CATAZARO-PERRY: FRUSTRATED, TOTALLY FRUSTRATED?

UPDATED:  12:30 PM

If you are Massillon policeman Michael P. Maier and - if - one day down the road you want to be

Massillon Chief of Police (MPD), it might be advisable to not have Massillon mayor Kathy Catazaro Perry as your sponsor.

So far in legal proceedings, Massillon is batting .000 (0 for 3) in what appears to The Stark County Political Report as part of Catazaro-Perry's  all consuming passion to make the grandson of a former (deceased in 2006) long time, highly regarded/respected Massillon policeman; namely, Johnnie A. Maier, Sr. a future head of the MPD.

The appeal of the Massillon Civil Service decision holding that the law of Ohio allowed Mayor Catazaro-Perry to appoint Micheal P. Maier (son of Stark County sheriff George T. Maier) to a vacancy recreated on the retirement of Sgt J.J. DiLoreto had to be painful for Massillon FOP Henderson Lodge president Tim Anderson and the Local 105 leadership inasmuch as Michael's grandfather is listed on Lodge stationery as being president "emeritus" (a honorary status)

• SCPR Note:  See LINK and note that on the linked FOP webpage that Anderson is listed as the Massillon representative to the Lodge 105).

In this third defeat of what the SCPR thinks is the mayor's fast tracking of Michael towards being the head of the MPD, here is a summary of Stark County Court of Common Pleas Chryssa Hartnett decision in re:  the illegality of the MCSC action is allowing Michael's appointment.

• SCPR Note:  Yours truly is told that there are reports that Michael Maier took a recent "promotion to lieutenant" MCSC exam but did not fare particularly well.
• If the speculation is correct, then the prospects for Maier to one day be Massillon police chief are dimmed considerably more than finding himself once again in patrolman status as a potential consequence of the Rogers and Anderson case outcomes. 
• However, if reports are erroneous about his not coming first for a promotion to lieutenant; it seems to the SCPR that a reversion to patrolman would take away an opportunity for such a promotion.

And here is Judge Hartnett's summary of relevant facts which, she says, were not in dispute.

Here is the refined issue, Judge Hartnett's ruling and the SCPR's read of the significance of the ruling.

And here is her reason for reversing the MCSC Anderson decison:

Looking at the matter through the eyes of the mayor, one would likely see her batting record as, in baseball parlance, 2 for 5 (.400, very good for baseball).  For the Massillon Civil Service Commission (which is controlled, more or less, by the mayor by whom she appoints to the commission) has ruled in favor of Michael or his interest twice.

• SCPR Note:  Chairman Marcus Simpson is said by The Report's source to have voted to grant the appeal of the FOP.
• The Report is told that Simpson's term is to expire soon and it would be truly amazing were Catazaro-Perry to reappoint him given his dissent on the Anderson matter.

In light of the MCSC having made two illegal decisions, the more sensible thing for Catazaro-Perry to do is to ask for Chapanar and Campbell's resignation.

Especially in light of this letter from Law Director Perry Stergios:

It is hard to see how Massillonians going forward - if Chapanar and Campbell remain in place - can have confidence that "the rule of law" will be respected by the Commission.

It is interesting to note that Massillon Law Director Perry Stergios was not representing the city in the Anderson case.

Which, of course, means that Massillon spent taxpayer dollars on private counsel.

Massillon is in State of Ohio designated fiscal emergency on the petition of Mayor Catazaro-Perry.

But such does not seem to bother her in the least in pushing through on behalf of Michael Maier either directly or in his interest.

The first loss (LINK:  see this SCPR blog for the complete story) on the appeal of the-then Patrolman Thomas Rogers not having been selected by the Massillon Civil Service Commission (MCSC) to be promoted to sergeant in that the Commission held that Rogers was not entitled to seniority points as provided for in a City of Massillon/Union contract.

The promotion instead going to Michael Maier.

