THE "AD" THAT CAUSED JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR'S LATEST FLIP-OUT?

UPDATED:  08:30 AM

WHAT?

FRANK CICCHINELLI MIGHT BE COMING BACK!

The Stark County Political Report thinks that:

• Massillon clerk of courts
• former Stark County Democratic Party chairman,
• Stark County-based political confidant to former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, and
• the "would be" king maker in Stark County politics, namely;

Johnnie A. Maier, Jr  (JAM) must have been flipping-out big time when this advertisement appeared recently in a Massillon publication focusing on selling services and products in the Massillon area.

The Report has talked with the business owner of this advertisement and he says that the ad has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not former 24 year Massillon mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. is going to run in the May, 2015 Democratic primary election against Massillon surrogate (i.e. the face of the JAM administration) mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

And, of course, you and The Report will take the man at his word.

But will Johnnie A. Maier, Jr?

The SCPR thinks not.

By the way, the copy of the advertisement was supplied to the SCPR by a person who The Report thinks is friendly with Johnnie if not an outright political ally.

A previous ad that Maier, Jr. apparently thought reflected negatively on him, The Report is told, resulted in his stopping by the business and having "a word or two" with the owner.

The owner says that putting up humorous ads is his thing and he is not getting political.

Hear that Johnnie?

The Report believes Maier is Stark County's foremost paranoid politician and likely has been flipping-out ever since the ad appeared.

It is nothing unusual for politicians - in general - to be paranoid about the security of their position and political power, but knowing him as well as the SCPR does; Maier, Jr. has to be the "King of 'Hill Political Paranoiac'" in Stark County.

The SCPR is being told by some who have access to Maier that he comes politically "unglued" on a regular basis with the publication of SCPR blogs dealing with his Massillon and Stark County political interests.

His sidekick R. Shane Jackson (see his credentials below) flipped-out on the SCPR with an email to a list of Stark County office holders months ago (LINK).

Even before that, way back in 2008, Jackson went ballistic with The Report at a Celeste DeHoff for State Representative political event in Canal Fulton (LINK).

It took SCPR "good friend" and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez to pull Jackson away from yours truly.

A belated thank you, Randy!

For some odd reason, the Maiers think (according to George T. Maier) that the SCPR singles them out for blogger attention.

All that is evidence of is that the politically-involved-Maiers ought to rethink being in politics at all.

Last time the SCPR checked: for "a responsible to the public media outlet," scrutiny of public officials and candidates for office is the order of the day, no?

What is the expression:  "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," no?

Moreover, anyone who reads The Stark County Political Report in a non-narcissistic way knows that this blog is - in the words of former Local 94 Plumbers and Pipefitters Business Agent Dan Fonte - "an equal opportunity critic."

In the SCPR's journalistic fantasy world, The Report gets a phone call from either Johnnie, Jr. and/or George, to wit:  "Okay, Martin let's set a date and a time for a "no holds barred interview."

As readers of this blog know, subjects get every opportunity to respond to SCPR critiques.

But behind the bravado of Johnnie and George, the SCPR thinks, is cowardice.

Neither of them have the "b*l*s"  (let's be nice now) "intestinal fortitude" to do such an interview which the SCPR is certainly game for.

But no other Stark County media outlet is.

For anyone who can go toe-to-toe with them and whom they have no leverage over, they slink away and become incommunicado.
 
A number of Stark County politicians have tried to bully the SCPR including Johnnie's "political 'friend for life'" and Massillon Municipal Court judge Edward J. Elum.

No surprise here.

Elum has been chastised by nobody less that the Ohio Supreme Court for pushing around folks who have dealt with or appeared before him.

And including Johnnie's brother and sheriff-elect George T. Maier.

And including a number of other Stark County elected officials who are beholden to the Maiers.

And some (e.g. Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero) who are not and are, in fact, thought to be bitter enemies of the Maier politicos.

Apparently, quite a few Stark County politicos fear the political power of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

And, no doubt, he, especially with the election of George is a mighty powerful man in our county.

These are folks who do not belong in the hurly-burly world of politics.

Stark County's only countywide newspaper and its sister publication in Massillon seemingly shy away from journalistically confronting either Maier, but not The Stark County Political Report.

Johnnie has to be riding high these days and probably is thinking like a lot of powerful politicians do; that is to say, to wit: he and his elected official followers are not accountable to the Stark County public.

But they are, and the SCPR will continue to focus on them as well as non-Maier beholdens who share the same grandiose mentality and resent anyone poking around to find out how they may be using political power for self-enhancement rather than for the public good.

Johnnie had an expert in the accumulation and use of political power teach him the fine art of power politics.  That was Vern Riffe, Jr. former long term speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, 1975 through 1995.

Johnnie served at Riffe's pleasure in a political capacity while he represented parts of Stark County in the Ohio General Assembly from 1990 through 1999 at which time he was forced to leave due to term limits (eight consecutive years).

In responsible hands, political power can be beneficial to people.

However, there are relatively few politicians who have the self-discipline to use political power responsibly.  And the SCPR does not count Maier, Jr. and many of elected officials and appointed officials followers of his as being among them.

The SCPR is particularly concerned about Johnnie's brother George being Stark County sheriff.

The Report has said in prior blogs that the SCPR thinks that it is only a matter of time until county officials will find themselves "in the soup" in trying to explain this or that official action by the sheriff-elect.

Hopefully, The Report is wrong because another county crisis could make it impossible for county officials to get a renewal, if not an enhancement, of the "to expire in 2019" 1/2 cent county sales tax.

If The Report proves to be correct in the expectation that George will somewhere along the line abuse his power of office, then those county officials who supported him in very his close election victory over Republican Larry Dordea will have some accounting to do with the Stark County public.

The SCPR in quite a number of blogs raised the specter of "unanswered questions" on allegations of Maier conduct (e.g. the Columbus Dispatch article on his #2 Ohio Department of Public Safety days, the Mike Stevens incident and the Altieri reserve deputy sheriff matter, among others).

However, the county's only countywide newspaper refused - as evidenced by its silence - to press Maier with obvious questions and, thereby, it too, better hope that Maier stays on "the straight and narrow" as sheriff.

For the SCPR will be there to hold "their feet to the fire," should Maier fail.

Of course, if he "turns over a 'new' leaf," The Report will be quick to recognize such.

Now that he has placed his brother in Stark County's most powerful policing office; Jr. will be focusing on maintaining himself as the de facto mayor of Massillon.

Anybody who thinks de jure mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry is the "real" mayor of Massillon clearly does not understand how anybody who is dependent on Maier, Jr. for political support and sponsorship cannot not be her or his own person.

Once the SCPR wrote a letter to the editor soon after Ted Strickland became governor that was critical of the way Strickland was handling education reform in Ohio.

Johnnie (then the Stark County Dems' chairman) was not a happy camper.

Consistent with "the control person he is," Johnnie tried that game on yours truly which, of course, fell on "deaf ears."

Up until the first incident, The Report had not seen much if any of that side of Maier, Jr.

Later on he tried to weigh-in on having yours truly vote in favor of validating his replacement of 13 year board member and Ironworker Billy Sherer as one of two Stark County Democrats who serve as Board of Elections members.

All that showed was that Johnnie is a slow learner.

The answer?

A straight to the point:  "No!"

Of course, Johnnie prevailed on the Sherer replacement.

But "the SCPR in the making" showed him - if he was looking and hearing - that there are those of us who can remain his/her own person when politically correct politics militates (in the interest of personal advancement) - for some - otherwise.

Interestingly enough, like when the curtain was pulled away from in front of the Wizard of Oz, there was nothing but a disappointed whimper from Maier at yours truly's refusal to vote Maier's way on the Sherer matter.

Ever since the direct confrontations did not work, it seems that Maier and friends work among the dark shadows of Stark County government and politics to get a handle on The Stark County Political Report.

Good Luck, Johnnie!

At one time, yours truly hoped that Maier would use his knack for acquiring political power for the public good.

But as the SCPR sees it, that is not what has happened.

The Report sees Maier as predominantly using his acquired political power for the benefit of himself and his group.  A group which by and large (but not exclusively) the SCPR thinks encompasses those pictured in the following graphic.

The SCPR thinks there is a 50/50 chance that Maier minion Kathy Catazaro-Perry will waltz uncontested into a second term as de jure, but not de facto mayor of Massillon.

The Report has written that it appears that former Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr will not challenge the Maier stand-in next May.

