PART "TWO" OF A "TWO" PART SERIES: A CASE AND OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT THAT MAKES THE CASE FOR STARK COUNTY PROBATE COURT JUDGE DIXIE PARK TO RESIGN?

In yesterday's blog, The Stark County Political Report focused on the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeals on August 18, 2014 that Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Dixilene Park had abused her authority and thereby had denied a Stark Countian "due process of law" in placing her in jail for 11 days in October, 2013 (In re: Finan).

A number of Stark Countians think that Judge Park's legal transgression was of such an order that the right thing for Judge Park to do would be to resign from the bench.

The SCPR has yet to talk with the attorney for subject of Judge Park's illegal action as to the effect on his client Barbara Lockhart.  However, a highly reliable third party tells The Report that Attorney Jakmides is reporting that Lockhart has suffered great trama in being jailed.

This incident is a reminder that, in the American system of justice judges (as in most), are very powerful public officials whom are largely unaccountable for the official acts.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals (Judges Scott Gwin, writer of the In re: Finan opinion, and concurring judges William B. Hoffman and John W. Wise) should be honored by Stark Countians for reversing Judge Park and thereby reiterating that "the rule of law" is to prevail in Stark County courts.

The SCPR understands that a number of attorneys who practice in Judge Park's court think she is infected with an arbitrary and capricious "legal" virus and has favorites.

But like most of us, when it comes to dealing with powerful persons in our government; they, by and large, will not come out into the sunshine and confront the powerful persons who abuse their official authority.

However, Stark County is blessed to have one - local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley - who has, with other powerful Stark County officials, and is, in the Park situation, standing in the sunlight with his allegations.

Of course, if Judge Park wants to respond to Mr. Conley's charges; she is welcome to go on camera with the Stark County Political Report with her response.

Somehow, the SCPR, does not think that is going to happen.

Of course, there would be no "off limits" questions.

But the offer stands.

Some might want to take Conley's stance as being disrespectful .  The SCPR does not. And the reason The Report does not is that it appears that Conley's coming forward is because of his devotion to "the rule of law" even if it means he has to suffer retaliation for doing so.

When he took on Judge Frank Forchione of he Stark County Court of Common Pleas for redirecting $5,000 of Stark County taxpayer money to benefit the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in ascribing "political grandstanding" as seemingly being Forchione's motivation, he had to suffer of indignity of having a ethics complaint filed against him by an "anonymous" complainant.

State of Ohio disciplinary officials did the right thing in finding that Conley had not violated Ohio's canons of ethics.

In the SCPR's way of thinking, the Conleys of the world strengthen our democratic/republican ways of life and are not a detriment as the powerful subjects of their scrutiny want the public to believe.

Before getting to a letter sent to the SCPR by Conley, let's review how Judge Park got to where she is now.

As Stark Countians who read the SCPR know, one of the least favorite ways in the estimate of The Report one becomes a judge in Ohio is for a judgeship to become vacated for one reason or another.

Upon the creation of a vacancy, under the law of Ohio, the vacancy is filled by the-then sitting governor.

And structurally this process is just fine.

However, the structure gets impaired by the introduction of Republican/Democratic Party benefited politics into the structural process.

Not to get into a detailed description of this - in the view of the SCPR - potential corrupting of our judicial processes aspect of the appointment procedure - the process almost universally ends up with the appointment of a person of the same political identity as the appointing governor.

Merit, the SCPR thinks, is secondary at best. Politics appears to be the guiding principle.

That both political parties do it, is no answer.

All that means that Democratic/Republican political party officials are all too willing to put political party interests ahead of the public interest of seeking out the very best Solomons to administer justice.

And make no mistake about it, some first-rate people become judges under seeming political party controlled way of making judicial appointments.

One of the SCPR's ideal judges (now retired) Charles E. Brown, Jr of Alliance was appointed by Governor Taft.  Brown was a no-nonsense judge with a heart and, more importantly, a disciple of the "rule of law."

One of the highlights of his career was his administration of a convicts re-entry in a wholesome and integrated fashion back into society once "they had paid their debt to society."

Another of Governor Taft's appointees was Dixilene Park, also of Alliance.

Needless to repeat; the SCPR is not impressed with this Taft appointment.

And "time 'may' tell" in his favor (voters may retain him as a  judge in view of the likely Republican sweep of the November 4th election), but the recent appointment by Governor Kasich of J. Curtis Werren to replace the retiring V. Lee Sinclair is suspect to the SCPR inasmuch as Werren is a guy with strong Republican Party connections who got the appointment over Democrat and top flight Stark County prosecutor Chryssa Hartnett notwithstanding that he had not been a practicing attorney for a significant period of time prior to being appointed.

