As The Elections Board Turns

Yes, it's a soap opera at the Lucas County Board of Elections, but unlike the TV version, this one has real-world implications for the future of the fair and impartial management of our voting system.

Let's recap some of the characters and story lines of our soap opera:

In a stunning display of brilliant community organizing, our lead character, Jon Stainbrook, manages to take over the Lucas County Republican Party. Unbeknownst to most, though, his real reason for doing so was not the election of Republicans and the advancement of Republican and conservative ideals. No, it was revenge...to exact revenge and retaliation on anybody and everybody who he ever perceived slighted him in any way. He looks the hero, but he's really the villain in this drama.

Stainbrook's sometimes girlfriend (as she has been identified in numerous news reports), Meghan Gallagher, is elected chairman of the LCRP central committee. This position is supposed to recruit and train the members of the central committee - the 'boots on the ground' portion of the party. The elected members of the central committee are supposed to represent their voting precincts and be the communicators between the party structure and the Republicans in the area. They're also the ones responsible for helping to collect signatures on petitions for candidates, going door-to-door, handing out yard signs and making sure the Republicans in their district turn out on election day.

In another story line, Stainbrook - desperate for the pay and PERS benefits associated with being a member of the Board of Elections - struggles to oust two extremely qualified individuals from the BOE in order to gain the seat for himself. He claims it's all about fixing the problems at the BOE, most of which are exaggerated by him and The Blade, but it sounds good to the people and makes for good articles in The Blade to prop him up as the solution to all the woes. After lawsuits and intimidation and innuendo, he succeeds in getting the appointment.

But that's not all...he names Gallagher as the Executive Director to ensure all that he wants to accomplish can be done. With his sometimes girlfriend in charge, he proceeds to get rid of people he doesn't like, firing long-time employees and installing his own crew, some of whom, it is rumored, became members of the central committee and voted for him in return for the promise of employment at the BOE.

Also hired was Gina Kaczala. Her husband Larry was County Auditor and a candidate for Congress. His tragic death in an apparent leap from a parking garage left many stunned and saddened by his loss. Widow Gina, with Stainbrook as her party chairman, ran for the County Auditor position but was defeated. Just to make things interesting, Stainbrook used to work for Larry, but was fired and then ran against him for in the primary for the County Auditor seat. You know politics makes for strange bedfellows....

Then there is Anthony DeGidio, an attorney who first entered our story as the lawyer representing Stainbrook and Gallagher on their many court challenges both against fellow Republicans and in other, unrelated cases. DeGidio was Stainbrook's choice for the second Republican seat on the BOE.

That's the major cast of characters and the general plot line of our soap opera, but it wouldn't be a soap without drama and drama seems to follow Stainbrook and his cronies wherever they go.

* lawsuits by former BOE employees
* questionable activity between Stainbrook and Gallagher in a stopped car
* theft of drugs from a hospital patient

Then there is the 'close, personal relationship' with John Robinson Block, the publisher of The Blade - a relationship Stainbrook has bragged about for years. Many speculate that the favorable media coverage Stainbrook gets is due to that relationship, but others believe it has more to do with the fact that Stainbrook must 'have something incriminating' against JRB, as he's known.

Stainbrook loved to brag that he used to 'set JRB up with girls' back in his younger days. Couple that with his known reputation for secretly recording conversations and editing the tapes to make it seem like the other party said something they didn't and you'll understand why people believe the speculation.

As any watcher of a soap opera will tell you, it's not drama without the friends becoming enemies after some event. Usually it's 'he slept with my sister' sort of thing, but with Stainbrook, it's 'he dared to disagree with me' that results in Friends of Stainbrook (FoS) becoming an enemy.

DeGidio is the latest in that long line of people.

First there was a review of the BOE by the Secretary of State who is responsible for overseeing elections in Ohio. Stainbrook's reaction to the recommendation that Gallager (and the Democrat assistant director) be fired was to keep the two of them and fire everyone else.

DeGidio disagree...and thus began Stainbrook's attempt to oust him from the board. But DeGidio knows things too...will he tell all in his defense of his seat?

Then came the legal challenge to DeGidio's residency - and the appearance of two more characters, including another 'sometimes girlfriend' Kelly Bensman. And also the professional challenge as Gallagher filed an ethics complaint against DeGidio, her attorney in a car accident lawsuit, thus preventing DeGidio from voting on firing her.

While all this is going on, Stainbrook is not raising money for the party (a primary duty of a chairman) and he's violating the bylaws by refusing to notify past chairmen of executive committee meetings. Of course, the past chairman not being notified is the same individual he tried to kick off the BOE...as you know, everyone and everything in a soap opera is interconnected.