But Cicchinelli tells the SCPR that he has not decided and may well not decide until the filing deadline for the May, 2015 Democratic primary election.

He has sharpened his rhetorical attack on Mayor Catazaro-Perry calling her a "township-girl" and not a true Massillonian.  Her origin is Perry Township.

These are the SCPR's words not Cicchinelli's, but it appears to The Report in talking with the former mayor that a 2015 campaign would feature Frank Cicchinelli as "a political attack dog" going after the "political jugular" of Catzaro-Perry and her mentor/controller Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

If decides to run, he does have a Catazaro-Perry record to go after.  Something that was pretty much unavailable in 2011 when she had merely been one council person among ten.

Should Cichinelli not challenge Catazaro-Perry as the SCPR expects, then the next hurdle for the face of the de facto Maier, Jr administration is Councilman Ed Lewis, IV (Republican, Ward 6).

• Note:  The Maier Massillon Political Machine must have as early as the 2013 Massillon municipal election figured out that Lewis was a potential threat to Catazaro-Perry continuing as mayor.  They put lots of money and effort in trying to elect one of their own in Ward 6.

But maybe they have nothing to worry about.

Yesterday, a key Massillon Republican told the SCPR that it is appearing more and more as if Lewis will not challenge whomever the Democratic nominee is in the November, 2015 general election.

The Report thinks that should Cicchinelli and Lewis bow-out, it won't because be of a fear of the Maier Massillon Political Machine, but rather because Catazaro-Perry (err Maier [and Stark County Dems political director and Massillon chief deputy clerk of courts Shane Jackson]) have by their antagonistic relationship with most of the members of Massillon City Council made Massillon one huge financial mess.

The thinking has to be:

• Who wants to take on "cleaning the mess up?"
• Let Catazaro-Perry, Maier, Jr and Jackson field the irate input of Massillonans when the all but certain draconian cuts come as a consequence of two recent income tax increase failures, no?
• Note:  Catazaro-Perry outright did not support the first effort and was "lukewarm" at best on the November, 2014 effort.

And who can blame Cicchinelli, Lewis or anybody else from leaving it to the perpetrators of the mess to clean up and absorbing the political consequences for being the primary cause of it in the first place?

• SCPR Note:  Financial mess to get worse? 
• Recently, an article appeared in Crain's Cleveland Business which suggests that the vaunted Baker Hughes facility in Massillon (a key factor if Massillon is to get out of financial trouble) continued Massillon existence may be in jeopardy.
•  
  

Isn't it interesting that the mayor did not respond to Crain's Cleveland Business phone calls.

Did Maier, Jr. instruct her not to?

Johnnie, Jr. may have some skill at playing political "hardball" and, some think, "gutter" politics; but a citywide administrator for multiple departments of Massillon government - he is not!

Even The Report's take on Maier, Jr's political prowess is mixed.

Starting with the recent election.

Not nearly as impressive as Chryssa Hartnett's victory over Republican incumbent-appointed judge Curtis Werren, but you have to chalk it up to Maier, Jr's consummate effort for having gotten his brother elected sheriff.

But the SCPR thinks he had Republican help.

Had Stark County Republican commissioner Janet Creighton gotten off her duff and come all-out-for-Dordea, he would have won.

So the question is this.

Did someone from the Maier political operation get to her and persuade her to "sit this one out?"

Moreover, where were all those other Republican stalwarts (e.g. Stark County auditor Alan Harold) in being involved in the Dordea campaign?

Harold, in particular is troubling, because he ran as a more or less reform candidate against former Stark County auditor and stanch Democrat Kim Perez back in 2010, making some pretty serious charges on Perez about his political relationship with former Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler.

Harold's alleged that the relationship caused Perez to be less than diligent in protecting the Stark County public interest in county financial operations.

To The Report, Larry Dordea has unquestioned character and is a highly competent policeman and police administrator.

What more could the Republicans want in a "Republican" election year?

Something does not smell right about how the Stark County GOP leadership seemingly - highlighted by Creighton's "refusal to endorse" - mostly sat the Maier/Dordea race out in an election that Republican governor John Kasich bested his Democratic opponent by over 37,000 votes.

The big political thorn in Johnnie A. Maier's side is that his cheerleader-esque mayor has to work for the most part (Note: the SCPR thinks it her and the Maier group "in-your-face-political style") with a hostile Massillon City Council.

While in 2011 Maier, Jr. and his Massillon political operatives were busy helping the insubstantial (in terms of government leadership ability) Catazaro-Perry take out Cicchinelli; they let control of council slip into the hands of Massillon's Republicans.

The Report is convinced that the Republicans were prepared to work with the public-relations-esque mayor, but she was having none of it.

Catazaro-Perry certainly understood that when one is beholden to Maier, Jr. and his ilk; one gets marching orders from "the power behind the throne."

And that is where political paranoia comes in.

The SCPR thinks, Maier's political paranoia undermines his ability to effectively function in the face of those who are willing to "stand front and center" with:

• questions, 
• criticism, and, 
• OMG! - the unthinkable - outright opposition.

It would be one thing if only Maier, Jr. and his political friends suffer because he cannot get a grip on his suspicious attitude in relation to anyone who differs with him.

But the SCPR thinks that much of the financial mess that the city of Massillon and its everyday citizens face today is the doing of the "wariness of everybody who questions me" attitude emanating from the Maier Massillon Political Club which, of course, is the culture imparted by the group's leader.

And, who in the end will suffer?

It certainly will not be the Maier and his loyalist friends.

One way or another they will be taken care of, even if they lose an election here and there.

However, it would be catastrophic should they lose "the big Kahuna:  the mayoralty of Massillon."

For it certainly would mean a long unemployment line for the Catazaro-Perry/Maier loyalists on the Massillon government payroll who some think have been placed on the job for their political loyalty and not necessarily for their up to doing the job for Massillon taxpayers.

In the main however sufferers from the current Massillon financial mess, which the SCPR thinks is now entirely owned by the Catazaro-Perry administration, is and will continue to be everyday Massillonians.

And as the complaints to Massillon City Hall kick-in, the question has to be - as in the Nixon presidency - will political paranoia click-in and ordinary Massillon end up on a Maier/Catazaro-Perry/Massillon Political Machine "enemies list?"

Catazaro-Perry has already let it be known that the SCPR is not welcome at the Massillon mayor's office.  As if executive office of Massillon's seat of government is her private domain.  But she is typical of how those who cannot handle media scrutiny react.

They try to ban, they select which media they will talk to and on and on goes the list of methods they used to punish those who persist with telling questions.

That's exactly where political paranoia can lead.

Currently, the SCPR is reading a book entitled "The Fifties" by David Halberstam.

One of the things that Halberstam glomed onto in his political analysis of the early 1950s was the beginning of Nixon's political paranoia.

Only one year into his presidency (1969), some think Nixon had already began to fill out his "enemies list."

And we know all too well what end that brought Nixon to.

Nixon got what he deserved.

But not the people of the United States of America.

Because of Nixon's early-on unchecked paranoia and his acting on it; political cynicism took a giant leap forward and has been added to by succeeding paranoiac politicians over ensuing years so that in 2014 very few Americans trust political party leadership.

Once public officials and political leader lose the public trust, "Katy bar the door," no?

Hopefully, somebody, anybody will step up in Massillon and prevent a Nixon-esque problem from developing in Tigerland, and, indeed, in Stark County as a whole.

To the SCPR, in Massillon it is looking more and more that it is not going to be Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr or Ed Lewis, IV.

And another surprise might be in the offing.

With the elections 2015, Mayor Kathy may actually get a council that will knuckle under to her will which, if it happens, could be an out-and-out disaster for Massillonians.

The Report hears that Republicans are having difficulty in getting leading Stark County Republicans (the likes of party chair Matthews, Creighton and others) interested in helping Massillon Republicans maintain the substantial gains the have made on council (i.e. Cunningham-Hedderly, Halter, Lewis and Chovan).

Whether or not that happens or Maier surrogate Catazaro-Perry stays in office, Massillonians can depend on the SCPR to keep the scrutiny going.

And Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. can just keep on flipping out!

American democracy is not the province of personal political interests.

American democracy is about our government officials and institutions providing for "the general welfare."

FORMER STARK TREASURER GARY D. ZEIGLER ATTACKS THE STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT?

The Stark County Political Report has been the object of attack by various public officials, public figures (present) and now "apparently" former Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler.

