LCRP Simpson group files complaints against Stainbrook

It appears Jon Stainbrook is getting a taste of his own medicine, so to speak.

Yesterday, the Simpson-led faction of the Lucas County Republican Party filed several complaints against Jon Stainbrook for multiple offenses, including violating the LCRP bylaws.

It starts with the lists each faction needs to submit to the local Board of Elections when there are two groups claiming to be the 'official' party. Ohio law determines the process by which the local BOE certifies the officers/members submitted by each group to the state central committee which then makes a determination as to which group to recognize.

While Stainbrook and his attorney have made a filing against the Simpson lists, the Simpson group has done the same - only they've got a lot more details than Stainbrook as to why the Stainbrook lists are invalid.

Apparently, 15 individuals have been 'appointed' to serve as precinct committeemen. That is certainly allowable under LCRP bylaws when there is no one elected to serve in a particular precinct or when the precinct has become vacant for some reason. However, those appointees must be voted upon and approved at a meeting of the central committee. According to the complaint, no vote was ever taken to appoint these 15 people.

Additionally, all central committee members must be members of the Republican Party - that is, registered Republicans. The complaint points out that four of the individuals are NOT registered Republicans and, therefore, ineligible to serve on the central committee.

The second complaint deals with the number of appointed members of the party's executive committee. As I've explained in previous posts, certain individuals are automatically members of the party executive committee: past party chairmen, ward chairmen, presidents of GOP clubs with more than 25 members, state central committee members and elected officials. The chairmen of the party can make appointments equal to the total of these mandatory members combined.

Apparently, some of the individuals named in the mandatory categories do not actually hold those positions. Stainbrook listed the wrong president of the Greater Toledo Republican Club, listed ward chairmen who either do not live in the ward they represent (which is required) or are not the individuals duly elected by the ward to serve as their ward chair (noting that no elections have taken place to elect some of the named individuals), and one of them isn't even a Republican.

When those ineligible individuals are removed, it reduces the membership of the executive committee and reduces the number of 'equal' appointments the chairman can make. The complaint alleges that this is a 'flagrant' violation of the party bylaws in an attempt to "stack the Executive Committee with his consorts."

The third complaint states that Stainbrook is in violation of the party bylaws by not providing written reports of party business and finances at the executive committee meetings. It states:

Article VII Section C 4, clearly states “The Party Chairman shall make available reports, filings, bank and financial statements, contracts and candidate profiles to Executive Committee members for review at the office of the LCRP.” Mr. Stainbrook has never provided and of the above documentation. Furthermore, when pressed for this information Mr. Stainbrook has called the member “Out of Order”.

The fourth complaint deals with party finances. It asks the BOE to investigate hotel in-kind contributions from 2008 that have not been reported on any of the campaign finance reports filed by the party.

It also questions the lack of reporting of cash contributions:

It has also come to our attention that former LCRP Chairman Jon Stainbrook and his associates were accepting cash contributions during the 2008 McCain Campaign by way of a wooden cash box screwed onto the wall near the entryway by Jon Stainbrook’s office and also by selling McCain/Palin yard signs. There is a glaring absence of ANY cash contributions in any of the 2008 campaign finance reports. We would also like to request a full investigation into this matter.

The fifth complaint deals with an old issue. When Stainbrook decided to file suit to overturn the original appointment of Patrick Kriner to the BOE, he had himself nominated to fill that position. That nomination by the executive committee has never been rescinded, even though it was denied by the Secretary of State who makes the appointment. However, Stainbrook also had himself nominated to serve in the position Lynn Olman currently holds on the BOE. You cannot nominate a person to serve in both these positions. While this is a technical matter, without rescinding the the first Stainbrook recommendation (which is currently pending in Lucas County Common Pleas Court and has not been resolved), Stainbrook cannot be recommended for another seat on the BOE.

It's sloppy, I admit, but it's a technicality which renders his appointment for the term expiring at the end of February moot without further action from the executive committee.

The sixth complaint deals with the endorsement of Kevin Haddad for Sylvania Township Trustee. It states that the LCRP exists to elect Republicans and that Haddad is not a registered Republican, even though he was endorsed over the two Republican incumbents for the Trustee positions. The complaint reads:

Receiving endorsement from the LCRP should not be given via a test of loyalty to the Chairman but rather loyalty to the Republican Party.

The last complaint states that Stainbrook is also in violation of the bylaws by not establishing the required standing committees of the party.

Now, I have no idea what the local BOE is supposed to do with some of these complaints about violations of the bylaws. I really don't believe they have any authority to enforce local party bylaws, though such allegations and questions certainly would be pertinent to any central committee making a decision about removing or appointment a chairman.

But the BOE does have jurisdiction over the party's financial reports and knowing that cash donations were solicited and accepted but no cash donations are reported on the reports is clearly something they should investigate.

That the party was 'selling' McCain yard signs was well known. Several of my friends mentioned to me that they made donations for them, which they thought unusual, but didn't really mind. Those donations/collections certainly need to be reported. Even if the party took the cash and used it to pay other expenses, the receipt of the funds needs to be included on the reports and the expenditures, showing they were paid in cash, needs to be there as well.

So while the BOE may not even consider many of these complaints, it doesn't mean Stainbrook will be able to ignore them. However, the state central committee may find these complaints pertinent to their decision on which group to certify as the 'official' LCRP.

My guess is that the Simpson faction just got tired of all the allegations being thrown at them and decided to play by Stainbrook's own rules.

And from The Blade, the BOE did certify both the factions lists to the state central committee earlier today.

As I predicted in prior posts, I think this is finally the end of Stainbrook's time as party chairman.

Stainbrook 'deems' Kriner and Olman resigned from BOE

Well, I think the latest maneuvering by Jon Stainbrook in his effort to maintain control of the Lucas County Republican Party is just delusional. I really have no other word for it.

To recap, a group of central committee members voted to suspend the rules at a duly-called meeting, voted to remove Stainbrook and central committee chair Megan Gallagher from their positions, and then elected new chairmen with Paul Hoag in charge of the central committee and Jeff Simpson as the chairman of the party.

First Stainbrook denied that any such meeting and removal had taken place.

Then Stainbrook filed suit in federal court to keep the new group from meeting and from identifying themselves as the LCRP. The judge did not grant that request, determining that Stainbrook did not present a likelihood of succeeding in his suit.

Of course, The Blade weighed in with their own version of events and reporting.

And then Stainbrook got his supporters to recommend him for appointment to the Board of Elections position currently held by Lynn Olman.

But the latest communication from Stainbrook takes the cake. Here are copies of the letters he sent to Patrick Kriner and Lynn Olman (click for larger image):


As you can see, Stainbrook asserts that Kriner and Olman, in exercising their rights as elected members of the LCRP central committee to vote on business at a meeting, have somehow "caused constructive or implied resignations" of their positions "in the LCRP its central committee, and executive committee."

Um...right. Did he send this letter to everyone who voted for Simpson or just the two whose jobs he's trying to get for himself?

Stainbrook must be delusional to think that any central committee member who voted on business before that body had "implied" their resignations from the LCRP. Certainly, none of them expected to be presumed to have resigned from their elected positions on the central committee as a result of voting at a meeting. Furthermore, membership on the executive committee is based upon the bylaws of the party. The party chairman cannot 'assume' any member has resigned simply because they exercise their right to vote as a member of the central committee. The only members of the executive committee Stainbrook can 'remove' are the ones he appoints - and Kriner and Olman certainly are not in that group.

