DECISION DATE IS UPON THE LAKE TWP TRUSTEES: ANOTHER BALLOT INITIATIVE TO EXPAND THE UNIONTOWN POLICE DISTRICT? ALSO, BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE, LAKE HAS BECOME BATTLEGROUND OF DORDEA V. MCDONALD FOR SHERIFF?

Will the Lake Township trustees try to get township voters to approve expansion of the Uniontown Police Department once again?

THE BACKGROUND

Because of sloppy work by township legal counsel, the Stark County prosecutor's office and the Stark County Board of Elections, a hard earned victory for those of us who have been in favor of such an expansion for years (in some cases) may have been frittered away by the ineptness of several elements of local officialdom.

So as not to retread the if, buts and the like, here are a couple of links to prior blogs of the SCPR for readers to get up to speed/refresh on the saga of the goof ups that led up to the Ohio Supreme Court invalidating the electoral success of the pro-township-wide forces on May 16th of this year.

• First background blog LINK
• Second background blog LINK
• Third background blog LINK
• Fourth background blog LINK
• Fifth background blog LINK

BACK TO THE QUESTION

Will the Lake Township trustees try to get township voters to approve expansion of the Uniontown Police Department once again this November?

SCPR ANSWER

Probably not, more likely to try next May at the primary election.

REASONING

There are two alternatives for expansion.  Either expanding the Uniontown Police District (9 square miles in the northwest part of the township) township wide or contract with the Stark County sheriff to provide services a la the arrangement between Plain Township and the sheriff.

In a conversation with Trustee John Arnold yesterday (Arnold is president of the Lake Township Board of Trustees), while not saying so in a direct fashion, it was clear to the SCPR that trustees will not be putting a proposal on the ballot to contract with the sheriff's department.

Arnold told The Report that whether or not the trustees would entertain the idea of working out an arrangement with the sheriff depended on who the sheriff is.

Hmm?

Translated:  if Republican sheriff candidate Larry Dordea is sheriff, then the trustees might be interested.

Which, if you think about it, rules out putting such an issue on the ballot this November.

And there is more information that The Report believes is relevant to this discussion.

A couple days ago yours truly got a telephone call from a Stark County-based official more or less complaining about certain advantages Larry Dordea has in his run against Democrat and current Chief Deputy Sheriff Mike McDonald (Jail Division).

The caller observed that Dordea is using being chief of the Hartville Police Department and a councilman-at-large in Alliance and being a previous chief of police in Alliance as his political base for running as a candidate for sheriff.

Of course, yours truly was thinking:  so?

In running for office, one always uses his/her inherent advantages.

Then came the "real" complaint as interpreted by The Report.

The Lake trustees will not consider contracting with the sheriff as presently constituted because the office is controlled by Democrats (all the Lake trustees are Republicans) and moreover Chief Deputy Rick Perez (who was Sheriff Swanson's first choice to run to succeed him) is especially loathed by public officials which only adds icing to the Republican dominated out-in-the-political-subdivisions determination to do everything they can to undermine Democrat McDonald's effort to succeed Swanson.

So the question came to mind as to why officials out in the 'burbs would have such a heightened dislike of Rick Perez.

Bingo!

The Report believes that Republican dislike of Perez goes all the way back to January, 2012 (LINK) when Perez was the investigator of allegations made by a Marlboro trustee (perhaps, even a second trustee) that Marlboro Chief of Police Ron Devies (a Republican) had done something wrong in working with his son Kyle when Kyle was disengaging from maintaining the township's office computer complex at the order of a majority of the trustees (which did not include Trustee Wayne Schilig).

The key point of upset among his critics is that Perez wore a wire without telling fellow policeman Devies that he was wearing a wire.

Eventually Devies and his son were acquitted in the sense that Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Lee V. Sinclair dismissed all charges after the prosecution had finished with its case.  In other words, the prosecutor's office had not even established a prima facie case that the Devies' had done anything wrong.

Nevertheless, the SCPR believes that many Stark County political subdivision law enforcement types and maybe even some of their brothers and sisters in the fire fighting community (especially, if they are Republicans to boot) may still harbor resentment against Perez and his boss Tim Swanson over the manner in which the investigation was handled.

The Report did ask Swanson in an email yesterday about the specifics of how Perez came to the decision to wear a wire (i.e. at his own initiative, at Swanson's direction or on the advice/counsel of the Stark County prosecutor's office), but he ignored that part of the email in his response.

So over three years later we may be witnessing political comeuppance (in the context of the Lake Township expansion initiative, revisited because of the Supreme Court) that might evidence an effort to advantage Republican Dordea in his second try to become sheriff of Stark County.

If the theory of an underlying political factor being at play in the Lake trustees refusal to consider Mike McDonald's proposal (May 29, 2012 at a regular Lake Township trustees' meeting) for the current sheriff to provide policing to Lake Township has any credibility, it is not likely to get public verification from township officials.

