Showing posts with label Scott Graber. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scott Graber. Show all posts

Thursday, December 5, 2013

GONZALEZ & STARK DEMS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE "ON THIN ICE" IN JUSTIFCATIONS FOR DEMS FEBRUARY 5, 2013 APPOINTMENT OF GEORGE MAIER AS STARK CO. SHERIFF?





ACCORDING TO THE DEM HONCHOS

THE MAIER APPOINTMENT WAS
AN EXAMPLE OF
GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

WHAT A LAUGH!

Notwithstanding Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez's spin (on a local talk radio show) a couple weeks ago regarding the status of political party precinct committeepersons (i.e. they are elected public officials), nobody who understands how people come to be committeeperson will buy the chairman's slick implication that these folks are the equivalent of let's say a Congressman Bob Gibbs, a Stark County Richard Regula and a Trustee Mike Stevens of Lawrence Township  (picked out by the SCPR because he is a favorite [sarcasm] of Stark Dems' executive vice chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr).

The SCPR knows full-well how most precinct committeepersons (SCDP-CC) get their posts.  And it is clear to anyone with any critical thinking skill whatsoever that there is not a weaker link in the American democratic-republican system of government than political party central committees.

The Report believes that political party central committees are controlled, manipulated and used by party officials to further their own personal political ambitions and the committees ONLY have an INCIDENTAL - at best - connection to the will (in the case of the Stark County Democratic Party and its handling of the Mike McDonald sheriff-elect replacement process) Stark Countians.

Mostly, aspirant central committee members run unopposed at the precinct level of a ward.

Mostly, extremely low numbers (sometimes as low as two, three and five votes [see vote totals below] of partisan-registered voters of the selecting party of total eligible voters (be it a Democratic Party primary or a Republican Party primary) vote.

A real expression of full-blown "the will-of-significant-numbers-of-voters,, Mr. Gonzalez?

In some locales (e,g, heavily Republican Lake Township for the Democrats), in most of the precincts, nobody runs (18 of 23 precincts were left vacant after the 2012 precinct committee elections in Lake).


By the SCPR's calculation the Stark Dems have about 80 vacant spots across Stark's political subdivisions (i.e. cities, villages and townships).

Those vacancies are subject to be filled between biennial elections by the party's executive committee on the recommendation/request of the party chairman.

Of course, the party chairman is not going to recommend just anybody.  He is going to have to be convinced that the prospect with be a "loyal" party chairman supporter.

There are a few contested committee precinct committeeperson races but usually only when the party bosses are fighting among themselves for control party precinct committee.

Last year in Stark County Democratic Party circles there was some jockeying going on between Canton mayor William J. Healy, II, Chairman Gonzalez, (chief deputy of Canton's clerk of courts and Jackson Township's fiscal officer), Executive Vice Chair Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (a former chairman who is Massillon clerk of courts) and John Ferrero (a former chairman who is Stark County prosecutor).  And, perhaps, Stark County's unions were behind some of the candidates in contested races.

Even in an exceptional year of Stark Dems party bosses fighting among themselves for sway over the precinct committee ONLY 37 of some 285 precincts were contested.

In sum, of the approximate 285 Democratic Party precincts, ONLY about 13% were contested in a democratic election.


Let's take a few case examples.

The Report presents Massillon's Ward 1 (where Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero lives).

In the 2012 Stark County Democratic Party primary vote for Ward 1B precinct committeeperson (according to Stark Board of Elections records) there were a total of five votes.


How many Democrats were there in Ward 1B eligible to vote?



Yes, 105?

So less than 5% of the eligible Democrats voted in the Ward 1B Democratic Party precinct committeeperson election.

Hmm?

Well, lets go to the other extreme in Massillon 2013 Democratic Primary precinctcommittee person election.

That would be Ward 5A.

Wow!  Look at the following Stark BOE records.

A whopping 74 Democratic voters voted in that ward's precinct committeeperson election.



Break out the champagne, no!

And Gonzalez would probably buy the champagne.

