BACKROOM POLITICS IN FULL SWING WITH DEMS AS TO WHOM IS GOING TO BE STARK COUNTY'S NEXT SHERIFF?

*******************************************
SUBTOPICS:

SWANSON PICKS LT. LOUIS A. DARROW AS HIS CHOICE?

GEORGE MAIER SCRAMBLING TO GET QUALIFICATIONS TOGETHER?

WAS SWANSON PROPERLY SWORN IN AS "INTERIM" STARK COUNTY SHERIFF?

******************************************

Since it became public knowledge that the recently elected Mike McDonald (November, 2012) was unable to take office on January 7th because of an illness, many have been curious as to whom Sheriff Swanson preferred be named sheriff to replace McDonald.

The naming is to be done by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDPCC).

Swanson was sworn-in as interim Sheriff for as many of the 45 days (from January 7th) as need be until the SCDPCC acts.

But first,  just as an aside, the question has been raised to the SCPR as to whether or not Swanson was legally sworn-in as interim sheriff.

Yours truly thinks this is an riveting question that Prosecutor John Ferrero should address in press release form.

Why the question?

Because Swanson was sworn-in on Friday (January 4th) and Mike McDonald was not eligible to be sworn-in, if he were able, until 12:01 AM Monday, January 7th.

Hmm?

So wouldn't the interim have had to be sworn-in at 12:01 AM on Monday, January 7th?

Since Swanson was sworn-in anew while he was under an existing having been sworn-in in 2009, was the January 4th swearing in effective?  Does Stark County even have a legally sworn-in in sheriff?

Stark County Assistant Prosecutor Deborah Dawson was in attendance as Swanson was sworn-in on the 4th by sheriff department legal counsel Vivianne Whalen Duffrin.

One would think that Dawson looking on and Duffrin swearing-in and Commissioner Tom Bernabei (also an attorney and former long time Canton law director) holding the Good Book, that all the legal p's and  q's would have had to be in order.

So the SCPR, more or less, cited to the questioner.

Hmm?  The questioner was not satisfied.

Questioner's response:  Stark County prosecutor's office has been wrong a number of times on advice given in the recent past.

Hmm?

Okay.

Well, Mr. Prosecutor? What's the legal rationale for having Swanson sworn-in before his term expired?

Originally, The Report is told Swanson was a George Maier man (Massillon's safety director and former #2 in the Ohio State Highway Patrol).   He had commissioned Maier as a reserve deputy.

And Maier has been seen at area high school football games in a deputy's uniform.  One has to wonder whether or not he stores the deputy sheriff uniform on a mannequin right next to the mannequin (the SCPR is told) adorned with an Ohio State Highway Patrol uniform and which sits in his Massillon safety director office?

But Swanson himself raised the question last Friday in an interview with the SCPR of whether or not Maier was eligible by the criteria of Ohio Revised Code Section.

So being a reserve deputy is not a enough to qualify as sheriff?

Perhaps, Swanson is convinced that such is the case given the following unbelievable account.

Last Saturday morning at about 5:30 AM "interim?" Sheriff Timothy Swanson assembled his deputies for swearing-in.

But the sheriff was not content just do the swearing-in and let it go at that.

No, not Sheriff Tim.

He let loose with a bombshell of an announcement.

The recently promoted  (August, 2012?) to lieutenant (from sergeant) Louis (Lou) A. Darrow, Swanson reportedly told the rank-and-file, was going to be the new Stark County sheriff.

Stunned!!! were the assembled deputies, The Report is told.

Until he was promoted, the SCPR is told that he was basically road patrol man for a number of years.  He gets promoted and the next thing you know he is going to be sheriff?

He must be a first rate deputy because on February 2, 2010 he was recognized as Deputy of the Year at an annual Stark County safety forces breakfast conclave.

Media reports on his department history include that he:

• has been with the county sheriff's department since 1987,
• started as a corrections offices, but since
• has worked in the civil and operations divisions, and
• has done investigations
• and, to repeat, was recently promoted to lieutenant

The whole scenario is interesting, no?

