(VIDEO) IS THE STARK CO. BOE HANDLING OF BALAS-BRATTON "PROTEST" OF MAIER SHERIFF CANDIDACY A CASE FOR A CHANGE IN HOW OHIO "ADMINISTRATIVELY" HANDLES ITS "CANDIDACY" CONTESTS?

VIDEO

THE "PROTEST" PART 

OF THE 

STARK COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS

MEETING

OF

FEBRUARY 17, 2014

The geniuses who have run the Ohio General Assembly - perhaps - since 1803 (the founding year as a new U.S. state) have saddled Ohio with an absolutely "awful" structure of governance for our most precious of democratic institutions:  our election system.

And because Ohio's wise men? (and, of course, "a few women") over the passage of 211 years have found it in their interests to entrench Democrats and Republicans permanently and institutionally into running our structures of government, the best they could do to ensure (at least in their collective minds) fairness was to set up a "cold war" (e.g. the American versus Russia-esque stalemate enhancing) type of governance structure called the county board of elections.

Fairness?

Maybe between "organized" Democrats and Republicans, but certainly not to ordinary citizens, so the SCRP thinks.

In the sense of having access to the handles of political, economic and societal power to redress their grievances with government, "the people, indeed, perish."

Unless and until Ohio's elected Columbus-ensconced representatives cast off the Republican Party and Democratic Party organization-ossified oligarchical form of Ohio's election governance; political power accumulating Republicans and Democrats have and will continue to use our elections institutions for their own aggrandizement and for the benefit of those who nurture them (i.e. "campaign contributions").

The current fight within the structure of the Stark County Board of Elections over whether or not George T. Maier should be certified as qualified under the standards of Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 311.01 shows that the BOE governance structure is inadequate to the task of ensuring that "the will of the people" (in the "republican (i.e. representative) sense" be respected.

Our elected Ohio representatives passed ORC 311.01 and watching Monday's meeting indicates to the SCPR indicates that at the very least it seems clear that the Stark BOE is not up to the task of doing a 311.01 qualification.  And, to be fair, there likely is no BOE in all of Ohio who is up to the task.

In no way, shape or form does the SCPR think political appointees Cline, Braden, Ferruccio and St. John are equipped to administer 311.01 as a court of law would do and, though presumably of the "highest intention" are showing themselves - in the opinion of The Report - to be fumbling and bumbling through a nonsensical process the rules of which they seem to be fashioning "on the fly."

In the end, presuming member St. John is allowed to remain a voting member (he is currently under challenge as having predetermined that he will vote for Maier's qualification), the result likely is a two to two tie.

While the SCPR thinks that St. John has broadcast far and wide his pro-Maier stance, The Report thinks that the very structure of BOEs is that - despite their apparent "open-mindedness," that the other three members are "secretly" committed to voting for or against Maier's qualification on political party interest rather than on the merits of the case.

For that is how county boards of elections have been set up to have the members do - on "party interest, critical issues" like - in this instance - which party is going to be advantaged in controlling the Stark County sheriff's office for the foreseeable future.

And lo and behold, who comes sweeping in to break the tie when the likely scenario unfolds (e.g. St. John/Ferruccio to qualify Maier; Cline and Braden not to qualify Maier)?  By statutory structure, the Republican-SOS-in-Chief who was elected in 2010 as the secretary of state.

Had a Democrat been elected in 2010, it would be a Democrat-SOS-in-Chief.

For the everyday citizen, six of one; half-a-dozen of another, no?

The point is that neither a Republican nor a Democrat tie-breaker secretary of state (SOS) is a gauge of "the will of Stark Countians" come November.

Moreover, how is it that politicians and political appointees get to decide whether or not a "would-be candidate" qualifies under established statutory law (311.01) to test what "the will of the people" at election time.

Ordinary citizens just want due process and justice done and a decision made in accordance with the law.

The Ohio Supreme Court has already decided that Maier is unqualified (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, November 6, 2013).

That decision in and of itself should carry great if not conclusive weight on whether or not Maier is qualified.

But don't trouble St. John with the November 6th result.

He voted as a Stark County Democratic Central Committeeman on December 11, 2013 to re-appoint Maier notwithstanding Swanson v. Maier.

Originally, the word was that Stark's BOE was going to dodge the Maier qualification question on 311.01 grounds altogether and just pass on the sufficiency of his petitions in having an adequate number of registered voters.

Undoubtedly, this was a thing that the Stark County Democratic Party leadership (which includes Maier brother, Johnnie A. Jr as "executive vice chairman") wanted.

Now, isn't that swell, real "swell?"

And we want these folks to wade into procedures they likely didn't want to be involved in - in the first place?

"We the people" have no choice in the matter.  That's what the politicians in Columbus have saddled us with and they aren't about to take the administration of elections out of their political control.

They battle over who will control as between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party "from the top down."

"The people be damned!," they utter under their breaths.

What Stark Countians are going to get out of the undemocratic, unrepublican and certainly archaic (to be kind to our past and present legislative governors) "protect our turf" county board of election structure is what?   More uncertainty, that's what.

There is no doubt to the SCPR that the BOE built-in bias towards political standoff/stalemate will likely result in a new round of court challenges which will put Stark Countians in the position of not knowing who is to be the county's chief law enforcement official going forward for perhaps another year.

Just take a look yourself Mister and Missus Stark County Citizen at following example of what your state legislature has brought you over 200 years in the making.



Because of the stranglehold "organized" Democrats and Republicans have on this local level of government, the result is - on too many occasions - a contest of what is good for one political party as opposed to the other political party.

The "will of the people" perishes!

It is apparent to the SCPR that the governance of county boards of elections is primarily about organized Republicans and Democrats checkmating one another in a battle for political advantage.

The Ohio system of county boards of elections is anti-democratic, unrepublican and needs to be done away and replaced with a structure which is devoid of the political factor as is humanely possible.

We are a people of "the rule of law."

Boards of elections are not equipped to deal with "rule of law" questions.

They are political through and through in structure.  It is truly amazing that anything resembling "legal merit" makes it through Ohio's "for the political advantage" system of elections administration.

To the degree the folks in Columbus perpetuate Ohio's horribly out-of-touch with "democratic and republican values of America" board of elections structure, they feed citizen apathy and antipathy towards government in general in spades!

Is that what they want?

(VIDEO) DID MAIER SUPPORTERS CREATE CONDITIONS FOR AN "OVER THE TOP" HAPPENING AT STARK'S BOARD OF ELECTIONS YESTERDAY?

UPDATED AT 8:30 AM

George T. Maier candidacy "protester" Cynthia Balas-Bratton attorney Craig T. Conley was not a happy camper after yesterday's Stark County Board of Elections (BOE; Board) certification meeting.

