CitizensTogether.com

From The Vaults

Note To David Pepper: Go For the Big Win — Invite All Ohio Democrats To Become Voting Members Of The ODP

To: David Pepper, ODP Chairman and Nina Turner, ODP Leadership Team Chair:

Congratulations on being selected as leaders of the Ohio Democratic Party.  Thanks for producing your document: “Turning The Tide: Our Vision.” It gives Democrats a lot to think about. I like the “five basic principles” you outline — that you indicate will be the foundation for a “Blueprint to Victory” document that will be published in early spring.

The principle that most stands out to me is:

ENERGIZING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE: The Party needs to touch voters where they are, and do so with passion — not just in the weeks prior to an election, but on an ongoing basis. This means firing up and empowering the entire Democratic infrastructure so it’s not simply a long list of names in a database, but and ACTIVE, WORKING infrastructure, fueled by passion and energy at every level of the Party.

Screen shot of the cover of John Pepper's book, "What really matters"

Screen shot of the cover of John Pepper’s book, “What really matters”

This principle is all about passion and motivation. Democratic candidates lose elections when Democrats are not motivated to pitch in and help — or, at least vote. John Kasich would not have been elected, if Democrats would have come out and voted. Without an actively engaged base, Democratic candidates will continue to lose. How to get Democrats motivated is a big question.

Every leader of an organization — church, school, club, business, or political party —  asks himself or herself: What can I do to motivate individuals to make their maximum contribution to the success of this organization?

There are many books that deal with the question of how to make organizations successful. I looked up the book, “What Really Matters,” written by the former CEO of Procter & Gamble, John Pepper — David’s Dad — to read the advice John Pepper may be offering to his son, the new “CEO” of the ODP (according to the ODP Constitution). What I get from the snatches of the book I read on Amazon is that John Pepper has a lot of good advice. He emphasizes that the success depends a lot on whether, or not, an organization builds a sense of  “community” within itself.   He tells about the enduring loyalty and camaraderie of P&G employees and says, “This unique sense of community is P&G’s least tangible, yet most distinctive and difficult-to-match competitive advantage.”

The “Turning the Tide” quote presents a dreary view of  the Democratic infrastructure as it looks right now — a “long list of names in a database.” Most people on this list have little or no meaningful connection with others on the list and certainly don’t think of themselves as being part of a Democratic community.

The ODP is a political institution consisting of only 148 voting members. This small group stands apart from the Democratic base. In the 2014 May Democratic Primary, there were 1,307,000 Democrats who voted. These active Democrats are the ODP “Infrastructure” and success for the party depends a lot on whether this group is “energized.” Very few of these Democrats feel they have any voice within the Democratic Party. To energize this base we need to expand opportunity.  We need to reimagine the Ohio Democratic Party as an extended Roberts Rules online community of Democrats who commit to working together, to listening and communicating with each other, and to making positive impacts in their local communities. Even a participation of only 10% of those voting in the last Democratic Primary would bring 130,000 Democrats into community, but even a start of only 10,000 would be very energizing. I’d like to see changes in the ODP Constitution so that:

  • Any Ohio citizen that votes in two Democratic primaries is invited to become a voting member of the ODP and a full participant in the ODP website.
  • Every four years the state leadership, the state party chair, via an online convention, is elected directly by the entire expanded ODP membership.
  • An “Executive Committee,” chosen through election, determines many issues but for some key questions, the entire expanded ODP membership is invited vote.

Chapter Three of John Pepper’s book is entitled “Going for the Big Win.” It begins with a quote from John Kennedy: “Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.” David and Nina, we need dramatic and drastic change in the Ohio Democratic Party. Please take a risk. Buck the status quo. Dare to go for the big win. Use your talents and energy to transform the Ohio Democratic Party.

Share

To Transform the Local Democratic Party, Democrats Should Focus On Preparing For 2018 Reorganization Meeting

Blue Ohio is a Dayton group that started in response to the horrendous 2016 election results.  Today, I sent the group an email urging that they focus their efforts on a big opportunity to transform the Democratic Party — The Montgomery County Democratic Party’s Reorganization Meeting scheduled for June, 2018. 

I’ve read notes of your meetings and these three statements stand out:

  • The purpose of “Blue Ohio” is to create a sustainable progressive Democratic electoral majority in Ohio.
  • motivate a strong majority of Ohioans to vote for Democratic candidates in local state and national elections
  • How: Through education and emotional engagement around progressive values, transform the Democratic Party into a vehicle that recruits competent, honest, progressive candidates, staff, and neighborhood leadership.

