GIBBS' CAMPAIGN SAYS IT IS REPULSED BY CONTRIBUTOR MARSHALL B. BELDEN JR'S CONDUCT

REDIRECTS 
MARSHALL B. BELDEN, JR'S
GIBBS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION

TO

CHILD & ADOLESCENT HEALTH OF STARK COUNTY!

One never knows what one will discover when doing research for a political blog such as The Stark County Political Report (SCPR, The Report).

As regular readers of the SCPR know, this blogger goes over campaign finance reports with a "fine-tooth-comb" in order to be able to report to the Stark County public whom is contributing to candidates for state and federal office.

On October 15th, the latest Federal Election Commision reports were published.

And here is what The Report found on the matter of Stark Countians listed as contributing to Republican incumbent Bob Gibbs' 7th Congressional District campaign since January 1, 2017.

This blogger thought nothing of the list including Marshall B. Belden's appearance on Gibbs' contributor list except that compared to challenging Democrat Ken Harbaugh's listing, Gibbs' CFR is a "Who's Who" listing of some of Stark County's richest and powerful.

Because most of the Stark County Gibbs' contributors have considerable wealth, Gibbs outraised Harbaugh in Stark County though Harbaugh has outraised Gibbs' over the range of  the entire 7th District.

With the publication of the forgoing list, the SCPR received this e-mail:

Accused Kiddie Porn Watcher Donated to Gibbs

... @aol.com  Oct 17 at 12:34 AM

To:  tramols@att.net

On you list of contributors to Congressman Gibbs is Marshall B. Belden, Jr. who was arrested and is awaiting trial on allegations of viewing child pornography.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndoh/pr/marshall-belden-canton-indicted-child-pornography-charges

For the SCPR, the e-mail was an "Aha!" moment.

Connection made.

One of the reasons the SCPR is so well read by Stark Countians who want to know "the inside story" of Stark County government and politics, is that The Report is fearless in bringing to the light of day the transgressions of Stark County connected political/governmental personages no matter how powerful and no matter that a given person may be a highly "successful" person in terms of winning elections, in government power status and in personal wealth.

Other Stark County media outlets to appear to be very much "respecters of persons" and accordingly much goes on within the bowels of Stark County politics and government.

The Report is always grateful to citizens who step forward with information that the public ought to know in deciding whether or not to support this candidate or that candidate.

Though appreciated, the SCPR works very hard to confirm and verify all "tips" sent to this blogger before one word is written.  If a given tip does not stand up to scrutiny, it is quickly jettisoned.

And the Belden, Jr. matter is no exception on the thoroughness score.

Of course, among candidates' worst fear is that someone with Marshall B. Belden Jr's history will show up on the candidates' campaign finance report.

One might sympathize with campaigns have to deal with such vulnerabilities.

However, political campaign staffs at the congressional level have persons on payroll to detect the Belden, Jr. situations and not have to be made aware of same by the likes of the SCPR.

In this case, Marshall B. Belden, Jr. was indicted on March 1, 2017.

The date of the Marshall Belden, Jr contribution to the Gibbs' campaign?

About, as the SCPR can determine, August 30, 2017.

Well after the March 1, 2017 indictment.

Apparently, those who staff the Gibbs' campaign do not read The Canton Repository and thereafter vigilantly comb campaign contributions to ascertain whether or not to keep the contributions.

Soon Stark County philanthropist Marshall B. Belden, Jr.  (philanthropist, according to one Stark County elected official as Belden, Jr was described to the SCPR by that official) will be sentenced by U.S. District Court (Northern District of Ohio) Judge Donald C. Nugent will (if he accepts a plea bargain recommended by his magistrate).

As the SCPR calculates Belden Jr's age, he must be 70 years of age, more or less.

The Stark County elected official cited by the SCPR above observed that given his age the official thinks Belden, Jr's sentence will be such that he will never make it out of prison.

We shall see soon.  No sentencing date has been set but it appears that Judge Nugent will be coming to a conclusion on the fate of Marshall B. Belden, Jr within the very near future.

In writing this blog, this blogger waited in publishing this blog until an opportunity was provided to the Gibbs' campaign and the Harbaugh campaign to weigh-in on the matter.

To date, the Harbaugh campaign has not responded to a SCPR request for a comment.

But it was quite a different story for the Gibbs' Campaign, to wit:

The SCPR e-mail to the Gibbs' campaign.

(NOTE:  HERETOFORE THE GIBBS' CAMPAIGN HAS IGNORED THE SCPR'S QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS TO COVER WITH VIDEO CAMERA GIBBS' CAMPAIGN EVENTS WHICH THE SCPR TAKES AS HIGH DISRESPECT FOR THE EVEN HANDEDNESS OF THE SCPR BLOG.  NEVERTHELESS, THIS BLOGGER DID NOT JUST GO OFF "WILLY-NILLY" AND WRITE A BLOG.  READERS CAN BE SURE THAT THE REPORT WOULD HAVE, IF PERMITTED, PUT THE GIBBS THROUGH THE SCPR ACID TEST THAT THIS BLOG PUTS ALL CANDIDATES THROUGH.  IT APPEARS THAT THE GIBBS FOLKS DO NOT THINK THEIR CANDIDATE CAN HANDLE 'UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL" SCRUTINY OF THIS BLOGGER)

Campaign Finance Report showing Marshall Belden Jr as donor to Gibbs campaign

Martin Olson <tramols@att.net>  Today at 8:31 AM

To:  info@bobgibbsforcongress.com

Attn:  Gibbs for Congress Campaign Manager, Campaign  Finance Director and Candidate Gibbs

Recently received this e-mail from a citizen.