First, after BOE Republican member William S. Cline (an attorney himself) questioned Conley's subpoena of Harrison County sheriff Ronald J. Myers as being "too broad" and the Board thereafter "mini"-sizing it and disallowing altogether Conley's subpoena of the subject of Balas-Bratton's "protest;" namely, Maier himself as being required to attend Friday's "protest hearing" set for this Friday, the 21st of February at 9:00 AM at the Canton Regional Chamber "Millennium Center" so as to be subject to Conley's "cross-examination," Conley was furious and was heading back to his office at the Huntington Building mere blocks away to begin efforts to override the BOE's subpoena decisions.

On his way out of the BOE building, he encountered - what he says was - another unpleasant event.

Conley (see video below) says he witnessed his client Ms. Balas-Bratton being verbally "castigated" (Conley's word) by a fully uniformed female Stark County deputy sheriff for having had the audacity to have filed the Maier candidacy protest in the first place.

Here is Conley's eyewitness account (the SCPR did not witness the event):



The SCPR does not know who organized  the apparent  "show of force" of what The Reports estimates to have been some 20 to 25 deputies, reserve deputies and sheriff department administrators to take up nearly, if not all, every available seat to make up a "sea of black uniformed" officers of law looking the deciders in the eyeballs.

The last the SCPR knew, the decision of the Board of Elections is not to be a straw poll of the popularity of Maier with sheriff department employees but rather implementing "the rule of law" within the Stark County "body politic and governance."

In an interesting and ironic twist; while the deputies, Maier, his attorney and chief Stark County Democratic Party supporter and chairman Randy Gonzalez were seated, neither Conley nor Balas-Bratton appear to have had an opportunity to have a seat themselves.

Part of the blame, it seems to the SCPR, is owing to the administration of the Board of Elections itself.  Director Jeff Matthews (a Republican and chairman of the Board of Elections) and Democrat Deputy Director Jeanette Mullane seemed to not have a clue of the "apparent - for the eye to behold" commandeering of the meeting room by pro-Maier forces.

Why wouldn't Board officials have provided - at the very least - a reserved place for Balas-Bratton and Conley to be seated? 

Because Stark County's chief law enforcement agency (the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee appointed Sheriff George T. Maier managed Stark County sheriff's department) is the main part of the story, perhaps, the SCPR thinks that the Ohio attorney general's office should be asked by the Stark County prosecutor's office and or the Stark County commissioners to investigate a complaint that Conley says he will file with Sheriff Maier about his client's treatment.

Interesting also will be the reaction of Maier himself.

Stark Countians should watch very carefully the reaction of a man who wants Stark County voters to vote him in as Stark County sheriff in November of this year.

IS THE BALAS-BRATTON CHALLENGE TO GEORGE MAIER AT STARK BOE REVERBERATING TO THE MAKE-UP OF THE BOARD IN TERMS OF THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD?

Yesterday, Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) Democratic member Deametrious St. John was quoted as having - in effect - made up his mind on an issue now before the Board for the its decision.

And Protester Balas-Bratton's attorney jumped right on St. John's  - perhaps - injudicious remarks, to wit:

With reference to my February 12, 2014 request for Board Member St. John's abstention from voting or otherwise participating in this Board's not-yet-set Protest hearing, I respectfully refer you to today's Repository wherein Mr. St. John unequivocally stated "I've always believed that he [Maier] met the qualifications."

Indeed, The Repository, at page A-7, appropriately labeled that statement as "PRO-MAIER" and noted that Board Member St. John was the "ONLY ELECTIONS BOARD MEMBER TC OFFER AN OPINION PUBLICLY ON MAIER'S QUALIFICATIONS''.

Obviously, Mr. St. John has already, without the benefit of a hearing, determined and publicly announced that Mr. Maier is statutorily qualified; i.e., Mr. St. John has already decided, pre­hearing, that my client's Protest should be denied (and never mind any due process considerations).

That advance determination quite clearly disqualifies Mr. St. John from participating in this Board's upcoming quasi-judicial proceed­ing; and, if Mr. St. John does not agree, this Board should decide the issue for him; and, if this Board does not do so, my client will file suit to have the Court decide that issue for him. (emphasis added by the SCPR)

Please immediately advise, as time is obviously of the essence here. (emphasis added by SCPR)

One would think that St. John by the time he was interviewed by the press, had to know that he had been challenged by Balas-Bratton on his ability to render a fair and impartial decision as one of four Board members who have to vote individually for the Board to come to a collective decision of whether or not Maier is Board certifiable as a "qualified" candidate for sheriff under the statutory law of Ohio.

The Balas-Bratton challenge letter was sent to the BOE on the day before yesterday (February 12th), to wit:

It is well established that it constitutes a denial of due process whenever a quasi-judicial tribunal is biased. (See, e.g., Jennings v. Xenia Twp- Bd. of Zoning Appeals (2^nd Dist.), 2007-Ohio-235.)

In short, "due process entitles an individual in an administrative proceeding to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal". [North Coast Payphones, Inc. v. City of Cleveland (8th Dist), 2007-Ohio-68414 at ... 23.)

Accordingly, my client, the instant Protestor, respectfully requests, for the reasons set forth here in below, that Board member Deametrious St. John abstain from voting on the Protest issue at hand and that he otherwise abstain from any participation whatsoever in this Board's hearing deliberations.

In that regard, it is more than merely "noteworthy" that Mr. St. John, as a DCC Member, voted twice to appoint Mr. Maier Stark County Sheriff, which of course means that Mr. St. John has already twice determined that Mr. Maier met the same O.R.C. 311.01(B) statutory qualifications now at issue before this Board.

In fact, prior to Mr. Maier's first DCC appointment, Mr. St. John signed a letter (on Mr. Maier's personal stationery) to his fellow DCC Members urging them to join "in supporting the most qualified person to serve as Stark County Sheriff . . . George Maier". ... [SCPR note:  see referred to signature in graphic below]

Clearly, this request should forthwith be granted voluntarily, without the need for judicial intervention - but if it is not, my client will timely seek appropriate judicial redress.

Please immediately advise, as time is obviously of the essence here.   (emphasis added by SCPR)

Perhaps, St. John should have talked with legal counsel before agreeing to talk with the media.

But on second thought, what would have been the point of it?

He had already "let the horse out of the barn" on his "being star-struck" with the "spit and polish" George T. Maier with his February 5th and December 11th (2013) votes for Maier over Lou Darrow.  Before the first vote, he was a signatory to a Maier generated "please appoint me" campaign letter.  A letter - by the collection of signatories - which shows St. John to be among the "elite" of the Stark County Democratic Party leadership group.

