SCPR'S CONTINUING FINANCIAL REVIEW OF STARK CO. DEPTS OF GOV'T: STARK CO. RECORDER

UPDATED:  07:35 AM

On September 13, 2013, the Stark County Political Report started a blog series (Link:  the commissioners' office report) devoted to analyzing how well the Stark County commissioners are doing in controlling the infusion of some $22 million in new revenues into county government.

 As stated in that report:

One of the major headaches in being a Stark County commissioner is getting Stark County departments of governments to "hold the line" and not "rush out" to spend the "newly available" money provided as a consequence of Stark Countians having voted in a 0.5% sales tax increase in November, 2011.

The SCPR grade for the commissioners themselves?

While the commissioners did hold themselves to their own standard that there should be no pay increases beyond 2%, they did (unnecessarily, in the view of The Report) have an office expense increase for additional employees of 22% over their 2012 budget.

The Report questions the commissioners having hired (on a contract basis, capped at $65,000) former prosecutor David Bridenstine to assist them in contract negotiations.

As I see it, this service should be provided by Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero.

Apparently, the commissioners feel that there is no one on Ferrero's legal staff that can handle the work that Bridenstine did for them (prior to his recent retirement).

So they let Ferrero apply Bridenstine's salary for "other" purposes?  Meaning "other than the commissioners" purposes. 

While it is clear to the SCPR that the commissioners did need and were justified in bringing on additional administrative employees, The Report thinks they did not need to bring on a high-wage-level-positon (i.e. Chris Nichols ultimately at $70,000 per year).

When they hired Brant Luther as Mike Hanke's replacement as chief county administrator; they brought him on at $85,000 (after his probationary period) which is a $7,000 increase over Hanke or a 9% annual increase.

If the commissioners get a C- with a note that the SCPR does not think garnering a C- they are leading by example, just take a look at what Stark County recorder Rick Campbell is doing in 2013 compared to 2012 in terms of an increase.

To my surprise, Campbell did limit - for the most part - pay increases from 2012 to 2013 to the commissioners' recommended 2% except for employee Dave Irwin who Campbell shifted from being a deputy recorder to the microfilming division of the office.

Campbell is on record as believing that the employees should have been given a 3% raise.  It is a credit to him that he heeded the commissioners' plea that department heads limit themselves to giving 2% increases "across-the-board" as "a show of good faith" with Stark County voters and taxpayers.

However, it is obvious that Irwin did get a promotion from being a deputy recorder at $27,851 to being an assistant supervisor in the microfilming section of the recorders office at $33,500 which is a whopping 17% increase.

Irwin by the way is running for Massillon City Council in Ward 2 against incumbent Republican Nancy Halter.

He is thought to be a Johnnie A. Maier, Jr man (Maier, a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman and now Massillon clerk of courts) in the battle between warring Massillon political groups (including the three Democratic Party factions [Cicchinelli, Ferrero and Maier]) for control of Massllon's council.

Why would Irwin be thought to be a Maier-man?

Likely because of his connection to Campbell.

Campbell is a long time political associate of Maier.

Maier's chief deputy is Shane Jackson who is the brother of Campbell's wife Lisa who formerly worked for Campbell (before they married) and now works as the chief administrator for Plain Township. 

Shane is the political director for the Stark County Democratic Party and Maier's chief deputy in the Massillon clerk of courts office.

Irwin's promotion with its attendant 17% increase is really the minor story in the Campbell 2013 budget scenario.

The really BIG story with Campbell is his mammoth 44% increase in total budget in 2013 over 2012.

By my count based on information and data provided to me by Stark County auditor Alan Harold, Campbell added eight, folks that's EIGHT in capital letters additional employees for an additional expenditure of some $170,000 over and above 2012.

That is huge, no?

The SCPR agrees with the commissioners' and Campbell that his office sorely needed additional employees.  His office took a devastating hit in 2010/2011 when the county was in the grips of wrenching financial crisis.

But eight additional employees?

From a total of nine (in addition to Campbell himself) in 2012 to seventeen in 2013?

Hmm?

As can be seen from a listing of the new positions in the chart provided in this blog, most of them are additions to the microfilming sections of Campbell's operations.