And just yesterday, a new twist arose. John Irish, a past party chairman of the Lucas County Democratic Party and new member of the BOE, introduced a new policy at the BOE meeting forbidding the unauthorized recording of conversations. ZING! Stainbrook voted against the policy - wonder why?

It was also revealed the Kazcala filed a harassment complaint against Gallagher. The board voted 3-1 to refer the investigation to the county's human resources department. Stainbrook voted no on that as well.

Enter Stainbrook's persecution complex - it's all about trying to get rid of him and Gallagher - there's nothing to any of this and it's all political.

So now you're primarily caught up on the various story lines and ready for the next episode.

Will Stainbrook manage to succeed in getting a second challenge to DeGidio's residency heard by the board?

Will Gallagher be found guilty of harassment?

Will Kaczala and DeGidio join together to write a best-selling tell-all book about their experiences with Stainbrook?

Will The Blade grow weary of this and turn on Stainbrook?

Will the Republicans manage to get an actual chairman more focused on the party than personal vendettas?

Will Gallagher be blamed for the blank audio recording of the last meeting? (that's one you didn't know about) And was there something on that audio tape that might have proved incriminating to someone?

Will the board follow the recommendations of the Secretary of State and fire Gallagher and Dan DeAngelis, the assistant director?

Will the board remember that they gave Gallagher and DeAngelis until yesterday's meeting to finalize a working organizational chart or face possible firing?

Stay tuned for the next episode of As the Election Board Turns....

Why the need for a second DeGidio residency hearing?

Lucas County Board of Elections member, Anthony DeGidio has been disciplined by the Supreme Court for co-mingling a client's trust account with his own funds. He was given a two-year suspension of his law license which could be reduced to one year if he completes a continuing education course on the proper handling of client trust accounts.

The Blade has the full story, but what is most interesting are the last two paragraphs of the article:

Mr. DeGidio last month survived an attempt by fellow Republicans in Lucas County to remove him from the elections board, but the effort is being renewed.

Ron Rothenbuhler, chairman of the four-person elections board as well as chairman of the Lucas County Democratic Party, said the board has been advised by its attorney that it must hold a second hearing on the question of whether Mr. DeGidio is a legal resident and a legal voter in Lucas County. He said the date for that second hearing will be set when the board meets on Tuesday.

I thought this was very odd considering that the license suspension has nothing to do with his residency. After some checking around I learned that John Marshall filed a second challenge to DeGidio's residency because he 'forgot' to subpoena DeGidio the first time around.

I guess I didn't know there were do-overs to such challenges because - oh, yeah, I forgot...

In case you need a re-cap,

Marshall files a challenge to DeGidio's eligibility to vote in Lucas County. He produces, according to The Blade, hundreds of pages of so-called 'proof' that DeGidio doesn't reside in Lucas County. Some of the 'proof' was before DeGidio was even on the elections board, so it was irrelevant to the challenge.

But all the so-called evidence was not enough to overcome a Supreme Court ruling about residency that says regardless of where you might stay/live on a temporary basis, it is your intent to be a voting resident of your home county that matters. (The Court said a lot more, but you get the drift.)

Accordingly, the BOE voted 2-1 against the challenge, with the two Democrats voting to dismiss it and only Stainbrook voting to uphold it. DeGidio wasn't present - and couldn't have voted anyway - though he was represented by an attorney for the hearing.

In the same post I also highlighted this hypocrisy:

In reporting on the hearing, The Blade wrote:

Attorney James Perlman, who represented Mr. DeGidio at the hearing, tried to cross-examine Mr. Marshall and the legitimacy of the documents several times, but Mr. Marshall refused to answer any of the attorney's questions. Mr. DeGidio did not attend the hearing. "I'm not going to talk to you anymore," Mr. Marshall said when asked how he obtained such things as Mr. DeGidio's insurance records.

When Mr. Rothenbuler explained that cross-examination is part of the hearing process, Mr. Marshall told him, "I'm not going to answer his questions."

Mr. Marshall did acknowledge to Mr. Perlman that he launched an investigation of Mr. DeGidio after speaking with Mr. Stainbrook and Meghan Gallagher, the Board of Elections' director.

Further down in the article, is this:

Mr. Stainbrook expressed frustration with the board's decision. He said Mr. DeGidio's absence from the hearing undermined the proceedings because Mr. Marshall couldn't question him.

So it was Stainbrook who wanted DeGidio present ... and obviously that means Marshall, an FoS (Friend of Stainbrook), files another challenge claiming 'do-over.'

Get it?

And what about those subpoenas?

According to the Ohio Revised Code, the Board (defined as the four appointed members) has the ability to issue subpoenas for the purpose of residency hearings. But do they have to actually vote on that or can they delegate that authority? If they have to vote, would all members have voted to subpoena records and information about DeGidio PRIOR to his time on the board?

