IS THERE ANYWAY THAT LOU DARROW CAN BEST GEORGE T. MAIER?

SUBTOPICS

LIST OF 02/05/2013 DARROW VOTERS
=============================

LIST OF 02/05/2013 MAIER VOTERS
============================

LOU DARROW LETTER 

TO

PRECINCT COMMITTEEPERSONS

For those Stark Countians that want to see the Johnnie A. Maier, Jr Stark County Democratic Party political machine defeated in Wednesday's SCDP-CC (Stark County Democratic Party-Central Committee) meeting are likely to be disappointed

So thinks the Stark County Political Report.

The Wednesday Dems meetup (as a "do-over") for the failed February 5th meeting, comes some 11 months after McDonald declined, as of January 7, 2013 (the date that his term of office was to begin), to take office because of illness.

On November 6th, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the SCDP-CC made an invalid selection on February 5th because the appointee George T. Maier was unqualified to be sheriff under Ohio statutory law.

While The Report does not think that Maier and his alter ego R. Shane Jackson (SCDP political director) are nearly as skilled as politicos as they like to portray themselves; they likely are more than a match for sheriff-appointee-aspirant Louis Darrow.

But look for some "political" fireworks at Wednesday's meeting to select a successor sheriff to November, 2012 sheriff-elect Mike McDonald.

Here is how the vote lined up back in February.

For Darrow:

 For Maier:

The SCPR thinks that Maier, Jr./Jackson and Stark County Democratic chairman Randy Gonzalez made a major miscalculation on the opposition they might encounter in pushing Maier, Jr. brother George T. Maier for the appointment.

They must have been amazed when the vote tally showed Maier squeaking out a 92 to 84 victory over the political neophyte Lieutenant Lou Darrow who has been with the Stark County sheriff office for some 27 years now.

A combination of unionists and loyalists to the Swanson/Ferrero (united for  now) political forces (the "Anti-Party Establishment") within the Stark County Democratic Party are aligned against Chairman Gonzalez and Johnnie A. Maier and folks within the party who are beholden to them in the upcoming Wednesday night fight.

Readers need to refresh themselves (LINK to prior SCPR blog) as to how "utterly" non-political Lou Darrow is. 

The pages of the SCPR are replete with stories of utterly politicized (reward your friends; punish your enemies?) Maier, Jr, Jackson and Gonzalez are (i.e. the "Party Establishment" is).

Because of their cockiness, they can get complaisant and consequently they sustain a "political" black eye once in a while.

And December 11th could be such a occasion.

There is a bloc of "potential votes" that if either the George Maier or Lou Darrow supporters can get them to Wednesday's session to vote for their man that could be pivotal.

There were about 20 or so "no shows" at the meeting of February 5th and there have been two new appointees during the interim, to wit:

Presumably, the contenders have been working this list hard as well as trying to flip the other's February 5th voters to their side.

Maier and Jackson do have some political victories to crow about and which provide some basis for thinking that they are the "odds on favorite" to prevail on Wednesday.

Chief among them is the defeat they administered to 24 year Massillon mayor Frank Cicchielli in May, 2011.

However, that victory was tempered by the Democrats losing control of Massillon city council in the election of November, 2011.  While the Dems regained control in the election of November, 2012, the Maier, Jr./Jackson wing of the Massillon Democratic Party are still outside looking in inasmuch by the SCPR's measure only Tony Townsend (a non-voting council member except in the case of a tie) and Rhoderick Stinson (elected in Ward 4) are reliable Maier, Jr (hence Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry) supporters.

The moral of this latter political story is that Maier, Jr., Shane Jackson and the politically dependent on them and Stark Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez can be beat.

But it probably takes more than the loosely jointed coalition that Lou Darrow has going for him to pull it off.

The Darrow campaign is being run by Lou Darrow's wife Laura.

If Laura Darrow can engineer a victory for her husband in Wednesday's vote, she will have pulled off an amazing triumph for her and her husband being political novices.

The SCPR believes that Darrow was on February 5th and remains competitive to Maier to eventually become Stark County sheriff is because of his long standing ties to interim sheriff Tim Swanson (who did not run for reelection after serving as sheriff for fourteen (14) years (1999 - 2013).

Moreover, Swanson is not the only Stark County powerful public figure supporting Darrow.

As alluded to above, so is Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero who, like Maier (2003 - 2009), Jr, is a former Stark Dems chairman (1995 - 2003).

The way the SCPR sees it, the Maier, Jr, Jackson and Gonzalez forces were stunned when Ferrero got up at the February 5th meeting and read his sworn-statement (i.e. in affidavit format) to the effect that he as Stark County's chief legal officer did not think that George T. Maier was qualified under Ohio's statutory law.