Stainbrook goes on to "accept and ratify" the imaginary resignations and to order them to "cease and desist in any further representations that you are in any way affiliated with the LCRP."

That Kriner and Olman are registered Republicans, former elected officials, and Kriner is a past party chairman obviously slipped Stainbrook's mind. They can't simply stop any representation that they are affiliated with the LCRP - they're Republicans, for goodness sake!

I think Stainbrook has lost it. His plans for complete control have fallen apart and I think he's falling apart as well. How else do you explain these desperate attempts?

And did you note Stainbrook's signature? I can't help but wonder what a handwriting analyst would say about that!

I'm sure there is more to come. I'm currently reviewing a 15-page letter Stainbrook's attorney sent to the BOE in anticipation of tomorrow's meeting.

Strangely, the letter states:

For the reasons set forth below you are required by law to cancel your proposed Saturday meeting.

The BOE doesn't have a meeting scheduled for Saturday morning...it's Tuesday morning. Apparently the attorney isn't very good at keeping track of which meeting he wants the BOE to cancel....

Stay tuned!

Surprise (not!) Stainbrook nominated for BOE

It comes as no surprise to anyone that Jon Stainbrook's faction of the Lucas County Republican Party nominated him to replace Lynn Olman on the Board of Elections.

The Blade has the story - though it is written by Mark Zaborney and not by Tom Troy, the Blade's political writer, who has covered the goings-on so far.

While the reassignment of the story away from the political writer could be just a matter of Troy being off for the weekend, such changes often signal that the publisher of the paper is no longer as interested in the subject as he once was.

Additionally, today's story is lacking some of the editorializing and attempted influence peddling that I wrote about yesterday.

As for the nomination, no one is surprised that Stainbrook got himself nominated for the BOE position. His unsuccessful efforts to discredit both Lynn Olman (whose term expires at the end of February) and Patrick Kriner (who is the subject of a court case filed by Stainbrook over his appointment) were merely thinly-veiled disguises to name himself to one of their positions.

Stainbrook accused Olman of wanting to the keep the position because it has a paycheck and health insurance benefits. The local paper played along with this scenario only publicizing Olman's long-standing rejection of that claim in the articles yesterday and today.

But, as I also wrote yesterday, Stainbrook wanted the position for the very reason he falsely claimed Olman did.

To add insult to injury, Olman's health insurance under the Ohio pension system was without cost to him. But the PERS rules also require that whenever a person takes a paying position where health benefits are offered, the employer policy must be primary. So Olman ended up paying $1,200 per year (the payroll deduction for his coverage from Lucas County) instead of paying nothing had he not accepted the BOE position.

And that doesn't even get to the wages which Olman, a successful insurance agent doesn't need. I wonder if Stainbrook can say the same thing?

So there are now two men selected by Republicans to replace Olman: Stainbrook and Dave Dmytryka.

I'm not sure Stainbrook has ever held a 'real' job. I know he's earned money through his band and some odd jobs along the way, but there is no evidence he's spent any significant time in any organization or company that would give him the leadership experience of hiring and firing, overseeing a budget, supervising a staff, directing the management of an operation, etc...

These are all tasks a member of the BOE must perform.

Dave Dmytryka, on the other hand, is an engineer with a distinguished career. While I don't have his complete resume, I know he worked for Jones and Henry as the manager of their controls department before establishing his own company, Dmytryka Jacobs Engineering. He's earned a Bachelor's and Master's degree and is a registered professional engineer in six states. His firm recently received funding through the state's Third Frontier Program to help hire interns.

It should be noted, too, that when he decided to start his own business, he stayed in Toledo.

Based upon these few details, what's your first impression about who is more qualified?

My personal opinion is that the ruling by the judge Thursday to allow the Jeff Simpson faction of the LCRP to meet spelled the death knell for Stainbrook's reign. As a result of that meeting and the election of officers, Simpson and Paul Hoag will be able to re-submit their list of officers to the BOE which is scheduled to meet Tuesday. There is no time limit on the submission of the officers of the two competing groups and no restriction on submitting the list only one time, so the Simpson group can provide their list with a secretary's signature to the BOE.

The BOE will certify lists from both Simpson and Stainbrook and the state central committee will decide between the two. Considering that our Lucas County representatives to the state central committee participated in electing Simpson and that Hoag is also the state treasurer, most are confident the state central committee will select Simpson as the official and recognized chairman of the LCRP.

*** SIDE NOTES:

There are a couple of tidbits that didn't seem to fit in with other stories, so I'll add them here.

* In researching past Blade articles for the words they used to describe Stainbrook, I came across this article: GOP director's e-mail slams Stainbrook's recruits Blade, The (Toledo, OH) - Thursday, January 10, 2008.

The gist is that the LCRP executive director had done some research on the voting records of some of Stainbrook's central committee candidates and had written some unkind things about them in an email. Here's what Stainbrook had to say about the criticism:

"These are derogatory, defamatory things said about good Republican people," said Jon Stainbrook , who will call for local party Director Joanne Wack to resign today at a press conference tentatively set for 2 p.m. "This is unacceptable behavior."

I couldn't help but be struck by his own 'derogatory, defamatory things' said about 'good Republican people,' especially in light of his court filing that called 'many' of the central committee members "drunk." And that doesn't even get into the things he's said about Olman, Kriner, elected officials, etc...

If the behavior is unacceptable for the party's executive director, it is even more so for the party's chairman. Unfortunately, Stainbrook didn't apply his standard to himself as he didn't resign following his own derogatory and defamatory comments about good Republicans.

* Stainbrook has been touting, as one of his successes, the selection of Karl Rove for the party's 2010 Lincoln Day dinner on January 21. That event is 11 days away and several of us haven't received our invitations to the event. Information on the event is listed on the party's website, but how successful will the event be if invitations haven't yet been mailed?

But then, with my writings on the issue, perhaps it's just me that hasn't been invited....

Adding perspective to the LCRP power struggle

The Blade has an article on the court actions yesterday regarding the dual claims of leadership in the Lucas County Republican Party.

(Background, in chronological order, here, here and here.)

Sometimes, in news reporting, a lack of details that really help put the story in full perspective are due to a lack of space. Other times, the details are omitted through intent, though I'm not going to speculate in this post on the intent for today's article...I think it's clear.

So let's take a look at the story and examine what other points we need to know in order to have an informed opinion on the issue. We'll start with the headline:

Judge allows GOP rebels to put case before county

The headline identifies the non-Jon Stainbrook faction as 'rebels.' Now, this could be due to spacing requirements ... a copy editor trying to find a good word to describe one faction in as few letters as possible. Or it could be an attempt to generate a reaction by the reader - good or bad.

What I find interesting is the way Stainbrook has been referred to in past Blade articles:

* insurgent - January 28, 2008
* activist - January 12, 20, 25, 29; February 7, 17; March 2, 4, 5, 6, 19, 22, 2008
* "The Stainbrook Insurgency" - January 12, 2008
* maverick - February 13, 2008

Now, this is just from the first quarter of 2008 when Stainbrook was trying to take over control of the party - exactly what the Jeff Simpson group has been doing for the last couple of weeks.

