THE 21ST CENTURY ABOUT TO ARRIVE IN STARK COUNTY GOVERNMENT? TECHNOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, THAT IS.

UPDATE:  HAROLD RESPONDS TO SCPR INQUIRY

SEE BELOW GRAPHIC

(PHOTO IN PUBLIC DOMAIN)

HAROLD RESPONSE TO SCPR QUESTIONS:

QUESTIONS 

Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> 4/13/2015 7:17 AM

Alan,

Could you fill me in on the complete background on your knowledge of and connection to Seth Peterson and the particulars of how you came to recruit him (his words, not mine - see video) to come to Stark County?

Thanks,

Martin/SCPR

 ANSWERS:

Alan Harold  Today at 11:57 AM
To:  Martin Olson

Hi Martin, thanks for the note.

Seth and I attended Mount Union College at the same time.  We had stayed in touch through his various professional positions, notably when he was IT Director for Canton City Schools.  We spoke first about his coming to work for the County two/three years ago when I was looking to hire an assistant director for the IT department.  The timing wasn't right for him at the time and we moved on here at the County.

Last spring, recall we had a backroom incident at IT related to a power surge.  As we analyzed our needs and the future direction of the department, I reached out to Seth about the possibility of him coming on board in the role he has now.  I'm glad we were able to bring him on board as having two high caliber professionals (Seth & Anita) in the IT department allows us to have the best infrastructure, new collaborations across all government, and better solutions for all of our users.

Lastly, I don't know that it was covered in the meeting or in the video, but this is not all "new" money being invested into the Microsoft agreement.  We have a similar agreement with Oracle right now for various systems licensing that will be, in large part, phased out as Microsoft comes on-line.  While it will not be dollar-for-dollar savings, there will be a substantial reduction in other licensing expenses that will offset the costs of this new contract.

This is probably the most exciting time in the County IT department in at least a generation and I am so glad and so proud to have a great team in place to create and implement a better way to manage this critical asset of our local government.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions or if you need anything else.

Alan

Alan Harold

Stark County Auditor

ORIGINAL BLOG

 

 VIDEOS

STARK COMMISSIONERS

APPROVE APPROPRIATION OF

$1.3 MILLION

FOR STARK COUNTY TECHNOLOGY

UPGRADE

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

STARK'S NEW IT CHIEF

SETH PETERSON

TALKS SPECIFICS, MORE OR LESS

ON

COUNTYWIDE TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE

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

STARK COMMISSIONERS

TALK ABOUT THEIR ROLE

IN PROMOTING/VETTING

TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE 

 

The rumor is that some Stark County government offices are using the abacus (invented about 2700 BCE) to do their accounting work.

The SCPR is only kidding of course.

But there is little doubt that large parts of Stark County government and many Stark County political subdivisions are in the dark ages of technology.

One of the foremost advocates of updating the county's technology is Stark County Auditor Alan Harold.

Harold is kind of a "Luddite in reverse."

In reverse?

Yes, the original Luddites according to Wikipedia:

... were 19th-century English textile workers who protested newly developed labour-economizing technologies from 1811 to 1816. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.

Recently, Harold (whose office handles information technology for Stark County government) hired a chief information technology person to smash (the SCPR's term not Harold's nor the technology chief) the antiquated information technology systems that are pervasive in offices across Stark county government.

At last Wednesday's regular 1:30 p.m. Stark County commissioners' meeting, newly hired (at $120,404 [now $122,404] Chief Information Technology Officer Seth Peterson (August, 2014) was present to address a resolution up for consideration by the commissioners, to wit:

At his rate of pay, Peterson is the third highest paid Stark County employee.

He says that he came out of the healthcare industry last employed in Atlanta, Georgia (see above) and that he was recruited by Harold to come to Stark County.

He is a graduate of Mount Union University.

Here is a video of the exchange between the commissioners and Peterson as he was present to justify the appropriation of nearly $1.3 million over the next six years.



And here is a SCPR computation of the projected cost of the upgrade.

The SCPR believes that "a conservative cost estimate" puts county general fund dollars outlay at about $2.1 million.

If one includes all the costs in implementing the upgrade, the SCPR thinks the upgrade "in reality" will end up much higher.

