EXPECTED KASICH DRUBBING OF FITZGERALD ON NOV. 4TH TO SWEEP DORDEA TO VICTORY? HOW ABOUT JUDGE WERREN?

Updated:  09:45 a.m.

Down-ticket statewide Democrats are getting worried that the political butt-kicking that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ed Fitzgerald is about to take on November 4th at the hand of incumbent Republican Governor John Kasich is going to do-in their candidacies.

Recent polls show Kasich with as much as a 12 percent lead.

Of the statewide Democratic candidates, only Connie Pillich seems to the SCPR to have much of a chance of winning.

And, that, it appears to the SCPR, is due to series of bad press phenomena suggesting Ohio treasurer Josh Mandel is doing a rather superlative job of politically self-destructing.

Registered Democrats are prone to vote in substantially lesser number than their Republican counterparts in non-presidential and off-year (i.e. odd numbered year) elections.

The SCPR is predicting on this August 15, 2014 that Kasich will win with a 60% to 40% spread, if not greater.

Here is what Democratic secretary of state candidate Nina Turner had this to say to the Cleveland Plain Dealer recently:

The FitzGerald effect

Turner said problems plaguing Democratic gubernatorial nominee Ed FitzGerald in the news recently has had an effect on her campaign. Northeast Ohio Media Group previously reported FitzGerald's early morning incident with a woman who was not his wife in 2012 and the 10 years he went without a driver's license.   (color text emphasis added by the SCPR)

Channeling Winston Churchill, Turner said, "When you're going through hell, you keep on going and that's pretty much what we are doing."

"He has apologized," Turner said.

"People are human. People have failings. It's unfortunate people want to keep piling on people's failings."

Turner said FitzGerald's "challenges" don't change the environment in Ohio, and that people still have reasons to vote for Democrats.

Reference:  Nina Turner says secretary of state should provide more help to new businesses: 4 takeaways by Jackie Borchardt, Northeast Ohio Media Group on August 13, 2014 at 4:32 PM, updated August 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

"THE FITZGERALD EFFECT" IN STARK CO.

While the SCPR does not think he will take a "butt-kicking," Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee sheriff appointee George T. Maier is likely to take a political hit because of "the Fitzgerald effect.

The more that Kasich expands his polling leads (and thereby fuels a public perception that "the election is over"); the more rank and file Democrats will get discouraged, the more likely it is that their voting numbers will go down which makes it more likely that down-ticket Democrats, including at the county level, will become victims.

Nevertheless, the Dordea/Maier contest is likely to be relatively close.

The SCPR sees Dordea winning by about a 53% to 47% margin.  It could be as much as 55/45 or as little as 51/49.

The Report has a source saying that the Democrats have taken a poll on the Dordea/Maier race and that it came back with Dordea up 12 percentage points.  The SCPR is skeptical first, that there is that wide of a margin between Dordea and Maier, and second, that if the Democrats had such a poll done that they would share it with anyone who might leak it.

Dordea's margin may be dependent on him being at the side of Kasich each and every time he appears in Stark County between now and November 4th. The Hartville police chief needs to get himself in media photographs arm-in-arm with Kasich.  Moreover, getting the governor to say how important that it is that Dordea be elected Stark County sheriff would be political "frosting on the cake."

The Chryssa Hartnett (a Democrat) versus Curtis Werren Stark County of Common Pleas judicial race is likely to be even closer than the Dordea/Maier match up.

If Hartnett is to pull off a victory in the face of the expected Kasich landslide, she will have to emphasize that she has been "a top-gun" prosecutor and one way or another emphasize to the public that Werren is a political appointee whose legal experience pales in comparison to her own.

Registered Democrats (including the Maier loyalists) will vote for Hartnett.  Registered Republicans will vote for Werren.  It will be the non-party-registereds who decide this election if Hartnett is to win.

One politically active Stark County Republican tells the the SCPR that he figures that Hartnett will attract the votes of Republican women who have the advancement of women at the top of their political criteria list.

It is sort tricky for a judicial office candidate to emphasize his party affiliation.  But that he is a Republican in this election year advantages Werren.  We shall see how creative the Werren campaign can be in getting the message out that John Kasich is the one who put him on the bench in the first place.

If Hartnett runs "the perfect campaign," she wins 51% to 49%.  But if she does not, then Werren could well win by a comfortable margin.

Had Lou Darrow been the Dems' choice back on February 5, 2013 to replace November 5, 2102 sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (who could not take office on January 7th because of an illness which cost him his life in February), the Dems' would not even have "a fightin' chance" this November.

Darrow is all policeman and not a politician in any sense of the word.

And that's the way it should be.

But being completely non-political does not usually get people elected to political office.

Had Lou Darrow been more of a politician (let's say with the William J. Healy, II wing of the Stark County Democratic Party), he would have been the February 5th appointee.

But, to repeat, he isn't political and it appears that "it was only a matter of time" until he left the sheriff's department, now under the control Maier.  Darrow's departure as of August 1st as a retiree was a function of the aforesaid "it being a matter of time."

Maier not only has the FitzGerald problem but he also has a significant part of the Stark County Democratic Party (e.g. Prosecutor John Ferrero, former Sheriff Tim Swanson)  that will make his bid to become the "elected" sheriff and uphill climb.

Of course, Darrow likely continues to be one of Maier detractors.  But he should be of no worry to the Maiers (a reference to George and his well-heeled "politico" brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr; a former Stark Dems' chairman) inasmuch as he does not have a political side to him.

But Ferrero and Swanson are significant and they could turn out to be decisive factors should George lose in a nail-biter type of election.

It appears to the SCPR that Swanson's civil liability lawsuit against Maier for usurping the office of Stark County sheriff (according to the Ohio Supreme Court in its November 6, 2013 quo warranto decision) will be decided within 30 days of November 4th.

Headlines of a $90,000 or so judgment against Maier immediately before the election would not be a positive development for him.

Moreover, The Report is hearing that "the honeymoon period" between Maier and the troops (especially the top echelon) at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard is evaporating.

The initial "this Maier guy" is a vast improvement over the "gone fishin" Swanson has turned out to be a bittersweet thing.

The hope at the sheriff's compound that things - in an overall sense - have improved with the appointment of Maier, seems to be turning South.

The Report hears that there is growing dissatisfaction with Maier's imperial, swashbuckling style and that rumblings of disaffection within the sheriff's digs are growing louder and more rampant by the day.

In addition to Darrow leaving, The Report hears that another top sheriff's department official will be retiring reportedly because of the "in-your-face-ways" of Maier.

It appears to the SCPR that Maier is being the quintessential politician in his first try for elective public office.

To some Stark Countians, Maier's saturation in "all things political" will be more than a little disconcerting.

After all, he is Stark County's chief law enforcement officer.