As it turns out on the decision of Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Haas, confirmed by the Fifth District Court of Appeals that MCSC illegally (by the union/city contract terms and the law of Ohio) appointed Maier.

The SCPR doubts that the Catazaro-Perry administration will voluntarily implement the clear implication of Judge Hartnett's ruling.

That is to say, the second Michael Maier appointment was never as a matter of law effective and that he remains a patrolman in the Massillon Police Department.

Counsel for the union (Craig T. Conley) anticipates that Mayor Catazaro-Perry will seek to maintain Maier as a MPD sergeant and therefore in planning further legal action to implement the consequences of the Hartnett decision.

The mayor is on record as saying that her dealings and determinations with respect to the Michael Maier situation has nothing to do with the fact that his father Sheriff George T. Maier was her first safety/service director.

It is noteworthy that in the Rogers MCSC decision appeal (the appeal to the Commission itself) George was present.

Moreover, in Lodge #105's appeal before the commission on its promoting Michael on the basis of using "the List" two years rather than the legal one year period, it is noteworthy that Michael was present with his attorney Steven Okey.

Catazaro-Perry's statement, the SCPR thinks, belongs in the category of:  "It may be true, but who is going to believe it!"

The current police chief Keith Moser might now have some breathing room.

Were Michael Maier eligible to be sergeant and had he done well on the recent lieutenant example, it is a short step to becoming the chief.

But he isn't according multiple courts and he didn't according to reports circulating in the community.

Catazaro-Perry tried to dump Moser in June, 2013 in dismissing him on June 4 during a time period she could do so without cause.

And the SCPR suspects her real reason is that Moser is his own person with her in the context of working with her administration in setting of being the police professional he is.

That should be fine with the mayor.

But it isn't.

She has demonstrated to the SCPR that all she abides around her is "yes" men and women.

His dismissal prompted the need to set a new competitive exam to develop a List for police chief eligibles.

It was absolutely terrific news when Catazaro-Perry had  "to eat crow" on October 15, 2013 and take him back as chief after he was high scorer - once again - on the competitive police chief eligible exam.

But the SCPR thinks that all the hub-bub around Michael Maier and "the sergeant thing" should put Moser and other aspirants to be MPD chief on notice that she seems intent on bringing Michael on board.

Undoubtedly, she is counting on being reelected in November.

If she is, Moser, the SCPR thinks, should be looking over his shoulder to see whether or not Mayor Kathy and her close advisers have come up with a plan to put Michael Maier in the running for her to be a position to make him chief.

But of course she did say back in October of 2013:  "We support him [Moser] 150 percent and wish him the best in being successful."

At least until she can get Michael Maier in position to be appointed, no?

(VIDEO) THOMAS ROGERS TRIUMPHS!

IS ALL-OUT WARFARE ABOUT TO BREAK OUT BETWEEN 

THE 

CATAZARO-PERRY ADMINISTRATION 

&THE MASSILLON POLICE DEPARTMENT UNION 

IN ADMINISTRATION'S EFFORT

 TO SAVE 

MICHAEL MAIER'S SERGEANT RANK?

VIDEO

THOMAS ROGERS

TAKES OATH OF OFFICE

FROM AN UNHAPPY?

MAYOR KATHY CATAZARO-PERRY

BACKGROUND AS TO WHY THIS SWEARING-IN IS SO SIGNIFICANT

The Stark County Political Report thinks that newly promoted Sergeant Thomas Rogers has, at great personal sacrifice (i.e. the expense and trouble of filing a lawsuit against city of Massillon [his employer]), advanced the cause of "playing by the rules."

(See entire video of swearing-in ceremony at the end of this blog)

Every step of the way to his promotion the sergeant in the Massillon Police Department yesterday, Rogers as one would expect of a law enforcement officer has "gone by the book."

But the Stark County Political Report does think that the Mayor Catazaro-Perry's administration including the Massillon Civil Service Commission has done so.

