STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT

VIDEOS: STARK COUNTY TO BECOME PART OF THE STATE OF OHIO'S "CAD" SYSTEM? EMS/FIRE/POLICE RADIO SYSTEM? THE REPUBLICAN PHILOSOPHY OF GOV'T TAKING HOLD IN STARK CO.?

2013-05-17T05:41:00.000-04:00

UPDATED AT 08:45 AM

Normally, one does not like to be thought of as being a guinea pig.

But such might not be all that bad for Stark County officials charged with providing:

emergency medical services,
fire and
police services

to Stark County's residents.

Back in 2007/2008 the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) commissioned a study on the condition on the county's emergency call receiving and dispatching services and the verdict was not good.

For a copy of the complete copy of the original GeoComm report, go to this LINK at the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) site.

For more background on the continuing effort (Jackson fiscal officer Randy Gonzalez has been working on fixing Stark's 9-1-1 system for the better part of 20 years or more), here is a LINK to a prior SCPR blog.

It had to be music to Gonzalez's ears to hear recently that there might be an opportunity for Stark County to become the first in Ohio to join the State of Ohio (MARCS - "Multi-Agency Radio Communications System" Computer Aided Dispatch [CAD] system.

The reason that the news might be "music to the ears" is that joining the state system might mean more dollars remaining of the $2.35 million (from revenues collected for 9-1-1 rebuild purposes from the Bosley, Harmon and Vignos December, 2008 imposed 0.5% sales tax [repealed overwhelming by Stark County taxpayers in November, 2009]) that the Stark County commissioners are holding to be used for upgrading the radios being used by Stark's EMS, fire and police forces to state-of-the-art 800 mhz, platform 7X, P25 radios.

Here is a video in which the possibility of Stark County (the very first non-state agency) is presented by Joe Concatto (a Republican and a former safety director for the Janet Creighton administration) at a SCOG Executive Committee meeting held at Canton City Hall this past Tuesday.

The SCPR likes hearing about what is being worked upon by Concatto, Gonzalez (Jackson Township fiscal officer, and also the manager of Stark County's CJIS) and others in terms of integrating Stark County emergency forces into the bigger picture of statewide communication capability.

Along with the CAD, there is the need for the county to keep pace with state-of-the-art technology in its radio communications system in and of itself.

Stark County emergency forces are working with radios, for the most part, that will become outdated in 2017 and it is estimated replacing them could cost as much as $10 million to $15 million.

Accordingly, in addition to studying the possibility of joining the MARCS CAD system, Stark County is very interested in looking at joining the State of Ohio MARCS Radio system.

Right now, it appears the latter is more likely than the former. However, if the numbers can be worked out as being beneficial to Stark County, then Stark may well become the very first county (i.e "the guinea pig" experiment works) in all of Ohio to become part of the MARCS CAD.

It is commendable that county officials are interested in being "on the leading edge" of working out partnerships with other government entities.

Stark County at the urging of Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar (R-Alliance) is at the forefront of counties in Ohio who are in the process of putting together a "land bank" (officially, the Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation - SCLRC [a non-profit]) designed to remove abandoned houses, which are a huge blight on community aesthetics and serve as havens for crime, from Stark County neighborhoods.

A powerful motivating force for Stark County's first responders to come together within the county to reform and restructure emergency services is the draconian cutback in state funding of local government instituted by the Republican Kasich administration which is currently in charge in Columbus.

It is clear to the SCPR that whereas all state of Ohio funding of local government in its heyday cost some $600 million or so and the state currently is at about $2 billion or so in budget surplus, the real reason for the local government funding cutback is no longer - if it ever was - to be justified on a reported deficit in state finances.

The Report believes that the governor is using the purported financial crisis at the time he took office (January, 2011) to force elimination of duplicative local government services and nudge local governments into regional alliances and collaboration with state agencies in order to make government more efficient and effective.

While the dollars involved are important and taxpayers expect government at all levels to get the most bang for the taxpaying public's bucks, what we are seeing from Columbus is the implementation of Republican ideology of cutting government wherever possible and, to the extent that government cannot be cut, to make it as lean and mean financially as possible.

Out of this philosophy of government, or non-government, if you will, is born the Ohio Local Government Innovation Fund initiative and the like.

Sometimes rank and file citizens do not understand how political ideology affects their day-in, day-out lives. Well, the SCPR is here to say that the Kasich administration is in the process of branding all of Ohio with its signature ideological stamp. And it is apparent to yours truly that brand is making its mark in Stark County.

A quintessential part of the Kasich administration's unarticulated "government reduction and consolidation political philosophy at all levels of government plan" are pilot projects (i.e. let's use Stark County as a guinea pig) like the proposed integration of Stark into the MARCS CAD system.

And key Stark County elected officials, like local government officials across the state, are feeling the financial pressure and are wittingly or unwittingly responding with streamlining/consolidating moves which are consonant with the Kasich administration "Republican philosophy of government" objectives.

SCOG executive committee chairman Tom Bernabei (a Democrat) seems to be an effective coordinating force lead player in providing a structure in the context of the Stark County commissioners' meeting work sessions to prod the development of key information so that the commissioners are in a position to make a decision soon (probably within the next 60 days) as to which direction the county is going to go with its $2.35 million.

And the underlying impetus is the need to be efficient and effective.

While $2.35 million may seem to be a lot of money, it really is not in terms of all that needs to be accomplished in bringing Stark County emergency forces to state-of-the-art status.

