AN EXAMPLE OF USING OFFICE FOR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE?

GEORGE T. MAIER APOLOGISTS

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be duck," no?

Apparently not, if your name is George T. Maier and you are Stark County Democratic Party appointed sheriff.

Clear back on June 3, 2014, it appeared to the SCPR that George was thinking ahead to November 4, 2014 and his attempt to have validation of being Stark County sheriff by anyone other than the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee.

Twice Maier encountered stiff opposition to being appointed sheriff by the Dems to replace former chief deputy and sheriff-elect (November, 2012) who was unable to take office on January 7, 2013 due to being in the last stages of a terminal illness which took his life on February 22, 2013.

On February 5th, 84 Democrat central committee persons voted "no" (in voting for the politically unsophisticated Lou Darrow) on Maier, while a slim majority of 92 voted for Maier who is the brother of the politically consummate Johnnie A. Maier, Jr; a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman.

On December 11, 2013, in a re-do of the selection process because the Ohio Supreme Court found (November 6, 2013) that Maier "was not qualified" to be sheriff on February 5th, 66 Stark County Democratic Party precinct committee persons voted for Darrow and against Maier.

Those numbers in and of themselves make it obvious that Maier has an uphill climb to get elected to anything countywide in Stark.

Only in Massillon do the Maiers seem to have much political clout.  Johnnie has settled down as clerk of courts with the Stark County Democratic Party political director (Shane Jackson) at his side as chief deputy since the late 1990s as a refuge from being term-limited out of the Ohio House of Representatives.

Back to George T. Maier "thinking ahead" to November 4, 2014.

Recently, the SCPR received a copy of the following "inter-office memo:"

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

We have been discussing holding an agency open house to allow the public to visit our facility to interact with you to have a better understand of what we do here at the Stark County Sheriff’s Office.

The visit will not include access to our secure areas but will afford the public with the opportunity to view some common areas and permit us to place some of our equipment on display.

I anticipate that this event will be sometime in September or early October before the weather turns allowing us to host part of the event outdoors.

The reason for this memo is to see if any of you might be interested in participating on a committee organize this event and get it off the ground.  This would require some volunteer time to help work on the planning of this event.

If you are interested I will select a small group of people to take the lead on this and so please let Carrie know if you are interested in participating.

Hmm?

An open house?

September or early October before the weather turns?

Election date:  November 4, 2014!

What a coincidence!!!

The perfect cover for staging what some may think as being a political event at taxpayer expense, no?

So the SCPR started digging.

One of Stark County's most stand up guys in the estimate of the SCPR is Warren Price.

A former Democratic Alliance councilman, candidate for mayor and William J. Healy, II administration official (top level in various roles) and now Human Resources director for Maier.

While he appears to be a loyal person for whomever he works (something, undoubtedly the Maiers understand about him), if "push comes to shove" in that his boss asks him to do things not in the public interest, the SCPR thinks that "he will - in the end - turn on a person he views as an "out-of-bounds" boss and opt out.

He was part of the legal team which represented the Stark County Democratic Party when Lou Darrow filed his ill-fated Writ of Prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court against the Dems trying to prevent the February 5th vote.

Such is exactly what The Report thinks happened in his leaving the Healy administration in July, 2013.

In hindsight it appears that Price knew his days with the Healy administration were numbered (summer of 2013) and either approached or was approached the Maier folks about his doing work for the Dems' appointed sheriff.


Notwithstanding Price's generalized "aim to please,"  The Report thinks that he is the most reliable person on George T. Maier's staff to look out for the public interest over Maier's personal political interests and if "pushed to the wall" will push back.

Of course, the Maiers (George and Johnnie, Jr) will, undoubtedly, be watching him very closely and will likely subtlely remind him periodically that he is an "at will" sheriff's department employee and that he had better mind his "p's and q's."

In the SCPR's asking for sheriff department public records, Price appears to be bending over backwards to provide them.

So the SCPR sent a copy of the inter-office communication to Price asking for records on purchases and a list of those "volunteering" in support of an open house.

Relying on the fiction that the SCPR thinks George T. Maier is perpetuating in-house that the spruce up at the 4500 Atlantic Avenue complex has nothing to do with his proposed open house and it certainly has nothing to do to having a pretext of using taxpayer money in support of what some think is an effort to buttress his underway political campaign, this is what Price had to say about the SCPR estimated $2,000, more or less, in recent expenditures in making repairs/refurbishing at the jail complex:

 

A photo example of one purchase made (five spotted, at last count) at Stark County taxpayer expense "not for open house and certainly 'not for political purposes:'"

(Enlarged, non-colorized,  version of Maier logo on soap dispenser/sanitizer dispenser)

Cool, really cool, no?  All at Stark County taxpayer expense!

It appears that the current effort is a Yogi Berra "deja vu, all over again" event, to wit:

No offense to Price but as an offense to Maier:  "Sheriff - who is going to believe that?"

As the SCPR is apt to say when Stark County politicians engage the ridiculous, and to say it once again in an expanded form:  "it may be true, but who is going to believe it?"

Of course, The Stark County Political Report thinks that anything that George and brother Johnnie say is laced with personal political interests and therefore suspects that their goals have not much if any connection with the public interest.

Some folks think that Maier's predecessor Tim Swanson was a highly political sheriff.

But he always answered every question the critically minded SCPR ever put to him and even after The Report wrote blogs critical of him he still fielded the SCPR's questions.

George T. Maier, on the other hand, does not have the guts to take SCPR questions.

The Report thinks that if Maier is elected, he will politicize the Stark County sheriff's department to a degree that Stark Countians have never seen.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, Maier is already made quite a few moves in what is believed to be bringing his political loyalists onto the sheriff's payroll beginning with his assumption of office in early 2013.

Slowly but surely neutral leaders at the sheriff's department are filtering out.

Predictably, Lou Darrow has left.  Reports are that he departed after confronting Maier about a Maier promised assignment that had not materialized.  Maier's reported response:  "Wait until after the election."

Other top-tier sheriff's department personnel are set to leave rather than abide Maier's arbitrary ways, the SCPR is told.

It appears to the SCPR that Maier and his political advisers are configuring ways for sheriff department employees to curry favor with the sheriff.

In the inter-office memo (see the entire memo above), the so-called "volunteers" for the projected open house are told that Maier is looking for ( I will select a small group of people to take the lead on this) in what some might think to be an implication of creating an elite group of insiders who have the confidence of the sheriff.

The list:

The SCPR has reports to the effect that Lt. Stantz is spending large amounts of time (presumably his own time) doing campaign activities for Maier.

The Report is told that a postcard has been sent out to sheriff deputies indicating that it is presumed that they would want a "Maier for Sheriff" sign in their yards.  But if they do not. They are to contact Lt. John Oliver, and tell him so.

Very intimidating to those hard working deputy sheriffs, no?

Other Stark County sheriff department top brass names that keeping coming up to the SCPR as being part of the Maier reelection campaign in discussion with sources include. Oliver, Lt. Charles Stantz, and Captain Tim George.

Moreover, The Report is told that a former sheriff's department employee (now a civilian?) whose spouse still works for the department was allowed to drive a taxpayer provided vehicle in the Alliance (July 29th) "Carnation Festival" parade.

None of this is a surprise to the Stark County Political Report.

And the SCPR hasn't even gotten into the "Coffee With a Cop" program that has "political" timing written all over it as far as The Report is concerned.

The Report cannot wait until Maier's October 23rd campaign finance report is released (listing contributions from the post-primary report through October 15.)

