SCHURING & OELSLAGER VOTE TO JEOPARDIZE STARK COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY, SO, IN EFFECT, SAY STARK COMMON PLEAS JUDGES!

UPDATE:  5:54 PM (9/26/2017)  

LINK to Columbus Dispatch article.

Also, Schuring reported by Stark judges to have met with Rep. Schuring on Friday, September 22nd which meeting was termed by a court official as being "positive and productive."

What does "positive and productive" mean in some detail.

The SCPR is working to get those details.

An alarming mainstream media headline, no?

If The Stark County Political Report were to say that Stark County-based Ohio General Assembly members Scott Oelslager (Republican, 29th Ohio Senate District) and Kirk Schuring voted to "in effect" jeopardize Stark County's safety, both, if asked about the assessment, undoubtedly, would resort to downplaying the credibility of this blog.

"Oh! you know, The Stark County Political Report is a blog and 'you know, I know and everybody knows' that you can't trust the analysis of a blogger!!!

But what do they say when a statement on their legislative action in including TCAP (Targeted Community Alternatives to Prison) in June, 2017 passed HB 49 as assessed by each of Stark County's Court of Common Pleas (General Division) judges (both Republican and Democrat) in his/her own hand writing?  (See the letters to the ORDC, Schuring, Oelslager, West and Slaby below)

The judges (led by Judge Taryn Heath) on August 30th in a work session with the Stark County commissioners included these alarming slides on the matter of the Stark County public's safety.  (See entire slide presentation at the end of this blog)

You can add as a sign-on to the letters Stark County commissioner Janet Creighton in her capacity as president of the Board of Stark County Commissioners.

Here is the full text of letters the judges recently sent to an official in the ODRC:



What's more, they (our legislators) are likely to say:  "Oh! you know House Bill 49 was a budget bill and let me tell you if the TCAP provisions were in 'single subject legislation,' I would have voted 'no."'

"You know, I know and everybody knows" that when a politician wants to hide his/her vote on controversial legislation, it gets inserted in the omnibus biennial state budget bill which quite a number of legal scholars think is a violation of the Ohio Constitution "single subject" legislation requirement when the budget bill includes the likes of TCAP.

And that is exactly what the SCPR thinks Oelslager and Schuring and many of the rest of "aye" votes were up to in voting for HB 49 which included TCAP.

Landing on local government to help the state of Ohio balance the state budget without being held accountable for thereby jeopardizing the safety of day-in, day-out Ohioans who populate Ohio's 88 counties, that is the effect of including TCAP in HB 49.

Of course, neither Schuring, Oelslager or any of the other cowardly legislators want to be directly accountable (by putting TCAP in its own bill thereby complying with Ohio's Constitution "single subject" mandate) for affecting your safety and my safety as we move in and about Stark County or any other Ohio county.

Judges in some of Ohio's major counties (Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton and Stark; among targeted counties) have come out in full force against the provisions of TCAP.

In all cases the judges say that Ohio and of course either of their counties are less safe than they were before the bill's passage.

While they obviously do some good for Stark County, it has been the position of the SCPR that Oelslager and Schuring for all their years in the Ohio General Assembly have been rather ineffective for interests of Stark Countians.

They both have been part of the supermajority Republican controlled Ohio General Assembly which along with Republican governor John Kasich program have slashed revenues from the state of Ohio to local governments:  Well over $500 million all the while Ohio's Rainy Day Fund has over $2 billion sitting there collecting interest.

Meanwhile Schuring can't work hard enough to give away Ohio taxpayer money and other public benefits to the Pro Football Hall of Fame Village Project (HOFVP), which, long term, is likely to prove to be a "flash in the pan" in the sense that the upwards of $1 billion being spent on the project will not dramatically improve the lives of most everyday Stark Countians.

The SCPR thinks the HOFVP proponents are making lots of promises of being an financial/economical boon to Stark County somewhat similar to the ballyhooing of fracking being the solution to everything that ails Stark County.

While certainly an economic/financial plus, fracking is nowhere near the projection of former Canton mayor William J. Healy, II of fracking bringing 50,000 high paying jobs to Stark County.

Obviously, with his exaggeration penchant, he was the forerunner of what we see coming out of the White House these days.

Stark County's judges in sounding the alarm of what the Ohio General Assembly and Governor Kasich is trying to do to our communities in terms of making them unsafer is no exaggeration.  The sounding of the alarm bells should arouse all of us to action in letting our local OGA representatives that our safety is off-the-table when it comes to balancing the state budget.

