RANDY GONZALEZ TO RETIRE AS DEMS PARTY CHAIR ON JUNE 5TH

REVISED & UPDATE FROM AN ORIGINAL POST OF 05/29/2014

UPDATE:  11:28 AM (05/30/2014)

The SCPR has been told by a number of sources that Stark County Democratic Party  (SCDP) chairman Randy Gonzalez has sent out a letter to those central committee (CC) persons who voted for George T. Maier to be the Dems' appointee as sheriff of Stark County  . . .  (only kidding Randy, for background see this SCPR blog) announcing his retirement as party chairman effective June 5th with the selection of his replacement by the SCDP-CC on the 5th.

Gonzalez's former boss at the Canton Municipal Court clerk of courts office (from which Gonzalez retired as chief deputy clerk of courts in December, 2013); namely, Phil Giavasis is rumored to have Gonzalez's blessing as his successor.  However, he reportedly has been having second thoughts about becoming chairman.

One source mentions Gonzalez son Kody as a potential player.

Kody succeeded Randy as chief deputy on the latter's retirement.

About a year ago rumors were rampant that Randy was stepping down as Party chairman, which, of course, did not materialize.  The SCPR at that time asked the senior Gonzalez about to son-succession speculation.

His answer?

"I wouldn't wish that (the Dems' chairmanship) on anybody, certainly not my son!"

We shall see very soon now!

Gonzalez has been chairman since 2009 when he took over for his political protege Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

His tenure as chairman has included the most difficult thing that any political party chairman has ever had to do with his having to guide the SCDP-CC through the process of appointing a Republican to an important Stark County office.

On October 31, 2011 he presided over the appointment of Alliance Republican Alex Zumbar as Stark County treasurer.

Democrat Gary D. Zeigler had resigned/retired as county treasurer on October 11th in a deal with the Stark County commissioners in resolving a lawsuit filed by Democratic Stark County prosecutor John D. Ferrero to make recoveries on behalf of Stark County under the provisions of Ohio statutory law.

From a October 19, 2011 SCPR blog:

Zeigler has been under public fire since April 1, 2009 when Stark County was rocked by a revelation that his Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci had stolen, by some accounts, $2.96 million (Frustaci has only ever admitted to $2.46 million.

Ever since the revelation, Zeigler has been under public pressure to resign.  But he, until today, refused to do so saying that he had done nothing wrong.

Zeigler was not implicated in the theft by federal, state, or local law enforcement officials.

Another storied  political legend happening during the Gonzalez reign as chairman was the appointment of George T. Maier as the Dems' successor to Mike McDonald as sheriff of Stark County.

McDonald, elected in November, 2012 was unable to take office on January 7,2013 due to an illness which tragically claimed his life on February 22, 2013.

In a touch of irony, it was McDonald who helped Gonzalez corral resistant SCDP-CC members to supporting the chairman in his quest to have Republican Zumbar appointed with this speech to SCDP-CC members on October 31, 2011.



In a tortured process, Gonzalez was under a lot of strain in working through the process (February 5, 2013 and December 11, 2013) in getting Maier appointed.

Chairman Gonzalez may think that it is "mission accomplished" with respect to the Maier appointment with his (Maier) having survived a Stark County Board of Elections process (followed by a secretary of state and Ohio Supreme Court process) over his right to be on the November ballot.

However, in a conversation that the SCPR had with a leading player in the BOE fight, The Report was impliedly told that Maier's status as sheriff is still subject to further legal challenge.

It will be interesting to see whether or not this was mere "huffing and puffing" or Stark County is in for another round of turmoil on the sheriff situation.

To Gonzalez, the Maier appointment sticking and his election has to be on reflection the major accomplishment of his tenure as chairman.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the Gonzalez time as chairman has been example of the statement of humorist Will Rogers when he said: "I am not the member of an organized political party, I am a Democrat."

Stark County's "organized" Democrats have proved to be a rather "unruly" group during the Randy Gonzalez stint as the Stark County Democratic Party chairman.

STARK JUDGE RACES OF NOVEMBER, 2014 TO GET "UNUSUALLY" POLITICAL?

