VOLUME 6 (SCPR SERIES) GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN STARK COUNTY?

The Stark County Political Report began a new series focusing on gender (equal pay for equal work) five weeks ago with Volume 1 with an examination of "the commissioners office," "the Stark County treasury" and "the recorder's office."

Four weeks ago  in Volume 2 the perusal was of the county auditor's and prosecutor's office.

Three weeks ago (Volume 3 in this ongoing series) the look was at the clerk of courts office and the Stark County sheriff department.

Two weeks ago  (Volume 4) the SCPR examined the Stark County Engineer's office and the Stark County coroner's office.

So far The Report has been less than impressed (in an overall sense) of how Stark County's elected officials are doing on the matter of gender equity. 

And that experience squares up with the state and federal governments.

A primary document to be familiar with for anyone who cares whether or not American women are treated equally in the job market is in the Equal Pay Act of 1963.  However, the fight for fairness for more than half the American population continues inasmuch as the fact of the matter is that the 1963 act has not resulted in pay equity for women.

Still, in 2014, on average, women are paid 79 cents for every dollar that men are paid in the American workplace.

Of course, the law is one thing.

The underlying facts of the rampant discrimination and hardship that American women from the early 1600s on have had to endure and thereby necessitating the 1963 law is something that we all should familiarize ourselves with.

The SCPR recently completed reading Gail Collins' America's Women and recommends that readers of this blog series take time to read.

Anyone who thinks that our great nation has overcome this blight, needs to think again.

In 2009, population demographics showed that women outnumbered men 158.6 million to 151.4 million.  And there is no reason that the tilt to a distinct majority women is not growing.

One danger in citing national statistics is that you, I and our neighbors might think that here in "good ole Stark County" there is very little if any gender employment discrimination going on.

Already, the SCPR believes that this blog's series is showing that the fact of the matter is that there are pockets of real and substantial differences in how men are paid depending on what department of Stark County government one is looking at.

Of course, the only place that information is readily available to assess is in government.  There is no right to obtain data from the "private sector" as to what the pay scales are between males/females as there is in the public sector. Accordingly, we have no choice but to rely on national statistical studies to get a feel for what is going on locally among privately owned entities.  And there is no reason to believe that the Stark County private sector varies significantly from the national scene.

As far as Stark County is concerned last week's blog (i.e. the Court of Common Pleas, Family Court and the Public Defender's departments of Stark County government) showed complete turnaround from Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 in terms of women getting equal treatment in terms of pay and position.

FIRST UP TODAY, THE 9-1-1 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

A small department of Stark County government, this does show itself to be male-dominated in terms of pay equity and perhaps job opportunity.

The SCPR wonders whether or not Catherine Patterson was provided with an opportunity to advance to deputy director when Richard Weber was hired in December, 2007 in view of her having already been on the job with the agency six years prior to the hire?

Consequently, here you have someone who is paid nearly$14,000 less a year notwithstanding her deeper experience in emergency management services.

SECOND UP, THE STARK COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Obvious questions that Stark Countians interest in pay equity ought to be asking about Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) operations is why Democratic Deputy Director Jeanette Mullane (a former director during Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's tenure) with upwards of three (3) years more seniority than Republican Jeff Matthews is paid less than Matthews.

Moreover, Democratic Holly Tichnor has 20 years seniority over Travis Secrest and yet they are paid the same for the same job title.

The SCPR believes that if tables were turned, Secrest would be making considerably more than Tichnor.

And The Report brings into the SCPR's discussion of pay equity and perhaps job opportunity in Stark County "taxpayer financed" employment that Theresa Large (1990) and Christine Jones (1992) have lesser pay and lesser titled jobs than Secrest (2011)?

One more note about the BOE.

Ohio's county boards of elections are structured along political "cold war" lines (a la the history U.S./Soviet Union model post World War II and the early 1990s) which of course means that in terms of employment these jobs are split between Republicans and Democrats in roughly equal numbers.

Moreover, it appears that to get one of these jobs, one needs to have a political sponsor and/or have a political pedigree.