Voters of Stark County get a chance on November 4th to weigh in on the Werren/Hartnett competition because Hartnett has taken her case to the voters.

Reports are that Werren is doing okay as a judge.  But the SCPR has to believe that Hartnett is much better positioned to become an outstanding judge than is Werren.

Now back to the Park matter.

Here is Conley's letter:

Regarding the above-referenced subject matter, you have posed a number of questions to me which I am willing to answer, subject only to the restrictions imposed upon me by the Rules of Professional Conduct and/or by the Rules for the Government of the Bar.

1.  Yes, I would consider it appropriate for Judge Park, based solely upon her gross misconduct as set forth by the unanimous Court in Fifth District Court of Appeals Case No. 2013 CA 00212, 2014-Ohio-3572, to forthwith tender her resignation (which circumstance I consider more than just unlikely).

2.  No, I do not have any "hidden agenda" here. I simply want every Judge to follow the law and honor our Constitution; and, as an attorney/officer of the Court, I believe I have an affirmative duty to diligently and aggressively pursue the proper administration of justice, notwithstanding any potential for judicial retaliation and retribution.

Indeed, I believe every attorney should put that same aforesaid affirmative duty ahead of his or her "checkbook".

3.    Yes, I have previously filed or "ghost written"  Affidavits of Disqualification against Judge Park, two of which were denied
and two of which were successful in that Judge Park, during pendency of same, "voluntarily" recused herself.

Additionally, I presently have four Affidavits of Disqualification pending against Judge Park seeking her disqualification from five Stark County Probate Court Cases on the basis of her bias and prejudice against me and/or in favor of my opposing parties or counsel; and, in two of those Cases, I have Motions to Vacate and a Motion to Strike pending, which Motions are predicated upon Judge Park's overtly blatant failure to comply with applicable statutes, Rules of Court and constitutional due process provisions.

4.    Yes, as to Judge Park's previous decisions, I have both lost and won in the Court of Appeals.

However, quite significantly, I obtained a (almost-never-granted) writ of procedendo against Judge Park in Fifth District Court of Appeals Case No. 2012 CA 0C121; in Fifth District Court of Appeals Case No. 2013 CA 00206, I obtained vacation, as void ab initio, of several of Judge Park's decisions in a Probate Estate; and, in Fifth District Court of Appeals Case No. 2011 CA 00191, following service of my Complaint in Mandamus against her, she did what she should have done in the first place and provided me, albeit most reluctantly and upon "prodding" by the Stark County Prosecutor, the subject public records (noting that I presently have another such mandamus action pending against her in Fifth District Court of Appeals Case No. 2014 CA 30169).

5.    Yes, as set forth in my aforesaid pending Affidavits of Disqualification, I do have legitimate (and I believe demonstrable) concerns about Judge Park's willingness and/or ability to understand and comply with applicable statutes, Rules of Court, constitutional previsions and jurisprudence.

In that regard, as but one example, I am particularly mystified by Judge Park's ongoing insistence in inexplicably returning to me, in "domino fashion", all of the service copies of Affidavit-related filings I had faxed to her.  She returned all of those service copies on the purported grounds (as set forth in her identical cover letters to me} that same were "non-permitted-fax filings" in her Court, notwithstanding the obvious fact that all of those service copies reflected filings made in the Ohio Supreme Court, not in her Court (noting that those service copies were timely and duly served upon her pursuant to O.R.C. 2701.03(B)(3)).

6.  Yes, dozens of other attorneys have the same opinion of and concerns about Judge Park as do I, but with very few exceptions, most do not have the "intestinal fortitude" to speak up or to otherwise do anything to "rock the boat", noting that neither I nor Attorney Jakmides are among such attorneys and further noting that three of my colleagues in the two pending
Bolog Guardianship-related Affidavits of Disqualification, notwithstanding their legitimate concerns and fears about retaliation and retribution (and the attendant adverse impact
on their income), have written letters supportive of same to the Master Commissioner.

...  Judge Park consistently "achieves" the Stark County Bar Association's lowest approval rating.

7. Yes, Judge Park does have several "pals" whose fee requests and/or motions are, of record, rather routinely and quickly
granted, which has certainly not been either my experience in her Court or the experience of the aforesaid dozens of other attorneys.  

