ZEIGLER'S STRATEGY? STARK VOTERS WILL FORGET OVER THE PASSAGE OF TIME? WELL, THERE IS A LOT OF TIME: 96 MILLION, 163 THOUSAND AND 200 SECONDS. WOW!

 

 The SCPR has been writing that Stark Countians should expect Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler to be in office through December 31, 2010?

Lord have mercy!  If only it were true.

But it isn't.

If Zeigler survives a coming Stark County commissioner effort to unseat him (perhaps on August 23, 2010), then he could be around for the duration of his term which he was elected to in November, 2008.

However, as informed by a knowledge source, the date of the end of Gary Zeigler as Stark County treasurer (assuming that Stark Countians do not re-elect him) will be September 2, 2013.  And, of course, the SCPR has confirmed the source by digging out the specific statute.

Over three years from today's date!

With that kind of time left in office if he can fend off the commissioners, why wouldn't he fight them to live another day?  And, undoubtedly, he is hoping that time will dull the memory and the zeal of Stark County voters to remove him from office.

Zeigler apparently does not accept the notion that the "buck stops with him as the head official" at the Stark County treasury.  He has repeatedly said that he has managed the office the way it should be managed.

He stands behind his management style and substance though he has made at least 12 corrections to internal treasury procedures as Kelli Young of The Repository wrote on June 14th (Stark treasurer makes changes in wake of investigation), to wit:

In the 14 months since Treasurer Gary Zeigler fired his chief deputy treasurer on suspicion of theft, Zeigler has implemented at least a dozen changes in the office, including additional security for the county vault and improvements to the office’s cash-handling procedures.

Also, on the fact that former Zeigler Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci had access to Stark County treasury checks with which he obtained $230,000 in Stark County taxpayer money, the persistently "unrepentant" Zeigler had this to say:

Zeigler said his office stopped using checks last year. All transfers between county accounts are now handled through electronic wire transfers, which require two signatures. The auditor’s office handles any checks that need to be reissued, he said.

“It’s a much safer way to transfer the money.” (FirstMerit to repay money stolen from Treasurer's office, Young, August 12, 2010)

So Treasurer Zeigler "admits" specifically that something could have been done better under his watch?

Hmm?

But it is irrelevant that Zeigler could have or should have done managed the treasury better.  He's staying, if Ohio law allows him to, for the duration.

What does the duration look like?

Okay, one more look.

SEE FERRERO VIDEO - THE FRUSTACI FIRST MERIT EPISODE: "A RIDDLE WRAPPED INSIDE A MYSTERY INSIDE AN ENIGMA?"

UPDATE:  9:00 AM

Former Canton Mayor Janet Creighton (and currently a candidate for Stark County commissioner versus sitting Commissioner Steve Meeks) tells the SCPR that she believes that FirstMerit did a "for the public good" and "let's get the matter behind us"  at the same time act in refunding the $230,000 in county money that former Stark County treasury Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci has admitted to stealing from a Stark County taxpayer treasury account.

She points out that because of the proximity of county officials (in this case treasury officials) to FirstMerit's downtown branch, it is inevitable that close relationships are bound to develop between officials and bank employees.

Moreover, she says that it is well known that Vince Frustaci is a highly personable individual and that a number of people have fallen under his charms.

To the SCPR, the Creighton take on Frustaci and his ability to do what virtually no other person would be able to pull off does have plausibility to it.

If Creighton's take is the accurate description of what happened, then you can bet that FirstMerit's top executives have held (post the Frustaci episode) training sessions with the downtown based officials and staff to instill a sense of separation between bank officials and public officials.

After all, this is a business association!

ORIGINAL BLOG

How could it happen?  This is the question Stark Countians are asking themselves and scratching their heads over? 

How could anyone, including a government official (the then Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci) walk into a bank with checks (2) drawn on a Stark Treasury bank account made payable to the bank in the total amount of $230,000 and walk out with cash?

Well, here is one spin on it from Attorney Dennis Thompson (one of Zeigler's stable of lawyers):

Hmm?

Last week Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero announced that FirstMerit (apparently out of the goodness of its corporate "heart") decided to reimburse Stark County the $230,000 plus interest.

Does anyone in Stark County believe that FirstMerit coughed up $230 grand out of community spiritedness? Or would most Stark citizens find the suggestion preposterous?

Could it be, as Thompson suggests, that a FirstMerit bank official (not a teller) was involved with Frustaci to facilitate him walking out of the bank with $125,000 on one occasion and $105,000 on another on a concocted story about assisting law enforcement officials in a drug bust?