I know - there I go asking good questions again....

But here's the bigger issue: the board has decided that DeGidio's intent to retain residency in Lucas County is valid and that is all that is needed under Ohio law. What's DeGidio going to say if he is subpoenaed and required to appear: "I've changed my mind"???

And if DeGidio has to answer questions, doesn't Marshall realize that he'll have to answer questions too?

That might prove to be very embarrassing if he tells the truth about how he ended up making the challenge in the first place.

And then what happens?

If the BOE again votes to uphold DeGidio's residency, will someone else come forward to challenge it? And how many more after that? Will it be a never-ending series of challenges until DeGidio throws up his hands and goes away as Stainbrook would like?

More importantly, will the two Democrat members of the BOE stand for that?

Only time will tell. Until then, we'll wait to see what happens at Tuesday's BOE meeting.

Stay tuned....

Lucas County GOP - Jon Stainbrook's foolishness and dereliction of duty

The executive committee of the Lucas County Republican Party met last night at Mickey Finn's Pub to handle two agenda items:

1. Discussion of whether Anthony J. DeGidio Jr. provided false information to the Executive Committee in order to secure a recommendation to the Lucas County Board of Elections.
2. Retraction of the previous recommendation made to the Ohio Secretary of State for the appointment of Anthony J. DeGidio Jr. to the Lucas County Board of Elections.

Here is a copy of the postcard notice.



In case you're at a loss, here's a quick summary:

* DeGidio used to be an FoS (Friend of Stainbrook) until he disagreed with LCRP Chairman and fellow Board of Elections member Jon Stainbrook over a Secretary of State report that recommended firing close friend (sometimes girlfriend) of Stainbrook, Meghan Gallagher.

* Before DeGidio could actually vote on any firings, Gallagher filed an ethics complaint against him with the local bar association. DeGidio, an attorney, had represented her in an unrelated car accident case.

* With the ethics complaint pending, DeGidio was 'conflicted out' of any discussion and action.

* DeGidio, having failed to support Stainbrook, was now an enemy and the dirt started to fly with Stainbrook trying everything to see what might stick and get DeGidio removed from the board.

Last night's executive committee meeting was the most recent step in that process, though I did expect another hit piece in The Blade as a result.

If you want all the details you can read this post: "Blade bias, Board of Elections and abuse of process"

or otherwise titled:

Everything you didn't want to know about what's going on at the Lucas County Board of Elections

I'm not a member of the executive committee, so I didn't attend the meeting, but I understand that the executive committee did vote and 'unrecommended' DeGidio, though there were some who expressed their disagreement with the action.

What does the 'unrecommendation' mean?

Absolutely nothing.

The executive committee recommends individuals to the Secretary of State, who then has the sole authority to appoint them to the BOE - or not. The SoS has not always followed the recommendations of the local party. Appointees serve a four-year term, unless being appointed to fill a vacancy, then they serve until the end of the term.

Only the SoS can remove an individual from the Board. The fact that the local party chairman has a fellow board member who disagrees with him is NOT a valid reason for removal.

Ah - that's where the dirt comes in. He has a girlfriend who is much younger. He doesn't live in the county (though that issue was resolved, after a BOE hearing, in DeGidio's favor). He has an ethics complaint pending against him - though that is not yet decided.

But, but, but....he disagrees with me, Stainbrook whines. He has to go!

This is the foolishness of what remains of the Lucas County Republican Party under Stainbrook's leadership.

Interestingly, DeGidio (the accused) was not invited to the meeting to present his side of the story - not that he would have gone if he had been, I'm sure.

I reached out to him to ask for a comment. His written reply:

"This is just another example of Jon and Meghan spending their time attacking people that have evidence against them. I really wish they would spend some time doing their jobs at the BOE and the LCRP then we might have a vibrant party instead of a joke with the two jokers in charge."

Violating the LCRP Bylaws

DeGidio wasn't the only one not invited to the executive committee. I understand that several others conveniently didn't get a notice of the meeting, including former LCRP Chairman Patrick Kriner.

Now, Kriner is certainly not a FoS, especially after Stainbrook tried numerous ways to kick Kriner off the BOE when Stainbrook first became party chair. But he is a former chairman and the bylaws of the party clearly state that members of the executive committee include all "LCRP past chairmen who reside in Lucas County."