I was present at the budget hearings when Campbell and his chief deputy Kody Gonazalez (son of Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez) appeared before the Stark County commissioners.

And they did make a compelling case that in order to keep up with and make inroads into the large and continuing microfilming demand on the part of the general run of Stark County departments of government, the recorder's office was going to need a pronounced stepup in numbers of microfilming employees.

Notwithstanding Campbell having made a case for increased numbers of employees, for him to have added two additionals to his recorder's staff and six to the microfilming section is hardly a show of great restraint.

The SCPR thinks that Campbell should have been slower to add employees to ensure that the demand of the volume of work to be performed precisely and exactly matched the demand.

The Report suspects that he built in some slack in terms of ratio of work to be performed and the number of total recorder office employees.

Campbell's SCPR grade?

ARE THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS "LEADING BY EXAMPLE" IN SPENDING 2011 VOTED-IN SALES TAX INCREASE MONEY?

UPDATED EVALUATION BASED ON NEW DATA (10:00 AM, 09/13/2013)

One of the major headaches in being a Stark County commissioner is getting Stark County departments of governments to "hold the line" and not "rush out" to spend the "newly available" money provided as a consequence of Stark Countians having voted in a 0.5% sales tax increase in November, 2011.

The Stark County Political Report has embarked on an analysis of whether or not county departments of government are heeding the commissioners' admonition made repeatedly by them in the fall 2012 budget hearings that department heads limit department employee pay increases to no more than 2%. Beyond the 2% factor, The Report looks at a department's overall payroll budget,  2013 compared to 2012.

Readers, in addition to focusing on the 2% factor and the overall payroll numbers, need to keep in mind that salary/wages are 65% of a typical government workers' income. A Cleveland Plain Dealer report published yesterday (Public sector workers make more in salary and benefits than those in private sector, Labor Department says, Olivera Perkins) made the point:

Get a good government job. On average, you'll be paid more than your private sector counterparts, according to employee compensation data released Wednesday by the Labor Department. 

•  Employees in private industry received an average of $29.11 per hour in total compensation in June. That included $20.47 in salary and $8.64 in benefits. 
• State and local government workers averaged $42.09 per hour in compensation. That included $27.16 in salary and $14.93 in benefits.

The comparison translates into private industry employees being paid 70% in cash payments and about 30%, on average, in pensions whereas public workers receive their nearly - on average - $13.00 per hour pay advantage 65% in cash and some 35% in benefits.

For the commissioners' office employee overall numbers cited in this blog, readers need to factor up the total payroll numbers 35% to get an accurate picture of actual payroll numbers.  Stark County auditor Alan Harold told the SCRP yesterday that though he has not made an exact computation of the cash payment to benefit payments, his feel for the numbers indicate to him that the 65/35 ratio is pretty much on the mark.

Thirdly, taxpayers should look for staff additions and whether or not they are absolutely needed or merely in the "it would be nice" category when there are more monies made available courtesy of the taxpaying public.

Commissioner Creighton during the campaign to get the sales tax passed, put her fellow county office holders on notice, to wit:

"Right out of the gate" in the budgeting process, Commissioner Creighton and her colleagues were challenged on the 2% cap by a number of department heads.  Predictably, two of them were Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero, Jr. and Stark County recorder Rick Campbell (both favorite county officials of the SCPR).

The Report will get to Ferrero, Campbell, and the remaining department heads in the coming days.

But the place to begin media accountability of "your tax dollars" is with the commissioners themselves.

Take a look.   (Note:  click on the graphic to make it larger)

The Stark County auditor's office has provided the SCPR new data which substantially alters The Report evaluation of the commissioners' "holding the line" and being a good example to other Stark County departments of governments.

At first blush (based on the April data), it appeared to the SCPR that the commissioners have not done all that well in "holding the line" in their overall payroll expenditure increase from 2012 to 2013.

An analysis of the Stark County commissioners payroll deserves and asterisk.

And why an asterisk?

Because they have taken on a significant responsibility from Prosecutor Ferrero's office in their entering into a contract with former prosecutor David Bridenstine who has an expertise that Ferrero apparently cannot match from among the lawyers he currently has on staff.