Note that The Report includes in the cost the projected base salary (not included pay increases over the next 6 years) of Mr. Peterson inasmuch as yours truly believes that the major share of his time will be devoted to the upgrade.

Also not included is the salary of other Auditor Department employees who most certainly will be involved in the upgrade process.

This is a cost in terms of being of the nature of an "opportunity cost" which is to say that to the degree Auditor Department IT employees are devoting time to the upgrade they will not be available to spend time on other departmental functions.

As Peterson stepped out of the meeting to return to work, the SCPR prevailed upon him (joined by Akron Beacon Journal reporter Nancy Molnar) to query him in more detail about the upgrade.



And in a Q&A part of the commissioners' meeting, the SCPR had this exchange with commissioners:



All-in-all the SCPR is pleased with Harold's action in playing the role of being a Luddite in reverse.

And it appears from Commissioner Creighton's description in the video above of the Data Board vetting process that Harold's plan has been gone over with "a fine toothed comb."  But we will not know for sure until the returns begin to come in.

The Report will be watching the project as it goes forward and will from time-to-time be reporting to the Stark County public as to whether or not the expenditure of what most certainly be several millions of Stark County taxpayer general fund dollars turns out to be a case of our money being efficiently and effectively spent.

We know already that county officials have no choice but to bring the county technologically speaking into the 21st century.

The need to do so should cause all of us to reflect on the apparent failure of previous auditors and commissioners and other county officials to have kept pace on the county's technology needs and thereby have exacerbated the 2014 through 2020 costs of catching up.

Watching government officials and how they administer our local government is an unending task for all of us.

(VIDEO) GETTING TREASURER ZEIGLER BONDED: A VERITABLE "ALPHONSE & GASTON" ACT - STARK COUNTY VERSION?

 

When the Ohio Supreme Court (June 23, 2011) ordered Gary Zeigler reinstated as Stark County treasurer it set off a chain of events that eventually took on comedic aspect within Stark County government circles pretty much on the order of an Alphonse and Gaston act.

Alphonse and Gaston is presented thusly in Wikipedia:

Alphonse and Gaston was an American comic strip by Frederick Burr Opper, featuring a bumbling pair of Frenchmen with a penchant for politeness. They first appeared in William Randolph Hearst's newspaper, the New York Journal on September 22, 1901 in a strip titled: "Alphonse a la Carte and His Friend Gaston de Table d'Hote".

First, On Zeigler's reinstatement, he only needed to convince Stark County Alan Harold he had a bond to re-assume his full duties  Harold is not buying that Zeigler's bond before he was removed from office by Stark County commissioners on August 23, 2010 was sufficient.  Accordingly, although Zeigler showed up for work on July 5, 2011, Harold's insistence on the issuance of a new bond stood in his way of being a full fledged treasurer.

Hence Harold (an devoted Zeigler political enemy who is said to believe that Zeigler applied pressure on his then employer Huntington Bank to force him from a planned run against Zeigler in 2008) will not authorize Zeigler to be paid.  Moreover, he limits Zeigler's use of county equipment.

When asked by the SCPR a week or so ago whether or not he thought Zeigler's return would present problems for the commissioners to get a sales levy passed, Harold's response?  "Zeigler needs to be gone!

Second, a question came up between Zeigler's legal counsel and the commissioners as to who was responsible to make sure the required bond is in place (either the current/old bond, depending on one's perspective) or a new one; if you view Zeigler's prior bond as being kaput as does - needless to say, the old bonding company that paid off on the old bond.

Third, after some squabbling between Zeigler's counsel and Stark County Prosecutor Ross Rhodes (representing the commissioners), Rhodes instructed the commissioners that Stark County Personnel Manager Marsha Cimadevilla could go ahead and coordinate the issuance of a bond which included Zeigler completing two applications for a new bond.

She did so July 5th in forwarding Zeigler's applications to local insurance agency Sirack-Moore.

Fourth, Cimadavilla told commissioners on July 6th that it was likely to take months to get a new bond for Zeigler.  She was basing her estimate upon the trouble Zeigler encountered getting his bond renewed after the Frustaci theft of Stark County taxpayer money ($2.46 million admitted; $2.96 million speculated) story broke (April 1, 2009).