On you list of contributors to Congressman Gibbs is Marshall B. Belden, Jr. who was arrested and is awaiting trial on allegations of viewing child pornography.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndoh/pr/marshall-belden-canton-indicted-child-pornography-charges

See attachments  for verification of donation to Gibbs campaign on or about 08/30/2017 allegedly the same person as listed donor to Gibbs' FEC campaign finance report.

Question:  Has the Gibbs' campaign taken measures to identify whether or not the Marshall B. Belden, Jr. isted on the Gibbs' FEC campaign finance report is the same person as listed in the criminal indictment/recommended acceptance of guilty plea regarding Count 1 of the charges recited in United States Department of Justice communique of March 1, 2017 (LINK).

If the Gibbs' campaign has verified the allegation of Marshall B. Belden being one and the same person as contributed on or about 08/30/2017 to the Gibbs for Congress campaign, what if any steps has the campaign taken to return the donation or divert to a charitable cause to an organization dedicated to protecting children from persons indicted/pleading guilty to child pornography charges.

If verification has not been done, does the Gibbs' campaign plan to check into the aforementioned matter.?  If so, will the Gibbs campaign when will the checking take place? 

If verified, will the Gibbs' campaign be acting to return to Marshall B. Belden his donation to the campaign or redirecting to an organization as generally described above.

The SCPR will wait 24 hours for a Gibbs' campaign response.

If not forthcoming with said 24 hours, then the SCPR will take the silence as being a refusal to comment.

Of course, if the Gibbs' campaign neglects to respond prior to the 24 hour window, the SCPR nonetheless, plans to publish said response in full.

Thank you,

Martin Olson

Stark County Political Report

tramols@att.net

330 499 0465i

It was no time at all (a little over four hours) after the SCPR e-mail was sent for the heretofore pretty much inaccessible to the SCPR Gibbs' campaign to respond.

Jake Altman <jake@bobgibbsforcongress.com>  Today at 12:41 PM

To:  tramols@att.net

Mr. Olson,

Regarding your inquiry: obviously, the campaign was completely unaware of this individual’s disgusting criminal history. 
Thank you for bringing this abhorrent and inexcusable behavior to our attention. 

The campaign is making a donation to the Child & Adolescent Behavioral Health in Stark County. (emphasis added)

-Jake Altman

Gibbs for Congress

The relative quick Gibbs' campaign response is strong evidence that when campaigns think it is in the campaign's and the candidate's political interest in terms of continued viability, then, the likes of the SCPR can get a response.

Voters ought to note what it takes to get Bob Gibbs' and his campaign to respond.  He is not generally accessible to to the general public and even more so to the media especially the likes of the SCPR which is known for its incisive questioning.  Earlier this year, the SCPR was denied access to what was called a Town Hall meeting in Shelby, Ohio (some 80 miles from this blogger's home) though local media was allowed in and covered the event.

In contrast to Gibbs, his Democratic opponent Ken Harbaugh has been highly accessible.  However, to be fair, a couple of SCPR inquiries on sensitive topics have gone unresponded to.  One must never forget that a person running for office is a "politician"

The Report thinks well of Harbaugh's "Country Over Party" campaign theme but the "proof will be in the pudding" if he gets elected.  And, of course, the SCPR will be scrutinizing Ken Harbaugh in office to ascertain whether or not his work as a congressman matches the political rhetoric.

Last Friday, Harbaugh held an event outside the Stark County Office Building (the home of many if not most countywide agencies of government) but also the home of Gibbs' Canton office.

The video of the Harbaugh Friday event in front of Gibbs' office located at the Stark County Office Building:

It is interesting that it takes something like the "undetected" by the Gibbs campaign regarding Belden, Jr. to get the campaign to respond to SCRP'S inquiries over the course of the campaign. 

To repeat, the Belden, Jr matter changed that in a hurry!

If voters of the 7th Congressional District re-elect Bob Gibbs, then one would not want to hear:  "my congressman will not return my call, answer my letter, et cetera."

7th Congressional District voters now "are on notice" that Bob Gibbs seems contemptuous to all except to the well connected like those on his Stark County contributors' list as set forth above.

Only about 17%  of voters nationally approve of the way Congresspersons handle themselves.

And we in Stark County have a prime example in Bob Gibbs that he fits very neatly into 83% who merit a disapproval rating.

Bob Gibbs makes it abundantly clear to everyday folk and scrutinizing media that they can take a hike!

SCPR "BOTTOM 10 LIST" #4 - A RETURN TO NUMERICAL ORDER

i

Talk about an undeserved "positive" promotion on the SCPR "Bottom 10 List" (List) of Stark County Political Subdivision Elected Officials, that exactly how one ought to take Massillon clerk of courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. moving from #3 on the last update (August 28, 2015, LINK) to #4 this time around.