Accordingly, although all was smiles and handshakes yesterday as the mayor swore Rogers in, you just know that it was a "grit her teeth" and "do what you gotta do" exercise for her.

Now why would The Report think that the administration has not "played by the rules?"

Because Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge John Haas and the majority of judges on a Fifth District Court of Appeals panel have said so.

Unlike other Stark County media, the SCPR has followed this case very closely. 

Not to be overlooked is Rogers legal counsel Craig T. Conley.  He has done superlative work for Rogers and as a consequence The Report hears that Sergeant Rogers is to receive about $10,800 in back pay.

Of course, conversely, Mayor Catazaro-Perry has cost Massillon taxpayers $10,800 by acting precipitously in making the original sergeant promotion and it could be that there will ultimately be a compounding of the increased taxpayer cost her action brings to Massillon.

If Catazaro-Perry was a stand up officeholder and accepted that she is accountable to taxpayers, the foregoing is an example of a line of inquiry she would have to respond to "on camera" at the hand of the Stark County Political Report.

Does anybody think the mayor could handle the SCPR's incisive questioning?

For much more detail read the blogs (LINK 1 and LINK 2) that The Report has written and it will be readily apparent why this particular case is especially noteworthy to many Massillonians.

And it ought to be for Stark Countians at-large.

His perseverance will make other such bodies of government throughout Stark County and, indeed, Ohio,  think twice, three or more times about "not" playing by the rules.

A SLAM AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE SCPR

In one sense,  it made the Stark County Report's day when told that Mayor Kathy said that Martin Olson was not welcome at the mayor's office for Rogers' swearing-in ceremony specifically because I am a blogger.

In one sense?

Yes.

That the SCPR has bored in on her administration (whereas the main stream media has not) and made telling criticisms of Catazaro-Perry's style and substance (or better, lack thereof) of leadership which after nearly two and one half years has Massillon struggling and in the throes of fiscal emergency with very little, if any, light at the end of the tunnel.

As The Report sees her leadership qualities as opined on in quite a number of blogs, it seems to be virtually non-existent inasmuch it appears that she almost completely relies on others to make her decisions for her.

The SCPR warned Massillonians before her election that such would be the case.

Moreover, the SCPR sees her having hostility towards anyone who dares to differ with her.

She takes cues from Massillon's self-proclaimed political Wizard of Oz who holds political office of his own in the Massillon Courts.  But being the clerk apparently is not enough.  He thought to be the real mayor of Massillon but of course has the advantage of hiding behind Catazaro-Perry's skirts.

To be the butt of Catazaro-Perry administration dissatisfaction is a compliment, no doubt about it.

But it was also "a day of infamy" insofar as The Report takes "the statement" in her capacity as a public official as being an attempt to trample on my rights under the Constitution of the United States of America.

A Constitution for which I put myself in harms way while serving in the United States of America Air Force (USAF) in South Korea, 1963 - 1964.  Two of my daughters are commissioned officers in the USAF doing their patriotism in defending the American way of life.

We in the Olson family put action where our mouths are.  Folks like the mayor and those to whom she beats a path to the Massillon Court complex in order to get her daily marching orders, "mouth off."

There is never an appropriate place or setting for someone to say to what the mayor said, but it is particularly offensive given yesterday's occasion.

In case the mayor has forgotten a key part of that Constitution that she is sworn to defend and uphold in her oath of office and which she administered to Sergeant Rogers yesterday includes:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Her own words in derogation of my Constitutional rights, I think, betray what a petty person she is.

Moreover,  she also appears to be an individual who thinks being mayor of a municipal government is her private office and fiefdom and that she does not have to respect my Constitutional rights as a media person to have access to public places..

Nor does she think she is accountable to the people through the media as she bristles at the scrutiny of the only Stark County media who looks behind the curtain of her administration.

She is entitled to take exception to the opinions I write in my blogs.  But hands off my Constitutional rights!!!

