APRIL 01, 2016 - A SAD DAY FOR STARK COUNTY - 7TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE REVELATION OF A THEFT OF TAXPAYER MONEY BY VINCE FRUSTACI FROM THE STARK CO TREASURY

The date:  April 01, 2009.

The SCPR was at the Stark County Office Building covering the regular weekly meeting of the Stark County commissioners (Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) when information broke that Stark County Chief Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci had been fired as he was suspected of stealing taxpayer money.

Ultimately, Frustaci was convicted on his guilty plea of having stolen $2.4 million Stark County taxpayer dollars.

Here is an extract from the SCPR's blog of April 1, 2009:

From the results of an interview with Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler this afternoon together with information gained from a source last evening, The Report believes the following is a sensible picture of how Chief Deputy Frustaci (earning about $50,000 per year) came to be fired by Zeigler.

On Tuesday (March 31st), The Report believes that Zeigler got a phone call from an area bank (Zeigler refused to identify the bank) informing the treasurer (Zeigler did not say so) that all was not right with the treasurer's bank account in terms of the interest factor. A SCPR source (not Zeigler) has told Report that it was interest that has been drained off the county account in question and not capital funds)

With this information, The Report believes Zeigler did some internal checking and confirmed to himself that there was a problem with the office account balance and satisfied himself that Frustaci was the Stark treasury employee who worked the account. Then, The Report believes Zeigler immediately initiated action to bring in the state auditor (Mary Taylor), Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson and Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrrero to investigate.

By the way, John Fererro walked into the treasurer's office as yours truly and an Alliance Review reporter were talking with Zeigler. Zeigler excused himself and walked off with Ferrero.

As part of the discussion with Zeigler, (because a federal bank account is a subject of the investigation), he did indicate that there is an possible federal aspect to this matter.

The Report's non-Zeigler source says that as this matter was breaking, Frustaci was either contacted or was contacted (while he was on vacation) a treasurer's office employee and learned of Auditor Taylor's crew contacting the office asking for certain records whereupon Frustaci allegedly told the office contact that nothing was to be given to Taylor until he returned to handle the matter.

From the beginning there was a lot of finger pointing as to whom was to blame for conditions to have existed over several years that the thefts are thought to have taken place for Frustaci to have been able to pull off the theft undetected until March, 2009.

A key document was an audit began by the State of Ohio Auditor (SOA) on April 1, 2009 and issued on February 26, 2010.

Here is a summary of the SOA findings outlined in a cover letter signed by then state auditor Mary Taylor (Republican, now lieutenant governor).

The Honorable Gary D. Zeigler
Stark County Treasurer
County Administration Building
110 Central Plaza - Suite 250
Canton, Ohio 44702-1410

We conducted a special audit of the Stark County Treasurer’s Office (SCTO) by performing the procedures enumerated in the attached Supplement to the Special Audit Report for the period January 1,
2005 through April 13, 2009 (the Period), solely to:

• Examine reconciliations of SCTO’s depository activity to the Stark County Auditor’s Office (SCAO) adjusted fund balances at each month end during the Period and at April 13, 2009, to determine whether funds received were deposited into SCTO’s bank and investment accounts.

• Examine available documentation supporting certain SCTO disbursements for the Period to determine whether the disbursements were for SCTO-related purposes.

This engagement was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections established by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (January 2005). The procedures and associated findings are detailed in the attached Supplement to the Special Audit Report. 

A summary of our procedures and significant results is as follows:

1. We examined month-end reconciliations, bank statements and other relevant documentation and determined whether the SCTO depository and book balance agreed to the total fund balance maintained by the SCAO for the period January 1, 2005 through April 13, 2009.

Significant Results – In examining these documents and using the reconciled bank balances, we determined the SCTO’s depository balance did not agree with its book balance or SCAO’s adjusted fund balance due to shortages identified in the head cashier’s vault; inaccurate posting of interest/investment income and related service charges/investment expenses; and unauthorized manual checks issued and cashed by a SCTO employee.

We recalculated the head cashier’s vault cash balance and determined the vault cash was short $2,734,560 on April 13, 2009. In Issue No. 2, we noted two unauthorized checks totaling $230,000 were issued from SCTO’s bank accounts. Accordingly, we issued a finding for recovery against Vince Frustaci, chief deputy treasurer, for $2,734,560 of public monies collected but unaccounted for and $230,000 of public monies illegally expended.

We made one noncompliance citation for maintaining a vault cash balance in excess of amounts established by SCTO policies.

We made nine management recommendations addressing internal control weaknesses noted in the reconciliation process, vault cash collection process, cash drawer overages/shortages, tracking and recording unclaimed wires, recording interest income earned and fees incurred, and segregating the cash collection and reconciliation processes.

2. We examined bank, investment, and trust account statements, wire transfers, canceled checks and other relevant documentation and determined whether certain SCTO disbursements during the Period were for SCTO-related operations.

Significant Results – We examined available documentation supporting 1,285 canceled checks and wire transfers totaling $1,219,076,533 and 201 deposits into SCTO’s First Merit Bank trust accounts and determined these transactions were for SCTO-related operations with the exception of two checks. We determined former Chief Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci improperly issued and cashed two checks written to First Merit Bank totaling $230,000. These funds were not spent for SCTO-related operations.

We made one noncompliance citation for SCTO to maintain records supporting daily and month end reconciliations including the amounts reflected on those documents and disbursements of SCTO funds in accordance with the Commissioner’s records retention schedule.

We made one management recommendation for SCTO to develop and implement an operations manual documenting procedures for collecting, depositing, and recording payments received;
processing wire transfers, and completing daily and monthly reconciliations.

3. On June 14, 2010, we held an exit conference with the following individuals representing the SCTO:

Honorable Gary D. Zeigler, Treasurer
Lem Green, Deputy Treasurer
Honorable John D. Ferrero, Prosecuting Attorney

The attendees were advised they had an opportunity to respond to this special audit report. No response was received.

/s/ Mary Taylor

For his part Gary Zeigler steadfastly rejected the SOA finding in terms of accepting that he had done anything wrong in the management of the Stark treasury.  And he refused to resign from office despite many calls that he do so.

On July 28, 2010 a lawsuit was filed in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas whereby the Stark County treasurer, the State of Ohio and the Stark County commissioners sought recovery as provided for by Ohio statutory law (ORC 321.37) for recovery against Frustaci, Zeigler (who was not accused of or alleged to have any part whatsoever in the theft), and bonding and insurance companies providing bonds/insurances as required by Ohio law.