Kriner, who is also a duly elected member of the central committee, was tired of not being notified so he could attend both meetings, especially the central committee where it is his responsibility, as an elected official, to communicate back to his precinct on the activities of that body. So on Feb. 28th he wrote a letter to Stainbrook, copied Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett, and sent it certified. He wrote:

Dear Chairman Stainbrook,

This letter is written as a request to include me in any and all communications regarding the Central Committee of the Lucas County Republican Party as well as its Executive Committee. I am a duly elected representative to the County's Central Committee from the Sylvania 13 Precinct. And, according to the LCRP By Laws, as a former Chairman residing in Lucas County I am a member of the County Party's Executive Committee. Since my election to the Central Committee during the 2012 Primary Election, I have only received one notice regarding Central Committee meetings. The meeting being the organizational meeting held shortly after the Primary. Since then I have not been informed of any meetings of either the Central Committee or the Executive Committee.

This communication includes my current address, on file with the Board of Elections, and my email address for your use. Please keep me up to date on scheduled meetings.

Kriner got a follow up from Bennett:

Dear Pat,

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I have spoke (sic) with Jon in regards to this matter and informed him that he may be in violation of the party's bylaws by not informing the entire committee of scheduled meetings.

Please let me know if he does not get in touch with you in the future.

Apparently, Stainbrook didn't heed whatever advice Bennett offered.

Dereliction of Duty

Clearly, failure to follow the party bylaws is a dereliction of his duty as chairman. But that's par for the course for Stainbrook.

However, that's not all.

Rumor has it that the delay in appointing a replacement to fill Judge James Jensen's seat on the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is due to the failure of the local party to actually screen the applicants.

Jensen was elected in November to the Appeals Court. Six individuals applied to fill the vacancy. The normal process is that the local party screens the candidates and then makes a recommendation to the governor who then appoints the replacement. Sometimes, the party recommends several candidates. The deadline for applications was January 28th.

I was told that Stainbrook informed the candidates they would be screened following the party's annual Lincoln Day Dinner which was on Feb. 21st. This makes sense since it is a major event and primary fundraiser for the party. I can't imagine anyone being upset at letting the party focus on the dinner, though past chairmen have managed to do two things at once. But scheduling a screening after the dinner didn't cause any concern.

However, by March 14th, no screening had been scheduled and a Blade article profiling some of the applicants said:

"Applicants submitted their names to the Lucas County Republican Party, which is expected to screen candidates sometime in the next three weeks, party Chairman Jon Stainbrook said."

That was five weeks ago - and still no word on when the screening will be scheduled.

But the executive committee can meet to "unrecommend" a new enemy of Stainbrook's.

Definitely, this qualifies as a dereliction of duty, and a complete and total disservice to the residents of Lucas County who depend upon a full court to hear their issues.

Stainbrook's failure to perform the necessary duties of chairman while pursuing his own personal vendettas is not new.

He doesn't raise anywhere near the money for the party and its candidates as all previous chairmen have done. And some of the money he raised went not to local candidates, but to his own, personal race for state central committee. At least, that's what the mandatory disclosure on his campaign signs indicated when they said "paid for by the Lucas County Republican Party."

He doesn't field candidates and has said nothing about recruiting and endorsing a candidate for Toledo mayor or council - and the primary is less than five months away! That's not nearly enough time to do a proper job of running for office, I know.

He can't even keep the LCRP webpage current, for goodness sake! As of the publication of this post, it still had the Lincoln Day Dinner as the landing page. That was nearly two months ago!



He doesn't act as a spokesman for Republican principles, rarely - if ever - taking a position on issues or matters in the community. He and his executive committee (probably without many of the actual members present due to lack of notification) even endorsed tax increases!

Many are afraid to even speak privately with him for fear he is secretly recording their conversation and will edit it and use it against them in the future.

He is known for suing fellow Republicans for slights real or imagined (and most believe they are imagined). In fact, a common phrase heard among Republicans in the county is "I wish he spent as much time actually recruiting and supporting candidates as he does on going after fellow Republicans."

He uses the office of Chairman of the party for his own personal advancement and revenge on those he has perceived as enemies. He tries to execute ages-old vendettas against any and all who might have offended him in some way years ago. He definitely holds a grudge and never forgets a slight.

He needs to go, many agree.

But who is willing to stand up and face his onslaught and the vindictiveness of the Blade which continues to support Stainbrook because of his "close, personal relationship" with John Robinson Block, the publisher?

As the Bard wrote so long ago, "aye, there's the rub."

Blade bias, Board of Elections and abuse of process

or otherwise titled:

Everything you didn't want to know about what's going on at the Lucas County Board of Elections

Alas, it should come as no surprise that news coverage of the recent brouhaha at the Board of Elections is biased. The Blade, for whatever reason, continues to support Lucas County Republican Chairman and BOE board member Jon Stainbrook.

People have wondered for years what Stainbrook might have on publisher John Robinson Block to make the man so supportive of Stainbrook, who some go so far as to call a sociopath.

