STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT

"ANTI-DOUBLE-DIPPING" BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CRUSADE UNDERWAY?

2012-02-25T08:30:00.000-05:00

A crusade?

Could be.

Ice Cream anyone?

That is the lure of the Robert Cyperski campaign to attract prospective petition signers to his event tomorrow (Sunday) from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the Belden Village Holiday Inn located at 4520 Everhard Road, NW in Canton.

Cyperski has decided to attempt collecting 5,002 signatures by the filing deadline of March 5th to get on the ballot as an "independent" candidate against incumbent judge and Republican John Wise.

Wise has been a 5th Court of Appeals (5th COA) judge since 1995 and is now at the point that he wants to retire as judge at a retirement annual income of about $116,160 and then stand for re-election to the very same job and collect an additional $132,000 and thereby top out at about $248,160 or nearly "a quarter of a million dollars." Hmm? Not bad!

Will Cyperski takes offense at those numbers together with the reality that Wise, in running again, is freezing out the opportunity of younger aspirants to serve on Ohio's second highest court (second only to the Ohio Supreme Court).

Both Cyperski and Wise are well-qualified. So, if he gets on the ballot, the issue will not be whether or not Wise has been an able judge or as to his qualifications. It will be an opportunity for Stark Countians as well as the citizens of 14th other counties which comprise the 5th COA to vote on the issue of "double-dipping."

Cyperski's campaign, if he can get the mind boggling 5,002 signatures, will have an evangelistic fervor to it. That's how passionately he is driven on making his mark against the infectious growth among public officials (mostly unelected ones) to double-dip.

As a sidenote here, the Stark County Political Report points out that candidates for either the Republican or Democratic nomination for this office is 50 signatures. Yes, 50 signatures as compared to over 5,000 for an "independent" candidate.

It just goes to show how Republican and Democratic politicians conspire with one another to keep the political competition out.

The Ohio General Assembly (OGA) has changed Ohio's policies over the last 10 years or so to allow the retire/rehire phenomenon to flourish.

Judge Wise and the unelecteds are doing nothing wrong from a legal standpoint in advantaging themselves of retire/rehire.

But nonetheless the practice is not setting well with much of Ohio's voting public.

Trouble is for Ohio's voters is that they have to be frustrated that they have been provided with no medium with which to weigh in on the issue.

One has to wonder why the OGA has shut them out of the process of determining what the policy of retire/hire or double-dipping or whatever one wants to call it ought to be.

A Cyperski/Wise match up on the issue provides Stark Countians with a unique opportunity to be heard on retire/rehire.

Legislation has been introduced in the current session of the General Assembly to stymie the retire/rehire growth, to wit: House Bills 202 & 388.

But the SCPR takes these measures as being a sop to the voting public because of the increasingly vocal outcry.

Unless and until something like a sitting judge gets defeated on the unmistakable fact that voters have said no on the basis of retire/rehire, The Report does not believe that most representatives and state senators are interested in seriously addressing the issue.

For the sake of discussion, here is a look at the two bills sitting in the legislative hopper of the Ohio General Assembly.

HOUSE BILL 202

House Bill 202 is opposed, of course, by the Ohio Judicial Conference. Here is an extract from its website of the conference.

HOUSE BILL 388

The main problem with this bill is that it does not to affect elected officials which, of course, means the members of the Ohio General Assembly itself (which has upwards of a dozen members who fit the retire/rehire category), judges and obviously any other Ohio-based elected official such as Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson, who, if the SCPR understands correctly prior statements he has made, has three retirement accounts.

Nevertheless here are some excerpts of descriptive material (by WNWO Newsdesk) as well as a number of quotes by the chief sponsor of HB 388 (Republican Rex Damschroder, the 81st House District) as to the bill's "other" impact:

HB 388 will suspend, during the time of employment, the retirement benefits of a public retirement system retiree who returns to public employment. Under the bill, all government workers, including elected officials, will be prohibited from a practice often known as "retire/rehire"– where workers are permitted to receive their pension benefits while continuing to work in a public sector position.

NOTE: Although the WNWO description says "including elected officials," a SCPR check of the actual language of the proposed legislation which clearly excepts out "elected" officials.

Damschroder quotes:

"The goal of HB 388 is to bring common-sense economic reforms to our public retirement systems."
"We have all witnessed or read about examples of double dipping in our local area and the public outrage that always follows."
"For every instance of retire/rehire, one less job is available for new public workers. Changing the current system is essential in order to save the integrity of Ohio’s five public retirement systems. Asking the taxpayers of our state to support double dipping in today’s economy is unrealistic.”

As written above, the SCPR believes that HB 202 and HB 388 are not serious efforts to deal with increasing public criticism of Ohio's retire/rehire phenomenon.

Accordingly, The Report endorses Cyperski's attempt to get on the ballot and encourages all Stark Countians to help Cyperski get on the ballot so that the issue of double-dipping can be addressed at the ballot box.

While some will still vote on Cyperski or Wise on factors other than retire/retire/double-dipping, the campaign that Cyperski will be running and which Judge Wise will be forced to defend is whether or not retire/rehire is a good idea.

Once the people have had an opportunity to have their say the legislature will have a true indicator of whether or not they need to re-legislate on the matter in order to truly reflect the people's desire on the practice.

MASSILLON CITY HALL PARKING LOT INCIDENT WITH POLITICAL FALLOUT?

2012-02-24T09:39:00.001-05:00

One would have had to be in a Rip Van Winkle-esque sleep not to know of the bitter politically rancorous discord that has been at play in recent years in Massillon Democratic politics.

It has been the forces led by Massillon Clerk of Courts John A. Maier, Jr and a number of his top lieutenants squared off against former Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr and his top lieutenants.

One would have thought that once the Maier-led contingent achieved mastery over Cicchinelli in last year's Democratic primary, the certain-to-be new mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry would be counseling her loyalists to back off and work at healing the rift so that she could get on with effective governing once she defeated token Republican opposition in November and took office in January of this year.

But it is beginning to appear that Mayor Kathy not in charge of her cohort political group and that political retaliation, retribution and rift may be the order of the day in Massillon these days.

If the SCPR's suspicions are borne out as the new administration takes charge, then the mayor is in for a tough, tough four years. What's more, Massillon's citizens will suffer unnecessarily.

This morning The Report got two e-mails which clearly suggests that a supporter of the mayor has taken it as his/her mission to fire another shot in the ongoing political battle between the Catazaro-Perryites and the Cicchinellis.

E-MAIL #1 - From an anonymous source to Scott Graber who was a Massillon Council President Glenn Gamber (a close political ally to Cicchinelli) opponent in the 2011 Democratic primary (Graber losing in a closer than expected race), to wit:

Hey, were you aware that on Tuesday night your former opponet [sic] Glenn Gamber hit a car twice in the parking lot. He stayed in his car for 6-minutes and then jumped out and entered council chambers. A MP put a note on his car, when he came out of council he grabbed the note and took off. Gamber denied it, until he was caught on camera in the act.

E-MAIL #2 - From Councilman Gamber to the SCPR, to wit:

Martin,

My vehicle was involved in an incident in the City Hall parking lot on Tuesday, and I wanted to let you know what happened before you hear of it through the media and blogs.

On Tuesday evening I parked my vehicle in the City Hall parking lot just after 7 PM and went into a meeting. When I left the building nearly two hours later, there was a note on my windshield to call Massillon Patrolman Masters, which I did immediately. I called from the parking lot and was a block away on Lincoln Way when he came to the phone.

He told me that the right rear of my vehicle had apparently bumped into the right rear of an adjacent car causing minor damage to the plastic bumper cowling. The contact was so minimal that I was not aware it had occurred. I asked Patrolman Masters what I should do, and he said there was nothing to do at that time. I called him again an hour later to follow up, but he was on a call and not available. I left my phone number for him to call me back.

On Wednesday I went to the Police Station to discuss the incident with and realized that I did indeed bump into the other car’s bumper while backing into a parking space at 3 MPH. I got the name of the owner and immediately called him to accept responsibility. He was very cordial and said the damage to his bumper was minimal. He told me that he mentioned to the officer that if my vehicle was still parked next to his car when he made his report, it must be because I did not realize I had contacted his bumper. That is exactly the case.

Glenn

The SCPR believes that Mayor Kathy can put a stop to the political warfare from her end now! And she should do so if she cares anything about being able to govern effectively in the interests of ALL Massillonians and not just those who supported her in her drive to become mayor.

If she chooses to do a little sit down with her zealot supporters and rein them in, then Massillonians should be encouraged that she will be concentrating on applying her best efforts towards bringing Massillon back from the financial crisis that currently plagues the city.

The new mayor has a lot of good qualities that she can bring to bear to defuse the political warfare and over time bring the hostiles into a working relationship with her administration, again, in pursuing interests near and dear to all Massillonians.

The only question is whether or not she has the strength of personality to do so.

Like or dislike Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr., certainly the new mayor can point to the positives that the long time former mayor brought to Massillon.

The SCPR is not aware of whether or not Catazaro-Perry has been invited and/or plans to attend a March 4th celebration of Cicchinell's contributions to the well-being of Massillon over his many years as mayor. If not invited, she should seek an invitation. From the Cicchinelli standpoint, he should see to it that the mayor of the city gets invited.

And, of course, if invited she should be afforded an opportunity to speak to his accomplishments as mayor in a believable and authentic way.

If not invited, she undoubtedly knows she can show the class that The Report believes she has and issue a press release in this regard.

The Report believes that Kathy Catzaro-Perry is a person of goodwill and that she should resist any naysayers in her core group of supporters that counsel her and do acts designed to fan the fires of political turmoil. Now is the time for her to show moral leadership and demonstrations of character that may not be responded to in the short term. Over the long haul chances are gestures of goodwill pay huge dividends.

The timing is right for Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry to do the right thing for Massillon governance and call off the enthusiast "political" dogs who are baying at if not snarling at her political enemies post-election victory.

Catazaro-Perry needs to show one and all that she is the captain of her own ship.

Will she do it?

That is the question!

(VIDEOS SHANKLE, CREIGHTON, BERNABEI - PRESS CONFERENCE) COMMISSIONERS GET HIT WITH A BARAGE OF CRITICISMS ON CONDITIONS AT STARK COUNTY DOG POUND!

2012-02-23T07:52:00.001-05:00

For several years the SCPR has been publishing blogs about the vociferous and vigorous complaints by some activist Stark County dog lovers (Activists) on conditions at the Stark County Dog Pound (Pound).

The complainers - for the most part - are volunteers at the Pound who recount eye witness incident after incident after incident of what they allege to be abusive treatment of dogs who land at the Pound.

In late 2009, the outcry got so marked that the then commissioners were forced to act. In early 2010 the fired Warden Evert Gibson and replaced him in May, 2010 with former Holmes County Dog Warden Reagan Tetreault who still is Stark's dog warden.

On December 26, 2010, yours truly did a blog who described the transition thusly:

On January 27, 2010 (nearly one year ago), Stark County commissioners (Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) fired Evert Gibson as dog warden because of unresolved problems. Gibson had been on the job for several years.

After some controversy between the commissioners and members of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB) over the appearance of a non-SCDPAB recommended person as one of five finalists, the current warden Reagan Tetreault (on the list) was appointed (May 5, 2010) with a starting date of May 24, 2010 subject however to a 120 probationary period.

Ever since there has been simmering discontent among much of the Activists community with the management style of Tetreault.

Commissioners have been aware of the rumblings and have been trying to keep a lid on it.

But at yesterday's regular weekly meeting of the Stark commissioners the lid exploded off "the can of worms" which The Report believes descriptive of the mishmash of turmoil afflicting Pound operations.

EXHIBIT 1

A video of Stark County citizen Ellen Shankle, (a former volunteer at the Pound and, according to a source, a former board member of the Friends of the Pound [Stark County], who was the primary complainer at yesterday's meeting, to wit:

EXHIBIT 2

On August 21, 2011 the SCPR did a blog that is an extensive review of the longstanding grievances of SCDPAB with Stark commissioners going back beyond the current board. Click anywhere on this paragraph to link to the prior blog.

EXHIBIT 3

The story of Roxy who on October 13, 2010 through a series of errors was euthanized at the Stark County Dog Pound to the horror of his owner family. Click anywhere in this paragraph to link to the Roxy blog.

EXHIBIT 4 (See videos below)

THE COMMISSIONERS RESPONSE

The SCPR's impression is that yesterday's outburst was a surprise to them.

Apparently, they did not see this coming. But The Report believes that they should have in light of what is going on with Canton City Council with its mulling over as to whether or not to continue with its present program of animal control of trapping wild animals (mostly cats) and then having them euthanized.

Opponents to the current program have besieged council with demands that policy be changed to TNR (trap-neuter-return).

The focal point of the TRN advocates cause is a viral YouTube video showing Canton Animal Control Officer Phil Sedlacko (also an employee of the Stark County Dog Pound) and his handling of a dog which he had captured.

The commissioners did hold a press conference after the presentation of Ms. Shankle and two other citizens.

In the main the response was:

we have been working on this problem and will continue to do so until it is remedied,
we are sending Chief Administrator Mike Hanke to spend the day (Friday, February 24) at the pound to get a first hand take on the situation of the Pound,
we will hold public work sessions with dog warden to get to the bottom of problems,
we deem the Pound in important concern, but it is not our top priority.

Noteworthy on the last bullet point are the remarks of Janet Creighton, to wit:

One would think that Commissioner Tom Bernabei would especially be interested in zeroing in or solving the festering SCDP problem inasmuch as he is up for re-election in November.

The SCPR could see this Republican opponent Craig T. Conley (who in the view of The Report has little else to pounce on Bernabei about) using this issue as a difference maker as to who gets elected.