However, there is a logjam these days as several officials on the List appear to be scrambling to reach the top spot of #1 and thereby be known throughout the county as being Stark absolutely worst elected public official.

Maier, Jr., who The Report thinks is the political/power politician heir to Tammany Hall power broker Boss Tweed, Ohio House of Representatives arm twister Vern Riffe, Jr., could easily be #1 but for the supervening competition.

Up until his appearance at Massillon City Council on December 14, 2015 for the purpose justifying his clerk of courts budget, it was difficult to tie Maier's performance in as clerk of courts as being suspect in terms of quality.

Before the 14th, the SCPR tabbing of Maier, Jr. as one of Stark's worst elected officials was for The Report's belief that his being clerk of courts is a mere cover for his true vocation that being "the" premier Stark County Democratic Party power broker.

But with this, even his job performance is suspect, to wit:  (from the SCPR 12/15/2015 blog), to wit:

In one self-tribute, Maier, Jr. talks about benefiting Massillon taxpayers some $600,000 over 16 years and over $1M in another "how great I am" encomium.

Kind of like Canton soon-to-be ex-mayor William J. Healy, II blaming others (including former mayor Janet Creighton and the Ohio General Assembly) for Canton's financial difficulties going back 4, 5, 8 years and even decades  (e.g. prior Republican mayors) in casting the blame of his failures on others.

If The Report had the time and resources, the over-the-top self-laudation is a red flag that one ought to be looking deep into his management of the clerk of courts office.

As folks like Maier, Jr. are wont to do, their rhetorical excesses (a la Donald Trump?) prompt the discerning into wanting to check "what is behind the curtain."

So Maier, Jr. should not take much cheer that he actually moved a notch away because of "the logjam factor" from being Stark County's absolute worst Stark County elected official.

For The Report thinks he has done a whole lot of damage to the political infrastructure of Massillon and across Stark County from his perch of being the elected clerk of courts of Massillon.

GEORGE T. MAIER & FRIENDS MIGHT BE "ON THE HOT SEAT" SOON?

Apparently, as a Christmas present, local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conlely representing Stark County citizen and taxpayer Thomas Marcelli, wanted to send contested Stark County sheriff George T. Maier's attorney (Thomas Rosenberg) a message.

Really?

Indeed!

What message?

First, a holiday greeting.

Starting out with the last line of the the Conley to Rosenberg letter:

P.S.  I offer you and yours my best wishes for the holidays.

Folks, that inclusion in the Conley December 24th letter to Rosenberg just goes to show what a decent fellow Conley is.

Not holding it against Roetzel & Andress attorney Rosenberg for launching an ad hominem against him in Rosenberg's motion to dismiss Marcell's taxpayer original lawsuit against Maier, he issues a "best wishes for the holidays."

How about that!

Truly impressive, no?

Second (for purposes of the structure of this blog), but obviously of the first order of import as far as Conley and Marcelli are concerned, is a tempering of the ending best wishes, to wit:

RE: State ex rel. Marcelli v. Maier, Stark County Court of Common Pleas Court Case No. 2013 CA 03075

Under the presumption that a second quo warranto action will shortly be filed seeking the ouster of Mr. Maier a second time, I wanted to provide you the professional courtesy of advance notice that, should that second action, (as I reasonably presume will be the case) again result in Mr. Maier’s ouster, my client will promptly thereafter file a second taxpayer lawsuit seeking the same type of refunds from Mr. Maier of public funds he is now seeking in the instant action.

A second taxpayers' lawsuit?

Interesting.

Conley tells the SCPR that he has received numerous telephone calls from people he deems to be Maier emissaries putting pressure on him to counsel his client (Marcelli) to drop the taxpayer lawsuit against Maier.

Awfully naive for the Maier supporters to think they can pressure Conley (Marcelli) to back off, no?

Perhaps, the December 24th "faxed" letter (to ensure that it was received before December 25th, undoubtedly) was sort of a response to both the Rosenberg "motion to dismiss" personal attack and the emissary pressure being applied?

However one takes the missive, it is clear to the SCPR that it is a blunt salvo putting Rosenberg's client on notice that (assuming Conley gets beyond the motion to dismiss, which The Report thinks he will) George T. Maier and his political boosters within the hierarchy of the Stark/Ohio Democratic Parties (local and state) they have some accounting to do on their "in-house"  and "inter-personal" discussions as to whether or not they coordinated efforts to make George Stark County sheriff, to wit:

That matter aside, in the meantime, I request you promptly provide me several available deposition dates in February, 2014 for Mr. Maier’s deposition, which I presently presume, depending in large part upon his level of cooperation in providing responsive answers to my inquires, will take a full day, if not longer.  (emphasis added)

Look at the Conley's list: (bulleted by the SCPR for clarity sake)

Along those same lines, it is my present intention to also depose, inter alia,

• Judge Edward Elum, 
• Stark County Democratic Chairman Randy Gonzalez, 
• Ohio Democratic Party [ODP] Secretary William DeMora, 
• Prosecuting Attorney John Ferrero, 
• Harrison County Sheriff Ronald J. Myers, 
• Lt./Deputy Sheriff Louis Darrow, 
• Sheriff Timothy Swanson, 
• and some or all of 
• the several attorneys who had represented and/or are still representing Mr. Maier before the Ohio Supreme Court
• and/or had, prior to the November 6, 2013 issuance of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4767, otherwise (incorrectly) opined as to Mr. Maier’s statutory qualifications, 
• [SCPR NOTE:  Meaning, perhaps, Steve Okey, Michael Thompson, Allen Schulman and Warren Price]
• as well as Sheriff Swanson’s counsel, Attorneys Gregory A. Beck and James F. Matthews.

