PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO: HIS RE-ELECTION HANGING IN THE BALANCE?

Is he about to cry for Stark County and the safety of Stark Countians or is he on the cusp of tears because he sees his career as Stark County prosecutor coming to an end?

On Saturday last, Laurie Huffman of The Alliance Review did an article (Stark criminal justice officials worry about reduction in prisons) and she wrote, in part:

Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero said he was brought almost to tears at a recent meeting of the executive committee of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorney Association, of which he is secretary, due to the fact all the county prosecutors at the meeting were complaining about the cost the bill [HB 86 is due to go into effect on September 30th] will bring to their counties, and he believes Stark will feel the brunt the most. (emphasis added).

Pardon the SCPR, but The Report is skeptical that Ferrero's first priority is something other than his own political hide.  Ditto that for Mike McDonald in terms of political fortunes.

As former chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party, The Report believes that Ferrero is more attuned to political considerations and specifically his own perpetuity as a Stark County officeholder.

Ferrero's political problems in getting re-elected in November, 2012 are manifold.  Ohio House Bill 86 (HB86) ramifications is but one of a number of hurdles facing Ferrero to remain Stark County prosecutor after December 31, 2012.

While the impact of HB86 and a negative public reaction to its implementation may spill over onto Ferrero and Chief Deputy (the Stark County Jail) Mike McDonald (who is running to succeed Tim Swanson as sheriff) both of whom will be in the midst of political campaigns in 2012; the SCPR finds it hard to believe that the Ohio General Assembly did not factor in "the public safety" in passing the bill.

If the passage of the bill is to have the dire consequences (released non-violent prisoners from state prisons (?) and limited ability to place the newly convicted in state prisons) that they say it has, the SCPR wants to know where Ferrero and McDonald were post-February, 2011 (when the bill was introduced) in publicizing the catastrophe about to fall on Stark County, and marshaling Stark County's leadership and citizenry to fight its passage.

Moreover, where was the Ferrero/McDonald full court press on local legislators "to kill the bill?"

The fact of the matter is that all of Stark connected legislators (Republicans and Democrats alike) voted for the bill.

Would Hagan, Oleslager, Schuring, Slesnick, Okey and Schiavoni vote for a bill that is as ominous in effect as McDonald and Ferrero suggest?

One wouldn't think so.

It appears that Ferrero and McDonald are attempting to get out in front of the implementation impact of HB86 in a "scare-tactic" sense and thereby seek to make political capital out of it.  November's 1/2% proposed sales tax increase is included "hand-in-glove fashion" in Huffman's piece.  Linkage of HB86 and the effort to pass the sales tax could not be clearer.

They may find that such a tactic might backfire on them when the public learns that they failed to make a huge "local" public fight on HB86 going back to February of this year when it was first introduced.

Moreover, - looking longer term - the belated HB86 alarm could be an attempt by Ferrero especially to divert the Stark County public's attention from other political problems he has in gaining re-election.

Exactly, what are some of those "other political problems?"

At least one of those problems is wrapped up in what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has termed "Zeiglergate" which presumably means that Zeigler failed to have in place policies, practices, procedures and structural fixes to have prevented the loss of $2.96 million of taxpayer money during Zeigler's administration of the Stark treasury.  Zeigler's chief deputy Vince Frustaci admitted to taking $2.46 and is thought to have taken the entire missing amount.

One would think that given the political relationship between Ferrero and Zeigler going back into the 1990s, an opponent might want to question whether or not Ferrero should have recused his office from any role in the investigation or in any other part of proceedings against Zeigler.

Ferrero was the Stark County Democratic Party chairman when Zeigler was appointed to replace Mark Roach who was removed as county treasurer for not keeping up his continuing education requirements.

Undoubtedly Ferrero has contributed to Zeigler's campaigns over the years and vice versa,

Ferrero ran for office in 2004 as part of a Swanson, Zeigler and Ferrero campaign until differences crept into the arrangement.

Are Stark County's voters going to think that recusal was in order and factor Ferrero's failure to recuse into their voting decision?

The SCPR believes, like Stark County Auditor Alan Harold and Stark County Commissioner Janet Creighton, that Stark Countians in general have wanted and continue to want Zeigler to be treasurer no more.

However, Prosecutor Ferrero has not been up to the task of finding a basis in law for removing Zeigler.

His office provided Zeigler removal legal advice to Stark commissioners to proceed under Ohio Revised Code Section 327.38 which the Ohio Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional "on its face" in its June 23rd decision reinstating Zeigler as county treasurer.

The Report believes that Zeigler's continuation in office in not a good thing for the re-election prospects of Ferrero from the Stark County voter perspective.

Ferrero also faces the prospects of substantial 2012 reduction in office funding if the commissioners 1/2% sales/tax initiative fails this November 8th which the SCPR thinks is likely.

Ferrero has said that the projected cuts will severely affect his office's ability to function at anywhere near the level the office currently operates at.

So are Stark County's voters going to be understanding when Ferrero has to announce cuts to professional staff that necessitate curtailment of essential prosecutorial functions?    Will projected cuts coalesce with HB86 impact to snowball on Ferrero to put him in an untenable political position?