Like some of her political friends and supporters who occupy key public office positions in the government of Massillon, she knows she cannot handle the questions which would come from the Stark County Political Report were she to do what she ought to out of respect for the First Amendment and do interviews with and take questions from The Report.

In my view,  these folks are some "very insecure people," who avoid incisive scrutiny of  their government functions at all cost, including, apparently, countenancing the infringement of the Constitutional rights of any who critique them.

They align themselves with the Democratic Political Party.  The SCPR thinks they do not behave as small letter "d"emocrat bone in their bodies. What The Report thinks they stand for is bullying power politics that threatens the health of our democratic-republic.

And The Report is proud to provide examples for the people of Stark County to consider.

Moving on.

IS A MANAGEMENT/ UNION FIGHT LOOMING IN MASSILLON?

The SCPR has obtained documents that have been exchanged between the Massillon Civil Service Commission, F.O.P Henderson Lodge #105 and Maier attorney Steve Okey which indicate (in a collective context) to The Report that a war between the various parties to the correspondence may be about to erupt.

The Report thinks these documents speak for themselves and are not flattering to the Catazaro-Perry administration.

LETTER #1:  FOP TO MASSILLON CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

NOTE:  CLICK ON THE GRAPHICS IN YOUR BROWSER TO ENLARGE

LETTER #2:  ATTORNEY STEVE OKEY (FOR MICHAEL MAIER) TO FOP

LETTER #3:  MASSILLON CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TO FOP

 

LETTER #4:  FOP TO MASSILLON CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

THE SWEARING-IN CEREMONY

IS MASSILLON ABOUT TO PAY TWICE FOR AN "EXTRA" SERGEANT'S POSITION IN THE MASSILLON POLICE DEPARTMENT?

MASSILLON LOSES COURT CASE
ON
PROMOTION TO SERGEANT CONTROVERSY

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

CATAZARO-PERRY & HER ADVISERS

HAVE MADE A REAL MESS OF

MASSILLON FINANCES?

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

STATE OF OHIO AUDITOR

SAYS

MASSILLON CAN SAVE

$628,600 ANNUALLY!

UPDATE:  5:45 PM

Here is a follow up e-mail from Massillon Councilman Milan Chovan on the situation of Michael Maier.

From:  Milan Chovan   (Wednesday, April 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM)

To:  Martin Olson

Hi, Martin. 

I read the update to your blog that was made after my voicemail this morning.  I'd like to explain further to clear up a few things that I might not have made clear in the voicemail.

First of all, the city ordinance regarding staffing levels sets the number of sergeants at 6, not 7.  Rogers would have been number 7 without the retirement of an existing sergeant.  In that case, it would appear that Maier would have had to have been demoted, according to the city's Codified Ordinances. 

Earlier today, I found out that there might be another issue regarding Maier. As I understand it, if two officers pass the sergeant's test as did Maier and Rogers, the results are good for one year.  So, if the more senior sergeant candidate that passed the test is promoted, then another sergeant opening occurs within one year from the test date,  the junior officer could be promoted without retaking the test. I was informed today that, if Rogers would have been promoted when Maier was, well over a year ago, Maier's previous test results would now be expired.  The contention is that Maier should not have been made a sergeant  when he was and, therefore, does not have a valid test result to allow him to be a sergeant now, even though there would only be 6 sergeants on the department.  

In effect, right now, there should only be 5 sergeants with Rogers as one of them and an opening for a 6th sergeant that should be filled after a new test is administered to any officer qualified to take it.  If another officer with more seniority than Maier passes the test, he would be promoted before Maier.  At least that's what I was told. Confusing isn't it?

Thanks for the follow up Milan. 

It is confusing and that's why I wanted SCPR readers to hear from you in your capacity as chairman of Massillon City Council's Police and Fire Committee.