On August 23, 2010 the Stark County Board of commissioners as a follow on to the civil lawsuit having be filed under ORC 321.37 instituted proceedings to and did on the 23rd remove Gary Zeigler as Stark County treasurer.

On September 7, 2010 Zeigler filed a quo warranto with the Ohio Supreme Court contesting his removal by the commissioners.

On June 23, 2011 the Supreme Court found:

Because R.C. 321.38 does not require a complaint and hearing before authorizing a board of county commissioners to remove a county treasurer, it is incompatible with Section 38, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, and thus is unconstitutional on its face

and thereby restored Zeigler (a Democrat) to office.

Eventually (October 19, 2011), the Stark County commissioners reached a settlement with Zeigler whereby he agreed to retire/resign on that date whereupon the commissioners appointed Republican Alex Zumbar as treasurer.

(SCPR Note:  Zumbar won election as treasurer in November, 2010 as the nominee of the Stark County Republican Party.  However, the June 23rd Supreme Court decision negated the election results)

On October 31st, in the face of the commissioners having appointed Zumbar on October 19th and other Stark County communitywide pressure, the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee appointed Zumbar to fill out Zeigler's term.

Indeed, April 1, 2009 was a sad day for Stark Countians.  There were a number of political reverberations on account of revelations which flowed from that date.

But the most trying was that it was clear to many public officials that Stark Countians had lost a great deal of the trust they had in county government.

The commissioners did the best they could to recover taxpayer monies and here is an accounting that The Report obtained from Stark County Auditor Alan Harold

• (SCPR Note:  Harold, a Republican, likely won office in November, 2010 as a consequence of the troubles in the treasury because the incumbent Democrat [Kim Perez] was apparently perceived by the public to not having done enough to bring his misgivings about the practices and procedures in treasury to the authorities attention)

a printout of the final financial cost to Stark County taxpayers, to wit:

At the end of the day, Stark Countians were out $1,546,441.01.

But the greater damage was the loss of trust that Stark Countians had for their government.

The Stark County commissioners did not try to get Stark Countians to renew an existing sales tax levy or put on a replacement sales tax in the November, 2010/May, 2011 election because they thought that the trust factor was so low that a tax issue had virtually no chance of passing.

However, through the hard work of newly elected commissioners (November, 2010) Thomas Bernabei (Democrat, a highly respected former law director, councilman and service director for Canton) and Janet Creighton (Republican; a well thought of former Stark County recorder and auditor and mayor of Canton), county government has made a rapid recovery on the trust front.

While things are way far brighter on April 1, 2014 than the were on April 1, 2009, work remains.

The commissioners yesterday had some unhappy county officials in their board meeting room for a work session expressing their distress at not having their requested appropriations for the 2014 budget year approved.

If the commissioners grant the requested additional money, it could mean that the recently adopted budget (a mere two weeks ago) will have to be reworked with other Stark County departments of government receiving less than they thought (two weeks ago).

Any such development undoubtedly will create some rancor among the departments of government and therein make the commissioners' job of maintaining a "solvent" through 2019 objective problematic.

The 0.5% sales tax increase approved by Stark Countians in the November, 2011 election is due to expire in 2019.

Getting the county department of governments to self-discipline on fiscal matters has proved to be very difficult indeed for the commissioners to accomplish.

It is far from certain as of today that Stark County can make it until 2019 without experiencing another round of draconian cuts that occurred in 2010 through 2011 as a consequence of Stark's meager 0.25% sales tax expiring.

Sadness lingers on this "unhappy anniversary date" of April 01, 2016 of past treasury department travails.

Fortunate for Stark County that the leadership of Thomas Bernabei and Janet Creighton has brought the county out of the depths of despair.

The lesson from what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has name "Zeiglergate" is that elected officials need to be persistently vigilant in detecting structures of governance (i.e. administrative procedures and physical facilities) that present opportunities for those with an inclination to violate the public trust to do so.

DAYS OF FISCAL AUSTERITY ARE OVER WITH THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS?

UPDATED/REVISED AT 11:10 AM

EMAIL FROM A SCPR READER:

        ...
        Today at 10:32 AM

To:  tramols@att.net

In your analysis of the commissioners spending spree, you forgot the increases from Gary Rushe to Thomas McMillan @ $60K to Lee Henderson @ 70k

"It's beginning to look like its Christmas" in July, in Stark County government!

As recently as six months ago, the SCPR believed that the commissioners were still being responsible stewards of Stark County taxpayer money in light of Stark Countians providing some $22 million or more (depending on sales tax collection rates) annually with the passage of a Justice System Sales Tax [JSST] levy (1/2 cent) in November, 2011 with collections beginning on the newly passed issue on April 1, 2012.

With the recent gigantic pay raise the commissioners gave to chief county administrator Brant Luther, the SCPR thinks it is now abundantly clear that yours truly was way too generous on the commissioners' "as of late" fiscal responsibility with the 2012 and going forward infusion of new revenues.

Far removed are the days of the commissioners jawboning of the likes of the Stark County Board of Elections on the "unelected" by anybody board handing out in excess of the 2% guidelines in annual raises, to wit:'

Yours truly was there in the 2012, 2013 and 2014 budget hearings when the commissioners (Creighton [took office January 1, 2011]; Bernabei [November, 2010]) ripped apart many Stark County department heads (elected and unelected) for their management of Stark County taxpayer money in terms of raises being handed out to various employees.

In the main, Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton were all over the likes of the Veterans Service Commission, the coroner's office, the recorder's office, the probate court and quite a number of other county officials to "hold the line" in the 2012 through 2014 fiscal years.

But the 2015 county budget hearings were completely different.

Very little if any hassling of department heads over their budget requests for 2015.

Very little if any talk about the 2% commissioner "bully pulpit" exhortations of 2012, 2013 and 2014 have been in play in 2015.

While in preceding years the commissioners had and still have no legal no power to control how other elected-on-their own department heads (e.g. Stark County coroner, Stark County prosecutor et cetera) parcel out appropriations for the given fiscal year; the expectation was that in the interest of showing the Stark County public fiscal responsibility, the commissioners had the expectation that department wide raises would not exceed 2% of the department budget for any such year.

The absence of the 2% limit talk should have raised "red flags."

And the SCPR should have smelled a rat, metaphorically speaking, of course.

Rat?

What rat?

That the commissioners themselves apparently knew then that they were going to hand County Administrator Brant Luther a substantial raise in pay.  Only the politically naive think these things pop up out of "the middle of nowhere."