Here is a video of a discussion that took place as the SCOG meeting that focused the Radio side of Stark getting its 9-1-1 dispatch system in order:

An interesting question that came up for discussion was whether or not Stark County signing up with the MARC Radio system is inevitable?

While the answer is clearly "no," it seems to be the thinking of many Stark County EMS, fire and police officials that there is a trend in that direction.

Trend?

The SCPR believes it is more than a trend. As argued above, The Report thinks that the political forces resident in Columbus largely constitutes the so called trend.

Local Democrats such as Canton's Mayor Healy, Canton Council president Allen Schulman, Jackson Township fiscal officer Randy Gonzalez (also Stark County Democratic Party chairman) have fired back at the governor and his austerity moves, but it appears that like them or not, they are more and more falling into line.

The termination of the Ohio Estate tax has, for instance, denied Jackson Township on average $1 million a year with which to operate and maintain its park system. Only after the second try (the May, 2013 election) did Jackson voters approve a parks levy. In the meantime, Jacksonians had to put up with a curtailed use and availability of their parks and also risked a deterioration of the capital facilities of the parks due the lack to financial resources with which to maintain the facilities.

Locally, Republican controlled North Canton government is already a part of MARCS system as an efficiency and effectiveness measure and Democratic controlled Summit County government is looking at whether or not MARCS will be efficient and effective for Summit Countians.

Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II (Democrat - Canton), Chairman Bernabei, and Sheriff George Maier (a Democrat) weighed in on the Stark County discussion at Tuesday's SCOG meeting, to wit:

It is apparent that Ohio's MARCS' managers are working hard with Stark County officials to make Stark County integration into the MARCS CAD and Radio systems a reality.

If integration happens, it will be a testament to the likes of Concatto, Gonzalez, Bernabei, and a core of other Stark County officials that they never lost their vision of putting together the very best of emergency force systems to the benefit of everyday Stark Countians.

Near the end of his presentation at Tuesday's session, Concatto once again reaffirms his belief (see video at the end of this blog) that Stark County can achieve a "one dispatch center" operation.

Undoubtedly, he and Randy Gonzalez have some tales to tell and some huge frustrations to share to any who are interested in hearing about the many peaks and valleys they have gone over and through in their quest to make Stark County one of the state's if not the nation's very best emergency response local government.

This is work that most Stark Countians do not witness.

But the product of their work especially if coupled with a Stark County integration into a statewide MARCS CAD and Radio system (even if, as a state/county "guinea pig" operation) will prove to be life saving to many Stark Countians.

Here is Concatto on video expressing his belief that a Stark County "one dispatch center" is, perhaps, once again on the county's horizon:

VIDEOS: CRIME LAB WEAKNESSES FOUND OUT THROUGH EFFORTS OF CANTON MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY, II?

2013-05-16T07:51:00.002-04:00

LAST UPDATE/REVISION: 02:05PM

He has done it again?

Done what again?

Well, let's put it this way. Ever hear the expression: "He stepped in _ _ _ _, but came out smelling like a rose?"

As readers of the SCPR know, a repetitive theme in this blog re: Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II is that he is the envy of a cat with nine lives because he can get into scrape after scrape after scrape and seemingly come out unscathed way beyond the proverbial nine lives.

It appears that he not only comes out unscathed from having prompted the redefinition and reclassification the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab (CSCCL, Crime Lab, Lab) director position so that he could appoint political pal and former Stark County Chief Deputy Rick Perez as director, but comes out as sort of a heroic figure in bringing to the surface in the process a realization that the Lab needs a major rework.

On Tuesday, the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) executive committee met in the mayor's conference room located on the eighth floor in the mayor's suite of offices atop Canton City Hall and a major fallout from the meeting was the revelation that the Stark County Police Chiefs Association (made up of the police departments of Stark County's cities, villages and townships) has decided not to have "new" DNA evidence processed through the Lab because of a 400 day processing time.

Until recent times, the CSCCL has been a treasured asset of Stark County government. Now that Mayor Healy has opened the proverbial "can of worms" with his tinkering with the leadership of the Lab; it may be that its life is near an end, or, at least, scaled back just to doing firearms and chemistry work.

For those readers who are not up-to-speed on the particulars of Healy's messing with the Crime Lab through his then-safety director Tom Ream and then throwing Ream "under-the-bus" when "all Hell broke loose," here are several links to prior SCPR blogs to help get you current.

Here is a video (from Wednesday's SCPR one-on-one interview) in which Stark County Commissioner and SCOG executive committee chairman Tom Bernabei discusses the "scaling back" possibility.

And here is a video of some of the discussion which occurred at Tuesday's meeting including:

Canton Safety Director Warren Price on the need to have stable funding of the Crime Lab and Chairman Tom Bernabei on the loss off nearly half of the State of Ohio local government funding revenues (from about $15 million to $8.5 million over three years) resulting in a drop off of Crime Lab funding from $1.3 million annually to $755,000,

Chairman Bernabei on the history of the revelation of problems at the CSCCL:

Perry Township Chief of Police Michael T. Pomesky (president of the Stark County Police Chiefs Association - SCPCA) talks about the Association's actions on the the Lab problems:

Michele Foster, interim Crime Lab Director, on what are the causes of up to 400 days delay in DNA analysis at the CSCCL:

Warren Price on oversight and governance of the Crime Lab:

SCOG Executive Committee member Marty Chapman (from Minerva) on the history, governance and finances of the Crime Lab:

Chief Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer Fitzsimmons on the critical importance of the CSCCL to successful prosecution of criminal cases:

Chief Pomesky on reasons why the Stark County Police Chiefs' Association is recommending that "new" DNA tests be sent to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI):

Crime Lab Interim Director Foster takes questions from:

Perry Township trustee Craig Chessler

on grant that Foster assigned to Mansfield's crime processing unit,
on the extent of the CSCCL backlog,

Member Chapman

on the grant in relation to the CSCCL budget,

Canton Safety Director Price

on who is in charge at the Crime Lab:

Stark County Sheriff George T. Maier weighs in:

on the need to have timely crime lab processing so that Stark's policemen can "look citizens in the eye" and keep them informed on the progress of prosecutions,
on doing due diligence with BCI to ensure that their turnaround times stay timely and that they continue to take direct contact from Stark's police agencies, and
expecting that BCI will get the job done for Stark's policing and prosecutors:

Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II spoke to the matter of using BCI as an on-going backup to the CSCCL when backlogs occur:

Prosecutor John Ferrero advised the committee that his Law Enforcement subcommittee would be coming forth with a plan for reforming crime lab governance in a future meeting:

Jackson Fiscal Officer Randy Gonzalez was emphatic about the need for SCOG to come out of the crime lab funding and governance crisis unity:

In the final analysis, it does seem that Cantonians do owe Mayor Healy a debt of gratitude for having messed with the operation of the Crime Lab.

For if he had not, a case can be made that the burgeoning backlog problems at the Lab might have gone on for quite a while before being detected.

While he may get some perverse credit for helping identify the problem, like other episodes in his storied fumbling and bumbling at Canton City Hall, he leaves it to others to clean up.

So in the end, is it "thanks, but 'no' thanks, Your Honor?"

Especially if your name is Warren Price and your job titles include:

chief-of-staff,
service director,
safety director, and
annexation director

Wouldn't you say?

For anyone who doubts the unmitigated gall of William J. Healy, II

the man who precipitated the surfacing of internal Crime Lab problems (which, by the way, his administration failed to catch early and nip in the bud) with his move to water down the director's qualifications so that he could hire Rick Perez.

Take a look at this video in which he scolds the SCOG's executive committee for having discussed what Healy defines (of course, we all know that in his own mind there is nothing that he is not an authority on) having been an inappropriate delving into personnel matters at the Lab.

Yesterday, a day after the big SCOG confab at Canton City Hall, the SCPR sat down with Commissioner Bernabei to harvest his view of where the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab is heading in terms of its continued viability.

With the dropoff of some $6 million in State of Ohio furnished local government funding over the past three years or so, it seems likely at the very least that eventually DNA testing will be dropped from the list of services provided by the Lab.

Here is Bernabei's take on the future:

"THE-JURY (ERR - THE OHIO SUPREME COURT) IS-OUT" ON WHETHER OR NOT GEORGE T. MAIER CONTINUES AS STARK CO. SHERIFF!

2013-05-15T06:03:00.000-04:00

Back on January 11, 2013, the-then Massillon safety director George T. Maier said to an area media person: “I guarantee I’ll be qualified for the position [Stark County sheriff] or I won’t apply for it.”

He did apply and was (as the SCPR predicted) selected by the Stark County Democratic Party (on Feburary 5th) with the help of his brother and powerful Stark County Democrat (a former chairman and currently executive vice president).

Democrat Mike McDonald (now deceased) was forced to step aside (for health reasons) from taking office on January 7th after having defeated Republican Larry Dordea (currently Hartville police chief) in the November 7, 2013 election.

By Ohio law, the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee was empowered to select McDonald's successor.

Well, here we are at what appears to be on the threshold of the Ohio Supreme Court making a decision on whether or not the Dems selection should be ratified and the SCPR ventures to say that Maier's qualification is far from being guaranteed.

Former Sheriff Tim Swanson filed a Quo Warranto lawsuit against Maier on February 12th asking the high court to set aside Maier's appointment for the reason that the Dems' selectee was not qualified by the requirements of Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01 (specifically 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (9)(a) or (b).

All the evidence is in (LINK to prior SCPR blog), the matter has been fully briefed (final brief filed on Monday) and the only question that remains is whether or not the court will hold an oral argument before deciding the question. (LINK to Ohio Supreme Court website to see the progression of the case)

The SCPR believes that the evidence and the briefs indicate Maier has not been able to deliver on his guaranty and would be surprised to see the Supreme Court leave him in office.

And if such happens, it will be very unfortunate for Stark County which has been subjected to a number of political/governmental trauma: to wit:

an "imposed" sales tax and its repeal (2008/2009
the theft of nearly $3 million from the Stark County treasury (2009), and
the loss of huge amounts of local government funds from the State of Ohio which could result (in the opinion of the SCPR) the closure of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab and a consequent impairment of the ability of local prosecutors to put charged felons behind bars,

There is no doubt to yours truly, that if the Supreme Court turns George T. Maier out-of-office, Stark County is in for another trauma.

As it was when that august body returned Gary Zeigler as Stark County treasurer and in doing so removed Alex Zumbar.

If Maier loses, it is hard to see how Randy Gonzalez remains as chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.

From the SCPR's perspective, the prospect of Maier being turned out of office was avoidable.

It is now obvious to The Report (from looking at the evidence tendered to the Supreme Court and the arguments made) that Maier had to have known from the get-go that he has problems qualifying to be sheriff.

It is stunning to The Report that he and the supposedly expert political operative in the family (i.e. brother Johnnie) would not have anticipated that George would one day be a prime candidate to be Stark County sheriff.