The Report believes that Gonzalez showed disdain for Ferrero and humiliated him in the February 5th meeting in the manner of speech and tone he (Gonzalez) addressed the assembled SCDP-CC members.

If Maier, Jr et al were shocked to witness Ferrero's act, they hadn't seen anything yet.

On February 12th, Sheriff Swanson filed a quo-warranto (i.e. "by what 'legal' authority does George T. Maier serve as the Stark Dems appointee as sheriff) against Maier.

Apparently, George T. Maier believed what his legal advisers must have been telling him, to wit:  "he was going to win before the Ohio Supreme Court."

For he went out and spent your money and my money (i.e. Stark County taxpayer money) to have his name plastered on Stark County sheriff department property.

Of course, the SCPR from the get-go has disagreed with the "high-brow" duo's assessment from the prestigious Roetzel, Andress (Columbus branch) law firm.

And, as we all know now, the Supreme Court told Maier and Chairman Gonzalez that the February 5th meeting was not lawfully conducted.

Not to be deterred by one finding of illegality, Chairman Gonzalez (in the opinion of the SCPR) has embarked on a course of conduct in calling new meeting to be held this Wednesday (December 11th) that The Report believes - if challenged with a new quo warranto - (assuming, of course, that George T. Maier, once again, is the SCDP-CC appointee) will result in a new Ohio Supreme Court finding of illegality.

The SCPR is not surprised by the Gonzalez, Maier, Jackson "continue to push it" mode such being indicative of them playing the "political bully" role.

Johnnie A. Maier, Jr in the assessment of the SCPR is an "old school power politician" who learned at the knee of yesteryear (and, perhaps, the last we will see of his ilk; except, of course, for Maier, Jr) Vern Riffe.

The Report believes that much of Maier, Jr's success is to be attributed to his bulldog, "never-ever-give-up" bulldoze style of politics within the Stark County Democratic Party.

To beat him, one has to match him stroke for stroke and then some.

And the question is whether not Lou Darrow and his advisers are up besting Maier, Jr.

The SCPR is skeptical that they are.

But they have put up an spirited fight so far. 

If one has read SCPR blogs on the George T. Maier quest to become the "legal" sheriff Stark County, it is quite obvious that The Report thinks there are way too many concerns about Maier in addition to "the qualification factor" that may not make him a good choice for Stark County sheriff.

One way or another though, the SCPR  expects Maier to prevail simply because The Report believes that his political backers are more savvy, more persistent and more Machvellian than Swanson/Ferrero et al.

If George T. Maier is appointed again on Wednesday and even if a new quo warranto (assuming that the Supreme Court will not rule on the Swanson/Darrow writ of mandamus [filed November 18th]) successfully challenges him; he will be back.

He will run in the Democratic primary on May 6th.

Unless Darrow and his key advisers "get up to speed" on their political skills, Maier is likely to win a Democratic primary.

Darrow on Thursday released a letter to the members of the SCDP-CC, to wit:

Louis Darrow

5700 East Blvd NW

Canton, Ohio 44718

December 5, 2013


Dear Stark County Democratic Central Committee Members:


Thank you to all precinct committee members who have encouraged me to continue to pursue the position of Stark County Sheriff. I greatly appreciate your support. But there is still much work to be done. Together, we can prevail and ensure that Stark County has an experienced and qualified Democratic sheriff, but I need your help. If you did not support me last time, please take another look at my qualifications in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.


The Ohio Supreme Court has decided that the February 2013 appointee was not qualified to hold the office of Stark County Sheriff. There is a difference of opinions as to the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision. I have asked the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute prior to the appointment process, but to date they have not done so. As a result, the Stark County Democratic Central Committee (SCDCC) will meet again on December 11, 2013 to make a new appointment. It is my sincere hope that you will support me at that meeting.


There is no question that I am qualified to be Sheriff. I have made serving in the Stark County Sheriff’s Department my life’s work. During the past twenty-seven years, I have served in every division of the sheriff’s office (corrections, road patrol, civil, and operations). No one can suggest that my full-time service as a sergeant and lieutenant for the past sixteen consecutive years does not meet the statutory requirements of the office. Unfortunately, I anticipate that I will not be permitted to address you or answer your questions during the meeting. I take this appointment process very seriously and I can assure you that I meet every requirement under the statute and that I am in compliance with every statute relating to seeking this appointment.


Because the Ohio Supreme Court did not rule on all of the qualifications that were challenged under the Ohio Revised Code, questions remain. If the SCDCC appoints an unqualified person, we run the risk of losing the office entirely. Regardless of who is appointed, the citizens of Stark County will soon be given the opportunity to vote for sheriff. We need to ensure that the citizens of Stark County have an experienced, qualified democratic sheriff to support. A second failure to appoint a qualified candidate may cause voters to doubt the ability of the Democratic Party to offer a qualified candidate.


