Saturday, September 18, 2010 at the River Front entertainment area in Cuyahoga Falls.  The rally begins at 4:00PM and will end around 6:00PM.  At 2:00PM live at the rally and simulcast on WHLO 640AM radio,  a group of State, Federal candidates in a live broadcast.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CLICK HERE

We all understand the importance of being informed voters. It is for this reason we want to bring your attention to the upcoming library levy. The Stow- Munroe Falls Library Board has approved placing a continuous levy on the ballot. 

There are two reasons the Voters should be concerned about this levy.  Number one is this levy proposes to nearly double the millage tax payers are currently being charged.

The other reason to be concerned is that the Board is also asking for a continuous levy. This means that instead of the Voters being asked to renew the library levy every five years as is currently done,  this new proposed levy will continue year after year until the Board decides to remove it.  It will also automatically increase as your property increases in value.

We all know the traffic into the library has increased since the economic down turn. We also know the State has reduced the Library’s funding for 2010 and possibly 2011. What we don’t know is what may happen beyond that period.

Rather than strap the voters with a continuous  levy that may not be necessary in two years because funding is restored, why not support a renewal of the current 5 year 1 mil levy and ask the library to make some deeper cuts and possibly close for a few days per week. We are quite sure the public could adjust to this temporary schedule until the economy improves.  The library’s signs would have you believe that the facility is in danger of closing all together.  Other information released by the library wants you to think that it will be reduced to a minimal part time operation at best.  We believe this is scare tactics.  No one wants to see the library program stopped, trashed or removed.  We would like to see an effort to live within a tough budget like the rest of us.

Unfortunately the difficult days are not completely realized for the Citizens of Stow and Munroe Falls and burdening your neighbors by supporting this huge tax levy will certainly increase the economic hardship for those already struggling to get by.

Regardless of how you vote:  vote informed.

In July of 2009, Dr. Russell Jones, Superintendent of Stow-Monroe Falls City School District filed an affidavit of complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC). The complaint was sworn and notarized on behalf of the Stow-Monroe Falls Levy Committee.  A reprimand was issued to SCRG.   Herein is a paraphrased list of the complaints and the results.   Anyone who desires to see the documents used as proof exhibits in the OEC hearing may contact Don Bettio, 330-688-8297.  Please call during reasonable hours.

 

Complaint:      (Dismissed)

The respondent (Stow Citizens for Responsible Government) (SCRG), is a political action committee that opposed and campaigned against proposed school levies submitted to voters on August 5, 2008 and November 4, 2008. The levies were defeated at both elections.

Our response:    It was pointed out to the OEC that our committee and our website never mentions or suggests how a resident of the school district should vote. We endorse no issues or candidates. We merely inform voters of actions of the city and school board they otherwise would probably never gain knowledge of. The levies failed on their own merit.

 

Complaint:       (Dismissed)

(1)The respondent (SCRG) maintained during its campaign against both the August and November levies a website on the internet. (2)The SCRG remains an active committee and continues to maintain its website.

Our response:    (1)We reminded the OEC that we do not “campaign” for or against levies, issues or candidates. (2)We have a right to remain active as a committee and a right to publish our findings and our opinions on our website, whether the Superintendent and his lawyers like it or not. We will continue to do so in the future.

 

Complaint:    (Dismissed)

The website contained numerous false statements in violation of Ohio Revised Code section 3517.22(B)(2). The website claimed that “the statements made on this site are verified by the School District’s own records”.

Our response: The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that “a high school principal with no experience was given the job of Human Resources Director at a salary higher than the former H.R. Director who had experience”.

Our response:    The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that, “the Assistant Treasurer’s salary went from $41,000 to $51,000. When two Board Members were candidates they criticized the raise. In fact the Board members were critical of the fact that the Board was under compensating the position and should have acted earlier to increase the compensation level.

Our response:    The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaints:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that, (1)“the Booster Club offered to raise funds to carpet the football stadium with artificial turf. (2)The Superintendent vetoed the idea because he did not want the club raising private funds while the school district was conducting a levy”. “The truth is that I did not veto the idea and I support the Booster Club raising private funds”.