The Report posed the question to Trustee Arnold yesterday.  Arnold responded that he had not heard the "animosity towards Perez" premise before and that as far as he is concerned such is not a factor in the trustees failure so far to sit down with Swanson and/or McDonald and go over their proposal which the trustees have heretofore said was not an "apples to apples" proposal.  Earlier this week Swanson wrote a letter specifically requesting such a meeting.

To The Report, Arnold's denial is weak in view of his follow up to yours truly that it was reasonable for the SCPR to conclude that his "it depends on who the sheriff is" statement clearly indicates that the November election will have to come and go to see whether Dordea or McDonald is elected.

Obviously, the Lake trustees have a problem with someone in the current staff make up of the Stark County sheriff's department.

Sheriff Swanson has told yours truly (reference:  the email cited above) that he (Swanson) must be the problem because Perez has been an exemplary chief deputy. 

This is the exact way Swanson put it:

If we all left petty differences and personalities govern the way we do business, things would really be in a sad state of affairs.

I don’t buy that is the reason, if anything I would think it’s their dislike of me.

Let me assure you right now, if any of them were the victim of a crime, they would cherish the thought of having Chief Perez investigate their incident, he’s the best there is and doesn’t leave any rock unturned. Not much different than an excellent doctor with less than desirable bedside manners, I’m not interested in bedside manners when it comes to taking care of the problem, are YOU?

 He added:

You know when you get elected to serve, that’s exactly what you should do is serve.

You shouldn’t allow anything to influence your doing the RIGHT thing.

I have told my people from the time I became Sheriff, we will always do the RIGHT thing, the fair, honest and prudent thing to do.

Most of the elected Official are always worried about the next election and do things to insure they get elected again. I NEVER did that, my instructions were, we will do what’s RIGHT in spite of political pressure and will triumph in the end and be able to live with our decisions and sleep at night.  

I’ve always told my fellow employees to do what is right and fair and not take short cuts or bow to pressure. Their job wasn’t to get me to elected again, that was my job. If they were honest, conscientious, professional  and followed policy and procedure they would always come out on top. I asked them to remember that most of the people we respond to for service have never had to call us before and the impression we leave them with is everlasting. 

CONCLUSION

So where does the SCPR end up on this flap?

Yours truly is a loss to understand why the Lake trustees will not deal with the sheriff's office as presently constituted.

If Perez's presence is their problem, the SCPR does not believe that a Sheriff McDonald would be keeping him on.

If Swanson is the problem (as he suggests himself), he definitely will be gone after December 31, 2012.

And nobody (even Dordea himself) has ever suggested to the SCPR that Mike McDonald should become sheriff is not a quality law enforcement office.

Obviously, Dordea thinks he is the better choice, but again he has not reflected adversely on McDonald's competence to be sheriff.  Nor has McDonald reflected adversely on Dordea's competence to be sheriff.

The Report tends to believe that there is a political comeuppance factor or at least a politically based disaffection with some Stark County law enforcement officers (including at least two in the Uniontown Police Department) and seemingly on the part of the Lake trustees.

Yours truly was quite shocked to hear a Uniontown Police Department officer say that he would have a problem working with a Sheriff McDonald.  Don't know what the man's political preference is, but he needs to read and reread Sheriff Swanson's points along that line.  And there was the little tiff that occurred between McDonald and Uniontown Chief of Police Harold Britt when McDonald made his May 29th proposal. Why would Britt do that?

Of course, candidate Dordea could put the matter to rest by telling the Lake trustees that if they have any interest whatsoever in considering a sheriff's department policing arrangement, they should consider it now.  For if he is elected, he will be the person implementing the agreement anyway.

But don't expect that to happen. It could be taken as being akin "to biting the hand that feeds you" to show up the trustees in this fashion, if in fact political favoritism is in play.

While everyone tells The Report that the Lake deliberations do not have a political factor to them, yours truly is both highly skeptical of that claim and disappointed that the trustees are handling the matter as they are (i.e. "the sheriff's proposal is not 'apples to apples,' but we won't talk to them about it" and "it depends on who the sheriff is").

First the trustees had to endure the humiliation of having their first "apparently" successful effort go down in flames in the Supreme Court decision of May 16th because of the failure of people they relied on to get the ballot language correct.

So now are they preparing themselves for a second (at the ballot box) humiliation in injecting political considerations into whether or not they get the best possible deal for township residents for expanded police services if and when such a measure in once again presented to Lake voters?

For now, it appears to the SCPR that the Lake trustees will not consider the sheriff's plan nor is it likely they will put a replacement for the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated Issue 6 November, 2011 short-lived victory.

To repeat, if anything in terms of expansion of Lake policing is in the cards, it does not appear that an initiative will not occur until May of 2013 (next year's primary election date) at the very earliest.

But we should know for sure on Monday night next.

In the meantime, Stark County will elect a new sheriff in November and the SCPR believes that either way Stark Countians choose, the county will be well served. 

Dordea versus McDonald is not a matter of competence as Zumbar versus Koher for Stark County treasurer in November, 2012 was not about competence.

CAN GRADY TURN LAKE POLICE LEVY VICTORY INTO THE BEGINNINGS OF AN ELECTION COURT

UPDATE:  3:00 PM.