Rule one for anybody is to prepare oneself for opportunities that may come along.

That George put his qualifications to be sheriff questioned is unbelievable.

From the time he left the Ohio Department of Public Safety (January 11, 2011) through January 7, 2013, he had ample opportunity and time to cure any lack he may have in qualifying under ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (B)(9)(a) or (b).

That he didn't do so is, to say the least, a head scratcher and may suggest that he lacks the ability to look down the road and prepare (in case he remains sheriff) his office for what suddenly appears on the horizon.

While he appears amply qualified to be sheriff by virtue of his police work (i.e. de facto policing experience) going back many, many years to the days he served in the Hartville and Tuscarawas Township police departments and continuing through his years as a state highway patrolman, there is the question of his temperament that the SCPR has raised in prior blogs (LINK).

Hopefully, if the Supreme Court rules in his favor, he has learned that it is very important for someone as powerful as a county sheriff that he develop the ability to control his temper; if, in fact, he has a problem in this regard.

The SCPR believes that Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez (in addition to brother Johnnie) has not served George's interests well and have not served the interests of Stark Countians well.

Particularly telling on him, in the opinion of The Report, was his use of attorney opinion (whoop-de-doo!) to slide by ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (B)(9)(a) or (b). Also, disconcerting was the use of "you must sign your ballot, to have it counted" ruling.

It was amazing to the SCPR that 84 brave souls risked incurring the ire of the Maiers and the party chairman (who lobbied hard with the Central Committee members on behalf of Maier) in voting for Lou Darrow.

The Report believes that the Maiers, Gonzalez and others supporting Maier fully understood the qualification problem but proceeded anyway in the belief that the likes of Tim Swanson would not challenge George's selection in Ohio's court system.

Their approach reminds the SCPR of the legal adage that "possession is 9/10ths of the law." Analogizing, yours truly figures that the Maier camp calculations was that once George is selected, the opposition will fade and the question of qualification will become irrelevant.

To The Report, using such machinations and calculations is not the way for one to become county sheriff.

The sheriff is a county's chief law enforcement officer and it is extremely important that there be no question whatsoever that he be qualified "as a matter of the rule of law."

Attorney opinions are "a dime a dozen" and have no place in being determinative on questions such George T. Maier's qualification to be Stark County sheriff.

The better course for Stark Dems to have taken would have been to have selected Lou Darrow as McDonald's successor. There is no question about his qualifications under ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (B)(9)(a) or (b) or any other part of ORC 311.01.

In the meantime, George gets his qualification act together and runs for sheriff in the 2014 Democratic primary.

Yours truly does not know much about Darrow, but it could be that he has the political magnetism requisite to become sheriff. Some have suggested that he does not.

The Report has seen George T. Maier enough to attest that this guy is very polished, very professional, and has a way with people that makes him a highly attractive political candidate.

Accordingly, it appears that Maier would handily win a political face-off with Darrow.

Then, of course, there would likely be another match up between the Democratic nominee (presumably Maier) and Republican Larry Dordea.

Maier versus Dordea would likely be highly competitive.

And both like McDonald and Dordea (in the 2012 election) would be prepared to be Stark County sheriff.

Let the people choose; not the party bosses.

Such was the concern of the SCPR when news of Mike McDonald's health concerns first arose.

While the Stark County Democratic Party hierarchy emphatically denies that they knew during the run-up to the November, 2012 election that it was likely Mike McDonald would never take office as Stark County sheriff, yours truly remains skeptical.

It may be that the Ohio Supreme Court will be convinced by the largely "equivalency arguments" of Maier's legal counsel and keep him in office.

In terms of whether or not such a decision would heal any misgivings about Maier's legal qualifications depends on the court's legal analysis and, of course, the vote of the justices.

If the justices vote 7 - 0 in Maier's favor, then and only then can he say:

“I guarantee I’ll be qualified for the position [Stark County sheriff] or I [would not have applied] for it."

VIDEOS: CATAZARO-PERRY LOSES ANOTHER VOTE WITH MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL. WHAT IS HER PROBLEM?

2013-05-14T07:54:00.003-04:00

VIDEOS

Councilwoman Andrea Scassa On Her Vote

Councilwoman Nancy Halter On Her Vote

Councilman Ed Lewis, IV On His Vote

Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr.

On the Dire Consequences Massillon

Council Paul Manson On His Vote

The Entire Debate/Vote on Ordinance 35

While the final vote last night at a special session of Massillon City Council went 6 to 3 against the Catazaro-Perry administration negotiated deal with the Hampton Inn located in downtown Massillon whereby the city would cancel its second mortgage ($2.25 million) and liens in exchange for a payment of $1.2 million, the SCPR believes that the dynamics of getting to that final vote was a lot more fluid and "touch and go" than the final number indicates.

The Report had the 6th sense that if the mayor had the requisite persuasion skills one must have to be an effective government executive especially in relation to legislative body, she could have won the vote - perhaps even reversing the 6 to 3 vote to being in favor of the ordinance.

Democratic Councilwoman Andrea Scassa (Ward 3 - the mayor's old ward), said she did not make up her mind until the last moment.

Last week, before the regular city council meeting, Republican Ward 2 Councilwoman Nancy Halter was telling The Report that she did not know how she would vote on the measure. But by last night, she definitely had decided.

It could be that in the end, her historical opposition to the deal in the first place (back in 1999) was a critical factor. As show in the video above, she also articulated a council fear that were it to agree to the deal and the hotel was subsequently sold for a handsome profit that council would look - in hindsight - like it had been duped.