Indeed, I am aware of a number of out-of-County attorneys who intentionally decline, solely because of Judge Park, to practice in the Stark County Probate Court.

In sum, notwithstanding the risk to my "fame and fortune", it remains my firm intention to continue (even if in "Lone Ranger" fashion) my aforesaid course of action, with the ultimate goal of improving both the Bench and the Bar in Stark County and therefore, at least: hopefully, assuring the proper administration of justice for its citizens.

Some pretty serious allegations, no?

Hopefully, the Stark County public will get some answers either by Judge Park going on camera with the SCPR with a response or in some other forum, voluntarily or involuntarily.

For the SCPR, the Conley allegations, if borne out, serve the function of adding to what is already enough for Judge Park to resign, that is to say the Fifth District Court of Appeals decision in the In re: Finan case.

For a higher court to say that Judge Park abused her discretion as a judge in denying constitutionally guaranteed due process of law rights which resulted in what had to be a horrifying experience of being jailed for 11 days on the part of Barbara Lockhart is in and of itself enough to warrant Park stepping down.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals let Judge Park have her say  (which is another way of saying "affording her due process of law") before it negating her contempt of court finding of September 25, 2013.

Barbara Lockhart was arrested on October 1, 2013 and remained jailed for 11 days without having been afforded due process of law!

To repeat, In re: Finan is enough insofar as The Stark County Political Report is concerned for Judge Park to remove herself from the Stark County bench!

(VIDEO) THE KEY: CAN THE COMMISSIONERS KEEP THE ISSUE 29 TEAM INTACT?

UPDATE AT 9:40 AM
County officials were amazed when they passed Issue 29 on November 8, 2011 by the margin they did.

They were hoping for even a slim victory.  That is according to Commissioner Janet Creighton.

Now the worry is that some of the strong team effort that clearly (56% to 44%) convinced Stark Countians of the authenticity of county financial needs may be in danger of being lost.

The commissioners appear determined to keep the team effort in place.  But doing so will not be easy.

The SCPR has already published a blog on Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero's entreaty to Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson not cut his budget from 2011 levels and to consider restoring him to 2011 levels.

The troublesome part of Ferrero's request is that it appears to The Report to be an effort by him to separate from his county department head brothers and sisters by enveloping himself into the "for criminal justice and administration" tag to the campaign for the levy and by threatening to cost the county more money by asking Stark County judges in courts handing prosecutor office cases to appoint "special counsel" which, of course, have to be paid out of the general fund at hourly rates set by the judges.

In doing so,  Ferrero seemingly endeavors to punish county taxpayers (i.e. higher taxpayer cost for "assigned special counsel") for doing the responsible and good deed that a clear majority did as voters last November.

Isn't that a strange twist on things?

Well, the SCPR point of view is that his fellows ought to be exercising peer influence on him for him to get creative and find ways to work within the general fund parameters set by the commissioners and show he can be a team player.

What's more, it has never been more clear to the SCPR (The Report has had major differences with Ferrero handling of the prosecutor's office going back nearly four years now as evidenced in yours truly's "political analysis" of the functioning of Stark's various departments of government)  that Stark County voters need to take a serious look at Republican candidate for Stark County prosecutor Michael Grady to determine whether or not he has qualities that would make him a chief administrator superior to Ferrero.

It has been a long time since Stark County has had a prosecutor who actually tries cases except for cameo effect when a high profile case is underway.  And John Ferrero seems to fit that model.  The Report is told by an highly active attorney in Stark County criminal prosecution/criminal defense circles that Ferrero has not sat as prosecutorial trial counsel since the Bobby Cutts murder trial of February, 2008.  Yours truly does recall seeing him in and about the civil trial court during the Zeigler series of civil case.  However, Ross Rhodes was clearly lead trial counsel.

So to The Report the essential question boils down to administrative abilities and ability to attract a highly polished, skilled and sophisticated prosecutorial staff; not a question of having an elected prosecutor who necessarily has trial lawyer skills.

Besides the Ferrero thing, there is word that the Veterans Service Commission and the Stark County Probate Court may be contemplating giving pay raises to staff members. 

While not a topic in the meeting that the commissioners had with county department heads and officials but open to the general public, later on the commissioners indicated to the media including the SCPR that they have no thought of asking for additional sales tax revenues for eight years, the term of Issue 29.

Rather, as brought out by Repository reporter Kelli Young and confirmed by commissioners;  they will do everything they can think of to generate additional revenues through alternative sources.