Wow!!!

The Report presumes that Conley inadvertently omitted Maier brother and former Stark County Democratic Party Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (currently, executive vice chairman of the Stark Dems).

Maybe he should consider deposing the Stark Dems' political director R. Shane Jackson (who is Johnnie's chief deputy clerk of courts in Massillon city government).

Readers of The Report will recall Jackson's caustic email to the SCPR of September 18, 2013 decrying The Report's suspicion that the very top echelon local Democratic Party leadership had known for some time before his resignation on January 4, 2013 that Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (November, 2013) would be unable to take office as scheduled on January 7th because of an illness - which regrettably and tragically - eventually cost McDonald his life (February 22, 2013).

Conley's proposal to depose the likes of Gonzalez, DeMora and, hopefully, from the SCPR's perspective, Johnnie, Jr. and R. Shane, could prove to be of the utmost interest to Stark Countians who want the "political curtain" to be pulled back and the conjectured machinations, perhaps, to be revealed as having been "the real deal."

The Report believes that the Jackson e-mail was a "stark" (no pun intended) political calculation hatched up by Johnnie and Shane to put the SCPR on the defensive with an added quest to drive this blogger off pursuing getting forthright answers as to when George T. Maier and "his innermost political circle" first understood that McDonald would not be able to take office and consequently initiated laying the political groundwork to give George the edge in the political competition as to whom would become sheriff to succeed McDonald.

It is one thing to issue "not-under-oath" denials, but will they stand the test of being "put-under-oath?"

For as the SCPR sees it, a key component of the Marcelli lawsuit is whether or not George T. Maier acted in "bad faith" in accepting the first Stark County Democratic Party appointment (February 5, 2013) and therefore is legally vulnerable to having to return some $130,000 of Stark County taxpayer money, combined received (salary/benefits) and spent (re-branding), by George.

Digging into George T. Maier, Eddie Elum, Randy Gonzalez, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr, R. Shane Jackson, William DeMora and Harrison County sheriff Ronald J. Maier conversations might shed floodlights of "under oath" testimony that may be revelatory of who knew what, when and the effect of such knowledge/information on George Maier's decision to apply for the appointment to succeed McDonald and the timing thereof.

Readers will recall that initially George Maier was guaranteeing that if he applied for the appointment, he would be qualified.

The essence of the question raised by the  Marcelli lawsuit - in everyday language - given the the Swanson v. Maier Ohio Supreme Court decision of ouster coupled with what information may be forthcoming from the above-reference depositions; is whether or not there has been a "breach of warranty" and that therefore Stark County taxpayers are entitled "as a matter of law" to be reimbursed?

The SCPR believes that the Maier forces will fight "tooth and nail" not to be put under Conley's incisive questioning.

Don't be surprised if Maier agrees to a settlement with Marcelli (acting on behalf of Stark County's taxpayers) in order to avoid his and his political allies being put on the "hot-seat" (i.e. put under oath) and having to answer the tough, dogged and "no stone unturned" questions of one Craig T. Conley.

On the other hand, it was a brazen move on the part of the Maier political cabal to think they could bulldoze through the likes of Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero and interim Sheriff Tim Swanson unchallenged.

The latter could indicate that the political bullying will continue and more audacity and arrogance is in the offing?

SWANSON/MAIER POLITICAL WAR TO COST DEMS SHERIFF SEAT?

SUBTOPIC OF BLOG

HAS

SWANSON

MISSED SOMETHING 
IN HIS

HOUSE CLEANING 
OF

"ALL THINGS MAIER?"

On the surface, Sheriff Tim Swanson and "pretender" sheriff George T. Maier are the main players.

But in the background, Stark County prosecutor (and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman [1996 - 2003) John Ferrero and executive vice chairman of the Stark Dems (former chairman 2003 - 2009) Johnnie A. Maier, Jr are the political forces fueling the huge and "take no prisoners" fight going on within the party.

And the Stark County Political Report is beginning to believe that the Dems internal bloodbath may result in two-time Republican sheriff candidate (2008 and 2012) Larry Dordea slipping in the "political" back door and becoming the first Republican sheriff in Stark County since the politically disastrous and turbulent reign (to the Stark GOP) of Robert Berens (the sheriff who is said to wear a bandolier [see picture below]) 1981 through 1984.

On election day this year, the Ohio Supreme Court did what The Report predicted it would do and validated Swanson's quo warranto lawsuit against Maier (filed February 12, 2013) in ousting Maier from the sheriff's office, saying that he was never the legal sheriff of Stark County because he did not meet the legal qualifications spelled by Ohio statutes in order for him to be entitled to remain in office as appointed by the Stark Dems by a 92 to 84 vote (over Lou Darrow, a current Stark County - rank "lieutenant" - deputy sheriff) on February 5th).

