HEALY POWER GRAB TO RESULT IN CANTON-STARK CO. CRIME LAB REVIEW?

 UPDATED AT 10:50 AM

The Stark County Political Report is convinced that Canton mayor William J. Healy, II has been plotting a takeover (in terms of his power as chief executive) of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab.

In the opinion of the SCPR, Mayor William J. Healy, II has an insatiable appetite to be "the-man-in-charge."

For other Stark County political entities attempting to work collaboratively with the Healy administration on:

• 9-1-1 emergency call receiving/dispatch, 
• building code enforcement or 
• health services, 

the bottom line is always going to be - for the mayor -  focused on this question:  Is he going to being in charge at the end of the day?

As naive as it was for him to think that his administration could revise the job description of the director of the lab and appoint former chief deputy Rick Perez (a long term personal/political pal of Healy safety director Tom Ream) to the post, the mayor does have the all consuming ambition and arrogance of imagined political heft to have thought he could get away with it.

Healy and Ream not only adulterated the qualifications to crime lab director job description; they also removed (as authorized by Ohio law) civil service protection for the position.

In an interesting twist, Healy then threw Ream under the bus when there was a public outcry against the Perez appointment. One can't be sympathetic with Ream.  He had to go into the safety director position knowing who he was dealing with.

In taking civil service protection away from the crime lab directorship, you have a scientific person and her management of a scientific operation subject to the whims of a politician?

And not just any politician, but one named William J. Healy, II?

Wow!  Watch out, no?

The SCPR has written often and LOUDLY that Healy is Stark County's quintessential political power monger.

And he is exceptionally ambitious.  The Report believes he is biding his time for something more powerful and prestigious than being mayor of Canton provides.

Yours truly has learned that Healy recently met with local McDonald's entrepreneur and franchise holder Guy Cucchini (among other well-heeled local businessmen) in an effort to get their support for his prospective run for Ohio secretary of state.

Healy's pitch to Cucchini et al?

"I am one of the finalists that the Ohio Democratic Party is considering for the race?"

Anyone who knows the mayor, surely understands that the mayor is looking forward to the next political gig as a step upward on the stairway to political stardom.

Moving on will put the Canton's troubles behind him leaving the clean up to others.

The Rep's Matt Rink recently wrote and insightful article that documents Healy's philosophically based drive to power (Mayor has power to hire, fire declassified workers, February 17, 2013).

His compulsion to power has never been more manifest and obvious than in the Perez caper.

In secretly (the change appeared out of nowhere during the last week of January of this year) working with Ream to change the director job description to one that Perez (otherwise unqualified because he lacking a science-based college degree) became qualified, Healy may have opened a can of political worms that he may come to regret having opened.

The question now becomes:  can he conjure up a bit more of political Houdini to escape a self-generated problem unscathed?

Healy has been in one political scrape after another after another after another in his five years as mayor.  But because of his obvious rather accomplished "sleight-of-hand" political maneuvering skills, he, like the grand magical master Houdini, escapes as disaster is about to overtake him.

While he appears to avoid personal political disaster, the city of Canton continues its spiral downward.

Not content to limiting his being a drag on Canton, his actions in relation to the crime lab has the potential to adversely affect outside-of-Canton Stark County-based law enforcement capability and, by extension, the safety of all Stark Countians.

But one wouldn't know Canton is in a downward spiral due in large part to his deficient leadership from Healy's continuous spinning of the state of the city to whomever will listen.

In another two to three weeks, "His Magic" will be front and center with his annual State of the City sideshow (reportedly to be held at the Pro Football Hall of Fame facilities).

This year will it feature showing off a "Hail, Mary!" in a quest to divert public attention away from his botched crime lab operation?

While he continues to survive, he does leave wreckage in his wake.

This time could it be the continued existence of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab (CSCCL)?

For years the SCPR has been hearing about the excellence of the CSCCL.  Nary a critic in sight.  And thought to be a crown jewel in Stark County law enforcement's arsenal of weapons to bring the county's criminals to justice.

But with the revelation of the Healy/Ream political power play and the concomitant scrutiny of the internal workings of the lab that the power grab has brought on, is the lab in jeopardy of becoming history?