Fifth, A week later (July 13th), Stark County Prosecutor Rhodes met with Stark County commissioners in executive session with regard to whether or not it was legally appropriate for them to release the current/old bond (again, depending on one's perspective).  After the meeting, the commissioners passed a conditional release requiring that a new bond be in place first.  Moreover, the bonding company (Western Surety) would be refunding the unused portion of the bond (about $3,900 or so).

Rhodes, then told SCPR, in post-meeting questioning, that the issuance of a new bond would happen within days but that the premium cost would at least double.

Here is a video which show Cimadevilla and Rhodes making their statements.

 

Sixth, "within days?"  Not really.

What is today's date and still no bond? 

Yes, August 10, 2011.

Prosecutor Rhodes was summoned by Commissioner Bernabei to the regular - more or less - (a number of them have been canceled) work session Monday about three (3) minutes (his estimate) prior to its commencement without prior indication to the media or the public that the Zeigler bond was to be a discussion item.

Until Rhodes was called in, the only topic on the agenda was Stark's sanitary sewer system.

Rhodes informed commissioners (according a Repository report) at the meeting that a Tennessee surety company had withdrawn its willingness to issue a bond but that one more company might be interested in issuing one.

Rhodes also indicated that if the second company would not issue a bond, then Stark County has a legal problem once again with the Stark County treasurer's office. 

Under state law, the inability to get a bond leaves the the office vacant.  Zeigler's legal counsel disputes the current/old bonding company's contention that the prior bond is no longer live. 

Commissioner Bernabei told yours truly that Sirack-Moore (handing negotiations to find a new bond issuer) would be appearing at yesterday's "regular?" Tuesday version of Stark County commissioner work sessions to answer commissioners' questions on the bond company search process.  Also, the commissioners were to call Prosecutor Rhodes into executive session.  But, alas, guess what happened?

The "not so regular" - regular meeting - Tuesday work session got canceled because, according to Bernabei, Sirack-Moore needed more time.  Hmm?  So why was it so urgent to get Rhodes into the commissioners' work session meeting on Monday?

Supposedly, Sirmack-Moore's representative is to appear before commissioners next week some time?  When?  Some time!

All of these machinations have to be diverting the commissioners from their primary task at hand.

What task might that that be?

Put together a campaign effort to get the 1/2 proposed sales/use tax (for criminal justice and administration) passed in November.

Undoubtedly, it is very helpful (sarcasm, of course) to getting the levy passed that they are devoting so much time to getting Treasurer Zeigler on board as a fully functioning as Stark County treasurer.

Although this whole process has taken on a tragic-comedic tone, it is no laughing matter.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, it (the bond snafu) is a second tarnishing of the leadership abilities of the commissioners that raises questions about how much different they are from boards of commissioners that preceded them.

The Report has been favorably impressed, over its eight months of existence, with this board of commissioners.  And they are better in terms of access, accountability, community contact, openness, and transparency over prior boards.  However, they may be on a path of sliding down to down the level of their predecessor boards level.

The Report spoke of a "second tarnishing" which implies a first, which would be?

Scheduling 22 community meetings (February - June of this year) - to discuss the rate and duration of a sales tax issue - across Stark County without having adequately gotten Stark County's village, city and township elected officials behind the effort.

In Canton, not one person showed up.  No city elected officials; no citizens.  In Alliance, only two people showed up.  Overall the attendance was so poor that Commissioner Creighton calls the Stark County public apathetic.

The reality is that citizens need to be prompted to attend meetings for their own edification.  It appears that the commissioners thought people would be eager to attend.  But we now know that they were not.  It is hard to believe that the commissioners (especially Bernabei and Creighton - long time public officials) did not have some glimmer that the public would require prodding to get out to the meetings.

Yours truly has been attending local government meetings since the late 70s/early 80s only to witness lots and lots of empty or near empty township halls, city council chambers and boards of education meeting rooms. 

The point is that if commissioners cannot plan for a series of well attended public meetings by enlisting the active and committed support of their natural allies (councilpersons, trustees, fiscal officers, law directors, mayors, board of education members and the like), what can they plan for?

Another Alfonse and Gaston exercise, perhaps?