After my retirement from teaching high school math, I determined to get involved in the Montgomery County Democratic Party and was elected to the Central Committee in 2006.  In 2007 I started posting on a web-site — DaytonOS.com — initiated by David Esrati and two others and eventually when Esrati gave up the web-site, I became its owner. It is now a ten year record of my posts. I love the idea that your group wants to “transform the Democratic party.”  Transformation is essential. The purpose of this note is to give light on some background information and analysis that I hope will be helpful in achieving that goal.

The point I want to emphasize is this:  Your immediate opportunity to transform the MCDP is through the next Reorganization Meeting that will be held in May or early June of 2018. Each of the 360 precincts can elect a delegate to that meeting as a voting member of the Central Committee. At that meeting a MCDP constitution effective for the next four years is established by a simple majority vote and officers are elected by a majority vote.

Our best chance to transform the MCDP is through democratic means. In 2014 only 37% of Montgomery County’s 360 precinct had at least one candidate to represent that precinct at the Reorganization Meeting. Check out the map I made in 2014 showing the number of Democrats in each precinct in Montgomery County and showing which precincts were represented at the 2014 Reorganization Meeting. The MCDP is failing to franchise Montgomery County Democrats to have a vote in the local party organization.

Your group and Democrats who agree with your group should make it their goal to envision what a transformed MCDP that is ready for the 21st century would look like — what its constitution should look like. Make this vision of a dynamic local organization be what rallies Democrats to get involved and inspires Democrats to commit to working productively together. One big change to the constitution that I would like to see, for example, is the provision for online participation in MCDP meetings. What can the party do to meaningfully engage young people? What can it do to advance civics education for everyone?

If Blue Ohio agrees to use the opportunity of the MCDP Reorganization Meeting as a means of “transforming the Democratic party,” I hope the group will consider these questions a focus of its brainstorming:

  1. What is our vision of a transformed MCDP?  What is a MCDP Constitution that will support and accelerate bringing that vision to reality?
  2. How do we get the word out? What is our plan for using our vision of a transformed MCDP / New Constitution to inspire Democrats to register by the Reorganization Meeting deadline — 4 p.m. on February 7, 2018 ?

To advance your goal to “motivate a strong majority of Ohioans to vote for Democratic candidates in local state and national elections,” the Democratic Party must demonstrate that it is a party organized for the 21st century that is engaging and inviting and — democratic. The “political boss” structure that historically has been the hallmark of the MCDP is a turn-off to the general public and is self-defeating. To engage and empower progressive candidates, the party must change its organizational structure and its practices.

 

Here are some excerpts that gives some background. 

Note To David Pepper: Go For the Big Win — Invite All Ohio Democrats To Become Voting Members Of The ODP February 11th, 2015

The ODP is a political institution consisting of only 148 voting members. This small group stands apart from the Democratic base. In the 2014 May Democratic Primary, there were 1,307,000 Democrats who voted. These active Democrats are the ODP “Infrastructure” and success for the party depends a lot on whether this group is “energized.” Very few of these Democrats feel they have any voice within the Democratic Party. To energize this base we need to expand opportunity.  We need to reimagine the Ohio Democratic Party as an extended Roberts Rules online community of Democrats who commit to working together, to listening and communicating with each other, and to making positive impacts in their local communities. Even a participation of only 10% of those voting in the last Democratic Primary would bring 130,000 Democrats into community, but even a start of only 10,000 would be very energizing.

Maps Show — Precincts With Lots Of Dems Will Have No Representation At The MCDP Reorganization Meeting April 10th, 2014

Of the total 360 precincts in the county, only 132 precincts (37%) — shown in yellow — are participating in the May 4 Democratic Primary to elect a member of the MCDP Central Committee. The first task of these elected members will be to act as a voting delegate to the reorganization meeting where the leaders and the direction of the party for the next four years will be determined.

The map shows that many of the 228 precincts without a candidate — shown in shades of blue — have a lot of Democrats. One question the party needs to address is why the suburbs, where many of Democrats live, there has been little effort or success in meaningfully organizing the local party.  If you click on the map it will enlarge to reveal the name of each precinct.