First of all, let's get this little matter out-of-the-way.

Nearly every time that yours truly writes a hard hitting blog, the subjects of such a blog scream like stuck-with-a-pin-prick pigs.

"Oh!" the detractors may say, "Martin has it in for so-and-so."

As a matter of fact, it "appears" to yours truly that Brant Luther does a fine job as county administrator.

Of course, there are a number of subjects of this blog who yours truly does not think well of either in their government role on with respect to personal characteristics.

Luther has always be highly accessible and answerable to yours truly's questions and seems to always be prepared at commissioner meetings with answers to questions presented by the commissioners and others at the weekly Wednesday meetings as well as frequent work sessions apt to be held on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week.

But the numbers of his remuneration since he became county administrator have been of the skyrocket variety.

And, to boot, the last yours truly knew, Luther, an attorney-at-law, maintains a private practice of law.

On assumes, that when he needs to do his private legal work during normal daytime hours; he takes vacation.

When this former Commissioner Creighton connected person (Luther succeeded her [as the Stark County Republican appointee] as Stark County auditor when she became mayor of Canton on January 1, 2004) hired in with the commissioners as chief administrator on Feburary 6, 2013 he was paid $55,000 as the head of the Stark County Family Court Guardian Ad Litem program.

Luther was hired:

• in at $82,500 
• a whopping 50% increase over what he was making as head of the Family Court Guardian Ad Litem program
• with a boost after a short probationary period to $85,000; a 3% increase,
• with another boost to $86,715; a 2% increase for 2014,
• with yet another boost to $88,441; a 2% increase for 20115,
• and finally as of July 1, 2015 to $98,450; a 11.3% increase.

Wow!!!

From his days as a guardian ad litem program director through July 1, 2015, Brant Luther  gets 68.3% in salary increases in the space of some 28 months.

Who wouldn't like going from $55,000 to $98,450 at such a rapid pace?

Now get this.

When Luther's predecessor Mike Hanke retired on March 31, 2013, he was according to county budget director Chris Nichols making $78,000 [he started in 2007 at $70,000].

However, Hanke was a one-man-show.

No so with Luther.

For one he has Nichols who competed with him to become county administrator as his budget director.

With Nichols on board (who, by the way got his job without it having been posted), Luther's job is a lot less taxing than Hanke's was.

While Hanke got assistance from Rick Flory, for all intents and purposes Mike Hanke (a former Repository employee and last general manager at The Rep), was spread so thin it was amazing to yours truly that he was able to juggle so many balls in his capacity as county chief administrator.

Moreover, going back and looking at the data since the flow of new monies to the county treasury began with the increased collection some three years (to the anniversary date:  April 1) after now imprisoned deputy treasurer Vince Frustaci stole in neighborhood of $3 million and thereby added fire to a county fiscal crisis started by former Stark County commissioners Todd Bosley, Tom Harmon and Jane Vignos in December, 2008 when they "imposed" a 1/2 sales tax increase; The Report takes back yours truly assessment in March of 2015 that the Stark County commissioners were still minding the Stark County fiscal storehouse responsible.

While The Report is not yet prepared to say "as a whole" they are being irresponsible, yours truly thinks they have been irresponsible in shelling out - on July 31st - effective as of July 1, 2015, a 11.3% increase to Luther.

And it appears that - on overall county budget management - the current Janet Creighton, Tom Bernabei and Richard Regula as commissioners are not what they were in prior budget year proceedings in terms of fiscal austerity.

Consequently, the SCPR intends on ramping up the scrutiny of these commissioners going forward.

The currentl levy lasts through 2019.

From what The Report is seeing, any renewal request deserves a high degree of vetting.

Coming by archived material by which to vet is hard to come on the part of Stark County voters/taxpayers given a drop off of the thoroughness of the folks at The Repository in following county finances.

However, yours truly will through the SCPR pages endeavor to periodically write blogs on the particularities of county finances as administrated by the commissioners to equip Stark Countians with information to ask meaningful questions when the JSST levy comes up for renewal.

The JSST should not be renewed if there proves to be a continuing trend of "Katie bar to door" financial management with the county.

One county official on being informed by yours truly that the SCPR was going to do a blog on the Luther increase admonished that The Report do "due diligence" (yours truly's expression; not the county official's) and check around Ohio to see how Luther stacked up  when compared to county administrators in similarly situated counties.

The Report thought a little about that entreaty.

However, given the astronomical increase (remember 68.3%), such in and of itself tells one that how the commissioners have handled the Luther remuneration factor is irresponsible.

As for the comparing to other counties:  Who is to say that the other counties - assuming they pay substantially more than Stark - have the correct measure of the value of someone like Luther in terms of pay grade?

The obvious point is that "we Stark Countians are getting a bargain."

In addition to the Luther situation, there is evidence that the commissioners have made questionable additions at the high end of direct Stark County commissioner office employment.

Look at the compilation of data from county fiscal records maintained by Stark County auditor Alan Harold:  (Note:  Luther's $98,450 came from media reports and Hanke's $78,000 last pay figure came from Stark County Budget Director Chris Nichols)

While they were working over other departments of Stark County government (i.e. 2012, 2013 and 2014), it appears to the SCPR that the commissioners have been on a spending spree.

A 45% increase for the commissioners department of Stark County government, but "a fine toothed comb" for others in county government except perhaps for Stark County sheriff George T. Maier who seems to The Report to be on an unrestrained spending for increased personnel of his own.  (To come soon, "a zero in on Maier" analysis)

When The Report gets to Maier, yours truly believes that readers will see clearly how blatantly political Maier is in his hiring practices and management of existing employees including, it appears, unionized deputies.

No doubt that Mike Hanke was spread too thin.

But as far as the SCPR is concerned, the commissioners have overdone it in adding high end, highly paid hires to the Stark County commissioner department payroll.

Undoubtedly, they will want to object to the inclusion of Kimble and Bridenstine as commissioner specific employees.

Let them object.

The SCPR for one is not buying that they should not be counted as commissioner employees and neither should Stark County taxpayers.

The bulk of the work if not all of it in Kimble's case is for the benefit of providing direct support to the commissioners as they come to various decisions about how to proceed with county government.  And while Bridenstine may be used more widely across Stark County government, make no mistake about it.  He is primarily the core legal support person for the commissioners.

One more word about the Kimble hire.

He, the SCPR thinks, was an "aspirational" hire.