In any event, to yours truly, it is high time that the commissioners (with the sales tax increase having been passed and the county budget having been completed) move to resolve the seemingly eternal Pound problems to the top of their list and getting a resolution "once and for all!"

Here is the video on the press conference.

CATAZARO-PERRY'S POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS COMING BACK TO BITE HER?

2012-02-22T07:24:00.001-05:00

The Stark County Political Report thinks newly sworn-in Massillon Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry deserves a chance to show what she can do in turning Massillon around.

But it increasingly appears - even early in her administration - that politics may dog her all the days of her political life as mayor of Massillon and she may endure one political struggle after another to keep Massillon's financial head above water for the duration.

She has two major political problems:

the political comeuppance of the supporters of the man she defeated in November: Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr., and
the Republican majority that captured control of council in November.

Massillon is a deeply troubled city that has struggled to make financial ends meet for some time.

It is desperately in need of a revenue infusion if it is to continue as presently constituted.

But as reported by Matt Rink of The Massillon Independent last night in his account of council meeting (Majority on Massillon Council say they won't back a tax credit reduction), it appears that Republican are not about to work with the new mayor on her terms.

As a matter of political philosophy, the Republicans are for cutting government and reducing taxes. Moreover, in Massillon's case, they have to already be looking down the road to the 2015 mayoralty election and are mindful of what they do now and over the next three years or so will play into whether or not they can elected a Republican mayor of Massillon then.

Former Mayor Cicchinelli played the magician especially in his last term to keep Massillon afloat. One of his main devices towards the end of his reign was through annexation.

But talk about getting bit in the butt, it likely was his attempt to annex the income tax revenue rich Tuslaw schools that proved to be the deciding factor in his losing to Catazaro-Perry. Not only did he get tons of bad political publicity when he made the Tuslaw move not long after he picked off income tax revenues from the staff at the R.G. Drage vocational school in Perry, but he incurred the ire a many Tuslaw citizens who showed up in force to campaign for Catazaro-Perry.

Of course Catazaro-Perry and her chief political mentors (Massillon Clerk of Courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. and his sidekick, chief deputy and Stark County Dems Political Director Shane Jackson) jumped all over the Tuslaw schools thing to her political advantage.

The Tuslaw schools thing was just one of many, many political skirmishes that have be waged by Catazaro-Perry and her consorts against Cicchinelli et al over the years.

Now it's payback time for the Cicchnelli forces, and when co-joined with resurgent Massillon Republicans, they present an overwhelming political force that likely will bend Mayor Catazaro-Perry to their will.

It will be a tough pill for the once politically powerful Maier, Jackson and their cohorts to swallow. But in steamrolling Cicchinelli et al they have set in motion a true "what goes around, comes around" life for their political darling.

Catazaro-Perry has to be thinking: "with friends like these, who needs any enemies!"

So the best thing Catazaro-Perry can do if she is to be an effective mayor:

is to mend fences with the Cicchinelli forces and thereby consolidate support on the Democratic side of the isle so that she has a chance close votes on council (by peeling off one Republican vote; the control council 5 to 4) where she and the Republicans cannot come together, even better,
is to reach out to the Republicans for dialogue as to how they can create a common ground of initiatives that over the longer term will reconfigure Massillon's economic/financial picture in the best interest of Massillonians; Republican or Democrat

It seems to The Report that those council persons who like Democrat Councilman Paul Manson's plan to increase Massillon's income tax to a full 2% (from its present 1.8%) are on to something. But it needs to be on the vote of the people.

To get Massillonians to vote for the increase, doesn't it go without saying that the voters will have to be convinced that the administration working with council has made cuts to the bone?

The SCPR would like to see Kathy Catazaro-Perry succeed as mayor of Massillon. However, for her to do so she is going to have to create some distance between herself and those largely perceived to be her political handlers. Enough so, that those who deal with her are convinced she speaks for herself. Moreover, he needs to do so in order to open up lines of dialogue with her Democratic political opponents and her Republican political opponents.

The Report has written frequently that to elect Catazaro-Perry was the same as making Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. the de facto mayor of Massillon.

The question: Is she made of the right stuff to make moves to make the SCPR's assessment a miscalculation?

If she isn't, then she will be caught up in a political vortex of one cycle after another of: "What goes around, comes around!"

THE FERREROS (JOHN & JAYNE) OF MASSILLON POLITICAL SCENE GETTING IN THE WAY OF MAYOR KATHY CATAZARO-PERRY'S CHANCE FOR SUCCESS? JOHN: INCONSISTENT ON TAXATION QUESTION?

2012-02-21T07:28:00.000-05:00

It is becoming more and more apparent to the SCPR that Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero is all about John Ferrero and/or his corner of Stark County government and little, if anything, else.

According to Stark County Auditor records (circa 12/07/2011), Ferrero was set to take in somewhere around $120,000 in Stark County taxpayer dollars as the elected Stark County prosecutor.

Now we have a situation where he was for a Stark County sales tax increase which would benefit his office, but he is against a 50% reduction in Massillon's income tax credit (for non-Massillon taxpayers).

The kicker is that Ferrero works in Canton, but lives in Massillon and a 50% reduction in the Massillon income tax credit would compel him to pay some Massillon city income tax.

THE STARK COUNTY TAX ISSUE

Last year Stark County commissioners were mulling over exactly how much of a levy they would ask Stark Countians to approve and for how long. It was generally thought that they were gravitating to a 0.5% increase for a period of 8 years.

John Ferrero deferred on the projected 0.5% increased at a public meeting the commissioners held with elected officials in 2011. He and Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson wanted commissioners to go for a full 1% increase and they wanted it to be permanent.

The commissioners made it clear that for the 0.5%, eight year levy, that they ultimately decided to go forward with, would require the hard work of each and every county employee and county departments heads such as Ferrero.

Well, we all know "the rest of the story" - sort of.

The levy passed by a surprising margin which was a big, big relief to the commissioners who just recently passed appropriations for the 2012 calendar year county budget.

Who objected to his share of appropriations? You've got it! None other than Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero.

As the SCPR sees it, Ferrero tried to muscle down the commissioners by putting out the prospect of asking Stark County's judges (Municipal and Common Pleas) to appoint "special counsel" which - to get to the short of it - would force commissioners in the long run to pay out substantially more than Ferrero was asking for in 2012 appropriations.

Ironically, one leading Stark County public figure contacted yours truly after the successful levy campaign to say that Ferrero sat on his duff during the campaign and did very little to help it pass.

The Report asked Ferrero about this allegation and asked him for some details as to exactly what were the specifics of his effort in promoting the levy.

He refused to respond in any kind of detail.

Hmm?

Stark County Commissioner Tom Bernabei says that he is confident that Ferrero will not make good on his suggestion to "blow up" (The Report's words and assessment in a figurative sense of the expression, not Bernabei's nor Ferrero's) the county budget/appropriations with "special counsel" expenditures. The Report does not know how Bernabei can be so optimistic.

Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar is making a gallant effort to bring down the delinquent Stark County property taxes which now stand at $43 million. Zumbar wants go from referring 520 collection cases to the prosecutor's office in 2011 to 700 this year. (Confirming: Stark collects $2.4 million in revived tax-collection effort, Kelli Young of The Rep, February 18, 2012).

Good luck Treasurer Zumbar! Take this quote from Young's article, to wit:

More recent collection efforts have been stifled by the county’s budget woes that forced Prosecutor John Ferrero to reassign temporarily one of the paralegals in his delinquent tax collection unit into another division due to layoffs.

Also, The Report recalls that in a Delinquent Tax Assessment Collection (DTAC) work session with commissioners last year that Prosecutor Ferrero noted that the county only gets about 3 to 4 percent of real property taxes collected in Stark County.

So why would he want to put resources into an activity that benefits the cities, villages, townships and boards of education sprinkled across Stark County but which does relatively little for Stark County government?

But he was for the sales tax increase.

THE MASSILLON TAX ISSUE

John Ferrero lives in Massillon and he was Massillon's law director and prosecuting attorney from January, 1988 through February, 2003.

A Massillon public official for over 15 years and he has a problem paying taxes to the city?

Apparently, so.

The SCPR has learned that Ferrero and his chief assistant John Kurtzman (who also lives in Massillon) appeared at Massillon's city council meeting of November 21, 2011 to object to a plan being pondered to reduce the income tax credit by 50% to Massillonians who work outside the city.

Massillon voters recently elected Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (Massillon clerk of courts) and Shane Jackson (Maier's chief deputy) political protege Kathy Catazaro-Perry as mayor over long term and now former Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. last November.

One of the problems that Catazaro-Perry faces is that Massillon is not in very good financial/fiscal shape.

Of course, she knew this going in and decided to run anyway.

Last year John Ferrero's sister-in-law Jayne Ferrero (Massillon city auditor) proposed the 50% income tax credit as a way to help Massillon (Cicchinelli was still mayor when the tax credit reduction was proposed) get money to at least make an effort to be more current on its expenses which were and continue to run months behind.

So it was a bit confusing when Massillonian John Ferrero and Kurtzman showed up to object and Auditor Jayne Ferrero was nowhere to be seen and, in fact, is reported in the Massillon Independent as now having no opinion on the income tax credit reduction.

Exactly what was the Ferrero/Kurtzman objection?

“You [Massillon City Council] are now pitting families against families ... they [because of the credit reduction?] are taking food away from their children" (The Independent, February 8, 2012).

The real reason, the SCPR believes, for the Jayne Ferrero turnabout and for the Ferrero/Kurtzman objecting appearance on November 21st is because of their political alliance with the electorally deposed Cicchinelli forces.

In one sense, the SCPR thinks that the contending political forces (all Democrats) deserve each other.

On the other hand one must pause for thought and consider that it is not the politicos who suffer if the reduction does not pass council. Rather it is the residents of the city of Massillon.

If Catazaro-Perry does not get additional revenue that the reduction would bring in (estimated at $600,000 this year; $1.5 million next year), cuts will have to be made that likely will affect the well-being of Massillonians.

Catazaro-Perry by virtue of having been elected by the citizens of Massillon deserves an opportunity to govern. Notwithstanding her knowing what she was getting into, it is in the interest of Massillonians that she have a fair chance to show what she can do to right the fiscal structure of the city of Massillon.

The SCPR has criticized and continues to admonish Mayor Kathy for relying too much on the likes of Maier and Jackson. A major reason she is in her current fix is because of the political warfare that is obviously continuing post-election between the Maier-led forces and Cicchinelli loyalists.

CONCLUSION

John Ferrero could be a major factor in helping to stabilize both Stark County government as well as Massillon's.

But it appears that he is not inclined to do so as evidenced by uncooperative attitude vis-a-vis commissioners in the budgeting process post-0.5% sales tax increase (which he supported) and by his opposition to the proposed 50% reduction in the Massillon income tax credit.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of a person who is doing his own thing.

So it is not surprising that John Ferrero is for increased taxes to help solve Stark County's fiscal emergency but not Massillon's.

Coming full circle: It is becoming more and more apparent to the SCPR that Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero is all about John Ferrero and/or his corner of Stark County government and little, if anything, else.

And consistency be hanged!

ATTORNEY ROBERT CYPERSKI TO RUN AGAINST JUDGE JOHN WISE ON ISSUE OF "RETIRE" - "REHIRE VIA ELECTION?"

2012-02-20T06:53:00.000-05:00

Ohio's Statehouse Republicans and Democrats have made it difficult but it does appear that 5th District Court of Appeals and Republican Judge John Wise may well have a political "independent" running against him in Wise's quest for a new term who has been on the Court of Appeals since 1995.

His likely opponent?

Robert Cyperski.

However, he will have to collect 5,000 qualified registered voter signatures within the next two weeks for filing with the Stark County Board of Elections not later than March 5th in order to be on the general election ballot of November 6th.

If Cyperski had filed as a partisan candidate, he would only have had to collect 50 such signatures.

Organized Republican and Democratic party leaders think the extraordinary requirement of independent candidates is a politically smart self preservation move. And, to a certain degree it is. However, such self-serving moves also adds to the growing cynicism that the general voting public has towards both mainline parties and over the longer term undermines their ability to govern effectively.

Cyperski issued the following press release on Friday stating his intention to run against Wise and to base his campaign on Wise's announced intention to retire before the end of his current term (but within a space not allowing for his political party to name a successor for the remainder of his term) and then run for re-election.

Wise unabashedly says that it is within his legal right to do so in order to collect his his public employee pension which is thought to be 88% of $132,000 (the salary for the position) or $116,160 plus the salary (if re-elected) of $132,000 which, of course, would equal about $248,160.

Wise would also qualify for an approximate 3% annual increase over the span of collecting his retirement check with a beginning in 2013 amount of about $3,500 which for 2013 would put him above a quarter of a million dollars in annual income from salary and pension alone.

By the SCPR's calculation, Judge Wise's annual pension income will exceed the base salary of $132,000 within 5 years or so. Sweet, no?

Wise has been on a fast track in achieving elective office. It has not hurt his judicial political aspirations that both his father and grandfather were Stark County Probate Court judges going back decades.

Here is his biography as published on the 5th District Court of Appeals website:

JUDGE JOHN W. WISE

Administrative Judge

Judge Wise graduated from Ohio Northern University School of Law and was admitted to the practice of law in 1979. Prior to being elected to the Canton Municipal Court bench in 1990, Judge Wise was in private practice for ten years. His practice consisted of general civil litigation, including personal injury from both plaintiff and defense side, along with an active probate practice. From municipal court, Judge Wise was elected to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas and in 1995, he successfully ran for the Fifth District Court of Appeals. Judge Wise has served by assignment of the Chief Justice on the Ohio Supreme Court. He also serves as a Lecturer for the Ohio Judicial College.

Judge Wise is not the only 5th District Court of Appeals judges to invoke a retire - rehire plan of action.