The Report has asked Swanson to confirm his reported statements on Darrow.  However, the SCPR's source in the judgment of yours truly is impeccable.

So far, no response from Swanson.

So where does leave all the political wheeling and dealing as to whom is going to be Stark County's next sheriff, and maybe even, pending Ferrero letting us know, who is our current sheriff?

With all due respect to the sheriff, the SCPR finds it hard to believe that he can convince the Stark County Dems to appoint Darrow.

Maybe the sheriff is more powerful in the backrooms of the Stark County Democratic Party than yours truly has previously thought?

Elevating Darrow may be Swanson's wish, but can he make it stick?

The Report's thinking?

Probably not.

The focus will likely continue to be on either Maier or Tom Ream (Canton's safety director).

It has been suggested to The Report that the dearth of news of who will succeed McDonald could be because Maier is scrambling to find out whether or not he can be appointed sheriff without meeting statutory requirements and given a grace period to meet those requirements.

Now tell me, is this really wild stuff or is this really wild stuff?

And the SCPR thinks this may be just the beginning of the backroom wheeling and dealing!

VIDEO: "THE REST OF THE STORY;" SHERIFF SWANSON & CHIEF DEPUTY McDONALD. THE REP GIVES YOU 2 MIN. 53 SECS OF VIDEO, THE SCPR ABOUT 15 MINUTES.

The county commissioners work session of yesterday was spellbinding.

And today's regular meeting is one Stark Countians should not miss (1:30 PM at the Stark County Office Building, 2nd floor commissioner meeting room).  Commissioners will be deciding how much of a sales tax increase they will be putting on the ballot and for how long.

One of the most dramatic parts of the work session was a vivid description given by Stark County Sheriff Chief Deputy Mike McDonald (a candidate to succeed his boss Tim Swanson) on the dangers that lurk in the Stark County Jail for "reduced staff" deputies and corrections officers who have to deal with unwieldy numbers of in mates.

Here is a video of McDonald and his horrifying description of current jail conditions (ask yourself, he he employing scare tactics?):



The Repository also had video of the McDonald statement with its coverage and a little bit of what Sheriff Swanson had to say for a total of 2 minutes and 53 seconds.

Later on in this blog, the SCPR provides Stark Countians with the entirety of what Swanson and McDonald had to say for a total video presentation of 15 minutes.  For in depth and more extensive coverage of the financial crisis, the place to come is, of course, the Stark County Political Report.

Let's back up a minute and provide some background for the meeting.

For several weeks now, the Stark County commissioners have been in intense email negotiations with the departments of Stark County government about their ability to comply with commissioner requests that they sustain 40% in budget cuts in 2012 (from the 2011 appropriation) in the event that a planned sales tax levy (probably a 1/2 cent) fails.

Some departments for various reasons cannot abide any cuts whatsoever and those departments are the ones listed "in black" on the document set forth below.  In the case of the Stark County Veterans Service Commission, it outright refuses to make any cuts as a matter of entitlement.

Those listed "in red" are departments who said they could make limited cuts (see the blue numbers), but who will sustain 40.07% cuts if the November levy fails except for Family Court at 18.24% and Telecommunications at 25.79%)

Getting to Sheriff Swanson's operation, here is a his line item on the projected cuts document:

As readers of the SCPR can see, if the November levy fails then the Sheriff will go from $13,884, 409 to $8,320.960 which equals a reduction of over $5.5 million and is 47.5% of his 2007 budget amount.

What will Sheriff Swanson do in terms of cuts to live within the $8,320,960 budget?

Here is his list of actions he will have to take:

When the commissioners were conducting their community meeting series (22 of them in total), they encountered a lot of skepticism about the dire financial condition of Stark County.  Frequently, they heard citizen response of "scare tactic" when they warned about severe cuts in criminal justice were in the offing if a sales tax was not passed in 2011.