On January 31st, Chairman Gonzalez of the Stark Dems sent out a letter announcing that the Democratic executive committee will be meeting this Saturday, to wit:

And, interestingly enough, on the agenda is:  "Appointments to the Board of Elections."

An obvious reason for the agenda item is that St. John was appointed by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (March 26, 2013) to fill out the term (on the recommendation of the Stark County Democratic Party Executive Committee [SCDP-EC] [February 20, 2013]) of Canton Municipal Court clerk of courts Phil Giavasis set to expire on February 28th of this year.

St. John is the first African-American to have served on the Stark County Board of Elections.  He is also executive vice president of the Stark County Democratic Party.

The Report thinks it is likely that the Dems will re-appoint St. John tomorrow.

However, one has to wonder whether or not he has subjected himself to a rethink by the "powers that be" within the Stark County Democratic Party hierarchy with his "I have made up my mind on Maier" ditty and thereby prompting the Balas-Bratton challenge.

Not that they don't appreciate his public expressions of devotion "to the George Maier cause," but what good is he to them if he is forced off and the Republicans are left with a 2 to 1 advantage?

Maybe St. John should be asked to step aside for now, they may be asking themselves.

There is a rumble or two that a replacement is being talked about.

But The Report is told that the hearing on the Maier protest could be over and done with by the 28th.

And, what's more, even if St. John were to be replaced, the official appointment is done by the secretary of state who took about 30 days to validate the SCDP-EX recommendation when St. John got the committee's blessing about a year ago.

So it would appear to achieve nothing for the Dems to replace St. John if having someone else in place on the Maier protest is the objective.

The time simply is not there to achieve such a purpose.

That's why the SCPR is skeptical that he will be replaced on Saturday.

With Balas-Bratton's attorney challenging his ability (in light of his extra-Board of Elections statements and actions) to perform a Board member's quasi-judicial role of not making a decision until the evidence is in and the arguments have been made on whether or not George T. Maier qualifies under O.R.C Section 311.01 to be a county sheriff, St. John is in a tough spot.

Does he bull his way through (in the manner of his political mentors) and in effect tell Conley to "go stuff it where the sun doesn't shine" and that he will stay on "the protest matter" notwithstanding Balas-Bratton's objection or does he take Conley sage prodding and step aside just for this matter?

Conley's demand only pertains to the George T. Maier matter.

Look at the latest letter sent by Balas-Bratton's attorney to the Board late yesterday: 

As to my prior correspondence to you regarding Board Member St. John, I want to make it clear that I am not asserting any miscon­duct by him under O.R.C. 3501.16 (entitled "Removal from office").

I also am not urging the County Democratic Executive Committee to refrain from re-appointing Mr. St. John at the expiration of his current term-Indeed, by all accounts Mr. St. John is a man of good character who has faithfully performed all of his statutory duties as a Member of your Board; and, although it is not my "call", I believe his party should, at the appropriate time, support his re-appointment and attendant continued service on your Board.

In short, my request of Mr. St. John and/or of this Board (and/or, if need be, of the Court) is quite limited in scope; i.e., that request is that he, [St. John] for the reasons previously stated, and in the interest of assuring due process to both my client and to Mr. Maier, abstain from any vote or participation in "adjudicating" the instant Protest.  (emphasis added by SCPR)

Saturday's SCDP-EC meeting could be a big nothing or it might turn into something quite different.

To repeat, The Report thinks it will be the former rather than the latter.

But life is full of surprises, no?

PITCHES THAT GEORGE T. MAIER COULD NOT HIT?

 SUPPLEMENTAL UPDATE:  10:05 AM

CONLEY ADMONISHES BOARD OF ELECTIONS TO KEEP THE POLITICAL LOBBYING OUT OF BOARD'S PROTEST CONSIDERATION

Craig T. Conley Co. LPA

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW

...

February 12, 2014

VIA FACSIMILE (1 PAGE TO 330/451-7000) ONLY

TO: Stark County Board of Elections

FROM: Craig T. Conley, Esq.

RE: Cynthia Balas-Bratton's Protest Against Maier Candidacy

As to the above-referenced Protest, if it has not already occurred, I suspect you will very, shortly be heavily "lobbied" by.both "pro-Maier" and "anti-Maier" factions.

Because you are herein acting as a quasi-judicial body, you are, as a matter of law, required to disregard and reject such "lobby" efforts and to make your decision only upon hearing, without theretofore engaging in any ex parte communications and without any pre-hearing deliberations between cr among yourselves, both directly and, in "round robin" fashion, indirectly.

Or. a related topic, please consider this memo a request for your Board's timely issuance of hearing appearance subpoenas to Mr.-Maier and to Harrison County Sheriff, Ronald J. Myers.

In that regard, I respectfully suggest Mr. Maier should be served that subpoena at his home address of 331 Oakcrest Lane N.E., Massillon, Ohio 44646; and Sheriff Myers should be served at his office address, of 114 Court Street, Cadiz, Ohio. 43907.

... .
ORIGINAL BLOG

UPDATED:  09:10 AM

Whomever is giving "political" advice to George T. Maier ought to go hide his/her head.

Could be a her, but the SCPR doubts it.

And it could be a "their heads."  Which the SCPR thinks is the most likely thing going on.

The Report has a pretty good idea of the identities of the not-so-sage George T. Maier political advisers.

Those people, The Report believes, are "political bully types" who think that everybody wilts in their presence.

The SCPR thinks that political trials and tribulations of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointee (for a second time) as Stark County sheriff are owing to "major" miscalculations made by his key political cognoscenti.

Strike One!

Massillonian John Ferrero's "curve ball" humpbacks by the would-be sheriff's bat.

None of George's political "inside baseball" groupies figured that Stark County's prosecutor and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman would throw a "curve ball" his way.

As George Maier came to the plate, he had to think he had "all his ducks (err softballs) all in a row" and he was ready "to hit them out of the park!"

But then came along John with his "affidavit of disqualification," and lo and behold! Maier's whiffs on it - Strike One!

Well, the Maier politicos had to say to themselves, any other pitches thrown George's way will be "true" softballs.

Nobody figured the "I'm on my way to Florida" interim Sheriff Tim Swanson would be into staying in touch with 10 below temperatures and throwing another "unhittable" baseball the appointed sheriff's way.

But they figured wrong.

Tim with his "quo warranto" pitch threw the "slider" of his life at "Casey George-at-the-bat" and lo and behold another whiff.

Now this is getting to be serious stuff.

Strike Two!!

Out of the batter's box (ousted November 6, 2013 - Swanson v. Maier - by the Ohio Supreme Court), Maier regroups and another try.