I hope you will be able to attend the December 11, 2013 meeting and will support me. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at (330)327-2288.

Sincerely,

Lou Darrow

The SCPR would like to see Lieutenant Darrow win on Wednesday.

But, again, The Report is skeptical that he will.

Of course, it could be that the Ohio Supreme Court will rule on the mandamus and say:

• that Maier is not to be included in the field (because he did not meet the February 6, qualification date), or
• that he can be included because the February 6th date does not hold for a re-convened SCPR-CC selection meeting

In the former case, the next action will be the Stark Dems May 6th primary.

In the latter case, we could be in for another Supreme Court challenge because of if Maier gets the appointment again because his opponents likely view his cure of working a few weeks in the Harrison County sheriff's department as an obvious ineffective attempted end-run around the original finding that the high court was not buying "a weekend in Harrison County" as being curative of his statutory deficiency.

If we all get surprised and Darrow pulls an upset over Maier on the 11th, the we - at least - will be out of the court battles phase and on to a intraparty political primary fight that Stark County has not seen the likes of for some time.

Out-of-the court battles phase?

Well, not really.

There is still Craig Conley's taxpayer, civil law suit against Maier to recover monies collected by him as salary, fringe benefits, expenditures (e.g. the signage) and legal fees (his attorneys.)

One of his attorneys fired "a shot across the bow" of Conley last week when Conley was on a local talk-radio show in sending an email to the effect that Conley is talking about pending litigation MAY HAVE violated Ohio ethics rules for the government of the bar.

The SCPR will deal with this wrinkle is a later blog.

In the meantime, it remains to be seen whether or not Lou Darrow and his political advisers prove to be a match for the likes of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr, Shane Jackson and Stark Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez come Wednesday.

GONZALEZ & STARK DEMS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE "ON THIN ICE" IN JUSTIFCATIONS FOR DEMS FEBRUARY 5, 2013 APPOINTMENT OF GEORGE MAIER AS STARK CO. SHERIFF?

ACCORDING TO THE DEM HONCHOS

THE MAIER APPOINTMENT WAS

AN EXAMPLE OF

GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

WHAT A LAUGH!

Notwithstanding Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez's spin (on a local talk radio show) a couple weeks ago regarding the status of political party precinct committeepersons (i.e. they are elected public officials), nobody who understands how people come to be committeeperson will buy the chairman's slick implication that these folks are the equivalent of let's say a Congressman Bob Gibbs, a Stark County Richard Regula and a Trustee Mike Stevens of Lawrence Township  (picked out by the SCPR because he is a favorite [sarcasm] of Stark Dems' executive vice chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr).

The SCPR knows full-well how most precinct committeepersons (SCDP-CC) get their posts.  And it is clear to anyone with any critical thinking skill whatsoever that there is not a weaker link in the American democratic-republican system of government than political party central committees.

The Report believes that political party central committees are controlled, manipulated and used by party officials to further their own personal political ambitions and the committees ONLY have an INCIDENTAL - at best - connection to the will (in the case of the Stark County Democratic Party and its handling of the Mike McDonald sheriff-elect replacement process) Stark Countians.

Mostly, aspirant central committee members run unopposed at the precinct level of a ward.

Mostly, extremely low numbers (sometimes as low as two, three and five votes [see vote totals below] of partisan-registered voters of the selecting party of total eligible voters (be it a Democratic Party primary or a Republican Party primary) vote.

A real expression of full-blown "the will-of-significant-numbers-of-voters,, Mr. Gonzalez?

In some locales (e,g, heavily Republican Lake Township for the Democrats), in most of the precincts, nobody runs (18 of 23 precincts were left vacant after the 2012 precinct committee elections in Lake).

By the SCPR's calculation the Stark Dems have about 80 vacant spots across Stark's political subdivisions (i.e. cities, villages and townships).

Those vacancies are subject to be filled between biennial elections by the party's executive committee on the recommendation/request of the party chairman.

Of course, the party chairman is not going to recommend just anybody.  He is going to have to be convinced that the prospect with be a "loyal" party chairman supporter.

There are a few contested committee precinct committeeperson races but usually only when the party bosses are fighting among themselves for control party precinct committee.

Last year in Stark County Democratic Party circles there was some jockeying going on between Canton mayor William J. Healy, II, Chairman Gonzalez, (chief deputy of Canton's clerk of courts and Jackson Township's fiscal officer), Executive Vice Chair Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (a former chairman who is Massillon clerk of courts) and John Ferrero (a former chairman who is Stark County prosecutor).  And, perhaps, Stark County's unions were behind some of the candidates in contested races.