Seemingly, he never wears civilian clothes.

On-duty, off-duty, George T. Maier "plays the role" of being the consummate cop.  How convenient this is when he drops in on a political event in full sheriff's dress, no?

Though, as Stark's appointed sheriff, the department he heads up does not police the City of Canton, Perry Township and North Canton, where does he hold his "Coffee With A Cop" session?  You've got it!  Canton, Perry Township and North Canton.  Hmm?

While the Coffee With A Cop program did show up in Plain Township on Wednesday which contracts with the sheriff's department for policing services, the program has yet to show up in an area of the sheriff's jurisdiction in which there is no extra incentive (i.e. the $1.5 million or so contract with Plain Township) or which holds much political prospect for Maier's candidacy.

While "the official line" on the sheriff's office taxpayer support website is that the Coffee With A Cop was "a national initiative adopted by the Stark County Sheriff’s Office," the more discerning among Stark Countians might think their was a political dimension to the adoption (announced in April of this year, right before the primary election in early May).

It could be true that Maier's motive was civic in nature; however, the timing is such that it falls into the category of "who is going to believe" that?

Needless to say, George T. Maier is quite the opposite of Lou Darrow.

With Maier, one has to wonder whether he ever does anything without an eye being on the politics of the matter.

Should he lose on November 4th, it certainly will be a crushing blow to his ego.

And, if he does, he will have a ready built excuse.

It was "the FitzGerald effect" bleeding down to the county level, no?

And you know what?

The SCPR thinks it will not be an excuse but the political reality that 2014 was not a good years for statewide and county level Democrats!

"THE" - JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR - "LOYALTY CLUB" SHORING UP FOR FOR FUTURE "SCDP" POLITICAL FIGHTS?

SCPR SELECTIONS 

FOR THE

 "JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR "THE LOYALTY CLUB"

BOTTOM TO TOP

Sam Ferruccio, Jr

(Democrat - Stark County Board of Elections)

Kody Gonzalez

(Canton Muny chief deputy clerk)

Phil Giavasis

(Canton Muny clerk of courts)

R. Shane Jackson

(Massillon Muny - chief deputy clerk)

Johnnie A. Maier, Jr

(Massillon Muny clerk of courts)

George T. Maier

(SCDP-CC appointed county sheriff)

Rick Campbell

(Stark County recorder)

Randy Gonzalez

(Stark Co. Democratic Party chair)

Eddie Elum

(Judge, Massillon Municipal Court)

Gayle Jackson

(former Stark County commissioner)

Kathy Catzaro-Perry

(Mayor of Massillon)

Deametrious St. John

(Democrat - Stark County Board of Elections

UPDATED & REVISED 

IN THE ORIGINAL BLOG THE SCPR ERRONEOUSLY INDICATED THAT THE SELECTION OF A CHAIRMAN WAS BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

THE SELECTION IS MADE BY THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE

THE REPORT THANKS READERS FOR BRINGING THE THE ERROR TO THE AUTHOR'S ATTENTION

REVISED BLOG

When Stark Countians want incisive analysis of political moves of the various characters of Stark County politics, they turn to the Stark County Political Report.

THE EMAIL

It is a common occurrence for The Report to get an email like this.

Isn't that impressive?

The former president himself - the man who answer in the Monica Lewinsky case - "that depends on what 'is,' is?" has taken an interest in Stark County politics.

And well he should.

One of his biggest Stark County fans is Massillon clerk of courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. who served as chairman of the "organized" Stark Democrats from 2004 through 2009.

Make no mistake about it, though merely the executive vice president of the Stark Dems nowadays, he is clearly the guy who is "calling the shots" for the folks ensconced at 4220 12th Street, Northwest in Canton.

Although Chairman Randy Gonzalez likes to offer the pretense that he is "the man in charge," there is little doubt to the SCPR that he takes his marching orders from Tuscarawas Township's contribution to Massillon and Stark County politics.

Being the 'totally transparent person, he likes to present himself as being," The Report forwarded the Clinton email to the chairman for comment.

For he whines, whines and whines some more whenever the SCPR features him in a blog.  Somehow The Report never gets the chairman as he really is.   Hmm?

Sometimes he responds, sometimes he doesn't.  Apparently, it depends on whether not he "thinks" he can manipulate the message.

Gonzalez, the SCPR thinks, is a man who sees himself as "smarter than anyone else in the room."  In his own mind, it seems, he thinks that he can get folks to do "what they would not otherwise do" if they thought they were doing the will of Randy Gonzalez.

THE ATTACHMENT

But first, let's look at a copy the letter that was attached to the email, to wit:

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

January 10, 2014

To All Those Wishing to File a Petition for Precinct Committee Person: [emphasis added]

Enclosed please find a Declaration for Candidacy for Member of the County Central Committee for election in the May 6, 2014 Primary Election.

Please follow the steps below to properly complete your petition.

1. Verify that the name and address is correct on the petition.
2. SIGN YOUR PETITION on the front. Failure to sign your petition prior to circulation will disqualify the petition.
3. Obtain no less than five (5) and no more than fifteen (15) signatures from registered voters in your precinct. Only democrats and non-partisans may sign your petition. A list of the eligible voters to sign your petition is enclosed. Make sure the voter signs their name in pen. Do not print.
4. Complete the circulator's statement on the back of the petition after you have obtained the signatures. Print your name, member of the Democratic Party and the total number of signatures. Sign the circulator statement and include your address. Your petition will be Invalidated If you fall to provide this Information.

Helpful hints:

• Please DO NOT sign your own petition as one of the nominators. Your signature will be invalidated. 
• If anyone else circulates the petition, they CANNOT sign that petition page.
• Do not let another person sign someone else's name. For example, a husband cannot sign for his wife and vice versa. Ohio Revised Code 3501.38 (D) prohibits anyone from signing another person's name to a petition. This prohibition includes anyone who holds power of attorney for another.

The filing deadline is February 5, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. However, your petition should be returned by January 31, 2014 to Stark County Democratic Headquarters at P.O. Box 35411, Canton, Ohio 44735 to ensure that the petition is completed correctly. We will check each petition and then file it for you at the Board of Elections. To facilitate your filing, we have enclosed an addressed envelope to return your completed petition.

I urge you to give this matter your immediate attention. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please call the Board of Elections and ask for Jeanette at 330-451 -7002.

Sincerely,

 

Randy Gonzalez Chairman

Stark County Democratic Party                                                                  C:/DemPty2/Cmtes/Centra!/Ltr to PrecinctCmtepersons

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

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

Questions:

Did Randy Gonzalez "really" write the letter?

If he did, what is the political import?

The SCPR did ask him the first question posed above, to wit:

The Gonzalez response:

'
And the SCPR follow up:

And the response back from Gonzalez?