Re-appointed on December 11th, Maier pulls himself together for one final swing.

Will it be a third whiff or a home run?

Up steps another fellow Massillonian to make a pitch.

Oh! A lady?  With all due respect to women, this has got to be a pitch that Maier can handle, no?

Think again.

Cindy Balas-Bratton shocks them all with a Bob Feller-esque fastball that zooms right by the desperately swinging bat of the former Ohio Highway patrolman.

Steeeeeerrriiike Three!!!

George Maier is out, so the SCPR thinks.

As The Report has been writing for a number of days now, Massillon Ward 2A Democrat Cynthia Balas-Bratton may prove to be the political shock of their lives for the close-in political gurus who are guiding George T. Maier through the Stark County Democratic Party political thicket.

She was there on February 5, 2013 (the first appointment of Maier) and raising her voice in opposition to him only to be (in the opinion of the SCPR) cast aside with contempt and dismissiveness (as the SCPR believes Ferrero and Swanson were) by Maier pal and political ally Randy Gonzalez who chaired the meeting.

As if that were not enough, Ferrero, Swanson and Balas-Bratton were "steam-rollered" again on December 11th.

But she may, in the filing of her protest yesterday,  be in line to have "the last laugh" on Chairman Randy and other Stark politicos who appear to smugly think they are "head and shoulders" above the "Balas-Brattons of the world.  One has to wonder whether or not The Gonzalez crowd have ever heard of the biblical injunction that "pride goeth before a fall?"

With the 4:17 PM, February 11, 2014 filing, Balas-Bratton may have set into motion a process which might result in George T. Maier not being certified to be "the" Democratic Party candidate for Stark County sheriff come the elections of 2014.

If that happens, it appears to The Report that Republican Larry Dordea is in line to have an uncontested pathway to becoming Stark's first Republican sheriff in 20 years.

Those 101 Democrats who supported Gonzalez et al will then be real pleased with themselves that they followed this political "Pied Piper" over the clift into political oblivion.

And Stark Countians, in general, will have - because of Stark County Democratic Party leadership political arrogance - been deprived of having a choice in November's election.

Gonzalez and friends should be pleased with themselves, no?

On to the Balas-Bratton protest:

THE PROTEST PROCESS (From extracted portions of O.R.C. 3513.05:

• Protests against the candidacy of any person filing a declaration of candidacy for party nomination or for election to an office or position, as provided in this section, 
• may be filed by any qualified elector who is a member of the same political party as the candidate and who is eligible to vote at the primary election for the candidate whose declaration of candidacy the elector objects to, ...
• The protest shall be in writing, and shall be filed not later than four p.m. of the seventy-fourth day before the day of the primary election. (February 21, 2014)
• The protest shall be filed with the election officials with whom the declaration of candidacy and petition was filed. 
• Upon the filing of the protest, the election officials with whom it is filed shall:
• promptly fix the time for hearing it, and 
• shall forthwith mail notice of the filing of the protest and the time fixed for hearing to the person whose candidacy is so protested

KEY POINTS OF THE BALAS-BRATTON ARGUMENT:

• "As a threshold matter, it is respectfully suggested that: Usurper Maier' s candidacy here is barred by operation of O.R.C. 2733.14, entitled "Judgment when office, franchise, or privilege is usurped" and which provides, in pertinent part:, that "When a defendant in an action in quo warranto is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising an office, franchise, or privilege, judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom, . . ." (emphasis added by SCPR)

• 2733.14 Judgment when office, franchise, or privilege is usurped.

  When a defendant in an action in quo warranto is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising an office, franchise, or privilege, judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom, and that the relator recover his costs.  Effective Date: 10-01-1953 

• Protestor asserts that, following the Ohio Supreme Court's issuance of its aforesaid Opinion on November 6, 2013 [Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, filed February 12, 2013], Maier remains unqualified under O.R.C. 311.01 (B) (8) (a) because his subsequent attempt to "cure" same  was a sham, which should not be recognized by this Board (emphasis added by SCPR] 
• 311(B)(8) The person meets at least one of the following conditions:
• (a) Has obtained or held, within the four-year period ending immediately prior to the qualification date, a valid basic peace officer certificate of training issued by the Ohio peace officer training commission  ... .
• Balas-Bratton contends that Maier's employment in Harrison County (weekend in January, 2013 and from November 6, 2013 through December 5, 2013) by Maier's "good friend forever" (Sheriff Ronald J. Myers) was "a sham" in that there is no evidence:
• was ever advertised
• that Maier joined the Union inasmuch as Harrison County deputies are unionized, and that:
• Maier correspondence indicates that the job was "designed solely for his own self-serving political advancement purposes."
  

• ... it appears that Maier, while purportedly employed by the Harrison County Sheriff, obtained Democratic Party appointment (the second time) to his current position as Stark County Sheriff by and through blatant and repeated violations of O.R.C. 124.57 ... (emphasis added by SCPR)

• 124.57 Prohibition against partisan political activity.

  
  (A) No officer or employee in the classified service of ... of the several counties, ... shall directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, solicit or receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving, any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political party or for any candidate for public office; nor shall any person solicit directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting, any such assessment, contribution, or payment from any officer or employee in the classified service ... .
• See the specifics of alleged violations of O.R.C. in Tuesday's SCPR (LINK),
• O.R.C. 311.01(B)(9) requires that a candidate for County Sheriff must have either (a) "at least two years of supervisory-experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above . . . in the five-year period immediately prior to the qualification date" or must have (b) "completed satisfactorily at least two years of post-secondary education or the equivalent [thereof] . . .  . (emphasis added by SCPR)
• To sum up the Bratton-Balas argument on these points, she says:
• Maier's employment at Ohio Department of Highway Safety (ODHS) ( May 21, 2007 through January 11, 2011) is not the equivalent of "corporal or above," or alternatively that
• said employment (even if deemed to be "at corporal or above" was not for the required two years during the "going back" five years (February 4, 2009 through February 4, 2014) in that he served at ODHS from February 4, 2009 through January 11, 2011 which amounts to 23 months and "a few days" which is short of Ohio law required 24 consecutive months which means that any time outside the 24 month "consecutive months" does not count.
• Maier has never qualified on the two years post-secondary avenue witness an affidavit submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court by a Stark State College official
• As to peace officers, O.R.C. 109.741 requires "the training of peace officers in the handling of missing children, missing persons, and child abuse and neglect cases"; O.R.C. 109.742 requires  the training of peace officers in crisis intervention"; and O.R.C. 109.744 requires "the training of peace officers in the handling of the offense of domestic violence, other types of domestic violence-related offenses and incidents, and protection orders  and consent  agreements".
• In short, if Maier has not heretofore filed documentary evidence with the Administrative Judge of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas (and thereafter with this Board) evincing his aforesaid non-OPOTA training, it is respectfully suggested that such a failure provides further support for this Protest and another reason to grant same (emphasis added by SCPR)

There you have it folks.