UPDATE:  3:00 PM (WITH LIST OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CANDIDATES TAKING OUT PETITIONS SO FAR FOR 2014 RACES

ORIGINAL BLOG
 
Apparently, things have not been controversial enough for Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione over the past eleven (11) months in terms of his being a focal point in local media.

Follow "the chronology of the Forchione publicity run" under the ensuing list of Datelines.

Dateline No. 1.

Late last week, His Honor seemingly injected himself into the fight between the George T. Maier and Tim Swanson/Lou Darrow camps fight as to whom is going to be eligible to be appointed sheriff of Stark County to replace sheriff-elect Mike McDonald who was too ill to take office on January 7, 2013.

Stark Dems botched the original replacement appointment on February 5th in appointing former Massillon safety director George T. Maier.

According to the Ohio Supreme Court in a November 6, 2013 decision (Swanson v. Maier), he was not eligible under the requirements of Ohio statutory law to be appointed despite Maier's "guarantee" (pre-February 5th meeting) that he would be eligible, "if he applied."

Ohio's "court of last resort" has ordered the Dems to do a "do-over" to correct the February 5th mistake.

The Democrats re-do is slated for December 11th.

Dateline No. 2.

In December, 2012; January, 2013, Forchione made a decision in a criminal case (the Studer case) he presided over that a $5,000 fine he exacted of the defendant be paid for the benefit of the victims of the mass shooting of students in December, 2012 at Sandy Hook (located in Newtown, Massachusetts).

Only problem was that, despite the obvious compassionate and charitable impulse that many Stark Countians think motivated Forchione to order what he did; not all Stark citizens were willing to let him be compassionate/charitable with Stark County taxpayer money.

And one of the particularly "important" unwilling ones was local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley.

He has a history of discord with Forchione.

In 2011, Conley had filed an Affidavit of Disqualification in a case he had before Judge Forchione.

Conley lost the case, but then Forchione recused himself post-decision.

Hmm?

One must ask, what was that all about, no?

Dateline No. 3

February 1, 2013.

Conley files suit.

Ohio statutory law provides that fine money can ONLY be deposited in the appropriate county's general fund.  Saying that his motivation was that "the rule of law" has to prevail, Conley filed a civil suit against this judge.  The SCPR, for one believes, was instrumental in Forchione asking the Newtown/Sandy Hook charity to return the $5,000 so that he could place it into the Stark County treasury.

For his effort, an anonymous Stark County person (believed to be a Stark County attorney) filed an ethics complaint with Ohio's Disciplinary Counsel against Conley because Conley was reported in local media of saying that in ordering the diversion of Stark County taxpayer money Forchione was grandstanding.

Conley subsequently was exonerated of any ethics violation for his "grandstanding" remark by counsel assigned to make a determination of whether or not Conley had committed a violation of the Ohio's Professional Responsibility Code in place for lawyers.

If Conley was correct in his "grandstanding" assessment, one needs to ask:  why would Forchione want to grandstand?

Well, Conley did not specify.

The only thing that the SCPR can think of is that Forchione is up for election in November, 2014 and like many incumbents may have been thought by Conley of using his official position to enhance his electability.

Dateline No. 4

Later in February (the 28th), Forchione had to be surprised when a former Stark Countian (Louis Demis formerly of Navarre, but now of Columbus) filed a rarely used legal procedure (Affidavit Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Sections 2935.09/10) in an attempt to get the State of Ohio to prosecute Frank Forchione for "theft-in-office" for having originally diverted the money from the Stark treasury to the Newtown, MA based charity.

Guess who stepped forward to "volunteer" his "pro bono"  (for the public good) legal services to Demis?

Of course, Craig T. Conley.

Conley has a track record of offering his considerable legal skills as a public service free-of-charge to the taxpaying public going back years.

Back in 2009, the SCPR believes that Conley was instrumental in forcing Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero to more sooner that later in recovering (as provided for in Ohio statutory law) monies lost on account of the theft by former Chief Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci of upwards of $3 million of Stark County taxpayer dollars.