Even in an exceptional year of Stark Dems party bosses fighting among themselves for sway over the precinct committee ONLY 37 of some 285 precincts were contested.

In sum, of the approximate 285 Democratic Party precincts, ONLY about 13% were contested in a democratic election.

Let's take a few case examples.

The Report presents Massillon's Ward 1 (where Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero lives).

In the 2012 Stark County Democratic Party primary vote for Ward 1B precinct committeeperson (according to Stark Board of Elections records) there were a total of five votes.

How many Democrats were there in Ward 1B eligible to vote?

Yes, 105?

So less than 5% of the eligible Democrats voted in the Ward 1B Democratic Party precinct committeeperson election.

Hmm?

Well, lets go to the other extreme in Massillon 2013 Democratic Primary precinctcommittee person election.

That would be Ward 5A.

Wow!  Look at the following Stark BOE records.

A whopping 74 Democratic voters voted in that ward's precinct committeeperson election.

Break out the champagne, no!

And Gonzalez would probably buy the champagne.

Really?

Why?

Because political gadfly and self-styled parliamentarian Scott Graber lost.  At the February 5th SCDP-CC appointment of Maier event, Graber was a real nemesis to Gonzalez.

Anyhow, let's get back to the task at hand.

What percentage of Democrats voted in this "best performing" (in terms of all registered Democrats) of Massillon wards of the Democratic precinct committeeperson vote?

Well, there were a total of 200 Democrats who were eligible to vote and 74 voted.

Hip-hip-hooray!  A huge 37%.  Kudos to the Ward 5A Massillon Democrats.

But still, the very best of all of Massillon's wards, the turnout was significantly below 50%.  Hardly a testament for vibrant democracy.

For Chairman Gonzalez and his legal counsel in Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez, et al to ballyhoo that the political party central committee structure is in any way, shape or form an equivalency to and a representation of the American competitive election system is an outrage and a complete insult to the intelligence even to non-politically-attuned citizens.

For all of SCDP-CC's democratic deficiencies, those 84 Stark County Central Committeepersons who voted for Louis Darrow are the folks who got screwed.  They voted for "the only viable qualified candidate.  The Ohio Supreme Court has said that the 92 votes for Maier were void votes.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Republican Larry Dordea was certainly qualified.  But being a Republican in a Democratic Party process there was "no way in Hell" he was going to get the appointment.  The one vote he got (in view of the fact ballots had to be signed in order to be counted) was truly amazing.

Even though the appointed sheriff is accountable to all Stark Countians (whether Democratic, Republican, Libertarian or whatever), make no mistake about it - only Democrats need apply.

Of course, the Republicans do the same thing.

Democrat Chryssa Hartnett (of the Stark County prosecutor's office) "qualification-wise" should have been "the odds on favorite" to replace Republican V. Lee Sinclair as Court of Common Pleas Court judge earlier this year.  But she didn't get a smell from the Stark GOP or Republican governor John Kasich.

In  a "good going Chryssa" moment, the SCPR is pleased to see that she has taken out petitions to run against the "politically connected one" (Republican - of course - Curtis Werren) who got the Stark Republican Party and Republican Governor John Kasich nod though he had not practiced law for some time before gaining the appointment.

Both parties show how important it is (sarcasm folks) getting the most qualified person into publicly appointed jobs.

It seems to the SCPR that Party loyalty and political connections, time and again, trumps merit as the prime criterion for selection/election when the politicos like Matthews, Gonzalez, Maier, Jr and the like get their hands on the process.

Matthews' big crusade to feather his own nest was apparently to help Jim Renacci become the Republican nominee for 16th district congressman (back "in the day" when it included all of Stark County) to take on then Democrat Congressman John Boccieri.

When the venerable Ralph Regula retired at the end of 2008, it meant that unless Republican nominee Kirk Schuring won in his race against Boccieri, Matthews' wife Heidi was likely going to be out of a job inasmuch as she was one of Regula's most highly paid staff persons.

Quite a blow to family finances, no?

As it turns out, Schuring did lose and Heidi had to go elsewhere looking for work.

But "lo and behold" along comes Renacci needing help to get the nomination to run against Boccieri in 2010.

Who was "Johnnie on the Spot" to shepherd the effort?

You've got it!

None other that Stark County Republican chairman Jeff Matthews (also Stark County Board of Elections director).

Who was one of Renacci's first hires when he took office in 2011?

Shucks!  You SCPR readers are just "too damn smart."

Of course, Heidi likely was only hired by Renacci to have her salary paid by federal tax dollars, not because of the pro-Renacci effort of husband Jeff, because she "reeked" of merit.

Much like Kody Gonzalez (son of Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez) who came out of obscurity to skyrocket through Stark County and city of Canton government to land top notch "chief deputy jobs" with the Stark County recorder's office and, of late, the Canton Municipal clerk of courts office.