The commissioners who as a matter of Ohio's statutory law have little if any control over department of governments (except, of course, the commissioners' office itself) over personnel decisions.

While the motivation to hire him may be laudable, the foremost question is whether or not his hire was a good use of Stark County taxpayer money.

Returning to the Luther situation, it is a mystery,

• wrapped in an enigma, 
• wrapped in a conundrum, 
• wrapped in puzzle 

as to why the commissioners have been so generous with Stark County taxpayer dollars to the benefit of Administrator Luther.
The Report does not want to think that partisan political party factors are at play in Luther's being hired.  But there certainly may have been.

For that matter, with the numerous blogs the SCPR has written about the Stark County Dems (who in recent times have held most Stark County countywide offices) and the inside track that certain Democrats have at getting organized Stark County Democratic Party appointments or Stark County political subdivision jobs (unbid to the general public)  obviously because they have political insider connections, it is refreshing to write about the Republicans - when they get the opportunity - will do exactly the same things.

Both major political parties - The Report thinks - use taxpayer dollars to create a political party support group.

And this phenomenon contributes to the general public's growing distancing from America's political processes.  The perpetrators of this phenomenon seemingly never connect the dots that they are part of the growing alienation of ordinary citizens from our democratic-republican system of government.

Luther seems to have been joined at the political hip of Commissioner Janet Creighton since 1999 when The Report understands he went to work for her when she was Stark County auditor.

As indicated above, he rose quickly in her estimation so as to be in a position to succeed her as a Stark County GOP appointee as the county auditor when she took office as mayor of Canton in January, 2004.

Notwithstanding his political advantage, he could not hold the office in that he was defeated by Democrat Kim Perez (then Canton city auditor) in the November, 2004 office.

However, after being defeated he did land what the SCPR thinks were "because of his political connections" jobs in the Stark County Probate Court and then in the Stark County Family Court in the offing for him.

Again, remember, he was - after all - the choice of Stark County "organized" Republicans to be county auditor.   Such appointments do not go to "unconnected" political people.  And he is a former Alliance city councilman.

To reiterate, yours truly likes Brant Luther personally and thinks that he is doing quality work as county administrator.

But as regular readers of The Report know, personally liking or disliking has nothing whatsoever to do with yours truly's assessment of what goes on in Stark County political subdivision government.

While "quality of work" for the Stark County public is a top if the THE TOP consideration in The Report's evaluation of various Stark County political subdivision government, yours truly is having a hard time handling the accelerated and astronomical pay increase for Luther in a county which has many unmet infrastructure needs and as setting a hypocritical standard for what county officials (including, of course, the commissioners themselves) in other county departments of government ought to be doing in terms of their department payrolls.

The commissioners in what the SCPR thinks is an irresponsibility vis-a-vis Luther and adding "unnecessary" (e.g. perhaps Bridenstine and Kimble) other high end employees on their part may well be setting up future Boards of Stark County Commissioners for a vote of no confidence come a 2019 and a need to renew the JSST.

As financial houses do in evaluating the fiscal soundness of the companies which appear on America's stock exchanges, with this blog The Report"downgrades" the Stark County commissioners to "guarded" from the "prudent" rating (i.e. not a return to "the good old days")  March, 2015 SCPR assessment.

As of August 11, 2015, it is clear that commissioners of today are not the commissioners of 2011, 2012, 2013 and even as late of 2014.

2019 will be here sooner than the commissioners think, no?

STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: "A MIXED BAG" ON THEIR HANDLING HANDLING NEXUS PIPELINE "SUPPORT" REQUEST

CREIGHTON & REGULA 

HAVE PREMATURELY DECIDED?

 (SEE CORN'S REACTION)

Updated:  5:15 AM

The big problem that exists between the Nexus gas transmission group (NGT, a partnership of Spectra Energy and DTE Energy is a communication problem, plain and simple.

WHAT CORN HAS TO SAY



WHAT NGT HAS TO SAY



Back on February 11, the COalition to Re-route Nexus showed up at a Stark County commissioners meeting and asked for an opportunity to meet with the commissioners for the purpose of persuading the commissioners to support CORN's effort to convince the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to condition approval of Nexus to NGT agreeing to and accepting an alternative pathway.

The commissioners agreed to do so and set this past Tuesday, February 24th at 10:00 a.m. for CORN to come in.  Mondays and Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. have been set aside for use as "work sessions" which serve as a vehicle for the commissioners to learn about concerns such as CORN's.

And they invited the folks from NGT, who surprisingly enough showed up.

Before Tom Bernabei and Janet Creighton became commissioners (first elected in November 2010), there was no such thing as regularly provided for work session time slots.

NGT's plan includes traversing Stark County's Lake, Marlboro, Nimishillen and Washington townships (on a line that runs about half way between State Street and Midway Street in Lake).   

CORN's general approach (unrefined as of now) is to relocate Nexus south of U.S. Route 30 in Stark County taking up some 30 miles of more rural land as compared to NGT's more populated route.

It was interesting that Commissioner Bernabei picked up on the communication problem.



While he was perceptive about what the real problem is between CORN and NGT, he should have - in the view of the SCPR - pushed NGT harder on getting NGT to commit to resolving the communication problem which The Report believes is solely attributable to NGT.

At the end of the session, yours truly tried to engage John Sheridan, the spokesperson for the NGT point of view as to why talking direct to CORN was a problem.



But as seen in the video, he was having none of it.

Here is a series of shorter videos on various matters that came up in the "indirect" discussion.

The complete video appears at the end of this blog.

WHO ARE THE PLAYERS?

NGT (SPECTRA ENERGY & DTE ENERGY)



CORN



LOCATION OF THE PIPELINE

NGT



CORN



SAFETY OF THE PIPELINE

NGT



CORN



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

NGT



CORN



So who was persuasive with the commissioners?

Well, insofar as Commissioners Creighton and Regula (both Republicans) are concerned, apparently NGT.



And here is CORN's reaction (asked for by the SCPR in an e-mail) to what CORN spokesman Paul Gierosky says in essence (the SCPR agrees) is a premature decision by Creighton and Regula.

OUR REACTION

The Repository wrote "Commissioners Janet Weir Creighton and Richard Regula have said they aren’t inclined to support the NEXUS re-route plan. Commissioner Tom Bernabei said he hadn’t reached a decision."