It will be interesting to see how many "entirely on their own" (of course) department employees will have made contributions and in what amount.

To the SCPR, for Stark County chief law enforcer to be "politically initiated" as the SCPR thinks George T. Maier is, should be a matter of grave concern to Stark County voters!!!

NORTH CANTON BATTLE CONTINUES: FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF IT!

Whether one agrees with the legal positions of Jamie McCleaster and Hillary Mueller or not, they should be admired for pursuing vindication of their respective campaigns for North Canton City Council this past November.

They did lose on ethics violation complaints filed with the Ohio Elections Commission (LINK to prior SCPR blog) days before the November 5th general election.

For a full refresher on the gist of the Snyder and Kiesling complaints go to this SCPR blog LINK.

The two offending pieces (from the Kiesling and Snyder perspective of campaign literature  were these:

The two highlighted areas of the above-graphics zero in on the core of the Kiesling/Snyder complaints in terms of the allegation of their falsity.

McCleaster ran against Councilwoman at Large Marcia Kiesling and Mueller took on Ward 4 councilman and president of council Jon Snyder.

As if losing the ethics complaint were not enough, both McCleaster and Mueller lost in the election to their respective opponents.

While the Elections Commission decision was made by the commission on November 4th, the actual orders were not issued until December 19th.

Here is an extract of the order made in McCleaster's case:

On Monday, Warren Price ("Of Counsel":  Allen Schulman and Associates) filed on a pro bono (the SCPR is told) basis an appeal of both the McCleaster and Mueller decisions.

Focusing on once again on McCleaster (so far as the SCPR can determine, a identical filing was done in the Mueller case), here is a copy of the Notice of Appeal (Note:  Source of document is the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas website):

Interesting, no?

Here you have two Stark County citizens who having had the disappointment of losing elections but who are determined to be vindicated on their belief that they did nothing wrong in publishing the campaign literature that they did.

Here is McCleaster's full press release commenting on the filing:

Media Contact
Jamie McCleaster
+1 330 806 7381
Rmccleaster@aol.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

1/3/2014

FORMER CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE TO APPEAL OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION DECISION OVER CAMPAIGN LITERATURE

North Canton – Attorneys for North Canton resident and candidate for Council At-Large in last November’s election, Robert J “Jamie” McCleaster filed an appeal Friday in Columbus against the Ohio Elections Commission over a ruling in regards to McCleaster’s campaign literature. 

The week before the November 5, 2013 election, McCleaster’s opponent, North Canton City Council Vice President Marcia Kiesling filed two complaints with the Ohio Elections Commission. 

Her complaints were in regards to McCleaster listing Kiesling’s public meeting attendance rate of 72%, which was later found to be accurate by the Commission, and his wording used to describe ordinance 47-13 which granted raises for the city’s elected officials upon the start of the new term in December. The verbiage around the raises was deemed to be false, the appeal calls that decision into question.

When asked why he’s pursuing the appeal McCleaster said, “I still firmly believe that the words I chose for my campaign literature are accurate. I’m appealing this solely to right the wrong, and fight for what I believe is right!”

Robert J “Jamie” McCleaster is a lifelong (3rd generation) resident of North Canton, and a graduate of Hoover High School and The University of Akron. An engaged North Canton resident, Jamie has been active within the community for many years, serving on city committees and as the President/Board member of the North Canton Jaycees. Jamie lives on Pierce Ave with his wonderful wife Katie, their daughter Hailey, and son Jack. 

For more information, please visit www.facebook.com/mccleaster. 

While the Stark County Political Report does not take a position on the merits of the contest between Kiesling/McCleaster and Snyder/Mueller, the Report is impressed that McCleaster and Mueller believe so much in the rightness of their case that they are willing to forge ahead seeking vindication of their legal position.

Moreover, Warren Price ("Of Counsel, Allen Schulman and Associates [Schulman is Canton City Council president]) is to be commended for providing free legal representation.

One the confusing things about Price's work for McCleaster and Mueller in the original hearing is the effort (reportedly by Sndyer) to challenge Price's right to represent.  Sndyer, as the SCPR understands his position, is said to be saying that because Price had accepted employment (which turned out not to be the case) that a conflict in interest existed and that therefore Price should not be permitted by the Elections Commission to represent.

The SCPR lauds Price for pressing ahead and providing McCleaster and Mueller with their right to defend themselves in our democratic-republican system of government.

Of course, the SCPR, like no other Stark County media, will stay with this case so that Stark Countians can see it it progress - in all its detail - to the end.

(VIDEOS) THE AFTERMATH OF MAIER V. DARROW: CAN THE WOUNDS BE HEALED WITHIN STARK DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

VIDEOS

STARK CO. PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

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

CANTON COUNCILMAN ELECT  BILL SMUCKLER

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

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

GONZALEZ/STARK DEMS LEGAL COUNSEL

WARREN PRICE

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

ON

POSSIBLE HIRE BY MAIER

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

ATTORNEY STEVEN REISCH

ON

MAIER SELECTION

AS

DEMS SHERIFF APPOINTEE

After George T. Maier defeated Lou Darrow in the contest between the two of the them (Democrat Douglas Smith and Republican Larry Dordea were non-factors) by a vote of 101 to 65 (contrasted to the February 5, 2013 vote of Maier 92  - Darrow 84 - Dordea 1), one has to wonder what residual damage has been done to the Stark County Democratic Party in terms of retaining the sheriff's office come November, 2014.

One unknown factor is the prospect that interim sheriff (at least until Maier is sworn in again) Tim Swanson will be filing a "new" quo warranto in the coming days.

The last information that the SCPR has is that Swanson plans to file a new action given that his counsel Greg Beck is reportedly advising that he feels that the Ohio Supreme Court will bounce Maier from office once again.

The SCPR thinks that the Randy Gonzalez led Stark County "establishment" Democrats could have made a huge political mistake in excluding Swanson's (and Darrow's) legal counsel (Greg Beck) from presenting to the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee a contrary point of view on whether or not George T. Maier is qualified to be Stark County sheriff.  A perspective different than that of the Stark Dems' legal counsel; namely, Allen Schulman, Warren Price, Steve Okey and Michael Thompson.

But perhaps Swanson/Beck will be going forward no matter how badly they may feel that they were treated at Wednesday night's meeting at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church to select a successor to Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald.

McDonald could not take office as scheduled on January 7, 2013 due to an illness that proved to be terminal (February 22nd).

"Full-speed-ahead" appears to have been the conclusion of Gonzalez and his second-in-command Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (2003 - 2009). He is also the brother of George T. Maier.

For it seems to the SCPR that there was no evidence of reconciliation or easing of tension between the Maier supporters and the Darrow supporters at the conclusion of the Holy Trinity assembly.

Moreover, The Report thinks that unhappiness and divisions linger within the Stark Dems organization that runs deeper than the Maier/Swanson/Darrow conflict.

If the Stark County GOP can glom onto and exploit these divisions, then it might be that the Maier/Swanson/Darrow spat will provide an opportunity for the Republicans to win the sheriff's office in November.

However, there are a little over ten months for the Democrats to find a way to heal some of the wounds that have been opened in the McDonald succession fight.

One would think there is very little chance of that happening if there is another period of sitting and waiting to see whether or not the Ohio Supreme Court is going to oust George T. Maier once again.

Beyond the Democrats and their infighting is the answer to the question of how the general public is taking all this in.

While George Maier gets high marks for his "on-the-job" performance from most if not all Stark County law enforcement familiar with his modus operandi, will the political infighting - if it continues -  give the Republicans the edge they need to sneak their candidate (likely to be Larry Dordea, former Alliance chief of police and now serving in the same capacity in Hartville) through the backdoor and into office in next fall's general election?