Really?

Why?

Because political gadfly and self-styled parliamentarian Scott Graber lost.  At the February 5th SCDP-CC appointment of Maier event, Graber was a real nemesis to Gonzalez.

Anyhow, let's get back to the task at hand.

What percentage of Democrats voted in this "best performing" (in terms of all registered Democrats) of Massillon wards of the Democratic precinct committeeperson vote?

Well, there were a total of 200 Democrats who were eligible to vote and 74 voted.



Hip-hip-hooray!  A huge 37%.  Kudos to the Ward 5A Massillon Democrats.

But still, the very best of all of Massillon's wards, the turnout was significantly below 50%.  Hardly a testament for vibrant democracy.

For Chairman Gonzalez and his legal counsel in Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez, et al to ballyhoo that the political party central committee structure is in any way, shape or form an equivalency to and a representation of the American competitive election system is an outrage and a complete insult to the intelligence even to non-politically-attuned citizens.

For all of SCDP-CC's democratic deficiencies, those 84 Stark County Central Committeepersons who voted for Louis Darrow are the folks who got screwed.  They voted for "the only viable qualified candidate.  The Ohio Supreme Court has said that the 92 votes for Maier were void votes.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Republican Larry Dordea was certainly qualified.  But being a Republican in a Democratic Party process there was "no way in Hell" he was going to get the appointment.  The one vote he got (in view of the fact ballots had to be signed in order to be counted) was truly amazing.

Even though the appointed sheriff is accountable to all Stark Countians (whether Democratic, Republican, Libertarian or whatever), make no mistake about it - only Democrats need apply.

Of course, the Republicans do the same thing.

Democrat Chryssa Hartnett (of the Stark County prosecutor's office) "qualification-wise" should have been "the odds on favorite" to replace Republican V. Lee Sinclair as Court of Common Pleas Court judge earlier this year.  But she didn't get a smell from the Stark GOP or Republican governor John Kasich.

In  a "good going Chryssa" moment, the SCPR is pleased to see that she has taken out petitions to run against the "politically connected one" (Republican - of course - Curtis Werren) who got the Stark Republican Party and Republican Governor John Kasich nod though he had not practiced law for some time before gaining the appointment.

Both parties show how important it is (sarcasm folks) getting the most qualified person into publicly appointed jobs.

It seems to the SCPR that Party loyalty and political connections, time and again, trumps merit as the prime criterion for selection/election when the politicos like Matthews, Gonzalez, Maier, Jr and the like get their hands on the process.

Matthews' big crusade to feather his own nest was apparently to help Jim Renacci become the Republican nominee for 16th district congressman (back "in the day" when it included all of Stark County) to take on then Democrat Congressman John Boccieri.

When the venerable Ralph Regula retired at the end of 2008, it meant that unless Republican nominee Kirk Schuring won in his race against Boccieri, Matthews' wife Heidi was likely going to be out of a job inasmuch as she was one of Regula's most highly paid staff persons.

Quite a blow to family finances, no?

As it turns out, Schuring did lose and Heidi had to go elsewhere looking for work.

But "lo and behold" along comes Renacci needing help to get the nomination to run against Boccieri in 2010.

Who was "Johnnie on the Spot" to shepherd the effort?

You've got it!

None other that Stark County Republican chairman Jeff Matthews (also Stark County Board of Elections director).

Who was one of Renacci's first hires when he took office in 2011?

Shucks!  You SCPR readers are just "too damn smart."

Of course, Heidi likely was only hired by Renacci to have her salary paid by federal tax dollars, not because of the pro-Renacci effort of husband Jeff, because she "reeked" of merit.


Much like Kody Gonzalez (son of Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez) who came out of obscurity to skyrocket through Stark County and city of Canton government to land top notch "chief deputy jobs" with the Stark County recorder's office and, of late, the Canton Municipal clerk of courts office.

Perhaps, it is something in the water.

Isn't it interesting that the Canton Municipal clerk of courts Phil Giavasis also sits in the Stark County Board of Elections.