The SCPR recognizes many of the names on the BOE employment list (full or part-time) as being politically connected persons.

Several months ago Stark County Commissioner Richard Regula asked Director Matthews at a commissioner work session on the 2014 county general fund budget (Matthews having announced BOE plans to hire four new employees in the near future) whether or not the jobs were going to be posted.  All of us attending the meeting laughed.



And, of course, Matthews was astonished to get such a question.

To the SCPR the structure of county boards of election is in and of itself an outrage and then to add insult to injury (here in  Stark County) with indication of "gender unfairness" under the guise of "the political cold war structure" should get the dander of all of us up to new heights.

LAST UP, VETERANS SERVICE COMMISSION

Of the departments of Stark County government covered in today's blog, the Veterans Service Commission (VSC) does best on gender pay equity and employment opportunity.

 However, there is a question as to why there are "NO"  female VSC board members?

Women haven't and/or aren't presently serving in the armed forces of the United States of America?

The Report has two daughters who are commissioned officers in the United States Air Force.

They were raised in Stark County.

Haas, May, Kemp, Hoskinson and Datz, the SCPR understands, are concerned about their pay grade.

The VSC board recently got into a tiff with the Stark County commissioners over the commissioners' rejection of they (and certain VSC administrators) being provided with a county general fund appropriation so that they could stay at a Cleveland area hotel/motel for a training conference earlier this month to be held in Independence, Ohio.

The Report's take is that in retaliation to the commissioners' rejection, VSC board member Frank Kemp, Sr launched an attack on the commissioners' hiring practices in terms of adding positions and hiring in pay rate.

In challenging the commissioners, Kemp worried that he and others were not going to get raises to the equivalent of member Haas.  

And that was all well and good.

Maybe?

In this back and forth, it came out that perhaps the matter of pay raises within the VSC has not been done heretofore according to Ohio statutory law, to wit:

5901.04 Payment of expenses and compensation of commissioners.

On the presentation of an itemized statement, the board of county commissioners shall allow the persons composing the veterans service commission their reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of their duties, and shall fix a fair compensation for their services. The county auditor shall issue a warrant upon the county treasurer for the amount so allowed.

Effective Date: 07-22-1994  (emphasis added)

As The Report understands what has been going on insofar as anybody can remember, is that the VSC board has been setting pay rates for themselves and employees of the VSC.

Stark County Chief Administrator Brant Luther (whose pay rate was challenged by Kemp) that the matter of ORC 5901.04 is under review and that the commissioners have made no determination on past, present or future pay rates at the VSC.

Undoubtedly, the folks at the VSC want to be treated fairly.

Well, doesn't it stand to reason that those who seek fairness mete out fairness?

In that respect, how about Kemp et al (i.e. the board as a whole) seeing to it that a female board member or two or three be brought onto the board?

SCPR COMMENTARY ON OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE DECISION ON BALAS-BRATTON V. MAIER STARK BOE PROTEST

WORDS OF BALAS-BRATTON ATTORNEY - CONLEY

Craig T. Conley (attorney for Cynthia Balas-Bratton) says that he will be filing with the Ohio Supreme Court early next week a Writ of Prohibition asking that the high court prohibit the Stark County Board of Elections from placing the name of George T. Maier on the Stark County Democratic Party primary ballot for the office of Stark County sheriff.


Conley's words:

I don't want to minimize the burden.  The burden of getting the secretary of state reversed is a significant one. 

It is akin to but not quite an 'abuse of discretion.'  ... 

But the secretary of state made my burden somewhat easier because he is so 'wishy-washy' in that he does not say affirmatively yes or no.  And that makes my burden a lot easier.

It is a difficult burden to overcome, but it has been done.  This secretary of state and his predecessor [Democrat Jennifer Brunner] have been reversed under similar circumstances by the Supreme Court.

I feel pretty confident ... [on the basis of George Maier] in his qualification document [submitted to the Stark BOE] wherein he relied on only 23 months [of supervisory experience {under ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a)}] and that could very well be dispositive [on the Writ of Prohibition that Conley plans to file early next week].