From:  "Bryan"

To:  tramols@att.net

Martin - I am genuinely curious to know why you favor a township PD. I get the idea of increased patrols and police presence. But I do not get why you think a township force is better than the sheriff. Thanks.

Posted by Bryan to STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT at May 31, 2012 2:44:00 PM

SCPR ANSWER

Bryan,

I do not necessarily think that "a township force is better than the sheriff."

While the Uniontown Police Department has been my family's policing security for all the years that the Olson family as lived in Lake (nearly 40 years) and I think it has been an excellent police force, I am open to having the sheriff be the township policing authority.  The price appears to right.  It is just a case of comparing "apples to apples" to make sure that the resulting quality will be the same.

Thanks for your inquiry,

Martin Olson - Blogger for The Stark County Political Report.

ORIGINAL BLOG

Lake Township resident and attorney Mike Grady had a terrific day on May 16th of this year.

He was co-counsel on a team of lawyers who convinced the Ohio Supreme Court that Lake Township trustees John Arnold, Ellis Erb and Galen Stoll, through the township's legal counsel Charles Hall, III,  made a mistake in the ballot language substantial enough that the high court upheld Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Haas in his invalidation of Lake Issue 6 in the election of November 8, 2011.

In the vote on Issue 6, Lake residents approved a levy issue to take the Uniontown Police Department township wide.

Yours truly supported the issue (Issue 6) and plans to support the measure again if township trustees put it back on the ballot for this November.

Notwithstanding the SCPR's support of Lake Township having a township wide police presence, yours truly admires the work of Grady and his fellows in striking a blow for the integrity of elections.

Now comes news that Grady did pro bono (for the public good) work for Lake Township's opponents for the township wide levy to the tune of some $37,500 (Stark County paid Lake Township’s tab in fight over police levy, Nancy Molnar, Akron Beacon Journal, May 24, 2012).

A Republican, Grady is trying to establish that Stark Countians should take him seriously as being politically viable in his attempt to unseat Stark County prosecutor and Democrat John Ferrero.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, there is a significant contrast between Grady and Ferrero that buttresses The Report's argument that Grady offers Stark Countians a unique opportunity to bring a fresh approach to the way the prosecutor's office is managed.  Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar and Stark County Auditor Alan Harold have brought a refreshing change to their respective offices.  Grady could to the same for the prosecutor's office.

The Report believes that Ferrero's background is as a Stark County Democratic Party "good ole boy."  In his political history, he teamed up with Gary Zeigler and Tim Swanson in 2004 to run a joint campaign.  At least for a while.  Eventually, there was a falling out and Ferrero went his own way.

As the SCPR sees this race, it stacks up as a "breath of fresh air" versus stagnation.

Both Ferrero and Grady have track records of managing staffs of attorneys and being civically involved.

Grady tells the SCPR that he would bring proven private sector management efficiencies to bear on office procedures, practices and personnel.  He learned them as chief legal counsel and managing attorney (now retired) at The Babcock and Wilcox Company, a major worldwide corporation with facilities in nearby Barberton, Ohio.

Stark Countians well know that the county averted a full blown financial crisis when voters approved a 0.5% sales tax last November.

But the passage of the tax does not mean that Stark County government (including the prosecutor's office) is going back to "business as usual" as existed prior to the loss of tax revenues.

Management skills should be a premium consideration as voters assess these two candidates. 

Actually prosecuting cases (criminal or civil) has not been in the cards (except, perhaps, for cameo appearances [e.g. the Bobby Cutts case] for the political gain to be derived) for Ferrero.

One should not expect that Grady would be any different in this respect.

Undoubtedly, he will bring new prosecutors on board.  However, he has promised that he will not be making changes to the prosecutorial staff just because they worked for John Ferrero.

As readers of the SCPR know, The Report has a number of issues with Prosecutor Ferrero's stewardship his office and has long held that Stark County needs remove him as leader.

Here are a number of links to prior blogs which go into detail as to the many reasons yours truly is disenchanted with Mister Ferrero.

• April 16, 2012 blog
• January 25, 2012 blog
• January 20, 2012 blog
• October 02, 2011 blog
• August 29, 2011 blog
• May 05, 2011 blog
• February 02, 2011 blog

While The Report would like to see Ferrero defeated in his reelection bid, with a political neophyte taking him on, the odds are against that happening.

Nothing against Grady, but he would not have been The Report's first choice to take on the task due to his glaring lack of political insight into and experience in Stark County politics.

So how is Grady to make up for his lack of political sophistication?

He could and should turn to the likes of fellow Republicans Alan Harold (Stark County auditor), Alex Zumbar (Stark County treasurer) and Janet Creighton (Stark County commissioner).

However, because the odds do not favor Grady winning (which, of course, would mean that Ferrero is left to work with day-in, day-out), it is likely that Harold, Zumbar and Creighton - though supporting him - will not want to be front and center in his campaign.

Yours truly has had experience with Ferrero that indicates to me that he is a vindictive type when it comes to anyone criticizing his handling of the Stark County prosecutor's office.