Nada!  Nothing!!  Zippo!!!

Hmm?

So what is the political import?

In short, that "The Loyalty Club" as pictured above is running scared.

"The Loyalty Club?"

Well, it is only the opinion of the SCPR that Maier, Jr, obsesses about only having around him those who in one fashion or another indicate to his satisfaction that they will take their marching orders from him when an occasion for action is at hand.

And the SCPR believes those pictured above have satisfied Maier, Jr. that the will be loyal foot soldiers.

It had to take Maier, Jr. et al by surprise that they narrowly defeated the non-politician Louis Darrow only 92 to 84 in the February 5th (2013) round of Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) voting between Darrow and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr brother George T. Maier as a replacement for Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (November, 2012) who could not take office on January 7, 2013 due to a illness that claimed his life on February 22nd.

It had to shake them up some more when 65 SCDP-CC members on December 11th stood tall for Darrow in the face of what is reported to have been a lot of Maier, Jr and friends pressure administered on some of the 84 to switch over to the Maier side when George (having been ousted on November 6th by the Ohio Supreme Court, Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) had to stand for reappointment.

Hence, it makes sense to the SCPR that Chairman Gonzalez would be part of an effort to shore up the Maier, Jr. loyalists among the SCPR-CC membership.

The Report has spot checked with various voters from the February and December meetings and in the sampling had borne out that only Maier voters (presumably focusing on the December 11th vote) received the purported Gonzalez letter whereas none of the Darrow voters surveyed had.

But the political import of shoring up the Maier, Jr. support among precinct committee persons has nothing to do with the Darrow/George Maier saga.

Maier has gotten by the SCDP-CC and there will be no further need for that, the SCPR thinks.

His main barrier to getting to the November general election will be the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) meeting of February 17, 2014 wherein the BOE is required to certify whether or not the candidates filing petitions by the February 5th deadline have submitted valid petitions.

But in the case of the sheriff candidates, the SCPR believes that the BOE must make a determination as to whether or not the sheriff filers are qualified under ORC 311.01.  That is that statute that Maier failed to qualify under when he was ousted on November 6th.

Rather the import of the precinct committee activity has to do with whom will succeed Randy Gonzalez as chairman.

The Report is told by a Stark County politician close to - if not part of - the Maier, Jr, "loyalty" group that Gonzalez will not seek reelection as chairman and that Phil Giavasis (Canton clerk of courts) is "the pick of the litter" from among Maier, Jr. loyalists to succeed Gonzalez.

However, The Report is told, that Giavasis may be getting "cold feet."

That 84 and 65 precinct committeepersons voted against the Maier, Jr./Gonzalez sheriff candidate might mean that Giavasis or anyone else who as the Maier, Jr. taint on them might be in for "the fight of their political life" come the succession of Randy Gonzalez question which comes up on the SCDP central committee agenda this Spring.

When word spread about the purported Gonzalez letter, reaction was swift.

There is actually a group of party activists (believed to be centered around Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero [a former chairman but more importantly a George T. Maier foe] and unionist David Kirven) who are countering the Maier, Jr. and friends effort on organizing for the election of the "new" SCDP-CC.

The general public could be dismissive of all this political activity as being of no concern to them.

But that would be a mistake.

Central committees are often called upon to "appoint" to office when an officeholder dies or otherwise leaves office.

We in Stark County have been through a lot of travail in recent years - some believe - as a consequence of a person with "eminent" political party qualifications being appointed by the politicos but who - after the fact of appointment - came to be perceived by the voting public to lack the leadership/management skills to get the job done.

The SCPR thinks that the public should beware of Stark County politicians who appear to some of us to obsess about personal loyalty in the political arena.

2ND TIME APPOINTED SHERIFF GEORGE T. MAIER STILL IN LEGAL FIGHTS. WILL THEY EVER END?

UPDATED:  2:56 PM

SEE LIST OF 101 WHO VOTED FOR MAIER

While Stark Countians are waiting to learn whether or not George T. Maier will face yet another legal challenge to his right as "a matter of being qualified" by virtue of criteria laid out in Ohio statutory law, there is no need for those who are following the Maier saga to be bored.

No need to be bored?

Right!

Back on November 27, the SCPR did a blog on Stark County Thomas Marcelli prevailing on local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley to file a lawsuit against Maier to recoup to the Stark County treasury some $120,000 plus in wages, benefits and "unnecessary/unwarranted" (in the opinion of The Report)  expenses while he was - according to the Ohio Supreme Court - a "usurper" sheriff who, in legal effect, was never sheriff of Stark County during the time-span February 12, 2013 through November 6, 2013.

Apparently, Maier has learned his lesson as being taught by Conley.  At least, that is, on making certain expenditures.

Since, being reappointed a second time (and, perhaps, illegally again) by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC), in a proceeding that the SCPR has tabbed as being "a dog and pony show;" it has been reported in local media that Maier plans on being more circumspect in making expenditures tied to his personal identity as being the sheriff.

It the SCPR's view, Chairman Gonzalez's contrived and orchestrated Wednesday's "rump session" detracts from his credibility as a Stark County governance leader.

The Report does not separate politics from governance in evaluating public officials who serve both in public office and key "unpaid" political party posts.  In "rightly dividing," one always hopes that governing in the public interest trumps the drive for personal political benefits.

While, as previously pointed out by the SCPR, Gonzalez does have some notable governance achievements, to wit:

• CJIS [Criminal Justice Information System], 
• 9-1-1 emergency call receiving/dispatch rehab, and
• being a major force in the recently announced Canton, North Canton, Jackson Township and Plain Township economic development cooperation pact

[N]evertheless, one should look "behind the curtain" and make an assessment when it comes to figures like Gonzalez (including, by way of specific example, a guy like Republican chairman Jeff Matthews and the belief by the SCPR that he has used his role as Stark GOP chairman to personal political advantage) as to which (i.e. governance in the public interest or personal political advantage) predominate.

Wednesday night's Stark Dems' charade was a spectacle to behold.

Others are to be heard describing the Wednesday event as being akin to "a kangaroo court."

Isn't that something in the United States of America?

There is a gem to be found in the intra-party fight between the "pro-George T. Maier forces" and those who supported Lou Darrow.

It is those 65 brave souls who - though it was obvious they were going to lose - stood fast and "fought the good fight" for the "rule of law" over political expedience.

In a special tribute, the SCPR lists those 65.

So that they will not feel slighted, here is a list of the 101 Maier supporters.

It is astounding to the SCPR that such a large number of active Democrats would support a candidate for sheriff who may yet be subject to another challenge as to his qualifications to be sheriff.

Apparently, they have more confidence in Gonzalez, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr et al that they (the precinct committee persons) are not being led down - once again - "the primrose path by the Stark Dems' executive committee's leadership than The Report thinks is merited.