The SCPR's take on the political demographics of Stark County is that, if properly structured and run, a quality Democratic candidate should win in countywide races.

However, 2014 could turn out to be problematical for Democrats because of the statewide governor's race involving Republican John Kasich (running as an incumbent) and Democratic challenger Ed Fitzgerald.

The Fitzgerald campaign is currently bogged down because of tax arrears problems of his first chosen lieutenant governor running mate who, as a consequence of the press attention given to the tax issue, has decided to leave the ticket.

Troubles at that level of Ohio politics could make it very difficult for any countywide office-seeking Democrat (let alone one plagued with internal county party bickering) to win even if it is a "leans Democratic" county which the SCPR believes Stark is.

So the SCPR has started examining how the Maier/Swanson/Darrow fight might impact either Maier's or Darrow's chance to win next November.

It should be comforting to Maier (the candidate the SCPR thinks has the most concerns), if he ends up as the Dems' nominee, that it appears to the SCPR that he is not likely to lose support from among the 65 or so precinct committee persons who voted against his second appointment as sheriff on Wednesday night.

But if he gets bounced again by the Ohio Supreme Court, that could change.  If a new quo warranto is filed and the high court takes another nine months before making a determination and that decision is to oust Maier again, it is hard to see how he overcomes that with voters across the county.

To be viable next November, he will have to win the Democratic primary in May (and the SCPR sees no problem with that given Darrow's lack of political skills) and trust that there is no Supreme Court ouster between May and November.

Of course, it was Gonzalez' and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr's call, but I think that the rude treatment that Swanson/Darrow and their attorney got Wednesday night at the hand of the the Stark County Dems leadership just might come back and bite George T. Maier in the "political rump" come November, 2014.

If a second Maier ouster occurs, not only will the dissident Stark Democrats surface once again, but the Republicans will be looking at ways to capitalize.

So The Report thinks that the establishment leadership should have been more conciliatory on Wednesday to Darrow's supporters and, even now, should be rushing to conciliate with Swanson before he goes off on another quo warranto mission.

But what does the SCPR know about politics anyway?

After Wednesday's vote, the SCPR talked with four of the participants; one a non-voting participant in order to begin collecting a sense of feelings are running.

JOHN FERRERO

This former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (1996 - 2003) and sitting Stark County prosecutor says that he thinks that the imbroglio over Maier's statutory disqualification has hurt the party.  However, while not naming Maier, he said he would be supporting the Democratic candidate next November.



WILLIAM SMUCKLER

A well known city of Canton politician who knows Canton politics "like one knows the back of his hand" could be a huge help to whomever becomes the Dems' candidate for sheriff.

He has served many years in Canton City Council, has run for mayor and for Stark County commissioner.



WARREN PRICE

A member of the Gonzalez/Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee legal team, Price says that he thought that Wednesday's meeting went reasonably well.

The SCPR sees Price as a mediating person who should be utilized by party leaders to smooth out the currently ruffled political feathers.

Another issue that The Report brought up with Price was the document that came into the SCPR's hands from the sheriff's office showing that he was dickering with Maier during his first stint in sheriff for possible employment in the sheriff's administration either as a direct employee or a contract employee.



STEVEN REISCH

An attorney for 15 years and currently with the Stark County Public Defender's office, Reisch's was dismayed at the way Wednesday's meeting went.  However, the SCPR did not get the impression that Reisch was about to bolt the party come next November.

It was interesting to see how critical Reisch was of Gonzalez/Stark Dems' legal counsel Steve Okey.

Could Reisch's critical evaluation of Okey signal that the man best suited to smooth things over within the party might be Warren Price?

(VIDEOS) GONZALEZ AND DEMORA ORCHESTRATE EMBARRASSMENT FOR DEMS IN MAIER RE-APPOINTMENT?

UPDATE:  SUNDAY AT 2:32 PM

 Sheriff Qualifications

From:  rjgatien@neo.rr.com 

To:  tramols@att.net

Mr. Olson,

Mr. Schulman states on your blog:

"Here, the ONLY qualification that the Court found lacking was whether Sheriff Maier was a " full-time " peace officer. Sheriff Maier satisfied that qualification by working - FULL TIME -as a Harrison County deputy sheriff.

What more could you ask or does this statute require. "

The Court found:   

SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-4767 THE STATE EX REL. SWANSON v. MAIER. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, 

it may be cited as State ex rel. Swanson v. Maier, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4767.]

{¶ 39} As he satisfies neither R.C. 311.01(B)(8)(a) nor (b), Maier does not meet the qualifications for a county sheriff. We need not explore his qualifications under R.C. 311.01(B)(9), because he meets neithercriterion in R.C. 311.01(B)(8).

Thank you for your coverage of this important issue.

Rick Gatien

TIM SWANSON'S RESPONSE TO ALLEN SCHULMAN'S QUESTIONS PUT TO THE SCPR BY SCHULMAN

To:  Martin Olson

I asked Ferrero on the first go around to file on my behalf when I learned on February 5th that only the Prosecutor, Sheriff, or Attorney General could file any action concerning the first appointment. 

Ferrero advised he couldn't file and couldn't represent me because of a "conflict of interest" by issued an affidavit in support of Lt. Darrow and one explaining Maier wasn't qualified. 

I then told Maier I was going to file and then approached Greg Beck at the meeting and asked if he would represent me and he agreed. That is how I came to obtain Beck as my attorney.

Since the Supreme Court ruled Maier was never Sheriff and effectively I was, we submitted a bill for attorney fees to them. 

They have refused to pay it but have paid $20,000 towards Maier's attorney fees. 

Remember that he had been declared to never have been Sheriff and the time between 5 Feb and 6 Nov null and void.

Nothing H[A]S changed regarding hid qualifications the same issue that he was ousted for Nov 6th still exists. He must be a fulltime peace officer holding the rank of corporal or above for TWO years during the five years immediately proceeding the qualification date of Feb 7th.

They don't see a problem and don't want to even address it. 

Refer to 311.07 (B)(9)(a) O.R.C.  

Its the law.

Tim Swanson

COMMENT FROM ALLEN SCHULMAN

The SCPR has very high regard for Allen Schulman who is part of the legal team (via his association on this case with Warren Price) representing SCDP chairman Randy Gonzalez and the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee.

The SCPR thanks Allen for taking the time and effort to add to the discussion on the Stark County Democratic Party's action taken last night on re-appointing George T. Maier as Stark County sheriff.

As always, the SCPR publishes civil and relevant comments on The Report blogs "in-full."

Perhaps Allen can prevail on George, Randy, Johnnie, Steve and Michael to do "on camera" interviews with me.  I always afford subjects of SCPR blogs as much space/video time as they would like to respond to The Report's blogs on the condition that they are done in a civil  and responsive manner.

I already talked Warren Price on camera last evening and he was very responsive to my questions.  As far as I am concerned, Warren Price is a very classy guy.

I will be publishing my interview with Price in an appropriate setting.

Sometimes I even let subjects of my blogs get a little uncivil as in the case of an e-mail that Stark County Democratic Party political director R. Shane Jackson sent to me and copied to a virtual "Who's Who" of Stark County leading public officials (and media) in an obvious personal attack on me.

Wouldn't it be nice to sit down with the political director of the Stark County Democratic Party and get his insight of all things political in Stark County.

Back in friendlier days; Shane, Johnnie and I have had a number very interesting conversations about the nuances of Stark County politics.