Or, maybe, Matthews and Giavasis, though of different political parties, as an incident of being in proximity to one another incidentally "rubbed shoulders."

Who knows?  But they both have developed "a nose for talent" in detecting those most merited for public employment.

One has to wonder why we taxpayers have been willing to support a government that is staffed all to often with the politically connected?

It could be that George T. Maier would make a fine sheriff.

But because of:
  • his blatant use of political connections (e.g. Gonzalez, Maier, Jr), 
  • unanswered questions about his demeanor and temperament, 
  • evidence (to the SCPR) of his being a respecter of persons,
  • topped off by his apparent willingness to use Harrison County taxpayers as a  "cup of coffee, stopping off place" in "a quick fix" effort to cure his Ohio statutory qualification problem in Stark County
the SCPR thinks that it is risky indeed for him to become Stark County sheriff.

That he is in concert with the party bosses in an attempt to bulldoze his way through process of law in an old fashion Ohio General Assembly political strongman Vern Rife (brother Johnnie's model for political action) political power move should give Stark Countians "pause for thought."

The county's chief law enforcement official is one powerful person.

Who gets that job is critically important.

There are many Stark Countians who believe that the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee made a major mistake in selecting Gary D. Zeigler to replace Mark Roach as county treasurer back in 1999.

Few doubt that he was a quintessential party loyalist who had run as a Democratic Party representative in many, many losing efforts before he got the treasury appointment.

Notwithstanding his political party credentials, dare say that most Stark Countians - post Zeigler years as treasurer, would have had the Dems select someone who actually had a track record working of successfully managing a financial operation.

The Report believes that George T. Maier is much better "professionally" credential than Zeigler was.

However, it is highly disturbing that there is such a heavy political push at his back.

If he is "head and shoulders" above everybody else as a number of supporters want to say, why is he unwilling now that his qualification under Ohio law has been declared by the Ohio Supreme Court to be deficient to step aside and get qualified "with a Stark County law enforcement agency" and run for the Stark County Democratic Party nomination in May, 2014?

To The Report, knowing politicians as I do, I suspect there is something more than anybody currently knows (and, perhaps will ever know) as to why the Democratic powers that be are bulldozing ahead.

The graphic metaphor used in today's blog is that I think that Gonzalez et al. are on "thin" ice in using the SCDP-CC structure to pass judgment on George T. Maier.

Gonzalez himself should step forward and say:  "George, you know what.  Why don't you step aside and let us appoint Lou Darrow as sheriff.  Get your qualification under the law squared away and then run in our Democratic Party primary come May."

Though Gonzalez likes to paint himself as being a man whose first and primary focus is the public interest and that he sees himself as a public servant, the SCPR sees very little evidence of such.

He has been well compensated for his public work individually and number of folks close to him appear to the SCPR and other Stark Countians to have benefited from his prominence in Stark County political life.

Gonzalez's political push for Maier speaks much more loudly of being a naked political power move than an example of selfless public service.

So the SCPR view is that his self-aggrandizement is as in biblical terms a "noisy gong and clanging cymbal, absent substance.

The current situation is an opportunity for him to show in action that he can be a statesman in the public interest.

Some may say that his presiding over the SCDP-CC when it selected Republican Alex Zumbar as county treasurer as the replacement for Zeigler in October, 2011 was such action.

Not as far as the SCPR is concerned.

He had no other choice.  The uproar with the the Stark County body politic would have been such that had the Dems not appointed Zumbar, voters would have taken their wrath on any Democrat running countywide.

As it was, county auditor Kim Perez was a victim of the Zeigler situation.  Had the Dems turned Zumbar away, it was truly a "Katy bar the door situation" and the political damage to Democrats running countywide likely would have been much more extensive.

So he was doing the practical political thing to aid Democrats in "cutting their loses."  He was not trying to be the statesman.

The SCPR has plenty of videotape on previous blogs showing Gonzalez himself saying that he was not doing the statesman thing in asking the Democrats to appoint Republican Zumbar as treasurer.

