Frank Stare case: An opportunity in vain?

Yesterday I wrote "all's well that ends well," in a tongue-in-cheek essay about the incredible folly surrounding the Frank Stare Hugging Case.

I don't think it ended very well, so it would be a shame had that been the last public comment. It is a serious matter and the least that should come of it is for citizens of Newark to try to learn from it and ask whether our local justice system needs to be improved.

All this not for revenge, not for injustice to Frank Stare, but for our own welfare, since any citizen who lives in Newark could be next.

There probably have been thousands of cases drug through the Newark legal system in which "justice" lost sight of logic and fairness, but not many with this much public attention. I had hoped the case would end with a clearing of the air during which each participant in the decisions leading up to the charges brought against Frank would be fully aired on witness stand under oath.

As I understood the news reports, that was about to happen next and would have if there had not been a plea deal arranged in which Frank had the chance to duck out for the price of $50 with a plea of guilty to a charge of "annoying" someone, which is on about the same level as running a red light.

I have mixed feelings about his decision to do that. I don't know everything that had to be considered, and I don't blame him for wanting to get all this behind him, but by stopping before the finale there seems to have been a missed opportunity to improve our local system of justice, our community, and our own individual freedoms and security.

As it stands there has not been a determination of what, if anything, party politics had to do with this. The perception is, though, had it not been for political influence, the complaint against Frank would have been treated like any other complaint of this ilk, meaning, I guess, that it would have died an early and quiet death among lots of other dying minor complaints.

Someone who knows local politics asked (off the record) "why were the charges brought six days prior to the election?" "how many similar cases have been ignored?" "how many third-degree misdemeanor cases have had three detectives assigned to them in the last year?" "why was no special prosecutor appointed (to avoid the political aspects)?"

Well, consider this: If Frank Stare, a Democrat who was running for city council, had won a seat it would have brought the balance of political power to five Republicans and five Democrats. Thus would Council president, a Democrat, become the tie-breaking voter. As it turned out, Frank didn't even come close to winning.

Maybe all this is mere coincidence. Maybe not, and if not it is an opportunity for improvement of our system that appears, at this point, to have been in vain.

Frank Stare is a recovering hugger, but all's well that ends well

Because of Frank Stare, I'm going to at last get my Advocate delivered to my doorstep and not to the adjoining snow, flowers or grass. Finally I found a law that will resolve this issue!

They used it on Frank Stare during his trial as a hugger. It's Section 2917.11 of the Ohio Code. They nailed Frank with this law for trying to be nice because in doing so he was considered by the hugee to be annoying. He was convicted for being annoying in a city so full of annoying people they can't be counted, one of whom is supposed to put the Advocate on my doorstep.

Nobody on the face of the earth is more annoying than a paper slinger who walks through the neighbor's flowers (though she was twice asked not to do that) and across my yard (instead of the sidewalk) and approaches my house for a distance of maybe 13 paces. Nothing wrong with any of that except for the neighbor's flowers. Nothing except that if she were to walk one single step farther, she could get the paper on my doorstep and not in the crack by the doorstep that can only be seen if I open the doors and walk out on the step. Just one more freakin' step. How annoying can it get?

Certainly a hug is far less annoying. But Frank admitted doing the hugging crime - though likely it was only a sort of a half a crime, as you can visualize when a guy his size tries to reach across a stack of election signs to deliver any sort of full-blown annoying hug. Nevertheless, the lady (who had just been given a free ride and a sympathetic ear regarding her troubles) was annoyed and righteously pursued the case right up to the point where she would have had to publicly testify about her annoyance.

Never mind that Frank's public service career is probably over, and never mind that he also had to go to court and had to be made the subject of a big photo in the Advocate as he sat in court, and he had to screw around with attorneys and legalities and detectives and he ended up having to pay a $50 fine and the hugee never had to testify nor be publicly identified.

This Ohio "gotcha" law lists all sorts of ways in which the legal system can jerk around anyone unfortunate enough to be standing in the wrong place. While "hugging" as such isn't mentioned in the Ohio Revised Code section 2917.11 (which you can read at this link) it does say that you may not cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm ... etc." and so my legal advice is that anyone with hugging in mind better get a written permission slip.

But all's well that ends well. Frank is now a recovering hugger; one less hugger we have running the streets of Newark thanks to a diligent city prosecutor, police detectives, safety director, court system and a gaggle of news reporters.

Even better than this city being rid of a hugger, I now have the legal ammunition to go after that Advocate delivery person. Pretty soon she just might be a recovering miss-the-doorstepper.

Sassen running for judge while the Frank Stare case simmers

On October 30th, Frank Stare was charged with soliciting "sexual activity for hire," and the following day it was played on page one of the Advocate.

That was a week before voters picked three at-large council members. Stare's vote total was lowest among the four candidates.

So, was there a connection between the accusation and the loss of the election?

Likely the most authoritative opinion on that question made in public so far is Dave Paul's response to an Advocate follow-up story on the election entitled: "Stare's comeback fails in wake of charges" and here it is:

"There is no doubt that the charges cost Frank Stare the election. In two different polls conducted by the Democratic Party, Frank Stare received the second highest support. In both polls, Irene Kennedy had the greatest support, Frank Stare was second, followed by David Rhodes. Ryan Bubb finished last in both polls. Aside from the mayor's race (which both polls indicated was too close to call), the polls predicted the winners of the other races.