To repeat, according to Stark County's Common Pleas judges,  our personal safety is at risk with the sentencing reform Schuring and Oelslager voted for and while it seems that Schuring spends his time bolstering an entertainment project (i.e. the HOFVP).

Oelslager, a couple of years ago, let it be known to Canton council president Allen Schulman that he was "too busy" to come to council to hear council members out on the fiscal crisis that state of Ohio local government funding cuts had put the Hall of Fame city into.

And yet a prominent Stark County Republican told me last week that Oelslager and Schuring (both, once again [for the second time], are term-limited out [i.e. eight successive years in either the House or Senate] and will seek to enshrine themselves in the Ohio Gener.al Assembly by switching positions with Oelslager running for the House in the 48th and Schuring, the Senate in the 29th).

It is now clear that Schuring and Oelslager prize their personal political longevity over the public spaces safety of Stark Countians.

Both have had enough of a run in their switch-after-switch-after-switch (a version of musical chair where each gets a seat; just a "different" seat)  routine.

Stark County political influencers ought to contact both and tell them:  "Step aside, you have had your time.  Your failure to protect the safety of Stark County's neighborhoods is proof positive that you have lost being in touch with the highest priority interest of Stark Countians."

While the SCPR sympathizes with our local officials in being "undone" by the Ohio Legislature, unless and until they take political action beyond letter writing; they can expect more of the same going forward.

Stark County's judges will be taking the political flak for dangerous persons being out-on-the-lose when TCAP becomes mandatory in Stark County next year.

Unless pressured to step aside, Schuring and Oelslager are likely going to be "coasting to victory" for another eight years in the Ohio General Assembly as they flaunt a law they both supported to limit the time any one legislator spends in the Legislature.

Go figure, no?  Self over the safety of their respective communities.

Stark Countians have got to be pleased that our judges are united in their insistence that they be equipped to keep dangerous persons off the streets of Stark County!

What follows is a series of documents for those readers who want to thoroughly explore what the Stark County Court of Common Please judges have to say about sentencing reform and its likely impact on our Stark County neighborhoods.

First, a video of a slide presentation prepared by Judge Kristin Farmer that was presented to the Stark County commissioners in a work session on August 30th.

Here is an abbreviated video of the judges' presentation and interaction with Stark's commissioners.

(Note:  The SCPR has a precommitment to videotape an interview with Plain Township trustee Scott Haws and therefore could not stay for but for a short segment of the judges time with commissioners.  However, Brant Luther, chief administrator for the commissioners did provide the SCPR with a audio recording of the session which is included in this blog immediately after the video segment)

Here is the audio of the entire session as recorded by the Stark County commissioners.

(Note:  This tape, though long, is very much worthwhile hearing as the judges are very blunt in their criticism of TCAP and those who formulated it and impliedly those including Oelslager and Schuring who voted for it)

Second, a series of communications issued by various affected by sentencing reform counties which communicate how much more unsafe the folks in Columbus are making the neighborhoods throughout the state of Ohio.

A LINK to a Cleveland.com article on Cuyahoga County opting not to participate in the first year of TCAP.

A press release from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas:



A press release from the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas:

JUDGE KRISTIN G. FARMER "SIMPLY IMPRESSIVE" IN HER HANDLING OF MARK CERRETA BALLOT ISSUE!

POINTS COVERED IN TODAY'S BLOG

SCPR ANTICIPATED CERRETA VICTORY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CERRETA IN HIS OWN WAY ENHANCED DEMOCRACY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NORTH CANTONIANS NOW HAVE CHOICE IN AT-LARGE RACE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 JUDGE FARMER IMPRESSIVE IN HER HANDLING OF CASE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 BRADEN AND CLINE SHOUD BE REMOVED FROM BOE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED:  09/20/2013 AT 2:00 PM

Last week I was engaged in a political "gabfest" with a local elected official when the subject of whether or not North Canton councilman (at-large) Mark Cerreta was going to make it onto the November 5th ballot.

My take was "yes, he will:  because his petition deficiency was clearly of  a 'technicality" variety" in its most quintessential form.  I went on to explain that it is hard to see how the listing of an address a second time in any way, shape or form affected the integrity of Stark County's election process.

My interlocutor differed with me, expressing the thought that the deciders of the matter (the Stark County Board of Elections, at the initial level) were bound to take a safe, conservative stance on the question which did not bode well for Councilman Cerreta.