Of course, I am a person of my own mind and it has been my experience that such is something they have a problem with.

Both were very helpful to me when I was the Democratic Party nominee for Ohio's 50th House District (the old district).

Here is Allen's comment:

Martin,

As you know, I am a regular and avid reader of your blog. Whether I agree with your view, or not, I always find your perspective interesting and informative.

Your coverage of the Sheriff's issue, however, is baffling to me.

So far, your coverage has been harshly critical of Sheriff Maier, his brother, Chairperson Gonzalez, the party's legal team and the Committee members who cast their votes to reinstate Sheriff Maier to his former position.

On the other hand, you have not commented - at all- on the motives that are at work to disqualify Sheriff Maier from his appointment.

Does it seem strange to you that retired Sheriff Tim Swanson hired an attorney to prosecute this case in the Ohio Supreme Court simply because he was " upholding the statute " ?

Have you asked the Sheriff who is paying the legal fees for his team of lawyers ? ( No, it is not based on whether he will recover from the County taxpayers. )

Why is the County Prosecutor so intent to deny Sheriff Maier his appointment and why is his staff so eager to do his bidding ?

 Of all appointments, why pick on a man who has devoted his life to law enforcement, who was a former highway patrol officer, who was assistant director of public safety for the State of Ohio, who carried a weapon and a badge, and " worked with agents in the field, in surveillance and making arrests on search warrants and raids " and " the superintendent of the Ohio Highway Patrol—who holds the rank of colonel—reported to Maier on active investigations, and Maier oversaw and helped manage those investigations."?

As lawyers, you and I understand the importance of the rule of law.

But we also appreciate the intent of a statute and why it has been proposed and adopted.

Here, the ONLY qualification that the Court found lacking was whether Sheriff Maier was a " full-time " peace officer. Sheriff Maier satisfied that qualification by working - FULL TIME -as a Harrison County deputy sheriff.

What more could you ask or does this statute require. Obviously, the statute was intended to ensure that a County Sheriff be a law enforcement officer not someone who has no law enforcement background.. like an insurance agent. ( eg. Bob Berens )

Finally, why don't you tell your readership that the Buckeye Sheriff's Association supported Sheriff Maier in the Supreme Court or that he has the trust and support of his deputies?

I know you to be a fair journalist. In this instance, I think you have lost your way.

 Let's hear the other side...believe me, there is one !

Your friend,

Allen Schulman 

FINAL UPDATE AT 05:00 PM

UPDATED:  07:03 AM (FIRST VIDEO - "THE INTRO") 

UPDATED:  08:06 AM 

(SECOND VIDEO - DeMORA "THE OBJECTIVE ONE? TAKES OVER; GETS CHALLENGED WITH MOTION OUT-OF-THE BOX & ROLL CALL) 

UPDATE:  09:04 AM

(THIRD VIDEO) - DeMORA READS """"THE"""" LEGAL EXPERT'S LEGAL OPINION 

UPDATE:  11:28 AM

(FOURTH VIDEO) - THE ARGUMENT OVER WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW GREG BECK SPEAK

UPDATE:  12:55 PM 

(FIFTH VIDEO) - STARK CO PROSECUTOR "AS A COMMITTEEMAN" SPEAKS ON QUALIFICATION ISSUE

UPDATE:  3:39 PM

(SIXTH VIDEO)  - OKEY/FERRERO/OTHERS ON QUALIFICATION ISSUE 

UPDATE:  5:00 PM

(SEVENTH VIDEO)  - SWANSON & GONZALEZ ON WHETHER OR NOT GEORGE  MAIER OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN VOTE

Ever been to a "performance" and felt sympathy for the "star performer(s)" because it was obvious that they were "in over their heads?"

That is exactly how the SCPR felt about Stark County Democrat chairman Randy Gonzalez and the Ohio Democratic connected Bill DeMora and their "dog and pony show" performance last night at the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church located on Fairhaven Avenue in Canton.

The occasion?

To "re-do" the appointment of a Stark County sheriff as ordered by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 6, 2013 in the quo warranto case Swanson v. Maier filed within days of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee's (what turned out to be) illegal appointment of George T. Maier on February 5th because he lacked Ohio statutory qualification.

As the SCPR has predicted in yesterday's pre-vote blog; the outcome was a no doubter (Maier 101; Darrow 65).   The February vote was Maier - 92 to Darrow's 84).

Why was an appointment necessary in the first place?

Mike McDonald (a long time Stark County deputy sheriff) had been elected in November, 2012 but due to an illness which proved to be terminal (February 22nd) had to resign being sheriff-elect immediately prior to his scheduled taking of office on January 7th.

As indicated in this blog a couple of paragraphs ago, the February appointment of George T. Maier was "turned on its head" by the Supreme Court because of the "botched" effort of Stark Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez "aided and comforted" by Ohio Dems representative Bill DeMora.

And as far as the SCPR is concerned they botched things over again in last night's performance which The Report is tabbing "a dog and pony show."

The February 5th effort clearly was "amateur hour" but it was apparent last night that Gonzalez (as Stark County Democratic Party chairman) and DeMora (representing Ohio Democratic Party chairman Chris Redfern) had learned some things from the mangling of the earlier attempt to appoint George A. Maier, the brother of former Stark County Party chairman (2003 - 2009) Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

But they had not learned enough, well enough.

To repeat, the whole affair came across as being "a dog and pony show."

What exactly is "a dog and pony show?"

Here is one definition:

"Dog and pony show" is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends.

Be sure not to miss the second part of the definition because this expresses the SCPR's take on the whole of last night's proceeding:

Typically, the term is used in a pejorative sense to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it.

The "staging" was apparent from the time the SCPR walked through the door at Holy Trinity.

The large room was divided into halves.

The first half filled with round tables for the general public.

At about the half way point of the hall were a series of rectangular tables that formed a place for precinct committee members to sign in and also served the dual purpose beyond which the press could not go which, of course, was housed with "not enough" chairs for the some 170 committee members assembled.

Members of the press were heard by the SCPR to complain that they could not hear the committee persons very well as they made various motions and comments during the proceeding.

The Report rejoinder to the complaints?

"Oh!  that's by design.  It is obvious to me that Gonazlez and his executive vice chair (Maier, Jr.) wants to make it difficult for media coverage."

Most of the people speaking had no microphone, so one had to strain to hear what the committee members were saying.

But "you can bet your bottom dollar" the Gonzalez, DeMora, lead-attorney Steve Okey and the George T. Maier friends - for the most part - were on microphone "loud and clear."

Here and there, Maier opponents interim Sheriff Timothy Swanson and Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero were allowed to use the mic, but a good part of the time even they were afforded the indignity of having to shout to be heard.

Chairman Gonzalez's response when complaints were yelled out:  "we can't hear?"

For the most part:  "grin and bear, it" folks!

As mentioned above, every once in a while DeMora was allowed to hand the mic to a Swanson or Ferrero, but nobody else,  except the prime performers "in the dog and pony show," was allowed to be heard clearly by the press and those in the "reserved for the public section."

The Report thinks "the making it difficult to be heard" by the anti-Maier forces was purposeful.

Anyhow, ontinuing our tour of the meeting facility.

At the front of the room was a rectangular table of either side of the meeting moderator's "apparent" place for the respective legal counsel for the Dems' legal team and the Swanson/Darrow legal team.

However, as will be explained in more detail later on in this blog, only "one side" was entitled to have its legal team participate, so one of the tables remained vacant "all night long!"

Guess which side's legal team was seated at the designated table?

You've got it!