If Gonzalez and his cohorts are proved wrong again, which the SCPR thinks is likely to be the outcome with the Ohio Supreme Court if Tim Swanson has the stomach to do another quo warranto challenge; will the 101 get an apology from the chairman?

Will the 101 then join with the 65 to visit political comeuppance on the chairman?

In the matter of being a contrast to what happened last Wednesday night, Stark Countians should be appreciate the efforts of Craig Conley as he has endeavored over quite a number of years (even pre-dating the arrival of the Stark County Political Report in March, 2008) taking on unpopular causes in advance what his a really big deal to him:  "preserving the rule of law."

His attempt to restore to the public treasury the $120,000 or so that the George T. Maier received/spent, in combo, while illegally (according to the Ohio Supreme Court) in office is laudable.

As was his successful effort to compel Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione to retrieve $5,000 of taxpayer money (assessed as a fine in the Studer case) he had sent off to his designated charity in Newtown, Massachusetts.

Readers will recall how Conley was rewarded for his "stand up for 'the rule of law'" stance.

For having the audacity of exercising his Constitutional right of "free speech" in labeling Forchione as being a "grandstander" in his Studer/Newtown action, an anonymous and thereby, by definition, a cowardly person (presumably an attorney) filed an ethics complaint against him, which, was found to be unjustified.

As The Report sees it, Conley is again under personal attack for his having the temerity to try to hold Maier accountable for having received/spent public money while not (according to the Ohio Supreme Court, Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) the legal sheriff of Stark County.

This time the attacker is not a cowardly, "sink into the shadows" type.

Amazingly enough, Conley's ad hominem attacker (prominent attorney Thomas Rosenberg of Roetzel & Andress/Columbus) reveals himself and his "over-the-top," the SCPR thinks, largely personal attack on Conley in his motion to dismiss Marcelli's complaint.

To go back just a bit and summarize, Conley's (for client Tom Marcelli's) complaint, to wit:

Shortly after Conley filed the civil complaint against Maier, local talk show host Ron Ponder invited him to come on his show to talk about the filing.

As a consequence of his having been on Ponder's show on December 3, 2013, Conley tells the SCPR that he was contacted by Ponder afterwards to let him know that one of the attorneys representing Maier (the aforenamed Thomas Rosenberg) in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto e-mailed Ponder telling him that Conley may have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct (for lawyers) in being on the radio and talking about "a pending case."

A charge that Conley forcefully refutes (see below).

And, folks, that is probably the mildest thing of all that Rosenberg has had to say about Conley.

Getting so personal with Conley might - just might - prove to have been one huge Rosenberg mistake.

The SCPR thinks that Rosenberg is in for "the treat of his life" in having to deal with Conley.

The word is that Conley has gotten out his slingshot and is scouring the legal landscape for "legal nuggets" to hurl Rosenberg's way.

In order to graphically lay out the "knock down and drag out" legal fight that is apparently underway between Conley and Rosenberg, The Report combs through the pleadings.

First of all, let's get introduced to the legal protagonists.

Rosenberg (of the large [13 offices mainly in Ohio and Florida but also as a presence in NYC, Chicago and D.C.], prestigious Roetzel & Andress) has responded to the Marcelli complaint via a motion to dismiss.

So how is it that George T. Maier got hooked up with the hoity-toity Rosenberg?

It has been suggested to The Report that the connection may be Massillon Municipal Court judge Eddie Elum who is said to be a long time acquaintance of Rosenberg's.

A check of biography information indicates that their acquaintance likely goes back to their overlapping stints in the Ohio Attorney General office.

And, of course, it is generally well known in local political circles that Elum is long standing political ally of Massillon clerk of courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

When Elum was charged with ethics violations in 2012, Johnnie was one of those who vouched for Elum ("attesting to his commitment to his community and his devotion to the law") in a letter submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court for its consideration in the ethics case.

So it appears to the SCPR that it is plausible that Rosenberg and George T. Maier found each other through an Eddie Elum connection.

You talk about a David v. Goliath match up, Conley (a sole practitioner) doesn't even have a website.  But he is licensed to practice in Florida.

Just being funny, of course, but maybe they should - by mutual agreement - try this case in Florida during the winter months.  Roetzel & Andress has quite a few offices in Florida.

What a case for relatively new Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Kristin Farmer to have to handle.

The SCPR thinks that Judge Farmer will acquit herself well.  As The Report has already written, she did "a simply impressive" job in handling North Canton Councilman-at-Large Mark Cerreta case against the Stark County Board of elections.

ROSENBERG'S MOTION TO DISMISS MARCELLI'S COMPLAINT

In his motion to dismiss (filed December 10th), Rosenberg comes out "for the Conley's jugular."

How is this for openers?

In his motion, Rosenberg goes on to outline his rejoinders to Marcelli's complaint, to wit:

First, (underlining added) with respect to a portion of the funds referred to in the Complaint, Plaintiff [SCPR note:  Marcelli acting for Stark County's taxpayers] improperly seeks recover against Maier, because Maier never personally received said funds.

Second, (underlining added) because Maier was, at all relevant times, acting as the de facto Sheriff of Stark County, Plaintiff's Complaint fails as a matter of law,

Third, (underling added) all funds referenced in the Complaint were paid and/or accepted in good faith and under color of law, preventing the relief sought in Plaintiff's Complaint,

Fourth, (underlining added) with respect to Maier's salary, the bond payment, and legal fees, because those services were actually performed and/or the benefit was actually received, it is inquitable to permit the recover Plaintiff seeks, and

Finally, (underlining added)  Plaintiff's prayer for attorneys' fees is without legal support and should be dismissed, even if the Court refuses to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint outright.


CONLEY'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ROSENBERG

To say that Craig T. Conley was ticked off at Rosenberg for sending off the e-mail to Ponder suggesting that Conley may have violated Ohio rules of ethical behavior is to understate big time Conley's reaction.

Rather than file a direct legal response (which certainly is in the offing) to Rosenberg's motion as most attorneys would do first, Conley sat down an penned a powerful legal attack on Rosenberg's right to continue to represent Maier in Marcelli's lawsuit.

The SCPR believes that Rosenberg, for all his impressive lawyering credentials, has never been up against the likes of Craig T. Conley; especially a "pissed off" Craig T. Conley.

Perhaps he should check with a Stark County attorney or two or three  and even a Stark County judge or two to get a sense of what he is about to experience.