Imagining A Transformed Montgomery County Democratic Party — It’s A Systems’ Problem February 18th, 2014

The purpose that should animate the MCDP must be one that transcends simply winning elections. The purpose of MCDP that will inspire and motivate the action that is needed must be one that is more than simply acting as an advocacy group focused on marketing certain issues. We need to focus on something more fundamental. I believe we can find a source of motivation and civic action by focusing on democracy itself. The MCDP should see its transcending mission as promoting and empowering democracy. If we could actually fulfill such a mission — by educating the public, by facilitating opportunities for political participation, by creating community — then, of course, Democrats would win elections in droves.

The Key Question For The MCDP — How To Motivate More Democrats To Make The Needed Effort March 27th, 2014

Political party organizations, such as the MCDP, still cling to a top-down system, and, though the group is much diminished compared to a previous age, many of the most active members of the party still hold patronage jobs.  But, it is obvious, to be successful the MCDP needs to greatly expand the membership of its active community. It needs to engage more volunteers. There is a whole group of county Democrats who are waiting to be invited into meaningful action. The current MCDP system is failing to do so.

Volunteer organizations, such as political parties, must find ways to attract volunteers and to inspire, engage and empower volunteers. In Montgomery County, there are about 35,000 Democrats who vote in every Democratic Primary, but only a tiny number of these Democrats are active within the party. If only 10% of these Democrats could become productively involved in their local party, the results would be transformative.

The MCDP Is Disenfranchising County Democrats Of Their Right To Vote For New MCDP Leadership  January 18th, 2014

The insiders always stay in power because news of this important meeting is always kept a big secret from any county Democrat who is not a party insider. This deliberate disenfranchisement of county Democrats of their right to meaningfully participate in their party is reason enough to conclude that MCDP needs major change. There are plenty of other reasons.

There is a whole group of county Democrats who are waiting to be invited into meaningful action. The current MCDP system is failing to do so. Volunteer organizations, such as political parties, must find ways to attract volunteers and to inspire, engage and empower volunteers. In Montgomery County, there are about 35,000 Democrats who vote in every Democratic Primary, but only a tiny number of these Democrats are active within the party. If only 10% of these Democrats could become productively involved in their local party, the results would be transformative.

At MCDP Reorganization Meeting I Will Propose A Change In By-Laws To Prohibit Primary Endorsements June 2nd, 2010

The point of the endorsement process, as traditionally practiced by the MCDP, I discovered, is to suppress primary participation.

I was enlightened about what MCDP is all about during the short debate that occurred in response to my motion.  One insistent person demanded that the discussion be stopped and the question called.  I thought there was a lot more to discuss about the whole matter of MCDP endorsement policies and didn’t appreciate the steam roller parliamentary action to suppress discussion.  The chairperson of the MCDP, Mark Owens, is an elected official, the Clerk of Courts.  My AHA moment occurred only later, when I learned that the insistent person demanding discussion be stopped is an employee in Mark Owens’ office. As I looked around at the group in attendance, I realized that,  at its core, the MCDP is a small clique of elected officials and Democrats with patronage jobs. It is the self interest of this group that drives MCDP actions and policies, and this small group is very unrepresentative of Montgomery County Democrats, in general.

Reorganization Meeting For Montgomery County Democrats Unlikely To Bring Any Improvement May 13th, 2010

I attended my first Reorganization Meeting four years ago, in 2006, when I first became active in the county organization. At that meeting, I was actually shocked by the attitude and actions of those in control of the meeting — I observed a stifling of debate and a rush to push through a pre-established outcome. It was my first taste of the antidemocratic attitude of the leadership of the local party.

For this Reorganization Meeting, I personally recruited about seven people to run as a delegate and three of those individuals won, but most Democrats in the county had no idea that this opportunity for participation in their local Democratic Party, via the Democratic Primary, even exists. And so 184 of the 360 precincts in the county had no candidate. The party suppressed information about this delegate opportunity and even the DDN seemed in collusion to suppress information about the opportunity — refusing to print a letter to the editor I wrote in January urging county Democrats to become involved.

How Gerrymandering Defeated An Outstanding Candidate And Sent a Weak Candidate To Columbus  March 5th, 2008

When ordinary Democrats see that the Montgomery County Democratic Party has endorsed a candidate, they need to consider the source. A Party endorsement is not the result of an objective democratic process involving the deliberation of many MCDP active members. Far from it. The “Party” really boils down to a small handful of insiders who know how to get their way.

