  It is important to note that NO violation has been established, and I fully intend to attend a hearing in Columbus on Monday morning as I firmly believe that I did nothing wrong, and that I told the truth.  The facts are, Marcia Kiesling is running for re-election and will most certainly take full advantage of the pay raise for elected officials, that she voted for, if she were to be re-elected.  That was all that I was trying to get across in my campaign mail piece, I was opposed to the raises when passed, and I’m opposed to them now.

I’m looking forward to returning to Columbus on Monday so I can get this issue behind me, and move on to what really matters, being present and available to the residents of North Canton in the final days of this election, and working on the issues that matter to them!

As is the SCPR's policy, should Snyder, Kiesling and Mueller elect to submit a written statement, The Report will print it in full.

My main recollection of my conversation with Jon Snyder is that he stands by his complaint and filed the complaint because he feels that false allegations need to be met head on.

Kiesling also stands by her complaint and was heartened by the finding of "probable cause" in light she says "that last year there were 24 complaints filed" with the Ohio Election Commission and "there were no 'probable cause' findings."

She refused to discuss the aspect of her complaint (her attendance factor) which the Commission refused to find "probable cause" on saying there was no point in doing so in light of the Commission not finding "probable cause."

Mueller says she did not make any representation in her campaign literature that Snyder or any other council member would receive "a mid-term" pay raise and that she made a "good faith" point on the basis of information she received from North Canton city government sources that the city would be running a $700,000 deficit for 2013.

To sum it up, Snyder and Kiesling are buoyed by the Commission finding of "probable cause" on "the pay raise issue" whereas Mueller and McCleaster are confident that in the end they will be exonerated of having committed a violation of Ohio election law.

THE POLITICAL EFFECT

While both Snyder and Kiesling appear to the SCPR to be quietly comfortable that they will be reelected.

And on the other side of the equation Mueller and McCleaster are of the hope of being elected.  However, both seem to understand that unseating incumbents like Snyder and Kiesling is not really what one expects.

It is interesting to the SCPR that Snyder and Kiesling elected to file the complaints.

Unfortunately, campaign literature - as a matter of course - is rife with questionable assertions that could be the subject of Election Commission consideration.

Some politicos believe that any publicity (even negative publicity) is good for them in that it gets them free publicity.

Canton's area newspaper is covering this story as is the Stark County Political (but, of course, in much more detail and with political "import" analysis included).

If one embraces the political adage "any publicity is good for a publicity) then perhaps Mueller and McCleaster will benefit come Tuesday's election.

For they are not nearly as well known as Snyder and Kiesling and so, if nothing else, voters in their respective voting districts will now have a better take on Hillary Mueller and Robert "Jamie" McCleaster.

And if they are found on Monday "not to have violated Ohio election laws" it will be "all the better" for them, no?

Could it be that come the results on election night that both Snyder and Kiesling "will be kicking themselves" for having provided Mueller and McCleaster with a springboard for an election majority?

The SCPR does not expect a Mueller and McCleaster election.

But it does seem that their chances are better "post-complaint" than had no complaint had been filed.

If either Snyder and/or Kiesling lose, that they filed the complaints at all is a credit to them for it does appear - whether or not one agrees with the positions or not - that they were operating on "the principle of the thing" in believing that they were wronged.