Allen Schulman (Canton city council president), Steve Okey (one of Stark County's most strident and caustic Democrats; (just ask some of his former Alliance city council colleagues), Warren Price (former Canton city official and the most level-headed of the entire group of lawyers) and Micheal Thompson, who appears to the SCPR to be a sort of "hanger-oner" (i.e. not a "main guy" in the representation scheme of things) type.

So that sets up the physical layout.

Now we get to the actual conduct of the meeting.

For each point of this part of today's blog, the SCPR is including video so that SCPR readers can get a sense for themselves what "a dog and pony show" experience is like.

VIDEO GUIDED TOUR OF MEETING

THE INTRO

In this video segment, the most notable parts are the chairman needing to point out that "police officers are present" (hmm?) and that the meeting is to be "a fair meeting"  (hmm? again; we shall see).



BILL DeMORA (ODP) TAKES OVER MEETING

One supposed improvement over the February 5th meeting was a larger role for Bill DeMora.

The SCPR does not think that his presiding over the meeting (Gonzalez did most of the presiding on February 5th) in terms of giving the other side (the Darrow supporters) a fair opportunity to be heard made one iota of a difference.

DeMora appears to The Report to have choreographed each and every move with Gonzalez beforehand.

Accordingly, it is just one more piece of the "dog and pony show" designed to make it seem that an unbiased person was presiding over the meeting.

For anyone who believes that "you see 'bias, but now you don't see it" maneuver,  the proverbial saying:  "Would you want to purchase some 'swamp land' in Florida," applies.

In this video, note that "right off the bat" a motion is hollered out "to keep the ballots in Stark County" which DeMora with no parliamentary justification whatsoever rules as being out-of-order.

Also in this video is the roll call of assembled precinct committee persons, so that SCPR readers can know first hand who attended.



A key piece in the orchestrated "dog and pony show" performance by Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez was the obtaining of and reading of a "legal opinion" by Ohio Democratic Party attorney Don McTigue.

This little ditty (i.e. the McTigue letter) apparently was designed to overwhelm the non-attorney segment of the gathering of SCDP-CC members.

As expert as McTigue supposedly is, he didn't even do enough research to know (see motion to hear Beck video below) that the original qualification date was February 6th (30 days from the January 7th McDonald failure to take office date).

But this, undoubtedly Gonzalez inspired tactic, probably worked with those who lack critical thinking skills.

As would come out later in the meeting, Steve Okey and Michael Thompson assured the February 5th meeting of the SCDP-CC that Maier was then qualified.

Do the SCPR a favor, go and read the Ohio Supreme Court decision (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) to understand more fully how wrong Okey and Thompson were.

Attorneys rarely get impressed with other attorneys and their opinions.

And to the SCPR McTigue is utterly unimpressive in his opinion; notwithstanding DeMora's flowery "Ohio's leading elections attorney."

One particular point in McTigue's opinion stands out.

What is that?

He openly challenges the majority Supreme Court justices who said in Swanson v. Maier that Maier was never sheriff.

The SCPR for one thinks that no matter what McTigue thinks of the word of the Supreme Court is guess what?  On state issues it is the Supreme!



Next up last night was a motion made by Lake Township precinct committeeman Steve Reisch who also happens to be an attorney of 15 years standing.

What was the motion?

To allow Greg Beck, attorney for Swanson (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto [which resulted in Maier being ousted as sheriff] and (Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez and SCDP-CC, mandamus), not a committeeman himself, to address the assembly of committee persons.

This is where, the SCPR thinks, Gonzalez, DeMora, and Schulman and Shane Jackson go way off the track of "basic fairness."

DeMora (a non-committeeman himself) reads a legal opinion letter from an non-committeemen member (McTigue's) and then Okey et al, except for Jackson. who had another approach. argued the fact that Beck is not a committee member as a reason to deny the entire membership to opportunity hear the opposing point of view.

Gonzalez was especially egregious and The Report thinks highly disingenuous in acting as if the SCDP-CC was united in the first Maier appointment.  Gonzalez took the liberty (no surprise to the SCPR) in one set of his remarks (i.e. "all of you") including all SCDP-CC members as being the clients of Okey, Schulman, Price and Thompson.

The fact of the matter is that the February 5th vote was 92 (Maier); 84 (Darrow)?

Do think that maybe - just maybe - those 84 Darrow votes have more affinity for what Greg Beck has to say than the four SCDP attorneys (representing the "unified" executive committee controlled by Gonzalez and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr)?

What was Gonzalez afraid of as demonstrating his resisting having Beck speak?

It rings hollow with the SCPR when a guy like Gonzalez pines about being the member of the political party of Jefferson and Jackson.

As for that political genus R. Shane Jackson (the SCDP political director), what a trip he is.

Knowing full well that Maier's attorneys (that duo from Roetzel and Andress in Columbus) were not present last night, and, are not ever likely to be present at a SCDP function, comes up with the "brilliant" idea:  "Well, golly gee [the SCPR's editorial addition], if Beck is allow to speak then the Maier attorneys should be entitled to speak"

Which in his mind alone is apparently some sort of "trump card" to ice the central committee in into a position of not allowing Beck to speak.

Go figure!

And as far as the SCPR is concerned. by Gonzalez's actions in the conduct of the entire Maier/Darrow matter belies the lip service he is prone to pontificate on from time to time about basic democratic (note the small letter "d") republican values.

The whole tenor of of the official Stark County Democratic Party leadership face off last night smacks of personal interest politics and sheer political power (i.e. "we are going to jam this down your throats, whether or not you like it!").

The Stark County general voting public should be turned off by this display and have that factor play into anything that is Stark County Democratic Party/Gonzalez/Maier endorsed in terms of issues and candidates come November, 2014.

However, the public should endeavor to ferret out quality Democratic Party candidates who have have the misfortune to be saddled with a SCDP endorsement.

The following video shows the back forth argument on the motion and the vote.

An impressive 72 stalwarts showed they were for fair play whereas the rest demonstrated by their votes that they are not interested in hearing "the whole story."

Even those who figured that they were going to vote for Maier should have been willing and open minded enough to hear the Swanson/Darrow argument. 

The video shows who the non-democratic are and viewers should note who they think was for basic fairness and who was not.

This particular vote made it very clear how the vote on the appointment was going to go.  It was a clear "ramrod Maier through" operation from the get-go.



The next best alternative for any kind of different legal opinion to the ears of the SCDP-CC members was for Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero to stand up and speak inasmuch Greg Beck was not allowed to speak.

As the following video shows, Ferrero was reluctant to do so probably understanding that he was not the best source to articulate reasons why the committee should not make a second mistake in appointing Maier sheriff.



Having denied that the Swanson/Darrow case for George T. Maier "continuing" disqualification is still the case, DeMora inartistically segues into having SCDP attorney Steve Okey present his one-sided take on the issue.

What a treat!