And Ed Lewis, IV (Republican - Ward 6) said at the special session that he had been leaning towards voting for Ordinance 35. Here he explains why he decided to vote "no."

In the end, the mayor and her administration was not persuasive with him and a majority of the Massillon City Council.

One has to wonder whether or not the administration's failure to get the hotel to agree to $10,000 a year downtown Massillon beautification as opposed to $5,000 was a key to the Lewis vote?

Last night's vote against her seems to be a confirmation that the mayor has very little, if any, sway with council members.

It could be that she is having an effect on Councilwoman Quenessa Hampton (Democratic Party appointee - Ward 4) who was one of the three yes votes along with Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr. (Republican - Ward 5) and Democratic Councilman Paul Manson (at -large).

Peters was the most dire in his prediction of the long term consequences to Massillon.

Paul Manson, while he voted "yes" was obviously tentative about that vote.

He was more measured and reflective of the consequences of the "no" vote than Peters, and, interesting enough, he suggests that the mayor may bring negative reaction from some members of council upon herself.

Most intriguing of all is his suggestion that the issue may still be alive. He did note that the hotel has been doing relatively well of late which could explain why he thinks that there could be ongoing discussions with the hotel's developer (John Helline) to coming to a solution more palatable to a majority of council.

Apparently, the mayor sees herself as a persuasive person.

She shared last night how she was able to convince five Ward 4 residents, brought to her attention by Councilwoman Hampton, of the wisdom of her hotel financing mitigation effort.

Implicit in the mayor's recital is that Councilwoman Hampton was soft on the hotel finance deal, if not adverse to it, prior to the administrations' successful turnaround of some of her constituents.

So why is Mayor Kathy apparently ineffective with many other, if not most, members of council?

There are several possible reasons to ruminate upon:

One being that a number of the councilpersons feel she has not been transparent with them as promised when she first took office.

A second could be a feeling that she is only a figurehead mayor and that folks calling the shots in the executive suites of Massillon City Hall are named Maier and Jackson from their clerk of courts perch.

Thirdly, how about a perceived obstinance?

Witness her go-around with council on her adamant insistence that Massillon raise sorely needed revenues via reducing the tax credit that Massillonians get on out-of-town income taxes they pay coupled with things like having residents pay street lighting fees.

The Report is told that she is meeting on a more or less a weekly basis with fellow Democratic Mayor William J. Healy, II.

There is no doubt about him. He clearly is a "my way or the highway" type guy.

Question: Is he rubbing off on Catazaro-Perry?

The mayor, Catazaro-Perry, appears to turn heads and get things going her way out in the Massillon and Stark County social circles. However, such does not seem to be the case in Massillon's internal political milieu.

In short and in summation, for whatever reason it appears to the SCPR that Mayor Kathy does not have the trust and confidence of much of Masillion's legislative body.

And the prospects of that changing with 2014 - 2015 council to be elected in November are virtually non-existent.

Perhaps it would be helpful to the mayor were she to reconsider her ways (attitude) with council.

If she were to do so, could it be that she might win some of the controversial votes that come before council?

Here is the SCPR video on the entire Ordinance 35 debate.

"NORTH CANTON: A CITY THAT WORKS?"

2013-05-13T06:24:00.001-04:00

Recently, Canton Repository columnist Jim Hillibish wrote a piece North Canton: A city that works (May 10, 2013).

Well, Hillibish couldn't have consulted with North Canton civic activist and former Councilman Chuck Osborne prior to penning his North Canton Chamber of Commerce-esque glossy brochure material.

Moreover, he could not have visited Osborne's website. (LINK)

If one takes a cue from Osborne, one would think nearly "nothing works in North Canton."

Just take a look at a list of complaints he has logged with the Stark County Political Report (via emails) going back no further than January of this year.

And here is a LINK to a prior Stark County Political Report blog which, in turn links to blogs which detail other examples (i.e. street sweepings, the Maples Street Commerce project, and the Bitzer Park Veterans' Memorial) of Osborne's chronic vexation of North Canton City Council.

So which is it? "A city that works?" or "A city that does NOT work?"

How about something in between?

There are some things with which to be impressed with North Canton about AND there are things to be unimpressed with about The Dogwood City.

All of which brings yours truly to this question: Is activist Osborne a help or a hindrance to being "a city that works?"

Or, put another way:

Is his motivation to help the city:

Is his motivation primarily to self promote and/or work out political comeuppance?

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly nearly always applauds those Stark County citizens (i.e. civic activists) who are willing to stick their necks out in endeavors designed to be a check and balance on the excesses and deficiencies of government.

And Osborne has been a recipient of some of those accolades over the five plus years of The Report's existence.

However, with his latest effort to reform(?) North Canton government; it is becoming more and more apparent to yours truly that he is more interested in keeping his name in the headlines and, perhaps, work out political vendettas than in working with the city's political/governmental leadership to make North Canton "a city that works;" not in the sense of a journalistic puff piece, but as a matter of - day-in, day-out, reality.

The SCPR's take on North Canton is that as municipalities go these days, with the huge financial problems brought on by the State of Ohio ripping away massive amounts of state funding of local government, North Canton is demonstrating that it can and is adjusting and endeavors to be "a city that works."

City leaders like to point to the Maple Street Commerce project (the city's Hoover industrial complex rehab and economic development effort) as a huge success.

Yes, there is some success in that it may have (depending whose numbers one believes) perhaps, upwards of 1,000 jobs or so. However, that number, whatever it truly is; is a long way from the 3,000 jobs that one key North Canton insider tells the SCPR the project should have produced by now.