Thusly, Zeigler joins a list of few headliner Stark County government/political figures who have, at one time or another, launched a diatribe on Stark County's (if I must say so myself) most incisive and courageous media outlet.

Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero filed an ethics complaint with the Ohio Supreme Court's Disciplinary Counsel against me early in 2010 because of SCPR blogs on his and his office's handling of complaints made against Marlboro police chief Ron Devies and his son Kyle.

Massillon Municipal Court judge Eddie Elum threatened me with a Disciplinary Counsel complaint for doing blogs on his political fight with former Massillon police chief Robert Williams.  It is more than a tad ironic that the Williams matter ended up in an ethics complaint being filed against Elum which resulted in a Supreme Court finding against him.

Massillon Clerk of Courts chief deputy R. Shane Jackson (also, political director of the "organized" Stark County Democratic Party) sent a "nasty gram email" (copied to a number of public officials) to me back in September, 2013 in which he tried to paint a picture of me being insensitive to the memory of November, 2012 Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald.

•  NOTE:  Quite to the contrary, I have a very high opinion of Mike McDonald and have written glowing of him in various blogs.

Attorney Steve Okey (who represented the Stark County Democratic Party in a mandamus action filed by Attorney Greg Beck for Lou Darrow and Tim Swanson) sent a "nasty gram email" to me suggesting that I was insensitive to law enforcement officers and George T. Maier in particular in placing Maier's picture in "political" crosshairs.  My blog was "pure political speech."  Nothing more.

I believe that Stark County Republican Party officials sent an emissary to me in order to jawbone me out of posting the Phil Davison video and his "political rant" at the September, 2010 Stark GOP executive committee meeting.  The meeting resulted in Alex Zumbar being appointed to be the Republican candidate to replace the-then removed (August, 2010) Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler in the November, 2010 general election.

And there have been a number of other attempts by other Stark County-based public officials/public figures to stifle the Stark County Political Report.

So why would Zeigler join the list?

It seems that he was upset by a blog ( which I call "the political comeuppance blog, " (PC blog) published on January 16th) I did  last Thursday (January 17th) which was focused on a political ally and employee of former Stark County auditor Kim Perez.

The Perez ally/former employee had complained to me about Perez successor Alan Harold (as Stark County auditor) deciding to get out of the deputy registrar business.

The Report covered Harold's appearance at the regular weekly meeting of the Stark County commissioners (January 15, 2014) at which Harold explained - in general - why he was getting out of the BMV business.

As the SCPR always does, I followed up with Harold after the commissioners approved his exit as a deputy registrar and zeroed in on him for more detail.

And he provided it.

The SCPR's preliminary conclusion on the county BMV exit was that Harold was amply justified (i.e. Ohio insisted that his wife sign on to be personally liable should there be a loss of money due to malfeasance/misfeasance, et cetera) in exiting notwithstanding the $400,000 to $460,000 in revenues generated over the span of the county's involvement (2006 through 2014).

In 2006 former auditor Perez signed on in his role as county auditor into the business of issuing State of Ohio license plates in Stark County.

A supplement conclusion of The Report in that blog was that the Perez political ally attack was just that and his concern was in reality was a "political" attack on Harold as "comeuppance" for Harold's defeat of Perez in 2010 which resulted in the complainer losing his job in the auditor's office.

The complainer was saying that Harold in getting of the license plate business was throwing away hundreds of thousands of revenue (which amounted to about $50,000 in annual net profit) for no good reason.

But the SCPR's examination of the matter showed the contrary.

In that blog, I provided some background of the nasty, nasty campaign between Harold and Perez including a photo:

• (taken by The Repository and published on October 17, 2010 and which remains on the Internet) of  a Harold billboard campaign roadside ad of a "golf outing" which included Perez, an blurred-out (facially) person, Frustaci and Zeigler
• depicting (by a Harold campaign supplied caption) Perez, in his capacity of being Stark County auditor, should have (according to Harold) have been watching treasury office operations more closely so as to prevent or at least minimize the theft by Vince Frustaci
• depicting (by a Harold campaign supplied caption) Frustaci (a chief deputy in the Stark treasury during the 1999 - October 19, 2011 [Frustaci was fired on April 1, 2009] tenure of Gary Zeigler) of what is believed to have been some $2.9 million in Stark County taxpayer funds. (Note:  Zeigler has never been implicated in the Frustaci theft) and
• depicting (by a Harold campaign supplied caption) Zeigler as having been fired - "the guy they fired" - (as Stark County treasurer),
• NOTE:  The base photo had been on public display in the lobby of the Stark County sheriff's office.  Sheriff Tim Swanson was then and possibly remains a personal and political friend of Zeigler who wrote "letters to the editor" in support of Zeigler during various times that Zeigler served as treasurer.

Apparently, Zeigler has been ruminating ever since over the unfortunate turn of events that local attorney and civic activist Craig Conley has tabbed as being "Zeiglergate."

We haven't head much from Zeigler since he retired/resigned from office on October 19, 2011.

But that may be all changed as perhaps indicated by his launching a couple of "nasty gram email" attacks on me in recent days using the blog described above as a pretext to vent on me.

Zeigler's history since the onset of his trouble times at the county treasury has been to blame others for his difficulties.

The one place he seems not to be looking at for one nanosecond is where?

You have it.

At himself!

A number of Stark Countians think he failed himself (and derivatively Stark County government/taxpayers):

• in his initial hire of Frustaci, 
• NOTE:  On April 1, 2009, (the date the Frustaci story broke) Zeigler told me that Frustaci was just some guy he knew out on the golf course
• in promoting him over a relatively short time frame to chief deputy treasurer, and,
• in not - in the view of quite a few Stark Countians and the State of Ohio auditor's office  - beefing up sufficiently, if at all:
• the security of treasury office facilities, 
• treasury procedures,
• treasury practices and
• treasury policy

and, accordingly, has only himself to blame for his troubles.

But it is rather obvious he is not into self-examination.

For some odd reason, he thinks the SCPR is someone he wants try on for size for venting.

Here is the e-mail he fired off to me last Thursday, to wit:

Article  

From:  Gary Zeigler  Thurs., January 16, 2014 at 9:50 AM

To:  tramols@att.net

Martin...  I have seen your article and picture that you have posted on your blog... as an attorney yourself.. you should be aware of the USA copy write [sic] laws. or if you are not familiar with them.. maybe you should take the time to read up on them and you had no permission from me or any one in that photo! to do so. Your article has severely jeopardized a vary large business deal and you will be hearing from my attorneys on that.  Haver [sic] a nice day!!

                                                       Gary Zeigler

My reaction?

You have got to be kidding!

A copyright law issue?

No way, Jose!

Remember, the included/referenced photo was taken by The Repository and used by me under the copyright "fair use" doctrine and, of course, attributed by the SCPR to The Rep's photographer who took the photo with a cite to the underlying article (by reporter Kelli Young).

So, I shared the e-mail with local attorney and civic activist Craig Conley (whom the SCPR has had occasion to criticize [the repeal of the "imposed" Bosley, Harmon and Vignos [as the-then Stark County commissioners] who volunteered on a "pro bono" (for the public good) basis to respond to Zeigler on my behalf.

The Conley letter:

End of matter?

No!

It appears that almost immediately on receiving Conley's letter that Zeigler was on his computer once again, to wit:

Poster

From:  Gary Zeigler  Fri., January 17, 2014 at 5:24 PM

To:  tramols@att.net

Martin... Your letter from your attorney does not empress [sic] me .. You better take a close look at your article.. I was not [FIRED] according to the Supreme Courts decision. You make no! comment in your article that I retired and was not fired.   That's a problem !!!
                                                                                               Gary Zeigler

Aha!

The real reason for the "upset" of Gary Zeigler, no?

To repeat:

I was not [FIRED] according to the Supreme Courts [sic] decision.

My response.

The "he was fired" attribution belongs to the Alan Harold campaign which formulated the billboard political advertisement; not Martin Olson.

But now that Zeigler brings it up, perhaps, it would be interesting to take a look at his assertion:  "I was not [FIRED] according to the Supreme Courts [sic] decision."

This from Zeigler,  notwithstanding that the PC blog of last Thursday was about Alan Harold and the BMV issue.