He apparently forgets that he is a politician running for office, and that in the American political system, folks have 1st Amendment rights to comment on how any given politician is managing his/her elective office.

The SCPR knows of one highly placed Stark County Democrat (impressively credentialed) who is substantially less than complimentary of Ferrero.

Grady appears to be somewhat out of the mold of Republican A.R. "Chip" Conde who ran for mayor of Canton in November, 2011.  A totally class act who just couldn't bring himself to play political hardball with the well-oiled politician William J. Healy, the second.  But in Conde's defense, he had to run in the context of a 9 to 1 Democrat to Republican registration ratio. 

Even the highly politically popular Janet Creighton (countywide) who has been elected Stark County recorder, auditor and commissioner, could not survive in the overwhelmingly Democratic environment beyond one term as mayor.

Though she won a narrow victory (300+ votes) over the politically bland former Canton city councilman Bill Smuckler in 2003; in 2007 she succumbed to the politically slick Healy in the Canton Democratic enclave.

Overall across Stark, she is likely Stark County's most popular politician. In 2010 she ran for county commissioner and trounced former Jackson Township trustee and Democrat Steven Meeks.

So Grady does have an advantage that Conde did not have: running countywide.

If he campaigns smart (in Republican strongholds like Lake and Jackson townships) getting out his vote, he may be able to offset his losses in Canton and Massillon.

There is no doubt to the SCPR that Lake Township Republican officials will be pumping up Democrat Ferrero as political payback on Grady for his involvement in getting the Lake Township wide police levy favorable vote invalidated.

This though Trustee John Arnold acknowledged in Wednesday night's regular Lake Township trustees meeting that the Stark County prosecutor's office was along with the Stark County Board of Elections shared in the blame along with the township's legal counsel (Charles Hall, III).

Yours truly has lived in Lake for the better part of 40 years and am well acquainted with the local political landscape.

Erb, Stoll, Arnold, Sommers (all Republicans) and Uniontown police officials who had their dream dashed by the Ohio Supreme Court's adverse decision do have some political clout within certain circles in Lake. 

But not as much as the Ferrero forces might hope.

The Report still sees Grady as winning highly Republican Lake.

It is quite a step for suburban if not rural voters to vote for a city of Massillon guy who is a former chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.

You have to believe that Grady will be working the Ferrero partisan political connection big time in traditionally Republican sectors of Stark County.

Alliance may present opportunity for him.

With the help of the Republican mayor Alan Andreani, Councilwoman Julie Jakmides and state Rep. Christina Hagan, he might win Stark County's third largest city.

He should carry Republican North Canton.  Mayor David Held and stalwart Dogwood City Republicans could provide a big lift for him.

A wild card in the Grady/Ferrero face off could be the Stark County sheriff race.

Democrat Mike McDonald (a chief deputy of the jail division) is running against Republican Larry Dordea (police chief in Hartville and a Alliance city councilman at large).

This is likely to be a very, very close race.

A race that Stark Countians will be a winner no matter who is elected.  Somewhat like the Zumbar/Koher contest for Stark County treasurer in November, 2010.

It would be helpful for political newbie Grady if he could run with Dordea (who ran a competitive race against Sheriff Swanson in 2008) as sort of a law enforcement duo.

But Dordea has his hands full with McDonald and so it seems likely to the SCPR that Dordea will not have the luxury of tutoring Grady on the ins and outs of real world politics.

Grady's political inexperience is a major liability to be overcome if he is to become Stark County's next prosecutor.

In November, Stark Countians will have a choice between "a breath of fresh air" and "a well-heeled politician."

Which will Stark Countians choose?

(VIDEOS: SEE ENTIRE "POLICE LEVY" LAKE TWP TRUSTEES "SPECIAL MEETING") TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY CHARLES HALL, III GOES OVER "SNAFUS" ON LAKE ISSUE #6 WITH TRUSTEES IN LIGHT OF OHIO SUPREME CT INVALIDATING ITS 11/08/2011 PASSAGE.

 

UPDATED:  05/18/2021 AT NOON

VIDEO ADDED

Lake Township legal counsel went on camera with the SCPR after yesterday's "special" township trustee meeting to answer follow up questions posed by The Report.

This update makes it five (5) videos that the SCPR of the event to give readers of The Report the most complete and comprehensive coverage of the meeting by any Stark County media outlet.

In this video, Hall acknowledges that the ballot language error which led to the Ohio Supreme Court invalidating the passage of Issue 6 originated with him.  Moreover, he sheds light on the adjustments made by the Stark County Board of Elections to prevent future incidents like this one from happening.

UPDATED & REVISED 05/18/2012 AT 9:00 AM

One has to wonder why the Lake trustees called a special meeting today (May 17, 2012) at noon at Township Hall to discuss the decision yesterday by the Ohio Supreme Court to invalidate the vote on Lake Township Issue 6 (designed to convert the Uniontown Police Department [UPD] which voters passed on November 8, 2011 because of problems with the ballot language.

First of all, trustee and board president John Arnold was unable to be at the meeting because of a prior business commitment.   