CONLEY'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ROSENBERG

In his motion to disqualify Rosenber (filed this past Friday, December 13th), Conley raises the following assertions:

• That Ohio courts inferior to the Ohio Supreme Court have inherent power to disqualify attorneys for unprofessional conduct,
• That Thomas Rosenberg has engaged in unprofessional conduct as defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct in that in his "motion to dismiss" (i.e. the supporting memorandum of law on the motion):
• he (Rosenberg) "knowingly made a false statement" to [Judge Farmer] in his pleading in alleging that Marcelli sought recover funds of George Maier "while he was the duly appointed Sheriff of Stark County," which Conley said is "untrue."
• Conley cites Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto decided November 6, 2013, to wit:
• "Maier fails to meet the criteria in R.C. 311.01(B) to be a county sheriff," also pointing out that Rosenberg had to have actual knowledge that Maier was not the duly appointed Sheriff by virtue of the fact that Rosenberg was one of two attorneys from Roetzel & Andress (Columbus) representing Maier in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto.
• he (Rosenberg) made ad hominem attacks on Conley in "at least" implying [in the email to Ponder cited above] that Conley had violated Rule 3.6 (Trial Publicity) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that Conley "had participat[ed] in radio call-in shows and writing letters to the media" and that Rosenberg had "mischaracterized as 'one or more letters to newspapers extolling the claims [Conley] made in the [Marcelli complaint" which Rosenberg statements Conley says are irrelevant inadmissible hearsay statements which "are not true."
• Note:  
• Conley admitted he had appeared by invitation on the radio program referred to but he conducted himself in accordance the Rules of Professional Conduct. 
• Conley admitted he had written "published" letters which appeared in the Alliance Review, the Massillon Independent.
• That the letters "made no mention, directly or indirectly, to [the Marcelli complaint]
• That Thomas Rosenberg has a conflict in interest in that he (Rosenberg) has been paid $20,000 in legal fees to represent Maier in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto and that should Marceill prevail then Maier would have an indemnification claim against Rosenberg which Conley says means that Rosenberg has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of Marcelli v. Maier and therefore - coming full circle - has a conflict in interest in representing Maier in Marcelli v. Maier,
• That a further conflict in interest may exist by virtue of Rosenberg having lost Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, which Conley says, might "well" give rise to a malpractice claim accruing to Maier against Rosenberg,
• Note:  Conley cites rules in the Code of Professional Conduct prohibiting representation of a client when a conflict in interest is present,
• That Rosenberg in his assertions that Maier was the "duly appointed Sheriff" and "accepted, in good faith, publicly funded salary and benefits [as Sheriff]" goes to the advice and counsel Rosenberg was giving Maier and would therefore be a 'necessary witness' in Marcell v. Maier.
• Note:  Conley also names Rosenberg's co-counsel Michael Traven and the Roetzel & Andress law firm for disqualification (corrected [at 2:23 p.m. 12/16/2013] from original publication)
• Note:  Conley cites the Rules of Professional Conduct and case law and prohibiting an attorney from being an advocate and a witness for a client.

 CONCLUSION

Is there any doubt that there are going to be legal fireworks going off between Conley and Rosenberg as Marcelli v. Maier progresses?

Stay tuned folks, it appears that there is much more to come over the longer term as aspirants jockey with one another in short term tactics and strategies on the matter of who will end up in November, 2014 being "elected by the Stark County voters" to serve as the next sheriff.

As that drama unfolds, we will have to content ourselves with taking in the Conley/Rosenberg face-off.

And what a show that promises to be!

(VIDEOS) THE AFTERMATH OF MAIER V. DARROW: CAN THE WOUNDS BE HEALED WITHIN STARK DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

VIDEOS

STARK CO. PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

=====================================

CANTON COUNCILMAN ELECT  BILL SMUCKLER

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

=====================================

GONZALEZ/STARK DEMS LEGAL COUNSEL

WARREN PRICE

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

ON

POSSIBLE HIRE BY MAIER

======================================

ATTORNEY STEVEN REISCH

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

After George T. Maier defeated Lou Darrow in the contest between the two of the them (Democrat Douglas Smith and Republican Larry Dordea were non-factors) by a vote of 101 to 65 (contrasted to the February 5, 2013 vote of Maier 92  - Darrow 84 - Dordea 1), one has to wonder what residual damage has been done to the Stark County Democratic Party in terms of retaining the sheriff's office come November, 2014.

One unknown factor is the prospect that interim sheriff (at least until Maier is sworn in again) Tim Swanson will be filing a "new" quo warranto in the coming days.

The last information that the SCPR has is that Swanson plans to file a new action given that his counsel Greg Beck is reportedly advising that he feels that the Ohio Supreme Court will bounce Maier from office once again.

The SCPR thinks that the Randy Gonzalez led Stark County "establishment" Democrats could have made a huge political mistake in excluding Swanson's (and Darrow's) legal counsel (Greg Beck) from presenting to the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee a contrary point of view on whether or not George T. Maier is qualified to be Stark County sheriff.  A perspective different than that of the Stark Dems' legal counsel; namely, Allen Schulman, Warren Price, Steve Okey and Michael Thompson.

But perhaps Swanson/Beck will be going forward no matter how badly they may feel that they were treated at Wednesday night's meeting at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church to select a successor to Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald.

McDonald could not take office as scheduled on January 7, 2013 due to an illness that proved to be terminal (February 22nd).

"Full-speed-ahead" appears to have been the conclusion of Gonzalez and his second-in-command Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (2003 - 2009). He is also the brother of George T. Maier.

For it seems to the SCPR that there was no evidence of reconciliation or easing of tension between the Maier supporters and the Darrow supporters at the conclusion of the Holy Trinity assembly.

Moreover, The Report thinks that unhappiness and divisions linger within the Stark Dems organization that runs deeper than the Maier/Swanson/Darrow conflict.

If the Stark County GOP can glom onto and exploit these divisions, then it might be that the Maier/Swanson/Darrow spat will provide an opportunity for the Republicans to win the sheriff's office in November.

However, there are a little over ten months for the Democrats to find a way to heal some of the wounds that have been opened in the McDonald succession fight.

One would think there is very little chance of that happening if there is another period of sitting and waiting to see whether or not the Ohio Supreme Court is going to oust George T. Maier once again.

Beyond the Democrats and their infighting is the answer to the question of how the general public is taking all this in.

While George Maier gets high marks for his "on-the-job" performance from most if not all Stark County law enforcement familiar with his modus operandi, will the political infighting - if it continues -  give the Republicans the edge they need to sneak their candidate (likely to be Larry Dordea, former Alliance chief of police and now serving in the same capacity in Hartville) through the backdoor and into office in next fall's general election?

The SCPR's take on the political demographics of Stark County is that, if properly structured and run, a quality Democratic candidate should win in countywide races.

However, 2014 could turn out to be problematical for Democrats because of the statewide governor's race involving Republican John Kasich (running as an incumbent) and Democratic challenger Ed Fitzgerald.