Like a number of Stark County public officials (elected and unelected:  e.g. - as pointed out above - Ferrero, Jackson, Elum, Okey, the Stark GOP leadership and others) who obviously do not like the incisive reporting and opinionating of the Stark County Political Report, it appears that Zeigler has been "sitting all over me" waiting for something surface, anything - no matter how ridiculous and minute - to jump on me about.

Although I do not think I have any obligation to do so, when something like Zeigler's e-mail surfaces, I think it over, and, oft times will go and do what I think I have no obligation to do.

And I am quick to provide space to those who take exception to my blogs. 

The Stark County general public is well aware that the Ohio Supreme Court (Zeigler v. Zumbar,  et al, [quo warranto] 129 Ohio St.3d 240, 2011-Ohio-2939) re-instated Gary Zeigler on June 23, 2011 because the Stark County commissioners (Bosley, Meeks and Ferguson) in replacing him on August 23, 2010.

It is understandable that in Zeigler's mind he wants to think he was not fired and will "grasp at straws" to find justification that satisfies his need to believe what he is determined to believe.

However, there are a number of Stark Countians who think otherwise and who prefer use the "fired" term rather that the "replaced" term.

So the question is whether or not the Ohio Supreme Court's use of the "replaced" terminology rather the word "fired" is "a distinction without a difference?"

Whatever term one wants to use, the reality is that Zeigler vacated his office on the day that Commissioners' "dismissed" him from office and his departure was involuntary.

Readers of the SCPR know that when I get into things, I have a history of being rather thorough.

In light of Zeigler's second e-mail, I went back to the Supreme Court decision itself to see exactly how the court put things in terms of Zeigler being dismissed by the commissioners on August 23, 2010.

To start with:  (at paragraph 5 of the decision)

On August 18, 2010, the board of commissioners adopted a resolution to hold a special meeting and hearing on August 23 to “consider the Special Audit Report and the Complaint,” “determine whether GARY D. ZEIGLER, Stark County Treasurer, has failed to make a settlement or to pay over money as prescribed by law,” and “determine whether the Board should remove such Stark County Treasurer pursuant to R.C. 321.38.”

Next:  (at paragraph 7 of the decision)

On the date of the special hearing, August 23, the common pleas court declared that “R.C. 321.38 when read in pari materia with R.C. 321.37 [SCPR NOTE:  Zeigler having filed a Declaratory Judgement action against the commissioners which was consolidated with a "recoupment" action against Zeigler by Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero] does not violate Article II, Section 38, of the Ohio Constitution,” that the “due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not applicable to the within action,” and that “[a]ny due process issue under either the United States or Ohio Constitution[] is resolved by the Board’s resolution of August 18, 2010.”  The court denied Zeigler’s motions for injunctive relief. Zeigler appealed from the common pleas court’s order, and the appeal is currently stayed pending the resolution of this quo warranto case. (emphasis added)

 Next:  (at paragraph 8 of the decision)

On that same day, the board of commissioners conducted an evidentiary hearing at which the board found: “the evidence presented demonstrated that there is no factual question that * * * $2,964,560 * * * came into the county treasury, and that said money is missing, * * * that Treasurer Zeigler failed to make settlement or to pay over money that is prescribed by law,” and that “the evidence showed that the theft from the Stark County Treasury was not an isolated incident, but occurred over a long period of time during Treasurer Zeigler’s tenure.” The board further found that “although Treasurer Zeigler committed no crime or malfeasance, [he] fail[ed] to appear and be heard about procedures he has implemented to restore the public’s confidence that their tax dollars are protected in the future.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the board voted to remove Zeigler immediately from the office of Stark County treasurer pursuant to R.C. 321.38. The board appointed Deputy Treasurer Jaime Allbritain to be acting county treasurer.

Next:  (at paragraph 23 of the decision)

Zeigler claims that he is entitled to the writ because the statute that the board of commissioners relied on to remove him from office, R.C. 321.38, is facially unconstitutional because it violates Section 38, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.

Next:  (at paragraph 41 of the decision)

In its August 23 decision, the board of commissioners specifically concluded that Zeigler had “committed no crime or malfeasance.”

And "finally:"  (at paragraph 42 of the decision)

Based on the foregoing, Zeigler has satisfied the burden to establish that R.C. 321.38 is unconstitutional on its face. It is important to recognize that although Zumbar was elected to the office of treasurer in November 2010, that midterm election occurred only because of Zeigler’s improper removal. Because we hold today that R.C. 321.38 is unconstitutional, the removal of Zeigler violated Section 38, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, and he is entitled to serve the remainder of his elected term, set to expire in September 2013.  (emphasis added)

The point of going through the Supreme Court decision is to show that Zeigler in his email has drawn "an inference" that the court said that "he was not fired."

Well, to be charitable to Zeigler, such an interpretation is in the realm of "being in the mind of the beholder."

Again, the Supreme Court's precise way of expressing that Zeigler's exit as Stark County treasurer was that he was "improperly removed.

Others would put a more strident term to the adjective "improper" and that would be the word "fired."

Alan Harold's campaign chose to use the word "fired."

Anyhow, in this blog and in many, many prior SCPR blogs, the import of the Ohio Supreme Court decision has been cited extensively.

So it boils down to Zeigler quibbling over the word used by various interpreters of what happened on August 23, 2011:  "removed," or "fired."

Isn't the argument an example of the proverbial "a matter of semantics.

All of which I think supports my surmise that Zeigler is a new example of those who attack me and my blog on spurious, and/or absurd, pre-textual grounds for no other reason than trying to intimidate me and thereby endeavoring to apply "a chilling effect" on the SCPR and concomitantly the Stark County public's access to the county's foremost political/government analysis and reporting on Stark County government and politics.

It is pretty clear to me that he has not been a happy camper about my blogs on his time in office as treasurer with particular emphasis on the time period after April 1, 2009.

The SCPR is "far and away" the most thoroughgoing presentation of Stark County public issues and election contests and the fast evolving and furious controversy over Zeigler's time in office.

Moreover, The Report had written quite a few critical blogs about Zeigler as treasurer and Stark County political figure in the year preceding April 1, 2009.  The SCPR began on March 12, 2007.

So the foregoing is the context of the Zeigler attack.

Gary Zeigler, if he cares about Stark Countians (who elected him repeatedly as county treasurer from 2000 through 2008 [once "unopposed], and their access to incisive analysis and reporting, should be apologizing to me for his unwarranted attack. 

Of course, he probably was not thinking that I would share with the SCPR reading public the details of his frivolous attack.

But neither did Ferrero, nor Jackson, nor Okey nor the Stark GOP leadership.

I do have the ability to respond to the likes of Zeigler.

I try to set the standard, in terms of transparency (among other democracy enhancing mechanisms), for what I think Stark County officialdom ought to follow.

That is why I bring gratuitous attacks into the light of the public arena.

The Stark County public should know in all its detail when a Gary Zeigler strikes out at "the messenger" (i.e. the media) with a comprehensive discussion as to the context.

And I understand that being the object of attack on what I think is "trumped-up" is part of the price to pay for SCPR's public office holder/public figure scrutiny.

Although I think Zeigler should have resigned after the Frustaci story broke (i.e. when the findings of the Ohio Auditor of State findings that he did not properly manage the facilities, practices and policies of the treasurer's office so has to - hopefully - prevent the Frustaci thefit); he chose not to do so - insisting - that he did not improperly manage his office.

In a way, one has to admire Zeigler's spunk and I even wrote at least one blog to that effect.

However, spunk is not enough.

My impression is that many, many Stark Countians disagree with his self-assessment.  And as we all know "public perception" is everything. 

And in our democratic republic the taxpaying/voting public is in charge, whether or not Zeigler or anyone else wants to accept that reality.

A feature of the SCPR thorougly enjoyed by many of The Reports' readers is the time and effort I put into videotaping the out-in-the-public-sight of many of the stories I cover.

As if he did not have enough to be concerned about in defending the lawsuit initiated by Prosecutor Ferrero to recover net monies (after bonds and insurance) lost as a consequence of the Frustaci theft, Zeigler decided to focus on denying the SCPR the right to videotape court proceedings.

Hmm?

Isn't that interesting?

The SCPR has been welcomed by every Stark County judge I have asked for permission to videotape (for the public benefit) "as a qualifying media."

I can only guess.  But it seems that Zeigler's feeling anti-Stark County Political Report runs so deep with him that he instructed his attorneys to deny me (but really the general Stark County public) the opportunity to videotape his court appearance.

To his credit, Judge Inderlied was having none of it.