Perhaps, it is something in the water.

Isn't it interesting that the Canton Municipal clerk of courts Phil Giavasis also sits in the Stark County Board of Elections.

Or, maybe, Matthews and Giavasis, though of different political parties, as an incident of being in proximity to one another incidentally "rubbed shoulders."

Who knows?  But they both have developed "a nose for talent" in detecting those most merited for public employment.

One has to wonder why we taxpayers have been willing to support a government that is staffed all to often with the politically connected?

It could be that George T. Maier would make a fine sheriff.

But because of:

• his blatant use of political connections (e.g. Gonzalez, Maier, Jr), 
• unanswered questions about his demeanor and temperament, 
• evidence (to the SCPR) of his being a respecter of persons,
• topped off by his apparent willingness to use Harrison County taxpayers as a  "cup of coffee, stopping off place" in "a quick fix" effort to cure his Ohio statutory qualification problem in Stark County

the SCPR thinks that it is risky indeed for him to become Stark County sheriff.

That he is in concert with the party bosses in an attempt to bulldoze his way through process of law in an old fashion Ohio General Assembly political strongman Vern Rife (brother Johnnie's model for political action) political power move should give Stark Countians "pause for thought."

The county's chief law enforcement official is one powerful person.

Who gets that job is critically important.

There are many Stark Countians who believe that the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee made a major mistake in selecting Gary D. Zeigler to replace Mark Roach as county treasurer back in 1999.

Few doubt that he was a quintessential party loyalist who had run as a Democratic Party representative in many, many losing efforts before he got the treasury appointment.

Notwithstanding his political party credentials, dare say that most Stark Countians - post Zeigler years as treasurer, would have had the Dems select someone who actually had a track record working of successfully managing a financial operation.

The Report believes that George T. Maier is much better "professionally" credential than Zeigler was.

However, it is highly disturbing that there is such a heavy political push at his back.

If he is "head and shoulders" above everybody else as a number of supporters want to say, why is he unwilling now that his qualification under Ohio law has been declared by the Ohio Supreme Court to be deficient to step aside and get qualified "with a Stark County law enforcement agency" and run for the Stark County Democratic Party nomination in May, 2014?

To The Report, knowing politicians as I do, I suspect there is something more than anybody currently knows (and, perhaps will ever know) as to why the Democratic powers that be are bulldozing ahead.

The graphic metaphor used in today's blog is that I think that Gonzalez et al. are on "thin" ice in using the SCDP-CC structure to pass judgment on George T. Maier.

Gonzalez himself should step forward and say:  "George, you know what.  Why don't you step aside and let us appoint Lou Darrow as sheriff.  Get your qualification under the law squared away and then run in our Democratic Party primary come May."

Though Gonzalez likes to paint himself as being a man whose first and primary focus is the public interest and that he sees himself as a public servant, the SCPR sees very little evidence of such.

He has been well compensated for his public work individually and number of folks close to him appear to the SCPR and other Stark Countians to have benefited from his prominence in Stark County political life.

Gonzalez's political push for Maier speaks much more loudly of being a naked political power move than an example of selfless public service.

So the SCPR view is that his self-aggrandizement is as in biblical terms a "noisy gong and clanging cymbal, absent substance.

The current situation is an opportunity for him to show in action that he can be a statesman in the public interest.

Some may say that his presiding over the SCDP-CC when it selected Republican Alex Zumbar as county treasurer as the replacement for Zeigler in October, 2011 was such action.

Not as far as the SCPR is concerned.

He had no other choice.  The uproar with the the Stark County body politic would have been such that had the Dems not appointed Zumbar, voters would have taken their wrath on any Democrat running countywide.

As it was, county auditor Kim Perez was a victim of the Zeigler situation.  Had the Dems turned Zumbar away, it was truly a "Katy bar the door situation" and the political damage to Democrats running countywide likely would have been much more extensive.

So he was doing the practical political thing to aid Democrats in "cutting their loses."  He was not trying to be the statesman.

The SCPR has plenty of videotape on previous blogs showing Gonzalez himself saying that he was not doing the statesman thing in asking the Democrats to appoint Republican Zumbar as treasurer.

The Dems needed to appoint Zumbar, he said, in order "not to make him a political martyr" and thereby put Democrat officeholders in harms way in future elections.

The current imbroglio is quite a different situation.

It does provide an opportunity for "doing the right thing" for "the right reason" and the Democrats did not need to appoint a Republican to get a qualified candidate.

And asking the SCDP-CC to appoint the obviously qualified Lt. Louis Darrow did not on February 5th and does not now entail Gonzalez abandoning his friend George T. Maier.

There is another day for Maier.