Sadly, the voters of Lucas County - all of them, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof - are the ones to suffer.

Let's recap, in case you've been otherwise occupied...

Jon Stainbrook engineers a majority of central committee members and gets himself elected as chairman of the Lucas County GOP. After years of struggle (I'm not exaggerating), he manages to finally get himself appointed to the Board of Elections. He also gets someone he believes will be his crony, Anthony DeGidio, appointed as the second Republican on the four-member board.

Along the way, he tries to fire everyone at the BOE he deems an enemy. Several individuals were his victims. Then he gets his 'sometimes girlfriend' (as The Blade identified her numerous times) appointed at the director of the BOE. No conflict of interest there, I'm sure (which is important as you will read in a moment).

Together, they announce they're going to 'clean up the board.' But that's hardly what is happening.

Instead, they're using the BOE and its resources to continue to go after those Stainbrook has deemed 'enemy.' And Stainbrook loves to hold a grudge, never forgetting a perceived slight or wrong.

But then comes the Secretary of State who oversees all the voting - and the local Boards of Election - in the state. They realize things are amiss in Lucas County and send in a Republican and a Democrat to take a look and make recommendations.

Not surprisingly, the report they issued calls for Gallagher and the Democratic assistant director to be fired.

This does not sit well with Stainbrook - for without his FoS (friend of Stainbrook) in the director position, how can he fulfill his vendettas? Plus, if rumor is to be believed, she shares income and earnings with him and I'm sure neither of them want to go without her $85,000+ salary.

What did surprise everyone, though, including his fellow Republican board member DeGidio, was Stainbrook's motion when the SoS report came before the full board.

Stainbrook made a motion to fire everyone at the board EXCEPT the two recommended by the report.

Seriously.

The motion did not get a second, but discussion did follow. After a brief recess, the board returned and no other action regarding the report was taken.

I can only imagine the conversation - more likely bullying - Stainbrook did during that recess to try to get DeGidio to second his motion.

I also presume that was the point at which DeGidio stopped being a FoS and became an enemy - and a target.

Suddenly, DeGidio is persona non grata and must be removed from the Board of Elections.

He doesn't live in the county.

He has a young, Filipino girlfriend.

He has an ethics complaint against him at the Supreme Court (which has nothing to do with his eligibility to serve on the BOE, but is apparently just cause for removal in Stainbrook's eyes).

And in case you missed it, let's repeat all those things until you believe DeGidio is an evil, evil man who must be removed from the BOE so we can avoid the zombie apocalypse.

Enter John Marshall, another FoS and failed candidate for Lucas County Commissioner.

Marshall files a challenge to DeGidio's eligibility to vote in Lucas County. He produces, according to The Blade, hundreds of pages of so-called 'proof' that DeGidio doesn't reside in Lucas County. Some of the 'proof' was before DeGidio was even on the elections board, so it was irrelevant to the challenge.

But all the so-called evidence was not enough to overcome a Supreme Court ruling about residency that says regardless of where you might stay/live on a temporary basis, it is your intent to be a voting resident of your home county that matters. (The Court said a lot more, but you get the drift.)

Accordingly, the BOE voted 2-1 against the challenge, with the two Democrats voting to dismiss it and only Stainbrook voting to uphold it. DeGidio wasn't present - and couldn't have voted anyway - though he was represented by an attorney for the hearing.

Here's where The Blade comes in, right on cue to join with the character assassination so desired by Stainbrook.

First came the article that Stainbrook wanted DeGidio off the Board, alleging all sorts of evil things (see list above).

Then came the story about the official complaint by Marshall.

Then came two stories (here and here) about the board's vote to dismiss the complaint.

Then, despite a rather firm decision, The Blade attempts to make readers 'question' the decision with yet another article raising - you guessed it - 'questions.'

It's a long sordid story, but necessary to go over the details so you can see why various information being omitted in the Blade coverage is vital to truly understanding what is going on in this most important government agency.

In reporting on the hearing, The Blade wrote:

Attorney James Perlman, who represented Mr. DeGidio at the hearing, tried to cross-examine Mr. Marshall and the legitimacy of the documents several times, but Mr. Marshall refused to answer any of the attorney's questions. Mr. DeGidio did not attend the hearing. "I'm not going to talk to you anymore," Mr. Marshall said when asked how he obtained such things as Mr. DeGidio's insurance records.

When Mr. Rothenbuler explained that cross-examination is part of the hearing process, Mr. Marshall told him, "I'm not going to answer his questions."

Mr. Marshall did acknowledge to Mr. Perlman that he launched an investigation of Mr. DeGidio after speaking with Mr. Stainbrook and Meghan Gallagher, the Board of Elections' director.