While the-then treasurer Gary D. Zeigler was not implicated in the Frustaci theft, Ohio statutory law does make a public official - in a civil suit context - "strictly" liable to the public for monies lost without regard to fault in administering his/her office.

Zeigler has always denied that he failed to properly administer the treasurer's office while he was treasurer.

Dateline No. 5

In an April hearing, Conley, arguing the Demis position, failed to convince a visiting judge (retired Barberton Municipal Court judge Michael McNulty) in a proceeding in the Canton Municipal Court, to find probable cause.

But Conley pressed on.

Dateline No. 6.

The Demis appeal to the 5th District Court of Appeals on May 20, 2013.

On November 5th, Conley argued probable cause to the 5th District Court of Appeals (based in Canton).

He argued that the visiting judge erred in not finding probable cause.

A decision is due any day now.

Return to Dateline No. 1

Here we are in the week of November 18 - 22, 2013 and we have Frank Forchione "in the headlines" once again in the Swanson/Darrow - Maier face-off on whom is going to be sheriff come December 11th.

As stated by Judge Forchione in area media reports, his only role is to be ministerial in the determining base-level eligibility (matters that are susceptible of absolute factual determination) factors.

And yet, there are those Stark Countians who think that Forchione is injecting himself in a more substantive way than that into the the sheriff eligibility controversy.

Saying that he is "erring on the side of democracy," (which seems to the Stark County Political Report as being more "political" question rather than a "judicial" question") is apparently Forchione putting himself in the position of determining the field of candidates "anew" for appointment at the December 11th SCDP-CC meeting.

Forchione appears to be substituting his judgment for that of the Supreme Court notwithstanding that the only date of eligibility articulated by the court in its November 6, 2013 opinion is a "qualification date" of February 6, 2013."

Hmm?

Forchione was adventuresome in ordering the Studer fine money be paid for the benefit of the Sandy Hook victims.  He apparently ate "legal" crow in retrieving the money and having it deposited in the Stark treasury in compliance with Conley's law-based demand.

The question is:  Is he going to be eating "legal" crow once again?

The SCPR is hearing that there are Stark Countians who think that Forchione

(a Democrat who has served for years in the Canton Law Department under current director Joe Martuccio and his predecessor and current county commissioner Tom Bernabei)

in opening up the application process for a qualification date beyond February 6th has "in effect," (presumably not an intentional act) taken sides with the likes of Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez (a zealot Maier supporter, who has announced he will re-apply) and his prominent Democratic legal advisers Allen Schulman, Warren Price, Steven Okey and Michael Thompson.

Commissioner Bernabei is on record of being a big George T. Maier booster.

Undoubtedly, there are "legal eagle" eyes looking at the legal propriety of Forchione's decision to open up the application process in light of the Swanson v. Maier opinion.

The "fresh eyes," if The Report's conjecture is correct, would be in the supplementation of a writ of mandamus filed on November 18th by Swanson and his top lieutenant Louis Darrow (also a candidate to be the Dems appointee) followed by motions for injunctive relief filed this past Friday.

The mandamus and injunctive relief requests are specifically designed to stop Gonzalez led Dems from including Maier in the ordered "re-do" selection process.

Why, pray tell, would Forchione risk being legally wrong again?  Is the re-open another "bit of grandstanding" a la Conley's charge on Studer/Sandy Hook matter? 

The SCPR would not be surprised to see Judge Forchione himself be drawn into the Ohio Supreme Court legal proceeding(s) in light of his decision to re-open the application process.

Dateline No. 7.

Whether or not he is validated on this decision, it is becoming likely that he is making himself a political lightning rod come the November, 2014 elections.

Forchione was first elected in 2008 and with one term under his belt, he would likely - under normal circumstances - be pretty much a shoe-in for re-election.

The Report is told that Forchione's 2013 judicial activism has given birth to an effort to find "a worthy" Republican opponent against him come next year's election.

Conley (a Republican, but not part of the Stark County Republican Party leadership) makes no bones about it.

Forchione is a prime political target for defeat in next year's general election insofar as he is concerned.