That day is called the Stark County Democratic Party primary and it will be held 147 days (four months and 26 days) from December 11th.

Stark County does not need another long drawn out court battle on a matter that will come before all Stark County voters in November, 2014.

Gonzalez can self-promote on his being all about public service "until the cows come home."

As far as The Report is concerned such the "I am primarily about public service" declarations are on "thin-ice" as long as he continues the track he currently on.

His insistence on appointing Maier absent a Supreme Court declaration that he is qualified is indication that the Maier thing is all about power politics.  It is not about following "the rule of law."

Moreover, he just needs to stop it with his ridiculous assertion that central committeepersons are elected officials in the sense that the general public understands elected officials to be.

As shown in the graphic at the beginning of this blog, the ice is not only thin, it is melting away and cracking up.

Stark County Democratic Party needs to get off the thin ice and get onto solid ground.

But does Gonzalez have it within him "to lead the way?"

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

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

DISENFRANCHISED THE MEMBERS OF THE DCC?

Hmm?

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm?

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

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

RIG(GED) THE BALLOT IN FAVOR OF DARROW?

Another hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

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

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

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

Answer:  "A chilling effect!"

Rigging?

Hmm?

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

Hmm?

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

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

Hmm?

A case of legal argument desperation?

THE REAL GONZALEZ ARGUMENT?

Nobody can miss it.

Its JURISDICTION, JURISDICTION & JURISDICTION some more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm?

So?

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

You've got it!

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

Hmm?

So what does Maier gain from that?

The SCPR believes very little.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wouldn't that be a gas?

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

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

Of course, what do they count for anyway?

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

What's the expression?

Oh yes, "the public interest be damned!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

But we shall see.

(VIDEOS) WILL HEALY BE A DIFFERENCE MAKER AS OHIO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE PRESIDENT?

 VIDEOS

CANTON COUNCIL PRESIDENT

ALLEN SCHULMAN

CHARGES
OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY

WITH

"SCREW" URBAN AREAS

BIAS

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

IDENTIFIES

MAYOR HEALY

AS

NEXT

OHIO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE PRESIDENT

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

HEALY

ON

URBAN ISSUES

AND

THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY 

At the November 18, 2013 Canton City Council meeting, council president Allen Schulman announced that Canton mayor William J. Healy, II is to be president of the Ohio Municipal League (OML) come January 1st.

As the SCPR sees it, becoming OML president presents an opportunity for Healy to rescue his floundering political career.

He started off on January 1, 2008 with a splash having defeated Republican Janet Creighton (now a Stark County commissioner) in her bid for reelection in November, 2007.

On graduating from the New York University Stern School of Business with an MBA, and - according to him - being a highly successful business entrepreneur, he says he felt compelled to come back to his hometown of Canton and rescue the city from the economic doldrums.

He likes to point to the leadership deficiencies of his immediate predecessors, mostly Republicans, as being the reason for the decline of Canton.

One of his very first ventures as mayor was his attempt to form a Stark County Mayors' Association with himself at the helm.

Six months later it was kaput!

From then on, it has been largely hard times for Healy.

The SCPR believes that many if not most of his problems have been self-inflicted.

That Canton has continued to slide even with his being mayor, Healy likes to blame the nationwide economic downturn due to the 2008 national financing industry crisis.

Beyond the national thing, he blames the state of Ohio and its gutting local government funding beginning with the Republican governor John Kasich administration elected in November, 2010.

And there is something to these claims.

But from the beginning of his reign, he has been impossible to work for because of his out-of-control ego.

In January, 2009 he fired his service director and chief of staff and fellow Democrat Tom Bernabei (now, also with Creighton, a Stark County commissioner).

Bernabei was a former long time Canton law director who performed very well as director.  Moreover, he moved on from Canton government to provide splendid leadership with the SARTA (Stark County's regional transit authority) before becoming commissioner in 2010.

As commissioners, Creighton and Bernabei, are light years ahead of Healy in effectiveness.

Since Bernabei's firing, just about every key Healy administration official (at least those with any backbone) have left.

Recently (July, 2015), Warren Price, who served four tortured years with Healy in varying capacities (service director, chief of staff, safety director and annexation director)  gave up the ghost and left.

And there there have been other "key" administration officials who have left.

Healy refuses to square up with his own deficiencies and his mammoth ego.

Here he is on the 18th going after the Ohio General Assembly.



Again, there is something to Healy's complaint about the anti-urban bias of the Ohio General Assembly.

Despite the troubles that William J. Healy, II has had as mayor (i.e. the 2008 federal thing, the 2010 state of Ohio thing, and the current Ohio General Assembly thing), the SCPR believes that the main problem in getting Canton turned around is the mayor himself and his inability to keep quite able people in his administration.