Stephanie Ujhelyi of The Alliance Review (February 15th edition) wrote an prize-winning-esque article (in the view of the SCPR) which The Report recently brought to the attention of Stark County Councils of Government (SCOG) executive committee chairman Tom Bernabei.

Bernabei is also president of the Stark County Board of Commissioners.

The Ujhelyi piece appears to have raised his interest in perhaps pursuing a thorough review as to the continued viability of the CSCCL as a SCOG project in the light of marked improvement of the effectiveness, efficiency and the expedition of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) crime lab work an outline of which was sketched out in her report:

• A turnaround time of 20 days on DNA processing, despite a marked increase in volume of testing done,
• forensic biology and DNA combined tests improved from 125.5 to 19.75 days; 
• chemistry from 42.85 to 10.49 days; CODIS [DNA indexing] from 23.86 to 7.83 days; and 
• firearms from 35.33 to 15.73 days.

How was Attorney General Mike DeWine able to dramatically improve the performance of the BCI laboratory division?

Again, according to Ujhelyi:

• DeWine implemented a “three-pronged” approach to improving turnaround: 
• [a]dding 21 scientists to the BCI staff; 
• doubling BCI’s number of DNA testing and combined DNA index systems (CODIS) robots, and 
• establishing a continuous quality improvement process.

Currently, Stark Countians, through state of Ohio local government fund funding of Canton; the Stark County commissioners and Stark County's remaining cities, villages and townships ante up about $1.2 million annually to fund operations of the crime lab.

As mentioned earlier in this blog, the CSCCL has been a point of pride of Stark County law enforcement for its excellence in enhancing the ability of local police departments to quickly obtain highly competent scientific analysis of collected crime scene evidence utilizing the lab's equipment (95% owned by Stark County) and facilities to process the evidence through:

• chemical,
• biological,
• DNA,
• firearms,
• fingerprint,
• polygraph,
• document, and
• trace analysis 

About 33% of SCOG's crime lab funds come from Canton, 33% of them from the Stark County general fund and 33% from the remaining cities, villages and townships that make up the county.

To boot, more than half of the crime lab's work is done for non-Canton Stark County cities, villages and townships.

Ujhelyi interest got piqued because of an Alliance case, to wit (from her piece):

Alliance city Safety-Service Director W. John Gross had pointed to a 14-month-old “theft by deception” case that remains unresolved, as city police continue to await results from the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab.

According to the report, officers responded in the morning of Nov. 16, 2011 to a downtown antique shop, where the owner reported purchasing coins for $1,800 that turned out to be counterfeit.

Taken into evidence were 80 counterfeit U.S. dollars, a three-ring binder and a handwritten receipt, according to the property report.

Additional supplements stated that Detective Donald Wensel made contact with the crime lab on June 4, 2012; Aug. 30, 2012, and Monday, suspending the investigation earlier this week pending receipt of the fingerprint analysis results.

Bernabei told The Review on Thursday that Foster informed him the silver dollar evidence was processed, and Alliance police should expect a report next week with the findings.

Hmm?

This kind of result from Stark County's prized crime lab?

Well, the SCPR is learning that at least going back to a Canton Safety Director Tom Ream's firing of former director Robert Budgake in January, 2012 (in a Canton city government fiasco in which some 30 or so city retire/rehire employees were fired because of allegations that the rehiring was not lawfully done) and perhaps going back as far as eighteen months, the quality of CSCCL work has been slipping in terms of its backlog.

Moreover, Ujhelyi reports that lab criminalist Michael Short was fired five months after the Budgake firing on allegations that "he had processed multiple gunshot residue cases at the same time" which, of course, raises questions of the quality of work.

On top of all of this, coming full cycle, you have the Healy/Ream political machinations (i.e. revising the job description in bringing Ream pal Perez on board) and thereby possibly jeopardizing the accreditation of the city-county lab in their having eliminated an existing lab director scientific degree requirement so that Perez could qualify.

Like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Healy was apparently contrite at the quarterly SCOG executive committee meeting of February 13th (LINK to prior SCPR blog) at having caused all the furor in the Perez hiring effective February 5th (which he undid by gaining Perez's resignation on February 12th).

If Bernabei and SCOG follows through with a complete and thorough review of the CSCCL structure and operations (with special emphasis on its effectiveness, efficiencies and expeditiousness), there may be a silver lining to the Healy machiavellian operation.