I don't have to demonstrate to the court that his [Husted's] affirmative decision was wrong.  All I have to point out to the court is 'that he [Husted] really didn't know.

The court really has become the tie-breaker.

I still have a St. John issue [in his Writs of Prohibition/Writs of Mandamus, two of which each] the denial of which I am going to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Obviously, Balas-Bratton would have wanted the secretary of state to rule her way.

But he didn't

His decision was a mimic of Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione's in opening up ("I want to err on the side of Democracy') the second Stark Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointment process for George T. Maier to reapply notwithstanding the the law of the case seemed to preclude his doing so.

Somewhere along the line, the Ohio Supreme Court will have to rule that Maier is qualified under ORC 311.01 to be Stark County sheriff.

The secretary of state clearly states in his reasons for ruling Maier onto the ballot that he is not making  a qualification determination.

In failing to making a forthright determination that George T. Maier is qualified under his reading of ORC 311.0 in the context of the evidence presented by both the protestor and Maier, Secretary of State Husted failed to discharge the responsibility placed with the Board of Elections by the Ohio General Assembly in making ORC 311.01 the law of the land.

Both sides should be unhappy with the secretary.

His decision is a clear case of political waffling.

Of course, he is a candidate for reelection himself this year and may face a stiff challenge from the dynamic Nina Turner.  And beyond this year, he has to be looking at the possibility he might be a candidate for governor in 2016 on the chance that John Kasich will be the Republican standard bearer for president.

Candidates - especially statewide ones - are prone to political fence riding whenever they get the opportunity.

That is what the SCPR thinks John Husted has done.

And, while the Maier camp may take solace in having the Secretary's decision go his way; they should be more than a little bit upset with the weaseling he did in coming to his determination.

The SCPR thinks Conley is correct.

Husted's decision is "wishy-washy" and the SCPR thinks it was purposely so in order to throw a sop to a powerful Stark County Republican or two who have to be outraged with his siding with the Democrats.

He knows that in not being forthright and unequivocal in doing his job to decide clearly - one way or the other - whether George T. Maier is qualified that he did give the Balas-Bratton side (which clearly benefits Stark's Republicans in their effort to capture the sheriff's office in November) a much easier path to getting a Supreme Court reversal of today's decision.

And if he gets reversed, he will not shed one tear.

For he has done what it is typical of politicians to aspire to do:  "having it every which way!"

A DIFFERENT KIND OF FILING? STARK BOARD OF ELECTIONS "PUT ON NOTICE" OF PROTEST TO CANDIDACY OF GEORGE T. MAIER FOR SHERIFF. HMM?

Typically, on days following the filing deadline for candidates to file their petitions to run for office, the media dutifully reports on who filed for what.

Later on, as the Board of Elections scrutinizes the petitions filed, it either certifies or refuses to certify that a candidate has "qualified" by the validity of the number required and registration of the signed-on petitioners on the petitions.

If that were the only test on George T. Maier qualifying to run for Stark County sheriff, there is no doubt he would be qualified to be on the Stark County ballot come November 6, 2014 to run for the "unexpired term" of Mike McDonald (elected November, 2012).

As we all regrettably know, Mike was not able to take office on January 7, 2013 because of an illness which claimed his life on February 22, 2013.

Consequently, the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) was charged with replacing McDonald with an appointee.

They appointed former state highway patrolman George T. Maier on Febuary 5, 2013.  However, Maier had moved on to administrative duties within policing and thereby was thought by some to have lost his qualification under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01 to be sheriff.

And those "some," namely, interim Sheriff Tim Swanson and Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero turned out to be correct.

On November 6, 2013, the Ohio Supreme Court in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto filed on February 12, 2013, found that Maier did not qualify as of February 5th and accordingly "ousted" him from office.

The Dems were ordered to re-institute the appointment process and did so on December 11, 2013 and guess who they picked a second time?

You've got it:  George T. Maier.

Well, the short of it is that there remain some Stark Countians who continue to believe that George T. Maier is unqualified under the provisions of ORC 311.01.