Further down in the article, is this:

Mr. Stainbrook expressed frustration with the board's decision. He said Mr. DeGidio's absence from the hearing undermined the proceedings because Mr. Marshall couldn't question him.

Did reporter Federico Martinez bother to ask Stainbrook why he didn't then object to Marshall refusing to answer questions from DeGidio's attorney? Isn't that a double standard for Stainbrook? Where is that coverage?

Then there is this, from the 'questions' article that says the decided residency issue isn't over (though I'm pretty sure it is).

Evidence produced by Mr. Marshall, through subpoenas issued by the elections board...

"Subpoenas" - plural???

Since when do staff members at the Board of Elections have the authority - without direction from the board itself - to issue subpoenas???

Why isn't this questioned by DeGidio's attorney and the Democrat members of the board - and The Blade?

Mr. Stainbrook, a former ally of Mr. DeGidio, said he felt it was his duty to tell Mr. DeGidio to move back to Lucas County.

I understand that Stainbrook has known all along about DeGidio's back and forth between Lucas County and his parents due to his parents' age and health. Why doesn't the reporter ask Stainbrook how long he's known about this issue and why it's just now an issue? Why doesn't the reporter ask Stainbrook if all this is just being brought up because DeGidio wouldn't second his motion to fire the entire staff rather than Gallagher and the Democrat assistant director.

Aren't those very valid questions to ask and extremely pertinent to the story?

The article references log-ins to DeGidio's BOE email, with only six of the 88 being from an Internet address within Lucas County. Did Marshall file a public records request to obtain that information or did BOE staff provide it to him in an effort to get rid of one of their bosses?

How much time did BOE staff spend on assisting Marshall with his challenge?

If the reporter is going to list all the documents and say they 'raise questions' why didn't he also ask how much BOE time employees and resources were used?

The challenge was by Marshall not the BOE. Because of this, the BOE is limited by statute to investigating only whether or not DeGidio was on the records at a proper address. The rest is supposed to be prepared by Marshall as the challenger to the voting eligibility.

Why doesn't The Blade mention that Marshall was assisted throughout the hearing by Kelly Bensman, another FoS? In fact:

Turns out Marshall was responsible for almost nothing. Someone else had assembled all the information he was presenting and was sitting next to him handing it to him.

Clearly it would not do for Bensman to have filed the challenge - that would be too obvious.

In fact, Marshall even said during the hearing that he didn't care about challenging DeGidio's right to vote but just wanted to get DeGidio off the board.

But that presents another serious problem for Marshall: abuse of process.

Abuse of process is where a legal process is used for an unlawful purpose.

Doesn't using a residency challenge to someone's right to vote in order to get them thrown off a Board of Elections because they won't agree with another board member fit that description?

And if Stainbrook has known all along about DeGidio's care of his parents and that it didn't have anything to do with voting residency but instructed Marshall to file the challenge, is Stainbrook also not guilty of abuse of process? What did he know and when did he know it?

What about BOE staff improperly using subpoena authority to get rid of one of their bosses?

I know I've developed a reputation for asking good questions, but why isn't anyone else asking about these things?

Clearly, we can't expect The Blade to do so, but surely the Secretary of State should be wondering.

There's another matter as well: Gallagher's grievance complaint with the local Bar Association against DeGidio, her attorney on a injury lawsuit.

Apparently, DeGidio, who has represented Gallagher, Stainbrook and Bensman in various lawsuits in the past - hence the title FoS - had filed suit on behalf of Gallagher over a car accident where she was hit from behind. The suit for $25,0000 claims:

* Gallagher has suffered - and continues to suffer -" headaches, numbness, stiffness, limitations in movement and pain with movement" as a result of injuries to her shoulder, neck and head in the accident.

* Gallagher has suffered "permanent physical injury and will continue to experience severe pain and suffering for the rest of her normal life."

* Gallagher will "suffer life-long pain and suffering and will require life long medical treatment."

One wonders how she can manage to work at the BOE?

Interestingly, on March 5th, DeGidio requested to withdraw as her attorney. His filing says notified her three times - in March 2012, November 2012 and January, 2013 - that he needed to withdraw and that she needed to find a new attorney to represent her in the case. On March 3rd, he emailed her and told her that he could no longer wait for her to find a new attorney, filing the motion to withdraw two days later.

The nature of the grievance against DeGidio is confidential, but the effect is very public. With DeGidio facing a grievance, he has a conflict of interest with Gallagher and cannot ethically vote to fire her.

What I want to know is this: when did Gallagher learn the SoS report was going to recommend her firing and when did she file the grievance against DeGidio to 'conflict him out' of the vote? I'm certain the two directors were notified before the report was made public so they would not be surprised by the findings and the recommendation. Is this another abuse of process?