SCOG did take the immediate step hiring a qualified person to run the lab.  In an impressive but studied reaction to the Healy generated fiasco, SCOG reached out to CSCCL quality control manager Michele Foster to take over the directorship of the lab.

It appears that she will continue under civil service protection at least for 120 days.

It is the SCPR's position that in view of "the Perez affair," SCOG should insist that so long as Healy is mayor of Canton that if the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab is going to continue to exist that the director have civil service protection.

Moreover, the relationship between SCOG and the city of Canton on management of the lab be structured so that there is in place a unanimity between the two entities on any decisions on the hiring, firing, job descriptions and compensation of crime lab employees.

Lastly, the SCPR strongly urges SCOG to pursue a complete and thorough evaluation of the relative merits of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab compared to the Ohio BCI laboratory division (i.e. an "apples to apples comparison).

Doing so will enable Stark's leadership to make a totally informed decision on which provides the very best in crime scene evidence analysis so that Stark County's citizens have state-of-the-art and first-rate competent support for the prosecution of Stark County-sited criminals.

A big plus about going BCI (which is used by 90% of Ohio's police jurisdictions) is that it is "free" of cost to its local government users.

But as one police official tells the SCPR, the CSCCL has been a very comfortable fit for local police agencies and going to BCI should only be done if there are clear advantages to doing so which outweigh the monetary savings.

The SCPR endorses this point of view.

Most important of all, SCOG owes it to we Stark Countians to give the utmost attention and priority and urgency to ensuring our safety by having a crime lab support system in place that equips the Stark County law enforcement team to put the bad guys and gals away.

IRONIC? MARLBORO CHIEF OF POLICE RON DEVIES TAKES THE LEAD TO DEPOSE RICK PEREZ AS CANTON-STARK COUNTY CRIME LAB DIRECTOR?

UPDATE:  PEREZ RESIGNS CRIME-;LAB DIRECTOR POST

Press release issued by Mayor William J. Healy, II

Canton Mayor WIlliam J. Healy II asked for and accepted the resignation of Rick Perez, effective 6 p.m. Monday due to questions arising about the hiring process for the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab director position.

"This is about the process. I reviewed the situation and concluded that the hiring process was not handled appropriately," explained Healy, who plans to discuss reposting the position during

CORRECTION

The Report has learned that the meeting of SCOG set for tomorrow at 3:30 p.m is an executive committee meeting (not an executive session) and therefore is open to the public

Also, there is no 4:30 p.m. general SCOC membership meeting as they only take place on a quarterly basis.

The Report thanks SCOG member and Perry Township trustee Craig Chessler for the correct information

*************************************

On January 7, 2009 the now former Stark County chief deputy Rick Perez showed up at the Marlboro Township police chief's office to question Chief Ron Devies about allegations that he may have been involved in unlawful activity with respect to the township computer system.

Unbeknownst to Devies, Perez was wearing a wire.

When word got out within the Stark County policing community, there was outrage galore.

And, the SCPR believes, that revelation more than any other factor (including his brother Kim's difficulty in terms of public perception as Stark County auditor in what has been labeled Zeiglergate) is the reason that Perez is not the sitting Stark County sheriff today.

But for Devies, it was probably good that Perez had a wire on.  For when it was used at trial it showed him to be a guileless, "honest-to-the-bone-marrow" police officer.  (LINK to May 27, 2009 SCPR blog).

And by the way, Devies who was charged with a 4th degree felony supplemented by misdemeanor charges was in effect acquitted by Stark County Court judge V. Lee Sinclair in his dismissal of all charges at the end of the prosecutor's case-in-chief.

Folks, if there is such a thing as a slam dunk in the law, such a dismissal is it.

Now that word has gotten out that police and, apparently, political crony of Perez and Canton safety director Tom Ream (one would think with the blessing, if not the complicity, of Canton mayor William J. Healy, II) has orchestrated the rearrangement of the qualifications for being the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab director in order to make Perez's hiring possible.

Under the old criteria, Perez was unqualified.

Moreover, because the Ream/Healy rewrite of the crime director's job description, the job did not have to be advertised so that other (including qualified Cantonians/Stark Countians) could know of the intent to hire and to apply for it.