One example is one brought up at yesterday's meeting by Stark County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Judge Jim James to apply for funding from the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD).     James who is Stark County's member of the governing body of the MWCD (the Conservancy Court) responded to the commissioners concerns about the lack of money to budget to fix Stark's ditch infrastructure suggested that the county ought to aggressively pursue a grant from the MWCD.

Every Stark County property owner is assessed a property tax by the MWCD.

As a sidenote Commissioner Bernabei noted that Judge James Family Court found a way to save the Stark County General Fund some $800,000 in its operations for 2012.

A major part of yesterday's meeting was to elicit contributions like James or, alternatively, criticisms of how the commissioners are likely to employ in  allocating the negative county revenue condition among departments of Stark County government.

Stark County Common Pleas Court Judge Charles Brown suggested that commissioners consider taking a loan against the more than $2 million set aside for the rebuild of Stark County's 9-1-1 emergency call receiving and dispatch system.

One would think that the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) would be just a bit nervous about just a procedure.  As Stark County Auditor Alan Harold told yours truly after the meeting, such measures have a history of being undertaken with the best of intentions to repay when needed by the original funded activity only not to be available because of the intervention of exigencies.

As far as the SCPR is concerned Commissioner Creighton was "spot-on" in being concerned about preserving the county department teamwork that came into being in pursuing the levy effort as a model for working through tough financial times.   And, departments heads should support the commissioners in discouraging the likes of Prosecutor Ferrero, the Veterans Service Commission, or the Stark Probate Court to takes actions which would have the effect of disrupting the unity of purpose and mission currently embraced by most county department heads.

The Report has compiled a video of yesterday's meeting to give a sense of the highlights of the meeting including Commissioner Creighton's plea that county department heads not grant raises to any county employee.

THANKSGIVING 2009

Stark County has had a number of local political figures step forward with a positive contribution to the well-being of our county in 2009.

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) recognizes the following for their contributions to better government and/or making current officeholders more accountable.

MIKE REHFUS (Stark County Engineer) demonstrated exemplary courage and steadfastness despite an ongoing battle with cancer which resulted in him untimely death on November 11th at age 49.

It is not surprising that Rehfus was courageous to the end.  Courage is a quality that he has shown over his tenure as county engineer.

He pushed for an increased license plate fee so that the Stark County is better positioned to construct new roads and rehabilitate  roads and bridges greatly in need of repairs. 

In 2008, he convinced Commissioners Bosley and Vignos to support imposition of the fee over Commissioner Gayle Jackson's objection.

Rehfus is the quintessential county official for streamlining operations and thereby doing more with less in terms of personnel.

Despite his illness, he worked hard with Commissioners Bosley and Harmon to effectuate a merger between the engineer's operations with that of the Stark County Sanitary Engineer which will prove to be highly beneficial for Stark County taxpayers who will enjoy more performance for less money because of the merger.

For his many years of service to Stark County, Stark Countians, indeed, are thankful that Mike Rehful came our way.

CHARLES BROWN (judge/Stark County Court of Common Pleas).  Judge Brown is a leading member of  a group of  Stark County jurists (Common Pleas) who have been and continue to work hard to facilitate the return of Stark Countians, who have gone awry of the law,  to a restored position in the Stark County community.

Moreover, Brown is a leader in working with Stark Countians across-the-board to go back to the drawing board to find ways and means to adequately fund Stark County government in the light of the failed Issue 5 which was designed, in part, to provide sorely needed revenues for the Stark County general fund.

Undoubtedly, Judge Brown would be the first to say that he, along with Judges Lee Sinclair and Tayrn Heath the visible part of the Stark County judiciary working in a "let's work together" mode with the Stark County public to put together a funding mechanism for Stark County which will meet county needs as well as working for the taxpaying public.

What is impressive about the judges' effort is that they could just sit back and let other county officials "twist in the wind."

How's that?

Ohio law empowers county judges to mandate county commissioners to fund whatever the judges say their financial needs are.

But Stark County's judges have not rested on this prerogative and have chosen instead to be caring of the needs of the entire county.  For this attitude, Stark Countians are thankful.

WAYNE SCHILG (Marlboro Township trustee).  Trustee Schilg has just gone through the most trying time of his political life.

Schilig was caught in the middle of a battle between Trustees Tim Wise (who was defeated on November 3rd) and Trustee Dave Wolf (who chose not to run for re-election) over Marlboro Police Chief Ron Devies and son Kyle's activities on transitioning from Kyle being Marlboro's computer man to a successor caretaker.