The terms used to describe Stainbrook, a self-described friend of Blade publisher John Robinson Block, are rather positive...designed to make you think his efforts are 'noble' or 'just' in some way. That's certainly opposite of 'rebel' which immediately brings to my mind the movie title "Rebel Without A Cause."

The first four paragraphs of the article are pretty straightforward in reporting the events - a ruling against a Temporary Restraining Order requested by Stainbrook and the referral of the issue back to the Board of Elections for the process described in the law.

There are then quotes from the judge, Simpson and Stainbrook. But the Stainbrook quote begins another chapter in his efforts to maintain control of the LCRP.

Mr. Stainbrook said the battle is "far, far from over," and that he will pursue every legal action.

He called on Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates to investigate Mr. Kriner, Lynn Olman, and Jeremy Demagall, deputy director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, for setting a Board of Elections meeting based on "sham" documents. He said their actions could be construed as criminal.

They have quotes from Demagall saying he didn't consider the documents, when filed, a 'sham' and Olman saying the claim was 'baseless.' They also explain the state law regarding two competing groups vying for the official designation as the county party which calls for the party's state central committee to decide.

But then comes this:

The makeup of the elections board and the state GOP central committee would seem to favor Mr. Simpson and Mr. Hoag.

The two Republicans on the Board of Elections, Mr. Olman and Mr. Kriner, openly support Mr. Simpson and Mr. Hoag.

All four of the members of the Ohio Republican Party Central Committee from Lucas County participated in a meeting Thursday night at which members of Mr. Simpson and Mr. Hoag's executive committee were selected.

In addition, Mr. Hoag is a state central committee member and state party treasurer.

The words "would seem to favor" are clearly opinion which doesn't belong in a news report. It would have been different if the reporter had found someone to express the opinion and then quoted that individual, providing the backdrop of the support and positions. But the reporter didn't do that - he expressed his opinion.

Now, I happen to agree with the opinion and share it as well, but that's not the point. Opinions of the reporter are not supposed to be part of the news report.

Additionally, the makeup of the BOE is irrelevant - or it should be. The two Republican and two Democratic members of the BOE are supposed to make decisions regarding the issues before them based upon election rules and laws - not upon their personal preferences or interests. From what I've seen of the decisions coming from this board, that's exactly what they do.

But the paper doesn't want you to even consider that - or any evidence that fair, impartial and consistent decisions are being made by the board. They want to imply that the two Republicans can influence or sway the two Democrats to do whatever they want, which is why they put this opinion in the 'news' story.

Another point to consider is that, while they question the decision-making of Olman and Kriner, they never question the motivation of Stainbrook.

The only reason Stainbrook wants Olman and Kriner gone is not because of any wrong-doing on their parts. Stainbrook's accusations against them are well-publicized in the Blade and detailed in ... what else? ... lawsuits. But despite legal wranglings, accusations and thousands of dollars expended by the BOE answering public records requests, Stainbrook has not found anything to support his claims.

So what are Stainbrook's motivations? Some speculate that he wants the BOE position for himself because he wants the income and benefits, including health insurance, that come with the appointment - exactly what Olman is derided for and 'accused' of wanting to keep. From what I've been told by many individuals, Stainbrook promised his supporters employment in the BOE. But in order to bring them in, he has to fire current workers and the only way that will happen is if he or one of his sycophants is on the board.

But the paper doesn't tell you that...

The next thing of interest in the article is this:

In rejecting the temporary restraining order, Judge Zouhary said Mr. Stainbrook did not present a likelihood of succeeding in his suit and that no irreparable harm would occur if the order was not issued - the two tests for such a restraining order.

You have to wonder why such a critical statement is delayed until the 18th paragraph of the story - and the 'inside' page in the print edition. While it is more detailed information about the actual decision and might not belong in the first paragraph, wouldn't you think the reason for the judge's decision was more important and deserving of higher, more prominent placement than Stainbrook's claim of 'criminal' activity and the opinion of the reporter regarding the eventual decision of the state central committee?

And do you find it detrimental to Stainbrook's position that the judge ruled no likelihood of success on the lawsuit? Certainly that is more important to the reader than a further Stainbook complaint.

Supporters of Mr. Simpson and Mr. Hoag claim the duo were elected during a central committee meeting Dec. 21. However, the meeting's official record is in dispute, and the meeting itself was marred by shouting and an alleged shoving incident, with police and fire officials called out in response.

Mr. Stainbrook and his supporters contend the Simpson contingent did not put its motion on the floor legally. The Simpson group claims it properly elected a temporary chairman and then ran the meeting without Ms. Gallagher's oversight.

So far, no legal body has evaluated whether the meeting met the legal guidelines of the party and parliamentary rules.

I'm tired of reading that police and fire officials were called to the meeting in response to the 'unruly' crowd.

According to Stainbrook's own court filing, the fire department was called because one individual believed the space for the meeting was not in compliance with the fire codes, especially with the number of people who attended.

Here's a question any good reporter without bias would have asked Stainbrook: Why, if you scheduled a meeting of the central committee, did you not provide a space to accommodate even half of the people invited?

By Stainbrook's own admission, they were not prepared for the number of people who arrived. Why not? Stainbrook and his central committee chairman Megan Gallagher called the meeting and sent out notices to the over 200 central committee members. Why wouldn't they have a space prepared where at least half of those invited could sit and participate in the meeting they called?

While The Blade and Stainbrook like to imply that the Simpson group necessitated the call to the fire department, it is Stainbrook and Gallagher who are to blame for that phone call by not providing an adequate meeting space for the people they invited.

But then this sentence pops up: "So far, no legal body has evaluated whether the meeting met the legal guidelines of the party and parliamentary rules."

What is the purpose of raising the issue of a 'legal body' to do any evaluation whatsoever? According to state law, and The Blade's own reporting, the proper 'legal body' is the party's state central committee. That body is charged with deciding which group to recognize.

And how are they to perform such a task? Well, they'll examine the proceedings, look at both sides' report of what happened and when, and then determine which group is 'legitimate.' They'll have to examine the parliamentary procedures that were/were not followed. They'll have to examine the bylaws of the party. They might even interview participants or have each side present to them.

So if that is the legal process, what is the purpose of this sentence in the story? Is it to promote Stainbrook's claim that the actions taken by the Simpson group are not legitimate if a court of law doesn't decide them to be so? Is it to cast doubt in the reader's mind about the legitimacy of the 'rebels' actions? Or could it be to set the stage for Stainbrook to claim that, absence such a court ruling, nothing the state central committee does is legitimate? You can decide on your own now that you know what to question.

Mr. DeGidio argued unsuccessfully that the law requiring the rival groups to be certified by the Board of Elections applies only to the biennial organizational meeting of the party's central committee.

This is one of the points Stainbrook's attorney makes in the filing. But if the paper is so keen on the guidelines of the party, did they bother to check the bylaws themselves and report what the bylaws say versus what an attorney might claim? That would certainly be appropriate in this case - to provide information that puts a claim in context.

Here's what the bylaws say about removal of the executive and central committee chairmen in Article V Powers & Duties of the Central Committee:

F. Any officer of the Central Committee and the chairman of the Executive Committee may be removed by a majority vote of all voting members of the Central Committee.

