BOE Votes Against Hearing Evidence from Farinacci Campaign to Reconsider Probate/Juvenile Judicial Candidacy Certification
Geauga County Board of Elections (BOE) Special Meeting - July 9, 2026
Meeting Info - Special Meeting on July 9, 2026 in the BOE Conference Room at 12611 Ravenwood Drive, Suite 004 (Basement), Chardon, OH, 44024. Attendance was in-person and virtual via MS Teams.
Public Comment Policy - The Board of Elections typically responds to questions about agenda items throughout the course of their meetings. Those exchanges are documented below as they occur.
Attendance: Present were:
-
Board Chair - Dennis Pavella
-
Board Member - Richard Piraino
-
Board Member - Joan Windnagel
-
Board Member - Janet Carson
-
Director - Tyler Plants
-
Deputy Director - Nora McGinnis
Candidates & their Representatives: In person, potential independent Probate/Juvenile judicial candidate Robert Farinacci and his counsel Pete Zeigler; Probate/Juvenile judicial candidate Abbey King Mueller attended virtually. Reviewer Note: In Ohio, Court of Common Pleas judges (Probate/Juvenile Courts are divisions of the Court of Common Pleas), candidates run in partisan primaries but appear on the general election ballot without party affiliation. In May, Ms. King Mueller won the Republican primary election for Probate/Juvenile judge. See the Ohio Revised Code reference here.
Others: In person, approximately 16 members of the public, Geauga Maple Leaf reporter Allison Wilson and this Observer. Two members of the public attended virtually.
Call to Order – The meeting was called to order shortly after 9:00 am.
Minutes – No minutes were presented for approval.
Review Hearing guidelines
Mr. Pavella opened the meeting by stating that he had called this special hearing because Mr. Farinacci had requested reconsideration of his candidacy. Mr. Pavella said he had determined that the Board would hear his reconsideration and asked, “Do my fellow Board members agree with me?” Observer Note: At their June 18 regular meeting, the Board voted not to certify Mr. Farinacci’s candidacy for Juvenile/Probate Judge as he had submitted signatures using the wrong form. The June 18 BOE LWV Geauga observer report is available here.
Mr. Piraino objected to the Board holding a reconsideration hearing, saying that he had agreed to attend a special meeting, but not to a reconsideration hearing. He said that to hold such a hearing must be voted on by the Board. Citing Section 14 of the Ohio Election Official manual, he noted that it is not mandatory for the BOE to hold a reconsideration hearing for a candidate who is not certified to the ballot. He stated that if Mr. Farinacci didn’t like their decision last month, he has ”the option of due process to go through the court system and make his case there.”
Mr. Piraino then made a motion not to hold a reconsideration hearing regarding Mr. Farinacci’s candidacy. Mrs. Windnagel seconded.
Mr. Farinacci’s attorney, Pete Zeigler, addressed the Board. He said, “the logic behind the reconsideration hearing largely is to get information on the record. As you know, this is an election-related matter which requires a certain level of speed in order to make this happen in a way that works for the Board and for candidates.” He noted that he’d requested that week the minutes for the June 18 BOE meeting and had not received them as they aren’t prepared yet. He said as someone who works at a Board of Elections, he understands why the minutes aren’t ready and appreciates “the burden the staffs are under.” Observer Note: Mr. Zeigler is Deputy Director of the Summit County Board of Elections and former Director of the Geauga BOE. He pointed out that the minutes “are the first element of a record a candidate would need in order to take a case to Common Pleas Court. And without that the cock is crowing.”
Mr. Piraino asked Mr. Zeigler if he had been at the last Board meeting, and Mr. Zeigler said no, he’d been hired three days ago.
Mr. Piraino told Mr. Zeigler that, “you have to understand there are policies and procedures as well as the Ohio Revised Code that we are required to follow” and asked if he or Mr. Farinacci had ever read the Board of Elections handbook for Candidates. Mr. Zeigler said he was quite familiar with the handbook as the Deputy Director of the Summit Board of Elections.
Mrs. Carson and Mr. Pavella argued that the BOE follows Robert Rules of Order, which allows the chair to call any special meeting and set its agenda without prior board approval.