The SCPR is not going to dwell in any more detail on the particulars of the "disagreement." and, instead focus on Schlig and his abiding efforts to conciliate.

In the end, he was unsuccessful for reasons he could not control.  But his mediating efforts were not in vain.  For they created the foundation for healing within Marlboro Township. 

Stark Countians, at large, and Marlboro residents, in particular are certainly thankful for have the likes of a Wayne Schilg serving the citizens in a constructive and helpful way.

LOUIS GIAVASIS (Plain Township trustee) has lead the way in showing that in troubling economic times, government leaders at all levels can anticipate and take measures to avoid a financial meltdown in trying economic times.

Giavasis very unselfishly gives fellow trustees Al Leno and Pam Bossart (who will be leaving as trustee on December 31st because she did not seek re-election) full credit for the good fiscal condition that Plain Township is in as 2010 approaches.

Under the Giavasis-led Plain Township trustee effort, the SCPR evaluates Plain to be "the best run Township in all of Stark County," and ranks in the upper tier for all of Ohio.

Another Giavasis quality that Plain Township residents are undoubtedly thankful for is Lou's tenaciousness.

From the day that the anchor store left the Oakwood Square Shopping Center in Plain (years ago), Giavais has worked tirelessly to get a replacement.

It appears that he may realize his goal soon.  For this persistence and durability, Plain Township residents are surely thankful.


RANDY GONZALEZ (9-1-1 Stark County Council of Governments [SCOG] Governance Committee chairman and Jackson Township fiscal officer).

Gonzalez has a terrific characteristic of marshaling community forces to solve a problem.

If Stark County achieves a state-of-the-art centralized 9-1-1 dispatch, it very likely will be because of Gonzalez.  He has a knack for bringing people together who come from different "turf," and getting them to work together on a commonly beneficial project.

Gonzalez is close to pulling off "a coming together" on the 9-1-1 project.  He says he is about 90% towards reaching his goal.  The SCPR believes his number is credible and that the dissidents will come aboard in time.

In years to come, when Stark Countians dial 9-1-1, it is very likely that those who remember the Gonzalez effort on 9-1-1 will utter to themselves a "thank you."  While Stark Countians in general may not know about the Gonzalez effort, they too will be thankful that that "unknown" person who pushed 9-1-1 into being a high quality emergency services center. 


CHARLES SNYDER (member of Vote No Increased Taxes Committee and newly elected Fairless school board member).

Among the basic points of the Vote No Increased Taxex Committee made during their campaign, first, to put the "imposed" 0.50 sales/use tax increase up for a vote and, second, to find a cheaper way to rework 9-1-1.

A primary person shepherding the Vote No group was Charles Snyder.

A keystone of a democracy is that citizens need to have a say in the decisions that are made by public officials in their conducting public policy and operations.  While yours truly ended up vote to ratain the imposed tax, all Stark Countians certainly have to be thankful to Snyder and his cohorts for ensuring that we - the citizens of Stark County - did get to vote for or against retaining the tax.

The SCPR believes that an spin-off of the vote effort and the decision of Stark Countians (64% of those who voted) not to retain the tax was that, perhaps, the Vote No Increased Taxes Committee had a point that the 9-1-1 rehab could be done for significantly less money (in terms of new taxes) and in a way more palatable to Stark Countians.

Though some may see Snyder and his fellows in the Vote No context as being negative; a fair look at the committee effort sifts out positives for which Stark Countians are certainly thankful.

MARK BUTTERWORTH (Councilman-elect Canton's 8th ward).

Up by 14 votes as this piece is being written, it appears that Republican Mark Butterworth has broken the stranglehold that Democrats have on elective office in Canton.

Canton is on the brink of bankruptcy and a primary reason is the lack of political competition and youth among Canton's public officials.

Canton's 8th ward has been held the past four years by a well known Canton Democrat with strong ties to organized labor.  But Mark Butterworth was not intimidated and in running a highly effective campaign, he very likely has ousted the Democrat and will bring a fresh political perspective and a touch of youth to Canton City Council.

If the result should turn around on a recount, Butterworth has still made a noble contribution to the well-being of the body politic in Canton.

Butterworth's infusing local government with competition and youthful vigor is something for all Stark County's citizens to be thankful for.

TODD BOSLEY has slipped from the top of the list to eighth because of some difficult issues that he has not handled well, but, nonetheless, he still demonstrates, more than any other county official a purposefulness, a stamina and a vision for Stark County that tops all other non-judicial elected officials.