I was game in this blog to go into detail about the commissioners August 23, 2010 removal or firing (whichever term one prefers to use) of Zeigler in response to his whining nasty gram email.

The SCPR explored in detail his quibble over the use of one word (fired) for another (removed).

Stark Countians can satisfy themselves (if only Zeigler will permit them a la "Gary, may I") which word they prefer to think of when remembering August 23, 2010 and the comissioners having replaced Gary D. Zeigler as Stark County treasurer.

He can only hope that they also remember that the removal was labeled - improper - because of the lack of the commissioners' failure to implement "due process of law" measures in their process of replacing him.

If only Zeigler - as many Stark Countians think - had paid as much attention to administrative detail when he was treasurer as he is to the nuances of words, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion today, no?

(VIDEOS) GONZALEZ AND DEMORA ORCHESTRATE EMBARRASSMENT FOR DEMS IN MAIER RE-APPOINTMENT?

UPDATE:  SUNDAY AT 2:32 PM

 Sheriff Qualifications

From:  rjgatien@neo.rr.com 

To:  tramols@att.net

Mr. Olson,

Mr. Schulman states on your blog:

"Here, the ONLY qualification that the Court found lacking was whether Sheriff Maier was a " full-time " peace officer. Sheriff Maier satisfied that qualification by working - FULL TIME -as a Harrison County deputy sheriff.

What more could you ask or does this statute require. "

The Court found:   

SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-4767 THE STATE EX REL. SWANSON v. MAIER. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, 

it may be cited as State ex rel. Swanson v. Maier, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4767.]

{¶ 39} As he satisfies neither R.C. 311.01(B)(8)(a) nor (b), Maier does not meet the qualifications for a county sheriff. We need not explore his qualifications under R.C. 311.01(B)(9), because he meets neithercriterion in R.C. 311.01(B)(8).

Thank you for your coverage of this important issue.

Rick Gatien

TIM SWANSON'S RESPONSE TO ALLEN SCHULMAN'S QUESTIONS PUT TO THE SCPR BY SCHULMAN

To:  Martin Olson

I asked Ferrero on the first go around to file on my behalf when I learned on February 5th that only the Prosecutor, Sheriff, or Attorney General could file any action concerning the first appointment. 

Ferrero advised he couldn't file and couldn't represent me because of a "conflict of interest" by issued an affidavit in support of Lt. Darrow and one explaining Maier wasn't qualified. 

I then told Maier I was going to file and then approached Greg Beck at the meeting and asked if he would represent me and he agreed. That is how I came to obtain Beck as my attorney.

Since the Supreme Court ruled Maier was never Sheriff and effectively I was, we submitted a bill for attorney fees to them. 

They have refused to pay it but have paid $20,000 towards Maier's attorney fees. 

Remember that he had been declared to never have been Sheriff and the time between 5 Feb and 6 Nov null and void.

Nothing H[A]S changed regarding hid qualifications the same issue that he was ousted for Nov 6th still exists. He must be a fulltime peace officer holding the rank of corporal or above for TWO years during the five years immediately proceeding the qualification date of Feb 7th.

They don't see a problem and don't want to even address it. 

Refer to 311.07 (B)(9)(a) O.R.C.  

Its the law.

Tim Swanson

COMMENT FROM ALLEN SCHULMAN

The SCPR has very high regard for Allen Schulman who is part of the legal team (via his association on this case with Warren Price) representing SCDP chairman Randy Gonzalez and the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee.

The SCPR thanks Allen for taking the time and effort to add to the discussion on the Stark County Democratic Party's action taken last night on re-appointing George T. Maier as Stark County sheriff.

As always, the SCPR publishes civil and relevant comments on The Report blogs "in-full."

Perhaps Allen can prevail on George, Randy, Johnnie, Steve and Michael to do "on camera" interviews with me.  I always afford subjects of SCPR blogs as much space/video time as they would like to respond to The Report's blogs on the condition that they are done in a civil  and responsive manner.

I already talked Warren Price on camera last evening and he was very responsive to my questions.  As far as I am concerned, Warren Price is a very classy guy.

I will be publishing my interview with Price in an appropriate setting.

Sometimes I even let subjects of my blogs get a little uncivil as in the case of an e-mail that Stark County Democratic Party political director R. Shane Jackson sent to me and copied to a virtual "Who's Who" of Stark County leading public officials (and media) in an obvious personal attack on me.

Wouldn't it be nice to sit down with the political director of the Stark County Democratic Party and get his insight of all things political in Stark County.

Back in friendlier days; Shane, Johnnie and I have had a number very interesting conversations about the nuances of Stark County politics.

Of course, I am a person of my own mind and it has been my experience that such is something they have a problem with.

Both were very helpful to me when I was the Democratic Party nominee for Ohio's 50th House District (the old district).

Here is Allen's comment:

Martin,

As you know, I am a regular and avid reader of your blog. Whether I agree with your view, or not, I always find your perspective interesting and informative.

Your coverage of the Sheriff's issue, however, is baffling to me.

So far, your coverage has been harshly critical of Sheriff Maier, his brother, Chairperson Gonzalez, the party's legal team and the Committee members who cast their votes to reinstate Sheriff Maier to his former position.

On the other hand, you have not commented - at all- on the motives that are at work to disqualify Sheriff Maier from his appointment.

Does it seem strange to you that retired Sheriff Tim Swanson hired an attorney to prosecute this case in the Ohio Supreme Court simply because he was " upholding the statute " ?

Have you asked the Sheriff who is paying the legal fees for his team of lawyers ? ( No, it is not based on whether he will recover from the County taxpayers. )

Why is the County Prosecutor so intent to deny Sheriff Maier his appointment and why is his staff so eager to do his bidding ?

 Of all appointments, why pick on a man who has devoted his life to law enforcement, who was a former highway patrol officer, who was assistant director of public safety for the State of Ohio, who carried a weapon and a badge, and " worked with agents in the field, in surveillance and making arrests on search warrants and raids " and " the superintendent of the Ohio Highway Patrol—who holds the rank of colonel—reported to Maier on active investigations, and Maier oversaw and helped manage those investigations."?

As lawyers, you and I understand the importance of the rule of law.

But we also appreciate the intent of a statute and why it has been proposed and adopted.

Here, the ONLY qualification that the Court found lacking was whether Sheriff Maier was a " full-time " peace officer. Sheriff Maier satisfied that qualification by working - FULL TIME -as a Harrison County deputy sheriff.

What more could you ask or does this statute require. Obviously, the statute was intended to ensure that a County Sheriff be a law enforcement officer not someone who has no law enforcement background.. like an insurance agent. ( eg. Bob Berens )

Finally, why don't you tell your readership that the Buckeye Sheriff's Association supported Sheriff Maier in the Supreme Court or that he has the trust and support of his deputies?

I know you to be a fair journalist. In this instance, I think you have lost your way.

 Let's hear the other side...believe me, there is one !

Your friend,

Allen Schulman 

FINAL UPDATE AT 05:00 PM

UPDATED:  07:03 AM (FIRST VIDEO - "THE INTRO") 

UPDATED:  08:06 AM 

(SECOND VIDEO - DeMORA "THE OBJECTIVE ONE? TAKES OVER; GETS CHALLENGED WITH MOTION OUT-OF-THE BOX & ROLL CALL) 

UPDATE:  09:04 AM

(THIRD VIDEO) - DeMORA READS """"THE"""" LEGAL EXPERT'S LEGAL OPINION 

UPDATE:  11:28 AM

(FOURTH VIDEO) - THE ARGUMENT OVER WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW GREG BECK SPEAK

UPDATE:  12:55 PM 

(FIFTH VIDEO) - STARK CO PROSECUTOR "AS A COMMITTEEMAN" SPEAKS ON QUALIFICATION ISSUE

UPDATE:  3:39 PM

(SIXTH VIDEO)  - OKEY/FERRERO/OTHERS ON QUALIFICATION ISSUE 

UPDATE:  5:00 PM

(SEVENTH VIDEO)  - SWANSON & GONZALEZ ON WHETHER OR NOT GEORGE  MAIER OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN VOTE

Ever been to a "performance" and felt sympathy for the "star performer(s)" because it was obvious that they were "in over their heads?"

That is exactly how the SCPR felt about Stark County Democrat chairman Randy Gonzalez and the Ohio Democratic connected Bill DeMora and their "dog and pony show" performance last night at the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church located on Fairhaven Avenue in Canton.