Obviously, the commissioners have determined that they cannot do without Bridenstine notwithstanding that there has to be someone on Ferrero's staff who could do the work.  Apparently, they do not have confidence that the work would be done at the Bridenstine level of competence.

Bridenstine is limited to earning $65,000 in 2013 according to the commissioners' contract with him.

Beyond the asterisk, (and to The Report chagrin) the commissioners have added to the annual payroll so that now  (as of 09/13/2013) the office is pegged at an increase for 2013 to $796,121.47 from the 2012 number of $652,541:  a 22% increase.

Based on numbers provided by the auditor in April, the commissioners had increased their 2012 cash payroll expenditure of $652,541 to $697,213 (according to information provided the Stark auditor and Chief Administrator Brant Luther) for fiscal year 2013:  a nearly 10% increase overall.

But as the 09/12/2013 numbers show, the 10% was merely a foreshadowing of what was to come.

And, keep in mind that these annual payroll budget numbers do not include fringe benefits which likely boosts the overall numbers by more than a third (i.e. $796,121 becomes $1.07 million and the 2012 number of $652,541 becomes $880,930).

It could be that Bridenstine will not work enough to get up to the $65,000 and, accordingly, the $697,213 straight cash payroll will be adjusted downward.

Included in the projected 22%  overall increase are 2% raises for seven of the department's twelve employees.

The commissioners deserve plaudits for "toeing the line" on their "2% increase.  And they were fair about it.  They gave everyone eligible for an increase the 2%.

Examination of other department's pay scale will determine the fact of the matter, but The Report believes (based on statements (and other reports) made to yours truly that other departments have not distributed pay raises across the board.  Moreover, The Report will be surprised if all department heads heeded the commissioners' recommended cap.  Some of our county department heads are highly egotistic people and "nobody tells them" what to do with regard to the internal operations of their departments.

The SCPR is quite adept at "calling a spade a spade."  If The Report's analysis shows a disregard of the commissioners' cap; readers of the SCPR can be sure that this blog "will lay it out on the table" for all to see.

Returning to the commissioners' 2013 budget number and the Bridenstine factor.

County Administrator Brant Luther questions whether or not Bridenstine counts as against the commissioners' budget.  The Report thinks it does, but as the SCPR always does that other Stark County media hardly ever, if ever, is to allow those with whom yours truly disagrees a full, unfettered opportunity to make his/her case.

Here is what Luther had to say:

All Commissioner's office staff who were here in 2012 (and who remained an employee into 2013), did receive a 2% raise shortly after the 2013 appropriation was approved in March of this year.

The Bridenstine number is wrong [show on the county auditor's report to be $111,280] .  The only thing I can figure is that the number you are showing for David Bridenstine must be an annualized number based on David's previous contract rate of $125 per hour (however that contract was a limited, "not to exceed $20,000 per year" contract).  On July 3, 2013, the Board approved a Contract amendment to lower David's hourly rate to $44.58 per hour and increase the "not to exceed" annual number to $65,000.00.  The Commissioners do provide David with office space to use for County work, and he is available to Commissioners approximately 24 hours per week.  

For efficient payroll administrative purposes, David is listed in the payroll system as an Commissioner's employee, however, he is actually a contract consultant and is not an employee of the Commissioner's office (doesn't receive health benefits etc) and his consulting costs should not be calculated into the Commissioner's office personnel Budget.  To further clarify, if he is working on legal matters involving a revenue or special fund, his salary is reimbursed from that particular fund.  To the extent he is working on strictly general fund matters, his salary is reimbursed from County Obligations.

The SCPR specifically disagrees with Luther that "his [Bridenstine's] consulting costs should not be calculated into the Commissioner's office personnel Budget."

For the commissioners to allow Ferrero to shift the cost of Bridenstine's specialized work and knowledge off of his dime onto theirs is their doing and therefore The Report, for one, looks at the expenditure as being theirs.  Ferrero benefits from the sales tax having been passed exclusively for the benefit of Stark County's criminal justice system and therefore appears to have gotten away with one.