Is FirstMerit protecting one of its higher level officials from further scrutiny on its notion that once the county gets its money back, then law enforcement officials would be less inclined to pursue further investigation of the matter?

Or was the repayment designed to protect FirstMerit's future business with Stark County?  Prosecutor Ferrero is reported in a recent Repository story to have said that FirstMerit "handles the bulk of the county's accounts."

So far as the SCPR is concerned, the question raised by Thompson's suggestion has not been satisfactorily answered by federal or Stark County law enforcement officials.

And, as readers will see in the accompanying video of Prosecutor Ferrero answering questions after the Zeigler preliminary injunction hearing on August 13th, he is relying on the work done by the United States Attorneys office concluding that there was no criminal conduct by any FirstMerit employee in the Frustaci saga.

So there you have it folks.

To say it again, neither Stark County or federal law enforcement  seem to have gotten to the bottom of Frustaci's FirstMerit episode.

At least not in enough detail to be plausible to the Stark County public.

And what the failure does is to further deteriorate the public's confidence in government's ability to get answers.  Of late, Stark County government, in particular, is short on answers that make sense to John Q. and Mary Public.

The Frustaci/FirstMerit episode apparently will remain "a riddle wrapped inside a mystery inside an enigma."

So much for law enforcement's ability to get to the bottom of matters. 

Here is the Ferrero video.

WILL THE STARK COUNTY'S 9-1-1 FUNDING MAKE IT TO THE STARK COUNCIL ON GOVERNMENTS (SCOG)?

Recently, yours truly had a conversation with Commissioner Todd Bosley in which the topic of funding for the Stark County Council of Governments' (SCOG) came up.

Stark Countians will recall that Bosley spearheaded an effort to "impose" a sales tax increase of 0.50 of one percent in December, 2008.  The sales pitch for the sales tax was the repair of what he and many Stark County emergency force leaders tab as being a "broken 9-1-1 system."

However, a significant added reason (which was pushed into the background in justifying the tax) was getting more revenue for Stark County government general fund operations.

When "Vote No Increased Taxes" group got the retention or non-retention of the tax issue on the November, 2009 ballot, the pro-retention forces totally focused on the 9-1-1 aspect of the tax as being "the" reason why the tax should be retained.

Shortly after county voters overwhelmingly voted not to retain the tax (about 2 to 1 against retention), county commissioners began differing over putting the remaining revenue to be collected 50/50 into a 9-1-1 fund and the county general revenue fund.

Before former Commissioner Tom Harmon left office, he and Bosley had a public meeting difference over the division.  His successor Steve Meeks (joined by Commissioner Pete Ferguson) adopted the Harmon position and some of the early-on 9-1-1 designated money ended up in the Stark County general fund.

So why is the topic coming up again?

Because Bosley fears that if the money is not actually transferred to SCOG before he leaves office on December 31st (he is running for state representative for the Ohio House - the 50th - against Republican Todd Snitchler), the money or parts of it will never make it to SCOG.

Really?

Is Bosley's concern well founded?

The SCPR thinks so.

If the planned renewal of 0.25 of one percent sales tax does not fly by the May, 2011 election, Stark County departments of government are looking at about 30% to 35% in "across-the-board" cuts in 2012.

It seems to logical to The Report that if the "9-1-1" share of the money is still accessible to the commissioners after Bosley leaves office and the renewal does not pass, then the temptation to divert the money - or at least some of it - to the general fund will be strong.

If such were to happen, Stark Countians are likely to be looking at a scaled down re-work of 9-1-1, and if that were to happen, then taxpayers would be in a "We told you so" mode.

So look for Bosley to bring this matter up in the several months.

There could be a real donnybrook between commissioners in the offing!

ZEIGLER CASE DELAYED: WHILE HIS ATTORNEYS CLEAR UP "TECHNICAL" PROBLEM? JUDGE TO RE-CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT ZEIGLER IS TO HAVE HIS ATTORNEY FEES PAID BY STARK COUNTY TAXPAYERS

Updated at 2:00 PM

 Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler's original "team" of lawyers - Thompson & Bishop (of the Akron area) - were nowhere to be seen yesterday within the confines of the Stark County Courthouse.  At least, yours truly did not see either of them.

It appears that Zeigler (presumably on the advice of Thompson & Bishop) has determined that new legal counsel is needed to handle his defense to the lawsuit filed by Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero on July 28, 2010 to collect from bonding companies, an insurance company and Treasurer Zeigler himself (personally and individually) in a prosecutorial quest to recover for Stark County taxpayers nearly $3 million in missing funds that has occurred during the time Zeigler has held office (hereinafter referred to as LAWSUIT).