So despite the claim in the filing that this type of activity can only occur at an organizational meeting (held biennially following the partisan primary election of central committee members), the bylaws clearly indicate that election of chairmen can be held whenever the central committee votes to remove said chairmen.

I wonder why no one at the paper has asked Stainbrook or his attorney about this section of the bylaws?

The problem is that The Blade has supported Stainbrook in both his takeover of the party and in all his efforts against fellow Republicans since then. (I should note, however, that such support of him personally did not result in editorial endorsement for his hand-picked candidates.)

Their stories, while containing some balance, are skewed to Stainbrook's favor which is easy to recognize if scrutinized as I've done. It isn't so much what is reported, but what is left out - or never even asked about - that makes the difference in what a reader knows and/or understands. But with this type of analysis, you have more information and can make a better informed decision on your own.

The ruckus in the LCRP continues

I'm not sure whether or not I should comment on the current Federal Court case Jon Stainbrook filed against Jeff Simpson (link to the case filing via The Blade) over who controls the Lucas County Republican Party (background here and here).

You see, for some reason, I'm mentioned in the document.

I've read it and, other than promoting their version of the events, it appears that the Stainbrook group wants to prevent, via court action, the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee from voting on which of the two groups to recognize as the official LCRP.

In the case of a dispute between two competing groups, state law puts the decision at the state central committee.

What the Filing Says

I could probably pick apart the accuracy and validity of many claims made in the filing, but one of the points of particular interest is #24 under 'FACTUAL BACKGROUND,':

"Many of these people were drunk and disorderly and necessitated the appearance of the Toledo Fire Department and numerous Toledo Police to keep the peace and prevent violence at the meeting."

However, they clearly identify that the Fire Department was called due to concerns about the fire code:

27. While central committeeman Anthony Boellner was checking in with Gallagher and Bensman, he called the fire department and asked that they come to the building because he felt a fire or safety code was being violated.

So this little 'fact' that the Fire Department was called to 'keep the peace and prevent violence' is clearly false - as their own statements prove.

As for the 'drunk' claim, they reference a Toledo Blade article as proof. But that article doesn't even say people were drunk. Instead, it quotes the 'old' (term used only for clarification purposes to distinguish between those elected in 2008 and those claimed to be elected in 2009) Central Committee Chairman Megan Gallagher, who used a simile.

“I am completely shocked and appalled at the behavior of Lynn Olman and company. It was like a drunken brawl,” Ms. Gallagher said.

Saying something was "like a drunken brawl" is not the same as proving in a court of law that "many...were drunk."

Perhaps Stainbrook's attorney should have been a bit more careful about potential libel issues in his filing.

Why is everybody always picking on me?

And how do I fit in? Well, I wasn't at the meeting, but I spoke to several people who were and I wrote a blog post about what I understood had occurred. I also interviewed Jeff Simpson on WSPD when I was filling in for Brian Wilson on the Afternoon Drive.

Here's what the filing says in #80 under "FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF, False Designation of Origin":

Maggie Thurber interviewed Simpson on a talk radio show during which he informed the audience that he and Hoag were elected Chairman of the respective Executive and Central Committees. Thurber posted on her blog a completely inaccurate and contrived account of the events that happened at the LCRP meeting. Thurber also posted the Press Release Defendant’s issued in the Plaintiff’s name to make their sham appear legitimate. (Exhibit R attached to TRO memorandum)

Yes, I did. (Though there shouldn't be an 'apostrophe s' after 'Defendant')

I posted the press release - as did many others. In fact, Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle posted the release and linked to the Toledo Free Press coverage of the event.

I also interviewed Jeff Simpson - as did Brian Wilson when he filled in for Fred LeFebvre and the Morning News, The Blade, Toledo Free Press and the television stations.

But, strangely, none of those are mentioned. Now why, do you think, I am singled out in this regard?

As for the 'completely inaccurate and contrived account'? I wrote what several people told me - which is just as valid as the proceedings described by Stainbrook.

Now, the whole point in this, I think (because it's really hard to tell from the filings), is to show that people who believe themselves to be the proper Chairman of the LCRP and its Central Committee are - gasp! - acting like it. Stainbrook's claim is that by acting in this capacity, they're harming the 'true' chairmen and the party 'brand.'

I suppose I could make some snide remark about how Stainbrook's actions over the last year (suing Republicans, running candidates against tax-lowering incumbents while endorsing tax-hiking ones, endorsing new taxation for citizens, etc...) have done more to harm the brand than any internal dispute over what did or didn't happen at a meeting, but I'll leave you to make those conclusions.

Confusion?

The filing also claims that people are confused by the two claims.

Well, DUH! Of course people are confused. There are two groups claiming to be the 'official' LCRP.

This has either happened in the past, or was believed to be possible, because there is a state law that deals with resolving this. But Stainbrook doesn't want that process to be followed, so he's trying to stop it by filing this case and requesting a Temporary Restraining Order so it doesn't get to the ORP state central committee.

What happened yesterday and selectivity of the news coverage

Yesterday, as a result of closed-door meetings with the judge on the case, the two sides reached a temporary agreement, though the case continues this afternoon.

In the meantime, the 'new' chairmen held a central committee meeting last night to elect officers and recommend a replacement for Lynn Olman on the Lucas County Board of Elections. They named a secretary and voted to recommend for appointment by the Secretary of State, Dave Dmytryka.

According to the paper,

"The move appeared to be aimed at undermining Mr. Stainbrook's claim that Mr. Olman helped instigate the coup attempt to preserve his paying part-time job on the elections board, which also provides pension and health benefits."

While this appears to be an 'opinion' in the news portion of the paper, it's not very accurate to imply that Olman only wants to keep his pay, pension and health benefits. Olman is already eligible for PERS and had been enrolled in that health coverage. Under PERS rules for health insurance, once employed, he had to make the BOE insurance primary and PAY for the coverage ($1200/year) rather than keep his 'free' coverage through his pension.

The Blade also tries to imply a lack of quorum at the meeting. This is worth mentioning because I'm sure it will come up in some Stainbrook filing or complaint in the future. They write:

The 60 people who signed in and voted at last night's central committee meeting appeared to be unanimously in support of Mr. Simpson and Mr. Hoag, but they fell far short of a majority of the 208 members shown on the list of committee members.

While 60 is less than half of the duly elected central committee members, that is irrelevant. The bylaws of the LCRP state:

The Central Committee Chairman shall convene a meeting of the Central Committee a minimum of two (2) times per calendar year. At least five (5) days written notice by U.S. mail of the meeting shall be provided to the members. Twenty-five (25) voting members of the Central Committee shall constitute a quorum.(emphasis added)

Olman copied me on a letter he sent to Simpson prior to last night's meeting:

January 7, 2010

Dear Chairman Simpson,

First of all let me congratulate on being named the new Chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party. It is my hope that you will be able to bring all Lucas County Republicans together for the purpose of electing rather than fighting Republicans.

Much has recently been printed about my desire to remain on the Lucas County Board of Elections. As is often the case this reporter has misstated my motives to fit his story.