The Dems needed to appoint Zumbar, he said, in order "not to make him a political martyr" and thereby put Democrat officeholders in harms way in future elections.

The current imbroglio is quite a different situation.

It does provide an opportunity for "doing the right thing" for "the right reason" and the Democrats did not need to appoint a Republican to get a qualified candidate.

And asking the SCDP-CC to appoint the obviously qualified Lt. Louis Darrow did not on February 5th and does not now entail Gonzalez abandoning his friend George T. Maier.

There is another day for Maier.

That day is called the Stark County Democratic Party primary and it will be held 147 days (four months and 26 days) from December 11th.

Stark County does not need another long drawn out court battle on a matter that will come before all Stark County voters in November, 2014.

Gonzalez can self-promote on his being all about public service "until the cows come home."

As far as The Report is concerned such the "I am primarily about public service" declarations are on "thin-ice" as long as he continues the track he currently on.

His insistence on appointing Maier absent a Supreme Court declaration that he is qualified is indication that the Maier thing is all about power politics.  It is not about following "the rule of law."

Moreover, he just needs to stop it with his ridiculous assertion that central committeepersons are elected officials in the sense that the general public understands elected officials to be.

As shown in the graphic at the beginning of this blog, the ice is not only thin, it is melting away and cracking up.

Stark County Democratic Party needs to get off the thin ice and get onto solid ground.

But does Gonzalez have it within him "to lead the way?"

Thursday, September 5, 2013

THE REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE QUITE A JOB IN MASSILLON: HAVE THEY CREATED THE BEST CITY COUNCIL IN ALL OF STARK COUNTY IN TERMS OF "CITIZEN RESPONSIVENESS?"




It was impressive to the Stark County Political Report that Massillon City Council (Council), Tuesday night under the leadership of Environmental Committee chair Ed Lewis, IV (Republican - Ward 6) pulled a piece of legislation which was not quite ready for prime time.

Not many legislators, especially one with a mere two years under his belt as a law maker, has the level of sophistication demonstrated by Lewis.

What legislation was that?


What was the primary motivation for the legislation being pulled?

According to Chairman Lewis:  to excise the language "and declaring an emergency."

Lewis thinks, and, apparently has the ear of a number of Massillon Council members, that Councils of the past may have overused the emergency status.  He has been in discussion with various Council members about cutting back on Massillon's use of emergency language to those situations in which there "truly" is an emergency.

In considering the wastewater upgrade legislation,  Massillon is about to spend some big bucks (about $14 million or so) bringing Massillon's wastewater system up to a higher standard of performance and capacity.

Lewis could not be sure, as of The Report's conversation with him last evening, how much of the upgrade is U.S./Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mandated.  But he was clear that a least part of it is.  By the time Council meets again, he will have a handle on the mandated number.

So the upgrade is not, Lewis says, - as one Massillon community activist Scott Graber has been saying - a completely  discretionary action which is totally unmerited given the fact that Massillon is already in hock some $36 million or so on past projects.

 
The Report is told that Massillonians currently and typically pay about $63 a quarter for wastewater treatment services.

One would think that a $14 million sewer system upgrade would lead to an increased assessment, no?

Not according to Lewis.  He says he will lead a fight to keep an increase from happening.

But before moving on with this topic, The Report pauses to deal with a side matter.

Still on Council is Ward 4 Democrat Quinessa Hampton.

She has withdrawn as a candidate for election to Council as previously reported by the SCPR.

However, her place on the ballot has been taken Shaddrick Stinson.  He was appointed by Ward 4's Democratic precinct persons but not including Joy Cicchinelli, wife of former mayor Frank Cicchinelli.

The big question insofar as the future makeup of Council is concerned,  is whether or not Quinessa's husband, Edward (as a non-partisan candidate), stays in the race to suceed her.

If he does, it is very likely in yours truly's assessment that Republican Jim Triner pulls off the seemingly impossible:  a Republican representing Massillon's most democratic ward - Ward 4.