The Perez hiring occurred on Monday, February 5th.

The result?

As in the wire wearing Perez caper, Stark County police outrage.

How many outrages can Rick Perez absorb and remain a viable public figure?

Well, one of the most marked outrages in terms of reaction came from guess who?

You've got it.

Marlboro Chief of Police Ron Devies, that's who.

Here is the contents of a copy of an email sent to the SCPR by Devies (to Repository reporter Matt Rink):

First I want to commend you on your reporting covering this travesty that has occurred at our crime lab.

I knew Bob Budgake for many years professionally and I can sincerely say, the crime lab has not been the same since he has been gone.

Many of the staff there have told me how he is dearly missed. I teach  evidence collection in three different police academies and I always would brag how fortunate we were in Stark County to have the Canton-Stark Crime Lab. I won't be bragging anymore about this.

Yesterday I sent via certified mail, notice to the Crime Lab requesting they box up all cases my agency has submitted and to notify my office when they are ready for pick up.

My agency will no longer use the crime lab due to the unqualified leadership it possesses.

I may also point out, Mr. Ream told me personally a little over a year ago what good friends he was with Perez and Tim Swanson.

My agency wishes to have no association with the unethical practices that have taken place here.

I know Rick Perez very well and wish to have no association with him or anyone associated with him. He is definitely NOT qualified for this position.

If he thinks his experience in "investigation" brings anything to the table,I would say he has watched too many episodes of CSI.

The dedicated criminalists  who are qualified there, do not do investigate crimes. In most cases evidence is submitted to them and they analyse [sic] it to see if there is a link between the victim, suspect and crime scene.

I seriously would wager if you asked Rick Perez to  explain the Locard Transfer Principle he would try to tell you it was some kind of SARTA pass.  (emphasis added)

So does this action by Devies signal that he will be a leading force in seeking a reversal at the Stark Council of Governments (SCOG) board level?

It will be interesting to see whether or not he shows up at the board's regularly scheduled meeting at 3:30 p.m. at meeting room on the 8th floor of City Hall on Tuesday, February 12th.

Even if he doesn't, the SCPR has to believe there will be plenty of screaming and yelling at Ream during the executive committee of the board which begins begins at 3:30 p.m. and is open to the public.

The SCPR expects Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei to be venting big time on Ream and thereby indirectly on Healy like in the old days.

When Healy was elected in November, 2007 one of his first appointments in his first term was Bernabei as his service director and chief-of-staff.

Well, Bernabei was far too exacting in the details of administration, pointed and in-your-face for Healy to abide.  Within a few months of being hired, Healy fired him.  As he did to another, in effect, with hiree (Tom Nesbitt of Nebraska) as his safety director.

While officially, Nesbitt resigned.  The truth of the matter is that Healy made it impossible for him to continue and serve with integrity.

Folks who got to know Nesbitt raved about his work as safety director at the time and still speak very highly of him.  But, again, he was more than Healy can abide.  Healy is well known for only being able to work with "_ ss kissers."

The SCPR has heard nobody rave about safety director Ream except Mayor Healy.  So what does than make Ream?

Another interested party in all the Crime-Lab-Gate hubbub is Rick's brother Kim who is running for Canton treasurer.

Could he be in for another electoral loss because of an association with an "in the news" Stark County political/governance event?

A sidenote:

• The Perez appointment took place on Monday, February 5th.   
• George T. Maier (brother of former Stark County Democratic Party chair Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.) was appointed Stark County sheriff to succeed sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (who was unable to assume office because of an unspecified illness) on Tuesday, February 6th.
• One of the leading proponents for Maier was none other than Gonzalez.
• Maier surprising barely won 92 votes to 84 (for Lt. Lou Darrow).

So?

Well, the question that the SCPR has:  was there some kind of quid pro quo (something for something) deal on the George T. Maier candidacy cut between and among Ream, Healy, the Maiers and Gonzalez to support Perez's selection as Stark County Crime Lab director in exchange for support of Maier sheriff candidacy?

Gonzalez does say that he knew nothing about the Perez hiring, that he is a "distant" cousin and that "he has had little contact with him."

Sorry Chairman Gonzalez, the SCPR has a really difficult time taking your statements at face value.