In April 2005 Secretary of State Ken Blackwell removed the four Board of Trustee’s at the Lucas County Board of Elections. Shortly after that myself, Patrick Kriner and Democrats Rita Clark and Gary Johnson were appointed by Secretary Blackwell to fill the vacancies. We inherited a Board of Elections that was soon to go on to oversight by the Secretary of State office. The prior Board had been paralyzed by partisan political bickering and infighting. The four newly appointed Board members, along with the Board’s Director and Deputy Director pledged to the restore the public’s confidence in the election process. By all accounts we have succeeded.

As you are aware my current appointment to the Board of Elections concludes February 28, 2010. I will be happy to serve another four year term on the Board of Elections if it is your wish. I enjoy working with what has become one of the most professional election staffs in the entire state. I will also understand and willingly step aside if you see fit to recommend someone else for the Board position. If you, as Chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party should choose to recommend someone other than myself to the new term I would like to make one request. Please choose someone who is 100% Republican and at the same time 100% committed to the integrity of the election process over political partisanship.

There are some out there who would like to see the Lucas County Board of Elections return to some its darkest days of partisan political infighting and dysfunction. There are some who would like to fill the jobs at the Board office with political patrons rather than election professionals dedicated to the integrity of elections. The Lucas County Board of Elections is now one of the most high functioning and professional offices in the State. My request is for you to recommend a person who will pledge to maintain these high standards and election integrity.

Respectfully,

Lynn Olman

Can you say 'class'?

I've known Dave Dmytryka for over 20 years. He and my husband worked together in Sam's first job out of college. He's supported me and we've supported him in campaigns. He is a thoughtful, intelligent, and well-respected conservative. As an engineer, he understands processes and will be an asset to the BOE, especially from a technological standpoint. He is what Olman describes: "100% Republican and at the same time 100% committed to the integrity of the election process over political partisanship." He's an excellent choice and I hope that he will have the opportunity to serve.

But that all depends upon what will happen over the next several days - so stay tuned!

If we deny it, it didn't happen

Well, that seems to be the perspective the ousted Lucas County Republican Party chairman Jon Stainbrook is taking regarding last night's vote to remove him.

Stainbrook trotted forth an individual named Ben Roberts, who was identified as the parliamentarian for the Party. Roberts said 'he' didn't recognize any of the votes that were taken to remove Stainbrook and central committee chair Megan Gallagher.

I guess he should go back and read Roberts Rules of Order. According to this official guide, members do have the ability to call a meeting to order and appoint a temporary chairman. This is what the body did last night.

Members do have the ability to present, second and vote on a motion to suspend the rules. By voting in favor of this motion, the body was able to address items on the agenda that were not part of the published meeting notice. This is what the body did last night.

The spin put on this meeting by the local paper is just appalling.

One of the claims made in this report is that many of the individuals present were not members of the central committee. Since there is a sign-in sheet, this should be easy to determine. If, indeed, the people voting were members of the central committee, then the votes should be valid.

Look at the terms used to describe the event:

"raucous attempt by enemies of Chairman Jon Stainbrook"

"opponents claimed they elected a new chairman" (emphasis added)

"Ironically, the attack on Mr. Stainbrook’s leadership occurred just a few days after he was successful in lining up ... Karl Rove" (emphasis added - isn't calling something 'ironic' expressing an opinion?)

"anti-Stainbrook forces"

"Stainbrook overthrew the “old guard” of the party that he said was still allied with disgraced former chairman Noe."

"Stainbrook has won plaudits"

The story focuses on Stainbrook's claim that this whole event was orchestrated by former state representative and current Board of Elections member Lynn Olman. Of course Stainbrook thinks that - he always believes someone is out to get him, which is why he lives by vendettas, constantly trying to 'get even' with those he thinks have wronged him in some way. Sadly, other than Stainbrook and Gallagher's claims, there is no evidence that this was orchestrated by Olman - as opposed to a large number of Republicans who serve on the central committee.

In the end, Stainbrook has only himself to blame for the general dissatisfaction members of the committee have with him. His actions against fellow Republicans - endorsing new taxes, endorsing a Toledo city council member who raises taxes while not endorsing Sylvania Township trustees who lower taxes, threatening lawsuits every time you turn around, as well as his close relationship with John Robinson Block, the publisher of The Blade and someone who has never had the best interests of the LCRP at heart - all contributed, I'm sure, to the decision by the majority to remove him.

But it's not over. Stainbrook is denying the actions and claiming to still be chair. And, of course, he's threatening legal action.

So there are now two claims to party leadership in our local GOP. Fortunately, there are provisions in Ohio law for when two competing organizations claim to be the official party for a county. Ohio Revised Code 3517.05:

If more than one organized group claims to be the rightful county central or executive committee, each such group shall file a list of its officers and members as provided in section 3517.06 of the Revised Code, and the board of elections with which such lists are filed shall certify them to the state central committee of the party concerned. The state central committee shall meet within thirty days after receipt of such certification and forthwith determine and certify which committee shall be recognized as the rightful county central or executive committee.

I don't expect there to be questions about the 'rightful' central committee since those members are duly elected during the even-year primaries. So the question will be about the executive committee and whether or not the meeting was properly called to order and motions properly heard.

And as I explained in my previous post, it doesn't hurt that one of the individuals charged with deciding which party is the 'official' one happens to be the newly-elected chairman of the central committee.

Stay tuned....

BREAKING: Kriner, Olman set the record straight on BOE allegations

This just in via email:

For Immediate Release

From: Patrick Kriner and Lynn Olman

Re: THE TRUTH CONCERNING RECENT ALLEGATIONS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS.

It is time to set the record straight concerning recent allegations cited in the Toledo Blade regarding performance issues at the Lucas County Board of Elections. Since our appointment to the Board of Elections in March of 2005, we have worked diligently to insure fair and accurate elections in Lucas County. Along with our counterparts from the Democratic Party we have eliminated political infighting and restored trust in the electoral process. These recent allegations seem to indicate that there are issues, which undermine the elections process. They cannot be any further from the truth. Lets deal with the facts.

There is an allegation of race fixing in the 2006 Republican Party central committee race. The facts are quite clear. That this is false. Ms. Gallagher was defeated in that race by one vote. Thomas Nichols received 12 votes Ms. Gallagher received 11. The twelfth vote claimed to have been cast for Ms. Gallagher, was actually cast on a Democrat Primary ballot for the 46th House District. Mark Dansak was running as a write in candidate for the Democratic Party in the 46th house district and a voter requested the Democratic ballot and wrote Ms. Gallagher’s name in for that race. Since there was no ability to write in for the Republican Central Committee because the voter requested a Democratic Ballot, we could not rule that the voter intended to vote for Ms. Gallagher for central committee. In addition, Democrats cannot cast votes for the Republican Party Central Committee. The result: Nichols 12 votes, Gallagher 11 votes.

In addition, it is alleged that documents were destroyed. The facts are that we have a policy that deals with destruction of documents. The test decks were on a destruction list. These test decks are documents used in testing the accuracy of the machines used to scan paper ballots. It is uncertain whether these documents were destroyed or not. We may never know. However, these test decks do not have an impact on the official outcome of the election.