Ferrero had to know that Bridenstine was contemplating retirement and for him as the manager-in-chief of the prosecutor staff to allow a void in quality of representation on Bridenstine's specialized work - post-Bridenstine - is just more evidence that Ferrero does a very poor job of managing his office.

Prior SCPR blogs have scored Ferrero for his "less that superlative" managerial skills.

Had the commissioners not let Ferrero get away with having a Bridenstine-esque expertise void with his retirement, their 2013 spending would be $632,213 which is some $20,000 under the 2012 expenditure of $652,541.

Absent the taking on of the  Bridenstine contract, and, perhaps, the paring down of  the adding $90,000 plus to the county commissioners's payroll numbers  (see Nicholson and Nichols material below) would deserve a rating of A+ and thereby be a clear case of leading by example.

And to carry this topic on just a little futher and how much Ferrero's management deficiencies cost county taxpayers, the SCPR is planning a series on how much money Stark County's townships and boards of education spend on legal fees hiring private counsel.

If it were anyone but John Ferrero sitting as prosecutor, the SCPR would be in favor of a system that the Stark County sheriff's uses in providing policing services to townships (e.g. Plain and Canton townships).

For the money that is available on a contract basis, the Stark County prosecutor's office should be able to put together "one whale of a" legal team to represent township and boards of education interests.

However, while John Ferrero occupies the prosecutor's office; such an idea is a non-starter!

Back to the commissioners and how they fare on The Report's 2012/2013 budget expenditure analysis.

In addition the Bridenstine add on, the commissioners have brought on an administrative assistant (Nicholson) at $32,500 annually and a director of management and budget (Nichols) at $68,000.

While the SCPR does believe that the commissioners' office was understaffed during the Mike Hanke as chief administrator era, the addition of Bridenstine, Nicholson and Nichols appears to be overkill in the opposite direction.

The administrative assistant hire was absolutely needed in the opinion of yours truly.

But was a "big ticket" $68,000 (Nichols) addition (plus a projected post-probationary increase) really needed?

Chief Administrator Brant Luther received a 10% hike over what his predecessor Mike Hanke was making.

What was the justification for giving the new administrator that kind of pay increase?

Why didn't the commissioners insist that Prosecutor Ferrero provide a viable alternative to Bridenstine?

In the original blog, the SCPR evaluated that because of the Bridenstine matter, the commissioners come in at a SCPR grade of a B-.

With the addition of data showing the Nicholson and Nichols hire (which yours truly had overlooked in focusing too much on the April data), the SCPR lowers the commissioners grade to C-.

A C- is hardly a grade that the commissioners can take any pride in and clearly does not set any kind of example for the remaining Stark County departments of government.

It could be that the 2013 22% commissioners' office increased payroll budgeting is a harbinger of a much more to come in The Report's analysis of increases (both in terms of wage increases and total volume of employees) in other Stark County departments of government.

Commissioner Creighton's statement as set forth above in this blog surely will be put to the test in the mind of Stark County taxpayers and the actual performance of county officials comes to light.

To the SCPR, it is not likely that those numbers from other Stark County departments of government are going to present a pretty picture.

It has to be a bitter pill for private sector employees/taxpayers to swallow that "on average" they are paid less both in terms of base compensation and fringe benefits and to a see public employment increase (while, perhaps, justifiable but hardly a demonstration of a focus on efficiency) with some receiving raises that exceed what is going on in entrepreneurial America these days.

Taxpayers need to monitor what happens to increased tax dollars once they are approved.

And The Report is your window into Stark County government.

The SCPR's next analysis will be on the Stark County auditor's office.

CONTINUING RECORDERS' EDUCATION (CRE). IS IT REALLY "MANDATORY" THAT STARK CO RECORDER RICK CAMPBELL TRAVEL TO A PUT-IN-BAY SUMMER CONFERENCE FOR "CRE?" AND HE NEEDS TO TAKE TWO EMPLOYEES ALONG?

The Stark County Political Report learns the "coolest" things at the weekly Stark County commissioner meetings.