Back to the primary focus of this blog.

There are two points that the SCPR will make in this blog with respect to the pulling of the wastewater ordinance.

First, it is obvious that Council has listened to Graber and reconsidered the pace they were moving ahead on the project even though some on Council. it seems to the SCPR, think Graber is an alarmist who doesn't always get things right.

Moreover, when he does, he often gets overbearing in approach and thereby becomes counterproductive to his own purpose of convincing the other(s) of the merit of his argument.

That Council has apparently - to some degree - heeded Graber on the wastewater issue - bodes well for all Massillon citizens in general.

The message that the SCPR takes from the seeming impact of Graber is this:   Council takes each and every Massillon citizen input very seriously.

Like so many community activists, Graber can be annoying and hard to abide.  The temptation is to ignore him.  But that would be a mistake.  Graber-esque folks need to be paid attention to.

Of course, hearing does not equate to, necessarily, agreeing with.  But in the SCPR's experience over many years of dealing with many Stark County legislative bodies, Massillon's seems to be more attentive to citizens than the others.

Second, that Lewis and several of his colleagues have owned up to Council overusing "emergency status" is a refreshing reflection (contrary to the bullheadedness of bodies like North Canton Council, Canton City Council and others in Stark County) and has been pondering what to do about the apparent overuse, is refreshing.

Lewis tells The Report that in those situations in which less than 2/3rds of Council's vote for passing a given ordinance (which in and of itself obviously indicates some controversy about the legislation); the exclusion of the "emergency clause" preserves the right of a citizen or group of citizens to collect signatures of a minimum of 10% of those voting in the last gubernatorial election to get the measure on the ballot.

Lewis thinks that it is important that citizens have the referendum option.  And the Stark County Political Report wholeheartedly agrees.

This act of preserving the right of citizens to have a say is what legislative bodies throughout Stark County, if they are small letter "d" democrats, ought to be doing.

Citizen sensitivity and responsiveness is the highest calling of any elected official insofar as the SCPR is concerned.

As this blog is written, it is clear to The Report that the governments of North Canton and Canton are not nearly sensitive enough.  It could be and yours truly suspects that the North Canton/Canton approach is typical of Stark County political subdivisions at large.

But that most do it does not make it the right thing to do "as a matter of course" and thereby put roadblocks in the way of citizens to invoke democratic processes to challenge legislative action taken.

In Canton's case, The Report is told that its council acts on the advice of Law Director Joe Martuccio that ordinances generally be passed as an emergency so as to put the city in the best possible situation in the case that litigation ensues.

An SCPR examination of Canton Council's agenda for August 26th shows that 24 of 26 proposed ordinances are designated as being an emergency.  Such does not speak well for Canton.

In North Canton's case, the disregard is so pronounced that the city has been challenged in a lawsuit about its overuse (documented going back ten years or so).

While a number of legal observers have told yours truly that the North Canton lawsuit challenge is going nowhere, here's hoping that these folks are wrong. 

Cutting off democratic rights "as a matter of course" is axiomatically wrong our republican-democratic structure of government.

What's more, it is indicative that governments' making legislation "an emergency" on a largely "across the board" basis is being done so that the governors will not be inconvenienced or tested.

It certainly cannot be primarily for the benefit of the governed.  Here and there, emergency legislation may be a benefit,  but it clearly is not generally so.

It is somewhat ironic that Massillon's Council controlled by Republicans is taking a look at preserving/reserving a greater degree democratic process for its citizens.

Canton's 12 - 0 Democrat controlled council seemingly is going on pell mell without so much as a second thought of looking at preserving/reserving democratic process possibilities (i.e. referendum rights) for Canton's citizens.

Besides "the citizen affirming actions" that Massillon Council is acting out on and reflecting upon; despite political party identification differences (i.e. 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats), there seems to be an abundant mutual respect between them across party lines.  This mutual regard is yet another reason to be impressed with Massillon's Council.