I conceded that the latter position could well have greater appeal to a court than the former.

But that is why we have have "actual" legal hearings in our democratic republic of the United States of America when differences develop.

And this is a good juncture in this blog to give a "shout out" to Councilman Cerreta for having gone through the embarrassment (i.e. the second address thing), the time, the effort and certainly the expense of litigating the matter.

Not everybody needs to stand on the street corner with a protest sign or go on a political march or engage in one of the many available forms of political activism that are the life's blood of our freedom based governmental system.

And as Cerreta's legal counsel pointed out yesterday, hanging out there in North Canton council-at-large race was the prospect - absent his being on the ballot - that there was going to be no political competition as to who is going to serve North Cantonians with the political base of the race being citywide.

There is a write-in candidate, but it takes an exceptional situation for "write-in" to work and this election is not one of them.

Undoubtedly, there are a number of issues that North Cantonians would like to hear the views of "competitive" candidates on in the casting of their ballots.

One that comes to mind that was presented by a North Canton resident at Monday's "Public Speaks" forum of a regular North Canton City Council meeting.

The speaker had done a two year historical analysis of the attendance rates of the city's sitting councilpersons.

And, lo and behold, who came in last?

Council-at-large candidate Marcia Kiesling at 72%.

Prior to Judge Farmer's decision yesterday, unless you want to believe that a write-in candidate really has a chance to win, there was no chance that Kiesling could be held accountable on the issue.

And it may be that North Cantonians do not view attendance rates as being a high priority item in their selection of candidates.  Moreover, it may be that the Councilwoman has reasons for being absent that will satisfy voters even if attendance is "a big ticket item."

North Canton voters have a choice is the important thing!

That's why the SCPR writes "simply impressive" in describing the import of Farmer's decision.

Judge Farmer is the same age as my middle daughter, Heidi (also an attorney, and interestingly enough, they were classmates at Canton Central Catholic in the 9th grade) and while they are not kids; they are just getting their professional careers up and running.

This week in her handling of Cerreta v. Stark Board of Election, a Republican, Judge Farmer,  to say it again, was "simply impressive" in terms of her seeming quick maturation as a judge.  She was selected in December, 2012 by Governor Kasich to replace Lee Sinclair.

Overturning the Stark Board of Elections (BOE) decision barring Cerreta had to be a touchy matter for her.  Especially with longtime Republican stalwarts and deans of Stark County Republicanism William Cline and Curt Braden (a former Stark County Republican chairman) having been participants in the unanimous decision to put Cerreta on the sidelines.

Farmer showed judicial independence from her party affiliation in being able to make a decision that permitted registered "non-partisan" Cerreta to be on November's ballot.

How's that?

First, all three remaining "on-the-ballot" candidates are "avowed" (in the sense of being so registered) Republicans.

Second, two of them, Kiesling (member of the executive committee) and Griffith (a precinct committeeman), are part of the Stark County Republican Party leadership elite.

Third, BOE members Braden and Cline are also on the Stark GOP executive committee.

So there was powerful motivation on the part of Braden and Cline to advantage the three avowed Republicans in "all too happily" finding a seeming "safe - political - harbor" in the language of Ohio statutory law to protect the automatic election prospects of Griffith, Kiesling and McCleaster.

And you can forget Democrats Ferruccio and St. John.

Though they voted with the Republicans, they are irrelevant.

Had they done otherwise, and a tie resulted; undoubtedly, not to show up Braden and Cline, Republican Ohio secretary of state Jon Husted would have sided with them in casting his statutory empowered tie-breaking vote.

We all know that there is "the letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law."  Braden and Cline in apparently trying to protect their fellow declared Republicans found refuge in the strict constructionist "letter of the law."

But Judge Farmer was able to see that it is in the interest of the North Canton voter base to have a "real" choice and was able - in yesterday's decision - to find legal justification to side with "the spirit of the law" in finding that the BOE "abused its discretion" and "clearly disregarded applicable law" in jumping on a legal technicality to keep North Cantonians from having that freedom loving choice.

But a mature and reflective judge is always mindful - in overturning the decision of a governing body - of undermining stability of governmental processes.

And Judge Farmer demonstrated just that in her Cerreta opinion, to wit:

It is no surprise to the SCPR that Braden and Cline were a part of a decision that would have BUT FOR Judge Farmer have denied North Cantonians of some choice in their selection of North Canton's city council at-large candidates.

These are two of the four members (Feruccio and former member Democrat and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. being the other) who also initially denied the Stark County public the right to see videos of their proceedings.