Secondly, the meeting mainly consisted of township attorney Charles Hall, III retreading ground that most followers of the controversy surrounding Lake Township's Issue 6 are familiar with. 

Thirdly, none of the Lake citizens attending the meeting were allowed to speak to the matter.  They will have to wait until the trustees regular meeting:  Tuesday, May 29th at 6:30 p.m. at Lake Township Hall.

Controversy?

Yes, as indicated in the opening paragraph of this blog, while the issue passed, it had deficient language in that as printed on the ballot it told voters that they would be paying the millage at the rate of $0.45 per thousand of valuation whereas the reality is that township taxpayers would be paying $4.50 per thousand.

The Ohio Supreme Court said that the error was grievous to the point of requiring the justices to invalidate the election on the issue.

Those opposing the issue are pleased with the high courts action.  Witness this videotaped interview by the SCPR of township resident Sue Leonatti:

But there were supporters of the issue (by the way, yours truly voted for the issue) present at today's meeting.   One such person was Emily Kish.  Here is her SCPR videotaped interview.

It is apparent to The Report that the trustees are going to put the issue back on the ballot this coming November.

While Trustee Ellis Erb, in this on camera interview, says he has not made up his mind, The Report is confident that he and fellow trustees Galen Stoll and John Arnold will resubmit the matter to Lake voters not later than the August 8th deadline for inclusion on November 6, 2012 ballot.

Off camera, Erb made a number of points to The Report:

• the Stark Board of Elections (BOE) is "at fault" in that it did not communicate to Lake a memo from Ohio secretary of state that there was a ballot language problem.
• points to recent discipline of two BOE workers as evidence that the board is owning up to being "at fault,"
• he is confident that if presented to Lake's voters a second time, a new initiative to go township wide with the UPD will pass.
• that he will not be asking a prime contributor to the first try (the corporate arm of Hartville Hardware) for any additional contributions.  $7,000 was contributed the first time around.
• that the criminal element benefits from the issue's demise.

Erb also discussed with yours truly the fact that one of the legal counsel appealing the ballot language problem to the courts (namely, Michael J. Grady) has made a political football of the matter of a countywide dimension in that he is a candidate for Stark County prosecutor.  A job currently held by Democrat John Ferrero.

Both Erb and Grady are Republicans.  Erb has made at least one campaign contribution to Ferrero and confirmed with The Report that he supports Ferrero over Grady.

Assistant Stark County Prosecutor Deborah Dawson was present at today's meeting.   Prosecutor Dawson is the township's prime counsel for purposes of appealing from the baseline court decision [Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Haas] also invalidating the Issue 6 favorable vote.

Erb says that Grady has a mission beyond turning around the results of Issue 6.  Obviously, one is to get elected prosecutor.  Moreover, Erb believes that Grady is determined to unseat himself and fellow trustee Galen Stoll when they come up for reelection in November, 2013.

Here is a video of the formal portion of the meeting.

(VIDEO OF STARK CO. AUDITOR ALAN HAROLD ON "TAX ADJUSTMENTS" TO LAKE & UPD RESIDENTS). AS IT TURNS OUT STARK COUNTY TREASURER ALEX ZUMBAR WAS RIGHT ON LAKE ISSUE 6.

 Revised & republished 05/17/2012

Originally titled:  "LAKE TWP" POLICE DEPT IS NO MORE AS OF THE END OF MORNING PATROLS (5/16/2012).  SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS STARK COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDGE JOHN HAAS IN INVALIDATING LAKE TWP WIDE POLICE DEPT VOTE OF 11/06/2011

As media waited in the Stark County commissioners outer area while the commissioners were in executive session (late November, early December 2012), a conversation ensued between media persons (including yours truly) with Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar.

Zumbar was firm in his conviction that Lake Township Issue 6 for expansion of the Uniontown Police Department into a township wide operation was likely in for trouble should the vote outcome be challenged because of the ballot language to strictly complying with Ohio statutory law.

Stark County Auditor Alan Harold checked with state officials and elected to go ahead with changing Lake Township tax bills notwithstanding the controversy surrounding erroneous language.

The Report was a little taken back on Harold's proceeding in light of his history of being a stickler for details on the matter of paying and authorizing former treasurer Gary Zeigler (now resigned/retired) to use county equipment once he was restored to office by the Ohio Supreme Court back in 2011 pending a bond being obtained to cover Zeigler as a government official.

So yesterday, yours truly got Harold on camera to explain to UPD/Lake Township taxpayers how the reversal of the tax will work out.



Challenge was all but certain at the time because sloppy local government work (i.e. by the Lake Township trustees, the Stark County prosecutor's office and the Stark County Board of Elections) allowed the issue be placed on the ballot with a glaring error in the ballot language.

Instead of saying that the issue, if passed, would cost $4.50 per thousand of valuation; the language was that it would cost $0.45 per thousand of valuation.

As it turns out, Zumbar was correct.

Trustees learned yesterday that the Ohio Supreme Court had affirmed the judgment of Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Haas (January, 2012) on his invalidation of a vote by township voters.  (Note:  yours truly voted "for the tax levy.")