His colleague Democrat Judge W. Scott Gwin has announced his intention to do the very same thing.

The same folks who have prevailed on Cyperski to run are working hard to find a Gwin opponent.

The SCPR endorses the effort underway to find opponents for Wise and Gwin as it is The Report's position that the voters should have the opportunity to weigh in on whether or not the public likes the idea of retire - rehire, Wise and Gwin fashion.

The Ohio General Assembly in its policy making decisions regarding Ohio's public retirement systems has created a situation whereby public retirement does not equal actual retirement from publicly funded positions.

There are strict Ohio Supreme Court prohibitive rules on the methods/topics that candidates can use in contests for judicial office on the notion that if typical political attacks (i.e. those commonly used in non-judicial races) on candidates' judicial record itself were allowed, such would undermine the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.

The Supreme Court limitations notwithstanding, it is hard to see how Cyperski could be shut down on his plan to make the retire - rehire issue the focus of his campaign to replace Judge Wise.

Whether or not Stark citizens favor or disfavor Wise/Gwin retaining office, it seems to the SCPR that it is the democratic-enhancing thing to do to support petition drives designed to provide voters with candidates who oppose the announced intentions of sitting judges to retire but run for re-election.

What the Ohio General Assembly does not provide, the citizens of the state of Ohio/Stark county can fashion for themselves.

"We the people" are the baseline of our democratic republic.

WILL CANTON BE RECONSIDERING ITS 90 DAY CONTRACT WITH ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER PHIL SEDLACKO IN LIGHT OF YouTube VIDEO?

2012-02-18T08:37:00.000-05:00

A STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT UPDATE: 02/19/2012 AT 3:20 PM

The SCPR has obtained a copy of an e-mail sent out at the initiative of Assistant Majority Leader (Democrats) Patrick Barton to members of Canton City Council detailing the serious and in depth consideration that Barton (7th Ward) as head of council's Personnel Committee is according to the question of whether or not Canton will continue long term with it current model of animal control that, apparently, current Animal Control Officer Phil Sedlacko (via contract; he is also and employee of the Stark County Dog Pound) is comfortable with.

Agitation for a change in Canton's model for animal control is being promoted by some Cantonians including a number of councilpersons (Councilwoman Cirelli, for one) to one that is called "trap-neuter-return." There is citizen support to retain the current model.

The SCPR applauds Councilman Barton for the even handed way he is handling this matter.

The e-mail:

A biography of Councilman Barton from Canton City Council's webepage:

ORIGINAL BLOG

Instead of wasting taxpayers’ money on hiring Stark County deputy dog warden Philip Sedlacko (“Canton hires animal control officer for 90 days,” Feb. 7), who apparently knows only how to catch and kill feral cats and other wildlife, hire a knowledgeable person who is armed with alternative methods for dealing with nuisance wildlife and is already practicing TNR, a proven effective and accepted method that many folks and rescuers already practice.

(Excerpt, Hire animal control officer who practices trap-neuter-return, Letter to Editor, The Rep, Veronica Dickey, 02/16/2012)

It appears that Canton may be about to reconsider its contract with Phil Sedlacko as seems to be the clear implication of City Council President Alan Schulman's e-mail to city council members yesterday evening.

To repeat the email portion from the graphic intro above:

When council considered a 90 day hire of Animal Control Officer Phil Sedlacko
at its February 6th regular meeting, it appears to The Report that most members had not yet seen the now situated Sedlacko YouTube video.

But there were concerns (Councilpersons Morris and Cirelli). The best that Sedlacko core supporters on council (Fisher, Hawk, Smith and West) and the Healy administration could get was a 90 day extension of the 12/31/2011 expired contract between Canton and Sedlacko; not the year to two years that the parties wanted notwithstanding that Sedlacko had submitted his resignation in what Councilwoman Cirelli termed to be the equivalent to putting a gun to the head of council.

No one was saying, but there is some speculation that Sedlacko is not enthusiastic about working a trap-neuter-return model and that his tendered resignation was more and expression of that attitude than trying to bully council.

The video was placed on YouTube by Nanci Miller who is a member and president of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB), a body instituted by Stark County commissioners to provide the Stark County commissioners with insight into the operations of the Stark County Dog Pound from a user and volunteer perspective.

Here is what Miller had to say about the video in the descriptive material she included with the video, to wit:

This is the beginning of security tape footage requested as a public record from the Stark County Dog Warden Department. Sad to say, after the abuse seen in the video, this dog who had been darted in an artery by Deputy Phil Sedlacko (the deputy in the video) who turned the high-powered hose on him), bled to death on the cold cement floor of the isolation room at the department. Several department employees went in to look at the dog, but no one seemed to find it necessary to take the dog to the vet where it could have been humanely euthanized. The dog's name was Garfield.

Also weighing in on the video is Channel 19 (WOIO)

Another member of the SCDPAB shared the following via email with the SCPR regarding Sedlacko's working both for the city of Canton and the Stark County Dog Pound, to wit:

There was a hearing for Phil Sedlacko regarding his continuing to work for the city doing animal control while taking 6 weeks off from the pound due to stress. It was pretty much all smoke and mirrors in that they wrote it up as if Reagan had discovered this going on when in fact it was the Advisory Board who brought it to Janet's [Stark County Commissioner Janet Creighton] attention. She [Warden Tetreault] denied Phil was working for the city but finally admitted that he was. The the determination at the hearing was that since Reagan didn't give Phil the option of light duty he was not culpable

Now that the video referred to in the February 6th council deliberations on the contract is out in the public domain, it appears that two weeks later (council's February 27th meeting?) the debate may be on again as to whether or not Canton wishes to continue its contract with Sedlacko.

Could be that the February 21st council meeting will be a "replay plus" of the February 6th animal control controversy in the halls of Canton City Council?

NORTH CANTON SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION DISRESPECTS ITS BOARD OF EDUCATION?

2012-02-17T08:21:00.000-05:00

Back in April, 2011 the SCPR did a blog on the unhappiness of a number of North Canton City Schools (NCCS) constituents in how the the administration in tandem with a majority of the board of education (BOE) handled the restructuring of North Canton elementary schools in the Dogwood city.

Then again on October 21, 2011 (days before the general election in which incumbent Jordan Greenwald was up for re-election and a vacated seat (Bundy, not running for re-election) was being filled, The Report blogged about the candidates and the appropriate standard for boardmanship.

Yours truly editorialized that Greenwald (the man - if Gallina would have accepted - put Gallina under a 10 year contract), in particular, was way over the top on being a "good" board member.

The Report thinks it was a move forward for appropriate administration/BOE distancing that Greenwald was defeated. However, it appears that the election did not go far enough.

The newly elected Betty Fulton appears to have fallen in lock step with Gallina and his uncritical supporters on the board. Accordingly, more work needs to be done in the elections of 2013 to replace either Goldthorpe or Marion if Thomas runs again; both if he does not.

One would of thought that the defeat of Greenwald (by Jennifer Kling) would have sent a loud and clear message to the administration and the remaining members of the BOE (except for Thomas) that major work needed to be done to repair the breech in confidence in NCCS/BOE standard of communication with the consumers of North Canton education.

But apparently not.

A source tells the SCPR, which is confirmed by the timeline between announcement and BOE approval, that the Gallina administration of the NCCS presumed BOE approval of a 2012 - 2013 school year calendar in issuing a press release reported by the North Canton Patch (Gallina: What Does the New Year Hold for North Canton City Schools, Morgan Day) on December 18th.

According to the source, board member Chris Thomas raised the "presumption of BOE approval" issue with the administration in the regularly scheduled January 12, 2012 board meeting and again at Wednesday night's February meeting in light of yet another development in which the Gallina administration announced staff changes in a release to the Akron Beacon Journal published on February 4th of this year; eight days before BOE approval by a 3 to 2 vote (Thomas and Kling voting no) at Wednesday's meeting.

Obviously, Superintendent Gallina has too comfortable of a relationship with the board majority (Fulton, Goldthorpe and Marion).

As far as the SCPR is concerned, in Stark County, there are too many instances across the 17 boards of education in which the relationship between the administration and the board does not have an "arm's length" quality to it.

The SCPR has written repeatedly that school superintendents have a marked tendency to overdo cultivating working relationship with their boards of education. The relationship should not be adversarial, but board members owe it to the voters of their respective school districts to take a critical look at each and every proposal put before them by the superintendents and their administrators.

For North Canton to allow (as evidenced by the necessity of two BOE "after the fact" approvals) its administration to announce changes before they are approved by the board is clear indication that the board does not have control of its superintendent.

ANY ELECTION EXCITEMENT BUILDING FOR STARK CO. 2012 ELECTIONS IN STARK?

2012-02-16T08:31:00.001-05:00

To repeat the headline question: Any election excitement building for Stark County 2012 elections?

Answer: yes and no.

Obviously, first and foremost is the Republican presidential primary election which is a part of the overall March 6th Ohio primary elections.

A recent Quinnipiac University Ohio poll shows former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum leading former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney 36% to 29% with former Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich coming in at 20% and Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 9%.

However, the big factor two and one-half weeks out from Ohio's primary is the estimate that as many as 50% of those polled say that they are not fixed in their choice.

While Santorum is presently leading across the state, the SCPR believes that Romney is likely ahead in Stark County inasmuch as Santorum appeals to the most conservative part of the Republican Party and The Report does not see Stark Republicans as fitting that description.

The Romney campaign website claims that many prominent Ohio Republicans have endorsed him (e.g. U.S. Senator Rob Portman - January 19, 2012).

It will be interesting to see who, if any of the candidates, actually show up in Stark to campaign, and, more importantly, who shares the stage with the candidate - as a tip off - as to who the local Republican establishment is to support.

Stark County Commissioner Janet Creighton tells the SCPR (as of yesterday) that she is undecided.

Other than the Republican presidential race, there is not that much going on for Stark Countians in the primary.

There is a GOP nomination for U.S. Senator contest going on for the right to match up with Democratic United States Senator Sherrod Brown going on, but it looks as if Josh Mandel (Ohio treasurer) has it locked up which makes the race ho-hum.

Ditto for Brown. He has two "write in" opponents.

However, there are two "inside the Columbus beltway" intraparty fights with a Stark County aspect that is likely lost on most Stark County primary voters which could affect who is chairman of the Ohio Republican Party and the Ohio Democratic Party.

First, the Beth Williams versus Sarah Brown 29th District State Central Committee Woman race.

The SCPR is told by Jim Woods of the Medina County Tea Party that the Tea Party contemplates filing litigation against the Kevn DeWine as chairman of the Ohio Republican Party to invalidate a rule that DeWine forced through into the governing rules of the party that requires central committee persons to have voted in the Republican primary in the last two primary elections. If left to stand, Woods tells The Report, Williams would not be qualified to serve.

There is a fight going on within the Ohio Republican Party with Governor Kasich behind the dissidents to remove DeWine as chairman.

The SCPR's impression is that both Brown and Williams favor DeWine's removal.

It is hard to imagine Sarah Brown not winning a Stark County Republican Party intraparty contest.

Secondly, there is similar fight is going on within the Ohio Democratic Party (ODP) as to whether or not Chris Redfern is to remain as chairman of the ODP.

Redfern has recruited Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II to be his man from Stark County. Healy interesting enough is opposed by his successor 52nd District Ohio House state Representative Stephen Slesnick.

The SCPR believes that Healy is trying to position himself to take over control of the Stark County Democratic Party. This race will be an indicator of how much strength Healy has among rank and file Democrats.

If Healy wins this race and if Democrats take a bath in the newly formed Ohio House districts (i.e. the 48th - Schuring, and the 50th - Hagan) which the SCPR projects they will, then there might be renewed impetus to set current chairman Randy Gonzalez aside to be replaced by Healy or one of his political confederates with a mission to reinvigorate the Stark County Democratic Party which has fallen on hard times over the last several years.

The Dems could be looking at a loss of the prosecutor's office, the sheriff's department and, perhaps, even the coroner's office come the general election of 2012.

Stay tuned. The SCPR expects the general election of 2012 to be all excitement!

(VIDEOS: CREIGHTON, BERNABEI, HANKE & HAROLD) DOES MONEY FIND STARK COUNTY OR DO STARK CO. OFFICIALS FIND MONEY? ANOTHER WINDFALL OF NEARLY $1.3 MILLION ON TOP OF $1.1 REPORTED RECENTLY.

2012-02-15T06:54:00.000-05:00

VIDEO UPDATE AT 07:33 AM

The fact that money is finding Stark County officials is no laughing matter at Stark County commissioners meetings these days.

Officials are well aware that some $2.4 million has more or less mysteriously appeared over the last several months as they grapple with putting together the Stark County General Fund Budget for 2012. But they also realize that "the money finding them" is going to raise the eyebrows among a certain part of the Stark County citizenry rank and file.

One such "eyebrows raised person" might be Republican Craig T. Conley who is running as a Republican to unseat sitting commissioner and Democrat Thomas Bernabei.

Conley is the leading Stark County political curmudgeon when it comes to believing what Stark County elected and non-elected officials say about their revenues and expenditures and managerial control of costs techniques.

A week ago or so, Stark County Auditor Alan Harold blessed the commissioners with the news that $1.1 million in "overpaid" personal property taxes and real property taxes had accumulated and although Stark County will forever and ever be obligated to repay the overpaying taxpayers should they some day file a claim, the chances of that happening get more and more remote by the day, and therefore Auditor Harold thinks there is no good reason not to certify that the $1.1 million is a resource that the commissioner can spend.

Last week Auditor Harold hinted that more blessings were to come. But he wouldn't say exactly from where and how much. However, county officials were praying for a cool $1 million or so. The question: would the $1 million rain down in the form of "pennies - 100 times a million - raining down from heaven?"