The Fitzgerald campaign is currently bogged down because of tax arrears problems of his first chosen lieutenant governor running mate who, as a consequence of the press attention given to the tax issue, has decided to leave the ticket.

Troubles at that level of Ohio politics could make it very difficult for any countywide office-seeking Democrat (let alone one plagued with internal county party bickering) to win even if it is a "leans Democratic" county which the SCPR believes Stark is.

So the SCPR has started examining how the Maier/Swanson/Darrow fight might impact either Maier's or Darrow's chance to win next November.

It should be comforting to Maier (the candidate the SCPR thinks has the most concerns), if he ends up as the Dems' nominee, that it appears to the SCPR that he is not likely to lose support from among the 65 or so precinct committee persons who voted against his second appointment as sheriff on Wednesday night.

But if he gets bounced again by the Ohio Supreme Court, that could change.  If a new quo warranto is filed and the high court takes another nine months before making a determination and that decision is to oust Maier again, it is hard to see how he overcomes that with voters across the county.

To be viable next November, he will have to win the Democratic primary in May (and the SCPR sees no problem with that given Darrow's lack of political skills) and trust that there is no Supreme Court ouster between May and November.

Of course, it was Gonzalez' and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr's call, but I think that the rude treatment that Swanson/Darrow and their attorney got Wednesday night at the hand of the the Stark County Dems leadership just might come back and bite George T. Maier in the "political rump" come November, 2014.

If a second Maier ouster occurs, not only will the dissident Stark Democrats surface once again, but the Republicans will be looking at ways to capitalize.

So The Report thinks that the establishment leadership should have been more conciliatory on Wednesday to Darrow's supporters and, even now, should be rushing to conciliate with Swanson before he goes off on another quo warranto mission.

But what does the SCPR know about politics anyway?

After Wednesday's vote, the SCPR talked with four of the participants; one a non-voting participant in order to begin collecting a sense of feelings are running.

JOHN FERRERO

This former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (1996 - 2003) and sitting Stark County prosecutor says that he thinks that the imbroglio over Maier's statutory disqualification has hurt the party.  However, while not naming Maier, he said he would be supporting the Democratic candidate next November.



WILLIAM SMUCKLER

A well known city of Canton politician who knows Canton politics "like one knows the back of his hand" could be a huge help to whomever becomes the Dems' candidate for sheriff.

He has served many years in Canton City Council, has run for mayor and for Stark County commissioner.



WARREN PRICE

A member of the Gonzalez/Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee legal team, Price says that he thought that Wednesday's meeting went reasonably well.

The SCPR sees Price as a mediating person who should be utilized by party leaders to smooth out the currently ruffled political feathers.

Another issue that The Report brought up with Price was the document that came into the SCPR's hands from the sheriff's office showing that he was dickering with Maier during his first stint in sheriff for possible employment in the sheriff's administration either as a direct employee or a contract employee.



STEVEN REISCH

An attorney for 15 years and currently with the Stark County Public Defender's office, Reisch's was dismayed at the way Wednesday's meeting went.  However, the SCPR did not get the impression that Reisch was about to bolt the party come next November.

It was interesting to see how critical Reisch was of Gonzalez/Stark Dems' legal counsel Steve Okey.

Could Reisch's critical evaluation of Okey signal that the man best suited to smooth things over within the party might be Warren Price?

SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE! OHIO SUPREME COURT RULES IN SWANSON/DARROW V. GONZALEZ, ET AL

UPDATED AT 11:45 AM

TIM SWANSON
ON
WHETHER OR NOT
- IF MAIER WINS -
HE WILL BE FILING
NEW
QUO WARRANTO

 SUBTOPICS

NEW AT 11:38 AM

WHEN MAIER BEGAN SPENDING
STARK CO TAXPAYER MONEY
ON
SIGNAGE, ETC

(AT THE END OF BLOG) 

THE SUPREME COURT SURPRISE!

=============================

THE MAIER CAMP
 SOMETHING TO CROW ABOUT?

================================

IS SWANSON DONE YET?

=========================

WARREN PRICE'S STAKE IN THE OUTCOME 

SUPPLEMENT TO ORIGINAL BLOG

The SCPR this morning asked interim Sheriff Tim Swanson whether or not - if Maier wins tonight - he would be filing a "new" quo warranto with the Ohio Supreme Court.

His response:

From:  Tim Swanson [10:34 a.m. 12/11/2013]

To:  Martin Olson
        Greg Beck

I would follow the advice of my attorney Greg Beck. I suspect we would file again.

I don't see where his going to Harrison County and working as Deputy or as a supervisor satisfies anything. The law clearly states that a candidate must within the five years period immediately preceding the qualification date, have TWO years supervisory experience and that supervisory experience must have been earned when the person served as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above. This is what he was lacking the first go around and he still is not qualified. He wouldn't be able to obtain the required two years for the May 2014 primary, so that should make him ineligible again.

Refer to 311.01 (B) (9) (a)

Thanks for reporting the true facts.

We believe the denial by the Supreme Court for injunctive relief only means the meeting can take place . It never addressed the issue of candidates and we feel there may be additional rulings by the court issued today.

It would be refreshing if they would exert as much energy in assuring they meet all qualifications instead of trying to finagle their way through the process dishonestly.

Remember this is the position of Sheriff, what else would they be inclined to do in the future if an unqualified person using deceitful tactics would obtain the seat? Makes one concerned doesn't it?

Tim Swanson

ORIGINAL BLOG

Local lawyers and political observers were united about one thing in the case of Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez and the Stark County Democratic Central Committee, the Ohio Supreme Court would say nothing with regard to the Swanson/Darrow effort to get Ohio's "court of last resort" to remove George T. Maier name from tonight's SCDP-CC ballot prior to the meeting itself.

And that was the reasonable position to take.

Because the court took almost nine months from the filing of Swanson v. Maier (February 12, 2013:  a quo warranto asking the court to remove the illegally appointed Maier as Stark County sheriff) until its decision doing exactly that on November 6, 2013.

However, as the SCPR told one area attorney, The Report suspected that something was afoot when on Monday of this week the Swanson/Darrow attorney (Greg Beck) filed a motion to expedite the court's consideration of his clients' desire that Maier be ruled off the SCDP-CC ballot.

The suspicion became even stronger when the Gonzalez/SCDP-CC legal eagles filed a countermotion (i.e. Motion to Strike) yesterday.

As the SCPR pointed out in yesterday's "breaking news" blog on the filings, it was disappointing to see the Gonzalez side not join with Swanson/Darrow in getting the Supreme Court to speak to the matter of whether or not Maier was to be included in tonight's vote.

But nevertheless the court must have been agitated by Monday/Tuesday filings to respond in the fashion - though incomplete - that it did.

Within a very short time of the Gonzalez/SCDP-CC motion being filed, the court shocked the Stark County legal and political communities by intervening (sort of) in tonight's vote.

