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.

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

 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.

No indication was given as to what the money would be used for. The PTA is an honored organization and well known for their service to the schools and the students. A golf outing to be sponsored by the PTA was announced a little later. Only problem was, nobody informed the membership of the PTA. Very few members of the PTA Council were informed. Indeed, it would seem that nobody in the PTA was aware that they were sponsoring a golf outing in June to “support the Stow-Munroe Falls Schools”. There was no mention of the event or the sponsorship in the PTA’s minutes. No mention was made indicating what the money would be used for. After the June date was rained out, the outing was re-scheduled for August 14th. Click here to see the poster.

The PTA Council’s Treasurer’s Report for September 15, 2009 indicates that the Council took in $9,894.67 from the generous golfers. In the same report, the money, on September 4th was listed as an “expense” and sent somewhere. Some of the money was used to pay the bills for the golf outing at Fox Den golf course. A total of $8,072.67 was sent to oblivion. Then the heat got turned up.

The money was sent to the Stow-Munroe Falls Levy Committee! The PTA Council, in violation of their own by-laws, had just made a major donation to a Political Action Committee (PAC). The membership did not vote to hold a golf outing. The membership did not vote to disperse the money from the golf outing. And the membership certainly did not vote to put their organization in jeopardy with the Internal Revenue Service and possibly damage their tax-exempt status. Certainly, if anything was being done against the by-laws or the law, the membership of the council would have known (or should have known) to put a stop to it.

In their required 2009 financial report to the Summit County Board of Elections, the levy committee reported the amount of $8,072.67 was donated by the Stow Council PTA.

A complaint was filed with the PTA District 13 Advisor by the Stow Citizens for Responsible Government on December 3, 2009. Click here to listen to the resulting meeting.

In January, when the report to the Board of Elections became public record, an addendum had been added stipulating that the levy committee was returning the money to the PTA Council because the amount exceeded their permitted 5% of their budget.

We have questions. Questions for which we will probably never get an answer.

Why would the Superintendent ask the PTA Council to violate their own rules?

Why would the levy committee treasurer, a Certified Public Accountant, not question a large donation from a small group that normally funds only student related programs?

Would the PTA Council have been in violation of their tax exempt status if the SCRG had not intervened?

Why was the PTA Council reluctant to discuss this? Could it be that they had no information available to them?

Why was it necessary to involve the school district’s attorneys to rectify this situation?

Why did so few people in the PTA Council know of this whole event?

What will the PTA Council do with all this money?

Why did a School Board member lend his endorsement to a possibly shady deal?

Why was it necessary this year (2009) to disguise the golf outing as a PTA Council event , “for the schools”, instead of a levy committee function with virtually all the same contact people as was done in 2008 and before?

BUT MOST OF ALL, WE’D LIKE TO KNOW,

Who’s paying the legal fees for the PTA Council and the levy committee? The taxpayers?

If you use the links on this website to contact us, your computer may be opening its own email program (probably OutLook Express or Office Outlook).  If this is not your normal email program keep in mind you can contact us through your own email program (Hotmail, Yahoo, GMail, etc) by typing in our address:  stowpublic@gmail.com

You may also leave a comment on any post by clicking the Leave A Comment button at the end of every post.  To leave a comment you must register with a screen name and a password.  The screen name can be any name you desire.  The password is yours alone and can be any word or number (or a combination of words and numbers) you would like.  We ask for your e-mail address only so we can contact you if you really come up with something  juicy.  Your email address will always remain confidential and never show on the website.

Thanks for all the comments, input and participation!      It’s A Matter Of Trust

Warner Mendenhall, Attorney at Law

190 North Union Street, Suite 201,  Akron, Ohio 44304 330.535.9160

December 8, 2009                                                                                   Dr.RussJones,  Superintendent                                                                     Stow-Munroe Falls Schools                                                          4350 Allen Road                                                                               Stow, OH 44224

Dear Superintendent Jones,

My client Donald Bettio has determined that the Stow Munroe Falls School District has paid twice for the same legal services. Additionally, the School Board apparently paid for legal representation before the Ohio Elections Commission when it had no business before the Ohio Elections Commission.  My client suspects that Attorneys Adam Miller and Donald McTigue were paid by the school district for work they performed for the Stow Munroe Falls School District Levy Committee. These payments are contained within Ulmer and Berne Invoice #1959251.

I have attached the relevant records of the double payment and payments related to work before the Ohio Elections Commission.

My client is of the opinion that there may have been an improper use of taxpayer funds and has requested that I begin the process of instituting a taxpayer lawsuit.

Before doing so, I want to give you a chance to address these issues. Please respond in writing.

Sincerely, Warner Mendenhall

See the various copies of each transaction as a PDF here.   You will need a PDF reader such as Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader.

Maybe this will help:

The Board has outlined its first five “consequences” if the levy fails:

1.  Reduce busing to the state minimum level

2.  Reduce the school lunch program in the cafeteria (a federal program)

3.  Close one school building

4.  Reduce the teacher/student ratio (larger classes)

5.  “Pay-to-play” for sports, clubs, etc.

“No decisions on cuts were discussed as the the Board meeting focused on consequences the Board said may encourage voters to pass a school levy next May.”  Local Media

…”until the community feels the pain they have no intention of voting yes.“  Superintendet Russ Jones, Update to BOE

 ”Why not put those things out there that are seriously going to impact the community?”  Denny Mariola, President, BOE

 ”I need something that will say, ‘This is going to impact me’ (the voter), I think larger class sizes will affect more people than busing.”  Karen Wright, BOE member

“Again, it’s to incentivize (a corporate-jargon non-word meaning “motivate”) the voter.”    Catherine Bulgrin, District Treasurer

 ”Maybe closing a building would drive people…to the polls,”  Pat Mathews, BOE Member

“It’s just a matter of rearranging your work schedule to accomodate transportation cuts.”  Dick Spangler, BOE Member