Mr. Piraino claimed that the Board must vote to hold any special meeting. Mrs. Carson disputed this. She said, “we have held special meetings and hearings for candidates for the 22 years I’ve been on the Board. The only time that we have not had a special meeting when requested was when the Prosecutor had advised us not to. And we have no such opinion from the Prosecutor for this meeting.”
Mr. Piraino said, “I think you’re misinformed. That’s all I will say.”
Mrs. Windnagel said Assistant Prosecutor Kristen Rine did in fact render an opinion to Board members but did not send it to Mrs. Carson. The opinion is dated July 6.
Mrs. Carson reacted, “So, again, she’s excluded me, despite the Board’s motion to include me in all of the opinions. So she’s excluded me again? An extreme case of bias, political bias, unquestionably.” Observer Note: There is an unresolved question as to whether Mrs. Carson may participate in election matters involving Mr. Farinacci because her husband had gathered petition signatures for the candidate.
Mr. Pavella stated he had only notified Ms. Rine of the reconsideration hearing and had not solicited an opinion.
Mrs. Carson responded, “So she gave an opinion without a request from the Board, which is not relevant.” Mr. Piraino said he thought she prepared the opinion in response to the notice of the special meeting.
Mrs. Carson noted that “the Prosecutor is not a member of this Board and the Prosecutor has no ability to advise this Board without a formal request.”
Mr. Pavella pointed out that they all agreed to attend the hearing and had been informed of its purpose “at which point, I heard no dissent.” Mr. Piraino said that was before they had received the opinion from the Assistant Prosecutor on July 6. Mr. Piraino acknowledged he’s “kind of a newbie” on the Board but that, “I can only go by what I see, what’s written, and this is what the manual says, so I’m just going by what the manual says.”
Mr. Piraino then asked, “Do we agree that this is a guideline we should follow, or we don’t think we should follow this?”
Mrs. Carson said it is a guideline, not the absolute authority and that, “there have been many times we haven’t followed the manual, that we’ve changed the manual…. It is an evolving process.” She repeated that the Board follows the rules of Robert’s Rules of Order which authorizes the chair to call a meeting.
Mr. Zeigler asked the Board to hold the hearing as a courtesy “because it allows us to put things on the record, exhaust remedies, and then pursue further action if needed.”
The motion not to have the hearing failed after a tie vote, with Mr. Piraino and Mrs. Windnagel voting yes and Mrs. Carson and Mr. Pavella voting no.
Mr. Zeigler asked that as a courtesy to the candidate that any “tie vote letter” coming out of this meeting be written as speedily as possible and sent, along with supporting documents, to the Secretary of State so that he can “opine on this in as timely a manner as possible.” He noted that Mr. Farinacci’s candidacy is "waiting on this and creates a large hardship on him the longer that the process takes.”
After counting the roughly two dozen audience members, Mrs. Carson said, “Twenty some people here to hear this and you’re not going to even let any of them speak?" She continued, “Very interesting. I’ve never been involved in this Board when they have taken such a grudging action to not facilitate a candidate being on the ballot, not even willing to listen to the testimony that the candidate wants to present in order to get the Board to change its mind. That to me is a huge change in the way this Board has operated for the last 22 years. And I find it extremely, extremely, extremely upsetting and very much out of normal procedure for how this Board operates.”
Mr. Piraino contended that the candidate had the option to speak at the last meeting. Mrs. Carson and Mr. Pavella disputed this, saying that’s not when a candidate can present testimony.
Mrs. Windnagel moved to adjourn the meeting with Mr. Piraino seconding. After another split vote, several audience members asked to speak:
-
Terry Carson (Mrs. Carson’s husband) said, “if members don’t want a hearing, they could just go home.” The Board pointed out that the Board would then be without a quorum.
-
Katie Claypool asked Mr. Piraino why the opinion of one attorney (referring to Ms. Rine’s) would matter but he wasn’t interested in hearing Mr. Zeigler’s. Mr. Piraino explained that the opinion they received from the Prosecutor’s Office is from the attorney who typically represents the Board, “so we have to take into consideration what the person states and in case this was to go to a court system or whatever, she’s the one that’s going to be charged with trying to defend us.” Mr. Piraino said he is not trying to deny Mr. Farinacci his due process but that he disagrees with the way that he’s going about it. He posited that he doesn’t think the Board “has the authority or should do another hearing about this.” Ms. Claypool said she believes that Mr. Farinacci’s team were prepared to prove the Board’s decision was wrong. When Mr. Piraino again cited the election official manual about a hearing not being mandatory, Ms. Claypool pointed out that the manual doesn’t say a hearing shouldn’t happen.