The high court's decision settled - "for the time being" - the Swanson/Maier fight began "in earnest" on the 5th.

But only for "the time being."

Swanson rushed back from his retirement home in Florida to re-assume command of the sheriff's office.

Immediately, he began "to clean house of all vestiges 'Maier'" and restore the longtime Swanson rule at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

But the SCPR did find one Maier reference that Swanson has not erased.

Really?

What is that?

On the page on the sheriff's website which lists Stark County sheriffs who have served since 1800, Maier's name remains.

Hmm?

The question is:  Will the Maier name still be there after Sheriff Swanson reads this blog?

After all Sheriff Tim, the Ohio Supreme Court has said that Maier was never the legal sheriff of Stark County!

The SCPR is willing to bet that because the page is buried deep in the bowels of the website, Maier's name remaining is a Swanson oversight.

Because Maier and his political allies (Chairman Randy "Gonz" Gonazlez and Maier, Jr) in command at Stark Democratic headquarters out on 12th Street in Canton have "laid down the gauntlet" in Gonzalez publicly saying that he is in full support of George T. Maier's declaration that he would seek a "second" Stark Dems appointment to the sheriff's office, there has been - what the SCPR believes to be a "political saber rattling" - in the form of Swanson suggesting to Canton's local daily newspaper that he is having Ferrero (his "political ally of the moment") look into whether or not George Maier committed a crime for (reportedly in Swanson's words) "deceiving residents and for falsely representing himself [to Stark Countians] as [being] a qualified candidate for the office."

It appears that George Maier's "guarantee" of being qualified is being taken to heart by Swanson.

Moreover, he will be using the foolhardy statement to fan the fires among Stark's organized Democrats to ensure that any new appointment goes to his sidekick Darrow.  

The SCPR is skeptical that Maier will - in the end - be in play for re-appointment.

But he likely will run in the May, 2014 Democratic primary.

Who doubts the likelihood that the primary will be a continuing "knock down, drag out" battle between the Fererro/Swanson versus Maier/Maier/Gonzalez forces?

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the Swanson allegation/suggestion/inquiry? has about as much chance of finding a lasting home in "the land of prosecutorial discretion" as does the proverbial chances of "a snowball in Hell."

For starters there is no way that Ferrero can (though he may have motivation) make a finding to prosecute George T. Maier because of his obvious "conflict-in-interest" status in that he back on February 5th issued an affidavit saying that Maier was in his opinion unqualified.

And the SCPR refuses to believe that a stand-in, "no-dog in this fight" prosecutor is going to give Swanson's allegation "the time of day."

The import of the Swanson "war of words" is that they amount to "a [political] battle cry" to the anit-Maier-forces among Stark Dems that seemingly threatens the Stark Dems with disintegration in the short run.

But not short enough to - perhaps - prevent the Republicans from taking electoral control next November of 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

The SCPR believes that the main reason Stark County has a Republican county treasurer (Zumbar - actually appointed to office under the chairmanship of "Gonz" under stifling civic and political pressure) and auditor (Harold) is that Gary D. Zeigler's (Zumbar's predecessor) went to war with the Stark Dems when they put extreme pressure on him to resign from office early on when the Vince Frustaci "theft-in-office" scandal broke on April 1, 2009.

Zeigler (who has never been implicated in the theft) has always maintained that he did nothing wrong and therefore there was no reason for him to resign as Stark County treasurer.

It is likely that many countywide, officeholding Democrats agreed with Zeigler including, perhaps, Chairman Gonzalez.

Gonazlez was later to say that presiding over (even advocating for [ironically, {in light of the current Swanson/Maier fight} aided by Mike McDonald] Republican Zumbar's appointment was the hardest political thing he has ever done.

Rank and file Democrats were not taking to the prospect of Republican Zumbar's appointment.  McDonald (whose resignation - as sheriff-elect from the election in November, 2013 precipitated the current Dems fight) stepped up on October 31, 2011 and made an emotional plea to assembled Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee members to support Chairman Gonzalez.

It could be that the McDonald's rush to the rescue saved Gonzalez's "political bacon," at least for that day.

However painful it was for Chairman Gonzalez, looking back he had to be lamenting the political reality was that the  Zeigler perspective was not the public perception and also square up with the knowledge that Zeigler's doggedness has cost the Dems dearly and for the foreseeable future.

When the state of Ohio auditor came out with a report after the Frustaci revelation that Zeigler's "protect the taxpayer's money" administrative policies, procedures, practices and facility infrastructure were not what prudence would dictate, it should have been clear to Zeigler that his position - even if true - was not politically sustainable.

If the Democrats were going to have any chance going forward to maintain the longtime Democratic control of the Stark treasury, Zeigler was going to have to step aside and do it yesterday.

But Zeigler had worked tirelessly in the Stark Democratic Party vineyards having run in countless "unsuccessful" campaigns (by the SCPR's calculation about nine times) and consequently he was not about to lose the prize having been appointed himself by the Stark Dems in year 1999 as treasurer without a mammoth fight.

In 1999,  Mark Roach - son of former longtime Democratic Stark County treasurer Harold Roach) fell onto hard times and was forced to resigned.