Not long ago, The Report learned about Republican Frank C. Braden (whom most of us "commonly" know as "Curt" Braden) making a Stark County Board of Elections related trip to Columbus, but failing to get the government rate at the posh Hyatt Regency in Columbus.  Of course, you know who paid for Braden's failure to get the taxpayer rate.  Of course!  The taxpayers.

Commissioner Bosley asked "mischievously" (so The Report thinks) when the post-travel reimbursement request came before the commissioners, "Frank C. Braden? Is this Curt Braden?"  "Yes," opined one of the other officials staffing the meeting.

It was Commissioner Meeks who caught the premium that Braden was asking taxpayers to pay.  Remember, Bosley and Meeks are both Democrats.

One might be impressed with Meeks' observation had he followed through and said "You know, Braden has to know better than not get the government rate, I make a motion that we reimburse him at the $99 per night government rate."

But Meeks didn't. He clearly dropped the ball.

Recently, three requests by Stark County recorder Rick Campbell came before the commissioners at an official commissioner meeting.

The requests were that the commissioners approve up to $1,907.00 for Campbell and two key employees (Gonzalez and Owens)
to go to Put-in-Bay, Ohio (on the shores of Lake Erie) for a summer conference on the resort island.

The Report does not recall exactly which hotel that Campbell et al will be staying at, but at least one of the inns on Put-in-Bay plays up the resort nature of Put-in-Bay, to wit:

What's more, the travel requests (all three) stated  (via a check marked box) that attending the conference is "mandatory."

Isn't Put-in-Bay in mid-June a "sweet spot" for one to have to go to for a "mandatory" summer conference?

Wow!  Who wouldn't want to be a county recorder or top level employee!!  Sign me up!!!

If Campbell can show that attendance is mandatory, so be it.  However, the SCPR suspects that it is not.  And, if it is not, then for county officials to be attending the conference is sending the wrong message to taxpayers at any time, but especially so in the midst of a county financial crisis.

Of late, the SCPR has been noting Commissioner Meeks' detailed questioning of many of the expense requests  that come befire the commissioners. The Report is not sure if such will continue if Meeks gets elected commissioner.  It is campaign season, after all.  But county finances are such that excruciating and detailed examination of each and every expenditure needs to be done as a matter of course.  And not just in a run up to an election.

Notwithstanding his apparent "inquiring mind," The Report believes Meeks had a bad day on scrutinizing Recorder Campbell's requests.

Really?  In what way(s)?

First, the requests (three in number, remember) all had the box "mandatory" checked on them.

Mandatory?

Really?

Yes, and The Report thinks Meeks - if he was exercising due diligence as questioner - should have requested support staff have Campbell come to the next regular commissioner meeting to answer in public view a series of questions:

First:  "Please explain why are these requests for mandatory travel."

Second, he would have wanted to ask:  "Why are three recorder employees attending the very same conference?"  (These are not just any three employees, but include the recorder himself, his chief deputy and another titled employee)

A third question would most certainly have been:  "How can you Recorder Campbell afford to have three key personnel out of the office at the same time?"

Campbell did tell The Report that having all three out of the office at one time will have an adverse affect, to wit:

As I believe continuing education is beneficial to my staff, my staffing level will be lower than optimal for several days.

Talk about euphemism:  " ... staffing level will be lower than optimal ... ."  Hmm?

As far as the SCPR is concerned, Campbell never has forthrightly answered The Report's inquiry for justification of the checked "mandatory" box on the travel requests.  Here is the sum total of Campbell's responses to The Report's pressing on that particular question, to wit:

The conference has discussions, workshops, classes, and networking that allow my staff and myself to learn and discuss issues, problems, laws, and legislation related to our jobs, so that we may improve in our service.

I earn continuing education credits, which allow me to keep my Ohio Recorders Association Certification for Continuing Education.  

Campbell's response beg more questions.  It does not answer the baseline question head on.

To repeat, the SCPR is suspicious that a case for mandatory does not exist.  Why?  Because a specific, direct responsive statement that Put-in-Bay is a mandatory event for him to fulfill his "certification" requirement is missing from email exchanges between The Report and Campbell.  Moreover, what are the specifics that make it mandatory for Gonzalez and Owens to attend?

Remember, all the commissioners have is a checked box on the document requesting travel.