There is an allegation about misleading the public regarding the fire that took place in our warehouse. The fire actually happened in an adjacent building and we did suffer smoke damage as a result of that fire. All discussions regarding the cleanup, cost, and claims regarding this incident were discussed in an “open meeting” and shared with many members of the local media. The public was not mislead. Were records damaged in the fire? Absolutely. Did our Board employees respond in an appropriate manner to protect and preserve these documents? Absolutely. Were our comments to the media misleading? No.

There is an allegation that the Board allowed the former Executive Director of the Republican Party to sign documents which were required to be signed by a candidate when in fact she was not the candidate. The fact is that we did allow her to sign those documents. Ms. Wack was filing petitions for several candidates and was presented with a document that all petition filers are required to sign indicating that they received information from the Board regarding campaign finance requirements. We want to make sure all of our candidates are aware of their obligations in filing campaign finance reports. Was Ms. Wack able to file petitions for candidates other than herself? Absolutely. Was she asked to sign a form stating receipt of the campaign finance information for each candidate she filed for? Absolutely. Just because the form states “candidate signature” does not mean that the only person that can file petitions is the candidate. There is no language in the Ohio Revised Code that requires this. The form is simply an acknowledgement of receipt of information. No harm, no foul.

Finally, there is an allegation that we failed to monitor the activities of an employee who downloaded pornography onto his computer during work hours at the Board of Elections. The fact is that someone outside the Board of Elections sent the employee an email with suggestive material thinking that they had sent it to the employee’s home email address. When the employee opened the email and realized what it contained, he immediately closed it. He did not forward it to anyone nor did he download anything. The email should have been deleted from the computer but as a result of the many public information requests made in our office which include copies of emails, our employees are instructed not to delete any emails from their computers. The employee was aware of this and the suggestive email remained on his computer. No downloading of pornography occurred in this instance in 2005 and none have taken place since that time.

Unsubstantiated allegations serve only one purpose. That purpose is to undermine the public’s confidence in the Lucas County Board of Elections. It is time for truth and fairness to prevail. Voters in Lucas County must have confidence in their elected officials and in the process by which they are elected. The integrity of the electoral system in Lucas County is always at the top of our agenda. Although we are partisan by design, the current members of the Board of Elections have taken a “Bi-Partisan” approach to our duties to insure fairness and accuracy. Although we take no joy in having to deal with these unsubstantiated allegations, we cannot allow party politics to impinge on the electoral process. Our first and highest mission is the integrity of the vote. To that end we will remain diligent in our efforts and remain steadfast in our duty to protect the vote at all cost.

###

LCRP has bigger problem than lack of trust in Stainbrook

You can read about it in The Blade, at Glass City Jungle and at Swamp Bubbles.

I was going to talk about it last night on Eye On Toledo, but callers kept me busy on other matters during the Friday Free-For-All.

Here's the situation: The Lucas County Board of Elections decided to restructure the office and, in the process, a Republican employee was let go when her position was eliminated. She received a letter of recommendation in her file.

At some point, BOE member Lynn Olman had a conversation with GOP party chairman Jon Stainbrook. The conversation was recorded without Lynn's knowledge and parts of it were shared by Stainbrook with The Blade.

During the conversation, Olman explains that the employee 'was under performing.'

Stainbrook uses this statement as 'proof' that Olman has lied, which is supposed to support Stainbrook's continuing effort to get rid of Olman and his fellow Republican BOE member, Patrick Kriner.

Clear? (as mud, I'm sure...)

First, let me state the the conversation between Olman and Stainbrook was not over the phone. It was in person at the party headquarters. As stated elsewhere, Olman did not know he was being recorded, which is not against the law in Ohio, since the other party obviously was aware of the recording.

Party chairmen have unique relationships with their elected officials, candidates and representatives on boards. As a necessity, chairmen are often informed of facts and points that are not generally made public. This is to provide the chairman with details that may be relevant in other circumstances and to support the party's representatives in public statements, comments, etc.

Personnel issues of public bodies are not public. There are often details or concerns expressed during the executive sessions that would never be discussed publicly by the members of the body, but which might be shared in private/confidential discussions with a party chairman or another public official.

Olman, in treating Stainbrook as he has other party chairman, was not out of line in sharing aspects of the discussion which might have influenced the decision on restructuring. Stainbrook, however, was certainly out of line by making that private discussion a public matter.

As a result, numerous people have been harmed by this.

The former employee has now had a question raised about her performance, even though any official inquiry would show that her position was eliminated and she received a recommendation from the BOE.

Olman has been harmed by being called a liar, something that just about everyone who knows him would find hard to believe.

The Lucas County Republican Party has suffered. Despite his well-known penchant for recording conversations, Stainbrook has usually reserved such action for his personal situations. That he would extend such activity to the LCRP should come as no surprise, but it does - especially to people who would never even consider such behavior.

The Party has a chairman who, in order to advance his own personal grudge, has publicly embarrassed a former Republican BOE employee, a well-respected board member and himself. And he did so in the pages of the daily newspaper, certainly a media not known for its objectivity when it comes to the local party or Republicans in general.

And why did all this happen? Because Stainbrook wants a seat on the BOE and he wants to get rid of all the Republicans at the BOE. He has a grudge against them for offenses (real or imagined - it doesn't matter) and he never lets go of a grudge - ever.

Interestingly, the former BOE employee is one that Stainbrook has previously identified as being one of the people he'd like to get rid of. You'd think, considering his previous position on her employment, that he wouldn't be so upset by the reorganization. But he saw this as an opportunity to pursue his personal agenda against Olman - so that's what he did.

The most important thing for a chairman is the ability to earn trust. While many suspected the chairman could not be trusted, some were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. No candidate, elected official, board member, donor, volunteer, etc... can be assured of any degree of confidentiality with this man. While many would say you didn't have such confidence prior to this incident, the proof is now front and center on the pages of The Blade.

As a result, we have a chairman who is isolated from the Party, isolated from information and details that would help him do a better job, isolated from donations because people won't give to someone they don't trust, and probably isolated from state and national support as well.

But Stainbrook and his actions are not the biggest problem. The biggest problem the LCRP faces is this: who is willing and able to replace him?

More drama in the GOP/Scotland saga

Yesterday, I blogged about the conspiracy theories surrounding the failure of the local Republican Party to file paperwork filling a vacancy in the commissioner race with candidate Jan Scotland.

I said the theory of keeping Scotland off the ballot so that Comm. Tina Skeldon Wozniak could run unopposed did not hold water, as The Blade likes contested races. That is confirmed by their editorial today.

"An uncontested election is a miscarriage of the democratic process, and the same would be true if the incumbents were Republicans, and the Democrats were on the outside looking in."

Another theory was that this failure was all about the Board of Elections and GOP Party Chairman Jon Stainbrook's efforts to make the current Republican board members, Patrick Kriner and Lynn Olman look bad. While there are other problems with this conspiracy, it certainly has a high degree of plausibility. However, I don't think this theory represents Stainbrook's plan - rather, his attempt to mitigate and deflect blame for his own failings.

"...if Stainbrook's goal was to make the current board members look bad, he's failed miserably. He may have thought he could spin the missed deadline as being their fault, especially when he's friends with a man who buys ink by the barrel."

The spin has begun with the help Stainbrook gets in today's editorial.

"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."