UPDATE:  9:15 AM

Republican Councilman-at-Large Milan Chovan (chairman of Massillon City Council's Police & Fire Committee) this morning in response to a SCPR inquiry as to whether or not Massillon's Fifth District Court of Appeals loss on the Rogers case is likely to result in Michael Maier being demoted said that he does not think so.

He explained that Massillon very recently had its full ordinance authorized seven sergeants on staff and that until the very recent retirement of one of the sergeants, a promotion of Thomas Rogers to sergeant would have put Massillon over the seven sergeant authorization.  Accordingly, it appears that Maier will be remaining a sergeant.

Chovan did say that the matter of retroactive pay to Rogers at the grade of sergeant is something else and he believes that it is an issue that Massillon government will have to deal with.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The Stark County Political Report thinks that if you had asked Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (executive vice chair of the Stark County Democratic Party) in January, 2013 if the family fortunes were flying high in terms of being dominant factors in Stark County police work (also Ohio:  2007 - 2011, George T. Maier, assistant director/director [for a few days] of the Department of Public Safety),  he most likely would have had ONE BIG SMILE on his face.

The Report's take on this former chairman of the Stark Dems is that he is a firm believer that "might makes right" and he has what it takes to play the political bully to take himself and his political allies to the apex of Stark County politics and government.

Maier, Jr learned power politics from one of Ohio's all time masters.

But these days, Johnnie might have a more sober look on his face.

Yesterday, the Fifth District Court of Appeals (5DCOA) came down with a decision which might result in his nephew Massillon policeman Michael Maier (George's son) losing his rank of sergeant in the Massillon Police Department (MPD).

Here's how Rogers attorney (Conley) put the significance of the 5DCOA ruling:

Yesterday, the Fifth District Court of Appeals issued its Opinion in the above-referenced cause affirming the Trial Court's (Judge Haas) reversal of the City of Massillon Civil Service Commission's decision denying Massillon Police Officer Rogers' promotion to Sergeant.

Accordingly, barring an unlikely successful appeal to' the Ohio Supreme Court, the City of Massillon is now obliged to retroactively promote Officer Rogers to Sergeant and to pay him back wages and fringe benefits therefor.

Ironically enough, the Massillon Police Officer unlawfully appointed sergeant in Officer Rogers' stead was George T. Maier's son, Michael Maier, noting that the younger Maier's promotion was effectuated while his father was the Massillon Safety Service Director.

To get a full appreciation of the full background on this story, readers of this SCPR blog should click on this LINK to access a blog published by The Report on April 29, 2013 providing quite a bit of background own how Micheal came to be promoted sergeant at the MPD by Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry over one Thomas Rogers even though the Stark Court of Common Pleas (Judge John Haas) and now the 5DCOA has found "as a matter of law" that Rogers has more seniority than Maier.

Originally the Massillon Civil Service Commission disregarded Rogers seniority factor (3 to 0) in coming to a decision as to recommend to Mayor Catazaro-Perry whom to promote.

And the SCPR believes that the commission was not politically motivated but was merely misinformed as to what the operative law was at the time of its determination.

How did that happen?

Well, that is a good question which the SCPR does not have an answer for.

Perhaps it is that there is something in the water in certain parts of Massillon?

But the disconnect between the law as it is - and how the Maiers and others think it is - seems to be common phenomenon at play when it comes to Michael and father George qualifying for public policing positions.

The erroneous Massillon Civil Service Commissioner interpretation of the law (at least at the Stark Common Pleas and 5DCOA levels) was rendered on November 27, 2012.

A couple months or so later, Michael's father George, after guaranteeing Stark Countians that if he applied to succeed November, 2012 Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (who, due to illness, could not take office on January 7, 2013) he would be qualified, was proved to be wrong (after being appointed sheriff on February 5, 2013 by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee) when on November 6, 2013 the Ohio Supreme Court (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) said he failed to meet the criteria of Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b).