The explanation of why these insiders chose Roland Winburn over Vic Harris has to do with the concept of playing by Party rules, the concept of waiting one’s turn. It has to do with insiders seeking to advance their own political careers. Endorsement does not come from a fair analysis of who would best serve the people. Those Winburn supporters who know both Vic and Roland will admit that this analysis is true. These supporters do not claim that Roland is better qualified, or that Roland would be a more effective representative. They are loyal to the MCDP and feel that the Party should have the power to advance whomever it thinks most appropriate — for any number of reasons.

So, one way to look at it, Vic Harris is a victim of gerrymandering. In a competitive general election race, there is simply no question that Vic would be a much stronger candidate than Roland. There is no question that if given the chance, Vic would be a much more effective and energetic representative of the people than Roland. But gerrymandering gives a Party a monopoly, and monopolies have little motivation to innovate or produce quality.

Because of gerrymandering, the Party has a monopoly in the 40th OHD. Because of gerrymandering, the Party knew it could play insider politics, and could advance a weak candidate without the fear of penalty.

Share

Message to Tom Perez: The Democratic Party Is An Oligarchy — It Must Reorganize and Become “The Party of The People”

As part of a fund raising campaign, the new leader of the Democratic Party, Tom Perez, sent this email message to Democrats, “Over the last couple of months, I’ve talked with party leaders, local officials, and supporters like you all across the country. And like many of you, when it comes to how we build a Democratic Party for the future, I have as many questions as I have answers. That’s why I want to hear from you today, Mike: what do you think our priorities should be? What are the most urgent challenges we need to meet?

Mr. Perez:

Building a strong Democratic Party requires systems’ thinking.The success of every system depends on these two factors:

  • a well defined mission and
  • an organizational structure thoughtfully designed to best accomplish that mission.

Please reconsider your words about mission. You are quoted in The Blaze as saying, “The DNC’s mission has to be to elect people up and down the ballot — from the school board to the senate.” You would not consider it adequate for a GM spokesperson to say, “The GM mission is to make a lot of money for our stockholders.” The mission that the leaders of GM advertise is that the mission of GM is to produce high quality automobiles at a competitive price. The outcome of successfully advancing that mission is selling cars and making money. Electing Democrats should be the outcome of a successful mission — not the mission itself.

If “electing Democrats” is not an adequate mission, then what is? In the same Blaze article you state,  “The message of economic opportunity — jobs, good jobs, retirement security — that’s a message that resonates in every zip code.”  Yes, but Republican candidates have the same message — evidently delivered more effectively.

Here is a daring thought: Suppose the Democratic Party becomes dedicated to actually being the party of the people. Right now, the notion that we are the party of the people is contradicted by the fact that the Democratic Party is still organized like the Republican Party — as a “political boss,” oligarchic system. In Ohio our party chairmen, David Pepper, was elected by a committee of 148 insiders — only 66 members of the group were directly elected in a Democratic Primary — regardless that 1.3 million Ohio Democrats regularly vote in Primaries. It’s pretty laughable that the Ohio Democratic Party wants to send every Ohio Democrat who donates money to the ODP a “membership card,” but this card gives the holder no vote, no say-so, in the party organization.

Rather than saying, “The DNC’s mission has to be to elect people up and down the ballot,” I’d like the leader of the party to emphasize that the DNC’s mission is to strengthen the structure of our democratic republic. I’d like to hear our leader say that political parties have a big role to play in empowering citizens so that their government is truly of the people, for the people and that the Democratic Party is changing its organization structure so that ordinary Democrats are in charge of the party — not the insiders, not the big-money people.

Oligarchy was once defended as the only practical method of making decisions because difficult transportation and slow methods of communication hindered the effective use of large groups. But now, Ohio could have a Democratic Party of thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals all connected through the internet and this party could function as an on-line deliberative democracy.

The party’s 2016 platform included these words, “Cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls. It’s a simple but powerful idea: We are stronger together.” Yes, but these are just words, words, words without an organizational structure that gives meaning to those words. Right now, the Democratic Party is an oligarchy, much like the Republican Party.  It should be the party controlled by the people. The organizational structure of the Democratic Party that could accomplish that mission would be one that would empower many more people, one focused on the local level and focused on engaging and informing the public.  My suggestion is that as chairman of the party that you find county organizations that are exemplary in empowering and engaging Democrats as voters and participants in the local organization and that you publicly praise such groups and encourage other county groups to emulate these exemplary counties.