While the Swanson/Darrow folks were "crowing" on November 6th when the Supreme Court removed Maier from office; the Gonzalez/Maier/and the "92 for Maier" SCDP-CC folks were "crowing" at about 3:45 p.m. yesterday when the high court filed its ruling.

The court did not say specifically that Maier is qualified.  The Dem precinct committee members still have to make that determination.

The SCPR believes that Maier ally and chairman Randy Gonzalez will coax a favorable determination one way or another.

There may be a challenge to Gonzalez presiding over the meeting and there may be a challenge to the way the votes are voted, but the SCPR thinks both efforts will fail.

Presuming such, George T. Maier is highly likely to be on tonight's ballot tonight and the SCPR expects him to win, if he is.

End of story?

It depends.

Depends on what?

The dedication of Timothy Swanson.

Swanson surprised many of us when he filed the February 12th quo warranto.

lt appears to the SCPR that the Maier forces knew that it was problematical that George T. had qualification problems but were banking on Swanson not having the gumption to actually file the quo warranto with the Supreme Court.

But, of course, we now kown that they were wrong.

Not only did Swanson file the quo warranto, he followed up with a mandamus on November 18th which was designed to get the court to intervene in tonight's meeting in the way of keeping Maier off the SCDP-CC ballot.

One local attorney told the SCPR way before yesterday that he felt that the mandamus was ill-advised inasmuch it could turn against Swanson/Darrow.

And he was right, as it turns out.

Back to the question:  so is this the end of the story?

Not necessarily.

The Supreme Court did NOT rule on the merits of the mandamus itself.  However, as a practical matter, when the SCDP-CC meets tonight and votes, if the vote is for Maier (which, again, is what the SCPR expects to be the case) then the mandamus becomes moot.

So?

Hmm?

Moot:  "no real controversy."

Which means that there is nothing for the court to rule on.

End of story?

Not necessarily.

Swanson could maintain that the qualification date is February 6, 2013 as the Supreme Court seemed to say in its November 6th decision (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) and file a new quo warranto asserting that the SCDP-CC solved nothing on December 11th in re-appointing Maier.

The committee merely made a second error.

But will Swanson file again?

It is hard to say.

Swanson for all intents and purposes seems to have moved to Florida where he enjoys the sunshine, warm temperatures and having close family nearby.

Why would he want to have to be separated from the weather warmth and family warmth while serving as interim sheriff while the Supreme Court possibly takes another nine months or so to "put this baby to rest," once and for all?

But Swanson fooled many of us in filing the February 12th action.

We should know later today what Swanson will do.

The Maier forces have to be "bouncing off the walls" with yesterday's Supreme Court decision.  However, as former New York Yankee's catcher Yogi Berra is reputed to have once said:  "it is not over until it is over."

One well placed Stark County Democrat told the SCPR before yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that he felt that the vote tonight would be even closer than the February 5th vote and that the result could swing either way.

The SCPR, for one, was surprised that the Darrow forces mustered 84 votes in February.

One of the factors in the 84 Darrow votes is thought to be a pervasive dissatisfaction among many rank-and-file "organization" Democrats with the Gonzalez/Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (brother of George T. Maier) style of leadership.

So, could it be - that not withstanding the Supreme Court ruling that the Maier folks are undoubtedly ecstatic about - that there is enough dissatisfaction with the Gonzalez/Maier Dems leadership team that Darrow can still win?

The Report thinks not.

But we will know for sure later today.

Another interesting sidelight to the Swanson/Darrow-Maier face off is the fate of Stark County Human Resources director Vivanne Whalen Duffrin.

Readers of the SCPR will recall that she was summarily fired by Maier on October 13th of this year.

Apparently, the Duffrin firing was in preparation for Maier to hire Warren Price (legal counsel in the Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez et al mandamus) as Duffrin's replacement.

The SCPR has received a number of reports that such was in the offing.

And in a email to Price on Monday asked Price that very question, to wit:

Subject:  Employment with Stark County sheriff's department under Maier

From: Martin Olson [Monday, 2:54 pm]

To:  warrenrprice@icloud.com

Warren,

I have reports that prior to his being ousted by the Ohio Supreme Court in Swanson v. Maier on November 6th that you were in discussions with George Maier about your either by contract or by virtue of direct employment status were set to become a Stark County sheriff department employee.

Are these report accurate in any way, shape or form?

If so, would you kindly share the details with me?

You may prefer to do so on the telephone.  If so, please contact me at 330 499 0465.

Thank you,

Martin Olson
SCPR

To date, the SCPR has not received a response from Price.

But here is a copy of an internal memo from within the Stark County sheriff's department which more than suggests to The Report that a Maier return to the Stark County sheriff's office is likely to result in Warren Price becoming the sheriff's department Human Resources director.

The memo:

So does this memo indicate that Maier (presuming he wins tonight) will once again fire Duffrin and bring Price in?

Hmm?

It could be that "the crowing" is not over yet.

Darrow may stun us all tonight by winning.

If Maier wins, Swanson may once again file a quo warranto and win.

Wouldn't that be quite a scene?

George T. Maier once again being forced to vacate 4500 Atlantic Boulevard!

The only people who have nothing "to crow about" is the Stark County public and the uncertainly that all the political wheelin-and-dealin and the legal maneuvering brings to day-in, day-out law enforcement in Stark County.

But you can depend on the politicians "to crow 'til the cows come home" when they win this challenge or that challenge.  "The public interest be damned!"

Such is why the general public has such high disdain for the politicos!

SUPPLEMENT 2 TO BLOG.

One thing that the SCPR has not been able to report is when George T. Maier began spending Stark County taxpayer money "putting his name" on signs, business cards and the like.

Here is that list as provided by Stark County auditor Alan Harold at the request of the SCPR.

Listed below are INVOICE DATES

Commission Forms 06/05/13

Check Printing 04/05/13, 04/09/13, 05/24/13, 06/11/13, 09/27/13, 10/17/13

Letterhead 06/05/13

ID Cards 06/05/13

Mailing Labels 06/05/13

Labels – Atlantic, Court Services, Note Cards 06/05/13

Parking Permit Labels 06/05/13

Career Brochures 04/30/13

Signature Stamp 02/13/13

Imprint Folders 08/22/13

Various Signage 03/10/13, 04/22/13, 06/18/13, 07/10/13, 08/25/13

Certificate Holders 08/13/15, 08/15/13

Vehicle Insignia 02/28/13, 06/14/13, 08/23/13, 10/30/13

Quartermaster 08/13/13, 08/21/13, 10/03/13, 11/4/13

HOW WILL THE STARK DEMS' "BIG NAMES" FACTOR IN ON DARROW/MAIER "RE-DO?"