(VIDEOS) COMMISSIONERS TO PLACE 1/2 CENT SALES TAX ISSUE ON NOVEMBER BALLOT: AN INCREASE OF 1/4TH OF A CENT OVER CURRENT RATE - WILL THE "VOTE NO INCREASE TAXES COMMITTEE SURFACE" TO MAKE A FIGHT OF IT?

At yesterday's Stark County commissioners meeting, the commissioners took the first step condition precedent to putting a sales tax issue on the November ballot asking Stark Countians to approve a new sales tax county piggyback on Ohio's 6% of 0.5 per cent.  They passed a resolution (see video below) setting two dates required by Ohio law for hearings on matter:

• June 21, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. at Room 318 of the Stark County Office Building
• June 28, 2011 at 6:00 p.m at the Sippo Lake Park Exploration Gateway

 

It will be interesting to see who attends the hearings and whether not there will be controversy as there was when Commissioners Bosley, Harmon and Vignos "imposed" a 0.5% sales/use tax increase in December, 2008 supposedly to fund a rehab of "a broken countywide 9-1-1 emergency services" infrastructure.

To be sure, fixing the broken 9-1-1 system was part of the motivation for the imposed tax, however, not the only reason.  Built into the 0.5% - perhaps the major purpose of imposing the tax -  was money for the county general revenue fund.  Problem was is that some Stark Countians felt that the commissioners were hiding what appeared to them to be "the real purpose," which motivated them to form a repeal of the tax effort.  The labeled themselves:  "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee" (Vote Nos).  The SCPR credits local attorney and civic activists Craig T. Conley as being the brains and the driving force behind the effort.

Initially, the proponents of the tax scoffed at Conley et al.  But come November, 2009; the Vote Nos proved to be more than the equal of the Bosley, Harmon and Vignos crowd.

It appears to the SCPR that the Conley led forces would not lead a new fight against the renewal of a 0.25 sales tax set to expire this year.  However, the commissioners elected not to present a renewal in the wake of former Stark County Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci having been convicted of stealing $2.46 million in county funds (but thought by some to be as high as the $2.96 million in missing funds).

Newly elected commissioners Tom Bernabei (Democrat) and Janet Creighton (Republican) instead have joined with sitting commissioner Pete Ferguson to fan out into the larger Stark community on an endeavor to restore trust in terms of accessibility and transparency in county government.

Apparently, they feel they have succeeded to the extent that they think they can now ask (not impose on) voters to approve additional general fund revenues in November which will - if approved - start to be collected in April, 2012.  The last of the existing collection of the 0.25 sales tax will be collected on this coming June 30th.

But not so quick, so the SCPR has learned.

After today's meeting, The Report contacted Conley and asked for a reaction.  While Conley says that he is favorably impressed with the current board of commissioners and he could have supported retaining the 0.25% sales tax, HE IS NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED 0.5%.

Conley points to nearby Cuyahoga and Summit Counties as having 7% sales tax rates (actually 7.5/6.5% respectively) which have not solved their financial woes.  He thinks that given the continuing recession that everyday Stark Countians are experiencing that an increase in taxes (which the proposed 0.5% tax has a 0.25 increase in it over the non-renewed tax) is not justifiable.  He says he personally opposes the 0.5% proposal and left open the possibility that the dormant, not dead Vote Nos would be revived to fight the built in increase.

 He cites the Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson's operation which he says has not adequately dealt with wages and benefit reductions for departmental employees.

Asked by yours truly whether or not he would be attending either or both the 21st and 28th hearings, he seemed to be skeptical that he would because he feels that the commissioners have made up their minds that the November initiative is to be a 0.5% proposal no matter what.

The Report believes Conley is correct in his analysis.  Accordingly, it appears that there is likely to be organized opposition to the tax initiative, however; this match up will be much more competitive and different in tone than the November, 2009 election.

Why is that?

Because The Report does not believe that the commissioners will be trying the deceive anyone about what the money will be used for and that they will present persuasion-capable numbers to make a case for voter approval.

Moreover, The Report believes they will respectfully disagree with Conley et al on the need for Sheriff Swanson to do anything with wages/benefits by citing layoffs and the scaling down of house prisoners from a maximum of 502 to 300.

So the battle will be joined and Stark Countians will make the decision.

Here is a video compilation of points made by commissioners in a press conference with followed yesterday's meeting.

.