An ongoing mission of the SCPR is to have commissioners (whomever they may be), thoroughly vet each and every expenditure that they approve out of the county general fund.  For if a 0.25% of one percent existing county tax is not renewed, according to County Administrator Mike Hanke; Stark County departments of government are looking at up to 35% in cuts come 2012.

If the approval process is to be anything other than a mere rubber stamp process, commissioners must go beyond the checked box answer.

At the approval meeting, Commissioner Meeks referred to some sort of discussion between the commissioners' office and Campbell on the requests prior to their approval at the formal commissioner meeting.

Why wasn't Campbell told to come to the formal meeting and explain his reasons for needing (in the mandatory sense of need) to spend up to $1,907.00 of taxpayer money?

The SCPR knows from experience that Recorder Campbell likes to come to commissioner meetings.  What could be a more appropriate setting for him having attended?

The Report believes the commissioners should revisit its approval of the recorder's requests with incisive questioning to ensure to taxpayers that they are convinced that, indeed, it is mandatory that Campbell and his two subordinates attend the Put-in-Bay conference.

The Report has heard all three commissioners pontificate about the need of county officials to be exacting in spending public money.

The Report's question is this.  Are the commissioners' words mere rhetoric or are they willing to ask penetrating questions and deny approval when they are not satisfied with the answers?

In short, are the commissioners creditable guardians of the public treasury?

FINAL BUDGET IS PASSED BY STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. ACHIEVE 2% IN CUTS FROM 2009, 1.5% SHORT OF GOAL. BUT THEY ARE SATISFIED WITH THIS YEAR'S RESULT. NEXT YEAR LOOMS AS AN "ALL-OUT" CRISIS, NOT TO SAY ANYTHING OF 2012!

DISCLAIMER:  ANY REFERENCES IN THIS BLOG TO THE JUDICIARY ARE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A OPINION JOURNALIST AND ARE NOT THE EXPRESSIONS OF ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

Who are the financial hogs in the Stark County government budget in 2010 as compared to 2009?

The Stark County treasurer for one.  Up over 21.5 %.  That will not make too many Stark Countians happy especially in light of - what some are projecting - to be upwards of $3,000,000 in losses growing out of Treasurer Gary Zeigler's allegation that his former chief deputy Vince Frustaci made off with county funds; whatever the number eventually turns out to be.

Zeigler was clearly asleep at the switch and now has the gall to ask for a budget busting increase (in the sense of the goal of -3.5% of the 2009 budget).  If he had any humility about the situation, he would long ago resigned.  But no.  He asks for more.

The next hog-in-chief?  The Stark County Board of Elections (BOE).  Up nearly 15% over 2009.  The SCPR is particularly unhappy with the structure of BOEs in Ohio.  Appointed politicians running our elections in a "cold ward" (Rs versus Ds) fashion.  A real democratic irony.   Isn't that terrific!

Back to the budget thing.

One simple way the BOE could save significant money is to use its new sophisticated copier to scan in documents frequently accessed by the Stark County public so that the time of BOE employees is not taken up with the repetitive task of retrieving records, copying records and waiting on citizens asking for the documents.

If the BOE was as "citizen friendly" as it should be, it would do the scanning and not only save itself a lot of employee hours that could be used on more productive activities and, at the the same time. save Stark County citizens driving time, gasoline/wear and tear on the family car expense and copy costs.

So now they want more money?

For the SCPR's part, unless and until the county starts doing more "no-brainer" things like the BOE thing, then citizens should be clear that public officials are not getting the message and should turn down any sales tax renewals or requests for increases.

This is where the Stark County judges (Common Pleas Court) could weigh-in on BOE members and help the county image, the efficiency of the BOE, and make the public feel appreciated.

It appears that the  judges (particularly Judge Charles Brown) - are the prime movers behind a recently formed task force, headed up by Prosecutor John Ferrero, to look at all aspects of county government so as to position the county to face county voters within a "we've done everything we can to clean up our act," when the county next asks voters to approve a levy.

The SCPR has enormous respect for the judges.  The Report believe they - who practice day-in, day-out the impartial administration of justice - are ideally suited to lead the way to a restoration of the Stark County public trust in the county's local institutions of government.