Lo and behold! Prayers have been answered!! At yesterday's work session of commissioners it was announced that Stark County Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold had found $1 million in what is called "title funds" and that County Chief Administrator Mike Hanke working with Stark's exceptional Benefits Administrator Carol Hayn had figured out that county general fund departments had "overpaid" (that word again) their share of the county's monthly health care self-insurance assessment collectively by $284,000 and that BINGO! there you have it: an answer to prayer - a cool $1.3 million (rounded off, of course, to the next higher number).

Consequently, the previously announced 20% cuts (on average) except for criminal justice and administration departments (10%) would dip just a little below those numbers.

Commissioner Janet Creighton is especially sensitive to the possibility that the twice repeated serendipitous raining down of money might be taken by skeptics such as Conley as being just a tad disingenuous, and took pains at yesterday's meeting to disclaim that such was the case given that she and Commissioner Bernabei have worked extremely hard since their ascension to commissionership status, to convince Stark Countians that the game playing days in Stark County government are over and that Stark voters should eschew the negativity of the Conley-esque types.

Here is a video of Creighton, her fellow commissioners, Chief Administrator Mike Hanke and Auditor Harold commenting on the "money finding county official" phenomenon.

Also, be sure to take in the following post-commissioners-meeting video tapped press conference in which yours truly and Rep reporter Kelli Young quiz Commissioner Bernabei and Chief Administrator Mike Hanke about various budget topics (money for ditching, 9-1-1, et cetera).

Included in this video is an exchange between yours truly and Commissioner Bernabei on whether or not he has any concerns about the balance of perspective of presenters at an upcoming (March 10th) Stark County Local Emergency Planning Committee (SCLEPC) on hazardous materials as same is related to fracking.

And there is more.

The SCPR shares with readers of this blog an exchange which took place between yours truly and Chief Administrator Mike Hanke on a "what if" question pertaining to "what if health care claims accelerate and there is not adequate money in the self-insured fund to cover claims - will moneys (already appropriated, implied) have to be taken from general fund departments to cover the unanticipated balloon in claims?

In the Good Book we know that "all things are possible." But as the SCPR understood Administrator Hanke's explanation that "it is not possible" that there has been a miscalculation in the next 12 months' needs for a cash reserve to cover health insurance claims thereby obviating the possibility that the county would have to retrieve "one month holiday" moneys credited to the various general fund departments of Stark County government.

Hmm?

(VIDEOS: SNYDER, PETERS & CERRETA) NORTH CANTON COUNCIL PRESIDENT JON SNYDER SAYS HE IS NOT FOR CENSORING "SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE" (SWAP) CONSIDERATION OF "FRACKING"/"STREET SWEEPINGS" AND THE LIKE WHEN NORTH CANTON DRINKING WATER SAFETY IS AT STAKE.

2012-02-14T04:57:00.002-05:00

On January 17th of this year at a meeting of the North Canton City Council, a controversy erupted that probably has its origin out of the larger Stark County community.

Chris Borello of the Concerned Citzens of Stark County (CCSC) has been in dialogue for some time via email with former Canton Health Director Bob Pattison about protecting the quality of drinking water in North Canton.

Why Bob Pattison? Because he (a North Canton resident) is the chairman of the North Canton Source Water Assessment & Protection Committee (SWAP).

Borello (a Plain Township resident and former Lake Township resident) has been concerned about the integrity of Stark County drinking water supplies since she first got active as a concerned citizen (about 1983) with the revelation that hazardous materials were dumped by area industrial companies in a quarry about a half mile south of the center of Uniontown during the time span 1966 through 1978.

The site is now known as the Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL - 1984) superfund site. Superfund is a designation of federal legislation designed to deal with hazardous material cleanups.

Borello's focus appears to be based on her fear of an underground migration of contamination leeching from IEL into water sources for nearby communities (for a contrary view insofar as North Canton in concerned CLICK HERE).

Borello and her supporters fears have been heightened of late because of the onset of hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") in Stark County and, in particular, concerns that fracking may be in the offing on lands in Plain Township near to a city of North Canton well field which they feared might jeopardize the safety of the well field as a source of drinking water for North Cantonians.

Former North Canton councilman Jeff Davies took an interest in the Borello et al fracking concerns in the last year or so of the end of his term in office. However, he dropped the effort for what he said in an email to Plain Township Trustee Lou Giavasis (a leading Stark County opponent of fracking) was pre-election pressure being applied to North Canton Council by the Stark Development Board:

With his defeat in the 2011 elections, one had to wonder who might pick up where Davies left off.

The answer seems to be two-fold: first, the Source Water Assessment & Protection Committee, and, secondly, Councilman Jeff Peters (Ward 2) to the extent that he is leading the effort to protect SWAP in its "drinking water protecting" function from an recent attempt to amend Ordinance 58-07 (originally passed on 06/25/2007) to give the Superintendent of the North Canton Water Treatment Plant the authority to set the agenda and determine when the committee should meet. See the 01/17/2012 MINUTES which elaborate on the intentions as explained by various council members in offering the amendment in the first place.

It seems that some on North Canton Council (prompted by concerns expressed by council's legal counsel that SWAP fracking and street sweepings considerations may compromise city legal positions) were not all that thrilled that SWAP had gone off recently into a consideration of the fracking process and its byproducts and street sweepings as they might affect the quality of North Canton's drinking water.

One area media outlet ascribed a "censor" motive to Council President Jon Snyder. But last night he told the SCPR his position was mischaracterized and that he is not in favor of changing the role/function of SWAP, to wit:

It appears to the SCPR that Councilman Peters has been effective to stop the move to "censor?" the scope of SWAP's functioning. And, by the way, he told The Report that he had not been approached by the oil and gas industry and pressured not to consider anti-fracking legislation pre-the-2011-council-elections.

While on the surface, council is waiting for SWAP chairman Bob Pattison to return from vacation in Florida in April to move forward on the amendment, Councilman Peters tells The Report that he is confident that he has the votes to defeat the attempt to amend 58-07 should its sponsor(s) persist, to wit:

Also speaking to the issue was Councilman-at-large Mark Cerreta (apparently, as chairman of the Water, Sewer and Rubbish Committee) who appears to be the prime driving force on council pushing for the amendment, to wit.

If Peters is correct in his assessment, it appears that SWAP will maintain its original function and role and will be free to consider whatever issues surface that the committee thinks could affect the potability of North Canton's water.

So in the end, the whole thing about refashioning SWAP may well prove to have been a "tempest in the teapot!"

(VIDEO OF CANTON RETIRE/REHIRE EMPLOYEE) A REFERENDUM ON RETIRE & REHIRE COMING UP ON JUDGE GWIN, JUDGE WISE RE-ELECTION BIDS?

2012-02-12T10:01:00.003-05:00

UPDATED: 08:13 AM

The Stark County Political Report (SCPR - The Report) has been tracking the retire/rehire controversy in Stark County since April 6, 2008.

The Report began publication on March 12, 2008 and so regular readers of this blog have to be well informed as to who among Stark County officials, past and present, have advantaged themselves with the so called "double-dipping" whereby they retire from public employment only to be rehired for the very same job at the very same salary to collect in addition to their retirement benefit.

Here are links for blogs done by the SCPR going back to April 6, 2008 related in one fashion or another on the retire/rehire question.

04/06/08

04/27/08

05/01/08

05/24/08

10/13/08

03/20/09

03/22/09

06/04/09

02/24/10

05/24/10

06/20/10

06/27/10

06/29/10

With respect to elected officials, the SCPR sees retire/rehire just a little bit different than those instances like the city of Canton is undergoing with respect to certain "unelected" public officials who retired and rehired without the taxpayers/voters having a say.

ON ELECTED OFFICIALS

To concentrate on a few examples:

Stark Countians could have rejected the re-election bid of 5th District Court of Appeals Judge William Hoffman (a colleague of Judges Gwin and Wise) on "a no hire/retiree" basis, but they did not.

Stark Countians could have rejected the re-election bid of Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson on "a no hire a retiree" basis, but they did not.

Of course, there was no organized effort to focus public attention on the retire/rehire dimension of the Hoffman and Swanson campaigns nor on the re-election/election of retired public officials who ran for other offices.

But for Judges Gwin (a Democrat, presiding judge of the 5th and a son of a former judge) and Wise (a Republican, administrative judge of the 5th and a son of a former judge) this may be about to change.

On Saturday, the SCPR received a call from a well known local attorney who wanted to talk about the Gwin/Wise plans to put themselves in the $250,000 (more or less) per annum income bracket and $200,000 (more or less) per annum income bracket UNOPPOSED.

"Unopposed," - a key word.

At least Swanson had an opponent in 2008 (Larry Dordea, himself a retiree as Alliance police chief who now is building up additional retirement benefits as Hartville police chief).

With both candidates on retirement, what choice the the voters have?

Gwin and Wise; NO OPPOSITION? Should not be!

The SCPR trusts that the effort to find "independent" candidates (who are not retired) to put up against Gwin and Wise will bear fruit and that a well-funded, organized, staff (by unpaid volunteers) and articulate campaign will be put before the Stark County electorate to determine whether or not the Gwin and Wise plan for themselves is acceptable to the voting public.

If a well-informed electorate thinks it okay for the likes of Gwin and Wise to hang on until the bitter end (both at age 60 will have the opportunity to two more times under current law and thereby could possibly serve until they are 72 or so) while fattening their incomes with a combo of n annual salary of $132,000 plus a healthy retirement income, who is to complain?

However, we all need to be clear as to what "the will of the people" is in a context of actual election contests which focus the vote on the retire/rehire aspect of what Gwin and Wise wish to do on the condition that the candidates in opposition meet the threshold of being "qualified" candidates as assessed by the local bar associations which comprise the 5th.

Back in November Stark County and Ohio voters overwhelming voted to reject extending the age to which judges can run for office (proposed to be age 75 - State Issue #1), to wit:

Has the Ohio Legislature misread what people think on the retire/rehire issue?

If the effort to produce independent opponents to Gwin and Wise, Stark County could lead the way in providing a ballot box answer.

The SCPR's preference is that once public officials decide to retire, they should retire - pure and simple. No gaming the system. Ohio should enact legislation to make such the law of the state.

As things stand now, the judges are acting within their rights. Of course, the voters in the 5th Court of Appeals District can trump their try.

ON UNELECTED OFFICIALS

Unelected public officials/employees (school superintendents, teachers, police, fire, health workers et cetera) should only be allowed to retire/rehire on the condition that they take a 40% reduction in wages and work without any fringe benefits in the non-retirement work context.

And that only on the certification by designated officials (e.g. the mayor of a city or village, on the unanimous vote of a board of education) that the retiree/rehiree is an essential person to the effective functioning of the certifying government.

While we know very little what is going on in Canton with the 30 (more or less) employees (some quite well known public figures - some of who The Report understands are sitting elected officials) who "quietly" retired and were rehired in their public jobs without missing a beat, it appears that city officials going back sometime (apparently at least through the Creighton and Watkins administrations) have been allowing if not encouraging this very practice at a significant cost to the taxpayers of Canton: a city running million dollar plus deficits in recent years.

Here is a video of Leroy Lynch of Canton addressing Canton City Council last Monday night on the issue.

In the case of elected officials, Stark Countians have the opportunity to vote no on retire/rehire.

But in the case of unelected officials/employees, the public has no say in the matter.

Take the category of superintendents of schools. For the most part superintendents cultivate "sweetheart" relationships with their respective boards of education and there is no "arms length" negotiating that takes place to protect the public's financial interest.

Such is the reason why the Ohio legislature needs to impose a structure on those public officials and bodies that are doing the retire/rehire thing.

DOES RETIRE/REHIRE PHENOMENON HAVE AN EROSIVE EFFECT ON PUBLIC VIEW ON INTEGRITY OF GOVERNMENT?

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly believes that there is a steady erosion of public support for institutions of government at all levels and the culprit is not limited to a Vince Furstaci theft in office type of event.

Violations of the "sunshine law," arbitrary denials of "public records" to the requesting public, overuse of "executive sessions" by public officials and a myriad of other government official abuses of the taxpaying/voting public including, perhaps, the retire/rehire phenomenon, belong as part of the "culprit" list.

It could be that the general public feels gamed, abused and "played the sucker" by the way retire/rehire has evolved as sanctioned by the Ohio General Assembly (OGA).

There is a move in the OGA to change the rules for retire/rehire. Here is a extract of HB 202 (introduced on 04/12/2011) analysis by the Ohio Judicial Conference.

It is about time that a mechanism be provided to citizens-at-large to gauge how the voting public feels about retire/rehire.

And the Gwin/Wise re-election pursuits of November, 2012 may turn out to be a 15 county (the jurisdiction of the 5th District Court of Appeals - Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas counties) referendum on the issue.

After all, our government is to be one of the people, for the people and by the people, isn't it Abraham Lincoln?

A SILVER LINING EMERGING OUT OF THE FRUSTACI CASE?

2012-02-10T10:28:00.000-05:00

Update: 1:00 PM

A lingering question is whether or not the theft by former Deputy Chief Treasurer Vince Frustaci of an admitted $2.46 million (2003 through 2009) of Stark County taxpayer money and questions of attendant hiring criteria by elected officials (in filling staff positions) has changed the basis upon which Stark's organized Republicans and Democrats select/encourage/support candidates to run for seek to be appointed to office?

The SCPR has doubts that it has.

It appears that running for office in Stark from a political party standpoint has, in bygone days, been factored more on whether or not a prospective candidate is in favor with the ruling circles of both the Stark County Republican Party and the Stark County Democratic Party; not on the capability of a candidate to properly manage the office he/she is running for or is in line to be appointed to.