The SCPR's take is that citizens have to make a decision.  Are they willing to risk that the commissioners are spoofing them?  For if they are not, then denying them the additional revenue they say they need will be putting Stark County in a deeper hole than it already is.

Bad news surfaced today on the employment front.  Stark County increased from 9.3% (May) to 10.0% in June.  And besides that Stark County does not compare favorably to its neighbors.

But one statistic Stark does best its neighbors is its sales tax.

Hmm?

Here are the videos of Swanson and McDonald and their input with commissioners yesterday:

FIRST REPUBLICAN SHERIFF IN STARK COUNTY SINCE ROBERT BERENS?

Stark County Chief Deputy Mike McDonald has taken out a petition to run for sheriff of Stark County.

Clearly, this means that Sheriff Swanson is not running for re-election.

His action is both a surprise and yet not so much of a surprise.  A surprise in that McDonald is not sitting Sheriff Timothy A. Swanson's first choice as a successor.  That would be Swanson other chief deputy Rick Perez.  When Perez hosted his classmates for a tour of the Stark County jail conducted by Sheriff Swanson about a year ago, Swanson let it be known to the group that classmate Perez was his choice to succeed him.

However, that was before the November, 2010 election and Rick's brother Kim (Stark County auditor) getting trounced at the polls by Republican candidate Alan Harold.  Brother Kim's defeat can be traced directly to the Vince Frustaci scandal in which the former chief deputy was convicted of stealing money from the Stark County treasury.

While Kim had absolutely nothing to do with the theft (and the same is to be said for then Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler), it appears that Stark County voters lumped Democrat officeholders together as "political good old boys" who did not mind the store in accordance with voter standards (voters apparently thinking - rightly or wrongly - that there needed to be more oversight) and sent Kim Perez packing.  Zeigler was removed from office in August, 2010 in accordance with permissive Ohio statutory law that empowered county commissioners to remove him from office notwithstanding that he had been exonerated by federal and county prosecutors of any involvement whatsoever.  Zeigler has appealed his dismissal and a decision should be forthcoming any day from the Ohio Supreme Court as to whether his removal will be sustained.

Should choose to run, Sheriff Swanson (who wrote letters to the editor supporting Zeigler during his days as treasurer) undoubtedly would lose.

But does that seeming political reality extend to those closely connected with Swanson?

The Report believes it does.

Neither McDonald or Perez is electable in the opinion of the SCPR.

But it is - in a sense - not s surprise that McDonald took out a petition.  You can bet the Swanson et al are working overtime trying to figure out a way to stay in power.  One scenario has Canton Safety Director Thomas Ream stepping in to run if it appears that he can save the day for the Swanson, Perez and McDonald legacy.

The last time Stark Republicans had a chance to take control of the Stark County sheriff's office was when in 1980 long time Sheriff George Pappadoopuouls ran into political trouble.  Republican insurance man Robert Berens ran against the politically troubled sheriff and defeated him.


Problem was for Republicans that the challenges of office proved to be more than Berens could bear and he ended up being a one-termer.

 

The SCPR has learned that there may be two contenders for the Republican nomination for Stark sheriff.

First, and the most likely to win the nomination, is Hartville Chief of Police Larry Dordea (a former Alliance police chief and currently a councilman-at-large in Alliance who is seeking re-election).  Dordea

A mention is made of Republican Canal Fulton Mayor John Grogan who is a lieutenant in the Summit County Sheriff Department.  Unless Dordea decides not to run, Grogan deserves no more than a mention.  He has been involved in a couple of controversies (one as a Summit County sheriff's employee and another a mayor of Canal Fulton - both of which he was cleared on) which, were he the Republican nominee, would certainly surface in the heat of a political campaign.

Dordea tells The Report that he is confident that he will be the party nominee should he seek the nomination.  Dordea ran against Swanson in 2008 and made a respectable showing for his first time out on the political hustings.  This time around The Report figures Dordea to be the odds on favorite win no matter who runs for the Democrats.

Should the Republicans succeed this time in dislodging the Democratic Party stranglehold over the sheriff's department, chances are that a Republican takeover will last for over four years.