Zeigler won election in 2000 surprisingly easily over current Republican Stark County commissioner Richard Regula (son of longtime 16th District congressman Ralph Regula).

He won again "in a walk" in 2004.

By 2008, he was running unopposed.

But a mere 15 months later, April 1, 2009, the political sky fell in.

And he was in the fight of his political life.

And fight he did!

Until October 19, 2011.

After many twists and turns it "finally" dawned on Zeigler that there was no way had he stayed on after the Ohio Supreme Court had ruled that he had been unconstitutionally removed fm office by the-then Stark County commissioners Todd Bosley, Steve Meeks and Pete Ferguson (all Democrats) that he was going to be re-elected in the general election of 2012 if he could get through a Democratic primary unchallenged.

Being the relatively young man he is, it appears to the SCPR that Republican Alex Zumbar, given a general perception that he may be Stark County's most non-political politician who is doing an excellent job as treasurer, will be Stark County treasurer for many, many years to come.

And the same thing may be the order of the day for Republican and Stark County auditor Alan Harold.

His predecessor, Democrat Kim Perez, was unfairly, in Perez's view, politically tainted and tarnished in having been a close political ally of Zeigler's (a main point of the Harold's 2010 general election campaign) over many years and a consequence, lost to Harold.

The lesson?

Those internal political party fights can have lasting and enduring consequences in electoral politics.

The question?

Are the Democrats on a "political suicide 'on the plank' march to political oblivion" in the Swanson/Ferrero versus Maier (George)/Maier (Johnnie)/Gonzalez apparent "fight to the finish?"

Consequently, could Stark Countians wake up to "Good morning, Stark County, it is January 1, 2014 and Republican Larry Dordea today takes the oath of office as Stark County's newly elected sheriff?"

Stay tuned!

CAN MASSILLON MAYOR CATZARO-PERRY SOLVE MASSILLON'S FINANCIAL CRISIS BY: MAY 5, 2015?; NOVEMBER 3, 2015?

As written before, the Stark County Political Report believes that the "fiscal emergency" currently underway in Massillon (since official State of Ohio Auditor [SOA] designation on October 8th) was politically inspired by Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry on the advice of her "Kitchen Cabinet" as "her best shot" at being reelected come the Democratic primary of May, 2015 and the general election in November, 2015.

As mayor-elect (December, 2011) she was writing Ohio auditor David Yost asking that an audit be done to determine whether or not Massillon was in a fiscal crisis.

Her basis was the long-term debt of Massillon. 

This is a theme she hammered away at from her position as Ward 3 councilwoman as she lashed out at predecessor Frank Cicchinelli's administration in her ginning up a political basis to run against him in the Democratic Party primary in May, 2011.

It is strange indeed that she and her close advisors seemingly ignore that the loss of local government funds and other revenues has had on year-to-year fiscal operations in Massillon.

While the 24-year mayor Cicchinelli will not concede that the Catazaro-Perry/Maier political stratagem worked saying that it was the failure of his supporters to get to the polls in thinking that his "fixture status" would carry him on to victory, the SCPR thinks there is every reason to believe that constant attacks on him by Catazaro-Perry and by likes of Maier and his chief deputy and Stark County Democratic Party political director Shane Jackson (who The Report believes writes a political blog which shamelessly obsesses on Cicchinelli) may well have been the difference.

Yost, in making his determination, rested his finding of "fiscal-emergency" on the short-term or fiscal year deficit that Massillon is running which is somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.6 million.  Not the the long-term stuff that Catazaro-Perry and her supporters keep talking about as being the reason for Massillon's financial difficulties.

Of the $2.6 million, only (not to minimize the "unwisdom" of running deficits of any kind) $654,088 (the 1/6th threshold figure on the total deficit) separated Massillon from a SOA finding that "Massillon is not in 'fiscal crisis' at this time.

Such was the cursory finding back in December, 2011 when the mayor made what the SCPR believes to be her first political move to embarrass the once robust and proud city.

The mayor, from the time she took office until she wrote a second letter to Yost (May 13, 2013), had ample opportunity to work something out with Massillon City Council to shore up "Deficit Fund Balances."

But in a "my way or the highway" mentality, apparently adopted from her chief advisor Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. (former Stark County Democratic Party chairman and current Massillon clerk of courts), she chose to "butt heads" with council rather than seeking common ground.

So now the state of Ohio will be putting together a seven member commission (Commission) to deal with creating a "unique to Massillon - common ground" solution.

For Massillon city council will be part of the mix as to what that solution will look like even though only the president of council will be an ex-officio member of the Commission.

The first question seems to be:  How long will Massillon remain in "fiscal emergency?"

The SCPR believes that the mayor from her perch from within the Commission as an ex-officio member and in her official dealings with council has to have a personal political goal of having everything in place, hopefully, by the Democratic Primary slated for May 5, 2015 and certainly by the general election set for November 3, 2015.

A good piece of advice that Massillon officials are getting comes from Mansfield, Ohio officials (Mansfield, [August, 2012 fiscal emergency finding] like Massillon faces 'fiscal emergency;' Steven Grazier, The Independent, October 18, 2013), to wit:

Messer [Mansfield's special projects coordinator] said Massillon should not worry too much about “fiscal emergency,” but instead embrace the assistance from the state and welcome its financial advice.