It sounds like you elicited a more definite response. But pressed to say something what is a person’s natural reaction? Personally, I was not surprised nor deterred by the statements in CR. The Commissioners have very little information, so far, on which to base their decision. Which CORN re-route plan are they not inclined to support? We have not proposed a definite plan. Are they saying they are not inclined to support any re-route plan? Or, are they saying they will only support a re-route that takes Nexus out of Stark County altogether? I don't know. We certainly would like their input.

I understood Commissioner Creighton mentioned in the meeting that from the statistics we shared the burden was being shifted to Stark County. However, the statistics do not support that. The number of structures within 1500’ on either side of the pipeline on the current Nexus route is 1052. On our preliminary alternate re-route that number drops to 488. This is a clear improvement. Is she not inclined to support a route with a clear improvement to the safety of the public? I don’t know the answer because we did not get a chance to ask.

The current Nexus route passes through 28 acres of wetlands in Stark County. Our alternate re-route passes through none. Are the Commissioners not inclined to support and defend the integrity of our wetlands environment? We have not had a chance to get into those details either, yet.

I thought her statement that inferred the Nexus pipeline was a burden on Stark County did convey something about her opinion.

We view this as a process. It is our responsibility to inform, educate and persuade the Commissioners to support our re-route proposal which avoids the heavily populated and faster growing counties in Ohio, for a more southerly, less populated and safer route.

We started this process in this manner in Medina County in mid-December it took 7 weeks, 20 different residents speaking out many at several meetings, multiple one-on-one meetings to build a personal relationship and countless emails providing information to build and support our case.

To expect anything less in Stark County would be unreasonable.

We will be submitting a re-route alternative to Nexus and the Commission (FERC) in the next 2-3 weeks. We would like the Stark County Commissioners input to, involvement with and support of what we believe is a sensible proposal.

What is disappointing about Creighton and Regula is that they are giving no reasons for their positions.

Bernabei (a Democrat) is much more impressive.

He is thinking about it.

And he thinks he needs to comment on his decision when he arrives at one.

Whether one agrees with CORN or not, the work they are putting into their fight for a re-route is impressive and shame on Creighton and Regula for apparently deciding negatively on the request without the courtesy of offering reasons why.

This is the sort of thing that helps erode individual citizens confidence in their government that they are "really" heard and undoubtedly have to question whether or not they are respected when seeming arbitrary decisions are made.

As pointed out in the SCPR's first blog on Nexus, both Spectra Energy and DTE Energy have strong lobbying groups in Washington and Columbus.

CORN only has motivated and energized  everyday citizens.

The SCPR is impressed with CORN and encourages them to continue the fight.

Their effort is responsible citizenship at its finest!

Here is the full video of Tuesday.

PART "ONE" OF A "THREE" PART BLOG: LAKE TWP, STARK CO. RESIDENT PETRIFIED AT THE COMING OF "NEXUS PIPELINE" TO HIS NEIGHBORHOOD

VIDEOS

Peter Zoumberakis

Lake Township Resident

on

'Fears of Explosion'

================== 

 DAVID EIGEL

================== 

GREEN MAYOR

RICHARD NORTON

==================  

DAVID MUCKLOW 

==================  

PAUL GIEROSKY

FOUNDER OF

COalition re-Route Nexus

(CORN)

==================  

WAYNE WIETHE

GREEN PLANNING DIRECTOR 

Going back to 2010, The Stark County Political Report has been doing blogs about the proliferation of Marcellus and Utica shale gas and oil wells extracted by a "fracking" process.

The focus until today's blog has been the dangers (i.e. mainly environmental contaminants) to Stark Countians from an accident that occurs in the "fracking" process itself.

While for some, including Stark County civic activist Chris Borello of Plain Township, the dangers from "fracking" itself continue to be a major concern.

Borello's political activist history includes being:

• a leader of the Concerned Citizens of Stark County in the "fracking" issue, and 
• also, from her days as a Lake Township civic activist monitoring the federal government clean up efforts of the township sited Industrial Excess Landfill ([IEL] about a mile south of the center of Uniontown on the east side of Cleveland Ave., NW), she serves as the head of the Concerned Citizens of Lake Township

For some Stark Countians, Borello is a person who has "cried wolf" on an impending Stark County-centered environmental disaster from "fracking" and since no catastrophe has occurred she is not to be taken seriously.

Only Plain Township trustee Louis P. Giavasis has taken her warnings to heart and tried to use local government powers (a limited as they are) to protect Plain Township residents from a nightmare experience should - over time - Borello's fears be realized.

At the February 11th regular weekly meeting of the Stark County commissioners, a new Lake Township-connected name surfaced on concerns about dangers to Stark County residents - down the line from "fracking" itself - from the production of the gas byproduct of the process and that is in the transmission (seemingly a harmless phase of delivering the product, no?) of gas from production fields to market.

According to Lake resident Peter Zoumberakis of 9283 Coblentz NW there is no "seeming harmless" about it, the proposed Spectra Energy Nexus Pipeline Project (partnering with DTE Energy) is a "real" danger, he says, to him and his family as well as anyone else in its path.

Zoumberakis, in a presentation to Stark County commissioners on Wednesday, outlined the fears he lives with day-in, day-out (along with his wife and three month old child) at the prospect that his Lake Township property is - as matters stand now - will have on it (actually buried 3 foot deep) by 2017 a 42" diameter pipeline under 1400 pounds per square inch (psi) pressure.

Watch this riveting video of Peter Zoumberakis:

Zoumberakis was the last of about half-a-dozen "public speaks" presenters including the sitting mayor of the City of Green, Ohio (a Summit County community which is adjacent to on the west to Stark County's Lake Township) and the presenters endeavored to persuade Stark's commissioners to take an active role in an effort to convince FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner) to order a re-route of the contemplated Spectra Energy pipeline.  (Video about 3:30)



Backing up just a bit from the Zoumberakis video, first up at this week's commissioners' meeting was David Eigel, a petroleum engineer, himself a resident of Lake Township.