Both parties proved in 2010 - if motivated by an aroused electorate - that they can recruit and get behind very able and qualified candidates as evidenced in the selection of Alex Zumbar (Republican) and Ken Koher (Democrat) to replace Gary Zeigler when he was unconstitutionally removed (via ORC 321.38) as Stark County treasurer by the then commissioners Bosley, Meeks and Ferguson in August, 2010.

Zeigler (who steadfastly maintained he did nothing wrong in the management of the Stark treasury and was not implicated in the Frustaci theft by law enforcement officials) was subsequently reinstated to office (by the Ohio Supreme Courth - June 23, 2011) only to negotiate his departure (resignation/retirement) on October 19, 2011.

The original (August, 2010) "replace Zeigler phenomenon" was an anomaly and Stark Countians should not expect either the Chairman Randy Gonzalez-led Democrats nor the Chairman Jeff Matthews-led Republicans to reach those heights again anytime soon.

The SCPR's position is that BUT FOR the Frustaci matter for a variety of reasons Alex Zumbar would not today be Stark County treasurer, nor Alan Harold (Republican) Stark County auditor, nor Janet Creighton (Republican) Stark County commissioner and nor Thomas Bernabei (Democrat) Stark County commissioner.

Canton Councilman Jimmy Babcock (Democrat, at-large), who worked for former Stark County Auditor Kim Perez until Perez was defeated by Harold in November, 2010, in a SCPR conversation with him this past Monday seemed to lamenting the turn of events (i.e. the Frustaci matter) which he said resulted in his old boss losing his job.

Rightly or wrongly; Perez has been perceived by the Stark County general public as being part of a Stark County Democratic Party "good ole boys" network which is thought to go back at least into the 1990s and to have also included Zeigler, Ferrero (Stark County prosecutor and Stark Dems chairman when Zeigler was selected to replace Mark Roach [forced from office because of a failure to meet continuing education requirements]) and Sheriff Tim Swanson and a number of other presently publicly employed persons.

Swanson (whom, The Report believes, could not have been re-elected because of his "good ole boy" political ties) is not running for re-election and it remains to be seen as to whether or not Ferrero can weather the political storm which has enveloped a certain segment of Stark County Democrat officeholders post-Frustaci.

By all accounts, Democrat Mike McDonald (current Chief Deputy - the Jail Division) of the Stark County sheriff's department is generally thought not to be a part of any Stark Dems "good ole boys" network. He could be the odds-on-favorite to defeat the equally well thought of Republican Larry Dordea (former Alliance police chief and currently the Hartville chief).

However, McDonald was not Swanson's first choice to succeed him. Swanson had all but elected his other chief deputy - Rick Perez - (Kim's brother) as evidenced by his telling a visiting group (to the jail) of Rick's Leadership Stark County classmates that Perez would be his successor. But again, a perception of Perez being part of the Stark Dems "good ole boys network" squelched Swanson's effort to have him as his successor.

Jeff Matthews should not be credited with the emergence of Zumbar, Harold and Creighton as quality candidates and officeholders.

Matthews just happened to be Stark GOP chairman when the Frustaci matter broke.

As of January 1, 2009 (Republican Jane Vignos having retired as commissioner as of December 31st, 2008), Stark County Republicans held exactly - 0 - countywide offices. So rather than orchestrating a Stark County Republican resurgence, Matthews got extremely lucky.

The Report sees him as an opportunist who worries more about his personal place/stake in local politics and government (soon to be director of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE); now deputy director) than the public interest.

Recently, it appears he brought former Stark County GOP Executive Director Travis Secrest into employment at the BOE. Moreover, in 2010 worked to get Wadsworth car dealer Jim Renacci nominated/elected as 16th district congressman. Guess who works for Congressman Renacci post-election? Jeff's wife Heidi. She formerly worked on the staff of former Congressman Ralph Regula. In 2008, Alliance Democrat John Boccieri wrestled the seat from the Republicans.

Who knows how many such trails might lead to the chairman's office located at 2727 Fulton NW, Canton, Ohio?

Stark Dems Chairman Randy Gonzalez has not had an answer to the political catastrophe that the Frustaci matter visited upon a certain type of Stark elected official Democrat, at least from a public perception standpoint.

Tom Bernabei is the long time Canton law director, former Canton city councilman and chief-of-staff/service director to Mayor William J. Healy, II. He is thought to be his own person and not beholden to any political party machine nor, as Mayor Healy can tell one and all, to any single politician.

While he gets along with the party establishment types, he thinks for himself.

The SCPR read on Gonzalez is that, as a staunch ally of former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (who appears to have the city of Massillon under his political domination), former Stark County commissioner Gayle Jackson and their likes, he is the titular personification of a political wheeler dealerism which seems to look out for primarily for political insiders and only secondarily/incidentally for the Stark County or political subdivision public interest.

Gonzalez appeared to do something magnanimous for the public good on October 31, 2011 when he steered the Stark County Democratic Central Committee into endorsing Republican Zumbar to fill out Zeigler's terms.

But as a practical political matter he had no choice. No Democrat (including Koher who lost to Zumbar in 2010) was stepping forward to assume the office on what surely would have for a temporary period of time.

A while back, yours truly had a back and forth with Gonzalez about his contention that the Gonzalez family prolific involvement in local politics and/or government is a matter of public service going back years.

The Report listens but is unconvinced that such is the case. Yours truly takes such a claim to be insulting to the intellect of everyday people.

Assuming arguendo that those who work for Stark County government or a political subdivision do good work, they do get paid and in the mind of non-government folks, rather well - when one includes the benefits.

But doing what one gets paid for is NOT public service.

What is public service is the thousands of hours (cumulatively) that volunteers (the unpaid) for the political parties and their candidates dish out. The Report believes that they do so in the hope that the general public will benefit from having public officials elected who have the public interest as their first priority.

To the degree that political party chairmen and their consorts slice off part of the public action for political party and individual benefit, they profane the notion of public service.

And in brooking the same, the political leadership is NOT highly effective for the public benefit.

It is a sad, sad day in American politics from the White House to the courthouse that it takes a political crisis like the Frustaci matter to get out of the rut of self-serving "politics as usual."

At the end of the day, it seems as if the only thing we can hope for is for a "silver lining" peaking out from a dark political cloud of political crisis.

Highly effective politics/government of the people, for the people and by the people appears to be a mere pipe dream given the leadership model of the likes of Jeff Matthews and Randy Gonzalez.

GOP STATE SENATOR SCOTT OELSLAGER "SKEPTICAL" OF KASICH NEW FOUND BIPARTISANSHIP?

2012-02-09T07:12:00.000-05:00

One expects Ohio's Democratic Minority Leader Armond Budish to say: "He (Republican Governor John Kasich) asks us to put aside partisanship and yet he rams through the most extreme radical agenda in quite a long time."

One does not expect a Republican lawmaker to say: “... the proof will be in the pudding. The next 12 months will he be reaching out to try to bridge that gap? There were gaps the first year of the session. There was no question about that. ... we’ll just wait to see and give him the benefit of the doubt.” (Stark area legislators react to State of State address, Robert Wang, The Repository, February 7, 2012).

That is unless the lawmaker is not a consummate Republican politician.

Although state Senator Scott W. Oelslager (the 29th - Stark County) certainly qualifies as a loyal Republican, he has proved periodically over his more than 20 years in the Ohio legislature that he will take on "over-the-top" partisan political positions.

Oelslager did exactly that when he voted no on the Kasich administration overreach in presenting Senate Bill No. 5 (SB 5) as its marque piece of legislation designed to gut Ohio's police, fire, educator and other public worker unions in order to weaken the unions' ability to support Democratic candidates.

Kasich et al tried to convince the Ohio public that SB 5 was for the public good. But the Ohio electorate wasn't buying.

Ohioans saw that the real underlying motivation of Kasich was partisan politics and was having none of it.

Ditto for Scott Oelslager.

While his Stark County delegation Republican colleagues were voting for SB 5, Oelslager was voting no.

It is apparently dawning on Governor Kasich that there is no way he and the Republican dominated state government is going to be able to pull Ohio out of the economic dumping grounds of America without all out "across-the-political-isle" support.

But as Senator Oelslager's skepticism highlights:

"the proof will be in the pudding ... ."

(VIDEOS) DEMOCRACY IN ACTION! DOES CANTON CITY COUNCIL FEEL "UNDER THE GUN" ON THE FERAL ANIMAL (CAT) ISSUE?

2012-02-08T06:17:00.001-05:00

UPDATE: 02/08/2012 at 09:45 AM - Having realized that a post-Canton-City-Council meeting mini-press conference (involving the SCPR and a WHBC reporter) was inadvertently omitted from the original video featuring Councilman Barton (at the end of the blog), The Report is supplementing via this update a video of the post-meeting interview.

ORIGINAL BLOG

For the past two weeks what Canton is going to do in terms of animal control within the city has been a "hot button" with Canton City Council (Council).

And it hasn't helped any to defuse the controversy that Canton's animal control officer, Phil Sedlacko, submitted his resignation to Safety Director Thomas Ream last Thursday in an apparent move to force the hand of Council to renew his contract for an extended period of time.

The SCPR's take is that most if not all of her fellows do not agree with Councilwoman Mary Cirelli; nevertheless she expressed her view that the Sedlacko action was a ploy tantamount to putting a gun to the head of Council.

Her description caused a sharp reaction from Majority Leader David Dougherty. Here is a video of that part of last night's meeting.

Understanding time considerations (about 18 people on the list to speak) Dougherty himself last night was in the view of the SCPR unnecessarily brusque and caustic with citizens appearing before Council (not just on the feral animal issue) who spoke more than the 3 minutes allowed by Council rules. Dougherty was sitting on the timer as if he was timing the finish of a highly competitive 100 yard dash. Hmm?

The Report has been at a number of Council meetings in recent years and is well taken with how Council President Allen Schulman handles the exact same situation with diplomacy and classy treatment of offenders.

Dougherty would do well to take lessons from Schulman or defer to another councilmember (when Schulman is absent) who has better skills in interacting with citizens addressing Council.

It seems to the SCPR that Canton will in time solve the controversy over the treatment of feral animals running the streets of the city.

Everybody appears to be united on whether or not Canton needs to continue to have an animal control officer and the consensus seems to be: absolutely, Canton will continue to have an animal control officer.

So what is the question?

First, whether or not it will continue to be Phil Sedlacko? Councilwoman Chris Smith and Councilmen Greg Hawk and Tom West and spoke highly of him but he drew negatives from Councilwoman Cirelli and Councilman Frank Morris.

Here is a video of councilmembers talking about Sedlacko himself.

If Sedlacko's surprise resignation (which Ream, as of Monday night, was holding in abeyance) is an indication of a "my way or the highway" (which is typical of a number of Healy administration folks including the mayor himself), then he could be history at his own hand. For The Report's sense of the situation is that if he will abide with whatever policy Council settles on, he will be renewed for a longer term. Area media reported yesterday that Sedlacko has accepted the 90 day contract passed by Council on Monday for $6,782.25.

Because it seems to The Report that Council is of a mood to change its animal control policy to accommodate some of the concerns of the opponents to current Canton policy. However, the SCPR believes that Council will only do so provided that the opponents present Council with a viable, workable and realistic plan.

A simple "Trap, Neuter and Return" policy is not going to fly in Canton. As Councilman Hawk told yours truly is that he has to deal with ward residents who will not accept as an answer that a trapped cat is returning to the neighborhood to take up where it left off.

So abating the unacceptable wild animal behavior (cat or otherwise) seems to be the key. And if opponents to the euthanasia track that the city is currently on want to be effective, they must come up with a plan that empowers councilpeople to solve ward resident problems.

The SCPR did contact one of the opposition leaders for elaboration on this point and this is how he (Toby Franks, who appears on the video below) responded via e-mail, to wit:

...

We do work with people in the neighborhoods resolve their issues, and its actually rare that we find an area that cats simply cannot be returned to. Cat-haters & cat-lovers, we ALL want the same thing - less cats outdoors.

The issue is how do we do it humanely & effectively.

If it truly is a hostile environment & the cats lives would be in danger, there is the last resort option of relocation to a farm or other feral-friendly location. Relocations are rare & must be done carefully. Alley Cat Allies offers a guide to safe relocation of feral cats.

The removal of feral cats from an area creates a vacuum that is quickly filled by new cats. Survivors of the cull invariably breed back to capacity & new cats move in. It’s called the Vacuum Effect & it’s very well documented. Trap & Kill is expensive, ineffective & inhumane.

Thankfully, forward-thinking communities are moving away from it & adopting the TNR approach. Even our neighbor to the east, the Village of East Canton has a S/N program for feral cats.

...

With TNR the sterile, vaccinated cats are returned to their territory, so the breeding stops. The population is stabilized immediately & begins to decline naturally & gradually over time. And nuisance behaviors like scent marking, yowling, fighting stop as well.

So instead of a vacuum that is quickly filled by new cats, you have a stable population that creates a disease-free, kitten-free buffer zone & the population decreases over time.

... .

Canton City Council has the very best forum in Stark County (when Schulman is at the head) for citizens to express themselves at the Public Speaks part of Council's agenda. And The Report's take is that the speakers are genuinely welcome and councilmembers appear to listen to them very attentively. And, from time-to-time, it is apparent that citizens do affect councilmembers' thinking as they formulate policy.

Here is a video from the perspective of the citizens (in abbreviated format) that is a representative sampling of the feral animal Public Speaks debate which occurred Monday night.

Last but certainly not least is a video of Councilman Barton and his management of the issue.

Councilman Barton in his "on camera" response is especially impressive in the way he, as chairman of the Personnel Committee, is managing deliberations and the process of solving Canton's animal control problems.