While Healy is "on a high" about becoming the OML president, the SCPR thinks he will not be able to be a difference maker for Ohio's urban areas much in the same fashion that he has not delivered for Canton.

The SCPR thinks he has been a "smoke and mirrors" mayor and he will prove to be the same as president of the OML.

Healy is long on style and politics but consistently comes up short on substance.

BREAKING NEWS: GONZALEZ RESPONDS TO SWANSON/DARROW REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 UPDATE:  3:36 PM

The SCPR has learned from the Ohio Supreme Court's notification update system that - today - Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez has filed a response to a request for injunctive relief filed on November 22nd by Stark County interim sheriff Tim Swanson and Lt. Lou Darrow, a candidate to succeed to the sheriff's office as a candidate for appointment by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee currently scheduled for December 11th.

The actual pleading has not yet been posted by the Supreme Court's administrators.

As soon as it it, the SCPR will update this blog with The Report's "unique" analysis of the import of the filing.

JUDGE FORCHIONE HAS SOME QUESTIONS TO ANSWER ABOUT HIS ROLE IN THE STARK SHERIFF SELECTION PROCESS, NO?

UPDATE:  11:00 AM

Within the past few minutes the SCPR has talked with Lt. Lou Darrow with regard to the question of whether or not he has been contacted by Judge Frank Forchione in the context the judge's work performing ministerial duties under Ohio statutory law regarding the qualification of sheriff candidates for the re-do appointment by the SCDP-CC as ordered by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 11th.

Darrow tells the SCPR that Forchione had not contacted him at the judge's initiative.

However, Lieutenant Darrow added that he, himself, had contacted the judge out of concern that Forchione's re-opening the qualification process (see below) for the Democrats to consider additional candidates for the SCDP-CC appointment to the county sheriff position "would be used against him" (the SCPR's words; not Darrows) if he did not go through the application process once again.

Darrow did reaffirm that he believes that he and Republican Larry Dordea are the only two candidates who by virtue of the decision in Swanson v. Maier are qualified for consideration when the SCDP-CC meets on December 11th.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The Stark County Political Report has learned from a person whom The Report considers a highly reliable source that Stark Common Pleas Court judge Frank Forchione (Democrat) was making phone calls last week.

So?

Agreed, there is nothing particularly newsworthy about that in and of itself.

But once you know that one such call was supposedly made to Ohio Supreme Court ousted-sheriff (November 6, 2013) George T. Maier, does that make the ordinary into - perhaps - just a tad more than an ordinary practice of making a phone call.

Maybe, just maybe, no?

And The Report has reason to believe the alleged call was not a return phone call.

Add in that the SCPR has confirmed with Republican Larry Dordea (a SCDP-CC sheriff appointee aspirant; see explanation on the appointment process below), that he did not receive a Frank Forchione call last week or ever in the current application process.

Hmm?

Does that make the Maier thing even more interesting?

Also, why would Forchione need to talk to Maier anyway?

Everything is in place from Maier's first go at becoming the SCDP-CC appointed sheriff.

It is hard to imagine any need for the judge to talk again with Maier, no?

What else does he need in addition to Maier's widely disseminated press reports that he is again an applicant for appointment?

Remember, all the "ministerial" stuff is taken care of as of the February 5th Stark Dems.

And Judge Forchione says that assessing that part of qualifying is his only role.

Who else among sheriff-appointee prospects did or did not receive a Forchione call?

The Report has learned that Douglas Smith initiated a contact with Judge Forchione last Monday to arrange an interview with him as part of the ministerial qualifying process preliminary to being considered by the SCDP-CC.  Smith said that Forchione did return his call (Smith having left his telephone number) in order to arrange a mutually satisfactory date for the interview.

How about Lou Darrow?

The SCPR tried but was unable to contact Darrow for a response.

But if the judge was contacting all the candidates, wouldn't Dordea have received a call at the judge's initiative?

We all learned recently that Forchione on his own initiative interpreted (even though a "current" case (Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez, et al) is pending in the Ohio Supreme Court) "the ouster-decision" (Swanson v. Maier) as authorizing him to re-open the application process to one and all who think they are qualified to be Stark County sheriff.

The Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) has been ordered by the high court to re-do its February 5, 2013 defective appointment of Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald's replacement.

They are scheduled to do so on December 11th.

McDonald submitted his resignation before his January 7, 2013 "take office" date.

A critical problem with Forchione's interpretation is that the only date mentioned in Swanson v. Maier as being "the qualification date" on criteria listed in Ohio statutory law was February 6, 2013.

That date is one that the Ohio Supreme Court has said George T. Maier cannot meet.

If the Forchione to Maier telephone call report is true, which the SCPR believes it is, why is Judge Forchione calling Maier apparently at Forchione's initiative?