In his presentation (about 6 minutes), Eigel:

• talks about having first approached the Stark County commissioners about a month or so ago (December 23, 2014) about the commissioners on behalf of affected Stark Countians joining the Coalition to re-Route Nexus (CORN) in the coalition's effort to persuade the federal government to order a re-route of the proposed pathway of the pipeline from densely populated areas, 
• SCPR note:  the pipeline as projected is schedule to run through Stark County's Lake, Marlboro, Nimishillen and Washington townships,
• identifies his goal at Wednesday's commissioners' session as being to persuade the commissioners to schedule a work session (the SCPR's phrase; not Eigel's) so that the CORN has:
• the opportunity to provide more information to the commissioners in the futherance of the group's goal
• to persuade Stark's commissioners to join CORN,
• outlines that NPC represents property owners like Zoumberakis in 14 townships stretching from Stark County back through Ohio to the Michigan border,
• notes that local governments (e.g. Summit County and the City of Green) have signed on as being part of the coalition,
• emphasizes that the CORN is not about stopping the pipeline and says that the CORN sees the transmission of gas as being an economic asset for Ohio and America, and
• promises that CORN will develop (an unprecedented action) a re-route map to submit to FERC (he terms as being a "disinterested" party) and thereby provide a win-win (a SCPR expression; not Eidgel's) for FERC to latch onto as a solution to the disagreement between CORN and Spectra,

Next up at Wednesday's meeting was Richard Norton, mayor of Green, Ohio (located in southern most Summit County):

Mayor Norton: (might be taken as some as being a "yes, go ahead but NIMBY [not my my backyard]), as follows:

• describes the prospect that Nexus as proposed will run under or close to Green parks, schools and other public places,
• reiterates the potentially catastrophic danger even if the overall odds of an event occurring are low,
• emphasizes the importance of Stark County being on board with CORN as a big county, and
• points out that the potential of a gas pipeline explosion calamity is different from the risk one takes on getting on an airplane in that the former is an involuntary risk imposed on citizens whereas in traveling by air one has a choice
  

Next up David Mucklow an attorney working with CORN who lives in projected pathway of Nexus.

Mucklow focues on a very important factor in trying to persuade the Stark commissioners to join in with CORN, namely:

• FERC daily reads stakeholder input and therefore the effort the affect the process is a "real" one and not a futile one,

Mucklow also:

• provides a case example in describing his elderly mother (a property owner stakeholder) being insensitively handled by Nexus employees contacting pipeline pathway property owners, and
• presents an analogy that should get everybody's attention:
• "it's (the pipeline) like having a dynamite factor placed in one's backyard,"

Next up is Paul Gierosky of York Township located in Medina County.

Gierosky has been the lead person in putting together CORN.  This organizing effort started in August, 2014.  In his presentation, Gierosky make the following points:

• the purpose of CORN is to look after:
• public safety,
• property values, and
• property rights
• the mission is to:
•  "to inform, educate and persuade
• Nexus/Spectra Energy officials,
• to choose a route through a less densely populated area, probably south,"
• the goal is to create a pipeline safety corridor via
• implementing a CORN strategy designed to convince industry/FERC factors that all lines should be relocated to one pathway in the least dense that good planning can devise.

The last presenter to the Stark commissioners published in this blog is Wayne Wiethe.

Wiethe made two basic points:

• transportation studies and census data nominate Green and Lake Township as being urban areas, and
• a huge priority for Green in getting Nexus relocated is to allow developers, who own the land which Nexus in currently projected to traverse, to realize their plans to develop the property, which, off course, will benefit Green and its residents economically and financially.

The SCPR was impressed with the presentation made by Nexus relocation advocates (i.e. CORN) on Wednesday.

It would be surprising if CORN does not succeed.

And The Report urges the Stark Commissioners to help CORN in any way the board can.

Next Friday, the SCPR plans on publishing Part 2 of this mini-series three part blog on the Nexus pipeline project in anticipation of a work session that commissioners will be holding with CORN activists on February 24th at 10:00 a.m. in the meeting room of the commissioners located on the second floor of the Stark County office building.

Part 2 will focus on post February 11 interviews with Gierosky and Eigel.

Part 3 will deal with the February 24th work session and the results of that session.

DEMOCRAT COMMISSIONER BERNABERI: STARK CO. "PROBABLY" NOT JOINING OAG MIKE DEWINE LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMACARE!

UPDATE:  7:30 PM - NEW INFORMATION ON THE CONTACTS BETWEEN WARREN AND STARK COUNTY BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

VIDEO

COMMISSIONER THOMAS BERNABEI

ON

WHETHER OR NOT

STARK COUNTY

IS STILL CONTEMPLATING

JOINING OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL

LAWSUIT

ON

OBAMACARE

Ever since Democratic President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act  (labeled "Obamacare" by Republicans which label has been accepted by President Obama) into law on March 23, 2010, it has become a political rallying point for many elected Republicans in expression their loyal opposition to our nation's Democratic-controlled executive branch of government.

Since President Obama signed the measure into law, there have been some 67 Republican attempts in the U.S. House of Representatives to undo Obamacare to one degree or another.

The fight has pretty much been limited to the national level of our federal (i.e. national, state and local government) structure of government.

However, the fight did filter down to the state of Ohio level with a 2011 Constitutional ballot initiative.

And the-then Democratic Congressman John Boccieri (then a resident of Alliance) likely lost his 16 Congressional District seat (when the district included all of Stark County) in November 2012 to Republican Jim Renacci because of Boccieri's 2010 vote for Obamacare.

Now we learn that there has been an effort to get Stark County involved in a lawsuit filed on January 26, 2015 by Republican Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine.

• (SCPR note:  lawsuit also includes Warren County and several Ohio universities)

Where did the effort to involve Stark County come from?

At yesterday's Stark County commissioners' regular meeting, Commissioner Thomas Bernabei said in answer to a SCPR question (see video below) that it came from the Warren County commissioners.  Warren County is a county as of 2010 of some 212,000 residents.

And here is verification that the initiative came from Warren County administrator Dave Gully.

And here is an interesting response to Gully from Stark County Chief Administrator Brant Luther.

Hmm?

Luther:  "Having said that ... we still have a little division here in Stark, making the outcome unpredictable."

So the question is "whom knows whom" (in the politically connectedness sense of the expression - Stark County to Warren County or vice versa - for Stark to be solicited by Warren?

We may never know, but readers of the SCPR can depend on The Report to keep digging.

While he didn't say so expressly, the SCPR thinks that the only reason that Stark County did not join the lawsuit is because of Commissioner Tom Bernabei's opposition.

Of course, Stark County's two Republican commissioners (Creighton and Regula) could override what the SCPR thinks is a Bernabei opposition.

It is interesting that they did not pass a resolution to join the-then contemplated lawsuit at the commissioners' regularly scheduled meeting of December 30, 2014 when Bernabei was absent.

In a videotaped Q&A with commissioners at the conclusion of yesterday's meeting, Commissioner Bernabei (as president of the board and the only commissioner heretofore who had not articulated his position) took most of the questions of The Report.



And the SCPR agrees with his assessment.