Hence, one such person, namely; Cynthia Balas-Bratton (a Stark County Democratic Party precinct committee person) has joined the likes of Swanson and Ferrero to object to Maier being Stark County sheriff, appointed or elected.

She has retained local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley to file a protest of Maier's petition filed a few weeks ago with the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) as to their validity - not on the number and the valid registrations of the signers - (which, of course, the BOE has to rule on - protested or not) but on the ORC 311.01 qualifications on which there are reports that the BOE plans on ignoring.

Well, you can put those plans to rest.

Feburary 5th certainly is a significant date on the life of George T. Maier.

On February 5th, 2013 he likely was jubilant in receiving the SCDP-CC appointment as sheriff.

On February 5th, 2014 he likely was disconsulate on learning about the receipt by the Stark BOE of the following letter:

February 5, 2014
...

TO: Stark County Board of Elections

FROM: CRAIG T. CONLEY

RE: GEORGE TO MAIER

I represent Cynthia Balas-Bratton, a Stark County Democratic electorate, who will be filing with your Board an O.R.C. 3513.05 prtest against the proposed candidacy of Democrat George T. Maier.  (See. e.g., the Ohio Supreme Court Opinion in Wellington v. Mahoning County Board of Elections, 117 Ohio St. 3d 143, 2008-Ohio-554).

In the meantime, I have been informed by the proverbial "very reliable source" that your Board does not consider it to be its responsibility to determine whether or not Mr. Maier is statutorily qualified to be on the Democratic primary ballot for the public office of Stark County Sheriff.

If indeed that is your Board's position, I respectfully suggest you should forthwith reconsider same.

In that regard, I call your attention to, inter alia, the Ohio Supreme Court's Opinion in State ex rel. Shumate v. Portage County Board of Elections (1992},64 Ohio St.3d 12, 14, wherein the Court held that "R.C. 3501.11 requires boards cf election to review, examine and certify the sufficiency of petitions and nominating papers".  (emphasis supplied)

Although presently unaware of how the Stark County Court of Common Pleas Administrative Judge may have opined on the instant issue, it is noteworthy that the Shumate Court went on to held (at 17) " . . . that the administrative judges' [qualifications] certifications were gratuitous, and respondent [board of elections] was not justified in relying or. those certifications when presented with a protest  but was required to make its own determinations about qualifications, as in other cases.” (emphasis supplied)

In short, it is respectfully suggested that your Board, as a matter of law, clearly has the affirmative duty to determine whether or not Mr. Maier is statutorily qualified to be on the Democratic primary ballot as a candidate for the public office of Stark County Sheriff; and, upon the filing of my client''s aforesaid protest (if not before), I reasonably presume you will, consistent with that (sworn) duty, agree and will find, upon hearing, that Mr. Maier is not so-qualified. (See, e.g., the Ohio Supreme Court's November 6, 2013 Opinion in The State ex rel. Swanson v. Maier, 137 Ohio St.3d 400, 2013-Ohio-4767.)

In the end, the SCPR thinks that Maier will not qualify to stand for election and likely result in Republican Larry Dodea becoming the next sheriff of Stark County.

Not all that many years ago Stark's organized Democrats have a virtual stranglehold on countywide elections.

But with the onset (ironically, what Conley has termed as being) Zeiglergate on or about April 1, 2009, the Dems has lost the treasurer's office, the auditor's offices and now? the sheriff's office.

The Democrats have held that office most recently since 1985 after (in 1981) Republican Robert Berens pulled a stunning upset in defeating Democrat George Papadopulos in the 1980 election.



Berens was not a policeman by background (the SCPR's recollection is that he was an insurance man) and many believed (including most present-day Stark County Republican leaders the SCPR converses with) that he was a disaster as sheriff which lead to guess what?

The passage of ORC 311.01.

Which George Maier now says gets in his way in being Stark County sheriff "on a 'mere' technicality."

Hmm?

It is more than touch ironic that all of sudden the application of the "rule of law" is not that important to the Stark County Democratic Party leadership in that the law is being "a mere technicality."

Hmm?

Apparently to them, the importance of "the rule of law" all depends on whose Ox is being gored?