What the SCPR will be looking for is whether or not Gonzalez uses his clout within the inner workings of SCOG to undo the Perez appointment.

Are we to hear from Gonzalez as the SCPR in the past:  "clout?"  "I have none.

That's what The Report expects to hear from the chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.

The Report's take on him is that he is up to his eyeballs on everything political in Stark County, and his projected powerlessness is feigned.

(VIDEOS: SWANSON SWEARING-IN, COM'RS REGULA, BERNABEI & CREIGHTON, CITIZEN LOY REACT) WILL SHERIFF SWANSON DETERMINE WHO HIS SUCCESSOR IS? SEE McDONALD'S LETTER

 

 
 UPDATE:  01/05/2013 AT 5:15 PM

The Stark County commissioners were thankful Friday that they had someone to turn to on learning that Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald is unable - for health reasons (Swanson:  "it's a completely new battle that he [McDonald] is into now") - to assume office at 12.01 AM on January 7th.

Not just anyone could have been selected by the commissioners inasmuch as official duties cannot be assumed by an elected county official until and unless a bond is issued.

SCPR readers will recall the stand-off between former Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler and Stark County auditor Alan Harold in 2011 (immediately after the Ohio Supreme Court restored Zeigler to office) whereby Harold refused to pay Zeigler and refused to authorize Zeigler to use the county's computer system unless and until he obtained a bond.

No such problem with Swanson.

Inasmuch as he is currently bonded as the sitting county sheriff, it was a mere formality for Tim Swanson to qualify for a newly issued bond to cover the up to 45 days from January 4th on that he will continue to serve as sheriff.

The first order of business for the commissioners was to reluctantly accept the letter of Mike McDonald stating that he was unable to take office.



Immediately prior to being sworn-in, Sheriff Swanson had these comments:



Commissioners accepted McDonald's declination of accepting office and Swanson was immediately sworn in by his legal counsel Vivianne Whalen-Duffrin:



After the swearing-in, the SCPR and other area media conducted a press conference with Swanson:



The SCPR captured reactions to the McDonald situation from Alliance area resident Derrick Loy (former president of the Alliance Area Democratic Club) and Commissioner Richard Regula.



Minutes after the press conference, the SCPR moved outside the commissioners' meeting room with him.  Off-camera,  he shared some interesting additional tidbits, including revelations:

• that he does have a preference who the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee names as his successor and that he will make that name known in due course and try to convince the committee to adopt his choice,
• making it pretty clear that the choice would not be Mike McDonald's November Republican opponent Larry Dordea (who has told The Report he is likely to apply) inasmuch as he (Swanson) deemed Dordea's campaign against him in 2008 to have been an unexpectedly nasty one and that he felt Dordea had stabbed him in the back and had lied to him in telling him that he (Dordea) would not be running against him,
• Swanson recalled how he helped Dordea during his tenure as Alliance Chief of Police (LINK) clean up policing in The Carnation City and had facilitated Dordea's success in the city by hooking him up with leading Alliance area Democrats,
•  

• Note:  This turn in Swanson's take on Dordea is surprising to the SCPR.  During the 2008 campaign Swanson only had neutral to positive assessments of Dordea. The Report's question of Swanson about the contradiction was ignored.
•  
• indicating that his long time chief deputy Rick Perez would not be the choice in saying that Perez would be proceeding with his retirement from the sheriff's department a midnight on the 6th,and
• that he could be supportive of Massillon safety-service director George T. Maier for sheriff, but he is not certain that Maier has kept his policing qualifications current.  However, Swanson did say that he had had difficulties with Maier's brother (Johnnie) in the ebb and flow of Stark County Democratic Party politics over the years.

The SCPR believes that Swanson indeed has enough clout within the Stark County Democratic Party to pull off having the selection committee honor his wishes as to whom succeeds him.

Swanson shared with the press that he has been hanging around the sheriff's department since 1971 as a reserve deputy and stayed on through Papadopulos, Berens (a Republican), Stern and Umpleby and that he plans on returning to reserve status once his extra stint as sheriff is concluded.

The sheriff seemed to be shaken by the necessity of stepping in to help out in the unfortunate circumstances of Chief Deputy McDonald's career ending illness.