One of the more interesting aspects of tomorrow night's anticipated fight between Lieutenant Lou Darrow and George Maier for the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointment as sheriff is:

how much of a factor 

will the "big names" within Stark County Democratic Party politics 

be in the outcome.

As all Stark Countians who have any political awareness at all about Stark County politics; the Stark County Democrats are currently living out humorist Will Rogers long ago observation:  "I do not belong to any organized political party, I am a Democrat"

And as far as the Stark County Political Report can determine, the chief culprit in the Rogers' adage applying to the Stark County Democratic Party is SCDP chairman Randy Gonzalez.

The Report's assessment of Gonzalez's out-front-in-the-public leadership skills is that they are marginal at best.

Anytime there is a controversy among Democrats, Gonzalez seems to botch things up.

But he is the "hand-picked-man" of the real power among establishment Stark Democrats (namely; former chairman and current vice chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.), and, therefore, he remains as party chairman.

Gonzalez months and months ago ran into a buzz saw in Massillon when things turned ugly in a local precinct committee meeting that he was chairing.

And, even in his absence, he couldn't avoid controversy within the party.

Gonzalez was scheduled to emcee a Western Stark Democrats annual clambake in September this year. But he was on vacation.  However, the word was that his choice to introduce Democratic candidate Connie Pillich for Ohio treasurer was Massillon mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

Kathy Catazaro-Perry is the political protege and surrogate of aforementioned Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

Well,  Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero ended up as emcee.  Ferrero is on the outs with Maier and in a political struggle to determine who dominates Massillon Democratic politics.  Ferrero is a long time law director of Massillon and a former Stark Democratic Party chairman himself.

Having command of the Western Dems event, Ferrero proceeded to snub Catazaro-Perry and introduced Pillich himself.  And, of course, Catazaro-Perry walked off in a huff.

Gonzalez also had a struggle in managing SCDP-CC meeting of October 31, 2011 wherein he had to preside over the meeting in which the Stark Dems had the unhappy task (for them as committed Democrats) of appointing Republican Alex Zumbar to succeed Democrat Gary D. Zeigler who had resigned/retired as county treasurer on October 19th.

And the SCDP-CC meeting of February 5, 2013 to chose Mike McDonald's successor as sheriff-elect November, 2012 was a turbulent session.

McDonald resigned days before he was scheduled to take office (January 7, 2013) due to what turned out to be a terminal illness.

The main competition at the February 5th meeting was between then-26 year sheriff's department sergeant and most recently lieutenant Lou Darrow (outgoing Sheriff Tim Swanson's choice to replace McDonald) and George T. Maier.

Maier whose main claim to law enforcement fame is his having been an Ohio state patrolman. However, he migrated to management with the Ohio Department of Public Safety where he served during the Democratic Strickland administration as number 2 in command (and, for about seven days at the end of the Strickland administration as the head guy).

The controversy at the February 5th meeting which the SCPR thinks Gonzalez poorly managed was whether or not Maier was qualified by Ohio statutory law to be sheriff given the gap as an administrator between his having been a Ohio patrolman and his application for the Stark Dems' appointment as sheriff as of the qualification date which was February 6th.

To the SCPR, it was all that Gonzalez could do to hold things together to get his man (and thereby the Stark County Democratic Party establishment's man) George T. Maier appointed in a very close 92 Maier to 84 Darrow vote.

Every seasoned Stark County political observer that The Report has talked with expresses astonishment that the politically unknown Darrow could be within 8 votes of the establishment's man.

Which, the SCPR thinks, goes to the heart of the issue and the lack of satisfaction among many rank-and-file Democrats with the Gonzalez/Maer (Johnnie A. Jr) leadership of the Stark County Democratic Party.

As we all know now, it turns out that the Gonzalez led February 5th meeting resulted in the Ohio Supreme Court saying on November 6th (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, filed Feburary 12, 2013) that Maier was unqualified as of the February 5th meeting and that the Stark Dems had to "re-do" the appointment.

So tomorrow is the date for the "re-do."

But the controversy re:  Gonzalez's management of things continues.

He has come out once again in his role as chairman as an unabashed George T. Maier man.

And that troubles many Stark Dems; especially, of course, the Darrow supporters.

So do not be surprised if there are challenges to Gonzalez presiding over tomorrow's meeting.

Moreover, the SCPR believes that there are likely to be other challenges to procedures implemented in the conduct of the meeting.

Of course, all of that can be avoided if the Ohio Supreme Court would come down today or before 5:30 p.m. tomorrow (the time of the scheduled meeting) with an order as requested by Greg Beck (attorney for Swanson and Darrow in Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez et al, mandamus, filed November 18, 2013) where he has the justices to declare that Maier cannot be a candidate because of this as of February 5th disqualification.

But if the vote goes on and the Stark Dems select Maier once again (which the SCPR thinks is likely),  Gonzalez and this leadership cohort will probably be subjecting the county to another quo warranto contest in the Ohio Supreme Court.

However, the necessity of another quo warranto may not arise.

There are those who think Lou Darrow can win tomorrow night.

How's that?

They think that there may be enough precinct committee persons who, while they like the job that Maier did while he occupied 4500 Atlantic Boulevard and may have voted for him on February 5th, think it is time to move on and appoint Darrow to avoid another time of uncertainty with the Stark County's sheriff department.

They point out that Maier will clearly have his qualification problems behind him by the time of the May 6, 2014 primary election (inasmuch that process in and of itself will reset the qualification date beyond the February 6th date) and that he will be the "odds on favorite" to defeat an even "sitting as sheriff" Lou Darrow.

If Darrow is to "upset" Maier, then the SCPR thinks it will take a tilt by certain key Stark County political subdivision (boards of education, villages, cities, townships and countywide) elected officials (and leadership public figures) - who are also precinct committee persons - towards Darrow.

Not because they think he is the better candidate for sheriff.  But because they do not want the Stark County Democratic Party await yet another Ohio Supreme Court decision as to whether or not Stark County has a statutorily qualified sheriff.

Who are the "key" officials?

First off, Canton mayor William J. Healy, II.

Healy voted for Maier in February.  And, of course, his vote, one would think, influenced those who look for him for political guidance.

But - the SCPR has learned - Healy will not be able to attend tomorrow night's meeting because of a prior commitment.

The question becomes will Healy be one of those leaders "who steps off to the plate" and says "you know what, we have to get this sheriff thing behind us for now?"

Beyond Healy, there are lots of possibilities.

Here is the list of how the SCDP-CC voted in February with "yellow" highlights applied to those officials who could turn things Darrow's way in the name of county stability and party harmony (in the short run).

The only question is are there enough of "difference makers" between the two camps to get Stark County - once again - on the path of political/governance stability insofar as countywide law enforcement is concerned?