Most of the missing money is from the $2.46 million that former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci has admitted to stealing.  He made his admission on June 25, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for Northern Ohio.

The SCPR had been hearing that there was some question as to whether or not the Thompson & Bishop generated (for Zeigler) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in response to the LAWSUIT was legally sufficient.

It is interesting to note that an apparently "curative" Zeigler affidavit (not filed with the original motion) was filed yesterday, to wit:

In the video that accompanies this blog, Judge H.F. Inderlied, Jr (sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court) seems to confirm that there needs to be a re-work of Zeigler's effort to stop Stark County commissioners from removing him from office.

A new legal team from Avon, Ohio (Wickens, Herzer, Cook, Panza and Battista, a 28 person law firm) has entered their appearance and conducted Zeigler's representation yesterday.

From Judge Inderlied's remarks from the bench, it appears Stark Countians can expect a replacement for the legally "fragile" Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Tuesday, August 17th.  The county commissioner filed case was about collecting money; not removing Zeigler. The parties agreed that Zeigler's counsel would file a Writ of Prohibition which will likely also be heard by Judge Inderlied.

Judge Inderlied also addresses his intent to re-examine the law (on the initiative of a motion filed by Stark County prosecutors) as to whether or not Zeigler is entitled to have Stark County taxpayers to pay for his legal representation on the LAWSUIT.

Stark Countians should be pleased that Judge Inderlied in yesterday's hearing is allowing county commissioners to proceed under Ohio Revised Code Section 321.38 subject, of course, to a ruling of whether or not the removal process provided for in this statute passes constitutional muster.

All of Zeigler's legal maneuverings indicate a county treasurer who is in complete denial as to any responsibility he has for allowing conditions to exist at the treasurer's office that may have created opportunities for Frustaci to make off with county money.

He may or may not succeed in the legal arena.  However, it is clear to the SCPR that in the public arena the public mind is that he does bear responsibility in the sense of Harry Truman-esque "the buck stops here."

The Report does not believe there is any question that Gary Zeigler is history as Stark County treasurer come December 31, 2012.

He may achieve a "phyric victory" in the legal sense; but in end,  the Stark County people will have their way by removing Zeigler from office through the election process.

Like others, the SCPR believes he should resign.

But a Zeigler resignation is not going to happen.

Here is Judge Inderlied at yesterday's hearing.

VIDEO (PART 8) BATTLE OF THE TODDS - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & SUMMARY OF WHY EACH SHOULD BE ELECTED

Today's segment if the final of the videotape taken of the July 28th Ron Ponder "Points to Ponder" radio show on WHBC-AM1480 entitled "The Battle of the Todds."

The participants, of course, were Todd Bosley (Democrat and Stark County commissioner) and Todd Snitchler (Republican and state representative for the 50th Ohio House District).

Bosley is challenging Snitchler for the House seat.

The SCPR, again, thank Ron Ponder for allowing The Report to videotape this WHBC public service.

Here is the video.

(VIDEO: POLITICAL THEATER - BOSLEY & STATE AUDITOR REP) IS STARK COUNTY TREASURER GARY D. ZEIGLER SERVING HIS LAST FULL DAY AS COUNTY TREASURER?

Early tomorrow morning (probably somewhere between 9:00 AM and Noon) Stark Countians should know whether or not Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler shall continue in office, at least until his term expires on December 31, 2012.

Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court (Stark County Common Pleas Judge Charles Brown having recused himself), Herman Frederick Inderlied, Jr., will hear a motion filed by Zeigler's attorney supporting the legal proposition that Zeigler is entitled to serve out his term under the law of Ohio.

If Inderlied denies the preliminary injunction, Stark County commissioners have scheduled a special meeting for tomorrow morning at 11:00 AM to ponder Zeigler's removal.  Even if Judge Inderlied does not make a determination by 11:00 AM, commissioners can still act later in the day according to County Administrator Michael Hanke.

Nearly all Stark Countians know by now that the reason Zeigler's remaining in office is an issue is because of missing monies from the county treasurer (nearly $3 million) during Zeigler's time in office.

Ohio Revised Code Section (ORCS) 321.37 provides for county officials (either the commissioners or the county auditor) to make moves against the treasurer to recover the missing money.  ORSC 321.38 allows, on the filing of the 321.37 action, permissively, to remove Zeigler and appoint a temporary replacement.

A special audit concluded on June 25th by Auditor of State Mary Taylor assigns $2.46 million of the missing money to a theft by former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci (who has admitted same in Federal court).