So the telling barometer of whether or not North Canton "is a city that works" largely has to do with getting the city back on track in having, maintaining and producing jobs as in the Hoover heyday period.

Even it he makes a point or two here and there, many of Osborne's offerings to make North Canton "a city that works" are of a nit picking, insubstantial variety.

Osborne's latest project: making the mayor's office a full time position, is not (in the opinion of the SCPR) about making North Canton government more efficient and responsive to the "real" needs" its citizenry.

It is likely, in part, borne of a Osborne political vendetta against Mayor David Held.

Held and Osborne have been - in a political context - at one another's throats for years.

So much so that the basis of the acrimony often gets lost in the fight. These two appear not to like each other. And the "make the mayor full time" effort seems to be the latest in a series of back and forths between the two.

If his amendment passes - of forcing Held out of the mayor's office inasmuch as he is the executive director of the prestigious and well-paying Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District.

Having to make s choice, the SCPR thinks Held would opt out of the mayor's office.

Osborne undoubtedly understands this likely outcome.

Moreover, The Report sees Osborne's "amend the charter" effort as grandstanding pure and simple so that the name Chuck Osborne makes the headlines between now and November 6, 2013 and beyond.

In yours truly's discussion with Osborne on his justifications for pushing the petition, The Report's take is that the those reasons are tortured and forcibly cobbled together (e.g. a full time mayor can help Administrator Grimes with the day-to-day administrative tasks in the wake of the administrative director's post being left vacant) to make it "appear" that Osborne cares about helping Grimes get North Canton's administrative work done.

Osborne says that the bump up in the mayor's annual income (he suggests to $65,000) would come from the money previously paid to now vacant director of administration.

Such reasoning rings hollow.

If Grimes has a need for help, there are better ways to bring it on board than the full time mayor proposal.

In a historical context, we all know how Osborne is always harping on saving North Canton money. With his successful 2012 amendment, he convinced North Cantonians to end health care benefits for part-time elected officials.

Except, of course, when he was councilman he took health care benefits.

How is that different from what any other politician?

Osborne has had one office-seeking electoral success in North Canton.

After losing his reelection bid, he ran for mayor, for council several times and tried to get the third ward seat via appointment when Tim Fox resigned last year to become law director.

To the SCPR, Osborne's incessant drive to achieve elective office manifests a motivation to achieve political power for its own sake which is attendant to his seeming desire to always be in the limelight in constantly cooking up one thing or another to be unhappy with North Canton Council or the Held administration about.

His "make the mayor a full time position" is his third effort since 2005 to force his ideas on council.

As mentioned above, he won last year on the health care issue.

However, he was unable in 2005 to get a measure on the ballot to redirect North Canton's Community Improvement Corporation monies to the city's general fund.

So it appears to The Report that he is in a sense forcing his way onto council via the petition process.

Doing such is a proper and helpful exercise for citizens in general.

However, when it becomes a substitute for being unable to get elected/appointed as councilman in repetitive tries, then the SCPR thinks it is fair to conclude that the process is being used by him to circumvent the articulated will of the voters in rejecting his candidacies in 2003 and beyond.

Over the years of doing the SCPR, yours truly has been supportive of Osborne on occasion. But those blogs were done in the context of believing that he was primarily acting as a civic minded citizen working to make North Canton a better city.

The Report is saddened to pretty much come to a realization/belief that Osborne primarily aspires to be a political power broker for the ego enhancing fix it brings to him; not necessarily for the merit of a given proposal itself.

Such is not a formula which helps make North Canton "a city that works!"

A HUSBAND/WIFE POLITICAL SPAT IN MASSILLON'S FOURTH WARD?

2013-05-10T05:37:00.000-04:00

UPDATE: 05/13/2013 AT 05:32 AM

Re: Edward Hampton filed petition, see ABJ article (LINK) on battle in Summit County as to whether or not a Republican affiliated candidate will be allowed to run for a clerk of courts position as a "non-party" candidate.

ORIGINAL BLOG

Late last week the SCPR got a tip that something unusual was going on in Massillon's Ward 4 in terms of the upcoming November Massillon City Council election.

The Report was told to check Stark County Board of Elections candidates' filing website for November.

Why November?

Because there was a filing for a candidacy for Massillon Ward 4 councilperson that might seem a bit odd, perhaps, even shocking.

Sure enough, on checking the records yours truly did get a jolt.

What is jolting about Edward F. Hampton filing with the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) to run as a "non-party" council candidate in Massillon's fourth ward?

How about this for an answer?

His wife, Quenessa Hampton, is the sitting Ward 4 Democratic councilwoman having been appointed on February 21st of this year to replace Tony Townsend when he was elevated to being council president by Massillon's Democratic Central Committee members on this past January 29th.

Really?

Indeed!

On February 1st she filed her petitions to run for Ward 4 councilperson with the BOE.

What is this - two Hamptons living at the same address filing to run for the same office all about?

Good question!

The SCPR tracked Quenessa down at Monday's (May 6th) council meeting and among other things asked her about the Edward Hampton filing.

She was so closed mouth about it that she would only say that if elected Edward would do a fine job for the residents of Ward 4.

She declined to tell the SCPR whether or not she and Edward are spouses.

That information (that he and Quenessa are married and live together at 123 Shriver Avenue) came in a telephone conversation between The Report and Edward on Wednesday.

Of course, the SCPR being the political sleuth that yours truly is, is not quite buying any notion that an apparent Hampton v. Hampton (husband versus wife) match-up is about political differences between the two.