The Report knows that they have plenty on their plate, but they need to take the lead.  The courts are trusted by the public.  Only the courts have the public stature among all of Stark County government to lead the way back.

Back to the budget, per se.

The next "on-the-next-level financial hog" is Stark County recorder Rick Campbell's office.  Up about 9%.  Yours truly used to praise Campbell for running the most efficient office in all of Stark County government.

But no more.

A sign that Campbell is slipping was evident when he and his chief deputy Kody Gonzalez (son of Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez) showed up at a Stark County commissioners' meeting (along with Plain Township trustee Louis Giavasis/also the clerk of courts "title czar," in what The Report believes was an attempt to intimidate yours truly on some blogs that were not to the Campbell's liking.

Another interesting tidbit about the recorder's office.  A little over a week ago at a luncheon with an area politician, the politico volunteered that a key recorder's office employee bragged to him that he only "actually" did work in the office about 1 to 2 days.  Hmm?  Maybe Campbell needs to spend less time trying to push around The Report and more time making sure office employees are giving Stark County taxpayers their due.

Mike Hanke and Rick Flory deserve high marks for their work in cajoling the heads of Stark County departments of government in "for real" quest to meet an overall goal of a 3.5% reduction over 2009.  They didn't meet the 3.5%, but they did get to 2%.  The blame is not to be placed on Hanke and Flory.  It belongs on department heads like Zeigler, Campbell and the "politically appointed" Board of Election members.  They are the ones for the Stark County public to get on!

It appears that a renewal will be attempted of the 1/4 of 1% sales tax levy set to expire on June 30, 2011 this November.  If it passes, county officials will still be looking at about a 6% decrease in all departments of Stark County government.  If it doesn't, you can about double that to the 11/12% range; maybe even more.  And don't even ask about 2012.  County office holders are looking at cuts in the 30% plus if a renewal doesn't pass.

Just a word about the sheriff.  He lost about $700,000 on his request but still a little under his 2009 figure.  Swanson was telling county officials that with the cut on request he would have to layoff up to five deputies.  But the word at Wednesday's commissioners' meeting was that the sheriff thinks he just might skate through without making any layoffs.

A couple of nights ago,  yours truly had a conversation with "one in a position to know" who says that Swanson is sandbagging on the county and that the sheriff's office is in the best condition of all of Stark's departments of government.

Hmm?

The Stark County Political Report has obtained a copy of a letter that commissioners will be sending out to county department heads.  Here are some excerpts:

It is not a pretty picture, no?

As the SCPR sees it, Stark County government has a huge job ahead of it to rebuild public trust.  Until department elected and appointed officials (in the case of the Stark BOE) are have perceived by the voting public as having  "gotten it," there will no new money for the county and probably not even a renewal.

The politicos have had their day abusing the public trust. 

Now the public is about to have its say.

Having a sheriff say "poop on the public;" having folks given public jobs to the exclusion of the general public - for no other reason than that they are politically connected, and having elected officials refusing to be accountable to the voting public ARE OVER!

The arrogant ones; those who go to Columbus and spend taxpayer money at the capital city's finest hotels without regard to even getting the taxpayer a government discount; those who refuse to have their public meetings videotaped, those who try to intimidate journalistic opinion/accountability under the cover of office; those who staff public office with their political friends and hire the family members of their politically powerful colleagues are on the brink of "a great awakening!"

Too many Stark County government officials and those of the political subdivisions have run roughshod over the taxpaying public.

Is the public about to say:  "enough is enough?"

Likely, indeed!

The pity of all this is that those who will suffer because of the public's growing discontent with the poor, poor quality of all too many Stark government leaders will not be the leaders themselves.

For sure, they will take care of themselves to the bitter end.

No, it will be the ordinary local government workers (those who do not drive a Lexus) who will get no pay raises, have to pay a larger share of their health care cuts, and get laid off before those of their colleagues who have a political connection with the boss.

Why would the ordinary among us support those living "high off the hog" at taxpayer expense?

The answer:  they won't.  Those days are evaporating very quickly.