Many, many Stark County judicial elections are uncontested.

However, next year, a rare year indeed in Stark, four of the five Stark County Court of Common Pleas, General Division judgeships are on the ballot and two for the first time (Farmer and Werren).   

Werren has already drawn a daunting rival (in terms of the clout and regard she has in the legal community) in Chryssa Hartnett who is a Stark County assistant prosecutor and an assistant chief prosecutor of the criminal division.

The SCPR has written that she deserved to be considered by the Stark County Republican Party/Republican Governor John Kasich for either of the appointments that went to Kristin Farmer or Curtis Werren.

But we all know that the politicos look out for their respective political parties first and the public interest - maybe - second.

Normally, only first time judicial candidates are thought to be vulnerable to being unseated.

But the question is fast becoming, is second time candidate Frank Forchione in his 2013 activism putting himself into the vulnerable category alongside Farmer and Werren?

Historically, it has been unusual for state judicial races (of course, there are no federal judiciary elections; all positions are appointed) to draw the interest of political action groups (PACs) which are putting increasing amounts of money and effort into the election face-offs.

While the Stark judicial elections are unlikely to draw any PAC money, the Forchione, Farmer and Werren races will likely all be contested and the campaigns could become testy.

The testiness is highly unlikely to come from the candidates themselves because the Ohio Supreme Court has strict rules on what candidates can do in the way of the substance/finances of their campaigns. 

It is hard for the SCPR to see how Judge Forchione is enhancing his chances of being reelected next year in view of the notoriety he has achieved with his 2013 judicial activism.

His break from the tradition of how sitting judges comport themselves in terms of generating public notice may be a sign of the times we now live in, which is to say, perhaps:

A New Politics of Judicial Elections, Stark County style?

(SATURDAY UPDATE) THERE IS MORE TO THIS FIGHT THAN RINALDI V. RESNICK FOR CCS BD OF EDUCATION SEAT?

UPDATED 09:30 AM (SATURDAY)

A major issue of contention betwee John Rinaldi and Eric Resnick has been the use by Rinaldi of what is known as being "the Union Bug" (The Bug) in his campaign literature (which label indicates that "union workers and/or union licensed shops" were part of the work product).

Resnick claims that Rinaldi's use is an unauthorized use of The Bug in that he alleges that it was faked in at least one piece of Rinaldi's campaign literature.

Rinaldi's counter is that the allegation by Resnick is bogus and that he obtained the right to use The Bug in the objection lodged with the Graphic Communications International Brotherhood of Teamsters in ordering letterhead from local printer PPI Graphics.

Today, Rinaldi provided a copy of an invoice for the letterhead from PPI Graphics.

To the SCPR, Resnick's campaign tone and in particular the flap about Rinaldi's use of The Bug is a sign that Resnick thinks he is running behind in his race for election as an at-large representative to the Canton City Schools' board of education.

The SCPR has done some checking around with Canton officials and The Report's thinking on Resnick "running scared" appears to be shared by a number of these officials.

One official told the SCPR that he has never seen a CCS Board of Education race generate such intense interest.

And, of course, The Report thinks that such is the case because there are larger stakes at play in terms who is going to control the Stark County Democratic Party over the longer haul.

UPDATED:  02:53 PM (FRIDAY)

With reference to that part of today's blog, to wit:

He [Resnick] brought Hall of Fame AFL-CIO [HOF/AFL-CIO] president Dan Sciury into the points he was making about the Gonzales,

I did not go into the specifics of that part of Resnick's press release that questions whether or not the Hall of Fame AFL-CIO endorsement of John Rinaldi was on merit or merely based on Rinaldi being a longstanding union member and therefore as a matter of the requirements of the bylaws of the union Rinaldi was entitled to endorsement irrespective of his merit of receiving same.

Moreover, Resnick references three HOF/AFL-CIO union members who he says contacted him to tell him about the perfunctory nature of Rinaldi's union endorsement.