The SCPR thinks Balas-Bratton makes a persuasive legal argument that the BOE should not certify George T. Maier as being qualified and therefore should rule him off the May 6, 2014 Stark County Democratic Party ballot.

Of course, the legal arguments should prevail and, likely will ultimately "tell the tale."

The expectation is that the Stark BOE will deadlock at a 2 to 2 vote along political party lines.

Sam Ferruccio (a lawyer) and Deametrious St. John are the Democrats (believed by the SCPR to be tied to the Maier SCDP faction) on the Board.

William S. Cline (a lawyer) and Curt Braden (a former Stark County Republican chairman) are the Republicans on the Board.

Ohio law provides for Ohio secretary of state Jon Husted to break a tie.

In a year in which Husted and Republican governor John Kasich are on the ballot, does anyone expect Husted to break for the Maier position?

If so, please send that person to the SCPR.

Do I have a deal for him/her.

For the SCPR sees that either way the BOE rules (presuming a tie with Husted breaking the tie), there will be a court challenge and likely on an direct expedited path to the Ohio Supreme Court for the high court to weigh in once again on a Stark County "right to office" question.

It will - in the end - be the Ohio Supreme Court which rules whether or not George T. Maier strikes out on Balas-Bratton's fastball!

(VIDEO) STARK CO. BOARD OF ELECTIONS (BOE) PROVES, ONCE AGAIN, THAT IT IS NOT CITIZEN FRIENDLY!

BOARD OF ELECTIONS
 MAY BE ON A COURSE

TO MAKE A "MAJOR"

LEGAL MISTAKE

UPDATE 10:31 AM

STARK CO. ASS'T PROSECUTOR
DEBBIE DAWSON
REPSONDS TO SCPR
QUESTION ON
SHERIFF CERTIFICATION

VIDEOS

ENCORE PRESENTATION
COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA
ON
STARK BOE
JOB POSTING
(LAUGH, LAUGH)

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

STARK BOE MEETING

OF

JANUARY 22, 2014

 UPDATED AT: 08:52 AM

Being a White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (WASP), I have not had very many occasions to experience the sting of discrimination in my entire life.

But the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE/Board) has managed to bring that bitter lesson home to this WASP in making it plainly obvious that the Stark County Political Report is not welcome to its meetings.

Derivatively, Braden, Cline, Ferruccio and St. John will be affecting the Stark County public's right to know the "complete" story of what goes on at the Stark BOE.

And, this from an entity of government supported by your tax dollars and my tax dollars.

It all began in February, 2010 as I showed up to a meeting of Stark County Board of Elections meeting with my camera.

William Cline and Curt Braden (the-then Republican members who remain to this day) and Democrat members Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and Samuel Ferruccio, Jr (a remaining member) composed the Board.

Here is a lift from a February 22, 2012 (see May, 2010 blog on the same topic) that explains the historical hostility:

Well, why was the SCPR at this particular [the regular February, 2010 BOE meeting] meeting anyway?

The Report had asked Director Jennette Mullane (an appointee of the Stark County Democratic Party which board member Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., is a former chairman of and who recently hired Mullane's sister to work for him as clerk of courts in Massillon), to place an item on the Board's agenda.

What was the item?

That the Board set up a plan with a timetable to scan in petitions and campaign finance reports as they are filed so that these documents are speedily and readily available to the Stark County Public.

Well, was the matter on the agenda?

No!

So, what did The Report do next?

After the meeting, yours truly asked Mullane about the omission.

Her answer?

The Board would not allow her to place the matter on the public meeting agenda.

So that was complaint #2 filed with the Ohio secretary of state.

Complaint #1?

Board member and Chairman William Cline (Republican of North Canton) denied the SCPR's effort to video-tape the meeting.  No vote was taken of the entire Board.  No.  Cline, unilaterally makes the decision. But after having to delay the meeting's start to have a private tete-a-tete with board member Maier.

Hmm?

What do you suppose that little confab might have been about?

While the discussion with The Report and Cline was going on, member Maier (in a sub voice) set upon disparaging blogs and the audacity of a blogger to be expected to be treated on a par with the likes of The Repository (which did have a reporter present).

The SCPR understands Maier's disdain for blogging because for him blogging appears to be a partisan political weapon; not the equal opportunity incisive critic that the SCPR is.

While Stark Politics was still up and running, Maier and his  Stark County Democratic Party political director Shane Jackson (who is Maier's chief deputy at the clerk of courts office) were going bananas over the blogs attacking Democrats and a scant few Republicans who were less extreme than the anonymous Stark Politics blogger..

They wanted yours truly to do a countervailing blog.

What an insult!

But Maier is, in the opinion of The Report, a master of political insult and arrogance.

Of course, the rest is history.  Not only did yours truly reject the request, but went totally the opposite and put together the SCPR to put both Republican and Democrat officeholders and candidates under intense scrutiny.

Mutual acquaintances have fed back to The Report that Maier has been known to go into spasm with some of the political critiques appearing in the SCPR.

Earlier this month a rather hilarious exchange between took place between Stark County commissioner Richard Regula on the occasion of BOE executive director Jeff Matthews (a target of quite of few SCPR blogs) presented the 2014 BOE budget request (all of which - to make the BOE/taxpayer tie once again to the bigs at the BOE - is funded with Stark County taxpayer dollars).

Here is a repeat from that blog so that readers can fully understand the BOE pique at the SCPR.

One of the things that the Bernabei, Creighton and Richard Regula of the Stark Board of County commissioners zero in on in the course of budget hearings are new hires and the year-to-year salary increases that Stark County departments of government hand out to their employees.

In the course of the back and forth between the commissioners and Director Matthews was Matthews' revelation that the BOE 2014 budget included the hiring of four additional employees in the year 2014.

Here is Richard Regula with his questions and Matthews' answer.

What a hoot! - no?

Not only the Stark County Board of Elections but any Ohio Board of Elections posting job listings for the taxpaying general public citizenry to apply for prompts a  "you have to be kidding!"

The public perception is that these jobs only go to the politically connected, plain and simple.

To say it again:  "job posting"  by a Board of Elections.

 Laugh, laugh, laugh and laugh some more!  Ha!, Ha!, Ha!