Our response:     (1)The SCRG presented school district documents and witness statements refuting the Superintendent’s “truth”. (2) The SCRG presented school district documents and witness statements refuting the Superintendent’s “truth”.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that (1)“the Board and administration have ignored their two greatest security measures: (2)Time clocks and security cameras. Both have been installed but none are in use.” In actual fact, the security cameras were and always have been in use since being installed. Time clocks are not security measures. The website stated that “it cost the school district about $2000 a pay period (2 weeks) in unaccounted for overtime”. The actual facts, based on the period of time when the time clocks were in use, the amount of over-time was greater than when the time clocks were not in use. (3)The website further states that the Treasurer has never written a policy governing use of the time clocks. The truth is that the time clocks are not in use because they did not operate properly.

Our response: We contend that the security cameras were not in use at the time the information was posted on the website. (1)And yes, time clocks are a security measure. Ask any business owner. (2)We are unaware of a policy in force at the time this statement was posted on the website. If one is available, we have not received it even though we requested it through the Ohio Open Records Act. We have received documentation from the district Treasurer’s office that the policy was never voted on by the Board and, as she has told us before, “if the Board has not voted on it, it does not exist”. (3)The taxpayers of the district paid an enormous amount of money for the security system to not function properly. We are aware of union grievances regarding the time clocks. It is time to straighten it all out.

 

Complaint:    (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that, “from August 1, 2007 to June 2008 (the school year) 15,570 days were missed by school system employees. 11,521 substitutes were called in to replace the employees missing work”. The actual fact is that the number of days missed was 10,139. The number of substitutes called in was far less than the number stated.

Our response:    The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaint:    (Dismissed)

(1)The website contained the photograph of (we do not care to name the person here), a teacher employed by the school district. (2)The website falsely stated under the photograph, “Here is an example of a teacher’s compensation. This teacher has eleven years with the school district and a bachelor’s degree”. In actual fact, the teacher had twenty years of employment with the district.

Our response:    (1)The photo of this teacher (by the way, which one of the three persons in the photo is the teacher in question?) was taken from a public website (the teacher’s union site) and was being displayed publicly. It is a picture taken from the public domain of the internet. Obviously, the teachers in the photograph were participating in an “informational picket” about the unfair practices of the school board. We were unaware of the teacher’s name until we received the complaint. (2)The website clearly indicated that this was an example of a teachers compensation. The photo was removed when we rebuilt our website in the fall of 2009. The photo no longer served any purpose since the compensation scales all changed. Next time, we will try to be more accurate and actually link the photo with the pay scale. We did not wish to embarrass anyone but the Superintendent’s complaint forced us into it.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

(1) There were two complaints concerning SCRG’s financial records reported to the Summit County Board of Elections (SCBOE). (2) These complaints were dropped after verification of records showing that the SCRG was not in violation of report deadlines. These reports are public record.

Our response:    (1)Since we have never acquired over $1000 in our treasury, and we do not campaign for or against any candidate or issue, (2)we were exempt from the reports required by many other Political Action Committees.

 

Complaint:     (Part of Reprimand)

The respondent (SCRG) filed as a Political Action Committee with the Summit County Board of Elections on May 6, 2008. The first finance report (periodic finance reports are required by law) was filed by SCRG in July, 2008. The SCRG did not file pre-election or post-election reports for the August 2008 special election.

Our response: The OEC was reminded that SCRG was exempted from filing the required reports because its treasury has never contained $1000.00, the limit at which financial reports must be reported to the Summit County Board of Elections. After being misinformed by the SCBOE, we missed one required report. Our treasurer was not aware that the report was required even if the treasury limit was under $1,000. That error has been corrected.

 

Complaint:    (Part of Reprimand)

The website falsely stated that “the tax would be permanent”

Our response: The SCRG is aware that we used the word “permanent” in error. The SCRG recognizes that any levy legally expires unless it is marked as “permanent” or “continual” (such as the current library levy). From a grass-roots level however, we have never seen a levy expire. They are always renewed. History confirms this. We contend, for instance, that the February 2008 “emergency” levy submitted to the voters was going to be used to offer employee raises and fund an all-day kindergarten. Our contention is that by refusing to allow the state to mandate unfunded liabilities on us, we are notifying them that it is time that the state begin to seriously look into school funding in general. This is unlikely to happen (even with a court order) in the near future if we do not apply pressure through our school districts.