"I assume the Republicans had done their own polling, and they knew very well that they couldn't win the second at-large seat without an October surprise."

To appreciate the value of this comment one must know that Dave Paul is an assistant professor at Ohio State University-Newark with a PhD in political science. Here's a link to his spot on the web.

The October 31st Advocate report quoted Frank as saying:

"The charges are not true and (are) bizarre," Stare, a Democrat, told The Advocate in an interview at his home Tuesday afternoon. "This smacks of dirty politics, and this is not true. I did nothing wrong.

"I've made some political enemies. They'll do whatever they can to damage my reputation. I just hope people can see through these smear and fear tactics for what they are."

Could such political chicanery be attempted in Newark Ohio, and so quickly after January of this year when ...

... the North Carolina State Bar filed two rounds of ethics charges against District Attorney Mike Nifong of Durham County NC for his role in prosecuting three Duke lacrosse team members because they were falsely accused of raping a stripper, and later Nifong was disbarred, jailed, and the falsely accused men are now seeking $30 million in a civil rights lawsuit against the city?

Could it?

Stare's arraignment on the third-degree misdemeanor charge will be Tuesday, Nov. 13, in Licking County Municipal Court. The decision to charge Stare was made by Newark Law Director Doug Sassen, a Republican who, in today's Advocate, has announced his candidacy for domestic relations judge.

And the pot simmers.

Election questions

Question for the Advocate
On the endorsement which said "So, the question must be which candidate is most likely to improve our city by adding police officers and firefighters, paving our roads, seeking new good-paying jobs and delivering city services efficiently and effectively? Who has the leadership experience necessary to take a risk that could pay off for our community? Who's been willing to admit his mistakes with candor unlike any politician we've seen in years?

"To us, the answer is Bruce Bain."

My question to the Advocate: What newspaper you been reading?

Question for WCLT
"In the race for Newark City Council President we believe that Mr. Marmie deserves a chance. Mr. Gurthie's holding of public office for 30 years indicates career politician, something the Tax Payors can no longer afford."

My question to WCLT: Is this your idea of reward for 30 years of public service?

My other question to WCLT: Have you ever heard of Jay Hottinger?

Question regarding Frank Stare
His bad showing at the polls makes it all the more important to ensure that the wheels of justice were turning properly when the charge of solicitation was made only days before the election. There is no evidence, of course, but I think his smashing loss as candidate for council was influenced by the headlines, though the Advocate made it clear that he had not been convicted of anything.

What is now owed to Frank and his family and to all citizens is indisputable certainty that the accusers and anyone with a background role in this matter were interested only in seeing justice being served. Anything short of a full and impartial report on all such details will be unsatisfactory, and this matter will never go away.

One citizen's perspective on the 11/6/07 ballot

Newark City Schools- Additional levy of 4.5 mills. No. Squeeze the fat and live with it, as I am doing as a private citizen trying to pay my own expenses. Schools' unwillingness to limit spending while placing the penalty for that on property owners is both irresponsible and foolish. The longer it goes on the more ill will schools are making for themselves.

City Charter Amendment - No. This issue would fine tune the way in which council presidents' and council members' vacancies are filled, which would be okay. But it also increases from $20,000 to $25,000 the minimum at which competitive bidding is required. Competitive bidding causes our government employees more work, but gee whiz, competitive bidding saves tax dollars. Government bidding process should kick in at $5,000, not at $25,000 as this amendment would have it.

Municipal Court Clerk - Marcia Phelps. As a public servant Marcia gets an A+ for trying to do things right. And of the three county commissioners, she is the only one I would hate to see leave. But Marcia wants the clerk's job and she's earned it.

Newark Mayor - Diebold because, well, for two reasons.

Newark City Council President - Marc Guthrie because Marc has done an excellent job leading oftentimes difficult compatriots. He's smart, experienced, non-partisan, and most of all he's honest and open. He's come down on what I consider to be the wrong side of a few issues, but stuff happens, and maybe we can educate him. Anyway, Marc has the mark of a good future mayor.

Council At Large - Frank Stare and Ryan Bubb. Frank because he was a good mayor and he would be a good councilman. Anyway, if he is convicted on the soliciting charge and has to leave council his election would nevertheless be good news for non-partisan politics. (I wrote about that possibility here.) Ryan because he's not Irene Kennedy or David Rhodes, but you have three choices, so flip a coin.

Council Seventh Ward - Carol Floyd. I know her as good people from her days as a teacher. Let's see if she can rise above the political crap and the good ol' boys of City Council and aggressively represent the Seventh Ward. Her opponent, Ronald Mitchell Sr., has been impressive in his campaign statements so I think for the first time in many years the Seventh Ward is going to have good representation, no matter which candidate wins.

Co-chairmen of Friends of Frank Stare Committee announced

Former Newark Mayor Frank Stare announced today that Charlie Franks and Johnny John will co-chair the Friends of Frank Stare Committee for Stare's bid for council-at large.

"I'm very proud to have these two community leaders and local businessmen be a part of my campaign," stated Stare.

Stare, who served 14 years on the city council before becoming Newark's only three-term mayor, said he will soon launch a very intense grassroots campaign, touching every part of the city.

"I have always loved the door-to-door part of campaigning and I look forward to seeing all the Newark residents once again," stated Stare.