Good advice, indeed!

It could be that if the total Massillon Commission will impress upon the mayor and her supporters within the Commission  that the Commission should take a new look at getting on board "wholeheartedly" with council's May, 2013 losing initiative on a .3% income tax increase that Massillon's fiscal emergency status could be short-lived.

Massillon has not had a tax increase since 1978 except for a 1995 .3% income tax for parks and recreation increase.

Numerous sitting councilpersons tell the SCPR that the failure of the mayor and her administration to get squarely behind the May, 2013 effort was the reason it did not pass.

For surely the passage of such a measure would satisfy the apparent criterion (like Mansfield) that Massillon faces to satisfy state officials and end the emergency, to wit:

To be removed from “fiscal emergency,” Mansfield must show the state a five-year financial plan in which revenues balance with expenditures, Messer said. He said a presentation to do so could come as soon as the first quarter of 2014.

But the question in the SCPR's thinking on the recovery timeline is whether or not the mayor wants a quick solution.

Being connected and beholden to whom The Report believes are some of Stark County's most politically consumed persons in the entire county, it is hard to see that Catazaro-Perry looks at recovery in any what than on a political timetable basis.

So the SCPR sees a Catazaro-Perry (on the advice of her "political" Kitchen Cabinet) effort to push for a solution which will more or less coincide with her reelection in 2015.

She may face a challenge from Cicchinelli in the Democratic primary.  If not, some Massillonians think Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero will find her a worthy opponent.

Should she fend off a challenge from the Dems, she could face a stiff Republican challenge in November.

If he shows well in the upcoming race to retain is Ward 6 seat, Ed Lewis IV could be the Republican standard bearer  no matter who the Democrats nominate.

For some folks, politics is the "be all" and "end all."

Such seems to be the end game (i.e. all eyes on 2015) of Catazaro-Perry and friends.

(VIDEOS) IT AIN'T EVEN THE 4TH OF JULY AND THE FIREWORKS ARE GOING OFF AT MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL!

CORRECTION:  The second Massillon BOE appointee is Moe Rickett and not Ester Bryant as originally reported.

VIDEOS

LAW DIRECTOR PERRY STERGIOS

AND

COUNCIL

ON

HIS OPINION ON PARKS & RECREATION

THE RELATIVELY CALM PART

OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE

PARKS & RECREATION ISSUE

PARKS & RECREATION MEMBER

JOHN WOLF'S

SOLUTION TO THE

PARKS & RECREATION ISSUE

(GETS INTO IT WITH COUNCILMAN PETERS)

COUNCILMAN LARRY SLAGLE

ON

HIS PLANS

TO RESOLVE

THE PARKS & RECREATION ISSUE

SAFETY DIRECTOR JIM JOHNSON

&

MAYOR KATHY CATAZARO-PERRY

TAKE ON COUNCIL ON THE

STREET LIGHTING ISSUE

COUNCILMAN PAUL MANSON WEIGHS-IN

COUNCILMAN ED LEWIS WEIGHS-IN

All the ingredients were in place for fireworks at Massillon City Council's work session last evening.

Indeed, a few of fireworks banged loud in a spectacular display of political combustion involving:

• Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry, 
• interim safety director Jim Johnson,
• Law Director Perry Stergios,
• Councilman Paul Manson (D - at large), 
• Councilman Milan Chovan (R - at large), 
• Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr (R - Ward 5), and 
• Ed Lewis, IV (R - Ward 6) as well as
• Parks and Recreation board member John Wolf 

But it took more than the mix of these persons to set things off.

Okay.  Exactly what is the "more than?"

Add in two issues:

• What to do about the Parks and Recreation issue of appointing a new director, and
• Who is to blame for Massillon over paying by perhaps as much as $100,000 plus (when early termination fees are included) for street lighting expenses.

THE PARKS AND RECREATION ISSUE

The explosiveness of the meeting all started with (after Parks and Recreation Committee chairman Larry Slagle opened the topic what to do about the Parks and Recreation Board) Director Stergios.   Check out this video of Councilman Ed Lewis asking for Stergios for his imput:

Chairman Slagle went on to conduct a discussion of what to do about the seemingly forever controversy in terms of what authority the Parks and Recreation Board (Board) has with respect to:

• controlling its finances (which with an 0.3% income tax levy [1995] and fees takes in about $4 million annually, and 
• determining who is to be the Board's director

The SCPR was very impressed with how Slagle kept the discussion on track amidst the outbursts.

It appeared that Slagle's mission was simple.  He was intent on gathering information from council members as to their feelings about the aforementioned primary issues and the lingering issue of what to do with the golf course aspect of Board operations.   After the meeting, The Report spoke with Slagle as to what is next.

Most of the meeting discussion on Parks and Recreation went smoothly, witness this video:

That is until Parks and Recreation Board member John Wolf (one of two member appointed by the Massillon Board of Education [the other being Moe Rickett]) was invited to speak by Chairman Slagle.

With Wolf came a second round of pre-4th-of-July fireworks.