The SCPR has written about lame duck Democratic Councilman Larry Slagle and the "patient, plodding and 'come let us reason together'" leadership he is demonstrating on the matter of revising Massillon's ordinance on the structure and management of Massillon's parks and recreation function.

This edition of Massillon City Council is one that should be a model for all legislative bodies across the length and breadth of Stark County.

Monday, February 4, 2013

SCPR IS SKEPTICAL THAT STARK OFFICIALS/OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE ARE PROPERLY QUALIFYING SHERIFF CANDIDATES

 

SUBTOPICS:

Could all candidates end up not being properly qualified, if someone challenges the process being used by officials?

Will Lou Darrow have the spine to challenge George Maier's qualification to be sheriff, if merited?

Can Stark Democratic chairman Randy Gonzalez get the central committee vote procedures right?  

Will Stark County sheriff Tim Swanson be staying on longer than originally planned?

Prior blogs:
 ***********************************

This is one of those blogs that yours truly is asking:  What am I missing here?

Back on January 18th the SCPR's blog (LINK) had to do with the candidates for the appointment to succeed Mike McDonald (who as sheriff-elect [November, 2012] had to resign that status due to unspecified health reasons] and the qualification/certification process by the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE), a task assigned the BOE by the Ohio General Assembly, to wit:  (excepts from the statute)

311.01 Election and qualifications of sheriff

 (B) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person is eligible to be a candidate for sheriff, and no person shall be elected or appointed to the office of sheriff, unless that person meets all of the following requirements:  (emphasis added).
(F)(2) Each board of elections shall certify whether or not a candidate for the office of sheriff who has filed a declaration of candidacy, a statement of candidacy, or a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate meets the qualifications specified in divisions (B) and (C) of this section.  (emphasis added)
In the January 18th blog, The Report listed the criteria that each candidate must meet:
  1. be a U.S. citizen, *
  2. be a resident of Stark County for one year,
  3. be a qualified voter, *
  4. have a high school degree or its equivalent, *
  5. have no  conviction record of a felony or first degree misdemeanor, *
  6. be finger printed under the direction Judge Forchione who is to have the finger prints compared to local, state and federal databases and  (a process that takes about 7 to 10 days according to Forchione) who turns submits the results to the Stark BOE,
  7. submit a list * of:
    1. residences going back 6 years,
    2. places of employment going back 6 years,
  8. have evidence * of a basic peace officer certificate of training [by an approved issuing authority as specified in the statute],
  9. have been employed within the past four years as:
    1. a state highway patrolman,
    2. a full-time police officer, OR
  10. have been employed for the past three years as a full-time law enforcement officer
Here is where the rub comes in.

On Thursday, yours truly e-mailed Deputy Director Jeanette Mullane of the Stark County Board of elections thusly:


Jeanette,

Has the Stark BOE certified Darrow, Dordea and Maier to the Stark County Democratic Central Committee?

If so, I would like an electronic copy of BOE correspondence communicating the certification.

And, an electronic copy of the paperwork that the BOE relied upon to determine qualification.

Martin Olson/SCPR

tramols@att.net
330 499 0465


Mullane's response:

Martin,

The Board of Elections does not certify the sheriff candidates for appointment.  We do not have the correspondence you requested.

>>> Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> 1/31/2013 8:31 AM >>>

Jeanette



Whereupon the SCPR contacted the BOE's attorney Debbie Dawson (an assistant Stark County prosecutor).

Debbie,

Reference:  Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01(F)(2), in part, reads:
 

Each board of elections shall certify whether or not a candidate for the office of sheriff who has filed a declaration of candidacy, a statement of candidacy, ... meets the qualifications specified in divisions (B) and (C) of this section.

See my exchange with Jeanette Mullane below.


Judge Forchione told me in a telecon that he is an information gatherer which when in place he sends to the BOE for action in accordance with 311.012(F)(2).
[SCPR note:  311.01(F)(2) is the correct cite]
 

Mullane's response is in seeming contradiction to what is to be taking place.