In the press release's and Resnick words, to wit:

The Hall of Fame Labor Council has a provision in its bylaws that mandates that when a member runs for office, they must endorse the member. Rinaldi was an Ironworker, and claims to still be a dues paying member. Venerable labor leader and fellow Ironworker William Sherer Sr. is Rinaldi’s uncle. Bill Sherer Jr. is the current Ironworkers president and Rinaldi’s campaign treasurer as well as his cousin.

“Three people who were in the room when the vote for the HOF endorsement was taken called me to apologize and explain about the bylaws."

"I get it, and I respect Organized Labor’s need to look after their own, I know that Rinaldi’s Labor endorsements are based on his pedigree, not merit, and the people who contacted me were very clear about that."

(Note:  The material in quote ("...") marks are the actual words of Resnick)

The SCRP received an e-mailed letter from HOF/AFL-CIO 3rd Vice President Joseph Liolios early this afternoon which is a response by the union to the quoted material (note:  there is another matter which The Report chooses not to deal with).  The Resnick quoted material was taken from his campaign Facebook page.

Here is an "extract" from Lilolios' response:

As implied above, the SCPR chooses not to publish specific material referred to in the union e-mail and on which Liolios says the HOF/AFL-CIO used in evaluating Resnick for endorsement and declining to do so.

Except for his response to the material from Liolios not published by the SCPR in this blog, here is what Resnick had to say about the Liolios' points on endorsement criteria.

I certainly have more integrity than to out people [i.e. the three union people referred to by Resnick in his original press release and picked upon by Liolios] who have told me things in confidence.

And if you want to verify the HOF Labor Council's policy on endorsing members, I suggest you contact Dan Scuiry.  He is good at explaining it.

Not much else in Mr. Liolios' letter merits response.

 Hmm?  A quintessential dodge, if you've never seen one, no?

Finally, Resnick has written this on his Facebook page:

I call your attention to Martin Olson's blog today, which is about as conspiratorial and crazy as you can find ... .

My response?

I wouldn't expect anything else from Resnick.

It seems to me that if one has a look, an assessment, an opinion different than Eric's, then it's time to smear and denigrate.

When Rinaldi first told me about what he thought was going to be Resnick's campaign strategy, I was skeptical.

But it is looking more and more to me like Rinaldi was "right on the mark."

Although I have limited knowledge of his [Resnick] way of interacting with others; my take on him is my belief is that he sees politics in rather stark terms and on the left side of the political spectrum where left, right and center are in play.

However, I must say I was surprised to see his lashing out at Rinaldi the way he has.

Of course, one should expect that no one is immune when one operates the way Resnick seems to.

As I wrote in the original blog:  "It appears to the SCPR that Resnick is 'the main man' in dragging the campaign to the 'lowest common denominator.'"

All I can say is that Resnick needs "political maturity" in spades.

At least, if he is elected, the users of the Canton City Schools better hope he acquires it in a hurry!

ORIGINAL BLOG

Yesterday about 2:30 p.m., the SCPR received an e-mail from Eric Resnick (candidate for an at-large board of education slot with the Canton City Schools) with nothing but an attachment.

And the attachment was?

A press release.

And what did the press release have to say?

In its essence it was an allegation by Resnick that his opponent John M. Rinaldi had committed fraud in using a fake Graphic Communications International Union (GCIU) label on a fund raiser flyer.

See this LINK for the particulars on the "union" printing label.

Resnick in the press release indicated that he had referred the matter to GCIU president Christopher Farrand who is located in Cleveland and that Farrand has the matter under investigation.

Resnick went on to say:  “This is serious because it is fraud, and an affront to the unions who have endorsed Rinaldi and their families.” 

The SCPR telephoned Resnick within minutes of receiving the press release.

Here is where it becomes apparent to The Report that there is more to the Rinaldi/Resnick square off than the CCS board of education seat.

The SCPR has written previously on this contest and was told by Rinaldi that Resnick had decided to take the low road as a campaign strategy.

And it appears to The Report that Rinaldi may be correct in his assessment.

In the conversation referred to above, Resnick brought Stark County Democratic chairman Randy Gonzalez and his son Kody into the discussion.

What do they have to do with Resnick's allegation?

Absolutely nothing insofar as the SCPR is concerned.