Now George is under challenge once again in the Ohio Supreme Court as to whether or not he is qualified to be the Stark County Democratic Party's candidate for sheriff in the upcoming May 6, 2014 primary election.  (Balas-Bratton v. Maier, Writ of Prohibition, filed March 11, 2014)

The main point of this blog is to examine the financial implications to Massillon City finances in what appears to the SCPR to have been too hasty of a decision on the part of Mayor Catazaro-Perry to exercising her executive power to do so in promoting Michael to sergeant given the legal challenge that was surely to follow.

Presumably readers know about the dire financial condition that the city of Massillon is in these days.

Even before she took office as mayor (elected in November, 2011), Catazaro-Perry was trying to get the State of Ohio Auditor's (SOA) office to making an official finding that Massillon was in some sort of financial condition.

But the SOA rejected her overture.

If Catazaro-Perry has anything going for her, it is her doggedness.  And that could come from her political protege and sponsor Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

Finally, she did persuade the SOA in 2013 to declare Massillon to be in fiscal emergency.  On May 13, 2013 she wrote SOA David Yost and on October 8th, he accommodated her.

Ironically, yesterday the SOA came out with the requested audit and here is its recommendation "savings" list:

Hmm?

$628,600 in "Annual Cost Savings/Revenue Enhancements."

Interestingly enough, the mayor is reported be saying that Massillon may not implement all the SOA's recommendations.

Hmm?

Who asked for the audit?

Of course, even if Massillon were to implement all the SOA recommendations, the savings will have to be reduced by the amount of money the Catazaro-Perry administration will likely have to pay Thomas Rogers.

And it has been one big merry-go-round and she (as the SCPR sees it) has chosen to lock horns with Massillon City Council over coming up with a plan to present to the Massillon Financial Planning Commission (set up as part of the SOA declaring Massillon to be in fiscal emergency) for its approval.

The Report hears that the mayor convinced her fellows on the commission to disapprove council's plan submitted to the commission recently.

Which in light of the recommendations of the SOA yesterday and the "miraculous" reduction in the deficit from $2.6 million to $1.1 million reported recently makes one wonder whether or not a declaration fiscal emergency was merited in the first place.

Nevertheless Catazaro-Perry and council are at loggerheads and who knows if, when and how the stand off will end.

The Report is told by a knowledgeable source that the State of Ohio member of the commission (having met with council at a work session on Monday night) may be changing her view of council's plan.

With all the financial hubbub going on, it cannot be good news that it is looking pretty certain (the 5DCOA decision is susceptible of being appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court) that Massillon will now have to promote Thomas Rogers to sergeant with retroactive pay and benefits.

In light of Massillon's financial problems, it will be interesting to see how much Massillon will be set back because of Catazaro-Perry's premature action on the sergeant promotion.

And, the SCPR is told, that it may be that Massillon's code of ordinances does not allow both Rogers and Maier to be sergeants.  (See UPDATE above).

If such proves to be the case, it appears that Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry (one would think under the advice of Maier, Jr [who is Massillon's clerk of courts] and his appendage and deputy clerk R. Shane Jackson) has made a real mess of things in Massillon.

While Johnnie, Jr and his political friends and allies may think that they can muscle their way through every situation; maybe, just maybe, political power has it limits.

If things have gotten worse for Johnnie, Jr and his political pals with the adverse 5DCOA decision - so what - might be the response. They only getting what they deserve.

And that may be.

But what should not be acceptable to the voters in Massillon and across Stark County (i.e. the sheriff thing) is for political power mongers to drag all of us into the consequences of losing the political power game.

There is yet a chance that the exercise of executive and political power may in the end prevail.

If they do or do not succeed, the play of ill-advised executive action and power politics will have markedly damaged Massillon (re:  its safety forces) and Stark County (the sheriff's situation) in terms of the public perception of the priorities of interests.

Which is prevailing, the public must be saying:  the public interest or somebody's personal interest?