The SCPR thinks that Matthews stumbled and bumbled all over the place answering Regula's question and the latter revealed (as least that is what The Report thinks) that three of the four "non-posted" to the public have already been hired, subject to official BOE approval.

It is irony upon irony that each of Ohio's 88 counties have a department of government that is all about citizens having a choice (called elections) run by unelected, politically appointed folks who only have to account to the county Democratic and Republican party chairmen. 

Hmm?

One more sharing of the "very special history" between the SCPR and various members of the BOE.

From a February 26, 2010 blog:

In late 2009 or early 2010, BOE member Curt Braden had traveled to Columbus on official BOE business and "lo and behold" where does he spend over night?

You've got it!

At one of Columbus' most posh hotel and, of course, at Stark County taxpayer expense.

While the SCPR understands that public officials do not necessarily concern themselves with being frugal with your tax dollars and my tax dollars, one would think that a guy like Braden would at least take care to get the very best rates at one of Columbus' finest hotel, no?

Not on your life.

"Who cares," he must have said to himself.

Consequently, he signed up for a room at $144.00 a night whereas if he had gotten prior Stark County government approval - as he is required to do according "to the rules," the rate would have been $80.00 per night.

So while Braden and his fellows are careful to rein in the Stark County Political Report with rules, he is not so careful about himself nor with our taxpayer dollars.

SCPR rules?

Yes at Tuesday's meeting, Director Matthews told me (seated in the first row in order to get the best picture of "our Stark County Board of Election members in action) that "the rules" did not allow me to sit in the front row (where nobody but a Repository reporter was seated) but that I would at least have to remove to the second row and once seated "was not to move about."

While my experience is in no way, shape or form the equivalent of that experienced - even in 2014 America by African Americans and other minorities - the Matthews' (Board supported) rebuke caused me to reflect just a little as a WASP what it must feel like to experience somebody's prejudice.

After Tuesday's meeting, I was told by one in the room that "the Board"  [Cline, Braden, Ferruccio and St. John) obviously does not like you.

I hope that St. John (an African-American) - if he does not like me and the work of the SCPR - will disassociate himself from the discriminatory work of he fellow BOE members.  For it would be a bit hypocritical of him to take offense about African-Ameriocans are treated but not care about bloggers and the obvious put-down that I experienced by Maier (back in February, 2010) and the entire BOE in the fashioning of the discriminatory rules in favor of the mainstream press.

Now to the reason why I attended the January, 2014 BOE meeting.

First, to see Matthews' explain to the Board how he/Mullane (the Democrat deputy BOE director) labored long and hard to screen from among many, many applications the hopefully received for some of the best - if not the absolute "best" - paying Stark County government entry level jobs ($32,000 plus about another $10,000 in benefits) in all of Stark County.

Second, to see whether or not the Board dealt in any kind of detail with the necessity of setting a date before February 18th for the Board to meet in order to pass on whether or not those Stark Countians filing partisan petitions (deadline:  February 5th) had done so properly.

Mostly, the review includes making sure that the would-be candidates have obtained the minimum required "registered voter" signatures to be qualified.

However, this year there is a wrinkle to the qualification process.

The 2014 primary ballot will include sheriff candidates.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the BOE has to make a determination of whether or not the sheriff candidates meet the criteria of ORC 311.01 that specifically set out in Ohio law as being mandatory if one is to legally take office as a sheriff.

The Report doubts anyone reading this blog does not know about the fight within the Stark County Democratic Party to appoint a sheriff.  Rather that regurgitate that fight and how George T. Maier got bounced by the Ohio Supreme Court from being sheriff, here is a LINK for readers to get up to speed.

The SCPR hears that there is talk among the lawyer members of the BOE to ignore ORC 311.01 and merely deal with the sufficiency the validty/number of the signatures on the sheriff candidate petitions.

The Report can assure the BOE members that if they go that route, they will face a legal challenge.  Perhaps the should be taking a look at this Ohio Supreme Court case which is an expression of current Ohio law on the matter.

The BOE is truly between "the deep blue sea and the Devil" on this issue.

For if the Board finds Maier to be disqualified, "you can bet your 'bottom dollar' that the Maier forces will be filing litigation.

In viewing the videotape of Tuesday's meeting (posted at the end of this blog), readers can see what transpired in its totality unfiltered by the SCPR.

What more could one ask for?

Particularly noteworthy are the comments of member William Cline that make it clear that the BOE itself was not interested in vetting Matthews/Mullane, to wit:

• about the specifics of how many applications were received, 
• how the general public might have known about the job openings,
• whether or not political affiliation or any other connection (laugh, laugh, laugh Commissioner Regula et al) had anything to do with whom got hired, and
• what were the critical criteria which separated the applicants in the Matthews/Mullane determination of who would be recommended for hire.

Cline's laudatory comments are clear indication to the SCPR through the words of Cline - who is an attorney and clearly knows how to cross-examine - was not interested in showing that the Board had done its "due diligence."

Folks, it is this very blog you are reading and the revelations it contains that has put the SCPR in the category of receiving discriminatory treatment as being a second class citizen compared to the mainstream media representative.

I expect any day to get a call from the bigwigs at The Repository - because of their devotion to the journalistic values of "Sunshine Week" coming up soon - with the message that they are going to weigh-in to insist that I and my blog be treated with respect (which nearly every other public entity/official accords The Report) and "the equal protection of the law."

The Rep bigs uttered nary a word back in February, 2010?

Should I hold my breath on this January 23, 2014 waiting for that call?

Tuesday's meeting video follows:

(VIDEOS) IN BUDGET HEARINGS, COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA ASKS BD OF ELECTIONS' OFFICIALS: "ARE YOU GOING TO POST THOSE FOUR NEW POSITIONS?" WHAT A LAUGH!

UPDATED AT 6:00 PM

VIDEOS

COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA

ASK  BOE OFFICIALS

ARE THE FOUR NEW JOBS GOING TO BE POSTED?

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

COMMISSIONERS CREIGHTON & BERNABEI

DRESS DOWN

BOE OF ELECTIONS OFFICIALS

FOR

BREAKING

2% RAISE GUIDELINES 

One of the best forums from which the Stark County Political Report obtains information about Stark County government operations are the meetings of the Stark County commissioners.

The commissioners are now in the depths of their yearly budget hearings and these hearings, in particular, yield a great deal of information for The Report to repackage into blogs which make Stark Countians some the best informed people about their county, township, village and city governments in the entire country.

Yesterday, representatives (Director Jeff Matthews, Deputy Director Jeanette Mullane, Republican Board Member Curt Braden and Democrat Board Member Sam Ferruccio) of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE') trooped into the the commissioners' meeting room on the second floor of the Stark County Office Building for their time before the commissioners.