The high court (LINK to the decision) put it this way in affirming Haas:

This case presents the extreme circumstances of a misstatement in
ballot wording that understated a proposed tax levy by ten times less than the true amount to be collected, which misled the voters and clearly affected the integrity of the November 8, 2011 election on Issue 6.

So the decision seemingly wraps up the Stark local government screw-up of a simple ballot question as to whether or not Lake residents wanted to go to a township wide police department.  (LINK to a prior blog which goes into more of the details of the debacle)

But not quite.

The sloppy work costs Stark County and Lake taxpayers money.

From the county side, one must ask:  How much in person hours and the concomitant expense will it take to undo the county treasurer and county auditor reworking of Lake Township property tax bills to implement Issue 6 and how much will be added in undoing the work?

From the township side, one must ask: How much did the township spend on legal counsel (township attorney Charles Hall, III) in getting flawed ballot language drawn up and how much has the township paid Hall to deal with the matter through the processes of litigation  in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas and the Ohio Supreme Court?  Moreover, How much in township administrative time, police administrative time, effort and patrol person hours have Uniontown Police district taxpayers financed as a consequence of the less than sterling work done on Issue 6?  Were more personnel hired to go township wide?  If so, are there to be layoffs and at what expense to the taxpayers?  What about the expense of rework of UPD police cruisers to make them identifiable as township police cruisers?

And on and on go the questions.

Notwithstanding the expense of the the local government snafu (the Ohio secretary of state got it right), opponents of Issue 6, understandably, are supportive of the Supreme Court ruling.

Denise O'Wesney was pleased with the outcome.  In a statement to the SCPR she said:

As you may recall, I testified against this illegal levy back in January, so I am pleased to see the Ohio Supreme Court make the correct decision.  Regardless of how one might feel about an extended police department, one can NEVER justify getting it through the trickery and deception of taxpayers.  Justice has been served. 

Voters everywhere have Mike Grady, Eric Stetz, Jimmy Miller, and countless others to thank for protecting their freedom.  Had this illegal ballot been allowed to stand, it would have been a slippery slope for the future. 

Trustee Arnold told The Report that he was disappointed that the Supreme Court sided with the township voters who challenged the validity of the election.

Moreover, he said that trustees will be meeting in public session with township legal counsel today (May 17th) at noon at Lake Township Hall.  However, township officials indicated to the SCPR that there likely would be no "public speaks" section of the agenda of items to be covered by trustees.

Longer term, it will be interesting to see what political repercussions of the invalidated vote will have in 2013.

Trustees Ellis Erb and Galen Stoll are up for re-election.

Should they decide to run, it is not likely that either will be receiving many votes out of precinct 21.

Four or five hundred votes is an large number of votes for a candidate to overcome, no?

SHORTLY AFTER THE ELECTION, STARK COUNTY TREASURER ALEX ZUMBAR SUGGESTED TO THE PRESS THAT LAKE'S UNIONTOWN POLICE LEVY EXPANSION MIGHT HAVE HAD A FATAL FLAW IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. ALSO, DID TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS KNOW ABOUT THE PROBLEM BEFORE THE ELECTION?

UPDATE:  10:30 AM

The Report has just obtained information to the effect that the Stark County auditor's office is effectuating the voted in millage on Lake Issue #6 (Uniontown Police District expansion) by direction of state of Ohio taxing authorities unless, of course, a court order to the contrary is issued out of the pending Stark County litigation.

ORIGINAL POST

Today, Stark County Common Pleas Judge John Haas will be holding a hearing on a lawsuit filed by a group of Lake Township citizens to invalidate the November 8, 2011 vote approving expansion of the Uniontown Police Department.  (Yours truly lives in the Uniontown Police District (UPD) and voted for the levy which, if passes court review, will result in a property tax reduction for UPD residents)

The SCPR recalls that once the story broke that the ballot language had faulty language yours truly and another person from Stark County media engaged in some banter with Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar.

Zumbar is charged with mailing out property tax bills to with either the $4.50 or $0.45 per thousand assessment as determined by others to Lake Township residents beginning with tax year 2012.

Yours truly was surprised to hear Zumbar suggest (being careful to disclaim that he was not a lawyer) that, despite Lake Township attorney Charles Hall's (in the media) assurance to the contrary, he thought there may well be a problem in collecting at the rate of $4.50 "for each one thousand dollars of valuation ... ." on Lake Township's Issue 6 given that the clear language on the ballot was $0.45 "for each one thousand dollars of valuation ... ."

The Report asked Stark County Auditor Alan Harold what he thought of Zumbar's musings.

Harold (who has a role in adding the assessment to tax bills) declined any comment which The Report thought was a little bit strange in light of the fact that Harold (to his credit) was not shy in offering that he would not permit former Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler to use county equipment (e.g. telephones, computer et cetera) until he posted a bond on resuming the office of treasurer after being reinstated by the Ohio Supreme Court on June 25, 2011.

Strange?