Edward's explanation to The Report is that he will make a better councilperson than his wife is hardly the stuff of irreconcilable political differences that would promote him to run against her.

The SCPR sees Edward "waiting in the wings" as indicative of some political strategizing going on.

Quenessa did hint (the SCPR's inference) in our conversation that perhaps Edward's move might have something to do with the fact that she currently is a member of the National Guard. But she would not go into any detail.

Edward told yours truly that there was no strategizing going on and that his filing a petition of May 1st was not promoted by any dealing with or consultation with Stark County or Massillon Democratic Party officials.

When the SCPR first got wind of the seemingly competitive husband/wife filing, an email was sent to Stark Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez, to wit:

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> wrote:

Randy,

Qu[e]nessa Hampton, as you undoubtedly know, will become the Democratic Party nominee for Massillon City Council's Ward 4 seat today inasmuch as she is running unopposed.

Yet on May 4th [actually, it was May 1] of this year an Edward F. Hampton listed at the same address as Quinessa filed a "non-party petition to run for the Ward 4 seat which Qunessa was appointed to fill a vacancy caused by Tony Townsend's selection as council president (a vacancy caused by Glenn Gamber's late 2012 resignation) by the four (4) members of the Massillon Ward 4 Democratic Central Committee precinct members at Stark County Democratic Party headquarters on Thursday, February 21st, under your supervision,

Why would Edward F. Hampton of 123 Shriver Ave SE, Massillon be filing as a non-party candidate against Quinessa N. Hampton of 123 Shriver Ave SE, Massillon and, of course, the Republican candidate (Triner) in November's general election?

It appears that perhaps the Stark County Democratic Party through presently unidentified to the SCPR persons (in terms of political advice being given) seemingly in coordination with Edward and Qu[e]nessa may be doing some "political" hedging with respect to the Ward 4 seat.

As party chairman, your response; your explanation?

Martin Olson
Stark County Political Report

Gonzalez's response:

Today was the first I heard of this I have no idea what the issue is/was. Ms. Hampton was duly elected by the precinct pe[r]sons of the 4th ward to fill the vacancy. Where it goes from there is up to the electors of the 4th ward in Massillon.

A well placed Massillon political figure has told the SCPR that he understands that there might be a problem with Quenessa being in the National Guard and being a political party connected officeholder as she presently is.

The Report's source further says that Quenessa may be permitted by the military to fill out her appointment (which runs through December 31, 2013) but not actually run for election in November.

Yours truly has turned to the Internet for information on what a member of the military may or may not do in terms of holding political office (LINK, LINK re: National Guard).

Seemingly, not very much.

However, there is this language (LINK):

When circumstances warrant, the Secretary concerned or the Secretary's designee may permit a member covered by the prohibition against holding public office, above, to remain or become a nominee or a candidate for civil office. What that means is that if a Congressman, retired from the military were recalled to active duty for more than 270 days, the Secretary of the service could allow them to retain their public office (or, even become a candidate for re-election).

Could it be that the Hamptons are working with the military to get special permission for Quenessa to be allowed to stand for election in November?

If such is the case and permission materializes, then presumably Edward withdraws as a candidate.

If such is the case and permission does not materialize, then presumably Quenessa withdraws and then the "non-party" Edward advances to run against Republican Jim Triner in November.

But could there be a problem if Edward is pressed into service?

The SCPR has checked the latest BOE registration data from the Ohio secretary of state website and sees that Edward is listed as a Democrat.

So the question is whether or not someone will object to Edward running as a non-party candidate?

The SCPR has been told that a Board of Elections member is suggesting that anyone running as a non-party candidate who currently is listed in BOE voter registration records as being of one political party or the other may not be approved by the board to run in the November 5 election as a non-party candidate.

If it turns out that Quenessa cannot run, and there is a successful challenge to Edward running as a non-party candidate, does this mean that the Republicans gain a seat that one would expect to be a Democratic seat?

If such is a real question, wouldn't it stand to reason that someone in the Massillon Democratic political hierarchy is very much involved in helping to construct a scenario that the seat does not fall into the hands of the Republicans?

Does the unfolding of the Hampton situation - if it eventuates into a "nobody but Triner" running - suggest a change in the outlook for the post-November election Massillon City Council line up?

A Ward 4 race with only Triner running would be a political coup for the Massillon GOP.

By the SCPR Party Index Calculation (PIC), the Democrats are at 60% in Ward 4.

MAIER PINS HOPE OF "EQUIVALENCY AS A 'PRINCIPLE OF LAW'" ON REMAINING STARK CO. SHERIFF?

2013-05-09T08:16:00.001-04:00

UPDATED AT 09:30 AM

SUMMARY OF MAIER'S LEGAL ARGUMENTS

The doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in most of the world's patent systems that allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed invention. (Source: Wikipedia)

It appears to the SCPR that George Maier's legal counsel (paid for by Stark County taxpayers contracted at $20,000) is using "the legal doctrine of equivalents" to keep George as Stark County sheriff. (LINK to brief filed May 6th)

Counsel does not specifically articulate equivalency as his argument but it is - in the judgment of The Report - the essence of his advocacy.

Put another way would be to say that Maier does not meet requirements of Ohio Revised Code Section (ORC) 311.01(B)(8) and (B)(9) [LINK to statute] as a matter of law (de jure) but does as a matter of fact (de facto).