Why?

Because, unlike Berens (the insurance man turned sheriff ), - referred to above -  Dordea is a highly respected policeman who served many years (including a number as chief) in Alliance before becoming police chief in Hartville.

Democrats must know that should they lose this office and the winning candidate is Dordea, then it could be a long, long time before they can win it back.

So look for a hotly contested race, if Dordea is the nominee.  Even if he isn't, the Democrats will not have an easy time retaining the seat in light of the disfavor that Stark Countians are seeing Democrats running countywide these days.

Stark Countians - if the March primary election date holds - will know by early December who will be running to replace Swanson.

FEAR BASED PROGRAM BEING PUT TOGETHER TO GET STARK VOTERS TO APPROVE A RENEWAL SALES TAX LEVY?

Will Stark County's elected officials ever learn how to deal with the Stark County voting public?

The "fear factor" campaign for retention of the "imposed sales tax" (by Commissioners Bosley, Harmon & Vignos in December, 2008) did not work in November 2009.  Nor will such an approach work in May, 2011.

The imposed tax retention campaign featured, on its website, cherry-picked cases in which the patchwork of a 9-1-1 system in Stark County resulted in some scary and tragic consequences.  What was not featured was that one-half of the 0.50 of one percent increased tax was not for 9-1-1, but for county general fund operations.

The "Vote No Increased Taxes" Committee focused on the second part of the equation described above and thereby convinced a huge majority of Stark Countians that they were being bamboozled by county officials.

But don't tell some of Stark County's elected officials that a fear-based campaign is counterproductive.

Why is that?

Apparently, Sheriff Timothy A. Swanson has convinced them that "fear " is the way to go.  For Swanson it has repeatedly been and appears to continue to be (to paraphrase): "I will be closing wing(s) of the Stark County Jail" or "I will be laying off deputies."

The SCPR has learned that at a recent meeting of high level Stark County elected officials, Swanson painted his oft-repeated scenario of doom and gloom if he doesn't get the money he says is needed to keep the Stark County Jail fully operational. Reportedly, he is saying he will close part of the jail and release prisoners gearing down 400 prisoners by August 15th and to 300 after the end of this year. The Report is told that some were heard to say at the meeting words to the effect:  "that will scare- 'em good!"

The Report has also heard that Swanson has let it out that he could be letting up to 33 corrections officers go as budgetary cuts are imposed (presumably by commissioners) on the department.

It is unlikely that the sales tax will come up for a vote in November.  With the Stark treasury controversy going at fever pitch for over a year now (starting in April, 2009), there is no hope whatsoever that even a renewal of the 2011 expiring 0.25 of one percent sales tax can be renewed.

Stark commissioners are somewhat divided on whether or not to put the renewal on in November.  Bosley is for putting it on in November whereas Commissioners Ferguson and Meeks appear to oppose doing so.

The Report believes that it makes little difference when the renewal is put on the ballot.  Hard economic times, the treasury problem, the scare-em levy campaign approach, the public job set asides for relatives, friends and loyalist political supporters and voter dissatisfaction on the public's growing notion (a point often made by the SCPR and the Stark County commissioners themselves) that too many elected officials are not "voluntarily" making cuts that depressed general fund revenues demand will conspire to make a renewal impossible to pass November, 2

The reality that gets the SCPR up and going is the number of relatives, friends and staunch political supporters of county officials who are showing up on each other's payrolls.  It is as if these officials think the Stark County public is funding their private businesses.

But they aren't private businesses and The Report has been and will continue to lead the fight against these hiring practices.  These are public jobs that all Stark Countians should have an opportunity to qualify for irrespective of their political connections.

And if elected officials persist at thumbing their noses at the taxpaying public in this way, then this factor alone should prompt the Stark County voting public to put them on a starvation diet.