The SCPR's take on Okey's contribution? to the discussion is as follows:

• He gets his facts wrong for starters in that the "very first Ohio Supreme Court lawsuit filed" (see graphic above) in the series of three total lawsuits filed was the one by Lou Darrow (filed a few days before the February 5th meeting) because:
• Darrow knew what every other reasonable minded person knew which was that Maier's qualifications were suspect.
• Even Gonzalez raised the issue with Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei and Tim Swanson in an early January, 2013 meeting at the Stark County commissioners' office.
• Gonzalez reportedly tried to convince Swanson to hire Maier for a short period of time to "hopefully" fix Maier's qualification problem.
• And, of course, Maier disingenuously, the SCPR believes, denied in his deposition in a later case (i.e. Swanson v. Maier) that the weekend of work in Harrison County in January was an attempt to heal himself of being disqualified by Ohio statutory law.
• He and Warren Price represents the SCDP-CC "as a body" whether on February 5th you voted for Maier, Darrow or Dordea.  Really?
• Apparently Okey was asleep/distracted when Gonzalez stood earlier in the last night's session and argued that the Darrow/Dordea voters - in effect - were unrepresented.  Hmm?
• In a obvious attempt (as the SCPR sees it) to "inflame" anti-Darrow passions within the committee members, Okey spoke a number of times last night about about the committee members "being sued (apparently referring to the Swanson/Darrow mandamus action and, perhaps, Darrow's February In Prohibition action)"
• In an extension of the inflammatory mode The Report believes he was in, Okey spoke repeatedly of the effort by Swanson/Darrow (in the mandamus) to deny the central committee members the right to vote
• Of course, this is only part the story (remember Beck was denied the right to fill out the full account of the mandamus in being denied the right to address Wednesday's meeting)
• But that's what you get when you have the party brass put on a "dog and pony show, no?"
• In the view of the SCPR, Okey (by way of omission) goes way beyond what one should read into the Supreme Court's denial of Beck's request for a order limiting last night vote to either Darrow or Dorea,
• He suggested that he, Price, Thompson and Schulman were "neutral" parties who independent of one another took it upon themselves to determine Maier to be qualified notwithstanding his and Thompson's similar (now Supreme Court debunked) appraisals to the SCDP-CC assessments of Maier's qualifications.
• (Remember Maier's guaranteed - "If I apply, I will be qualified" statement?) 
• Who believes Okey's suggestion of neutrality and independence protestations?
• He trots out Maier's "its a mere technicality" argument that got him ousted as sheriff by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Okey never does effectively address the telling points made by John Ferrero and Frederic Scott (of Ferrero's office) that he and Thompson had made faulty appraisals of Maier qualifications at the February 5th SCDP-CC meeting,

By implication he maintains that the Supreme Court was wrong in removing Maier in its November 6th decision.

Hmm?

Next up is a video of Tim Swanson and his "impassioned - not calculated" plea to the SCDP-CC not to make a second mistake which, of course, the SCPR thinks the committee members did by a 101 to 65 vote.



The SCPR has learned that Swanson by the end of this week is likely to file a "new" quo warranto and consequently the SCPR goes on record as saying that The Report expects the Supreme Court to toss Maier out-of-office once again.

Exactly what Stark County needs, no?

Swanson, who the SCPR has roundly criticized in quite a number of blogs since The Report's inception (March 12, 2008), is at great inconvenience to himself and nothing to gain politically is doing "the right thing" for "the rule of law" in doggedly sticking to his determination to be the instrumentality of realizing "the rule of law" in this sheriff appointment matter.

Hip-hip-horray for THE RULE OF LAW!

SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE! OHIO SUPREME COURT RULES IN SWANSON/DARROW V. GONZALEZ, ET AL

UPDATED AT 11:45 AM

TIM SWANSON
ON
WHETHER OR NOT
- IF MAIER WINS -
HE WILL BE FILING
NEW
QUO WARRANTO

 SUBTOPICS

NEW AT 11:38 AM

WHEN MAIER BEGAN SPENDING
STARK CO TAXPAYER MONEY
ON
SIGNAGE, ETC

(AT THE END OF BLOG) 

THE SUPREME COURT SURPRISE!

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

THE MAIER CAMP
 SOMETHING TO CROW ABOUT?

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

IS SWANSON DONE YET?

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

WARREN PRICE'S STAKE IN THE OUTCOME 

SUPPLEMENT TO ORIGINAL BLOG

The SCPR this morning asked interim Sheriff Tim Swanson whether or not - if Maier wins tonight - he would be filing a "new" quo warranto with the Ohio Supreme Court.

His response:

From:  Tim Swanson [10:34 a.m. 12/11/2013]

To:  Martin Olson
        Greg Beck

I would follow the advice of my attorney Greg Beck. I suspect we would file again.

I don't see where his going to Harrison County and working as Deputy or as a supervisor satisfies anything. The law clearly states that a candidate must within the five years period immediately preceding the qualification date, have TWO years supervisory experience and that supervisory experience must have been earned when the person served as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above. This is what he was lacking the first go around and he still is not qualified. He wouldn't be able to obtain the required two years for the May 2014 primary, so that should make him ineligible again.

Refer to 311.01 (B) (9) (a)

Thanks for reporting the true facts.

We believe the denial by the Supreme Court for injunctive relief only means the meeting can take place . It never addressed the issue of candidates and we feel there may be additional rulings by the court issued today.

It would be refreshing if they would exert as much energy in assuring they meet all qualifications instead of trying to finagle their way through the process dishonestly.

Remember this is the position of Sheriff, what else would they be inclined to do in the future if an unqualified person using deceitful tactics would obtain the seat? Makes one concerned doesn't it?

Tim Swanson

ORIGINAL BLOG

Local lawyers and political observers were united about one thing in the case of Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez and the Stark County Democratic Central Committee, the Ohio Supreme Court would say nothing with regard to the Swanson/Darrow effort to get Ohio's "court of last resort" to remove George T. Maier name from tonight's SCDP-CC ballot prior to the meeting itself.

And that was the reasonable position to take.

Because the court took almost nine months from the filing of Swanson v. Maier (February 12, 2013:  a quo warranto asking the court to remove the illegally appointed Maier as Stark County sheriff) until its decision doing exactly that on November 6, 2013.

However, as the SCPR told one area attorney, The Report suspected that something was afoot when on Monday of this week the Swanson/Darrow attorney (Greg Beck) filed a motion to expedite the court's consideration of his clients' desire that Maier be ruled off the SCDP-CC ballot.

The suspicion became even stronger when the Gonzalez/SCDP-CC legal eagles filed a countermotion (i.e. Motion to Strike) yesterday.

As the SCPR pointed out in yesterday's "breaking news" blog on the filings, it was disappointing to see the Gonzalez side not join with Swanson/Darrow in getting the Supreme Court to speak to the matter of whether or not Maier was to be included in tonight's vote.

But nevertheless the court must have been agitated by Monday/Tuesday filings to respond in the fashion - though incomplete - that it did.

Within a very short time of the Gonzalez/SCDP-CC motion being filed, the court shocked the Stark County legal and political communities by intervening (sort of) in tonight's vote.

While the Swanson/Darrow folks were "crowing" on November 6th when the Supreme Court removed Maier from office; the Gonzalez/Maier/and the "92 for Maier" SCDP-CC folks were "crowing" at about 3:45 p.m. yesterday when the high court filed its ruling.

The court did not say specifically that Maier is qualified.  The Dem precinct committee members still have to make that determination.

The SCPR believes that Maier ally and chairman Randy Gonzalez will coax a favorable determination one way or another.

There may be a challenge to Gonzalez presiding over the meeting and there may be a challenge to the way the votes are voted, but the SCPR thinks both efforts will fail.

Presuming such, George T. Maier is highly likely to be on tonight's ballot tonight and the SCPR expects him to win, if he is.

End of story?

It depends.

Depends on what?

The dedication of Timothy Swanson.

Swanson surprised many of us when he filed the February 12th quo warranto.

lt appears to the SCPR that the Maier forces knew that it was problematical that George T. had qualification problems but were banking on Swanson not having the gumption to actually file the quo warranto with the Supreme Court.

But, of course, we now kown that they were wrong.

Not only did Swanson file the quo warranto, he followed up with a mandamus on November 18th which was designed to get the court to intervene in tonight's meeting in the way of keeping Maier off the SCDP-CC ballot.