Unfortunately, the exact opposite is true. It's not Kriner and Olman in vendetta mode - it's Stainbrook. Stainbrook sat down with one of them in an effort to patch up differences and begin working together. I understand that a phrase similar to 'there aren't enough of us to be fighting each other' was actually used by the BOE member.

However, the response from Stainbrook was that he believed in the Old Testament's "eye for an eye" and he was going to bury the two BOE members. Who, exactly, would be holding a grudge?

"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."

Again, the Blade gets it wrong. It's not the duty of the Board of Election members to look out for the best interests of the Republican NOR the Democratic Party. Their obligation upon assuming the office of board member is to ensure that fair and accurate elections are held. Their obligations are to the sanctity of the elections process. If they are putting the interests of the party ahead of the sanctity of elections, imagine what kinds of unscrupulous actions could result.

Additionally, for any board member to do as the editorial suggests would require them to go against the Ohio Revised Code and the rules/directives issued by the Secretary of State. Is The Blade advocating that they go so far as to violate state law in order to cover for Stainbrook's error?

Why isn't The Blade asking about the chairman's role in this matter? Is Stainbrook somehow immune to any responsibility? I guess so, according to the editorial.

In 2002, the Republican candidate for county commissioner withdrew from the race. I was recruited to fill that vacancy. The party chairman, in preparation for filling the vacancy, had numerous phone calls with the Ohio Secretary of State's office to ensure all aspects of the process were followed perfectly. Everything from the mailing of the notice of a special meeting of the central committee - including the proper wording - to the proper method of making the motion, to the wording of the forms to be filed with the BOE. On the night of the meeting and endorsement, we all signed the forms and they were delivered to the BOE the next morning.

So why isn't the current chairman expected to do the same thing to ensure that the party's replacement is properly on the ballot? And why, when he failed in this regard, is the paper covering him by assisting in the spin that this is somehow the fault of the BOE?

As I said in my conspiracy post, the relationship between Stainbrook and Blade Publisher John Robinson Block - and the penchant for the paper in their editorials to take the same positions as Stainbrook - are the facts that lend credence to the conspiracy. But as many people said when Stainbrook first announced he wanted to be party chairman, why would the Republican Party want, as chairman, someone who's close friend is the publisher, a person who has NEVER had the best interests of the GOP at heart? That issue, too, contributes to the plausibility of these conspiracies.

Thankfully, there are numerous other sources of information that can give you a complete picture so you don't have to rely solely upon the opinions of our local paper.

Lucas County conspiracy theories

With the news that the Lucas County Republican Party Chairman, Jon Stainbrook, failed to meet the deadline for putting Jan Scotland on the ballot as a replacement in the commissioner's race, the rumors, speculations and conspiracy theories are rampant.

Let's take a look at some of them - and their plausibility, recognizing that any good conspiracy has to have some level of plausibility.

Block didn't want Tina Skeldon Wozniak to have an opponent

Under this theory, 'Block' is Toledo Blade publisher John Robinson Block, who has a close friendly relationship with Stainbrook. The plausible portion of this theory is that many people believe Stainbrook does whatever Block wants, so if Block didn't want Wozniak to have an opponent for the commissioner seat, all he'd have to do would be to tell Stainbrook to make it happen.

There are two problems with this theory. One, The Blade likes to have contested races because it generates news and stories for them to cover. It also gives them the ability to claim a bit of the credit when one of their endorsed candidates actually wins. A contested race is good for the paper, so long as the 'right' candidate wins. In this case, despite Scotland's strong candidacy, his chances of winning with such a late start are not as good as Wozniak's. It's not an impossible task (having done it before, I would know), but the odds are not with Scotland, so there'd be no reason to keep him off the ballot.

The second problem with this is that if Block didn't want Wozniak to have an opponent and if he wanted Stainbrook to ensure that fact, Stainbrook never would have recruited Scotland in the first place. Stainbrook could have easily - and more plausibly - announced he was not able to find a replacement prior to the deadline.

This conspiracy theory is fun, but not likely.

The missed deadline has nothing to do with the commissioner race and everything to do with the Board of Elections

With this theory, the idea is that Stainbrook set up the candidacy and the missed deadline in order to make the current members of the board of elections look bad enough to force their resignations. Stainbrook could then take one of the positions himself, earning the wages/benefits/retirement as a board member and putting himself in the position to fire some of the workers against whom he's held a grudge for years.

This is certainly highly plausible. Stainbrook holds grudges forever and doesn't forget. He lives for getting even, often quoting the Old Testament adage of 'an eye for an eye.' He covets the BOE position and has, since becoming chairman, tried to find a way (unsuccessfully) of getting rid of the two Republican board members.

There are problems with this theory, though. One, if Stainbrook's goal was to make the current board members look bad, he's failed miserably. He may have thought he could spin the missed deadline as being their fault, especially when he's friends with a man who buys ink by the barrel. But there's too much ability these days to search the Ohio Revised Code, read the law, and find that the responsibility is with the party - not the BOE. He's also facing two Republican board members who have a reputation for fighting such attacks and allegations with facts. In Lucas County, Patrick Kriner and Lynn Olman, the two board members, have much more credibility than Jon Stainbrook when it comes to such matters.

The second problem with this theory is that it requires the new party chairman to fail to get his personally recruited candidate on the ballot. Even if he could spin the actual filing as the fault of the BOE, the next question would be - why, as chairman, have you not made peace over this issue so the party could work on electing Republicans? Again, Stainbrook would be on the defensive.

The final problem with this theory is the lack of documentation to support Stainbrook's claim against the BOE. To say he called there and somebody told him something just doesn't hold up as a reason to blame the board and not the chairman.

This theory is plausible enough, but if it were really true, it would have been executed better and Stainbrook wouldn't sound like an idiot in his interview this morning on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD.

There's something in Scotland's background that would embarrass the party and they had to find a way to keep him off the ballot.

I'm sure everyone has something they've done in the past that might cause embarrassment, but Scotland is a well-respected individual in the community, in the business world and in the Republican Party. He's been around for a while so any 'surprises' would have come up already.

But the problem with this theory is that IF there was anything there to be found, it will come out regardless of his being on the ballot. Furthermore, IF there was anything, it would call into question the ability of the GOP and Stainbrook to properly vet a potential candidate. This, too, would have backfired and come back on Stainbrook. So I doubt this was the reason the filing deadline was missed.

Stainbrook is incompetent

This last theory isn't a conspiracy, though it's what many people are thinking. Stainbrook has many talents, mostly dealing with volunteers and recruitment, but administration and clerical-type skills are not part of them. Unfortunately, he hasn't surrounded himself with people who possess skills he lacks. My opinion is that he is blinded by his need to get even with those he thinks have wronged him. So he's not paying as much attention to the administrative functions he has as the party chairman. I'm also of the opinion that he's finding the job to be a bit different from what he expected.

This last idea is the simplest and probably the most likely. But it won't stop the conspriacy theorists from speculating...it's almost like a sport.

Again, the sad part is that the BOE will now be faced with more costs of defending their actions (Stainbrook has threatened a lawsuit) - costs which you and I pay for in the form of taxes - all because one individual couldn't bother to check the law to be sure he was doing everything he was supposed to.

And you and I, while perhaps enjoying the games of conspiracy, will be left without a choice and a potential for positive change in November.