Frustaci was successful in hiding his thefts from Taylor's auditors over a number of years of routine "financial" audits.  Federal prosecutors say that during these audits that the Frustaci would be in Room A at the Stark County treasury ginning up fraudulent documents in response to inquiries for documents by state auditors in Room B.  It was only in the latter half of March, 2009 when Frustaci was on vacation in Florida (and unable to keep one step ahead of the auditors) that his thievery became apparent.

Initially reports coming from Stark County Political Report sources indicated that only about $200,000 was missing.  Hmm?

How was that?

Likely because the auditors got onto a couple of checks (a total of $230,000 - see below) made payable to FirstMeritBank (the ordered money was paid in cash to Frustaci) that Frustaci claimed he was using in working with law enforcement authorities to bring drug traffickers to justice.

In a statement issued by Zeigler's private legal counsel that had been prepared for a Zeigler meeting with county commissioners on July 14th, the SCPR interprets that he places the blame on FirstMerit Bank (implicitly exonerating Zeigler) for Frustaci's ability to make off with the money.

A reader of the SCPR asks questions that public officials, to The Report's knowledge have not answered, to wit:

Also, in reading the comments from the online Rep, many of us want to know who signed the checks made out to "cash" that Mr. Frustaci cashed at FirstMerit and hauled out of the bank?  Since Mr. Perez is supposedly the only person who has authority to sign "warrants" or checks pursuant to ORC, who signed these checks?  And, if Perez did not sign them, how is it that he never noticed that checks were made payable to cash?  Did Perez sign them?  Did someone give Mr. Frustaci a checkbook and add him as a signatory on the accounts?  How did he balance his accounts and not question these two checks? 

One has to wonder why the county commissioners, Prosecutor Ferrero, Auditor Perez and other officials with the responsibility to get answers for the Stark County public have not done so.

So how will the hearing go tomorrow?

Hard to say?

On the one hand it seems that Zeigler is an "elected" official and that absent some criminal wrongdoing by him (note:  Zeigler has never been charged with any crime relative to the Frustaci matter nor has any public official even suggested such), it is difficult to see that a judge would intervene in the public accountability process (elections).

On the other hand, ORCS 321.37 and ORCS 321.38 are very clear that the county auditor/commissioners shall recover missing public funds from other public officials, and may remove a recovered-against official from office.

The SCPR has heard of lawyers' points of view in both directions.

Tomorrow's hearing will tell the tale!

However the judge rules, the SCPR believes that the losing side will appeal.  Expect this drama to go on and on and on.

One final note.  In another episode of political theater (the SC Dems plan to blame the Republicans?), Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley landed on a State of Ohio Auditor representative who has been attending Stark County commissioner meeting over the last month or so.

Here is a video of Bosley asking the representative questions.  The rep promised to get back with answers.



Hmm?  Will he ever show up again?

VIDEO (PART 7): BOSLEY DISTANCES FROM OBAMA; SNITCHLER FROM McCAIN & TALK ABOUT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

It is interesting what political candidates will do "under the pressure of the moment."

The SCPR's take on Bosley and Snitchler is that both "for appearances sake" made statements under questioning by Ron Ponder of "Points to Ponder,"  WHBC-AM1480 in their July 28th radio debate that belie their true positions.

For instance in the video that accompanies this blog each takes a turn distancing from their political party's top national guy.  With Bosley, of course, this is President Obama.  With Snitchler, less obviously, it was the 2008 GOP national standard bearer John McCain.  The appearance?  "I can critique my side's leadership."  But can they, really?

On to the next topic of the debate.

The accomplishments of each candidate.

The Report's take on them.

Both are thin indeed.

Republican Snitchler had to piggyback his HB 77 (conceal personal information of Federal law enforcement officers) on to a Democrat Representative Kathleen Chandler (Portage County) sponsored bill.  This, he says, is an example of his ability to work bipartisan.  Really?  And that is Snitchler's lone success in his first (and, perhaps, only) two year term.

Democrat Todd Bosley was practically as desperate.  One of his achievements he talks about being his most "fun" accomplishment is his work on Solid Waste District (includes Stark, Wayne and Tuscarawas Counties) recycling.  He really stretches when he claims that his Solid Waste work is an indication of his ability to work bi-partisan.  Most of the commissioners members of the Solid Waste Board (i.e. Tuscarawas and Wayne) are Republican.

Bosley does have a stronger claim on his 9-1-1 work.  He has been pushing this issue since his days as Nimishillen Township trustee.  However, he "borrowed" it from Nimishillen Township Fire Chief Rich Peterson.

Here is the video of each speaking for himself.