 

Complaint:     (Part of Reprimand)

The website falsely stated that, (1)“snow days in the winter cost approximately $200,000 per day off. (2)Some school employees are paid for the snow day and then paid again if the day is made up later in the year”. School employees are paid for 184 days, which includes up to five calamity days. Therefore, employees receive the same annual pay even if a snow day must be made up later in the year.

Our response: (1)We stated that it costs the school district $200,000 a day to operate. This was shown by the district’s records. (2)Our statement indicating that employees would be paid to make up the calamity days was in error. Teachers and some support staff get a day off with pay while giving the taxpayer nothing for their money.

 

Complaint:    (Part of Reprimand)

The respondent made false statements in calling itself a “charity” and soliciting monetary contributions. These statements mislead the public and may cause donors to violate tax laws. Such statements are in furtherance of respondent’s efforts to raise funds for communications to influence the results of elections were made knowingly and with reckless disregard of the truth.

Our response:     We had determined that we were incorrect in the statement “tax deductible” when we consulted with an I.R.S. Agent in late March of 2008. The statement was immediately removed from the website. This complaint was filed based on a website date of March 14, 2008. The statement was removed long before the July date of the complaint’s filing. We never referred to our committee as a charity. We did, however, unintentionally draw a parallel to charities seeking contributions. The entire statement was removed from the website.

In July 2009 Dr. Jones, in a sworn statement, filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC) on behalf of the Stow-Munroe Falls School District Levy Committee.  Of the 19 complaints filed, 12 were dismissed because of the evidence supporting the Stow Citizens for Responsible Government (SCRG). 

After the deposition and disclosure process, the district dropped more complaints in response to significant documentation presented by the SCRG.

Of all the complaints filed, only two concerned the school district.  SCRG previously admitted that it had made some filing and procedural mistakes not affecting the school district.

On February 8, the school board passed a resolution to join action the superintendent took on behalf of the levy committee against SCRG.  During a public records request, I came across invoices from school attorneys paid by the schools to the attorneys who were representing the levy committee at the OEC.  Knowing that districts, by law, are not permitted to donate public money to Political Action Committees (PAC), I threatened to file a taxpayer’s lawsuit to recuperate the over $20,000 in legal fees for the citizens.  This action forced the school board to pass a resolution legitimizing the district’s payment of attorney fees under the guise of “educating the public.”

Amazingly,  a superintendent who supposedly taught Ohio school law and our experienced treasurer didn’t know this was wrong or that it took them eight months to correct the error.  If SCRG had not challenged the legality of these payments, do you suppose the superintendent or school board would see the need to “educate” the community?

What will be the final tally the district has accumulated for attorney fees to pursue these issues?  We are currently awaiting the amounts paid in 2010 (over and above the initial $20,496).  I’m not sure this education was worth it.

The Stow city Charter Commission meets every Thursday at 7:00PM in city hall. Resident presence is sorely needed to help with their ideas and information to adequately review the charter and suggest changes where necessary. Consider attending at least one meeting and supporting the charter commission.

PRESS RELEASE:

Complaints made against Stow Citizens for Responsible Government (SCRG) were settled by the Ohio Elections Commission in Columbus on March 18, 2010.  The complaints were filed in a sworn affidavit by Stow-Munroe Falls Superintendent Russ Jones on behalf of the district’s levy committee (complete documentation of these complaints will be posted to this website shortly).

Of the 20 complaints filed, 16 were dismissed by the commission.  The four remaining dealt with the cost of snow days, reference to a levy as permanent and two procedural accounting errors.  These inaccuracies have been corrected and a minor public reprimand was addressed.  No fines were imposed and no further discipinary actions were taken against SCRG.