Could you explain from a legal standpoint what the process and timing of the BOE's action is?

Thank you,

MartinOlson/SCPR


Dawson's response:

Martin -

The statute you referenced deals w/ candidates who have filed petitionsfor candidacy.  That is not the situation with the vacancy in the sheriff's office due to Mike McDonald's recent illness which precluded him from taking office. 

The statute that applies herein is RC 305.02.
 
Subsection (E) therein states that the central committee certifies the
candidate.  I believe at the time you spoke to Judge Forchione, he was under the misunderstanding that the BOE certifies the candidates.  

The Sec'y of State's office subsequently said that RC305.02 applies, and the BOE in complying with that statute performs the ministerial duty of orwarding what the appropriate central committee certifies to the BOE to the Secy of State.

I anticipate that answers your question.

Debbie Dawson

Another part of ORC 311.01 is interesting in that it makes direct reference to the Dawson/Ohio secretary of state cite of ORC 305.02 as the controlling statute, to wit:

(H)(1) “Qualification date” means the last day on which a candidate for the office of sheriff can file a declaration of candidacy, a statement of candidacy, or a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, as applicable, in the case of a primary election for the office of sheriff; the last day on which a person may be appointed to fill a vacancy in a party nomination for the office of sheriff under Chapter 3513. of the Revised Code, in the case of a vacancy in the office of sheriff; or a date thirty days after the day on which a vacancy in the office of sheriff occurs, in the case of an appointment to such a vacancy under section 305.02 of the Revised Code.  (emphasis added)
 Hmm?

The SCPR's reaction?

The Ohio secretary of state's office may have advised local officials wrongly.

The Report believes that both ORC Sections 311.01 and 305.02 apply and are to be interpreted in a manner to give full effect to both.  In legal parlance such is called:  in pari materia.

Can you imagine having a sheriff who turns out to be unqualified being appointed to office?

What a nightmare that would be for Stark County, no?

If one accepts the Ohio secretary of state's interpretation of the process of the law (and the Stark County prosecutor's apparently does), then it appears that nearly anybody could ask to be considered by the Stark Dems.

Forget the the qualification criteria of ORC 311.01?

And if one does, then, in effect, a political party decides who is qualified to be in the field of candidates to be appointed sheriff.

Hmm?

Will citizens stand for a political party determining whether or not a person is qualified (on the criteria of Ohio statutory law) to be Stark County's top cop?

One wouldn't think so, no?

If this process goes forward on Tuesday without the Stark BOE having performed the mandate of applying the qualifying factors of ORC 311.01, then one would think that the losing candidates would owe it to the Stark County public to take the matter up in the courts.

Republican Larry Dordea tells the SCPR that he will not challenge, if he is not selected (and you can be sure he will not be).

Lou Darrow may be of a different frame of mind.

There are some (e.g. Sheriff Tim Swanson) who suspect that Maier, if scrutinized carefully, may have difficulty qualifying in the de jure (as a matter of law) sense of qualification assuming, of course, that ORC 311.01 is applied at all.

He does clearly have impressive experience in policing as a matter of fact.  So there are those (even if they are troubled by the de jure factor) that believe that in a de facto sense he is well suited to be Stark County sheriff.

Darrow tells The Report that he and his supporters (chief among whom is current sheriff Tim Swanson) are playing close attention to the qualification process and may act if they do not think the proper process and/or the application of the process was not properly discharged.

Another issue that is likely to come up tomorrow at the 5:30 p.m. Dems meeting at the Mayfield Senior Center is the issue of a secret ballot.

When the Democrats met in Massillon last week to select a city treasurer and a council president (on the early [i.e. before the term expired on a date provided for in law] retirement of officeholder), the SCPR is told that it resembled "a political farce" over the secret ballot issue.

Chairman Gonzalez ended up ruling that the voters could vote by ballot but they had to sign it for it to be counted which, of course, means "in effect" that Gonzalez interprets party rules not to allow for secret ballots.