One of the things that the Bernabei, Creighton and Richard Regula of the Stark Board of County commissioners zero in on in the course of budget hearings are new hires and the year-to-year salary increases that Stark County departments of government hand out to their employees.

In the course of the back and forth between the commissioners and Director Matthews was Matthews' revelation that the BOE 2014 budget included the hiring of four additional employees in the year 2014.

Here is Richard Regula with his questions and Matthews' answer.



What a hoot! - no?

Not only the Stark County Board of Elections but any Ohio Board of Elections posting job listings for the taxpaying general public citizenry to apply for prompts a  "you have to be kidding!"

The public perception is that these jobs only go to the politically connected, plain and simple.

To say it again:  "job posting"  by a Board of Elections.

 Laugh, laugh, laugh and laugh some more!  Ha!, Ha!, Ha!

The SCPR thinks that Matthews stumbled and bumbled all over the place answering Regula's question and the latter revealed (as least that is what The Report thinks) that three of the four "non-posted" to the public have already been hired, subject to official BOE approval.

It is irony upon irony that each of Ohio's 88 counties have a department of government that is all about citizens having a choice (called elections) run by unelected, politically appointed folks who only have to account to the county Democratic and Republican party chairmen. 

Hmm?

As soon as The Report could get to a computer, an email was fired off to Deputy Director Jeannette Mullane asking follow up questions, to wit:

 

Jeanette,

With respect to the four hires referred to by Matthews in today's budget presentation, I have the following questions:

What are the job titles?

How much is each position to be paid as a starting salary?

With respect to the three hires to be made in January, have the candidate for those jobs been selected subject to the approval of the board?

If so, what are their names.

When is the four hire contemplated to be made?

Thanks,
Martin Olson
SCPR

MULLANE'S INITIAL ANSWER

Jeanette,

With respect to the four hires referred to by Matthews in today's budget presentation, I have the following questions:

What are the job titles?  Clerks

How much is each position to be paid as a starting salary?  $15.60 per hour or $32,459.65 annual

With respect to the three hires to be made in January, have the candidate for those jobs been selected subject to the approval of the board?  The Board hires the employees.

If so, what are their names.

When is the four hire contemplated to be made?  Unknown at this time.

Note that Mullane does not answer "all" the questions posed, to wit:  "If so, what are their names?"

However, the SCPR, if anything, is persistent:

The Report's "reply" attempt to get Mullane to answer "all" the questions posed.

MULLANE'S REPONSE TO THE SCPR'S FOLLOW UP

As you can see, Mullane refuses to respond to the SCPR request for names.

Why do you think that might be?

Hmm?

'Tis a puzzlement, no?

Well, Ms. Mullane, Director Matthews and each and every one of the Stark County Board of Elections can be assured that the SCPR will be at the January 21st meeting to record it all.

Of course the SCPR had to fight (Blog Link) for the right to videotape Stark BOE proceedings (Blog Link).

Courtesy of the work of Stark County commissioners' "second-in-command" administrator Chris Nichols (who obtained the information from the Stark auditor's office), The Report is publishing the current payroll of various departments of government.

Since, today's blog, the Stark County Board of Elections is the topic, below is the payroll as this month.  Of course, next month there will be three additions $32,459.75 (access denied to the general Stark County public courtesy of unelected "highly partisan" public officials) with a fourth to follow soon.

The BOE completely blew off the commissioners on their guidelines of no more than two percent (2%) increases in Stark County departments for 2013.

The chief, Matthews, (chairman of the Stark County Republican Party [an unpaid position] who was making a "mere" $78,708 (plus about $25,000 in benefits) gets a 4.3% increase to reach $80,000.  A nice, neat rounded off number, no?.  And the man apparently includes himself in the category of these "poor employees" the haven't  a raise in 4 or 5 years.

Now that's a convincing argument for a person who in total compensation package is likely well over $100,000 annually all of which is paid by the Stark County taxpayers, isn't it?

And look at Travis Secrest who has dutifully run for a couple "sacrificial lamb" campaigns for the Stark Republicans.  Wow!  From $31,514 to $41,200 (a whooping 30.7% increase) all within one year and he is a person that has not been on the job all that long.  And, again, you can tack on about another $12,000 annually in benefits so that his total taxpayer dollars take is over $50,000 annually.

Not to neglect the Democrats, there is Holly Tichnor who got a 12.7% increase in 2013.

In this video, see Commissioner Janet Creighton and Tom Bernabe take BOE members Republican Curt Braden and Democrat Sam Ferruccio to task for the flagrant BOE disregarding of the commissioners' 2% raise guidelines.



Since members of the BOE; namely Demeatrious St. John,  Sam Ferruccio (the Democrats) and Curt Braden, William Cline (the Republicans) are unelected, the only accountability for elected officials are Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Regula.

Right now the only consequence is "a dressing down by the commissioners" as seen in the video.

Of course, for the likes of St. John, Ferruccio, Braden and Cline, you just "grin and bear it."

For the commissioners' admonitions to mean anything, they are going to have to come up with "real world" consequences for county government entities that in effect tell them that their guidelines mean nothing to them.

We shall see what the commissioners do in devising effective measures to stop the "thumbing of the nose" they are experiencing by the likes of the Stark County Board of Election members.

"BLAME CNN" - STARK BD OF ELECTIONS DIRECTOR JEFF MATTHEWS RESPONSE TO CRITICISM OF STARK BOE BEING "SECOND TO LAST" TO CUYAHOGA CO. IN REPORTING TUESDAY'S ELECTION RESULTS. HMM?

Stark County Board of Elections Director and Stark County Republican Party Chairman Jeff Matthews appears to be taking a cue from Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

By now most folks know that when Gingrich is asked an embarrassing question by the press, Gingrich "jumps for joy" because it is a prime opportunity for him to lambaste the media which plays well with the American public.

Gingrich loves to make himself the victim when asked uncomfortable questions by the national media.

One of Gingrich's most famous blasts at the press occurred in a presidential debate of January 19, 2012 with CNN's John King as moderator asking Gingrich an embarrassing (to Gingrich) question about one of his three marriages.

On Tuesday night (err Wednesday morning at 2:12 AM), the Stark County Board of Elections eked out Cuyahoga County (notorious for leading Ohio boards of elections in snafus and delays) in not gaining the top spot for being the last to report results.

Stark's embarrassing delay was brought to light by CNN's King in covering SuperTuesday election results in an on-air exchange with Wolf Blitzer.

The Rep's Robert Wang in reporting CNN's holding of Stark County up as in the same league with Cleveland and Cuyahoga in terms of inordinate election results reporting delays (Stark second-to-last reporting election results) brought the embarrassment up close and personal to Stark Countians.