The Democratic Party should be inspired by the vision and should rise to the challenge that its transcendental mission is to promote and empower democracy. If the Party could actually fulfill such a mission — by abandoning it oligarchic structure and by educating the public, and by facilitating opportunities for political participation — then, of course, Democrats would win elections in droves.

 

Share

To Transform Its “Political Boss” Structure, The Ohio Democratic Party Needs A New Constitution 

This morning I made the comment below on a two month old article posted on Plunderbund.  This builds on my post yesterday addressed to David Pepper, ODP Chairman and Nina Turner, ODP Leadership Team Chair : Invite All Ohio Democrats Too Become Voting Members Of The ODP

Ohio Democrats need bold leadership and we will soon find out if Pepper and Turner have the right stuff. They have promised to deliver their “Blueprint to Victory” in early spring. I will be reading that document carefully to see if it addresses the big changes needed in the ODP organization itself. If they fail to address the accusations made by Sharen Neuhardt in her letter withdrawing herself from the ODP Chair election (see below) — then I’ll be worried.

The ODP, according to its current constitution, is structured to be a “political boss” organization. The ODP needs to be re-structured via a new constitution. In her letter Neuhardt claims that the Executive Committee, that according to the ODP is supposed to act as the ODP governing body, in fact has “little or no power or authority.” This revelation is shocking. I feel like Bob Dole: “Where is the outrage?” But even if the ODP Executive Committee had been fully engaged, in a larger sense it wouldn’t have mattered. The ODP is a tiny organization of only 148 voting members. Only 66 of these members are chosen through an election process where every Ohio Democrat can participate — a man and a women elected from each of the 33 senatorial districts — the rest are appointed.

We need to remember what the only Democratic member of Ohio’s Supreme Court, William O’Neil, said about this group of 148: “As a matter of honor, all ‘appointed’, not elected, members of the ODP Executive Committee who approved the debacle known as candidate selection in 2012 need to quietly, politely, stand up and resign. Remember folks, is was the ‘appointed’ Executive Committee who ran my lawyer Jennifer Brunner off when she expressed an interest in running for Governor, and it was the Executive Committee who endorsed in my primary. They need to follow their leader out the door.”

The biggest impediment to the success of the ODP is the structure of the ODP itself. The ODP needs to be transformed from a oligarchic structure to a democratic structure. The political boss system harkens back to a horse-and-buggy era when members from around the state had to make their way to Columbus in order to participate in the ODP Executive Committee. In this internet era, if the party chose to do so, all Ohio Democrats could be connected and voting members of the ODP.

We will know if Pepper and Turner will provide the leadership that Ohio Democrats need, if they address the charges in Neuhardt’s letter and if they outline a proposal for transformational constitutional changes to the ODP organizational structure.

 

Sharen Neuhardt’s Withdrawal Letter:

Dear Fellow Democrat:

Since November 4, Democrats around this state have been engaging in spirited conversations about the future of our party and how best to move us forward and take the Ohio Democratic Party to the next level. I have been proud to be part of that conversation, along with David Pepper, Janet Carson, Antoinette Wilson, and Bob Hagan, the four other fine candidates who expressed an interest in being the next Chair of the party. We have participated in listening tour meetings held throughout the state, including two held yesterday in Dayton and Cincinnati, and there have been countless personal conversations and emails about the best way forward for our party.

Each of the five candidates for party Chair has written about his or her vision for the party, and our statements are in large part perfectly consistent with what we have been hearing on the listening tours and from fellow Democrats, including each of you on the Executive Committee. Just yesterday, David Pepper and Nina Turner released a statement of their vision, which I thought was an extraordinary document.

Apart from our vision, however, I have also wanted to discuss why the party desperately needs to adopt good governance policies – the kind of governance policies that any well-respected business or nonprofit entity would have had in place for years, but which the ODP has neglected to adopt. As a result, we hear again and again about situations like these:

Over the last several years, contracts for consulting, campaign, and other services worth hundreds of thousands of dollars being entered into between the party and companies owned directly or indirectly by party officials or members of the Executive Committee.

The party being burdened with nearly $2.0 million of debt that few, if any, Executive Committee members even knew exists.

Salaries and other benefits being paid to party officials without prior authorization or approval by any governing body, including questions about what financial arrangements will be put in place for any past Chair, our new Chair, and any other leadership team members.

Referral fees, commissions, or other payments being made to employees or officials of the party or their affiliates by vendors who provide services to the party or to candidates of the party.

No annual audit or oversight of the party’s books and records despite the requirements of the Constitution and Bylaws of the party.