One local attorney told the SCPR way before yesterday that he felt that the mandamus was ill-advised inasmuch it could turn against Swanson/Darrow.

And he was right, as it turns out.

Back to the question:  so is this the end of the story?

Not necessarily.

The Supreme Court did NOT rule on the merits of the mandamus itself.  However, as a practical matter, when the SCDP-CC meets tonight and votes, if the vote is for Maier (which, again, is what the SCPR expects to be the case) then the mandamus becomes moot.

So?

Hmm?

Moot:  "no real controversy."

Which means that there is nothing for the court to rule on.

End of story?

Not necessarily.

Swanson could maintain that the qualification date is February 6, 2013 as the Supreme Court seemed to say in its November 6th decision (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) and file a new quo warranto asserting that the SCDP-CC solved nothing on December 11th in re-appointing Maier.

The committee merely made a second error.

But will Swanson file again?

It is hard to say.

Swanson for all intents and purposes seems to have moved to Florida where he enjoys the sunshine, warm temperatures and having close family nearby.

Why would he want to have to be separated from the weather warmth and family warmth while serving as interim sheriff while the Supreme Court possibly takes another nine months or so to "put this baby to rest," once and for all?

But Swanson fooled many of us in filing the February 12th action.

We should know later today what Swanson will do.

The Maier forces have to be "bouncing off the walls" with yesterday's Supreme Court decision.  However, as former New York Yankee's catcher Yogi Berra is reputed to have once said:  "it is not over until it is over."

One well placed Stark County Democrat told the SCPR before yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that he felt that the vote tonight would be even closer than the February 5th vote and that the result could swing either way.

The SCPR, for one, was surprised that the Darrow forces mustered 84 votes in February.

One of the factors in the 84 Darrow votes is thought to be a pervasive dissatisfaction among many rank-and-file "organization" Democrats with the Gonzalez/Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (brother of George T. Maier) style of leadership.

So, could it be - that not withstanding the Supreme Court ruling that the Maier folks are undoubtedly ecstatic about - that there is enough dissatisfaction with the Gonzalez/Maier Dems leadership team that Darrow can still win?

The Report thinks not.

But we will know for sure later today.

Another interesting sidelight to the Swanson/Darrow-Maier face off is the fate of Stark County Human Resources director Vivanne Whalen Duffrin.

Readers of the SCPR will recall that she was summarily fired by Maier on October 13th of this year.

Apparently, the Duffrin firing was in preparation for Maier to hire Warren Price (legal counsel in the Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez et al mandamus) as Duffrin's replacement.

The SCPR has received a number of reports that such was in the offing.

And in a email to Price on Monday asked Price that very question, to wit:

Subject:  Employment with Stark County sheriff's department under Maier

From: Martin Olson [Monday, 2:54 pm]

To:  warrenrprice@icloud.com

Warren,

I have reports that prior to his being ousted by the Ohio Supreme Court in Swanson v. Maier on November 6th that you were in discussions with George Maier about your either by contract or by virtue of direct employment status were set to become a Stark County sheriff department employee.

Are these report accurate in any way, shape or form?

If so, would you kindly share the details with me?

You may prefer to do so on the telephone.  If so, please contact me at 330 499 0465.

Thank you,

Martin Olson
SCPR

To date, the SCPR has not received a response from Price.

But here is a copy of an internal memo from within the Stark County sheriff's department which more than suggests to The Report that a Maier return to the Stark County sheriff's office is likely to result in Warren Price becoming the sheriff's department Human Resources director.

The memo:

So does this memo indicate that Maier (presuming he wins tonight) will once again fire Duffrin and bring Price in?

Hmm?

It could be that "the crowing" is not over yet.

Darrow may stun us all tonight by winning.

If Maier wins, Swanson may once again file a quo warranto and win.

Wouldn't that be quite a scene?

George T. Maier once again being forced to vacate 4500 Atlantic Boulevard!

The only people who have nothing "to crow about" is the Stark County public and the uncertainly that all the political wheelin-and-dealin and the legal maneuvering brings to day-in, day-out law enforcement in Stark County.

But you can depend on the politicians "to crow 'til the cows come home" when they win this challenge or that challenge.  "The public interest be damned!"

Such is why the general public has such high disdain for the politicos!

SUPPLEMENT 2 TO BLOG.

One thing that the SCPR has not been able to report is when George T. Maier began spending Stark County taxpayer money "putting his name" on signs, business cards and the like.

Here is that list as provided by Stark County auditor Alan Harold at the request of the SCPR.

Listed below are INVOICE DATES

Commission Forms 06/05/13

Check Printing 04/05/13, 04/09/13, 05/24/13, 06/11/13, 09/27/13, 10/17/13

Letterhead 06/05/13

ID Cards 06/05/13

Mailing Labels 06/05/13

Labels – Atlantic, Court Services, Note Cards 06/05/13

Parking Permit Labels 06/05/13

Career Brochures 04/30/13

Signature Stamp 02/13/13

Imprint Folders 08/22/13

Various Signage 03/10/13, 04/22/13, 06/18/13, 07/10/13, 08/25/13

Certificate Holders 08/13/15, 08/15/13

Vehicle Insignia 02/28/13, 06/14/13, 08/23/13, 10/30/13

Quartermaster 08/13/13, 08/21/13, 10/03/13, 11/4/13

ODDS ARE AGAINST GONZALEZ & STARK DEMS LEADERSHIP PREVAILING IN SWANSON/DARROW MANDAMUS ACTION?

While the SCPR does not see the above cited-arguments in Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez, et al (filed November 18th; response December 2nd) as being pivotal by any stretch of the imagination in the outcome of the case,  the language does deserve some comment from a political perspective inasmuch as disenfranchisement is as much a political question - if not more than - a legal question.

DISENFRANCHISED THE MEMBERS OF THE DCC?

Hmm?

Really?

How about the 92 who voted for George Maier "assumed the risk" (lawyers Steve Okey and Warren Price will appreciate that language) that they might be voting for "an unqualified candidate" notwithstanding the opinion of lawyers Okey and Michael Thompson to the contrary.

Moreover, Stark County Prosecutor Ferrero "swore under oath" (i.e. in his affidavit) that his assessment was that George T. Maier was "unqualifed" to be sheriff under Ohio statutory law.

And it turns out that by virtue of the decision of Swanson v. Maier (quo warranto, filed February 12, 2013); decided November 6, 2013) Ferrero was right and Okey and Thompson were wrong on the law.

The SCPR believes that the compelling argument is that the 84 Darrow voters were the ones who were disenfranchised and that their candidate Lou Darrow "as a matter of 'the law of case Swanson v. Maier'" was illegally deprived of being Stark County sheriff for period of some nine months that George T. Maier was usurping the office.

It is interesting that Okey and Price twisted the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) vote in entirely the opposite direction and in doing so ignored the Supreme Court finding of George T. Maier being "unqualified" as of  the SCDP-CC vote date of February 5th.

Hmm?

Just a little selective, gentlemen at the bar, no?

Hopefully, the Supreme Court sees through "what the SCPR believes to be" a specious argument at best.

RIG(GED) THE BALLOT IN FAVOR OF DARROW?

Another hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Who was it that insisted (Chairman Gonazalez, no?)  that SCDP-CC members sign their ballots on February 5 in order to have their votes counted?

Who was it (Chairman Gonzalez, no?) that called a meeting of the SCDP Executive Committee meeting on November 23rd to make it a matter of  the SCDP bylaws that voters sign their ballots?