(VIDEOS) CAN COUNTY AUDITOR ALAN HAROLD FIND ANOTHER $936,397 OF COUNTY MONEY JUST LAYING AROUND?

2012-02-07T07:24:00.000-05:00

Last Monday Stark County Auditor Alan Harold astounded everybody at a weekly Stark County commissioner work session when he revealed that he had found "lost" money (i.e. overpaid/unclaimed property taxes and personal taxes) to the tune of $1.1 million that he was willing to certify to the commissioners as being available to allocate to the Stark County general fund departments of government for 2012. However, the overpaid taxes are always subject to the claim of the overpaying taxpayer.

What an unexpected surprise that was!

And, perhaps, he was at it again at yesterday's meeting?

Chief Stark County Administrator Mike Hanke (supported by Stark County Auditor Alan Harold) took center stage at the meeting to announce a "draft" budget wherein previously announced (February 1, 2012) 23% (clerk of courts), 14.07% (coroner), 25.79% (family court), and 15.13% (Probate Court) cuts became 20%, 10%, 10% and 10%.

The SCPR for one was interested to hear of this revision.

How could this be? Where was the projected shortfall of $936,397 in the light of the Hanke/Harold suggested revisions going to be made up?

Aha! Enter Auditor Harold.

It appears that Harold is finding money that was just sort of laying around under the stewardship of former Kim Perez (whom Harold defeated in November, 2010).

Such is certainly the case with the $1.1 million in overpaid real property tax and personal property tax money by Stark Countians who have not made a claim on the overpaid monies during the past five (5) years.

Hmm?

Here is a video of Harold and Hanke doing a press conference yesterday to explain to media how they plan to balance the county budget.

Kim Perez (a Democrat) is not former Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler (also a Democrat) but readers of the SCPR will recall how forcefully Republican Harold castigated Zeigler for the manner in which he ran the county treasury during his time in office (1999 - 2011).

While he did hit Perez hard during the 2010 campaign, it seems that Harold has turned over a new leaf now that he is auditor himself and appears to The Report to be much more gentle in assessing how he could be finding this money that has been there all along and not a peep from Perez when he was auditor.

Harold now very kindly and gently says that formerly the records were not updated as often as perhaps they should have been.

What is this? Has Harold been talking to Sarah Brown (wife of Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge Charles E. Brown, Jr.) of the Stark GOP's Votes for Women about the need for more civility in government?

A week or two ago, Brown and her compatriots at the Votes for Women sent out a press release scoring Democratic Alliance Councilwoman Sue Ryan for being uncivil to Republican state Representative Christina Hagan in their square off on who is to represent the Stark-based Ohio 50th House District. Uncivil? Yes, according to Brown et al for Ryan calling Hagan a "twit."

So maybe Harold took the Votes for Women admonition to heart in lightening up on Perez?

Well, anyway the real point is that the SCPR believes that Harold is about to find more "just laying around money" within the records of the Stark County auditor's office to the tune of $936,397!

But the prospective find is not yet "his final answer." It will likely come next Tuesday (February 13th) when he and Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar appear for their monthly session on county finances with county commissioners.

Harold is playing coy right now. Probably because he can't believe what he is seeing and wants to make absolutely certain that his eyes are not deceiving himself.

However, the SCPR believes that he and Hanke are conservative enough that they would not have breathed a word of the possibility of another "gold strike," if it weren't pretty clear that it is for real.

Judge for yourself.

As is usual, the SCPR did a video of yesterday's session.

What do you think the chances are that Harold will confirm next Tuesday an additional nine hundred thirty six thousand three hundred ninety seven dollars ($936,397) in new found money?

Here is a second video of yesterdays budget work session wherein Chief Administrator Hanke explains to Commissioners Creighton and Ferguson how the proposed alternative budget came about.

(TWO VIDEOS) SHERIFF SWANSON SAYS HE AGREES WITH GOP COMMISSIONER CANDIDATE CRAIG CONLEY THAT SHERIFF DEPUTY BENEFITS NEED TO BE CUT!

2012-02-06T05:48:00.001-05:00

The SCPR could not believe what Sheriff Tim Swanson was saying in an exclusive interview with yours truly on January 19th (this year) after he had just concluded his remarks to Stark County commissioners in his session with them on the question of general fund budget allocations for 2012.

Swanson says he agrees with Republican Stark County commissioner candidate Craig T. Conley that the deputies' benefit costs to the county general fund need to be reduced.

Why disbelief?

Because historically the two have been at great odds. One wouldn't think Swanson would have the grace a political maturity to agree with Conley on anything.

Back in November, 2009 after the Conley-led "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee" had successfully - by a wide margin - repealed a commissioner (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) imposed 0.5% sales tax (ardently supported by Sheriff Swanson), he - Conley - appeared before the next after the election result meeting of commissioners to lambaste them as well as Sheriff Swanson.

Here's the segment: Conley on Swanson.

Currently, the deputies pay:

4% of health insurance costs as compared to 10% by the county's non-union workforce and about 30% (more or less) by private sector employees, and
10% (or 11.8% for some employees) of annual wages towards pension (that is, for new hire deputies, whereas other Stark County deputies employees pay only 5.5%) and the county pays 14% (plus 4.5% for a total of 18.5% for eligible employees' pick up or 18% [plus pick up] for a total of 22.5% for some employees) against the annual payroll.

In the private sector, employers pay about 5% of the annual payroll for a defined "contribution" plan, if offered, and/or
6.2% of payroll for Social Security.

Public pensions currently are defined "benefit" plan which guarantees a set monthly pension as determined by a combination of length of service and income in final three years of employment.
Private pensions currently are defined "contribution" plans the payout on which is dependent on the loss/gain of the underlying investment (e.g. bonds, stocks et cetera) over the life of the plan as set at the time distribution begins and continues until depletion.

As readers can see/hear in the following video, it appears that Conley has had an impact on Sheriff Swanson.

Conley, a local attorney, has been probably the most effective citizen activist in Stark County. As seen in the first video, he rode herd on the commissioners from December, 2008 through November, 2009 and was all over Swanson.

He has been a most vocal critic of Swanson's negotiation of contracts (he has been sheriff since 1999) with the union who represent the department deputies especially in terms of the contracts' generous provisions on the proportions paid by the employee versus the county general fund on health insurance and pension benefits.

In Swanson's defense, one needs to keep in mind that the mindset of some of the negotiations both pre-Swanson and during Swanson's term has been to step-up benefits for employees in lieu of wage increases.

You can bet that Conley as county commissioner, if elected county in November, will be putting pressure on Swanson's successor, either Democrat Mike McDonald, (who, by the way, tells the SCPR his health is dramatically improved and he is "full bore ahead" in running for office) or Larry Dordea (projected by the SCPR to win the Stark GOP March 6 primary contest) to negotiate reductions in the county share of deputy benefits.

The SCPR has heaped high praise on Conley for his work from April, 2009 through a good part of 2011 to force the hand of Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero to obtain financial recovery for Stark County taxpayers on the loss of upwards of 3 million (in the opinion of many, $2.46 million admitted to) Stark County taxpayer dollars at the hand of former Stark County Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci.

However, his chances to become a Stark County commissioner is believed by The Report to be significantly less than 50/50.

Incumbent Democrat Commissioner Tom Bernabei did not come into office until the election of November, 2010 (to fill out the term of former Commissioner Steve Meeks) and therefore is not vulnerable to the criticisms that Republican Conley has made about Stark County's deficient county commissioner governance because the problems occurred during the time of former Commissioners Bosley, Harmon, Ferguson and Meeks (2006 - 2010).

Most observers credit Bernabei and fellow commissioner Janet Creighton with having turned around their part of Stark County government on the issues of openness, transparency, communicativeness, accountability and hence in an overall sense trust.

Conley opposed the recently (November 8, 2011) passed 0.5% sales tax largely on his belief (in the analysis of the SCPR) that Stark County was not yet in enough of a fiscal crisis and that major changes (such as dramatic reductions in sheriff deputy benefit reductions) would not occur until the county was completely down and out.

Nevertheless, because of Conley's "civic" hard work over most of the past four years, Stark County government is much more attentive to frugality and efficiency than in former days.

LO & BEHOLD! STATE REP. CHRISTINA HAGAN (R - MARLBORO) GETS A $5,000 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION FROM NATURAL GAS FRACKER CHESAPEAKE ENERGY ON 12/05/2011. HMM? ALSO, OTHER INTERESTING REVELATIONS ABOUT HAGAN'S CONTRIBUTORS

2012-02-03T06:03:00.000-05:00

UPDATED: 8:45AM

THE CHESAPEAKE CONTRIBUTION

The SCPR routinely checks the campaign finance reports of area politicians to see who might be influencing them in their public policy decisions.

Tuesday was the filing deadline for Ohio's annual campaign finance report which contains campaign finance activity for the second half of 2011, so yours truly did some checking yesterday.

Of first interest to yours truly was the report of 50th Ohio House appointee (running for election the first time this coming November) Christina Hagan (R - Marlboro Township).

Ms. Hagan has become increasingly active in oil and gas circles lately on the issue of fracking and the SCPR was just a tad curious as to whether or not the report would show any contributions from primary players from the oil and gas industry in fracking activity.

On November 14, 2011 she sponsored a natural resources development forum at the Alliance location of Robertson Heating Supply. It just so happens that on the list of speakers was a representative of Chesapeake Energy.

Twenty-one (21) days later Hagan gets a $5,000.00 campaign contribution from Chesapeake.

Hmm? Interesting?

Undoubtedly, the Hagan reaction and explanation: a mere co-incidence of timing and she on her own analysis sees great merit in fracking for the economic benefit of Ohio/Stark County and Chesapeake's campaign contribution has nothing to do with the zeal of her support for natural gas production?

This past week the SCPR learned from Don McDonald who heads up the Stark County Local Emergency Planning Committee ("SCLEPC" - Stark's local government responsible for dealing with hazardous materials which gets out into the public domain) that he became familiar with Representative Hagan and her interest in fracking from the Robertson event.

Another interesting development, no?

And a bonus. Add to her opportunity another venue within which to work for natural gas production interests, to wit:

McDonald arranged with her to participate on a symposium planning committee of SCLEPC that is putting together - according to him - an "unbiased" forum (March 10th) at Stark State College (SSC) for Stark local government officials to provide information on fracking and the dangers of hazardous materials given the fact that some hazardous chemicals (even the industry itself reluctantly but dismissively admits) are used in the fracking process.

Representative Hagan is unbiased, Mr. McDonald? She will help produce unbiased presenters at the symposium? And the safety and well-being of Stark Countians may be at stake. Hmm?

Of course, as director of Stark's hazardous materials prevention effort, the stakes for SCLEPC could not be higher that Stark County's governing officials get a full and complete appreciation, depth and range of the risks so that they can have first responders prepared to deal with any eventuality.

If an incident does occur and Stark County's officials do not come out of the symposium prepared to deal with same, then guess where eyes and full attention will be directed in terms of accountability?

You've got it: the Stark County Local Emergency Planning Committee members, its symposium formation committee and, of course, the director.

While possibility of hazardous materials emanating from fracking is not a direct responsibility of the Stark County commissioners, one can be sure that if an accident occurs they will be up-to-their-eyeballs in dealing with a public demanding answers as to how the accident happened in the first place, what is being done to solve the problem as well as a hoard of other related questions.

A prudent board of commissioners - one would think - will want to monitor very closely who presents at the SSC symposium, what is presented and how thorough, far-ranging and complete the total presentation package is.

Or, will the board want to turn a blind eye and say that SCLEPC's business and ignore the format and the agenda of the March 10th conclave altogether and hope for the best?

Maybe they ought to consider calling Director McDonald in for a public work session for a thoroughgoing discussion on the matter?

OTHER 2011 - SECOND HALF - HAGAN CONTRIBUTIONS

An interesting list, no? In her 20s and working the PACs as if she were a political veteran.

So young and already well on her way to being a captive of the special interests!

(VIDEO) THE KEY: CAN THE COMMISSIONERS KEEP THE ISSUE 29 TEAM INTACT?

2012-02-02T08:43:00.000-05:00

UPDATE AT 9:40 AM
County officials were amazed when they passed Issue 29 on November 8, 2011 by the margin they did.

They were hoping for even a slim victory. That is according to Commissioner Janet Creighton.

Now the worry is that some of the strong team effort that clearly (56% to 44%) convinced Stark Countians of the authenticity of county financial needs may be in danger of being lost.

The commissioners appear determined to keep the team effort in place. But doing so will not be easy.

The SCPR has already published a blog on Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero's entreaty to Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson not cut his budget from 2011 levels and to consider restoring him to 2011 levels.

The troublesome part of Ferrero's request is that it appears to The Report to be an effort by him to separate from his county department head brothers and sisters by enveloping himself into the "for criminal justice and administration" tag to the campaign for the levy and by threatening to cost the county more money by asking Stark County judges in courts handing prosecutor office cases to appoint "special counsel" which, of course, have to be paid out of the general fund at hourly rates set by the judges.

In doing so, Ferrero seemingly endeavors to punish county taxpayers (i.e. higher taxpayer cost for "assigned special counsel") for doing the responsible and good deed that a clear majority did as voters last November.

Isn't that a strange twist on things?

Well, the SCPR point of view is that his fellows ought to be exercising peer influence on him for him to get creative and find ways to work within the general fund parameters set by the commissioners and show he can be a team player.

What's more, it has never been more clear to the SCPR (The Report has had major differences with Ferrero handling of the prosecutor's office going back nearly four years now as evidenced in yours truly's "political analysis" of the functioning of Stark's various departments of government) that Stark County voters need to take a serious look at Republican candidate for Stark County prosecutor Michael Grady to determine whether or not he has qualities that would make him a chief administrator superior to Ferrero.