An Executive Committee with little or no power or authority and who fails to receive any important information as to the actual operations of the party.

Many of us might agree that there was nothing improper about any of the situations described above if we knew of the facts surrounding them. The simple truth is that we don’t and that the culprit here is the party’s failure to have an ethics and conflicts of interest policy, procurement policies, and financial controls that are commonplace in virtually every other respected entity in this state. It’s also concerns like these that are partially responsible for the fact that significant parts of organized labor, as well as major donors to the party, have been reluctant to invest further in our party.

David and Nina’s vision for our party includes what they refer to as “Organizational Integrity.” However we describe it, the situations highlighted above need to be addressed. Speaking for myself and the parts of organized labor and the many Democrats who have steadfastly supported me in this endeavor, we trust that David and Nina will do the right thing and address these matters.

We have much to accomplish in a short time and we need to unite our party. I am so grateful to all my supporters who have advocated on my behalf and fought this good fight; however, on this day before the election, we need to accept that the majority of members of the Executive Committee believe that David Pepper is the right person to lead our party. The most important thing is not who leads our party, but what they believe.

Because we need to unite our party, get on with the business of winning the Democratic convention for Columbus, and implementing our shared vision for moving the party forward and winning elections, I want each of you to know that I am withdrawing my name as a candidate for election as our next party Chair.

Let’s get ready for 2016 and 2018, my friends!

Sincerely,

Sharen Neuhardt

 

Share

DDN Reporter Laura Bischoff Shows How DeWine’s “Pay To Play” Scheme Awarded Contributor Valuable Contract

In Ohio’s Attorney General Contest, challenger David Pepper is accusing the incumbent Mike DeWine of unfairly rewarding contributors with valuable contracts. In her DDN article this morning — Charges fly in spirited AG race — Laura Bischoff reports about Pepper’s “pay to play” accusation and cites a great article that she wrote in July that somehow I had missed.

Bischoff’s July article — Vendors gave big to DeWine, GOP — deserves a lot of attention and discussion. The article obviously was the result of many hours of research and outlines a strong a strong case that Mike Dewine, Ohio’s current Attorney General, used his office inappropriately.

Bischoff summarizes her research in the first paragraphs of the article:

In doling out lucrative collections contracts, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine passed over more experienced vendors in favor of a friend’s new collections agency.

His campaign and the state Republican Party received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from collectors as they sought work from the state.

And DeWine involved his former fundraiser and other politically connected people in a process that is supposed to independent from political influence.

Debt collection generates a lot of money for the state and a lot of money for the collectors. The Attorney General decides who to hire to do the collection and the work pays very well. The article reports, “The DeWine administration hires between six and eight third party vendors and between 74 and 118 attorneys each year to handle debt collection work. The state paid those agencies and attorneys a total of $137.9 million between 2011 and 2013.”

The right to hand out contracts worth millions of dollars provides a big opportunity for corruption. We can be thankful that Bischoff spent the effort to do the research which involved “reviewing hundreds of pages of state documents, campaign finance reports and other records relating to the attorney general’s role in picking outside attorneys and collections agencies that go after back taxes, defaulted student loans and other money owed to state government and public universities.”

Bischoff reports, “Of the 30 collections attorneys who contributed more than $10,000 to that total, the average annual earnings on debt collection work was $796,500 between 2011 and 2013. Of the 89 who contributed less than $10,000, the average earnings during that time period were $192,000.”

The article focuses on Dewine’s friend, Pete Spitalieri, who landed a contract to collect debt worth millions regardless that his brand new company had no experience in doing the work. Bischoff  shows that Spitalieri gave money to the Republican party — $35,000 to the Ohio Republican Party, plus $23,000 to the Summit County GOP — which has sent Mike DeWine’s campaign $405,500 since 2010.

Bischoff writes:

Spitalieri formed CELCO Ltd. on April 11, 2012 — just two days before DeWine’s office put out a request for proposals from collections agencies for the upcoming fiscal year. Three weeks later, CELCO turned in a proposal that acknowledged the company had no experience handling collections accounts.

Nonetheless, CELCO beat out several bigger, more established bidders, including ones that had a national footprint and licensing.

“We were absolutely flabbergasted,” said Barry H. Fromm, chief executive of Columbus-based Value Recovery Group, or VRG, which was founded in 1993 and had worked for the past five attorneys general. His firm got edged out by CELCO.

Share