County Administrator Michael Hanke has repeatedly said over the past year that if the renewal issue does not pass, then county officials can expect a 30 to 35 percent across-the-board cuts in 2012.  Even with passage, cuts will range in the 15 to 20 percent range.  Commissioners have said that if elected officials do not make cuts for themselves, they (the commissioners) will make the cuts.

It appears that in Stark County we have a number of elected officials who are not self-disciplined and will, in fact, put the commissioners to the test in imposing draconian cuts on them.

Swanson can continue on a trek as if he were accountable to no one but himself.  He can be continue to be contemptuous  of the public (e.g. "poop on the public" at a Stark County commissioners meeting).  It is mystery what he thinks his attitude is going to gain him.  

Hopefully, Swanson will quit after September 7th as is being talked about in Stark County Democratic Party and law enforcement circles.

If Swanson gets his way and Rick Perez gets appointed by the Stark County Democratic Central Committee as his successor, then he will leave Perez with an a Swanson-era legacy to overcome when he has to come before the voters.

Do Stark Countians want a Swanson clone to continue the policies and practices of Timothy A. Swanson?

That would be the choice in November, 2012!

WILL A WING OF THE STARK COUNTY JAIL BE CLOSING?

The Stark County Political Report has learned that commissioners may vote today to cut Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson $700,000 short on his "requested" budget funding for 2010.  However, the Stark County Veterans Service Commission will definitely gets its fully requested budget.

Swanson (who met with Commissioner Steve Meeks and County Administrator Mike Hanke on Monday morning) has let it be known that if the cut occurs, then he may be left with no alternative but to cut a wing of the jail.  Apparently, if Swanson makes good on the closing, it will leave Stark County courts with a huge dilemma in terms of finding prisoner space for sentenced offenders.

A source in a position to know says that closing a wing of the jail would not necessarily mean a release of inmates.  A more likely scenario is that "non-violent" offenders would not be given jail time because of cramped quarters in the remaining space at the jail.

So Stark Countians should expect a spirited debate among commissioners today as to whether or not to make the budget cut.

In the end, this is a game of "brinkmanship," the SCPR believes,  Sheriff Swanson will prevail on in the end. Commissioner Todd Bosley has already committed to objecting to the cut.  Would he vote not to approve the budget, if Ferguson and Meeks opted to cut the sheriff.  Probably not.

The Report has also learned that quick on the heels of the budget approval this year will be communication from the commissioners to Stark County department heads to start planning now for a 5% to 10% budget cuts in 2011.

The SCPR is beginning to believe that within the bowels of the Stark County commissioners office, discussions are underway to place a sales tax issue on the ballot in November, 2010.  If one takes too much from the public discussion at commissioners' meeting, it seems too obvious that there will not be an additional tax, but a renewal of the June, 2011 expiring 1/4th of 1% sales tax.

However, such talk may be a feint and what might well materialize is a sales tax specific for the operation of the county jail which represents 1/3rd of the county budget.

Think about it. If commissioners could get the voting public to buy into to supporting the jail with a direct levy, then that would free up about $16 million for the rest of the Stark County general fund budgeting.

Such a maneuver would solve county budgeting problems in a hurry.

And voters would not even have realized they have been "slipped a mickey!"

ANOTHER STARK COUNTY OFFICEHOLDER (SHERIFF SWANSON) TRYING TO ANOINT HIS SUCCESSOR

Apparently, Sheriff Tim "Poop on the Public" Swanson is trying to jam his successor down the throat of the Stark County public.  Very consistent, wouldn't you say?  A man who, by his own words, demonstrates contempt for the Stark County citizenry.

Recently, the Signature Class of Leadership Stark County visited the Stark County Jail complex as part of its training program. It just so happens that one of Sheriff Swanson's chief deputies, Rick Perez, is a member of the Signature group.  Of course, Perez was the star attraction at his home base and his boss had to show off a bit in front of Perez's peers.

It is encouraging that Perez made it into the leadership class.  Either someone sees a potential in the man that many of the rest of us Stark Countians do not see or they see that Perez is a cop with a powerful position who needs some intense training on how to demonstrate quality, effective leadership.