Mrs. Carson added that they have hearings all the time. Mr. Piraino countered that those hearings were before his time and “I can only go by the advice I get and then all the stuff that I can gather information about.”
-
Patrick Enders said he thought “it is important that the Board didn’t request the opinion from the Prosecutor”, commenting, “Isn’t that critical… that the Prosecutor just offered their opinion?” “If the Board had sought that opinion, okay. But you didn’t.” Mr. Pavella emphasized the point as well.
Mrs. Carson noted that “the Prosecutor’s Office has been directed by this Board that any opinion requested by the Board be sent to all Board members. And the fact that she did not send it to all Board members and was selective in the way she sent the opinion to Board members to me seems highly suspicious and contrary to Board procedure. So, I don’t see why this Board is considering an opinion that is in direct conflict with the instructions and the procedures the Board has asked her to follow. To me, that’s a strictly political opinion that she sent to everyone but me.”
-
Jeff Pierce said he agrees with Mrs. Carson, that the situation seems “very backdoor to me.” He thought that the Board needs to take prior precedent into account and if they’ve had hearings in the past, the Board should have one now. Looking around the room, he said, “clearly, there’s enough interest in this to pursue the matter, right?”
Mr. Piraino stated that he understands this case is not like any other case they’ve ever had. Mr. Pierce asked, “So then doesn’t that warrant any hearing?” He also stated, “I think the public interest should be enough for the Board to at least consider it.”
Mrs. Windnagel said she would prefer that the case go to the Secretary of State since their office has more experience with these types of cases.
Mrs. Carson spoke about a case the Secretary of State (S0S) overturned in 2019 where a Board had refused to put a candidate on the ballot because they used the wrong form. Mrs. Carson said, “there is a lot of evidence here.” She commended Mr. Farinacci and Mr. Zeigler for the legal research they have done on this matter in the short time since the June 18 meeting, including finding cases that support his position. She said she finds it “baffling that we’re not hearing that evidence today in a hearing.” She continued, “I’m very disappointed that this Board does not want to hear that evidence, because it’s not a good thing when boards are overturned, and I certainly wouldn’t want that to be the precedent. We’ve never been overturned in a decision that we’ve made either through the court or through the Secretary of State’s office. We pride ourselves on having made sure that we’ve done everything that we possibly can in order to get a candidate on the ballot.”
Mrs. Windnagel said she felt the SoS’s office is more qualified than they are to make the decision.
Mrs. Carson countered, “It’s not the Secretary of State’s decision. It’s our decision. It only goes to the SoS if we tie in a vote about putting him on the ballot. And since the Prosecutor has said that I can’t vote on this, she’s effectively taken away any ability for the tie vote to happen.”
Mr. Zeigler asked for and was granted a 5-minute recess to confer with his client. Immediately before the request, Mr. Zeigler approached Mr. Pavella to ask him to recall the motion for a hearing so that it could be voted down, which would allow them to “exhaust remedies and go to court more quickly.”
Upon return, Mr. Zeigler asked the full Board to remake the motion to accept the hearing of Mr. Farinacci’s candidacy.
The motion was put forth and defeated, with Mr. Piraino and Mrs. Windnagel voting no, Mr. Pavella voting yes and Mrs. Carson abstaining. Mr. Pavella then stated, “therefore, Mr. Farinacci and Mr. Zeigler, you are free to pursue what options you might have.”
Adjournment at 9:41 am.
Next Meeting: Regular meeting on July 16, 2026 at 9:00 am.
Observer: Rooney Moy
Editor: Sarah McGlone
Reviewer: Carol Benton
Date Submitted: July 12, 2026
The League of Women Voters of Geauga is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. They do not support or oppose individual candidates or parties. Learn more about the LWVG at www.lwvgeauga.org.