Yes, the SCPR's take on Harold is that every "i" had better better be dotted and every "t" had better be crossed before he would act to allow/implement anything that had questionable legality to it.

Apparently, the fact that the Stark County Board of Elections certification was enough for Harold, to wit:

The interesting thing about the Issue 6 controversy (other than on the merits of the issue itself in terms of being for or against it) to the SCPR is the unbelievable number of government employee reviewers who missed the errant language, to wit:

• Lake Township attorney Charles Hall,
• Lake Township trustees,
• Stark County prosecutor's office,
• Stark County Board of Elections personnel, and the
• Ohio Secretary of State.

Moreover, the SCPR has heard of suspicion and speculation that local officials (at the township level) may have known about the mistaken ballot language and elected not to stop it from going to the ballot notwithstanding such alleged knowledge, apparently, on the assumption that there would not be a court challenge to the validity of the vote and, if there was, Ohio Supreme Court case law would save the day on its ultimate validation.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, Lake Township residents for sure, and Stark Countians to boot ought to be awfully upset.

The Report's opinion is that no matter what the case was, that is to say:

• all those taxpayer paid for government eyes failed to find this fundamental flaw and thus demonstrating that they are not taking their work seriously enough in the sense of concentrating and focusing on legal matters they scrutinize, or
• someone in the chain (as speculated) knew of the flaw and thereby had time to fix it or have it withdrawn for another election cycle.

The SCPR thinks it does not speak well of the the quality (in the sense of "due diligence" examination) or, perhaps, rectitude of government officials (if the speculation of prior knowledge is well-founded) that the flawed language got voted upon.

The Stark County Political Report believes that there will be political consequences for Lake Township Trustees Ellis Erb and Galen Stoll - no matter what the cause for the errant language making it to the ballot - come their next election cycle, should they decide to run for re-election.

Although yours truly has supported township wide (except 1998, which was merely a proposed incremental expansion into the Greentown area) police levies which have been on the ballot two times before Issue 6 and failed by huge numbers in 1988 or thereabouts, in 1998 (limited expansion to Greentown area) and in 2005, The Report is for spotless elections and, accordingly, admonishes township officials and any other local and/or state officials who were in a position to catch the error and stop the erroneous version of Issue 6 from appearing on the ballot.

Even if Judge Haas (and/or a higher court) ultimately determine that the flawed language is not fatal, the remiss public officials have cost township and county taxpayers a significant number of dollars in getting to a final determination.

Should the decision be that the language is fatally flawed, then the costs to taxpayers will be magnified and Lake Township voters who wanted township wide police protection over and beyond what the Stark County sheriff currently provides will likely have been undermined - for who knows how long - in their endeavor. 

A SCPR "hats off!" to the over twenty-five Lake citizens (minimum of 25 required) who at their own expense and effort and in the interest of being good citizens have taken this matter to court.

They names verifying the petition (292 by the SCPR's count) include:

Janet L. Bishop

William N. Doty

James E. Miller

Cynthia V. Shaffer

William L. McClelland

Michael R. Johnson

Anthony Graham

Elizabeth M. Graham

Daniel L. Mihalik

Patrick Mihalik

Catherine M. Mihalik

James M. Dickerson

Bliss L. Dickerson

Paul Venditti

Robert P. Ramsey

Nancy L. Ramsey

James S. Biddle

Pamela Pelini

Susan Wright

Darrell Wright

Steven M. Landy

Craig Pelini

Jason A. Richardson

Patricia A. Richardson

Shelley L. Landy

Karen B. Plaster

Tina M. Bell

Steven M. Bell

Thomas J. Firestone

Joellen Bergert

Julia Appleby

Michael Zaluski

Jean M. Zaluzki

Kara R. Firestone

Patrick P. Fladung

Chris Kellamis

Mark K. Plaster

Julie A. Sincere

Mary Jane Stryker

Christine Fladung

Michael S. Gruber

Leslie C. Gruber

Charles Sincere

Anne Montgomery

Bryan Schuster

Jennifer Schuster

Becky Taylor

Randy Montgomery

Rebecca Montgomery

Frank Magisano

Deanna Magisano

Janice Thompson

W.H. Thompson

Michael D. Babics

Lynn Hruschak

Lance Runion

Richard Maggorie

Kathi Maggorie

James A. Vega

Lisa Vega

Lillian P. Morrison

Mark A. Esposito

Michael J. Frear

Debra M. Frear

Julie L. Johnson

Robert M. Swope

Susan J. Swope

J. Geoffrey Bishop

Robert Obermiller

Michael Kapas

Albert S. Kilmer

James L. Shaffer

David J. Barrett

Deanna Barrett

Tom F. Cassetty

Chad Baucum

Susan I. Kerr

Gary B. Kerr

Lucille J. Ruble

Glen C. Mori

Gloria Z. Mori

Earl G. McClung

Jo I. McClung

Ronald Fether

Virginia Haas

Arley Kay Deering

Thomas E. Deering

Joseph Deering

Matthew M. McClung

Benard D. Haas, Jr.

Sherry J. Mendoza

Antonio M. Mendoza

Maria A. Brown

Michael L. Brown, Jr.