Moreover, Stark Countians should not be paying perhaps as much as $85,000 of Stark County Democrat, Republican, independent and "not registered to vote" taxpayer dollars to litigate on a question that has strong political overtones to it and has no better than 50/50 chance of succeeding.

The SCPR believes that DeWine's and the Warren County commissioners' motivation suspiciously reeks of the Republican Party's obsession to undo Obamacare piece by piece.

It is intriguing that the only county among Ohio's 88 counties to sign on with DeWine is Warren.

Here is some material that the SCPR has gathered from various sources on the Internet which some readers might think is strong evidence of The Report's suspicions, at least on the part of Warren County officials.

In a press release, here, in part, is what the Warren County gave as their reasons for joining DeWine's lawsuit initiative:

Warren County, like many other counties and states, has self-insured health care coverage, and utilizes a third party administration company to administer its plan.  It is therefore not exempt from these fees. 

The fees are $63 for employees and dependents for 2015, with the per person charge estimated at $44 for 2016, and $27 for 2017. Warren County’s plan covers about 1,808 employees and dependents, which means we are being taxed $113,904 in 2015, $79,552 in 2016, and $48,816 in 2017.

Warren County Commissioners opted to make the initial payment of $94,710.00 on January 15, 2015 because the ACA’s penalty for non-compliance with remitting the Transitional Reinsurance Fee is $100 per day, per covered life.  Had Warren County not made the initial payment, our penalty would be $100 x 1,808 (current employees and dependents) = $180,800 A DAY!

"The Obama administration has to understand that we don't work for them – county government is a government for the tax-paying county citizens," said David Young, Warren County Board of
Commissioners President. "We, the county commissioners, as all local county officials should, operate and fight for the honest and effective governing of county taxpayer money."

"The Obama Administration’s cavalier approach to funding the Affordable Care Act is reckless, risky, unethical and, we believe, unconstitutional."  (color added for emphasis sake)

• SCPR note:  Stark County paid a little over $218,000 in coverage of over 3,000 employees

The last paragraph, the SCPR thinks, betrays a political vitriol as a strong factor playing into the decision to be a party-plaintiff against the United States government.

As the graphics above indicate, it appears that Warren County is a "one-party-county" in which only Republicans run for county commissioner (at least, in 2012 and 2014) which seemingly encourages them to have the chutzpah to use "local" taxpayer money to advance a political party agenda.

Commissioner Tom Grossman is a former Warren County Republican Party chairman.

Stark County is quite a different story on the matter of not supporting/supporting President Obama before Obamacare and even after Obamacare.

Recently, a SCPR reader e-mailed yours truly requesting that the SCPR get into statements made by Republican commissioners Creighton and Regula as well as Canton's local newspaper to tell the full story on why Stark County getting into the DeWine/Warren County legal initiative might not be a good idea.

At issue was a January 27th Repository editorial advocating that the Stark County commissioners join the lawsuit.

Here is a copy of that readers letter to the editor of The Repository:

The Repository’s editorial board failed to tell readers important information when it urged Stark County to join Ohio Attorney General DeWine’s transitional reinsurance fee litigation (“DeWine files lawsuit over Affordable Care Act fee,” Jan. 27).

First, the editorial board failed to mention the cost of this litigation. For example, DeWine’s staff will spend thousands of hours on this litigation.  Time that could be spent putting criminals in jail and keeping us safe, as promised during DeWine’s election campaign. Further, Ohio’s Warren County has hired a Washington lawyer to be the brains behind the litigation. Top tier Washington lawyers can bill out at $1,000 per hour.

Second, the editorial board failed to discuss the likelihood of success of the litigation. The odds of DeWine winning his litigation are slim to none. 

Already a leading health care expert has told The Cleveland Plain Dealer, and confirmed to me by email, that DeWine is misreading the law. This error may cause DeWine’s litigation to fail.

Third, the editorial board failed to tell readers that what is possibly driving the litigation is DeWine’s political ambition and desire to burnish his conservative credentials. The media has speculated that DeWine will run for governor in 2018. So DeWine is using our tax money to pay for his litigation that keeps him in the public’s eye.

The editorial board should have explained the above factors to readers rather than simply cheerleading expensive litigation that seems to be driven more by ideology and political ambition than common sense.

ROBERT S. MELSON, NAVARRE

It is interesting that Mr. Melson thinks he has to turn to The Stark County Political Report in order to get "the rest of the story" out before the Stark County public.

The Report thinks Melson makes telling points.

As SCPR readers know, yours truly thinks that highly partisan Republicans and Democrats are ruining our democratic-republic as they jockey with one another for political advantage.

That is what The Report thinks this fight is about.

It is a sad day indeed when our local newspaper weighs in on the TRP issue making a recommendation without telling the complete story.

But that is what we have all come to expect from The Canton Repository.

WHO WILL JOIN THE SCPR IN SCRUTINIZING STARK CO. DEPARTMENT OF GOV'T BUDGETS?

Updated:  10:30 a.m.

Its not a "sexy and glitzy" process, but on Monday the Stark County commissioners will start the process of having Stark County Departments of government in to meet with commissioners in for work sessions as the commissioners embark on the annual budget hearings.

The graphics above are from the 2014 SCPR extensive coverage of the Stark County general funding budgeting process.

And here is a list of key blogs done by The Report for those who want an insight into what the process entails in some detail:

1. Volume 1
2. Volume 1a
3. Volume 2 
4. Volume 3 
5. Volume 4
6. Volume 5 
7. Volume 6

2015 is, the SCPR thinks, a critical year for determining whether or not the commissioners have the willpower and discipline to "hold the line" on county government expenditures from the county's general fund.

What makes this year so critical in the way of the SCPR's thinking is that revenues, according to Stark County Auditor Alan Harold, at Tuesday's monthly county finances meeting had a significant uptick in revenues.

In 2014 the county appropriated some $60 million in Stark County taxpayer funds for the providing of health, safety and well-being of Stark Countians.

In Tuesday's  meeting, Harold revealed that Stark County government has collected some $3.25 million more than anticipated and consequently the county is running a cash flow surplus of some $14 million.

The SCPR is somewhat concerned about and skeptical of the commissioners being able to administer fiscal self-discipline to themselves and to other Stark County departments of government in light of what they have done in the past; especially with the Stark County commissioners administrative operations.

They have added quite three of new positions and in the case of the chief county administrator dramatically increased the pay scale since the full implementation of the November, 2011 passage by Stark Countians of a 1/2 percent sales tax increase.

The cost of the new positions and dramatic increase?

How about $209,464.202!

A 54% increase in a little over two years.

Absolutely, breath taking, for the managers of Stark County's general fund budget to themselves go on a spending binge, no?

Not including the dramatically higher pay for Brant Luther, the commissioners have doled out more than 4% in raises to continuing employee positions over the 12/2012 through 01/2015 time period.

On the constructive side of things, the commissioners have provided a structure of county finances which, if properly employed, has the potential to channel the county revenues/expenditures overall balance into being a reality-based and therefore sustainable model.

Under former Stark County boards of commissioners (those including folks other than Thomas Bernabei, Janet Creighton, Richard Regula and to a lesser extent Pete Ferguson), Stark County's fiscal structure and processes were an absolute joke.

Worse yet, the failure of prior boards to thoroughly vet and monitor what county departments were doing with your (meaning hardworking, everyday citizens) hard earned taxpayer dollars, the SCPR thinks, led to a certain arrogance among county officials.

One example of the arrogance came from Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero (thinking his office to be short-handed because of budget cuts) threatened (the SCPR believes) the commissioners in 2012 with the prospect that he might ask Stark County judges to start appointing private sector attorneys to handle cases as an "in-your-face," "I will go behind your back" move designed to intimidate the commissioners into giving in to his budget appropriation demands.

Had he followed up on what The Reports takes as being a bullying bluff, it could have cost other Stark County departments of government many thousands of dollars in at the time highly scarce revenues to run the basic services that Stark Countians have come to depend upon.

Ferrero has a history of trying to bully those (including the SCPR) who disagree with his actions or imposing the priority of his office needs over all other Stark County department of governments.

So it was intriguing (and pleasing) to the SCPR when he became the primary focus of a "bull against bull" match up with the-then Stark County Democratic Party sheriff appointee George T. Maier.

The SCPR in prior blogs has described Ferrero as being courageous in taking on taking on the Maier brothers and The Report still thinks that though his motive may well have been tainted, courageous was to proper word to have used.

Ferrero did have the distinct advantage of the law Ohio being on his side.

The SCPR suspects that his motive was not so much his devotion to the rule of law as it was a comeuppance on his part against Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., whom he preceded as Stark County Democratic Party chairman.

Both are Massillon based and have fought each other (and you can through former mayor Frank Cicchinelli in to the mix insofar as Maier is concerned) in a political turf war in the highly charged political battleground of Massillon.

In the end, Maier proved to be a more effective bull than Ferrero.

However, Stark County would be better off, in the opinion of the SCPR, if neither one were a county officeholder.

He isn't complaining to the SCPR, but Stark County budget director Chris Nichols has to deal with the Ferreros, Maiers and others of their ilk (e.g. Stark County recorder Rick Campbell) in recommending to the commissioners which county departments should be financed out of the county general fund and at what level.

Though the SCPR believes to this day that Nichols and Luther (Stark County's chief administrator) got their jobs (both well connected Republicans, Luther more than Nichols), at least in part due to political connections (again, especially Luther who once worked for Creighton when she was Stark County auditor) to Commissioner Janet Creighton; both have turned out to be exemplary employees.

Creighton denies that political connectedness had anything to do with Luther and Nichols being hired.

Moreover, she makes no apologies whatsoever in pressing for the hiring of persons she feels comfortable with.

To which, the SCPR responds:  "Fine and dandy if you own or are managing a private company. But not when you are financing employment with taxpayer dollars."

Think maybe it might be good for taxpayers to have those employed in public positions to be loyal in terms of working smoothly with their bosses, but separated from personal or political ties that make it difficult if not impossible to take exception (even in private) to the boss?

The Nichols process of employment was particularly troublesome to the SCPR because the commissioners failed to advertise the budget director position to the general public.

The commissioners appeared to have relied on their overall impression of Nichols from his "for the chief administrator postion" interview and his resume (and, perhaps, his political connectedness) in short-circuiting the budget director hiring process.

In hindsight, it is hard to imagine that the commissioners could have done better than hiring Nichols.

But it is taxpayers dollars that the commissioners are dealing with and the general public is entitled to have an opportunity to apply for taxpayer funded jobs, and it is in the interest of county taxpayers for the commissioners to have made double-sure that Nichols was without a doubt the person to hire by having had an open process.

To the degree that there are warranted suspicions that politics trump something like a totally "open to the general public" hiring process, the SCPR thinks the public is correct to take on a distrustful of government attitude towards those who participate in the short circuiting.

Accordingly, The Report does not want to hear the actors complain about the skepticism, distrust and sometimes cynicism that the public seems to be taking on to a increasing degree vis-a-vis government at all levels including the local level.

These government official perpetrators themselves provide fertile soil for negativity toward government to take root and flourish.

Notwithstanding SCPR misgivings about the process employed in hiring Luther and Nichols, yours truly thinks that this board of commissioners is a vast improvement over boards of let's say going back some 30 years; there is no such thing as a perfect public official and that it is up to everyday citizens participating in the government process (e.g. the county budget hearings) to keep them on "the straight and narrow."

The SCPR relishes the role that The Report, among Stark County media, has pretty much singularly taken on as being a primary scrutinizer of "all things Stark County political subdivision government."

But due to the limitations to being one person who tries to cover all of Stark County, The Report undoubtedly only uncovers a small fraction of unaccountable, inefficient, nontransparent, and uncommunicative Stark County political subdivision officialdom.

If Stark County is to eventually become a model of local government in terms of being reasonably accountable, efficient with our hard earned taxpayer dollars, transparent on the processes of governance and being accessible to and communicative with everyday Stark Countians, it will certainly take more monitors than The Stark County Political Report.

As this blog began, the county budget process is not "sexy or glitzy" but with the vast improvements the current board of county commissioners have made on the  transparency-in-government factor alone; everyday citizens and certainly the few community activists that dot the county have in sitting in on the upcoming budget hearings and thereby joining the SCPR effort to let government officials that they are being watched.

Any citizen and activist who would join in on monitoring the budget hearing process should read the blogs that the SCPR did on last year's process.

Here are the links to those blogs.

And here is Thursday's schedule of hearings.

Unfortunately, due to a personal healthcare situation, the SCPR will not be able to attend Monday's hearing.

The question is who will step into the breach and be "the eyes and ears" for all of Stark County's taxpayers as the hearings unfold?

Here is the entire schedule of budget hearings.  Please note that Coroner and the Obligations section of the Commissioners offices have yet to be scheduled.