He reviewed with the media of how he experienced a similar trauma in transition in office when his predecessor Bruch Umpleby died suddenly and unexpectedly in July, 1999.  Only a week before his death, Swanson told the press, Umpley pulled him into his office to tell Tim that he would not be running for reelection and that Swanson was his choice to succeed him.

He went on to describe how former fellow deputy sheriff Steve Zerby (who had run against Bruce Umpleby in 1996 and who went on to co-found the Jackson Police Department in the late 1990s) challenged him in the 2000 Democratic Party primary (Swanson having been appointed to succeed Umpleby by the John Ferrreo-led party) and that he (Swanson) had survived because of the support that he had from Umpleby and Umpleby predecessor Babe Stern.

The SCPR has put together a video of Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Regula as to what they had to say about the devastating circumstances of McDonald not being able to take office and the need of having Sheriff Swanson stay on for a bit longer.

Within the next week or so it will become clearer who will be the next sheriff of Stark County.

A name that could be one to pay attention to could be that of Canton safety director Tom Ream.  His big liability though is his close association with Mayor Healy.  In the discussion with Swanson on Friday, he made it clear that he is not a big fan of Hizzhoner.

When, in November of 2011, McDonald put his pursuit of being sheriff in doubt, the SCPR asked Ream whether or not he was interested in stepping in.  He indicated that while he was honored that he had been asked to consider pursuing the Democratic nomination that he had determined that he was not interested at that time.

And what about David Zink, the under suspension police chief of Jackson?

Swanson expressed his amazement at the January 2nd gathering of the Jackson FOP (police union) regarding the future of Chief Zink at which the members were considering a "no-confidence" vote.  While the vote was never taken, it appeared to Swanson that the contemplation of such in and of itself was a sign that Zink is not a viable candidate to become McDonald's successor.

It could be that the Jackson trustees have not adequately disposed of the Zink matter to the satisfaction of some township residents.  Swanson suggested that the January 8th meeting of the trustees may produce an onslaught of irate Jacksonians who want more action taken against Zink.

The bottom line on the McDonald succession question appears to the SCPR to be that the recipient of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee selection could well be determined on the say-so of Swanson.

But for Umpleby and Stern, Tim Swanson may never have been the Stark County sheriff.

Is history about to repeat itself?

Will McDonald's successor be saying:   "But for Tim Swanson's endorsement,
I may never have been Stark County sheriff."

Stay tuned, the next 45 days could be full of political excitement and intrigue!

(VIDEOS) COMMISSIONERS HOLD FAST IN REFUSING A STARK COUNTY BIDDER ON CONSTRUCTION BID. HOW COULD THIS BE GOOD FOR STARK COUNTY? ALSO, HANKE ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT, HOOVER RETIRES FRIDAY, FERGUSSON TO RESIGN EARLY & RICK PEREZ RETIRES ON 12/31/2012

 SPECIFIC LIST OF VIDEOS:

1. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MIKE HANKE ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2013,
2. 25 YEAR STARK CO. COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEE MARILYN HOOVER TO RETIRE AS OF FRIDAY, AND
3. STARK CO. BASED CENTRAL ALLIED ENTERPRISES, INC LOSES OUT TO A WAYNE CO. COMPANY ON MARLBORO SEWER PROJECT NOTWITHSTANDING ITS "LOWEST BID."

Yesterday, as yours truly opened the stairs doorway to the 2nd floor of the Stark County office building, it was a sight to behold.

Some 75 workers for Central Allied Enterprises, Inc. were milling around in the area in front of the building elevators extending down the hall towards the commissioners' office and then in the other director down towards the Stark County auditor's office.

What's up?

The SCPR as always had viewed the day's agenda and from the looks of it, the meeting seemed as if it was going to be rather pedestrian.

But as The Report has said in many SCPR blogs, one never knows what surprises awaits yours truly in the course of public meetings.  And Stark County commissioner meetings are no exception.

Before getting into the big controversy that erupted yesterday in the commissioners' meeting room, here are the "milder" surprises that happened yesterday:

• Mike Hanke, the chief county administrator of some five years, announced he is retiring effective March 1, 2013,
•  

• Commissioner Pete Ferguson notified all that he is resigning effective December 31st though his official term runs through January 3, 2013, and
• Marilyn Hoover, a key Stark County commissioners' administrative staff member who announced her retirement last month after 25 years of service will spend her last day working for the commissioners tomorrow.
•  

• Also, information came out that Chief Deputy Sheriff Rick Perez is retiring (a second time?) from the sheriff's department as of December 31st.