The occasion?

To "re-do" the appointment of a Stark County sheriff as ordered by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 6, 2013 in the quo warranto case Swanson v. Maier filed within days of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee's (what turned out to be) illegal appointment of George T. Maier on February 5th because he lacked Ohio statutory qualification.

As the SCPR has predicted in yesterday's pre-vote blog; the outcome was a no doubter (Maier 101; Darrow 65).   The February vote was Maier - 92 to Darrow's 84).

Why was an appointment necessary in the first place?

Mike McDonald (a long time Stark County deputy sheriff) had been elected in November, 2012 but due to an illness which proved to be terminal (February 22nd) had to resign being sheriff-elect immediately prior to his scheduled taking of office on January 7th.

As indicated in this blog a couple of paragraphs ago, the February appointment of George T. Maier was "turned on its head" by the Supreme Court because of the "botched" effort of Stark Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez "aided and comforted" by Ohio Dems representative Bill DeMora.

And as far as the SCPR is concerned they botched things over again in last night's performance which The Report is tabbing "a dog and pony show."

The February 5th effort clearly was "amateur hour" but it was apparent last night that Gonzalez (as Stark County Democratic Party chairman) and DeMora (representing Ohio Democratic Party chairman Chris Redfern) had learned some things from the mangling of the earlier attempt to appoint George A. Maier, the brother of former Stark County Party chairman (2003 - 2009) Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

But they had not learned enough, well enough.

To repeat, the whole affair came across as being "a dog and pony show."

What exactly is "a dog and pony show?"

Here is one definition:

"Dog and pony show" is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends.

Be sure not to miss the second part of the definition because this expresses the SCPR's take on the whole of last night's proceeding:

Typically, the term is used in a pejorative sense to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it.

The "staging" was apparent from the time the SCPR walked through the door at Holy Trinity.

The large room was divided into halves.

The first half filled with round tables for the general public.

At about the half way point of the hall were a series of rectangular tables that formed a place for precinct committee members to sign in and also served the dual purpose beyond which the press could not go which, of course, was housed with "not enough" chairs for the some 170 committee members assembled.

Members of the press were heard by the SCPR to complain that they could not hear the committee persons very well as they made various motions and comments during the proceeding.

The Report rejoinder to the complaints?

"Oh!  that's by design.  It is obvious to me that Gonazlez and his executive vice chair (Maier, Jr.) wants to make it difficult for media coverage."

Most of the people speaking had no microphone, so one had to strain to hear what the committee members were saying.

But "you can bet your bottom dollar" the Gonzalez, DeMora, lead-attorney Steve Okey and the George T. Maier friends - for the most part - were on microphone "loud and clear."

Here and there, Maier opponents interim Sheriff Timothy Swanson and Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero were allowed to use the mic, but a good part of the time even they were afforded the indignity of having to shout to be heard.

Chairman Gonzalez's response when complaints were yelled out:  "we can't hear?"

For the most part:  "grin and bear, it" folks!

As mentioned above, every once in a while DeMora was allowed to hand the mic to a Swanson or Ferrero, but nobody else,  except the prime performers "in the dog and pony show," was allowed to be heard clearly by the press and those in the "reserved for the public section."

The Report thinks "the making it difficult to be heard" by the anti-Maier forces was purposeful.

Anyhow, ontinuing our tour of the meeting facility.

At the front of the room was a rectangular table of either side of the meeting moderator's "apparent" place for the respective legal counsel for the Dems' legal team and the Swanson/Darrow legal team.

However, as will be explained in more detail later on in this blog, only "one side" was entitled to have its legal team participate, so one of the tables remained vacant "all night long!"

Guess which side's legal team was seated at the designated table?

You've got it!

Allen Schulman (Canton city council president), Steve Okey (one of Stark County's most strident and caustic Democrats; (just ask some of his former Alliance city council colleagues), Warren Price (former Canton city official and the most level-headed of the entire group of lawyers) and Micheal Thompson, who appears to the SCPR to be a sort of "hanger-oner" (i.e. not a "main guy" in the representation scheme of things) type.

So that sets up the physical layout.

Now we get to the actual conduct of the meeting.

For each point of this part of today's blog, the SCPR is including video so that SCPR readers can get a sense for themselves what "a dog and pony show" experience is like.

VIDEO GUIDED TOUR OF MEETING

THE INTRO

In this video segment, the most notable parts are the chairman needing to point out that "police officers are present" (hmm?) and that the meeting is to be "a fair meeting"  (hmm? again; we shall see).



BILL DeMORA (ODP) TAKES OVER MEETING

One supposed improvement over the February 5th meeting was a larger role for Bill DeMora.

The SCPR does not think that his presiding over the meeting (Gonzalez did most of the presiding on February 5th) in terms of giving the other side (the Darrow supporters) a fair opportunity to be heard made one iota of a difference.

DeMora appears to The Report to have choreographed each and every move with Gonzalez beforehand.

Accordingly, it is just one more piece of the "dog and pony show" designed to make it seem that an unbiased person was presiding over the meeting.

For anyone who believes that "you see 'bias, but now you don't see it" maneuver,  the proverbial saying:  "Would you want to purchase some 'swamp land' in Florida," applies.

In this video, note that "right off the bat" a motion is hollered out "to keep the ballots in Stark County" which DeMora with no parliamentary justification whatsoever rules as being out-of-order.

Also in this video is the roll call of assembled precinct committee persons, so that SCPR readers can know first hand who attended.



A key piece in the orchestrated "dog and pony show" performance by Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez was the obtaining of and reading of a "legal opinion" by Ohio Democratic Party attorney Don McTigue.

This little ditty (i.e. the McTigue letter) apparently was designed to overwhelm the non-attorney segment of the gathering of SCDP-CC members.

As expert as McTigue supposedly is, he didn't even do enough research to know (see motion to hear Beck video below) that the original qualification date was February 6th (30 days from the January 7th McDonald failure to take office date).

But this, undoubtedly Gonzalez inspired tactic, probably worked with those who lack critical thinking skills.

As would come out later in the meeting, Steve Okey and Michael Thompson assured the February 5th meeting of the SCDP-CC that Maier was then qualified.

Do the SCPR a favor, go and read the Ohio Supreme Court decision (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) to understand more fully how wrong Okey and Thompson were.

Attorneys rarely get impressed with other attorneys and their opinions.

And to the SCPR McTigue is utterly unimpressive in his opinion; notwithstanding DeMora's flowery "Ohio's leading elections attorney."

One particular point in McTigue's opinion stands out.

What is that?

He openly challenges the majority Supreme Court justices who said in Swanson v. Maier that Maier was never sheriff.

The SCPR for one thinks that no matter what McTigue thinks of the word of the Supreme Court is guess what?  On state issues it is the Supreme!



Next up last night was a motion made by Lake Township precinct committeeman Steve Reisch who also happens to be an attorney of 15 years standing.

What was the motion?

To allow Greg Beck, attorney for Swanson (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto [which resulted in Maier being ousted as sheriff] and (Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez and SCDP-CC, mandamus), not a committeeman himself, to address the assembly of committee persons.

This is where, the SCPR thinks, Gonzalez, DeMora, and Schulman and Shane Jackson go way off the track of "basic fairness."

DeMora (a non-committeeman himself) reads a legal opinion letter from an non-committeemen member (McTigue's) and then Okey et al, except for Jackson. who had another approach. argued the fact that Beck is not a committee member as a reason to deny the entire membership to opportunity hear the opposing point of view.

Gonzalez was especially egregious and The Report thinks highly disingenuous in acting as if the SCDP-CC was united in the first Maier appointment.  Gonzalez took the liberty (no surprise to the SCPR) in one set of his remarks (i.e. "all of you") including all SCDP-CC members as being the clients of Okey, Schulman, Price and Thompson.

The fact of the matter is that the February 5th vote was 92 (Maier); 84 (Darrow)?

Do think that maybe - just maybe - those 84 Darrow votes have more affinity for what Greg Beck has to say than the four SCDP attorneys (representing the "unified" executive committee controlled by Gonzalez and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr)?

What was Gonzalez afraid of as demonstrating his resisting having Beck speak?

It rings hollow with the SCPR when a guy like Gonzalez pines about being the member of the political party of Jefferson and Jackson.

As for that political genus R. Shane Jackson (the SCDP political director), what a trip he is.