Resnick mused to himself that it was hard for him to believe that the chairman (who is a contributor to Rinaldi's campaign) and son Kody (the head of the Stark County Young Democrats) could support John Rinaldi.

Resnick claims that Kody is helping Rinaldi with flyer design work and such explained why the Stark Young Democrats have endorsed Rinaldi.

And he went further than that.

He brought Hall of Fame AFL-CIO president Dan Sciury into the points he was making about the Gonzalezs.

How could Stark's long time union leader possibly support Rinaldi in light of Resnick's allegations (which included a charge that Rinaldi had done the same thing during his 2003 campaign for a CCs board of education seat)?

And, just as an aside, how Resnick could think he makes a plausible point that "unions do not "authentically" support Rinaldi is on the absurd side, is it not?

Just look again at Rinaldi's pre-general campaign finance report (above).  Compare to Resnick's below.  How many union contributions does Resnick have?  How about none.

The largest block of financial support for Rinaldi ("the mother's milk of politics) comes from where?

You've got it:  Stark County-based unions. 

One notable exception for Rinaldi on union support is his failure to get any funding from the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 94 which is run by Healy ally David Kirven.

The Local 94 exception fits nicely in the The Report super theme (see the argument below) that at its base the Rinaldi/Resnick battle is a manifestation of a larger fight taking place within the Stark County Democratic Party.

I got to thinking that with Resnick bringing the Dem chairman and son into the fray was a signal to me that, perhaps, the Resnick/Rinaldi (both former board members) fight had a larger picture to it.

Maybe, just maybe, this race is a skirmish in what the SCPR believes is a subtle effort by Canton mayor William J. Healy, II (a known supporter of Resnick; despite his not appearing on Resnick's pre-general campaign finance report as a contributor), to undermine the chairman.

Healy appears to The Report, for the chairman's the chairman's friends consumption, to say all the things that one would expect in terms of support for the chairman's leadership for intra-party appearances sake.  But the SCPR is not buying.

The Report has written in previous blogs that it appears that the mayor is laying in wait to, perhaps, in concert with Dave Kirven of the Plumbers and Pipefitters union to make a move on Gonzalez's continued tenure as chairman.

Not that the SCPR thinks Healy has anything in particular against Gonzalez.  But we political junkies all know that he has to be "'the all' and 'end all" that he is involved in.

That's why The Report believes that the Rinaldi/Resnick race is more than simply a political face-off between the two.

I think Healy likes to lurk in the background "seeking whom he may devour."  And Resnick, wittingly or unwittingly, may be a convenient tool with which to ply his mischievous politics.

Of course, the SCPR contacted John Rinaldi about Resnick's allegations.  Resnick told me that he had not confronted Rinaldi on the matter.

So what does Rinaldi have to say in response to Resnick?

In part: (click on graphics to enlarge)

The SCPR has written that Resnick seems to be the stronger of the two candidates on "purely educational Issues" and was impressed in his 2007 successful school board candidacy run in getting out in front on pushing for a tax increase for the CCS.

However, The Report is not impressed with his campaign style this time around.

It smacks of desperation.

Additionally troubling was his bringing the Gonzalez factor into our discussion.

Such suggests to the SCPR that there is more at play here than simply Rinaldi versus Resnick.

The only CCS board member who impresses the SCPR is member Richard Milligan, the lone Republican.

The Democrats and their "we are not part of any organized political party [a la humorist Will Rogers)" standard fare gig is playing out full tilt in the Rinaldi/Resnick match up.

Moreover: Is the mayor of Canton up to his political intermeddling once again in his quest to be "the go to guy" insofar as Stark County Democratic politics is concerned?

In the final analysis one must ask how having folks like these (i.e. either Rinaldi or Resnick) on the board is going to help with the dire state of affairs with the Canton City Schools?

It appears to the SCPR that Resnick is "the main man" in dragging the campaign to "the lowest common denominator."

The kids of Canton's prime school system deserve better than this!

But the politicos are apparently willing to sacrifice the students/parents interests to the primacy of the politics of personal destruction.