DOES JUDGE HAAS' DECISION IN ROGERS V. MASSILLON CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GIVE CREDENCE TO THOSE WHO SUGGEST THAT "CHANGED" ORIGINAL COMMISSION DECISION DOES NOT PASS "THE SMELL TEST?"

On April 17, 2013 Judge John Haas of the Stark Court of Common Pleas reversed the findings of the Massillon Civil Service Board (Board) that it would not count "the seniority factor" in favor of Massillon policeman Thomas Rogers in determining who had the most points to qualify for promotion to sergeant in the Massillon Police Department (MPD).  (see the Judge Haas' order at the end of this blog)

So?

Well, let's play a little Jeopardy.

Answer:  "Seniority entitles a competitor extra points."

Question:  What was the Massillon Civil Service Board's ruling on the impact of superior seniority in the Board's determination of who scored highest in the competition between Keith Moser and Joe Herrick back in 2012?

The rest of the story is that under the rules in play Mayor Kathy Catazaro Perry (according to a source in a position to know) was obligated to appoint Keith Moser as Massillon police chief.  And she did so on June 7, 2012.

So?

What does have to do with Tom Rogers getting or not getting promoted sergeant?

Maybe nothing.

But there are those who say that the cast of characters competing for the sergeant promotion may have had something to do with who got promoted.

Okay, let's go the next step.  Who was among several Massillon police officers competing with Rogers for the promotion?

Answer:  Officer Mike Maier of the MPD.

So?

Well, he is son of current Stark County sheriff George T. Maier (service/safety directory at time of the promotion).  Also, he is the nephew of Massillon Clerk of Courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr who also a seasoned politician in that he was formerly chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.

And get this.

Guess who sat in on the civil service hearing in which the Board determined that seniority points would not be added to Rogers total score?

Answer:  None other than George T. Maier (this is information provided the SCPR by the attorney [Craig T. Conley] for Rogers.

 

So?

Well, he was service/safety director at the time and he had no input into the proceedings.

Nonetheless, some Massillonians feel that it was highly inappropriate for father to be present when the son was a subject of consideration.

And this seemingly is one of the fundaments of some in Massillon (including, the SCPR is told, a media type) who question whether or not the Board's initial decision passes "the smell test."

There is another factor which some suspect may have had an impact on the thinking on the Board's disparity in its seniority ruling.

Back in 2010 Officer Rogers was a player in a dispute between the-then Massillon police chief Robert Williams (he retired in January, 2012) and Judge Edward Elum of the Massillon Municipal Court.  (See Massillon municipal judge, police chief at war, Matt Rink, The Independent, March 5, 2010)

You got to be kidding, what does that have to do with anything?

Well, some Massillonians say that Judge Elum is a political ally of Clerk Maier and that Rogers' tete-tete with Elum in the context of the Williams/Elum tiff earned Rogers a special place on Johnnie Maier's "sh_t list?"

Undoubtedly and understandably that the Maiers would be supportive of and hopeful of  son and nephew Mike getting the promotion, but certainly one would think that a civil service board (which is devoted by its very nature to measure according to merit and objective criteria exclusively) would be impervious to considering as even as a scintilla a factor that a person with the surname Maier was a competitor for the promotion, no?

It is believable that it might be very important to the Maiers that Mike become a sergeant so that he can begin is climb to one day become Massillon's police chief. The family has a rich and deep history with the MPD and with Ohio policing in general.

So exactly what is wrong with the Maiers supporting a Maier, pray tell?

And consider this.

Members Walterhouse and Simpson were appointed to the Board by avowed Maier political enemy Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr.

One Massillonian keeps telling the SCPR that the supposed political feud between Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and Frank Cicchinelli going back to their political competition when they were both students at Kent - Stark is a ruse.

The Report thinks that is more than a stretch.

The Maier political machine with Kathy Catazaro-Perry as its candidate put Cicchinelli on the political sidelines in the 2011 Democratic Primary after having served as mayor for 28 years and even more in Massillon elective office and its all political theater?