And if DeGidio has a conflict of interest because of the grievance complaint, doesn't Stainbrook also have a conflict of interest if Gallagher is his 'sometimes girlfriend' and if he accepts monetary support from her as is rumored?

See, told you that conflict of interest would be important, especially because Stainbrook and Gallagher have denied a relationship, but no one at The Blade chose to research what they previously had documented about the two.

Clearly, there are conflicts all around.

The bottom line

Stainbrook should be removed from the BOE. DeGidio, with his on-going health problems and need to care for his parents and himself, should probably step down. But he shouldn't do so when Stainbrook will be responsible for naming his replacement.

The SoS recommendation to fire Gallagher and the Democrat assistant direct needs to accepted and the two need to go.

The SoS needs to bypass the local GOP in order to name two new Republican board members.

Stayed tuned...there is certainly more to come!

Are some of Stainbrook's chickens coming home to roost?

My, oh my...this is what happens when you decide you disagree with Jon Stainbrook....

Stainbrook aims to oust GOP board member

Apparently, Tony DeGidio is inclined to support the recommendation from the Ohio Secretary of State to fire the Board of Elections direct and assistant director. But the director is Meghan Gallager, FOS (friend of Stainbrook) and that doesn't sit too well with the GOP county chairman.

So...all the dirt is coming out.

Stainbrook claims:

* DeGidio doesn't actually live in the county
* He has a pending ethics complaint and that makes him ineligible to serve on the BOE

DeGidio claims:

* Stainbrook has a conflict of interest because he and Gallagher were or are romantically involved
* Stainbrook takes money from Gallagher

What a mess!

First, if DeGidio doesn't live in the county, isn't that something Stainbrook has known all along?

Didn't he investigate that fact before presenting his name to the Lucas County Republican Party's executive committee for them to recommend him as the board member?

And if Stainbrook has known this all along, why is it only now an issue?

Could it be because now it's useful to Stainbrook? That would certainly be in keeping with his modus operandi.

And so what if DeGidio has a *pending* ethics complaint. Having an unadjudicated charge against you could be a concern but is it cause for removal? If so, I can think of a significant number of people who will gladly file similar types of ethics charges against Stainbrook just to get rid of him.

Now, if the charges pan out, then that's a different discussion. But we're not there yet - unless there's more that Stainbrook knows that he's not yet telling.

DeGidio's charges, however, are more serious. If you receive funds from an appointee, you clearly have a conflict of interest - on both sides. A romantic relationship is also a conflict, but harder to prove when both parties are denying it.

But does DeGidio, knowing Stainbrook's penchant for gathering dirt and holding it against someone, have dirt of his own?

Knowing Stainbrook's history, did he gather evidence to protect himself, or at least take Jon down with him?

Aye, there's the rub.

Only time will tell, but until then, expect the pile of dirt to get higher as this is certain to get more ugly as the chickens come home to roost.

Careful, though. As Chris Myers as Swamp Bubbles warns: eating your own can give you indigestion.

If he follows his own logic, Stainbrook should resign from BOE

The issue of District 6 Toledo City Council member Lindsay Webb's late filing of the acceptance of her nomination for election in November has been in the news lately, especially after opponent Doug DeCamp filed a protest, also late.

Rather than go through the idiocy of Webb's failure to meet a filing deadline, her 'mis-remembering' the location where she mailed the filing or the shear lunacy of claiming that the protest against her late filing was late so it shouldn't be allowed, but her late filing should be ... let's look at where the real problem lies: the Lucas County Board of Elections.

Having worked with the Board of Elections since the early '90s as both a candidate and a Commissioner, I have a lot of respect for the individuals there. Whether asking questions as a candidate, commissioner or blogger, I've always had timely responses and, to the best of my knowledge, correct answers. I know that any office may have a couple of employees who don't meet expectations or requirements, but that is not unique to the Board of Elections.

The office has had serious challenges over the years - many the result of the personalities of the board members themselves - but over the past five years or so, I've seen significant overall improvement, despite specific problems encountered. This I attribute to the board members (Democrats Rita Clark, Gary Johnson, Ron Rothenbuler and Republicans Patrick Kriner and Lynn Olman) who focused on running an elections system.

So when issues arise like the latest debacle of the board members certifying a candidate who failed to meet a required filing deadline, it is appropriate to look at the board members themselves.

And that is where the hypocrisy comes in - and readers of this blog know how I despise hypocrisy.

It is fair to look to the past at words and actions in order to judge the present goings-on.

Shortly after Jon Stainbrook became chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party, the winner of the Republican primary for a seat on the Lucas County Board of Commissioners withdrew. The party, under the leadership of Stainbrook, nominated Jan Scotland to fill the vacancy. As a result of the party's action, Stainbrook, as chairman, should have filed the nominating paperwork with the Board of Elections. He didn't - at least, not on time - and Scotland was not allowed to be on the ballot.