Well, the SCPR has already reported that he talked Douglass Smith, so what is different about him being in touch with Maier?

For one, The Report, to repeat the point, is under the clear impression that Forchione initiated the purported contact with Maier whereas in the Smith situation it was Smith who seized the initiative.

Secondly, Smith had not applied in the first round of the SCDP-CC consideration of who was to be McDonald's successor.

And, of course, there is the "no contact" with Dordea.

Wouldn't it shock all of us if the supposed call to Maier was:  "don't bother George, I am now clear the February 6th date applies and therefore you cannot qualify for the re-do appointment?"

Folks, do not hold your breath on that one.

The Report would call/visit (with camera in hand)/email Judge Forchione and ask the question full-throated and direct to him.  But, but, but . . . the good judge is not taking Stark County Political Report calls/on-camera visits/emails these days.

It appears to the SCPR that Forchione only takes media questions if he thinks they are softball questions of the "kiss-up" variety that unfortunately for Stark Countians seems to be standard fare from so much of Stark County local media these days.

And It is probably not the "why?" the phone call to George T. Maier" question so much with Forchione.   Undoubtedly, he has a ready answer for that one.

Rather he knows as do all Stark County public officials and public figures, it is a certainty that SCPR questions are going to probe much deeper than the obvious.

For instance, the SCPR would press Forchione on his re-opening process rationale and justification much harder than has been done by those media persons he has been willing to talk to.

As The Report wrote last week, it was strange indeed that a man who likes to project himself as a conservative type has gotten to the point that some Stark Countians see him as a judicial activist type.

Of course, there is the whole thing with the Studer case wherein he was forced by a local civic activist to do a U-turn on ordering a $5,000 Studer fine paid to an out-of-state charity and have it deposited in the general fund of the Stark County treasury which happens to be the mandate of "the rule of law" in Ohio.

And now the "open the appointment process" controversy.

Hmm?

So maybe Judge Forchione's true nature is that of being an activist who sees some benefit from the publicity that comes with doing controversial things as part of his judicial function?

He does these things and then cherry picks which media get to ask him questions and he has consequently been seemingly comfortable in the confidence they will uncritically publish his self-serving statements (e.g. "I err on the side of enhancing democracy).

None of Stark County current media knows of the connective tissue that may or may not bind various players in the "select a new sheriff process" as does the SCPR.

Insofar as Judge Forchione having or not having historical connections to these folks, isn't the Stark County public entitled to know that the judge has been vetted by a prepared media person with questions which go to the heart of the matter?

Could "zeroed-in" questions clearly raise THE QUESTION as to whether or not Judge Forchione should be involved in the qualification process at all?  

Especially in light of his interpretation of "the qualification date" including the post-February 6, 2013 period which happens to be the - in effect - "substantive" (i.e. no longer merely "ministerial") interpretation of the leadership of the Stark County Democratic Executive Committee and the Maier side of the appointment controversy. 

Was any consideration given to having one of the Republican Common Pleas judges - who has no connection with Democratic politics - do the ministerial processing?

Shouldn't this have been considered going back to the original application process?

It is hard to believe that one of them would venture into the "I think I know the mind of the Ohio Supreme Court" landscape?

How convenient that Judge Forchione wraps himself in a safe media cocoon, no?

Other Stark County judges and Stark officials have no problem going on camera with the SCPR.

These interviews are put on the SCPR blog in their entirety.

They are the best and truest forum from which Stark Countians can make an informed assessment.

The camera tells all.

If Forchione is so confident that he has gotten into the minds of the justices of the Ohio Supreme Court in his brash interpretation of Swanson v. Maier, he should be willing to take on all related questions.

Why is Judge Frank Forchione being so selective? 

What is he protecting himself from?

The SCPR suspects that there is way more to this story and whom is talking to whom out of the public spotlight than the general public has any idea of as this matter currently stands.

The Report goes all the way back to the meeting that Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez called with Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei, interim sheriff Tim Swanson which included George T. Maier via telephone.

The topic, according to Tim Swanson?

How can we fix George T. Maier's suspected problem of qualifying to be Stark County sheriff?

It appears to the SCPR that nothing has changed from that meeting in January, 2013 to the very date of this blog!

Only now the qualification factor is not "suspected."

George Maier is down in Harrison County trying to fix the unfixable if the February 6th date holds.

Ohio's "court of last resort" has clearly ruled as a matter of "the rule of law" that he was never the legal sheriff of Stark County from February 11, 2013 (the date he was bonded) through November 6, 2013.

Unless the high court forthrightly says before December 11th something other than February 6, 2013 as being the operative qualification date, the Stark Dems and Judge Forchione have their marching orders!

Wouldn't it be ashamed if Stark County were to be put through another trying time?