Knowing full well that Maier's attorneys (that duo from Roetzel and Andress in Columbus) were not present last night, and, are not ever likely to be present at a SCDP function, comes up with the "brilliant" idea:  "Well, golly gee [the SCPR's editorial addition], if Beck is allow to speak then the Maier attorneys should be entitled to speak"

Which in his mind alone is apparently some sort of "trump card" to ice the central committee in into a position of not allowing Beck to speak.

Go figure!

And as far as the SCPR is concerned. by Gonzalez's actions in the conduct of the entire Maier/Darrow matter belies the lip service he is prone to pontificate on from time to time about basic democratic (note the small letter "d") republican values.

The whole tenor of of the official Stark County Democratic Party leadership face off last night smacks of personal interest politics and sheer political power (i.e. "we are going to jam this down your throats, whether or not you like it!").

The Stark County general voting public should be turned off by this display and have that factor play into anything that is Stark County Democratic Party/Gonzalez/Maier endorsed in terms of issues and candidates come November, 2014.

However, the public should endeavor to ferret out quality Democratic Party candidates who have have the misfortune to be saddled with a SCDP endorsement.

The following video shows the back forth argument on the motion and the vote.

An impressive 72 stalwarts showed they were for fair play whereas the rest demonstrated by their votes that they are not interested in hearing "the whole story."

Even those who figured that they were going to vote for Maier should have been willing and open minded enough to hear the Swanson/Darrow argument. 

The video shows who the non-democratic are and viewers should note who they think was for basic fairness and who was not.

This particular vote made it very clear how the vote on the appointment was going to go.  It was a clear "ramrod Maier through" operation from the get-go.



The next best alternative for any kind of different legal opinion to the ears of the SCDP-CC members was for Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero to stand up and speak inasmuch Greg Beck was not allowed to speak.

As the following video shows, Ferrero was reluctant to do so probably understanding that he was not the best source to articulate reasons why the committee should not make a second mistake in appointing Maier sheriff.



Having denied that the Swanson/Darrow case for George T. Maier "continuing" disqualification is still the case, DeMora inartistically segues into having SCDP attorney Steve Okey present his one-sided take on the issue.

What a treat!



The SCPR's take on Okey's contribution? to the discussion is as follows:

• He gets his facts wrong for starters in that the "very first Ohio Supreme Court lawsuit filed" (see graphic above) in the series of three total lawsuits filed was the one by Lou Darrow (filed a few days before the February 5th meeting) because:
• Darrow knew what every other reasonable minded person knew which was that Maier's qualifications were suspect.
• Even Gonzalez raised the issue with Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei and Tim Swanson in an early January, 2013 meeting at the Stark County commissioners' office.
• Gonzalez reportedly tried to convince Swanson to hire Maier for a short period of time to "hopefully" fix Maier's qualification problem.
• And, of course, Maier disingenuously, the SCPR believes, denied in his deposition in a later case (i.e. Swanson v. Maier) that the weekend of work in Harrison County in January was an attempt to heal himself of being disqualified by Ohio statutory law.
• He and Warren Price represents the SCDP-CC "as a body" whether on February 5th you voted for Maier, Darrow or Dordea.  Really?
• Apparently Okey was asleep/distracted when Gonzalez stood earlier in the last night's session and argued that the Darrow/Dordea voters - in effect - were unrepresented.  Hmm?
• In a obvious attempt (as the SCPR sees it) to "inflame" anti-Darrow passions within the committee members, Okey spoke a number of times last night about about the committee members "being sued (apparently referring to the Swanson/Darrow mandamus action and, perhaps, Darrow's February In Prohibition action)"
• In an extension of the inflammatory mode The Report believes he was in, Okey spoke repeatedly of the effort by Swanson/Darrow (in the mandamus) to deny the central committee members the right to vote
• Of course, this is only part the story (remember Beck was denied the right to fill out the full account of the mandamus in being denied the right to address Wednesday's meeting)
• But that's what you get when you have the party brass put on a "dog and pony show, no?"
• In the view of the SCPR, Okey (by way of omission) goes way beyond what one should read into the Supreme Court's denial of Beck's request for a order limiting last night vote to either Darrow or Dorea,
• He suggested that he, Price, Thompson and Schulman were "neutral" parties who independent of one another took it upon themselves to determine Maier to be qualified notwithstanding his and Thompson's similar (now Supreme Court debunked) appraisals to the SCDP-CC assessments of Maier's qualifications.
• (Remember Maier's guaranteed - "If I apply, I will be qualified" statement?) 
• Who believes Okey's suggestion of neutrality and independence protestations?
• He trots out Maier's "its a mere technicality" argument that got him ousted as sheriff by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Okey never does effectively address the telling points made by John Ferrero and Frederic Scott (of Ferrero's office) that he and Thompson had made faulty appraisals of Maier qualifications at the February 5th SCDP-CC meeting,

By implication he maintains that the Supreme Court was wrong in removing Maier in its November 6th decision.

Hmm?

Next up is a video of Tim Swanson and his "impassioned - not calculated" plea to the SCDP-CC not to make a second mistake which, of course, the SCPR thinks the committee members did by a 101 to 65 vote.



The SCPR has learned that Swanson by the end of this week is likely to file a "new" quo warranto and consequently the SCPR goes on record as saying that The Report expects the Supreme Court to toss Maier out-of-office once again.

Exactly what Stark County needs, no?

Swanson, who the SCPR has roundly criticized in quite a number of blogs since The Report's inception (March 12, 2008), is at great inconvenience to himself and nothing to gain politically is doing "the right thing" for "the rule of law" in doggedly sticking to his determination to be the instrumentality of realizing "the rule of law" in this sheriff appointment matter.

Hip-hip-horray for THE RULE OF LAW!

IS THERE ANYWAY THAT LOU DARROW CAN BEST GEORGE T. MAIER?

SUBTOPICS

LIST OF 02/05/2013 DARROW VOTERS
=============================

LIST OF 02/05/2013 MAIER VOTERS
============================

LOU DARROW LETTER 

TO

PRECINCT COMMITTEEPERSONS

For those Stark Countians that want to see the Johnnie A. Maier, Jr Stark County Democratic Party political machine defeated in Wednesday's SCDP-CC (Stark County Democratic Party-Central Committee) meeting are likely to be disappointed

So thinks the Stark County Political Report.

The Wednesday Dems meetup (as a "do-over") for the failed February 5th meeting, comes some 11 months after McDonald declined, as of January 7, 2013 (the date that his term of office was to begin), to take office because of illness.

On November 6th, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the SCDP-CC made an invalid selection on February 5th because the appointee George T. Maier was unqualified to be sheriff under Ohio statutory law.

While The Report does not think that Maier and his alter ego R. Shane Jackson (SCDP political director) are nearly as skilled as politicos as they like to portray themselves; they likely are more than a match for sheriff-appointee-aspirant Louis Darrow.

But look for some "political" fireworks at Wednesday's meeting to select a successor sheriff to November, 2012 sheriff-elect Mike McDonald.

Here is how the vote lined up back in February.

For Darrow:

 For Maier:

The SCPR thinks that Maier, Jr./Jackson and Stark County Democratic chairman Randy Gonzalez made a major miscalculation on the opposition they might encounter in pushing Maier, Jr. brother George T. Maier for the appointment.

They must have been amazed when the vote tally showed Maier squeaking out a 92 to 84 victory over the political neophyte Lieutenant Lou Darrow who has been with the Stark County sheriff office for some 27 years now.

A combination of unionists and loyalists to the Swanson/Ferrero (united for  now) political forces (the "Anti-Party Establishment") within the Stark County Democratic Party are aligned against Chairman Gonzalez and Johnnie A. Maier and folks within the party who are beholden to them in the upcoming Wednesday night fight.

Readers need to refresh themselves (LINK to prior SCPR blog) as to how "utterly" non-political Lou Darrow is. 

The pages of the SCPR are replete with stories of utterly politicized (reward your friends; punish your enemies?) Maier, Jr, Jackson and Gonzalez are (i.e. the "Party Establishment" is).

Because of their cockiness, they can get complaisant and consequently they sustain a "political" black eye once in a while.

And December 11th could be such a occasion.

There is a bloc of "potential votes" that if either the George Maier or Lou Darrow supporters can get them to Wednesday's session to vote for their man that could be pivotal.

There were about 20 or so "no shows" at the meeting of February 5th and there have been two new appointees during the interim, to wit:

Presumably, the contenders have been working this list hard as well as trying to flip the other's February 5th voters to their side.