The big, big surprise, perhaps (the Hanke retirement announced was pretty surprising), was the attempt by Central Allied Enterprises, Inc. (a Stark, County company) to get commissioners to not follow the recommendation of Stark County Sanitary Sewer Engineer Jim Jones that they reject Central's "lowest bid" on the Marlboro Township Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Improvement project to benefit about 90 Marlboro residents who live in the vicinity of State Route 619 and Marlboro in unincorporated Marlboro.

But the commissioners chose to follow the recommendation of Jones notwithstanding the impassioned plea of Central Allied's CEO Gerald Orn.

So what is so surprising about this turn of events?

One of the first and most emphatic points that Commissioner Creighton made when she took office on her election in November, 2010 was that she was interested in seeing to it that Stark County-based companies got county business whenever the county made purchases for products and services.  And Commissioners Bernabei (elected originally in 2010; reelected in November, 2012) and Ferguson (elected in 2008, but choosing not to seek reelection this year) were on board with her on that very point.

For a number of years the Stark County sanitary engineer's office has been working to put together a project to replace sanitary and storm sewer infrastructure in Marlboro.

So it had to be pleasing to the commissioners when the bids were opened on the Marlboro project on October 12th of this year that a Stark County company (Central Allied) was the low bidder by some $13,000.

But the law, as the SCPR understands it (LINK), is that the commissioners have some discretion within which to accept bids in that the catch phrase is not "lowest," but "lowest and best."

Well, how do they determine what is best?

Answer:  they rely on their expert on such things which in this case is Engineer Jones.

On Tuesday Jones wrote the commissioners telling them that in his judgment the $2.5 million (plus a little) contract should go to Wenger Excavation of Dalton, Wayne County, Ohio.

The project is funded by a combination of:

• a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers administrated federal grant,
• Community Development Block Grant funding through the Stark County Regional Planning Commission, and
• Metropolitan Sewer District funds.

His reasons for selecting the Wayne County company over the Stark County company?

1. Central Allied's bid ($2,547,138.20) is in its essence equal (given that we are talking slightly in excess of $2.5 million) to the Wenger bid ($2,580, 299.55),
2. Wenger "has performed many satisfactory projects" for Stark County "over the last 30 years," according to Jones' recommendation,
3. Central Allied, on the other hand, has had two projects in the last six years for Stark County and Jones says "that there were problems ... on both projects,"
4. "The quality of the work was non-standard, causing delays, safety issues, added expense, excessive noise, and quality problems."
5. Jones cites "dewatering of ground water" issues with Central Allied on the two previous project and says that dewatering may be a factor in the Marlboro project,
6. "Central Allied Enterprises was non-responsive to the List of public projects request in the Bidder's profile section of the Bid Documents,"
7. "Central's list did not indicate type of project or project contact person or phone number information,"
8. One of Central's references "which included storm sewer had some negative comments to standards which may relate sanitary sewer installation" on the Marlboro project.

A main point raised by CEO Orn in his remarks to commissioners yesterday was the number of Stark County (which he estimated at 100, but which the company's legal counsel guessed to be about 80) citizens who work for Central Allied.

Here is a video record on proceedings yesterday.



Off camera, he told the SCPR that Central's failure to get the contract from Stark County could negatively impact as many as 40 Stark County jobs.

The bottom line was that the commissioners were going to follow the county engineer's recommendation and were not going to yield to the pressure of some 75 workers and company officials (including Orn) who appeared at the commissioners meeting.

From what the SCPR can gather from Jones' report, it appears that the commissioners did the right thing by Stark County's sanitary sewer customers (of which, yours truly is one) and most importantly the folks who live in Marlboro Township who will be directly benefiting from the work done.

The SCPR has covered the Stark County commissioners for all of the time that Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson have been in office.  During that time, it is The Report's clear impression that they make every effort to award county contracts to Stark County based business so long as they can ensure quality products and services.