Stainbrook doesn't get it when it comes to the GOP elections board members

Yes, we all knew this was part of the plan, but now it's official. New Lucas County Republican Party Chairman Jon Stainbrook has asked the two Republican members of the Lucas County Board of Elections to resign.

He says he's unhappy with the 'behind the scenes' support some BOE staffers gave to his opponents in the quest for the chairmanship. However, this quote from the Blade says it all:

"It is very important that a chairman have faith that the board members represent the best interests of the party's candidates, elected officials, and the election process as a whole, and that is why we need to make a change. Rest assured your adherence to the tradition of allowing the Chairman to name his own Board Members is truly appreciated," Mr. Stainbrook said in his letter.

The problem is that there is NO SUCH TRADITION!

As I've previously posted, the BOE board members are screened by the executive committee of the LCRP. The recommended name(s) are submitted to the Secretary of State who then makes the appointment. Never in my memory has a new chairman asked existing BOE board members to resign. Yes, upon expiration of their terms new members have been appointed - on occasion. But it is hardly a given nor an expectation. That Stainbrook, with all his claimed extensive involvement in the party, doesn't understand this makes me wonder just what else he doesn't understand when it comes to the responsibilities of chairman.

Of course, if he's getting his information from The Blade, that could be why he doesn't understand. The Blade reporter writes:

Board members are appointed by the secretary of state to four-year terms based on the local party chairman's recommendation, with two from each major party.

There's no reason for the reporter to understand that it isn't the recommendation of the chairman, but of the Executive Committee - at least in the LCRP, but you'd think he'd do his homework to find out for sure...unless he wants people to think otherwise. But Tom Troy is usually a very responsible reporter, so I hope such is not the case.

To drive home the point, Patrick Kriner, BOE board member and former party chairman said, "there is no tradition of elections board members being replaced by a new party chairman." And he should know.

But the last paragraphs of the story get to the real point - the money board members get paid. All BOE board members in Ohio are compensated for the job. They get a salary, PERS contributions (as mandated under law), health insurance and life insurance. While the dollar amounts of these various items vary county to county, it is a standard package all BOE board members get. The total package for Lucas County is $31,691. Considering the amount of time these board members put in on a yearly basis, it's certainly not a 'living wage.'

But, you see, Stainbrook says our GOP board members don't need the money. And I have to ask - since when do Republicans base a person's pay on what that person needs, rather than the value that person brings to the position? Stainbrook needs to be careful or he'll start sounding like Democrats when it comes to wages.

The GOP chairman said it is ridiculous that taxpayers are paying Mr. Olman and Mr. Kriner a salary and providing them with health insurance and public pensions.

"Both of these guys are businessmen and have many other things to do. Whoever is on that board has to make county elections their main priority," said Mr. Stainbrook. "Lynn Olman doesn't need $18,000 and the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for his health insurance."

Why not? If the wages and benefits are part of the job and he's doing the job, shouldn't he be treated equally???? And there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Olman and Kriner are not making the BOE their priority.

The point of all of this is that Stainbrook wants these positions to hand out to his own people - or maybe himself - providing a nice income, health benefits and, perhaps even more valuable, PERS. If I'm wrong about this, it's easy for Stainbrook to prove it by stating that any new board appointees agree to forego all wages and benefits of the position. If it's wrong for Kriner and Olman to get this package, it is equally wrong for any new board member to get them as well. But Stainbrook also needs to know that if the employment package is waived, the money goes back into the county treasury - not to anyone else.

For a final thought, starting a drive to get rid of these two GOP board members is not a way to foster unity following a contentious campaign for chairman. Both these men have served the party well in their many years of involvement - including in elective office - and both are serving the BOE and voters well. Stainbrook's inappropriate call for their resignations sounds more like sour grapes and a money grab than it does an example of leadership and unity building for the party.

Even if Stainbrook has valid reasons for his resignation demand (and I seriously doubt that), his manner of addressing his concerns does not give Republicans cause for confidence in his leadership abilities - and that's very sad for the local Republican Party

Board of Elections director quits

I'm sad to learn that Dan Pilrose, the current director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, is resigning due to health reasons. I worked with Dan when he was a prosecutor and I was Clerk of Court and I always found him to be capable, knowledgeable and professional in all his dealings. I think he and Jill Kelly, the current deputy director, made a good pair when it came to running the local BOE.

I'm also sad to see that the article about his resignation has more to do with the new Republican party chairman than anything else.

First, the local party chairman does NOT control who sits on the BOE. The executive committee of the party votes to make a recommendation to the secretary of state. The secretary of state makes the appointments, which are for four-year terms. A change in the local party's chairmanship does not mean that the appointed BOE members also change. Patrick Kriner was just re-appointed to the position, so he's got four years in front of him. Lynn Olman, the other GOP member of the board, has two years left on his term.

Both Kriner and Olman are well-respected members of the local party. They've served in elective office, fulfilling their duties responsibly. Kriner is also a former party chairman and very familiar with the challenges and issues our local party faces. At the BOE, they have focused on following the law governing elections. They, with their fellow Democratic board members, have guided the BOE off of administrative oversight and worked to remove much of the partisanship that previously existed - focusing instead on conducting elections properly rather than on advancing particular party positions.

And this has been good for Lucas County.

I'm not saying there isn't still room for improvement at the BOE, but the fact that the new LCRP chairman doesn't like the two Republicans who serve there isn't justification for making a change.

"Yesterday, Mr. Stainbrook said he has no confidence in the two Republican members of the four-person board, Lynn Olman and Patrick Kriner, who also were viewed as allied with Mr. Reichert.

"I don't think that Pat Kriner or Lynn Olman have the best interests of the Lucas County Republican Party or the voters of Lucas County at heart. Any suggestion they make regarding Jill Kelly does not have the support of the Lucas County Republican Party chairman or its newest members," Mr. Stainbrook said."

Fortunately for the BOE, Stainbrook doesn't hire or fire employees in that office and his 'opinion' about said employees is pretty irrelevant.

Sadly for Lucas County Republicans and voters, Stainbrook would rather smear Kriner and Olman because they didn't support his quest for the chairmanship than admit they are actually doing a good job at the BOE while they happened to disagree on the best leader for the party.

Hopefully, this is not an example of the type of 'leadership' Stainbrook brings to the party.

Everything you wanted to know about electric deregulation but were afraid to ask

Eye On Toledo Preview:

Electric deregulation...two words that make your eyes want to glaze over. It's a complicated subject that few understand fully. But with the Ohio Senate passing SB 221 and discussion starting in the Ohio House, the issue is once again front and center.

In 1999, SB 3 was passed and signed into law. It was supposed to gradually turn Ohio from a regulated energy state into one in which competition flourished. Since that time, legislators 'fiddled' with the plan and are again doing so.

My guest on Eye On Toledo Monday night is Lynn Olman, representing the Alliance for Real Energy Options. He was the chairman of the Ohio House Public Utilities Committee when he was a state rep. He'll help sort out what it all means, especially for those of us in northwest Ohio, where energy costs have traditionally been higher than most other areas of the state. For more information, please visit Eye On Toledo Blog.

Following his interview Monday, I'll do another blog post here to help make sense of this complicated subject. Hope you'll join us Monday night - and every night - at 6 p.m. on 1370 AM or online!