According to figures supplied by District Tresurer, Catherine Bulgrin (Stow Sentry, February 14, 2010), the district paid $20,496 in legal fees to pursue this issue in 2009.  That amount does not include fees for depositons, fees for compiling and executing a formal resolution in which the Board of Education became a participant in the actions, and any additional fees incurred in 2010 as a result of this filing.

Further details on the above release and the documentation that will be posted on the SCRG website may be obtained by contacting:

Don Bettio, Stow Citizens for Responsible Government, 330-688-8297

Along with other Cities across the United States, Stow too has reduced revenue. The income level of most families has gone down thereby reducing the amount of income taxes the City is collecting. The latest figure puts the City’s revenue from income taxes down about a million dollars. Couple this with the current deficit being paid to operate the new court house and golf course and this really creates some financial problems for the City. There has been some talk of raising the income tax or property tax level to offset the decline in revenues. So far the City has been reluctant to go to these extreme measures but that is because they still have some money in their reserve accounts. That might all change in the beginning of 2011. Now is the time to encourage the Council and Mayor to continue to reduce their spending. Large projects such as the improvement of the Seasons Road area as well as the widening of Hudson Drive should be suspended until the economy improves. Available funds should be focused on the minimal operations of the City and existing infrastructure. The City should discourage unnecessary travel expenses for the Mayor and her staff.   Consideration should be given to possibly halting the Community Improvement Corporation. Their loan program to help recover and expand private businesses out of the City’s treasury has got to stop.

            Some difficult choices have to be made now. This idea of pouring more and more money into economic development and less and less into our city streets, water lines and sewers has got to change. Look around your neighborhoods; have you seen any new improvements?  Two major streets have never even seen city water services while the Mayor and Council continues to dump millions of our tax dollars into a project on Seasons Road that will, at least in the short term, benefit only a few investors.

            If we don’t act today to get the City’s spending under control, you probably will see increased taxes next year. Please try to attend these important budget meetings next week. Let’s show the Mayor and Council that we are concerned about how our tax dollars are being spent.

 It begs a lot of questions, Why a 501(c)(4) whose contributions are not tax deductible?  If it is really for the citizens of stow then why not a 501(c)(3) whose contributions are deductible, like B.E.S.T., the committee formed to put artificial turf on the football field, or the Band Boosters or the PTA?   Who paid the filing fees and attorney fees (Ulmer Berne)? Who is going to appoint the Board for this foundation, the School? It also seems strange because Russ Jones is not a Stow citizen and this is the type of organization that a citizen would start. Something does not smell very good here in suburbia.

Click here to see the forms filed with the Secretary of State                 Click here to see an IRS definition

At a meeting with the PTA Council on 2/16/10 the Superintendent made several statements that may be (in his words) false and misleading.

At the meeting with the Stow-Munroe Falls Parent Teacher Association, the Superintendent stated, “put a gun to my head….(there is) no levy committee….. the levy committee treasurer files a report”.

Mr. Superintendent: If there is no levy committee, who is the group that filed allegations with the Ohio Election Commission against the Stow Citizens for Responsible Government?

Why did the non-existent levy committee sponsor (under cover of the PTA Council) a fundraiser golf outing?

Why did the PTA council issue a check for a donation of $8,072.67 to a non-existent levy committee?

Why does the non-existent levy committee have a treasurer and co-chairpersons?

Your statement at the meeting that they “..(did) not (do) something sneaky”, surely explains why the levy committee’s golf fundraiser was disguised as a function of the PTA Council. Are the businesses and individuals who purchased tickets and sponsored holes aware they were being snookered?

Would you have known that the contribution amount sent to the levy committee by the PTA Council was illegal (according to their by-laws) if the SCRG had not intervened?

The PTA Council representative at the meeting stated, (there has been) “a lot of communication with the state (Ohio PTA). Everything has been done legally and above board.”

It’s amazing what a little public exposure can do.

We really don’t care if the PTA Council sent funds to the levy committee.  We support the levy committee in their arduous duties.  We know that without levies school systems could not function.  We only care that the district be run corrrectly and legally.

The Seasons Road exit on Route 8 is finally being opened

despite the Mayor’s attempt to turn it into a grandstanding

event.  

The Video Says It All….. click here to watch the whole story.