Maier and Jackson do have some political victories to crow about and which provide some basis for thinking that they are the "odds on favorite" to prevail on Wednesday.

Chief among them is the defeat they administered to 24 year Massillon mayor Frank Cicchielli in May, 2011.

However, that victory was tempered by the Democrats losing control of Massillon city council in the election of November, 2011.  While the Dems regained control in the election of November, 2012, the Maier, Jr./Jackson wing of the Massillon Democratic Party are still outside looking in inasmuch by the SCPR's measure only Tony Townsend (a non-voting council member except in the case of a tie) and Rhoderick Stinson (elected in Ward 4) are reliable Maier, Jr (hence Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry) supporters.

The moral of this latter political story is that Maier, Jr., Shane Jackson and the politically dependent on them and Stark Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez can be beat.

But it probably takes more than the loosely jointed coalition that Lou Darrow has going for him to pull it off.

The Darrow campaign is being run by Lou Darrow's wife Laura.

If Laura Darrow can engineer a victory for her husband in Wednesday's vote, she will have pulled off an amazing triumph for her and her husband being political novices.

The SCPR believes that Darrow was on February 5th and remains competitive to Maier to eventually become Stark County sheriff is because of his long standing ties to interim sheriff Tim Swanson (who did not run for reelection after serving as sheriff for fourteen (14) years (1999 - 2013).

Moreover, Swanson is not the only Stark County powerful public figure supporting Darrow.

As alluded to above, so is Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero who, like Maier (2003 - 2009), Jr, is a former Stark Dems chairman (1995 - 2003).

The way the SCPR sees it, the Maier, Jr, Jackson and Gonzalez forces were stunned when Ferrero got up at the February 5th meeting and read his sworn-statement (i.e. in affidavit format) to the effect that he as Stark County's chief legal officer did not think that George T. Maier was qualified under Ohio's statutory law.

The Report believes that Gonzalez showed disdain for Ferrero and humiliated him in the February 5th meeting in the manner of speech and tone he (Gonzalez) addressed the assembled SCDP-CC members.

If Maier, Jr et al were shocked to witness Ferrero's act, they hadn't seen anything yet.

On February 12th, Sheriff Swanson filed a quo-warranto (i.e. "by what 'legal' authority does George T. Maier serve as the Stark Dems appointee as sheriff) against Maier.

Apparently, George T. Maier believed what his legal advisers must have been telling him, to wit:  "he was going to win before the Ohio Supreme Court."

For he went out and spent your money and my money (i.e. Stark County taxpayer money) to have his name plastered on Stark County sheriff department property.

Of course, the SCPR from the get-go has disagreed with the "high-brow" duo's assessment from the prestigious Roetzel, Andress (Columbus branch) law firm.

And, as we all know now, the Supreme Court told Maier and Chairman Gonzalez that the February 5th meeting was not lawfully conducted.

Not to be deterred by one finding of illegality, Chairman Gonzalez (in the opinion of the SCPR) has embarked on a course of conduct in calling new meeting to be held this Wednesday (December 11th) that The Report believes - if challenged with a new quo warranto - (assuming, of course, that George T. Maier, once again, is the SCDP-CC appointee) will result in a new Ohio Supreme Court finding of illegality.

The SCPR is not surprised by the Gonzalez, Maier, Jackson "continue to push it" mode such being indicative of them playing the "political bully" role.

Johnnie A. Maier, Jr in the assessment of the SCPR is an "old school power politician" who learned at the knee of yesteryear (and, perhaps, the last we will see of his ilk; except, of course, for Maier, Jr) Vern Riffe.

The Report believes that much of Maier, Jr's success is to be attributed to his bulldog, "never-ever-give-up" bulldoze style of politics within the Stark County Democratic Party.

To beat him, one has to match him stroke for stroke and then some.

And the question is whether not Lou Darrow and his advisers are up besting Maier, Jr.

The SCPR is skeptical that they are.

But they have put up an spirited fight so far. 

If one has read SCPR blogs on the George T. Maier quest to become the "legal" sheriff Stark County, it is quite obvious that The Report thinks there are way too many concerns about Maier in addition to "the qualification factor" that may not make him a good choice for Stark County sheriff.

One way or another though, the SCPR  expects Maier to prevail simply because The Report believes that his political backers are more savvy, more persistent and more Machvellian than Swanson/Ferrero et al.

If George T. Maier is appointed again on Wednesday and even if a new quo warranto (assuming that the Supreme Court will not rule on the Swanson/Darrow writ of mandamus [filed November 18th]) successfully challenges him; he will be back.

He will run in the Democratic primary on May 6th.

Unless Darrow and his key advisers "get up to speed" on their political skills, Maier is likely to win a Democratic primary.

Darrow on Thursday released a letter to the members of the SCDP-CC, to wit:

Louis Darrow

5700 East Blvd NW

Canton, Ohio 44718

December 5, 2013


Dear Stark County Democratic Central Committee Members:


Thank you to all precinct committee members who have encouraged me to continue to pursue the position of Stark County Sheriff. I greatly appreciate your support. But there is still much work to be done. Together, we can prevail and ensure that Stark County has an experienced and qualified Democratic sheriff, but I need your help. If you did not support me last time, please take another look at my qualifications in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.


The Ohio Supreme Court has decided that the February 2013 appointee was not qualified to hold the office of Stark County Sheriff. There is a difference of opinions as to the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision. I have asked the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute prior to the appointment process, but to date they have not done so. As a result, the Stark County Democratic Central Committee (SCDCC) will meet again on December 11, 2013 to make a new appointment. It is my sincere hope that you will support me at that meeting.


There is no question that I am qualified to be Sheriff. I have made serving in the Stark County Sheriff’s Department my life’s work. During the past twenty-seven years, I have served in every division of the sheriff’s office (corrections, road patrol, civil, and operations). No one can suggest that my full-time service as a sergeant and lieutenant for the past sixteen consecutive years does not meet the statutory requirements of the office. Unfortunately, I anticipate that I will not be permitted to address you or answer your questions during the meeting. I take this appointment process very seriously and I can assure you that I meet every requirement under the statute and that I am in compliance with every statute relating to seeking this appointment.


Because the Ohio Supreme Court did not rule on all of the qualifications that were challenged under the Ohio Revised Code, questions remain. If the SCDCC appoints an unqualified person, we run the risk of losing the office entirely. Regardless of who is appointed, the citizens of Stark County will soon be given the opportunity to vote for sheriff. We need to ensure that the citizens of Stark County have an experienced, qualified democratic sheriff to support. A second failure to appoint a qualified candidate may cause voters to doubt the ability of the Democratic Party to offer a qualified candidate.


I hope you will be able to attend the December 11, 2013 meeting and will support me. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at (330)327-2288.

Sincerely,

Lou Darrow

The SCPR would like to see Lieutenant Darrow win on Wednesday.

But, again, The Report is skeptical that he will.

Of course, it could be that the Ohio Supreme Court will rule on the mandamus and say:

• that Maier is not to be included in the field (because he did not meet the February 6, qualification date), or
• that he can be included because the February 6th date does not hold for a re-convened SCPR-CC selection meeting

In the former case, the next action will be the Stark Dems May 6th primary.

In the latter case, we could be in for another Supreme Court challenge because of if Maier gets the appointment again because his opponents likely view his cure of working a few weeks in the Harrison County sheriff's department as an obvious ineffective attempted end-run around the original finding that the high court was not buying "a weekend in Harrison County" as being curative of his statutory deficiency.

If we all get surprised and Darrow pulls an upset over Maier on the 11th, the we - at least - will be out of the court battles phase and on to a intraparty political primary fight that Stark County has not seen the likes of for some time.

Out-of-the court battles phase?

Well, not really.

There is still Craig Conley's taxpayer, civil law suit against Maier to recover monies collected by him as salary, fringe benefits, expenditures (e.g. the signage) and legal fees (his attorneys.)

One of his attorneys fired "a shot across the bow" of Conley last week when Conley was on a local talk-radio show in sending an email to the effect that Conley is talking about pending litigation MAY HAVE violated Ohio ethics rules for the government of the bar.

The SCPR will deal with this wrinkle is a later blog.

In the meantime, it remains to be seen whether or not Lou Darrow and his political advisers prove to be a match for the likes of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr, Shane Jackson and Stark Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez come Wednesday.