First, he compared the 30 or so minute council discussion  on Parks and Recreation to the Battle of Gettysburg (which, by the way, yours truly is a native of Gettysburg and the Battle of Gettysburg marks the 150 anniversary of "the turning point in the civil war" 1863 conflict next week).

Second, he announced to council that Parks and Recreation Board is to meet on July 12th and that he was confident that the Board would cobble together its idea(s) of what's its authority should be and that he would present it council soon thereafter.

Wolf's plea with council to be patient with the Board while it came up with a resolution expressing its desires set off Donnie Peters, Jr (Ward 5.).  Here is the video.

At the end of the day, it appears to the SCPR that Chairman Slagle has the matter of Parks and Recreation in hand and will be the catalyst in solving this long simmering Massillon department of government problem.

Here is Slagle post-meeting sharing how he plans to approach resolving the Parks and Recreation problem:

THE STREET LIGHTING ISSUE

Ward 1 Councilwoman Sarita Cunningham-Hedderly heads up council's public utilities committee.

She has been waiting until Ohio Edison area manager Ray Martinez could make it to a work session to get into an issue that has been bugging council for a couple months now.

It came to light in April, that Massillon was paying about $15,000 more a month in street lighting rates since former Safety Director George T. Maier (now serving as the "appointed" sheriff of Stark pending the outcome of Ohio Supreme Court litigation as to his qualifications to hold office) negotiated a deal in September, 2012 (effective in October) with American Electric Power (AEP) to  what he thought at the time (according to administration officials) was a good deal for Massillon and would result in substantial savings to the city over the two year life of the contract.

But he thought wrong.

How's that?

It appears to the SCPR that on the surface of the consideration,  Massillon was getting a better deal from AEP than it was from Ohio Edison (OE).

However, because of the rules of Ohio's Public Utility Commissions (PUCO) on rates (called tariffs by the PUCO) that allowed OE to issue credits to Massillon, the fact of the matter turned out to be that existing OE contract, notwithstanding the seeming better AEP rate, was much the better deal for Massillon on street lighting.

What came out of council's discussion last night was that Maier failed to get back to OE's Martinez and let him know that Massillon was thinking about switching to AEP and that the failure is the core reason why Massillon got nailed for about $15,000 a month more in street lighting costs (January through May).

To add insult to injury, when the lights came on (no pun intended) with Maier replacement and interim Safety Director Jim Johnson in April (in consultation with Martinez) that Massilon had made a costly mistake in negotiating the switch to AEP, it was only some splendid work by Martinez that got Massilon back on track with OE.

In other words, the Catazaro-Perry administration looked like a bunch of fumblers and bumblers.

And there was nothing Martinez could do to make that embarrassment to vanity part of the administration's problem go away.

What came to light at last night's meeting (likely the first that council knew about it) is that in addition to paying AEP a higher rate for street lighting, Massillon had to pay OE/First Energy Solutions (FES) a termination fee of $150 for what one source tells the SCPR is some 100 or so Massillon accounts held by OE/FES or combination thereof.

It appears, but nobody seemed to know for sure, that AEP must have waived a $16,000 early termination fee when Massilon switched back to Ohio Edison for street lighting.

Somebody had to eat "humble pie" to pull that one off, no?

"Nobody seemed to know" (from the administration standpoint) was at the heart of the matter of the resulting fireworks-esque discussions that took place between Mayor Catazaro-Perry, Safety Director Johnson from the administration side, and Massillon council  led by Councilpersons Manson, Chovan and Lewis.

A note:   Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr. took the tack that the matter is over and done with and the council persistent questioning was unavailing.

The SCPR sees the street lighting brouhaha as a proxy for the overall issue between the administration and many if not most of council that the adminstrators and councilpersons do not trust each other.

The video (on the street lighting discussion) at the end of this blog amply demonstrates the deep, deep distrust that exists between the administration and council.

It is hard to see how Massillon gets it fiscal affairs straightened out in such a climate.

The key problem, as The Report sees it, is that the tone of the administration (not communicating with council) comes from the clerk of courts office and Clerk Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. and his chief deputy Shane Jackson.

He and his sidekick (as well as other Massillon officialdom adherents to the Maier power model) seem hellbent on beating down any opposition to their plan and vision for Massillon.

Unless and until Mayor Catazaro-Perry separates from the Maier political machine, she is destined to be a one-term-mayor and will likely be remembered as a monumental failure as the city's chief executive after the 24 reign of Frank Cichinelli as mayor.

While Cicchinelli may have brought troubles onto himself which provided the Maier forces an opportunity to pounce on him, his 24 years had to have been - by and large - a very good time for Massillon.

Those days are long gone as Massillon now faces the prospect of being placed in fiscal watch or emergency ironically at the initiative of Mayor Catazaro-Perry herself.

At one time in her political career, yours truly thought she had a very bright future.

But that all vanished when she threw in "lock, stock and barrel" as the political appendage to the former Stark County Democratic Party chairman.

In doing so, she has lost her individual political identity and is largely seen as the window dressing of a de facto Maier administration.

Here is the full video of the street lighting fiasco discussion including sharp exchanges between Safety Director Johnson and the mayor with council members:

Weighing in on the night's fireworks were Councilman Manson:



and

Councilman Lewis: