SERIES: HOW ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE STARK COUNTY DELEGATION TO THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY DOING? TODAY: OELSLAGER #3

One of the SCPR's favorite legislators:  W. Scott Oelslager.

A man who has been in the Legislature for a quarter of a century with very little to show for it.  A good part of his time in the Ohio General Assembly has been as a member of the majority and for a time a supermajority.  Also, for the most part (except for Strickland), the governor has been a Republican.

He and fellow Republican Kirk Schuring (about 16 years in the Ohio General Assembly) have this little game going on between them called "musical chairs." However, there is one important difference from the classical game we all played as kids.  In the Oelslager/Schuring version, they both get a seat. Just a different seat.  A Senate seat or a House seat, but still a seat.

In this way they are both thumbing their noses at the voters by defeating the spirit of term limits

Oelslager is term limited out of the Ohio House this election year as Schuring is in the Ohio Senate.  Solution?  Oelslager is running to get back in the Senate a second time whereas Schuring is looking to get back to the House for a second time (the 51st).

The graphic above in this report #3 in a series which will, over time, account for the entire Oelslager record in the 128th Ohio General Assembly that ends on December 31, 2010.

Among Oelslager co-sponsored bills which haven't become law or at least passed the House include the following:

HB 75

Primary Sponsor(s):  Chandler & Moran

Subject:  Tax refund-contribute to Ohio Historical Society

HB 91 Primary Sponsor(s):  Yuko  Subject:  Union Workers Memorial Bridge-I-480 in Cuyahoga County
HB 106 Primary Sponsor(s):  Letson  Subject:  Macular Degeneration Awareness Month-March

OHIO HOUSE - THE 50TH: DEBATE SCHEDULED - JULY 28, 2010 AT 10:00 AM.

REVISED & REPUBLISHED 07/12/2010 AT 12:14 PM

The SCPR has learned that the first political debate of the 2010 political season has been set up between state Representative Todd Snitchler (incumbent Republican of Lake Township) and his challenger Todd Bosley (currently Democrat Stark County commissioner.

A debate has been scheduled for July 28, 2010 beginning at 10:00 AM on 1480WHBC on Ron Ponder's "Points to Ponder" daily (Monday through Friday) radio talkshow.

Commissioner Bosley says that he is aiming for four debates with Snitchler:  one this month, another in August and then filling out the hoped for four with one each in September and October.

The SCPR puts this race in the "too close to call" realm, but there is a poll out showing Bosley with a low double digit lead.  However, there are about 10% undecideds according to the poll.

Snitchler's advantage is that this district is a gerrymandered Republican seat designed to be "safe" for Republican candidate.  Troublesome for Snitchler is the knowledge that Bosley came out of nowhere to defeat Republican Richard Regula (son of the former congressman) in 2006 for the commissioner's seat that Bosley currently holds.

Normally, incumbents are not that willing to debate challengers.  But if the Snitchler camp knows about the poll numbers, that could be the reason for this representative's willingness to engage Bosley on the SCPR and in other Stark County venues.

The SCPR believes this race for the 50th Ohio District could decide which political party controls the Ohio House of Representatives.  The Report expects record levels of campaign fundraising and spending between now and November.

The host for the July debate will be well-liked and respected radio talk show personality Ron Ponder.

Ponder and WHBC render outstanding public service to the Stark County public in providing Stark County government leaders and politicians with a forum in which to explain their actions and motivations in governing, and to take questions from Ponder and his radio audience that probe and test their answers.

This week the SCPR has gotten Bosley and Snitchler into a "blog debate" of sorts focused somewhat on who better represents the interests of everyday Stark County working men and women.

The last communication by Bosley on the blog challenged Snitchler to an immediate (in the sense of being held sometime in the remaining part of July.  Bosley had indicated to The Report that Ponder was ready, willing and able to provide the WHBC/Ponder "Points to Ponder" as an available forum.

Snitchler and Bosley both tell The Report that they have been in contact with Ron and he has confirmed that he is willing the host a debate.  The SCPR understands that each candidate is putting together a list alternative available dates so that they and Ponder can coordinate a date compatible with the schedule of all three.

A Stark County Political Report "tip of the hat" to Ron Ponder and 1480 WHBC!

YOUR TAXPAYER FUNDS AT WORK? BUT FOR WHOM?

DISCLAIMER:  THIS BLOG (SPECIFICALLY & SCPR BLOGS, IN GENERAL) ARE WRITTEN BY YOURS TRULY AS AN OPINION-JOURNALIST EXERCISING RIGHTS ACCORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; NOT AS AN ATTORNEY AT LAW

Periodically, yours truly has to publish a disclaimer like the foregoing (as a reminder to those in the legal community) because back in January of this year, Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero filed a disciplinary complaint over the SCPR's criticism of his/his office's handling of the Ron/Kyle Devies case in 2009.

The complaint was dismissed out-of-hand by Disciplinary Counsel.

Yours truly views Ferrero's attempt as an effort to shut down the SCPR's  inquiry, as a journalistic endeavor, of how he handles his office

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly critiques many Stark County office holders (countywide as well as the county's political subdivisions) and none are immune.  The Repository does appear to have "hands off" posture to some Stark County officeholders.

Apparently, Mr. Ferrero thinks his office is.

To the story at hand.

All one has to do is go fill up with gasoline and the point of this blog becomes obvious.  Public officials, when given the opportunity to do so, use the official functions of their office to publicize their individual identity

Of course, the principal Stark County officer who does this is the county auditor.  Stark County Auditor Kim Perez's name is plastered all over the gas pumps of Stark County's gasoline stations.  We all know it and we all know the reason why.  In the officeholder's mind, the reason for doing so is give him/her a political advantage when the office comes up for re-election.

Perez's (a Democrat) action is not unique to his being auditor.  Brant Luther (a Republican) did it before him.  Janet Creighton  (a Republican) did it before him.  And on and on and on, ad nauseum.

This practice needs to stop; notwithstanding its long standing use!

Practically no one who calls to inquire or complain about the accuracy of gas metering gets to talk to Kim Perez.  A citizen is relegated to some functionary in the office to take the complaint and to launch an investigation.  And this is as it should be.  The auditor him/herself has big picture matters to attend to.

Accordingly, the label on the pumps should show the auditor's office contact information including the specific street/e-mail address and particular telephone number to contact if a customer has a complaint or inquiry.

And that rule should apply to all public officials who label work published to the taxpaying public.  And perhaps Stark County's legislators ought to be introducing legislation to make such a rule the law of Ohio.  After all, taxpayers are not interested in funding the political aggrandizement of public officials.

To Ferrero.

In early June, yours truly received a brochure from Ferrero's office entitled "The Voice of Victims."

It seems to be a worthy publication in and of itself.  Here are some of the topics covered, to wit:

But Ferrero, in the opinion of the SCPR,  uses far too much personally identifying information on the brochure.

All Ferrero needs to do is to accord this publication's worthy messages/information the prominence they deserve.  Obviously, Ferrero, Perez and others who use taxpayer supported publications  are going to deny that they are using the opportunity to enhance voter i.d. when the next election comes up.  But most of us in the public are not buying this line.

Here is what Ferrero spokesperson (Civil Prosecuting Attorney Deborah A. Dawson has to say in response to a SCPR inquiry:

The Voice for Victims biannual brochure was begun by Prosecutor Robert D. Horowitz, and distributed then, as now, by the Victim Witness Division of this office.  The format has not changed, but, of course, Prosecutor Ferrero’s name and picture replaced Prosecutor Horowitz’s, when Prosecutor Ferrero took office.

What Dawson's response amounts to is a "Ferrero is only doing what was done by those before him" argument.

A typical government response, no?

Hey, how about some rethinking?

And while we are thinking about this matter, let's pose a question to Republican candidate for county auditor Alan Harold.  Will he pledge to end the practice of "personal aggrandizement" on auditor labeling of Stark County business weight and measure devices, if he is elected?

Back to Ferrero.

An interesting disclaimer-esque phrase on the brochure is this:

Funding for this brochure is provided from assets seized and forfeited from criminals convicted of crimes in Stark County

The SCPR takes this phrase to be a subtle attempt to suggest that the brochure is not being printed at taxpayer expense.

If such is the case, The Report does not accept the apparent suggestion.

These moneys are public funds.  They are administered and accounted for just like moneys received as direct revenues from the Stark County taxpaying public.

Ferrero, in the next brochure, in addition to toning down his individual presence, should make it clear that these dollars are taxpayer dollars.

What does this brochure cost taxpayers?

Again, we turn to Dawson.  This is what she had to say on cost:

The acquisition of names, compilation of the brochure, printing and mailing (at bulk rate) are handled by, respectively: CCS Business Solutions; Canton Data; Dansizen Printing.  This issue’s cost was approximately $8,889.90.

Whatever the cost, public officials who use this “common” practice undermine their ability to convince taxpayers to support renewals or new levy requests.  Among other factors considered, that the voter thinks about when determining whether or not they are going support a “more finances request,” would be the aggrandizing tendency of public officials. 

As the liaison for the “Citizen’s Review Committee” (whatever happened to that group?) vis-a-vis Stark County officeholders, one would think that Ferrero would be particularly sensitive to the public perspective.

The “this is the way its always been done” as well as possible suggestions of "at no cost to the taxpayer" (when, in reality there is a cost) response by public officials no longer works.

We taxpayers expect officeholders to don the public perspective.

Unless and until they do so in a convincing fashion, the passage of renewals/new levy requests will be rare indeed!

The SCPR's analysis on aggrandizing may seem to be a small matter.  However, when added to all the other disenchantments that voters and taxpayers have with public officials these days, the aggrandizing takes on a cumulative effect and thereby becomes a much larger factor in the erosion of the public's confidence in public officials.

SERIES: HOW ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE STARK COUNTY DELEGATION TO THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY DOING? TODAY: SCHURING #3

So far as the SCPR is concerned J. Kirk Schuring and his "musical chair" sidekick, W. Scott Oelslager, have been pretty much worthless to Stark County in terms of "bringing home the bacon" to the county.  Together they have about 40 years in the Ohio General Assembly.  But to what end for Stark County?

While it appears that Schuring is being effective in looking at the graphic accompanying this blog, detailed scrutiny indicates a disturbing legislative phenomenon being invoked by Schuring.  It is obvious to the SCPR that Schuring is attaching his name to House legislation (remember, Schuring is in the Ohio Senate - at least until January, 2011)  that are sure to become law.  Undoubtedly, the bills are important to those affected.  But - looking at the subject matter of the bills - are they really that significant to Stark Countians?  The Report thinks not.

The Schuring/Oelslager duo for some reason (which totally escapes the SCPR)  have been able to endear themselves to Stark County voters and by playing their version of musical chairs (varying from the classical kids game in that each gets a seat - just a different seat:  a House (the 51st) or a Senate (the 29th); depending on the demands of term limits, seem to be guaranteed a place in the Ohio General Assembly for as long as they live.

In this year's game Schuring needs to occupy the 51st and Oelslager the 29th.

The Report's analysis is that neither will have any trouble being re-elected.  Unfortunately, for Stark Countians, that political reality means stagnation for the county.

BOSLEY AND SNITCHLER IN A HORSE RACE FOR THE 50TH OHIO HOUSE RACE. "BLOG" DEBATE EXPANDS BEYOND ORIGINAL ISSUE. BOSLEY EMAIL#2 IN REPLY TO SNITHCLER #2 CHALLENGES SNITCHLER TO DEBATE ON "POINTS TO PONDER" IN JULY

 UPDATE 07/09/2010 AT 11:30 AM - BOSLEY #2

"toddbosley@aol.com" ....
To:  tramols@att.net

A quote from Todd Snitchler about House Bill 360

The bill received sponsor testimony in committee and has not been called to another hearing (despite our request for more attention to the bill). Todd Snitchler

In response to Mr. Snitchlers House Bill 360

The truth about HB 360 is as follows: It was such an awful and poorly written bill that it was opposed by both Union and non union workers alike! It did not receive a second hearing because no one supported it.

Here is my take on why Todd Snitchler has failed as a State Representative. He knows Ohio needs jobs, but does not understand how to get them here. He wants to gut the budgets of schools, libraries, and infastructure (sic) projects not understanding that companies assess these factors before deciding where to locate their businesses. If company employees can’t send their children to schools, and the libraries are closing and the roads to get to either are falling apart, they aren’t bringing their business to Ohio!

And since Mr. Snitchler challenged my knowledge on House Bill 360, I would like to issue a challenge to him. I would like know the top 3 bills he has sponsored (not Co-sponsored) which are now law and how they directly effect the people of the 50th District.

In closing, why do we have to wait until the Fall to debate? I challenge you to debate me on the Ron Ponder Show this month (July)! Will you accept?

Sincerely,

Todd D. Bosley
Your Stark County Commissioner

 UPDATED 07/07/2010 AT 5:00 PM - SNITCHLER #2

The SCPR presents state Representative Todd Snitchler's (R - Lake)  reply to Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley (D - Marlboro).  The Report will published the back and forth between the two candidates for the 50th Ohio House District seat which includes Marlboro, Nimishillen, Osnaburg, Sandy, Sugarcreek, Tuscarawas, part of Perry, Lawrence and Lake Townships.

As long as the candidates are willing to go back and forth the SCPR gladly provides the space on The Report.

The Report thanks each of the candidates for illuminating 50th District voters on the issues that they should consider in voting for either Snitchler or Bosley.

Here is Snitchler's response to Bosley #1.

Martin –

            Good afternoon.  I read with interest Mr. Bosley’s comments on my proposed legislation (HB 360) to give a tax credit to both union and non-union workers.  I was interested, because he failed to comment on the legislation I actually introduced and its merits and instead chose to distort and misrepresent my actual record on several other bills.  Let me make sure you and your readers have the facts and not the cherry picked distortions of my record which it seems may be an indication of the tone of Mr. Bosley’s coming campaign.

                Let me be clear: I did vote against HB 1 (the state’s budget) which increased NEW fees and taxes by more than $1 billion, payable by those same working people who because of the state of Ohio’s economy are already struggling to make ends meet.  That would include both union and non-union people.  Mr. Bosley claims my “no” vote would result in 18,000 union teacher layoffs and that I voted to deny collective bargaining rights to home care providers because those provisions were included in the same budget bill.  Frankly, I don’t view the budget bill or people as “union” and “non-union” as it seems, based on his comments, he does.  HB 360 reflects that I support ALL working people, not just those who have contributed heavily to my campaign.

The budget in addition to its new fees and taxes also included the Governor’s education reform plan, which came with a multibillion dollar price tag and no way to pay for it.  Because of the inadequate funding for the Governor’s plan (more than two years in the making), it is being slowly implemented over the next decade.  School districts already have no way to pay for the mandates being imposed from the first year and are already seeking waivers from ODE from the plan requirements because they have no way to pay for the mandates.  Cutting state investment for education for the first time since the DeRolph decision – as was done under HB 1 – is not something I support.  I did not and will not vote yes on a state budget where there are billions in unfunded mandates on local schools and no means to pay for the spending.  Perhaps that is step one to solving the school funding problem we face in Ohio. 

I can only surmise from Mr. Bosley’s comments that he would have voted for the budget, and therefore vote once again for tax increases on the people of Ohio - including all union and non-union workers.  I think all voters should be mindful of both candidate’s actual positions on tax and fee increases when they cast a ballot this fall knowing that the looming budget is going to be incredibly difficult.  We each have a very clear track record on that question.

As for HB 400, which Mr. Bosley wrongly states I introduced, this bill would seek to make Ohio competitive with the other 9 states who operate without a state income tax.  So while Mr. Bosley may want to argue the “straw man” of HB 400 and the terrible “what if” scare tactics claiming it would specifically hurt organized labor members, I prefer to deal with the realities of the legislative process and the negative impact of bills that actually have passed and been signed into law by the Governor that hurt ALL the people of Ohio.

I have worked steadily on legislation that seeks to improve Ohio’s climate for jobs and families, ensuring that all Ohioans have the opportunity work and to succeed rather than play politics.  Ohio’s families are entitled to keep more of their money rather than send it to Columbus and hope for the best.  I trust people to make the right choices with their dollars; government should keep its hands out of their pocketbooks and wallets rather than reach in even deeper making it harder to succeed in these difficult economic times.  Further, I have also worked at the same time to limit government spending and get the size of government in check, protecting the people’s money sent to Columbus and trying to eliminate wasteful spending.  These goals are not mutually exclusive and I will continue to work on these issues going forward for as long as I have the privilege to serve.

Clearly, Mr. Bosley is confused about my position on these issues.  I am very much looking forward to the opportunity to have the people of the 50^th District hear from both of us and see the stark contrast in their choice for State Representative this fall.  I think the differences between the candidates are and will be very clear to voters.  Perhaps when debates are scheduled this fall, and I welcome them, people will attend and hear directly from each of us.   I welcome the opportunity to answer people’s questions truthfully, face to face, rather than have voters get spoon fed distortions and spin.

 Best –

Todd A. Snitchler

UPDATED:  07/07/2010 AT 7:21 AM - BOSLEY #1

Stark County Commissioner and 50th District Ohio House candidate Todd Bosley replies to Todd Snitchler (Bosley's Republican opponent who is the incumbent in the 50th) on who is better suited to representing working men and women issues coming before the Ohio General Assembly, to wit:

Dear Martin,

Mr. Snitchler must have forgotten about his past voting record or is just not being honest with you and your readers.  He not only voted to lay off 18,000 Union teachers, but he has introduced HB400, which (if enacted) would lay off tens of thousands of Ohio union workers – from firemen to janitors to teachers to police officers.  He also voted against the state budget, which expanded collective bargaining rights for homecare workers. Mr. Snitchler has been anything but pro-Union. Mr.Snitchler makes a habit of misrepresenting himself by speaking one way about an issue and voting in direct contradiction to his words.  

Sincerely,

Todd D. Bosley

Stark County Commissioner

 
ORIGINAL POST

The SCPR cannot imagine in wildest dreams that Stark County trade unions would support Republican state Representative Todd Snitchler of Lake Township.(Ohio's 50th House District).

But Snitchler thinks he deserves a look see.

And maybe he does.

Snitchler could have helped himself big time by attending the "Justice for Local Workers" last Thursday.  His opponent Democrat Todd Bosley didn't and probably because he thinks he has the East Central Ohio Building and Trades (ECOB&T)  group is in the bag for him.   ECOB&T represents the organized carpenters, plumbers, electricians, ironworkers and sheetmetal artisans of Stark County.

Below is an e-mail that the SCPR received from Snitchler as to reasons why the ECOB&T should take a look at him.  Competition is good for groups the the ECOB&T and perhaps they ought to be seinding Democrat Bosley a message for their own good.

The e-mail:  SNITCHLER #1

From: "Todd Snitchler" <todd@toddsnitchler.com>

To:  tramols@att.net

Martin –

 

                I heard about your blog posting today concerning Republicans apparent lack of interest in helping labor get jobs and recognize the importance of labor and blue collar workers in Stark County and Ohio.  I thought it would help if I shed some light on legislation I introduced to try and address one aspect of that issue.

 

                I along with Rep. Seth Morgan introduced HB 360, which would give a 5 year 100% income tax credit to all labor – union and open shops – where workers who secure journeyman status or higher according to the state of Ohio authorized training programs.  (This bill was in response to a similar measure introduced to make sure college graduates got a 5 year income tax credit.) Since not every student wants to go to college and their contributions to our economy and society are no less important, I wanted to reflect that fact in HB 360 and encourage ALL kinds of continuing education and skill development.

 

                The bill received sponsor testimony in committee and has not been called to another hearing (despite our request for more attention to the bill).  What is more, rather than just wait for action on it, I had HB 360 drafted as an amendment to HB 519, the casino enabling and job creation bill recently passed by the House and Senate.  I offered the amendment on the floor of the House in an effort to have it included in the bill.  Despite an explanation in my floor comments about why this amendment fit with the goals of HB 519 and would further encourage local employment AND increased job skills (and casino construction will obviously include trades people), the amendment was tabled along party lines with ALL Democrats voting against the pro-labor amendment.  That vote was against a bill that would help labor – both union and non-union.  As I believe I’ve heard you say before, this just might smack of partisan politics and unfortunately put political scorekeeping ahead of ideas that have the potential to positively impact Ohio’s labor force.

 

                With that said, I hope that labor and its members will look at the as actually being offered and the work being done to try and help encourage growth and development in the trades, rather than simply assume that party affiliation is indicative of where someone stands on these issues.  I think this example demonstrates that certain assumptions may not be exactly correct.

 

                I hope you had a great July 4^th holiday.

 

Best regards -

 

Todd A. Snitchler

State Representative - 50th District

10689 Cleveland Avenue NW

Uniontown, OH 44685

330.858.4930

330.305.1202 (fax)

www.toddsnitchler.com

CONLEY AT WORK ON RECOVERY FROM ZEIGLER: SEE HIS RESEARCH. WILL PROSECUTOR FERRERO LET HIM PROCEED?

The SCPR is thoroughly impressed with the work of civic minded attorney Craig T. Conley (working on a pro bono basis) in formulating a plan to pursue Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler to compensate the Stark County public for funds missing from the county treasury on account of the Frustaci matter and for other unexplained missing funds (approximately $500,000 worth).

His plan seems solidly ensconced in Ohio statutory law and designed to put Stark County taxpayers at the head of the line (as much as possible under the law) to satisfy any judgment he may obtain in a court of law.  If delay persists, the SCPR fears that the taxpayers may be left with no Zeigler assets to go after if there is further delay in pursuing a court adjudication of Zeigler liability for the missing funds.

Prosecutor Ferrero has not refused to proceed.  However, he favors delay.  To say it again, The Report is concerned (as is Conley) that further delay may jeopardize the ability to collect on Zeigler assets should a court grant a judgment as the outcome of a lawsuit.

There is a conference scheduled between Ferrero, Conley and Judge John Haas at 10:00 AM this morning.  What is the subject of the conference?  Conley says he does not know.

The Report believes the conference could be either on who between Ferrero and Conley will be allowed to proceed against Zeigler, or the possibility that Judge Haas will recuse himself and perhaps speak for the entire Stark County Common Pleas bench on recusal because of the official relationships that exist between the Court, Ferrero and Zeigler.

If it is the former rather than the latter, then Ferrero could make it an easy matter by deferring to Conley.   But will he?  If it is the latter, then so be it.

Obviously, the conference could be about neither.  So it will be interesting to see.

Here is a reproduction of the memo sent to the SCPR by Attorney Conley last evening outlining his research findings on Zeigler transactions on formerly (currently - in the case of the mortgaged property) Zeigler-held  (as delineated in the Conley generated document) real property which Conley apparently thinks may be relevant to efforts to collect on a judgment which might be obtained by either Ferrero's office or Conley in a suit against Zeigler on account of the missing funds at the Stark treasury.

AN EARLY TOE-TO-TOE/FERRERO VERSUS CONLEY: SHOULD STARK COUNTIANS CARE WHICH ONE PURSUES TREASURER ZEIGLER ON LIABILITY ISSUES ON MISSING COUNTY MONEY?

It was a week ago Friday when "in the public interest" Attorney Craig T. Conley filed a lawsuit (on a pro bono [for the public good] basis) against Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler to recover missing funds from the county treasury; mostly at the hand of former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci who has admitted in open federal court to have taken about $2.46 million of a total missing nearly $3.0 million.

Conley is planning on filing a motion for summary judgment before Zeigler even gets his attorney to file an answer to the lawsuit.  He says that this is a "strict liability" case on the basis of Ohio statutes fixing liability on the treasurer, in particular, and on any public official, in general, to make the public whole for any money that comes up missing during the administration of the office.

Early last week Conley sent a demand letter on behalf of client Tom Marcelli to Stark County Prosecutor Ferrero insisting that Ferrero immediately initiate a civil action against Zeigler to recover any missing money not covered by bonds, insurance and other resources (e.g. Frustaci liquidating his pension fund in favor of Stark County government).

Ferrero (via Civil Prosecutor Deborah Dawson) did not outright refuse the demand, but did claim the time was not ripe for filing suit against Zeigler. 

Initially, Conley said he would file suit on July 7th if Ferrero had not filed by the end of business on July 6th.  However, Conley did not wait until the 7th; he filed on the 2nd.

Conley's reasoning is that waiting hurts the Stark County taxpayer for several reasons.

First, if the suit is delayed until after Frustaci is sentenced (Conley says that Frustaci has already begun serving his time in the Mahonning County Jail pending official sentencing to federal prison) on September 7th and the bond obligations kick in, then the bond company's will file suit against the persons bonded and be first in line for any assets that may be available to cover the bond money paid.  Bonds do not work like insurance.  Those covered by bonds are fully liable for any bond money paid out by the bonding company.

Second, Conley says that Zeigler has recently transferred some realty assets (apparently to relatives) for no consideration (which Conley concedes could be co-incidental and not designed to protect from potential judgment creditors).  However,  Conley plans, if allowed to proceed on the suit he has filed against Zeigler, to ask Judge John Haas (the Stark County Common Pleas Court judge initially assigned to the case) to freeze Zeigler's remaining assets pending outcome of the litigation..  Conley believes that  "time is of the essence" in the case moving forward.

Of interest is information that Judge Haas has called for an in-chamber conference for tomorrow (July 9).

What might that be about?

Could it be a discussion among the Court, Ferrero and Conley as to whether or not Conley will be permitted to proceed?

There may be a question of whether or not Ferrero has had sufficient time to consider Conley's demand to proceed against Treasurer Zeigler.  However, as of yesterday, accordingly to Conley, no motion had been filed by Ferrero to stay or dismiss the Conley-initiated suit.

The SCPR believes Conley is to be commended for pushing the pursuing of Zeigler for liability, if any, for any missing money out of the Stark treasury and for getting the action moving.

We know from a Repository report (Lawsuit seeks Stark County's missing millions from Zeigler, 07/02/10, Shane Hoover) that Ferrero takes a dim view of Conley's action, to wit:  “It’s nothing but grandstanding as far as I’m concerned."

If Ferrero asks for a squelching of the Conley initiative, the Stark County public (via the Stark County commissioners) should be asking him how he will ensure that delay will not jeopardize the public's priority to assess against any Zeigler-held assets, if ultimately there is a judgment of liability against the county treasurer.

Of course, the called for conference could be for other matters and not about delaying/stopping the case from proceeding.

Whatever the Friday confab is about, what Conley terms as being "Zeiglergate" is of the utmost of interest to Stark Countians.

As pointed out in the first paragraph of this blog, Conley tells the SCPR he is not planning on charging legal fees in this case and will not be asking the Court to assess attorney fees he is entitled to as a matter of law unless certain exigencies arise.

Here is a copy of the Conley/Marcelli complaint for SCPR reader perusal.