Eventually, "they saw the light" and now allow videotaping of their meetings.  The Stark County Political Report is pleased to have been "the" catalyst to bring the matter to the forefront and to have provided Stark Countians with the possibility of transparency of BOE proceeding.

However, "the anti-democratic" stance of this BOE "violation of law" in the Cerreta matter should be of concern to Stark Countians.

The Stark County Republican Party should remove Braden and Cline from the BOE.

Don't count on such happening.

Braden and Cline and Stark County Republican chairman Jeff Matthews are so politically enmeshed with one another that they are more interested in upholding their interpretation of the interests of the Stark County Republican Party than in protecting the democratic rights of Stark Countians (North Cantonians) to have as much electoral choice as possible consistent with the law of Ohio.

In short, they clearly appear, as demonstrated by the cited examples of their decision making to the SCPR not to be as Stark BOE members small letter "d" democrats.

The Cerreta example is a clear indication of how unreliable partisan political party control of Ohio's election process is a clear and present danger to the health of our democratic republic.

While the SCPR is not enamored by the manner (i.e. a Republican governor picking her as a member of a powerful/influential Stark County-based Republican family) in which Judge Farmer ascended to the Stark County Common Pleas Court; she did in Cerreta what a judge must be able to do (rise above partisan political considerations) to preserve the integrity of our democratic-republican way of life.

The most elegant way to commend Judge Farmer for putting clams on the likes of Braden and Cline is to say it a third time.

"Simply Impressive!

BREAKING NEWS! JUDGE KRISTIN FARMER RULES CERRETA ONTO BALLOT FOR NORTH CANTON COUNCIL-AT-LARGE RACE!

(VIDEO OF COURT PROCEEDING) COUNCILMAN CERRETA'S "OVERSIGHT" - WILL THE COURT FIX IT?

North Canton councilman-at-large is probably kicking himself down Main Street in North Canton these days.

But for being more thorough he would not have been in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas today before Judge Kristin Farmer.

As seen in the graphic above, the second page of his petition lacked his home address.

It is not as if he totally forget to provide the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) with the required address.  What he failed to do was to apply the address to the second of his two page petition.

The first page was fine.

What he neglected to do was akin to "measure twice, cut once."

As a consequence, the Stark BOE rejected the petition that did not has his address on it and ultimately his candidacy because with the rejection of the second petition he fell short of the required 25 valid North Canton voters' signatures.

So now it is up to Judge Farmer to determine whether or not the statutory and case law, as she sees it, allows her make an order requiring the BOE to place his name on November 5th ballot.

And the BOE needs to have a decision by Saturday as that is a "drop dead" date for the printing of the ballots which will soon be made available to voters.

Judge Farmer promised to have her decision ready by the end of today.

The Stark County Political Report was in Judge Farmer's courtroom yesterday to record the entire proceeding.

As the full video tape of the proceeding presented at the end of this blog shows, Cerreta's attorney in essence argued that:the statutory law of Ohio as interpreted by Ohio case law is persuasive that:

• Cerreta was entitled to be on November's ballot because:
• in providing his address on one of the two pages of petitions had "substantially" complied with Ohio law,
• for the BOE to have rejected the second petition was an unlawful disregarding of applicable provisions of law and lastly
• that the BOE in being beholden to the technicalities (i.e. having the address listed twice) is an abuse of discretion by the BOE and 
• the law favors have free and competitive elections and Cerreta's elimination from the ballot would mean that the council-at-large race would not allow for it being a competitive election.

Stark County prosecutor Debbie Dawson arguing the BOE asked Judge Farmer to uphold the board's decision for the reasons that:

• the law, as articulated by statutory law, clearly provides for the inclusion of a circulator's address in that the statute lays out the form (which the Stark BOE specifically adopted) for boards of election to "substantially comply with" in setting for the requirements for candidates for office to meet in circulating and the filing of petitions,
• the address is an essential part of the petition in that its availability is a key component in conducting investigation of whether or not a fraud in collecting signatres has been perpetuated.

In essence, it appears that the court will be choosing between the strict compliance with the literal wording of statutory law versus Ohio Supreme Court case law which seems to disfavor enforcing technicalities of statutory compliance in the absence of any showing that there is an authentic concern that fraud may be a factor in a given situation.

The Cerrata matter is absolutely devoid of any fraud factor.

Of course, one never knows what a court will do but this case seems ripe for a finding that Councilman Cerreta might get away with his inattention to detail.