At that time, Stainbrook claimed, erroneously, that it was the responsibility of the Republican members of the board to make sure he did his job correctly. Lots of theories abounded about the failure of Scotland to be on the ballot, but in the end, the law prevailed and the missed filing meant Scotland did not run.

But that didn't stop the local paper from editorializing that the fault was completely with the two Republican board members. In fact, they even opined:

"If they truly had the interests of the GOP at heart, rather than an intense desire to see their adversary fail, Mr. Olman and Mr. Kriner could easily have helped to ensure that the nominating papers for Mr. Scotland were filed in time."

Stainbrook had some choice comments during the Scotland nominating failure that are important to note in light of today's Lindsay Webb issue.

* Mr. Stainbrook, then in his first few months as chairman, did not know about the deadline and said the Republicans on the elections board should have reminded him.
~ "Stainbrook says elections board staff violated law," The Blade- Friday, October 23, 2009

* During a news conference yesterday, he blamed inter-party politics for the situation.

"The job of the Lucas County Board of Elections is to get people on the ballot," Mr. Stainbrook said.
~ "Elections board chief criticized - Democratic official failed to warn of deadline, GOP says," The Blade - Thursday, August 28, 2008

And a bit more from the editorial board of The Blade in "Put Scotland on the ballot," from Friday, August 22, 2008:

As to who is responsible for this sad state of affairs, voters have only to look in the direction of Lynn Olman and Pat Kriner, the Republican members of the elections board , who have been in vendetta mode ever since Mr. Stainbrook ousted the local party establishment in June.

If they truly had the interests of the GOP at heart, rather than an intense desire to see their adversary fail, Mr. Olman and Mr. Kriner could easily have helped to ensure that the nominating papers for Mr. Scotland were filed in time.

And despite claims to the contrary, there was nothing to prevent the county elections staff from pointing out the Wednesday deadline so that it could be met. The insider skirmishing that has marred the deliberations of the elections board in recent years only serves to cast a pall of cynicism over the electoral system.

Why are these comments pertinent? Because they reflect the belief, by our local paper and Stainbrook, that it is the responsibility of the members of the board to notify candidates of deadlines and ensure that those deadlines are met.

So in the Lindsay Webb case, what position is Stainbrook going to take when it comes to responsibility for DeCamp's protest being late? Is he going to say that he, as a Republican member of the board, should have 'reminded' his candidates about the protest deadline? That's what he said in 2009:

"...the Republicans on the elections board should have reminded him."

And what position will the local paper take? Will they say that Stainbrook should have "helped to ensure" that the protest was "filed in time"? Or will they reverse their position on where the blame lies and again defend the publisher's buddy by making public excuses for him?

As for Webb, will Stainbrook and The Blade also say that it was Democrat board members Rothenbuler and Clark who are to blame for not 'reminding' her of the deadling for her acceptance filing? Somehow, I don't think so.

Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is that Lindsay Webb never should have been certified. She missed a required filing and, as such, was not eligible for certification to the ballot.

Had I been a new member of the Board of Elections with two new directors heading the office, I would have requested, from the attorney assigned to assist the BOE, a complete list of requirements needed for each candidate and then directed the staff to prepare a checklist for the candidates for review during the meeting to certify them to the ballot. As a result of doing this, I would have known that one of the candidates failed to meet a filing deadline and the issue would have been dealt with prior to certification.

But that's me. Stainbrook is known for suing Republicans and spouting off - not for his administrative, supervisory or leadership skills. It is his failure to know what was required (despite saying that was the job of a BOE member) and ensure all requirements were met prior to voting on certification that led to the current fiasco.

And what about Stainbrook's fellow new Republican board member Anthony DeGidio? When DeGidio was appointed, it was his legal skills that were cited:

Mr. Stainbrook said Mr. DeGidio’s legal background will serve the board well.

“After you see all of the legal wranglings that happen at the board of elections you really need to have the party chairman and then there should be a lawyer,” Mr. Stainbrook said. “Tony DeGidio, with all the cases he’s done, he’s very aware of the Ohio Revised Code election law and that’s what you have to have is somebody looking out for the way things should be done. We’re lucky to have him.”

Where was DiGidio during the certification process ... and since??? If he's so aware of election law and is supposed to be looking out for the way things should be done, why didn't he know about the deadline for the nomination acceptance and ensure that all candidates had met it?

Obviously, as Stainbrook has said in the past, the problem is with the members of the board and they have failed miserably in their duties. As Stainbrook has so vehemently advocated in the past, they should resign.

But don't hold your breath.