Who is going to believe that one?

And to thicken the political thicket, get this.

Yes!  In the 2007 general election Democrat Catazaro-Perry takes out Republican Walterhouse in Massillon's Ward 3.  And, by a pretty considerable margin.

So Walterhouse is going to pay attention (even subconsciously) to the hopes and prayers of the Maiers and their political allies?

Not likely, huh?

A Maier political foe and SCPR source also speaks very highly of Board member Marcus Simpson who, at last report, is dean of students at Massillon Middle School.

Undoubtedly, those who suggest that the changed original decision of the Massillon Civil Service Board "does not pass the smell test" certainly know about all the disconnections/connections cited above in this blog, no?

So what is the world is going on with the suggestion:  "the Rogers denial of promotion to sergeant 'does not pass the smell test'?

The SCPR says it is hard to say.

Could be good ole fashion sour grapes, no?

But there is no doubt that Judge Haas' decision has caused a flare up of the political fires between those who think well of the Maiers and those who think that at least Johnnie is a out-and-out political opportunist who is relentless in his drive to see to it that his kin and political friends get taxpayer supported positions.

Some folks believe that he is the reason brother George became deputy director of the State of Ohio Department of Public Safety (and even director in the last few days of the Strickland administration in January, 2011).

Johnnie was the chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party when Ted Strickland ran for governor in 2006 against Republican Ken Blackwell.

Strickland has made it very plain (reference an appearance in Canal Fulton in behalf state Representative candidate Celeste DeHoff [October, 2008]) that he was highly appreciative to Johnnie for his having been the first party chairman in all of Ohio to have endorsed him during the 2006 Democratic primary season.

If memory serves correctly, The Report's recollection is that local parties taking sides in a intraparty gubernatorial contest was pretty much of an "no-no."  But one does what one has to do, no?

Johnnie did have good material to work with IF he did lobby Strickland to promote brother George.

George, as we have learned from selection by the Stark Dems to be Stark County sheriff (replacing Mike McDonald who could not as sheriff elect take office because of health reasons) on February 5th of this year, has impressive de facto policing credentials (George Maier may or may not have the de jure credentials to remain sheriff.  The Ohio Supreme Court will decide the matter).

But does anyone believe that the Johnnie Maier/Ted Strickland connection didn't have a great deal to do with brother George becoming a top official in the State of Ohio Department of Public Safety?

Probably darned few, if anybody, no?

Anyway, in reading Judge Haas' decision, it is apparent to the SCPR that there was a "color of law" argument advanced by Massillon Law Director Perry Stergious that state law did away with the requirement (per the contract between the Henderson Lodge of the Massillon Fraternal Order of Police [FOP]) and the city of Massillon) that seniority points be granted by the Board to the likes of Rogers.

But Judge Haas did not see it that way.

And the SCPR thinks his reasoning is sound.

Moreover, his reasons seem to The Report to cut through any distinction that may have been in the minds of Chapanar, Walterhouse, and Simpson between the Keith Moser and Thomas Rogers situations.

Moser's was based pre-July, 2012 whereas Rogers' was post-July, 2012 which may be the basis in the distinction in the Board's thinking.

The Report is told that Law Director Stergios has not decided whether or not he is going to appeal the Haas decision.

If there is no appeal and thereby a lack of a higher court decision that results in a vindication of the Board, does not the Massillon Civil Service Board have some "explainin" (a la Sarah Palin) to do?

"Explainin to do?"

Yes.

How does seniority apply to the police chief competition but not to the sergeant competition?

Shouldn't the Board address this question head on in a direct comparison?

Because the way things stand now, there are those Massillonians who think that Rogers' failure to get those seniority points "stinks to high heavens" and that thinking will undoubtedly persist and likely will cast doubt on the processes and procedures of the Board.

And how that can be good for anybody is beyond the SCPR.

Here is the Judge John Haas decision.