Can a repeat be expected on Tuesday?

Perhaps.

Self-styled parliamentarian Scott Graber (thought by some to be a political gadfly who writes reams and reams to make a simple point) sent the following provision to the SCPR (including to scores of Stark Dem central committee persons) to establish that in his opinion Gonzalez did not follow party rules in his handling of the secret ballot request in Massillon. 

According to Graber:
The Bylaws of the Stark County Democratic Party specifically authorize secret ballot votes and these are unsigned ballots:
Section 8. Voting

Every vote taken by any Democratic State or County, Central or Executive Committee for the election of its officers or the endorsements or selection of persons for public office shall be by secret ballot, standing or voice as determined by a majority of those present and voting.
As the SCPR sees it, the main hope that Lou Darrow has in winning the appointment is for there to be a secret ballot.

The Report sees Gonzalez as being aligned politically with Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. Massillon forces.

And, of course, one of the candidates for the appointment is Johnnie's brother George currently the safety director in the Maier-propped-up administration of Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

Gonzalez and the Johnnie Maier forces are clearly in control of the leadership circles of the Stark County Democratic Party.

The central committee members know this.  

The Report believes that if they are compelled to vote by voice vote or via ballot with a signature, George Maier will be the appointee.

However, if they are permitted a truly secret ballot, Darrow could be in play.

Graber says that Johnnie A. Maier's sidekick Shane Jackson (Stark County Democratic Party political director and Massillon clerk of courts chief deputy clerk of courts) is citing an unspecified Ohio Attorney General's (OAG) opinion in justifying Gonzalez's ruling that participants could not vote by secret ballot at last week's Massillon conclave.

He speculates that the opinion being referred to is this one:


If this is it, one has to pick up on his question:  since when did the central committee of the Stark County Democratic Party become a public body, the equivalent of the State Board of Education?

Hmm?

With Sheriff Swanson being in his corner (Darrow says Swanson has been working hard for him with the central committee members), Darrow, therefore, is no ordinary candidate.  The Report believes that Swanson carries a lot of clout with party regulars.

Darrow has a sparse background in political party involvement.  Normally such is a death knell for anyone who would challenge the likes of Gonzalez and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.  And the SCPR believes that he does not have the political sophistication and craftiness to match up against the Maiers.

However, it may be that many of the central committee members in their "heart of hearts" do not want to see a politically connected person such as George Maier become Stark's top cop.

The SCPR's sense of Darrow is that he would make an excellent Stark County sheriff precisely because all he wants to be is a top flight cop without any consideration whatsoever to the politics of becoming sheriff.

All that Darrow or any person wants to be sheriff should do in terms of politics is to be savvy enough to connect to the electorate. Otherwise, sheriffs or any law enforcement official needs to be known as being non-political.

Mike McDonald is an outstanding example in the 2012 election of how one can become sheriff without being consumed with politics.

To the SCPR, the political factor is the one that Stark Countians need to be wary of.

If the SCPR is correct in The Report's take on what law applies to the appointment process, the county could end in a real political mess if the Tuesday event goes forward.

Stark County's political movers and shakers and the Ohio secretary of state office need to be cocksure that The Report has it wrong.

For otherwise, Stark County could be returning to the turmoil that plagued the county with allegations on April 1, 2009 that the then-chief deputy treasurer Vince Frustaci had stolen from the Stark County treasury. Ultimately, he pled guilty to having stoen $2.46 million.

The moral of that story as far as the Stark County public is concerned is that public officials are the possessors of the public trust that the officials will diligently protect public assets and ensure that the law of Ohio will be strictly applied to applied to all who wish to become part of Stark County government.

So it could turnout that, perhaps, improper procedures may be in the process of being employed by public officials. And consequenty whomever wins on Tuesday might turn out to be the recipient of a:  flawed victory?

If such turns out to be the case, then sitting county officials who have had anything to do with the flaw will surely face public accountability.


But a telling question remains: will anyone with legal standing have the courage to challenge the efficacy of the process?