And what do many think was/is the intended effect (denied by the party chairman) of having SCDP-CC members sign their ballot in an environment in which the party leadership is squarely behind George Maier?

Answer:  "A chilling effect!"

Rigging?

Hmm?

If some of the 92 original votes (let's say five for discussion purposes) were "chilled" into voting the "party line," would it be fair to surmise that maybe, just maybe the effect of the signing requirement was tantamount to "rigging" the election?

Hmm?

The SCPR certainly understands that lawyers will do what lawyers think they have to do within the bounds of the law and minimum ethics to promote their clients' cause.

The Report's take is that the two points discussed above (i.e. "disenfranchisement" and "rig(ged") in this blog appear to be of the "let's throw everything in but the kitchen sink" variety.

Hmm?

A case of legal argument desperation?

THE REAL GONZALEZ ARGUMENT?

Nobody can miss it.

Its JURISDICTION, JURISDICTION & JURISDICTION some more!

Does the Supreme Court have the power to enforce its own order, in a nutshell.?

The only hope that the Gonzalez has on that issue of the case is if the justices think they are hamstrung by the case authority cited by Okey and Price in their brief.

It is axiomatic that Ohio's "court of last resort" on state issues determines its own jurisdiction.

And that is the "heart and soul" of the Gonzalez side of the case.

What is interesting about this argument, should it prove to be a winner, is that if Maier is appointed by the SCDP-CC again - given the position by the Swanson/Darrow camp THAT FEBRUARY 5TH IS "THE QUALIFICATION DATE on terrific authority.

How about the absolute finding by the Supreme Court itself in Swanson v. Maier?)

Hmm?

So?

Well, if the high court declines to grant or reject the requested order that the SCDP-CC limit the December 11th vote to Democrat Darrow and Republican Larry Dordea, and Maier is appointed once again, guess where Swanson is likely to go once again?

You've got it!

Right back to the Ohio Supreme Court with another quo warranto action.

Hmm?

So what does Maier gain from that?

The SCPR believes very little.

A second quo warranto likely will be decided much sooner than nine months and Stark Countians (what do they account for anyway?) could be witnessing another George Maier in and out exercise.

If he should win a second quo warranto he might be in office for shorter than he thinks.

The primary election for sheriff candidate is May 6, 2014.

The Maier forces are probably arrogant enough to think that there is no way their man will not win the Democratic primary.

But - as my mother used to say - "there is many of a slip between the cup and the lip!"

The just might be in for a big surprise given all the controversy, no?

Wouldn't that be a gas?

George Maier in office on an appointment pending a decision on a second quo warranto, but having lost the primary must vacate office on December 31, 2013.

Wouldn't that be "hunky-dory" for the need of law enforcement stability or Stark Countians?

Of course, what do they count for anyway?

Its the politicians who really matter, isn't it.

What's the expression?

Oh yes, "the public interest be damned!"

THE BEST ARGUMENT & RESULT FOR THE GONZALEZ SIDE OF THE CASE?

In talking with a lawyer acquaintance he brought of this argument as his opinion of being Gonzalez's best argument.

Here is the key language from page 12 of  the Okey/Price response:

The relators' position clearly violates the intent of the statutes that govern the filling of vacancies in the office of sheriff.

A qualification date is set 30 days after a vacancy occurs. R.C. 311.01(H)(1).  From between five and 45 days after a vacancy, the Central Committee has legal power to make an appointment. R.C. 305.02(C).

From this statutory timetable, it is evident that the legislative intent is to hold a vote of appointment close in time to when the applicants have established their qualifications.

The relators want to disregard this legislative intent and instead cling to a stale qualification date [February 5, 2013] that is now remote in time to the vote of appointment,

Turning the legislative intent on its head, the relators now seek to prohibit any effort to update the qualifications of the previous applicants.

To sum up what the SCPR thinks the best Gonzalez argument made in the responsive pleading is, to wit:

And, the SCPR agrees.  It does not make sense.

But The Report does not agree that the court should have changed the qualification date.

For the court to so would have been - in effect - a validation of George T. Maier having usurped the office.  

And an extension of the qualification date would have resulted in the creation of a "legal fiction" that a second vacancy occurred with the Supreme Court's November 6th order.

The court was very clear in its decision that George T. Maier was never the legally qualified sheriff of Stark County.

The only vacancy that occurred took place on January 7, 2013 and the only possible qualification date remains February 6, 2013.

The SCPR thinks what the court overlooked and should have accounted for in fashioning and alternative selection remedy is the reality it would be impractical for the Stark Dems to meet within the few remaining days (probably about five days) within the January/February set of 45 days with the count of days resuming from the court's order issued November 6th.

Accordingly, the court should have done something like placing the "re-do" in the hands of the Stark County commissioners to appoint among Darrow and Dordea.

For if the Stark Dems failed to act in the remaining five days or so of the original 45 day period, it would have devolved on the Stark County commissioners to make the appointment.

But the court didn't pick up on the practicality factor.

Since the Dems did not within the five days remaining, the court can now in Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez et al acknowledge the reality and formally pass the task on to the Stark commissioners with the February 6, 2013 qualification date in tack.

As the SCPR has written many times (an expression borrowed from local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley):  "The [Ohio] Supreme Court does not have to be right [or correct] in its decisions; it just has to be the Supreme Court."

Such is absolutely the case when it comes issues of state of Ohio law.  There is no federal appeal on state questions.

It is a little bit surprising that Republican Larry Dordea has not filed some sort of action with the Supreme Court of a corrective nature.

Wouldn't it have been worth it to him to possibly enhance his chances of becoming the appointed sheriff for him to have asked the court to reconsider that part of the decision putting the matter back into the hands of the SCDP-CC?

Shouldn't he have been interested in finding a way (on the advice of "creative" legal counsel, of course) to get before the court the idea of remanding the appointment decision to the Stark County commissioners?

There are two Republicans (Creighton and Regula) on the Stark County Board of Commissioners, no?

While the SCPR is not suggesting that Creighton and Regula would make a commissioner appointment a political thing; they would not rule Dordea out as the Democrats have and will continue to do.

As a former Alliance police chief and current Hartville police chief who has served with distinction, the commissioners could feel quite comfortable in appointing Dordea, no?

It is interesting that he has stood by and apparently has not engaged legal counsel to see whether or not there was an avenue to get such a possibility before the court.

An appointed Larry Dordea or Lou Darrow, for that matter, if the commissioners go with Darrow, would close the issue of who is going to be Stark County sheriff until the Stark County voters decide next November.

However, a "re-do" by the SCDP-CC should George Maier be reappointed (unless the court endorses the Gonzalez view on the qualification date) makes it very likely that the Ohio Supreme Court will be facing a third case on the Stark County sheriff appointment process.

CONCLUSION

As indicated above, the only hope for Chairman Gonzalez in his zeal for George T. Maier being appointed, once again, sticking, would be for the court to act before December 11th and, in rendering a decision on the current litigation, change the qualification date to 30 days from November 6, 2013 (the date of the Swanson v. Maier decision), which, if the court were to do so, seemingly would likely result in a new qualification date of December 5, 2013 or thereabouts.

That the court will make such a change, the SCPR thinks, is unlikely.  For the court to do so, as pointed out above, would require it to do some "legal fictionalizing."

The probable scenario is likely to be that the court either reaffirms the February 6, 2013 qualification date and limits the filed of candidates to Darrow or Dordea or, alternatively, does not act before December 11th thereby making and decision moot and therefore not judiciable (not capable of being decided).

The Report believes that it will be the latter course of action rather than the former.

But we shall see.