Despite setbacks, Bosley demonstrates daily his commitment to repair Stark County's 9-1-1 dispatch in to a state-of-the-art operation.

One of Bosley's finer qualities is his willingness to get into difficult situations to effect a "coming together" of folks at odds with each other or with Stark County government in Lawrence Township  (road ingress/egress) and Nimishillen Township (flooding concerns) and to avoid a funding standoff with the Stark County Veterans Service Commission - to make some but not all of his efforts.

Stark Countians have benefited from and are appreciative of Bosley's hard work.

VOTE NO COMMITTEE WILL NOW HAVE TO CONTEND WITH AT LEAST TWO OF STARK COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDGES ON AN INCREASED SALES TAX?

Will there be another fight over an increase in the Stark County sales/use tax?

Put another way:  Is the Vote No Increased Taxes Committee like the life of a gnat (lasting 2 to 4 months)?

Even though the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee" folks say they are not "anti-tax-through-and-through," The Report thinks they are, except in the case of newly elected Fairless School Board member Charles Snyder who favored the Fairless 9.5 levy which Fairless voters defeated 70% to 30% on November 3rd.

As said by yours truly in the past, if voters see a direct benefit in a tax increase, they will vote it.  Snyder saw a direct benefit in Fairless tax issue and therefore supported it.  He did not see one on the 9-1-1/county general fund Issue 5 and consequently he voted no.

The SCPR read on people who consistently "vote No" on tax issues without really examining the merits of a particular issue, are folks that believe "you can have something for nothing."

These same folks demand the impossible of public officials after having denied the officials the resources needed to meet a real but not directly tied to specific individuals (for the most part) public service needs.

The SCPR sees these "we are against all tax increases" types as "knee-jerk" and unthinking for the most part.  There is, however, an exception.

Exception?

There are all too many Stark Countians without jobs or on fixed incomes who cannot and will not (justifiably) vote for a tax increase - no matter how clear the need is.  And this is how these folks should vote and need to vote as a matter of personal survival.

NOW BACK TO THE FIGHT THAT IS TO COME

The SCPR says the "Vote No" committee will morph into a two faceted political entity:

First, to fight the new effort by county officials - led in the background by Judges Charles Brown and Lee Sinclair - to convince voters to agree to a replacement plus an addition (0.5 [0.250 - replacement/0.250 additional] of a percent) sales tax come November, 2010 or May, 2011.

Second, to defeat Commissioner Todd Bosley come November, 2010.

This time the Vote No people will be hampered.  Rather than 9-1-1 being a cover for a general fund tax increase, the approach will be for the "non-partisan" Stark County judiciary to weigh-in on behalf of a new tax.

Already in the works is the creation of a "citizens review committee."  As early as yesterday at a 2:00 p.m. meeting Ferrero et al  were huddled up identifying who would be invited to serve on this committee.  This, too, is an attempt to depoliticize the new sales tax initiative to come. The SCPR would not be surprised to learn that at least one figure in the "Vote No" cohort is invited to be on the citizens committee as an attempt to co-opt out organized opposition.

It was easy pickins for the Vote No campaign to target Commissioner Bosley, Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez and the like.  However, they risk being viewed as being "way-out-there," if they try the same tactics in a de facto judge-led drive for new county revenues.

A person to watch will be Vote No spokesman Craig Conley.  He is an attorney who has to deal with the court system and these judges; not that the SCPR is suggesting that there would be any recriminations.   But it wouldn't appear to be the most comfortable of situations.  Will he want to be associated with a us (Vote No Increased Taxes) against the judges match up? 

The SCPR has learned that there is dissension in the ranks of the Vote No group.  The Report is hearing that after the group of Conley, Marcelli and Snyder left the Stark County commissioners weekly meeting on November 4th, they fell into an argument about the approach employed in their face-to-face with commissioners.

If such is an accurate report, then this "let's agree to disagree" could provide Conley with the opportunity to exit the scene and avoid a showdown with the judges over the new tax issue that will be coming up in 12 to 18 months.

The only place you will hear about the judges of the Stark County Common Pleas Court being involved in the drive for a new sales tax is likely to be the SCPR.

In today's Repository Kelli Young reports on the meeting held by elected officials at the Athens Restaurant yesterday at 7:15 a.m.  It is interesting to note that she does not mention the judges at all.

Hmm?

Well, here is a video of soon-to-be-ex-commissioner Tom Harmon announcing that Prosecutor John Ferrero (at the bidding of Judge Charles Brown) called for the Athens Restaurant meeting.