One thing that worried The Report somewhat was the heavy reliance of the commissioners on Engineer Jones' say so.

Not so much on this particular bid, but whether or not the commissioners, in general, are biased to what a public official's stand is on any controversy that comes before them for which the commissioners are the deciders.

So The Report sat down with Commissioner Creighton and engaged a "devil's advocate" position on yours truly's concern.

Creighton in the back and forth convinced The Report that such was not the case.

She cited a recent case involving a situation in Beach City in which the public officials were contesting the citizens and the commissioners sided with the Beach City residents.

Moreover, there is a street naming issue (Brook Avenue) between affected Perry Township residents and safety officials (fire, police and emergency services) that the residents brought to the commissioners' Public Speaks forum a number of weeks ago.

Creighton, for one commissioner, assured yours truly that she was hearing the residents' concerns loud and clear and that the commissioners are working to formulate a solution that will satisfy everyone.

Her point?

She was not going to be an "automatic" for the public officials.

That is what the SCPR wanted to hear.

Bernabei and Creighton came into office at a time that Stark Countians were disgusted with a perceived lack of openness, transparency, communicativeness, accessibility and the like being handed out by a number of county officials.

The have vowed to change that perception.

The Report thinks that the commissioners have made progress, but work along this front remains.

For instance, the SCPR has not been impressed with how the commissioners have handled the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB).

These folks in The Report's estimate have been terrific advocates for the well being of stray and abandoned dogs housed at the Stark County Dog Pound (Pound) and have volunteered thousands of hours at the Pound in the face of resistance, yours truly believes, by employees, management and, yes, even the commissioners.

Former commissioner Todd Bosley was instrumental in forming the SCDPAB.  Commissioner Creighton says that he (and his fellow commissioners at the time) had no authority for doing so.

The Report believes that members of the SCDPAB (which only has a couple of members remaining out of a total of seven; the terms of the others having expired and left unfilled by Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson) were so much of a "pain in the _ss" to folks working/running the Pound and to the commissioners themselves that the commissioners are simply letting the SCDPAB atrophy through the expiration of all terms over time and thereby put it out of existence.

The SCPR thinks that the commissioners handling of the SCDPAB matter is disrespectful of these folks and dishonoring of all the hard work they have blessed the county with over the years.

A very compelling case can be made that BUT FOR the activism of the SCDPAB members, the "in process" replacement of the Pound's HVAC system would not be happening.

However, to their discredit is the manner in which they are handling the the demise of the SCDPAB.

They should go front and center and outright disband the board.

And it wouldn't hurt to have past and the remaining few members into a commissioners meeting to honor them for their service.

While the SCPR sees a substantial improvement with this board of commissioners over previous boards, they are not perfect.

Returning to the commissioners action yesterday, it seems to the SCPR that the commissioners showed that they have spine when it comes to an influx of complaint and criticism.

There is no doubt to The Report that they want to see Stark County-based business get the county's business.

So it had to be particularly difficult for them not to award the Marlboro project to Central Allied.

Whether one agrees with the decision or not, the commissioners demonstrated in not choosing the Stark County company that they have the fortitude to do what they think is the right thing to do in terms of what Ohio law allows and in their perception of the overall interest of Stark Countians.

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

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

THE BACKGROUND

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

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

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

BACK TO THE QUESTION

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

SCPR ANSWER

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

REASONING

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

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

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

Hmm?

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, yours truly was thinking:  so?

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

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

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

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

Bingo!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the exact way Swanson put it:

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

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

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

 He added:

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

So where does the SCPR end up on this flap?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we should know for sure on Monday night next.

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

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

DISCUSSION: MARLBORO POLICE CHIEF & SON INDICTED?

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has reason to believe on the basis of a report from a source close to the Devies that Stark County Chief Deputy Rick Perez has served grand jury indictment papers on Marlboro Township Police Chief Ron Devies and his son Kyle today.

At this writing The Report does not know what the specific charges are.

A source who is familiar with the investigation surrounding the Devies matter has told The Report that the source understands that the charges focus on the tracking of inter-trustee e-mails and from the reformatting of the confiscated computers' hard drives to remove traces of the tracking effort.

No matter which way this case ends up, The Report's sense of the community reaction is that there are gaping open wounds in the body social and politic that will take years to heal.