Apparently, Ferrero realizes that he has a uphill fight to stay county prosecutor in the 2012 elections IF Stark's organized Republicans can come up with a viable candidate.  Make no mistake about it, notwithstanding Ferrero's manifold political problems, his defeat in 2012 is not an automatic.

And Ferrero, with McDonald's help (of course, helping himself), is in full fledged mode to preempt the political consequences of HB86 and a seemingly likely voter rejected sales tax increase.

Sorry to say, but as the SCPR sees it, Ferrero's dramatics ("brought almost to tears") is more about his concerns for his personal political fate than it is about the safety of Stark Countians.

While they may not be "crocodile tears," they are - in the opinion of the SCPR - a mask for his number one concern; getting re-elected!

STARK CO. PROSECUTOR FERRERO CASTIGATES ATTORNEY CRAIG T. CONLEY ON CONLEY'S PRO BONO WORK TO RECOVER MISSING STARK TREASURY MONEY FROM TREASURER ZEIGLER. WILL HE FOLLOW IT UP WITH A DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINT? WILL CONLEY FILE ON FERRERO?

First of all, a disclaimer:  Yours truly is writing as an opinion journalist and not as an attorney.

The disclaimer is for the benefit of Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero who in January, 2010 filed a disciplinary complaint against yours truly on the basis of work done by the Stark County Political Report (as an opinion journalist) critiquing his office's handling of the Marlboro Police Chief Ron Devies' and son Kyle's case which ended in a dismissal at the conclusion of the State's (Ferrero's office as prosecutor) case.

The complaint was dismissed out-of-hand by the Ohio Supreme Court's Disciplinary Counsel.

As for the Devies case dismissal; they are very rare indeed.  The defense, superbly represented by Jeff Jakimedes (Kyle Devies) and Richard Reinbold (Ron Devies), did not have to put on any part of their case.
The Report was not surprised in the least at the result and predicted something along the lines what materialized all along.  Stark County Common Pleas Judge Lee Sinclair in dismissing the case advanced the cause of justice.

Second, it is now time to consider the Ferrero's "in the newspaper" upbraiding of public interest attorney (pro bono - for the public good)  Craig T. Conley who represents Bethlehem Township resident Tom Marcelli (standing in for the Stark County taxpayers) for costing taxpayers money in his filing of a lawsuit against Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler claiming, in its essence, that Zeigler is "strictly" liable (meaning that Conley does not have to prove negligence on Zeigler's part) for losses of nearly $3 million during Zeigler's time in office.

Upbraiding?

Yes, that's the SCPR take on this quote of Ferrero in today's Repository, to wit: (as reported by Shane Hoover, Zeigler lawsuit agreement falls apart," to wit:

The prosecutor bristled at Conley's putting pressure on commissioners to pursue the case now, saying that Conley already has done enough in costing the county for Zeigler's defense in the pending case.

Well, apparently Attorney Conley is not taking Ferrero's word for it as to his (Conley's) actions "costing the county for Zeigler's defense in pending the case."

Conley has provided the SCPR with a copy of a public records request he has made on the Stark County prosecutor's office for records which document Ferrero's claim to The Repository (see the actual request below).

The SCPR is not surprised at all by Ferrero's "brist[ling]" as reported in The Repository.   The Report has gotten a number of accounts from law enforcement and Stark County political figures to the effect that Ferrero has a difficult time dealing with the words or actions of others which he finds disagreeable.

One was when he reportedly had an outburst at a political gathering when a discussion about former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr's asking long time Stark County Board of Elections member Billy Sherer to step aside from the board in favor of Attorney Sam Ferruccio.

Other outbursts by Ferrero are said to have happened at the Stark County Police Chiefs Association (SCPCA) when discussions were underway about whether or not the SCPCA would support the retention of the "imposed" 0.50 of one percent sales tax as done by Commissioners Bosley, Harmon and Vignos in December, 2008.

The Report has gotten feedback that Ferrero has been less than complimentary (to be euphemistic about it ) about the opinion analysis done by yours truly on various Ferrero activities in and about Stark County. 

Now this outburst on Conley.

Conley has been critical of Ferrero's delay in getting moving against Zeigler because he is concerned that taxpayers will lose their priority on any Zeigler-held assets if there is a judgment against Zeigler.

It seems to the SCPR that John Ferrero thinks only he can criticize.  But nobody had better criticize him.

The Stark County Political Report views Craig Conley as an honorable, courageous man who does more "pro bono" work than most, if not all, Stark County attorneys. 

Now that Conley appears to be in a Ronald Reagan-esque "trust, but verify" modality, what will be Ferrero's action?

Will there be more outbursts?

In a little over two years, John Ferrero will have to run for re-election. The SCPR urges members of the Stark County bar to start mulling over who will oppose him for re-election.  Last time, thanks to Stark County Republican Party chair Jeff Matthews; Ferrero ran unopposed.

A very good curative for the likes of John Ferrero is for them to experience a good stiff dose of political competition.

Will Jeff Matthews blow it again?

Here in the full Conley records request.