David M. Morgan

Norma J. Morgan

Joshua David Kerr

Edwin G. Lytle

Brenda L. Coblentz

Joseph G. Corbi

Beth E. Penaflor

Patricia A.  Nesbitt

June A. Higgins

Shelby L. Estep

Mark A. Estep

Gail M. Estep

Paul M. Bozman

Lynne M. Bozman

Sidney E. Beardshaw

Donald R. Tuck

Brandon Tuck

Carolyn D. Tuck

Charles F. Myers

Micheal D. Neely

Elizabeth M. Neely

Matthew J. Muriol

James C. Goulet

Michael J. Stackpole

Charles Groves

Gabriola A. Simon

Jon L. Nicholson

Joan M. Rodemeyer

Larry V. Beisel

David S. Simon

Robert W. Freeland

Toni L. Freeland

Evan C. Miller

Larry D. Alltop

Kimberly D. Alltop

Sarah Alltop

John  Rybkoski

Daniel C. Atkinson

Timothy S. Nehlen

Roy P. Yoder

Susan E. Yoder

Beth A. Stover

David L. Stover

Phyllis L. Beisel

Mike Kartler

Donald R. Oscai

Enos C. Kurtz

Donna L. Kilmer

Kirk McCauley

Annelise Waterfall McCauley

Keith E. Rawling

Michael J. Paschke

Patricia Paschke

Jeannette Paschke

Rodney P. Bowsky

Robert L. Kisha

Michelle L. Kisha

Richard L. Sherer

Chad Longfellow

Lawrence J. Hays

Sheree L. Estes

David A. Estes

Gregg L. Pavlides

Bonnie Pavlides

Paul D. DeGarmo

John Ruch

Mark D. Regener

Kyle Bonsley

Alex H. Pavlides

Cheryl E. McKee

Richard L. Whitmyer

Terrance M. Nesbitt

Tonee L. Moreland

Keith A. Sherer

Donna M. Knotts

Denver Bishop

Tony Gingerich

Richard E. Moles

Dawn Thoenen

Jacqueline Moles

Daniel D. Beachy

Celia F. Chandler

Sherri Landis

Randall Spargo

Robert D. Eaver

Alfred H. Raber

William Gingerich

Joseph Gingerich

Harley E. Evans

R. Laverne Wittmer

Eugene Miller

Laverne Raber

Mary Sue Kerata

Ken Kerata

Micheal Kamerer

David L. Claytor

Susan C. Claytor

Ruth A. Miller

David A. Barnes

Valerie Barnes

Randolph Robert Wadley

Michelle R. Lippe

William P. Motler

Julie Fallick

Michelle Michel

Guy K. Michel

J. F. Davis

Sandra R. Langley

Keith M. Fallick

Anita L. Severtis

Ronald E. Servertis

Lena C. Stankus

Craig S. Boyle

Robin Boyle

Valerie Waldorff

Brian T. Nutt

Alison R. Nutt

Franklin D. Leopold II

Carol L. Leopold

Ann Williams

Mark F. Deering

Pamela S. Deering

Michael S. Lucius

Mary Ann Grady

Kathy L. Motter

Michael B. Neville

Kenneth D. Swallen

Pamela H. Grady

Dennis J. Grady

Carol L. Mallamaci

Albert J. Wagner

Jane W. Wagner

Peggy Haney Ingalls

John D. Ingalls

Judy K. Zeiger

Marilyn L. Bennell

Sandra G. Myers

Ron Myers

Daniel J. Hoskins

Ginevra Hoskins

Linda Karlo

Cheryl Andrews

Christopher Andrews

David A. Stanek

Margaret L. Stanek

Joan E. Kress

Roberta A. Vine

Larry K. Mundorf

Margaret J. McClusky

Tirza Huetter

Richard W. Huetter

Marilyn K. Mundorf

James B. McClusky

Leonard P. Bossart, Jr

Charlotte A. Bossart

Shelley A. Johnson

Craig E. Johnson

B. Vincent Dollive

Melinda E. Dollive

Donald Sponseller

Vera M. Sponseller

June D. Wall

Robert D. Wall

Myron D. Draper

Sandra L. Draper

Leo E. Doyle

Rebecca M. Pitea

Victor S. Pitea

Kelley Kinnett

Devora J. Doyle

Margaret A. Batista Bazzoli

Steven R. Wagner

Robert Hiram Bazzoli

James A. Fuller

Janet M. Fuller

Larry K. Graham

Robert Testa

Kathleen M. Gross

George S. Gross, Jr

Lanco Bezek

Kimberly J. Bezek

Janet C. Graham

Susan M. Hunt

Jon S. Hunt

Clarence M. Chandler

Phineas Miller, Jr

Laverne Slabaugh

Patricia A. Testa

Ronald J. Keagy

Donald E. Higgins

Sara L. Chambers

Neal Snodgrass

Barbara N. Snodgrass

Daniel H. LaHaie

Timothy S. Eberly

Carol E. Eberly

Jennifer C. LaHaie

Ann M. Smith