It has been a long time since Stark County has had a prosecutor who actually tries cases except for cameo effect when a high profile case is underway. And John Ferrero seems to fit that model. The Report is told by an highly active attorney in Stark County criminal prosecution/criminal defense circles that Ferrero has not sat as prosecutorial trial counsel since the Bobby Cutts murder trial of February, 2008. Yours truly does recall seeing him in and about the civil trial court during the Zeigler series of civil case. However, Ross Rhodes was clearly lead trial counsel.

So to The Report the essential question boils down to administrative abilities and ability to attract a highly polished, skilled and sophisticated prosecutorial staff; not a question of having an elected prosecutor who necessarily has trial lawyer skills.

Besides the Ferrero thing, there is word that the Veterans Service Commission and the Stark County Probate Court may be contemplating giving pay raises to staff members.

While not a topic in the meeting that the commissioners had with county department heads and officials but open to the general public, later on the commissioners indicated to the media including the SCPR that they have no thought of asking for additional sales tax revenues for eight years, the term of Issue 29.

Rather, as brought out by Repository reporter Kelli Young and confirmed by commissioners; they will do everything they can think of to generate additional revenues through alternative sources.

One example is one brought up at yesterday's meeting by Stark County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Judge Jim James to apply for funding from the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD). James who is Stark County's member of the governing body of the MWCD (the Conservancy Court) responded to the commissioners concerns about the lack of money to budget to fix Stark's ditch infrastructure suggested that the county ought to aggressively pursue a grant from the MWCD.

Every Stark County property owner is assessed a property tax by the MWCD.

As a sidenote Commissioner Bernabei noted that Judge James Family Court found a way to save the Stark County General Fund some $800,000 in its operations for 2012.

A major part of yesterday's meeting was to elicit contributions like James or, alternatively, criticisms of how the commissioners are likely to employ in allocating the negative county revenue condition among departments of Stark County government.

Stark County Common Pleas Court Judge Charles Brown suggested that commissioners consider taking a loan against the more than $2 million set aside for the rebuild of Stark County's 9-1-1 emergency call receiving and dispatch system.

One would think that the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) would be just a bit nervous about just a procedure. As Stark County Auditor Alan Harold told yours truly after the meeting, such measures have a history of being undertaken with the best of intentions to repay when needed by the original funded activity only not to be available because of the intervention of exigencies.

As far as the SCPR is concerned Commissioner Creighton was "spot-on" in being concerned about preserving the county department teamwork that came into being in pursuing the levy effort as a model for working through tough financial times. And, departments heads should support the commissioners in discouraging the likes of Prosecutor Ferrero, the Veterans Service Commission, or the Stark Probate Court to takes actions which would have the effect of disrupting the unity of purpose and mission currently embraced by most county department heads.

The Report has compiled a video of yesterday's meeting to give a sense of the highlights of the meeting including Commissioner Creighton's plea that county department heads not grant raises to any county employee.

SOMEONE IS LYING IN THE LAKE/STARK COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS - LAKE ISSUE #6 - SCREW UP?

2012-02-01T06:59:00.000-05:00

Nancy Molnar of the Akron Beacon Journal set up the obvious perfectly in her article Stark County reviews Lake Twp. Levy error, January 31, 2012.

As reported by the SCPR on, the Stark County Board of Elections received on or about July 27, 2011 a communication from the Ohio secretary of state noting the error in the ballot language on the Lake Township-wide police levy and provided the correction.

Conclusion: to a reasonable person - someone is lying!

No matter who the liar may be, it should be disconcerting if not revolting to Stark Countians and, in particular, Lake Township voters that we are now into a "he says, she says" scenario.

People do make mistakes.

But errors should be owned up to and remedial processes instituted to prevent them from ever happening again.

For someone to lie to cover the tracks of an agency of government should be totally unacceptable to the Stark County body politic.

In the Molnar piece, Deputy Director of the Board of Elections (BOE) Jeff Matthews admitted that a board of elections worker "making a phone call" is not proper protocol for making sure that Lake Township got a timely message.

Such is in and of itself unacceptable of an agency of government charged with the responsibility of safeguarding elections.

In this day and age (e.g. e-mail with proof of delivery), the slop coming out of the Stark BOE (at the leadership level) is unacceptable.

If the board itself has the taxpayers interests at heart and cares whether or not Stark Countians have confidence in the voting integrity and processes of government, action should be taken against Matthews and and Director Jeannette Mullane by the board for not nailing down (i.e. documented proof) that Lake Township knew of the ballot language problem and when they knew of it and why the BOE permitted the erroneous language to be printed notwithstanding their knowledge it was wrong.

Who can accept the apparent BOE reasoning that the last resolution of the Lake Board of Trustees was erroneous and, though the BOE knew it to be erroneous, permit it to be ballot printed anyway because that was the last word from Lake?

Just a little bit of circular reasoning, no?

Yours truly can easily think of any number of recourses the BOE could have taken to get a timely correction the board needed from Lake over a nearly 30 day window within which to operate.

Between the two of them, Matthews (a Republican) and Mullane (a Democrat) must make in excess of $150,000 combined. For that kind of money, Stark Countians cannot expect that they can communicate effectively with the likes of the Lake trustees?

And what about the Lake Township angle on the problem?

On November 28th, the SCPR had a telephone conversation with Lake attorney Charles Hall III.

No bones about it, he told yours truly: "It was my error."

Moreover, he said that he was confident that ultimately there was not going to be a problem citing 5th District Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court cases which cites he promised to e-mail to yours truly - which he never did.

From that conversation, it is clear in the understanding of The Report that Hall (who was paid $36,000 by Lake Township in 2011; renewed for 2012 at the same amount) knew that there was a problem with the ballot language early on.

Hall's words to the SCPR: "it was caught, caught and changed, and changed again."

Ultimately, the Ohio secretary of state's office made the final correction which Hall says was never communicated to him by the Stark BOE until it was too late.

One has to wonder: once Hall knew of the erroneous language, why didn't he track ballot language as it moved through the Stark County prosecutor's office, the Stark County Board of Elections and the Ohio secretary of state's office and back to the BOE until he absolutely knew for certain prior to the deadline for making a correction, that the language was, in fact, correct?

No matter how the litigation over the issue turns out (it is now headed to the Ohio Supreme Court), the election having been overturned by Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Haas; it is incumbent upon the Lake trustees to pin Hall down on a timeline of what he knew, when he knew it, and why he did not track resolution of the errant language fastidiously once he knew a problem existed.

The SCPR can see that neither the Stark BOE nor the Lake trustees in a CYA fashion will be inclined to join in a joint enterprise to determine the truth of the matter. It is not so much a case of finger pointing. But learning how this whole process went wrong so that safeguards can be put in place to prevent a recurrence is the point.

If the Stark BOE or the Lake trustees either separately or jointly do not investigate and release findings publicly, then they will have excused the inexusable and thereby become part of the larger problem of the public's growing lack of confidence in government, and yes, even "local" government.

And in Lake Township, Trustees Erb and Stoll will have a real problem being re-elected in 2013.

TRUSTEES CHESSLER AND LAUBACHER AT ODDS OVER CAPALDI REPLACEMENT. CANDIDATE GAYLE JACKSON NEEDS TO GET ON THE "HOTLINE" TO POLITICAL FIXER JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR?

2012-01-31T06:05:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: 02/01/2012

Apparently, Gayle Jackson political sponsor and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., ran out of political magic to bestow upon Jackson as Perry trustees Lee Laubacher and Craig Chessler chose a non-politician to replace Anna Capaldi who resigned early in January.

Doug Haines, a Fisher Foods employee, who does not have a political resume was the selection yesterday.

The SCPR believes that Chessler's candidate was Jackson.

Had he not given into Laubacher, he could have faced the possibility that he would have provided a possibility for the avowedly Republican and past trustee candidate Crisiva Varner getting the appointment at the hand of Stark County Probate Judge Dixie Park (a Republican) who statutorily was in line to make the appointment in the event of a deadlock between Laubacher and Chessler.

ORIGINAL BLOG

Perry township trustees are poised to make an appointment to replace recently resigned Trustee Anna Capaldi, perhaps, at tonight's meeting. But they could wait until as late as Thursday.

The SCPR has learned that appointing trustees Craig Chessler and Lee Laubacher are at loggerheads as to whom they will appoint.

Chessler reportedly wants former trustee (Perry), Stark County commissioner and Ohio Lottery official Gayle Jackson. Laubacher? Anyone but Jackson.

At stake is the political clout of former Stark County chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. He is a Jackson political ally going back many years. Maier names Jackson as the all time best commissioner that Stark County has ever had.

As The Report has mused in an earlier blog, it is unbelievable that a politician of Jackson's stature would submit her name unless she had "a wink and nod" assurance that were she to apply, the position would be hers.

One thing Chessler and Laubacher (both Democrats) agree on is that they do not want the appointment to go to Republican Stark County Probate Judge Dixie Park.

So does this mean that the new trustee will come from among the list Chessler and Laubacher published recently? They are:

David Ramos, secretary of the Perry Township Zoning Commission,
Ralph DeChiara Jr., a township firefighter;
Doug Haines, a Fisher Foods employee, and
Attorney Paul Hervey

With only hours remaining until the appointment occurs, one can imagine that there is a political hotline set up between Jackson and Maier as they communicate strategy in an all out effort to bringing Laubacher on board.

Can Maier pull a Jackson appointment off?

AN OIL & GAS INDUSTRY TAKEOVER OF STARK CO. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MISHAPS IN FRACKING OPERATIONS?

2012-01-30T05:30:00.000-05:00

The following e-mail sparked a strong reaction from Stark County environmentalists who apparently think that the planned Stark County Local Emergency Planning Committee (SCLEPC) Symposium on Natural Resources and Deep Well Development (Symposium) for March 10, 2012 at Stark State College is an subtle effort of the oil and gas industry to use local officials and agencies of local government to brainwash Stark County elected officials to adopt the industry's take on the dangers, if any, of hazardous materials affecting the lives of Stark Countians should a fracking mishap occur.

"If any?"

Yes, the general oil and gas industry position seems to be that 95.5% of the solution used in fracking is non-hazardous and therefore the danger is for intents and purposes non-existent.

Clearly, the oil and gas industry is on the offensive in terms of spending millions upon millions of dollars in a full court press to convince federal, state and local government officials and the citizenry that fracking (including the use of hazardous chemicals) is perfectly safe and that opponents are well intended but misinformed, hysteric environmentalists.

Here is a link to www.energyindepth.org which is an organization devoted to being a clearinghouse for oil and gas industry arguments for side fracking issues.

In brief, fracking is an oil and gas exploration drilling method. (see more detailed definitions below).

Here is the e-mail provoking the response, to wit:

From: SCLEPC [mailto:sclepc@co.stark.oh.us]

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:14 PM

To: ...

Save the date: March 10, 2012

From: Don McDonald – Program Director Stark County LEPC

A ½ day (morning) Symposium on Natural Resources and Deep Well Development will be conducted on Saturday, March 10 at Stark State College.

Scheduled presenters include representatives from The Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Educational Program (OOGEEP), The Ohio Dept of Natural Resources (ODNR), The Ohio EPA, the Battelle

Corp. and others. Our intended audience will include elected officials from the county, cities, villages, and townships as well as the fire and police chiefs serving those communities.

This is not a 1st responder training event. The symposium is intended to provide unbiased information on the issue of hydraulic fracturing to all of these officials so that they may have accurate information to provide to their constituents and to use in policy making decisions that may be impacted by this issue.

More information will be provided in the very near future. Attendance to this symposium will be by invitation only. Please save this date as this symposium will be both timely and informative to you and your staff.

Thank you for your time,

Don McDonald, Contact person for the Symposium Planning Committee

Office: 330-451-3907

McDonald tells the SCPR that it recently occurred to him and members of SCLEPC that the local furor over fracking (first brought to the attention of locals by Plain Township Trustee Louis Giavasis in December, 2010) and the onset of actual fracking drilling operations (three currently in process) in Stark commanded the attention of SCLEPC should there be a hazardous materials mishap connected with a fracking operation (drilling for natural gas and oil) in Stark County.

Accordingly, SCLEPC a local government education project was conceived and a symposium committee was formed to put the project together. The committee is comprised of:

McDonald, (program director of SCLEPC)
Representative Christina Hagan, (Republican - 50th House District)
Fred Bertram, (Dean at Stark State College [SSC], teaches hazardous materials course)
Ted Heck, (former Jackson fire chief, teaches at SSC)
Art Murdoch, (chairman of SCLEPC)
Lance Wilcox, (VP - Mr Rapid - emergency cleanup services)
Bart Ray, (Special Investigator / On-scene Coordinator, Ohio EPA)
Barb Stoll, (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Ohio)
Jack Liberator, (Canton Township Fire Dept., - deputy chief)

Local opponents (e.g. Concerned Citizens of Stark County [CCSC] headed by Plain Township resident Christine Borello) to fracking want it stopped until there are studies which establish that the procedure is safe in that safeguards are in place to protect drinking water, the air we breathe, underground soil pollution and the like.

Here are samples of reactions from Giavasis and Borello.

Giavasis:

By invitation only for unbiased information on gas and oil to give our constituencies correct information and to also set appropriate policies.

Where are those from the other side of this issue?
If this unbiased why is it only by invitation, why is it not open to the public?
Because they want to control the message and the discussion unimpeded.

To the SCPR: "the ODNR is a cheerleader to the oil and gas industry."