Swanson, showing off in what way?

First, a little political history, please.

Undoubtedly, Swanson has been reading the SCPR and noticing that other Stark County elected officials are honing the fine art of dictating who succeeds them in office.  And Perez may be an opportunity for the sheriff to show off that he can do just as well.

Canton Municipal Court clerk of courts Phil Giavasis is Stark County's classic example.

When former Canton clerk Tom Harmon "sort of retired" (sort of because almost immediately after retiring, he     became a Stark County commissioner),  Phil Giavasis, who was Stark County clerk of courts at the time of the Harmon "sort of retirement," decided that he needed to jump ship for the greener pastures (more money which or course mean more money in the immediate sense and, of course, a better retirement).

A number of Stark Countians were interested in becoming Phil's successor; one being Lawrence Township trustee Mike Stevens.  He sought the county clerk Giavasis' blessing or maybe even anointing.

But Giavasis was having none of it.  He scolded Stevens for having the audacity to even ask.  This self-appointed Stark County kingmaker had already decided that his protege Nancy Reinbold (wife of former Common Pleas judge Richard Reinbold who is now running for the Ohio Senate against Scott Oleslager) would be the new county clerk.

Other examples abound, too.

In a famous one that backfired, appointed county commissioner Steve Meeks (when he went from being a Jackson trustee to being newly elected Governor Ted Strickland's region 9 "eyes and ears,"} tried to have wife Patty elected his successor.

Jackson voters were so offended at the Meeks move that they elected unknown and undistinguished Republican Jamie Walters as trustee.  And. by the way, Walters is still largely unknown outside of Jackson Township and certainly he remains undistinguished, but it is not keeping him from running for Stark County commissioner.

Many Stark County Democrat elected leaders don't appear to do a very good job providing leadership for the county, but they do excel at moving around among various county and municipal jobs in kind of a merry-go-round of "what's in it for me" politics. 

Back to Swanson and Perez.

The word is that as Swanson addressed the Leadership Stark County group he went way over the top and told the group that Perez would be "your" next Stark County sheriff.

The SCPR for one takes exception to the sheriff.  He may find that a whole host of other Stark Countians; that is, when Perez has to stand before the voters, might take exception too.  The Report believes that Perez will not be Stark County's next sheriff after the politicians appoint him and he has to stand for election.

Perez has a long line of political enemies within Stark County law enforcement.  He wasn't that well liked in the law enforcement community to begin with and then he blundered (in the exercise of judgment) big time in his conduct of the investigation into allegations made by then trustee Tim Wise of Marlboro Township about police Chief Ron Devies and his son over, what turned out to be, misunderstandings in the transitioning of the township's computer maintenance from the Devies son to an area company.

Blundered?

How so?

Perez decided to secretly wear a wire when interviewing Chief Devies.  The Perez wearing the wire caper swirled through Stark Copy policedom.  And the reaction  wasn't "what a terrific idea."  It was deemed as a grievous violation of trust by most.

Moreover, Perez's work product proved to be so deficient that Stark County chief criminal prosecutor Dennis Barr got his case dismissed without the defense to having to put on any evidence at all.

And there is the matter of Perez being a "retire, rehire" himself.  He didn't even stand for election like Swanson did.  Swanson himself accorded him this blessing by virtue of being the boss.

Perez may be able to bypass all of his negatives with an anointing - err appointing - when Swanson retires yet again, but all his public performance history will be out there in full view when he has to stand before the electorate.

Do  you think the Stark County voting public is going to embrace this guy?

Probably not.

But Tim Swanson does and he is apparently poised to  try to stack the deck for Perez.

The Report continues to think that Swanson will step down soon so that Perez can and very likely will be appointed (with Swanson's help) by the Stark County Central Committee which is controlled by Perez's good friend and Stark County Democratic Party chair Randy Gonzalez who is also real thick with the sheriff.

Don't you just love Stark County politics and how the likes of Giavasis, Meeks and Swanson think they are entitled to call the shots for all of us!