Well, Stark County's Matthews had an "indirect" and delayed exchange with King.  As reported by Wang, Matthews said in response to the embarrassment hurled his way:

We’re not here to appease CNN.  We’re here to try to get it right, keeping in mind it is an unofficial count on election night. ... the system is just not conducive to early returns as punch cards were.

While Matthews is correct that he is not on the job to please CNN, he and his deputy and chief Democrat honcho at the BOE, Jeanette Mullane, are in place to please Stark Countians.

However, Matthews, in his response, decided to take a page out of the Gingrich playbook, and deflect the poor performance of the Stark BOE on Tuesday by focusing on defending against the CNN implicit criticism how he managed getting out the election results in a more timely fashion.

Less than 30 days ago, the Stark County commissioners approved a budgetary appropriation hike of some $500,000 so that the Stark BOE who have adequate resources to handle the 2012 presidential year election

Collectively (including benefits), this duo gets paid about $200,000 to conduct thorough, complete, effective and as speedy as possible - consistent with accuracy - elections.

The SCPR believes they can do better on the "speed combined with accuracy" factor.

Board of Election members William Cline (Republican), Curt Braden (Republican), Sam Ferruccio (Democrat) and Phil Giavasis (Democrat) need to examine the processes employed at the Stark BOE and order measures to be taken to improve the Stark timeline.

Moreover, the Ohio Secretary of State (who is charged with overseeing elections across Ohio) Jon Husted needs to take a look from his vantage point and do an apples to apples comparison of Stark with other similarly situated Ohio counties and implement "best practices" already employed in other counties which put them well ahead of Stark in the "report of results timeline."

The Report understands that anomalies will crop up from time-to-time which will cause an undue (from the consumer's perspective) delay because of an unexpected unique problem that materializes.

The disturbing factor about Stark's 2:12 AM Wednesday morning completion time is that there were no anomalies.

At this rate with about 15% of registered Stark Countians voting on Tuesday, come November 6th Stark County will be back in the horse 'n' buggy days of recording and reporting election results.

The prospect of such is unacceptable!

Director Matthews' one upping of  CNN is one thing, but his disregard of Stark Countians and their right to have timely election results is quite another.

It appears to the SCPR that the lack of due diligence and the lack of effective follow up on the part of the Stark BOE management (along with the Lake Township trustees) is a main causative factor as to why the fate of the Lake Township-wide police levy question of last November remains to be resolved by the Ohio Supreme Court.

The likes of the Stark BOE members, the Ohio secretary of state, and other Stark County elected officials should be putting official and peer group pressure on Matthews and Mullane to improve their management and leadership skills.

Perhaps they are in over their collective heads and need to hire an elections expert consultant to help them solve their problem?


For $200,000 a year in top echelon pay and getting a budget bump of $500,000 plus at the expense of other needy Stark County department of government, the SCPR believes that Matthews and Mullane as the Stark County Board of elections leadership are to deliver top notch elections services.

Rather than buck up and admit the obvious and vow to make significant improvement, Matthews chose to sort of blame/castigate in a sarcastic way the messenger for even mentioning it.

Another case in point as a chapter and verse example of many such incidents that fuel everyday citizens harboring increasing cynicism about the commitment and dedication of public officials.

A really helpful contribution towards the cause of facilitating governance, no?

SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!

As readers of the SCPR know, The Report has been pushing for months to get the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) to scan in candidate filed petitions, campaign finance reports and the like as they are filed and make them available to the general public on line instantly.

Yesterday, yours truly stopped by the BOE to get "paper" copies of the "Save Tomorrow" campaign finance report filed April 22nd.  The SCPR has in the works a public accountability project involving campaign contributions made and the disposition of monies flowing to the Northwest schools as a consequence of Northwest voters having approved a 1% earned income tax on May 4th.

This Northwest project will be one of many designed to inform Stark County voters of campaign contributions made to Stark County-based candidates/issue efforts so that voters - perhaps, with a little analytical help from the SCPR - can follow the money trail to whom is influencing whom to come to certain outcomes based on campaign contributions made.

So The Report was expecting to have to wade through the Save Tomorrow campaign finance report and make notes or, alternatively, to have paper copies made.

Lo and behold!  Surprise !  Surprise !! and Surprise!!! again.

The very helpful BOE employee (Christine Jones) astonished The Report with a statement to the effect:  "Mr. Olson, would you like a scanned copy of the Save Tomorrow report on CD-Rom?"

Would the SCPR want a scanned copy of the campaign report?

Of course!!!  In fact, The Report ordered a copy of each and every candidate and political action committee (PAC) campaign finance report on file with the Stark BOE in scanned format.

On the Save Tomorrow campaign finance documents, Ms. Jones went the extra step and e-mailed the report to The Report at her initiative.

While The Report is pleased with the "scanning" advance has been made at the Stark BOE, The Report's job to get them made available online is incomplete.

On further inquiry with Jones, she told yours truly that the documents are not available online and she does not know of any specific plans to place them online to be readily available to the Stark County public.

As happy as The Report is to have CD Rom access, yours truly is saddened that the leadership of the Stark BOE has been uncommunicative to the SCPR on the fact that the scanning has been underway.

But The Report is not surprised by the "mum is the word" posture of the Stark BOE leadership and yours truly.

As reported by The Repository this week, the Stark BOE (meaning the board members themselves) stopped the SCPR from videotaping a February, 2010 meeting in seeming contravention of Ohio's sunshine law.

Apparently, wiser counsels prevailed at the Stark BOE and now The Report or any other Stark County citizen can video tape a BOE meeting as long as they comply with guidelines recently published by the BOE.

Even though the SCPR has communicated (via email) with the director of the Stark BOE on the "draft" regulations on videotaping, The Report only learned about the promulgation of the regs through the above-referenced Repository article.  Hmm?

Accordingly, it is no surprise, despite a number of face-to-face and email communications on the topic with Director Mullane. that the SCPR was not informed (via follow up email) of the availability of scanned-in campaign finance reports.

The SCPR has been highly critical of the four politically member board for their cavalier way in dealing with yours truly on the videotaping issue and on the scanning issue  (i.e. refusing to put a SCPR request for discussion of BOE scanning plans on its agenda).

Two of the members (Maier and Braden) and the former director, now deputy Drector Jeff Matthews (in their varying other Stark County political and/or elective capacities) have been the subject of a number of SCPR blogs.

Could it be that the "find out about it the best way you can, Olson" attitude perceived by yours truly as emanating from the BOE leadership is comeuppance for The Report's incisive blogging on these various personages in their public capacities and, indeed, on the operations of the BOE itself?