Borello:

Wow. Talk about them trying to control people, officials, circumventing stakeholder citizens even further!...Similar was done in PA -
Who is paying for this forum? Money given to the college by big oil?
Excerpts of e-mail to McDonald:

we [CCSC] definitely do not consider/ believe ODNR and Oil & Gas [OOGEEP] fit that description ... .
... we are certainly compelled to also question Battelle being the allegedly lone unbiased representative on this panel discussion ... (based on a Columbus Dispatch article of April 11, 2011 on a lawsuit filed against Battelle by Veterans seeking database information compiled by Battelle for the the U.S. Military on experiments conducted on soldiers in the 1950s through the 1970s)
... sincerely hope once again, you can go the distance and do more to balance this meeting with two different addtional panelists who possess different views about drilling than ODNR and Oil and Gas, yes, maybe even "biased" ones, so at least BOTH sides of the drilling discussion can be aired

Exactly, in more detail, what is fracking? (a term the industry does not like because it believes it connotes negativity)

Compare definitions of fracking from diametrically opposed sources.

First, from Chesapeake Energy, a major player in the drilling, to wit:

Hydraulic fracturing is a proven technological advancement which allows producers to safely recover natural gas and oil from deep shale formations. This technology has the potential to not only dramatically reduce our reliance on foreign fuel imports, but also to significantly reduce our national carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and accelerate our transition to a carbon-light environment. Simply put, deep shale gas and oil formation development is critical to America's energy needs and economic renewal.

Second, from the promoters of the anti-fracking film Gasland, to wit:

Horizontal hydrofracking is a means of tapping shale deposits containing natural gas that were previously inaccessible by conventional drilling. Vertical hydrofracking is used to extend the life of an existing well once its productivity starts to run out, sort of a last resort. Horizontal fracking differs in that it uses a mixture of 596 chemicals, many of them proprietary, and millions of gallons of water per frack. This water then becomes contaminated and must be cleaned and disposed of.

An SCPC compressed version of a Gasland graphic ("a picture speaks a thousand words") from its website shows the multiple environmental concerns that opponents of fracking have.

The SCPR's position on fracking is that it is here to stay for the foreseeable future, like it or not.

President Obama favors it, Ohio Governor John Kasich favors it, Congressman Tim Ryan (Youngstown) and many other representatives and senators favor it as well as Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II.

Why?

Jobs, pure and simple!

President Obama says it will produce 600,000 jobs over the next 10 years and Stark County local Mayor Healy believes that the fracking industry could produce 25,000 jobs for Canton.

But wait a minute. Does anyone believe that there won't be accidents and concomitant environmental consequences?

Yours truly certainly doesn't!

Accordingly, The Report believes the Ohio Legislature needs to amp up protection of local communities by requiring drillers such as Chesapeake to carry insurance sufficient to indemnify and hold harmless those Ohio/Stark County communities which are in the path of the accidents).

Moreover, Ohio needs to restore to on-the-scene local agencies of government such as SCLEPC the authority to deal with fracking operations both in a preventative mode and clean up mode when accidents occur especially when hazardous materials are the issue.

As far as the Symposium is concerned, it is a good idea. However, local elected officials should hear a balanced view of the pluses and minuses of fracking insofar as it concerns hazardous materials.

The SCPR does not necessarily share the views of Giavasis and Borello on the ODNR and Battelle but does agree that OOGEEP is a virtual arm of the oil and gas industry and therefore should be counterbalanced in the Symposium for local elected officials by someone like Giavasis.

In fact, The Report has suggested such to McDonald.

Giavasis is the perfect combination of being a Stark County elected official (some 20 years now) who has been active in creating policy at the township level of government and specifically in the area of fracking notwithstanding that the Ohio Legislature including area legislators Schuring, Oelslager, Slesnick and former state Reps. John Hagan and Todd Snitchler voted to strip local government nearly all local say in regulating the oil and gas industry impact on the villages, cities and townships of Stark County.

In fact, Director McDonald tells that SCPR that HB 284 stripped the SCLEPC of the authority to deal with oil and gas industry hazardous material accidents/incidents (including from fracking) affecting the Stark County public domain. Those matters are to be communicated as a matter of law to the state of Ohio and not to local authorities. Giavasis says that Stark County first responders are not permitted as a consequence of HB 284 (2004) and SB 165 (2010) to deal with hazardous materials incidents unless and until invited to do so by oil and gas industry officials and that sometimes this means first responders having to stand by and watch as hazardous materials wreck havoc with the environment.

McDonald, a former captain in the Jackson Township Fire Department having been there for some 24 years, has been the head of SCLEPC since 2005.

SCLEPC currently has 44 members who are recommended by the Stark County commissioners (Commissioner Pete Ferguson is the Stark commissioners' representative) to the Ohio State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) who does the actual appointing to local planning committees (87 of them in Ohio).

A major mission of SCLEPC and SERC is to implement federal law on the public's "Right-to-Know" about the presence of, preventive management of, and cleanup of hazardous chemicals in local communities.

Here is how the Ohio EPA articulates "Right-to-Know:"

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was passed by Congress in 1986. EPCRA was included as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and is sometimes referred to as SARA Title III. EPCRA provides for the collection and availability of information regarding the use, storage, production, and release of hazardous chemicals to the public and emergency responders in your communities. The law promotes a working relationship among government at all levels, business and community leaders, environmental and other public interest organizations, and individual citizens to improve hazard communications and emergency planning.

While the SCPR agrees with Director McDonald that, like it or not, fracking is here to stay given the overall political environment at national, state and local levels and that responsible (i.e. SCLEPC) local authorities need to educate and plan for accidents that result in the release of hazardous materials; SCLEP should not allow the oil and gas industry to hijack the education process and should expand its list for the March 10th meeting to include presenters who have a different perspective from the oil and gas industry itself and its sympathizers on the likelihood of a significant danger to the general public from hazardous materials used in fracking.

For her part, state Representative Christina Hagan (Republican - Marlboro) needs to introduce legislation empowering SCLEPC and LEPCs across Ohio to exercise jurisdiction over the hazardous materials aspect of fracking in local communities.

Here is a list of SCLEPC members.

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN PERRY TRUSTEE CAPALDI REPLACEMENT SELECTION PROCESS?

2012-01-27T10:14:00.000-05:00

At least one Perry trustee (Lee Laubacher) "appears" to giving all 18 applicants a thorough look as being the replacement for recently resigned Republican trustee Anna Capaldi.

It is obvious from a Massillon Independent report (Matt Rink, 4 to interview for trustee seat, January 25, 2011) in which Trustee Craig Chessler says that he and Laubacher have agreed on four (David Ramos, Ralph DeChiara, Jr., Doug Haines and Paul Hervey) as a potential appointee.

But Chessler leaves open the possibility that the appointee will be none of the four but someone else from the field of 18 applicants.

What kind of doubletalk is that?

Who might that other person be?

Former trustee (1985 to 1992) Gayle Jackson?

Jackson was also a Stark County commissioner from 1993 through 2007 and beyond that an appointee by Democrat Governor Ted Strickland (2007) to the Ohio Lottery Commission. A position she lost when Republican John Kasich became governor.

The SCPR had a discussion with a trustee from another Stark County township (Trustee "X") yesterday and Trustree X does not see Jackson becoming the replacement trustee.

The SCPR sees the equivocation by Chessler as indication that backroom negotiations and political cajoling are the order of the day in Perry.

Yours truly cannot imagine that Jackson would apply for the job without having some inkling that she likely would end up being the successful applicant.

After all she has some powerful friends in the Stark County Democratic Party in former Chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., current Chairman Randy Gonzalez, son-in-law, Stark County Recorder Rick Campbell and son Shane who is the Stark County Dems political director and Maier's chief deputy at the Massillon clerk of courts to list just a few.

If she does not get the appointment, she will definitely have political egg on her face and her inability to flex political muscle on her home turf may be indication that she is finished as a officeholder at any level of Stark County county government.

Accordingly, the SCPR sees the Laubacher/Chessler machinations as possibly being a ploy to have the applicants and Perry residents think that they are leaning one way while the reality is that they know who they are going to appoint and are trying to find a way to conjure up a justification that will play with the Perry public.

A plausible alternative to Jackson appears to be David Ramos who is secretary of the Perry Zoning Commission.

A possible scenario for that to happen might be that Jackson withdraws from consideration as face saving maneuver thereby paving the way for Ramos.

If neither Jackson or Ramos gets the nod, then the indication will be that Laubacher was able to resist the pressure of Maier, Gonzalez et al and gain control of the process.

In any event, the SCPR is not buying into the appearances and The Report believes that dissembling is what is going on and that a familiar face and name will surface as the "new" Perry trustee.

LAKE TRUSTEES: WHEN DID THEY KNOW ABOUT ISSUE 6 BALLOT LANGUAGE ERROR AND WHO DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH ERRANT LANGUAGE?

2012-01-26T06:30:00.000-05:00

Stark County: becoming a laughing stock from the vantage point of some circles within the state of Ohio government?

That is what was suggested to one Stark County elected official in discussions with state officials once it came to light that there was an error in the ballot language on Issue 6 - a proposed tax levy to expand the Uniontown Police District (from its present 9 square miles) to cover all of Lake Township.

This assessment by a certain Ohio official (commenting on the Lake Township situation) follows on the heels of a state perception of the debacled way Stark County officials handled matters growing out of the theft of Stark County taxpayer money by former Stark County Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci.

Ohio's auditor, treasurer, secretary of state and, of course, the Supreme Court are intimately familiar with the Stark trials and travails growing out the Frustaci matter.

Between the then treasurer Gary Zeigler (who was not implicated in the theft), the Board of County Commissioners (Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) and the county auditor (Perez) and the prosecutor's office (Ferrero) and the parade of in, out, in and out again interplay between Zeigler and successor conty treasurers, the political brouhaha over the theft in terms who should have been minding the store better devolved into a first class "finger pointing" contest with state officials drinking it all in. Hence the notion of Stark being a laughing stock at the state level.

Now it appears that Lake Township (a Stark County political subdivision) is heading to the Supreme Court in an appeal by Lake Township trustees and the Stark County Board of Elections (Stark BOE) of Stark County Common Pleas Judge John Haas' ruling yesterday that the ballot language flaw on Issue 6 was fatal in compelling his finding as a matter of law that the passage on November 8, 2011 of Lake Police Levy (expansion township wide) was invalid.

And this may be a good thing.

A good thing? For whom?

Answer: the citizens of Lake Township in terms of them getting answers as to whom is specifically responsible for the ballot goof up of November 8th.

That question that went unanswered in Judge Haas' decision.

Plaintiffs' (the winning side of the Lake citizenry who opposed the expansion) attorneys attempted to depose Lake Township and Board of Elections officials, but Judge Haas was having none of it and quashed deposition subpoenas on those officials.

An unreported aspect of the case was a proffer of evidence (a document from the Ohio secretary of state office (SOS) showing that a SOS official spotted the error and communicated it to the Stark BOE on or about July 27, 2011.

Whether one is a Uniontown Police District (UPD) voter (disclaimer: yours truly, a UPD resident voted for the expansion which had the benefit of reducing UPD residents tax rate) or a Lake unincorporated area voter, it seems to the SCPR that either type voter would want to know whom among their public officials bears the blame for the errant ballot language getting to the ballot.

Political retribution is likely in order for Trustees Erb, Stoll (2013) and Arnold (2015) at the hand of both sides of the expansion issue if it is shown that the trustees knew of the errant language but opted to proceed with the election nevertheless.

For the anti-expansionists, it could be that the trustees would have had to cancel the issue for the November 2011 election and therefore the anti's would have time to solidify their forces in order to get over the electoral hump. This will especially be the case if the antis ultimately lose on an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

For the expansionists, as matters stand now (losing before Judge Haas), they have to be furious that they would have won fair and square in the election had their public officials not been so sloppy in formulating the ballot language.

For both sides there has to be a realization that the blunders of public officials have caused a heightened political division in the Lake community already divided by Uniontown, Hartville and Greentown (with their competing fire departments) and a historical division of the southwestern parts of the township and Greentown being in the North Canton school district.

Moreover, there has to be more than a passing curiosity as to how much this costing Lake residents and UPD residents in terms of legal advice/litigation expense (Township attorney Charles Hall, III) and the costs on the UPD part of the tax duplicate whereby trustees are allowing the UPD to patrol and serve townshipwide notwithstanding the unsettled nature of the election dispute.

One thing we know from the proffered SOS memo is that the Stark County Board of Election officials knew on or about July 27, 2011 about the faulty language.

Undoubtedly, they did not keep this information to themselves.

Who at the Lake Township government level knew of the problem, when did they know it, and who issued the directive to proceed with the election and, if the directive was made or sanctioned by a trustee or trustees, why wasn't the decision made in the context of a public meeting with a resolution voted upon by each and every trustee?

Ultimately, the courts will decide the substance of the issue one way or another. At a higher level with the proffered SOS evidence being in place in the court record for the Supreme Court to consider in the context of an appeal, if made; we may see a remand back to the Stark Court of Common Pleas for testimony by Stark BOE and Lake Township officials.

However, whether or not the Ohio Supreme Court (assuming an appeal) orders a revisitation of Stark County BOE and Lake Township officials in a testimonial context; Lake Township residents on both sides of the issue should demand from the Lake trustees that they provide chapter and verse on their role in the Issue 6 debacle!

A highly negative public perception of the quality Stark County governance developed out of the Frustaci revelation on April 1, 2009.

Despite the best effort of the likes of new county commissioners Bernbei and Creighton and new Stark County Treasurer Zumbar and Auditor Alan Harold to regain public confidence, they now have the added Lake problem which encompassed not only Lake officials but also the county prosecutor's office and the Stark County Board of elections.

Is there any wonder that Stark County governance is taking on a goofball tone with the folks some 125 miles away from Stark County?

JUDGE JOHN HAAS OVERTURNS LAKE POLICE DISTRICT LEVEY. READ THE ENTIRE ORDER.

2012-01-25T16:33:00.000-05:00