Put still another way (a very unlawyer-esque one) would be to say that counsel is throwing a lot of stuff at the seven justices of the Ohio Supreme Court and hoping against hope that enough of it sticks to result in Maier remaining as sheriff of Stark County.

BACKGROUND OF HOW THE QUESTION OF WHO IS TO BE STARK COUNTY SHERIFF GOT TO THE OHIO SUPREME COURT

As readers of the SCPR know, Democrat Mike McDonald (now deceased) won an election in November, 2012 over Republican Larry Dordea to become sheriff-elect in a relatively close election in which Stark Countians were nearly divided 52%/47% as to whom should be the county sheriff.

It was known before the election that McDonald was suffering from esophageal cancer and there was ample speculation that he would not be able to serve if elected.

One SCPR source points to a speech that McDonald made to the Massillon Fraternal Order of Police during the campaign in which McDonald himself made comments which fueled the conjecture.

Some of those who were skeptical about the survival of McDonald to actually be able to serve as sheriff drifted into political cynicism and started murmuring that McDonald's health condition was being hidden by the Stark County's Democratic Party's leadership.

Really. Why?

So that if an unfortunate and regrettable scenario in which an elected but unable to serve situation should materialize, then the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee would be commanded as a matter of Ohio law (ORC 305.02) to name his replacement.

Well, as we now know, the situation did materialize.

The Stark County Democratic Party leadership has emphatically denied that any of them had any knowledge whatsoever that McDonald's ability to serve was in question in the run up to November 6, 2013.

To the SCPR, the denials fall in the category of: who believes that?

Whether or not any of the Stark County Democratic Party leaders knew, there is no question that the materialization (i.e. McDonald's letter of resignation on January 3, 2013) deprived the mass of Stark County voters in the election of their say as to who would be Stark County's next sheriff.

On February 5, 2013 some 177 voting Stark County Democratic Central Committee members gathered at the Mayfield Senior Center and voted 92 (George T. Maier), 84 (Lou Darrow) and 1 (Larry Dordea) in naming Maier sheriff.

Key Stark County Party Democratic leaders (official and unofficial) played major roles in the selection process.

The SCPR evaluates that they were five in number, to wit:

Randy Gonzalez, Stark County Democratic Party chairman; a Maier supporter,
Tim Swanson, retired Stark County sheriff; a Darrow supporter,
John Ferrero, Stark County prosecutor and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman; a Darrow supporter,
William J. Healy, II, mayor of Canton, a Stark County Democratic Party precinct committee person; a Maier supporter, and
Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., Massillon clerk of courts, a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman, currently a Stark Dems executive vice president; obviously, a brother George supporter

It is interesting to the SCPR of how in our democratic-republic:

171,129 Stark County voters (which, of course, included Democrats, Republicans and political independents)

got reduced to:

177 Democratic precinct committee persons

got further reduced to:

4 Stark County Democratic Party leaders as centralizing figures of political influence

penultimately reduced to:

7 Ohio Supreme Court justices none of whom are from Stark County and who sit in Columbus, Ohio

and, perhaps, ultimately to the persons:

3 in number (reference: from 171,129 Stark Countians) Gonzalez, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr, and William J. Healy, II,

Note: Gonzalez as Jackson Township fiscal officer, Maier as Massillon clerk of courts and Healy as mayor of Canton collectively do not represent even one-half of the entire population of Stark County; approximately 378,000)

who (if the Supreme Court goes Maier's way) will have, in essence, selected Stark County's next sheriff.

But that is where we are folks!

America's democratic-republic at its finest, no?

BACK TO THE MAIER ARGUMENTS

In order to remain what the SCPR sees as essentially being the choice of three key Stark County Democratic Party leaders (Gonzalez, Healy and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr), George T. Maier needs to be praying to the Almighty that enough of the stuff being thrown at the Ohio Supreme Court by his legal counsel sticks.

Well, exactly what is that "stuff?"

How about:

serving two days (January 12 and 13, 2013) as a Harrison County (about an hour's drive from Massillon) deputy sheriff appointee at the hand of law enforcement friend

while he was Massillon's safety/service director

constituted "full-time" law enforcement employment (as required by ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) within three/four years going back from February 6, 2013,

serving as a political appointee by the Strickland administration as assistant director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS - also director for a few days at the end of the administration)

(probably at the behest of brother Johnnie, Jr - who had/has close relationship with the former governor as being the first Stark County Democratic Party chairman who endorsed Strickland in the 2006 Democratic Primary),
Note: being a ODPS official is NOT listed in ORC 311.01 as qualifying as full-time law enforcement employment,

attaining ORC 311.01 required law enforcement supervisory experience by bootstrapping himself into supervision in having served as a political appointee in the ODPS which, as pointed out above, is not listed in 311.01 as being a qualifying office,
meeting the two year post-secondary (high school) educational requirement of the statute by virtue of an estimate by Stark State College officials that his prior law enforcement work experience as a state highway patrolman and municipal policeman would be the "equivalent" of 67 credit hours (60 hours being the standard for two years of post-secondary) at Stark State,

Note: Maier's brief does not mention

that Stark State at a maximum grants 30 hours of equivalency hours as Stark State hours

At the beginning of Swanson's Quo Warranto action, Maier sought to have the suit dismissed on the basis of Swanson not being a qualified person to bring the proceeding.

Maier lost that argument but doing what any lawyer would do, Maier's attorney tries once again as part of his throwing in any and everything including the kitchen sink tries again on the standing issue in his brief.

Then he gets into the politics of the situation.

Isn't that interesting?

Kind of like "the pot calling the kettle black," no?

George, Johnnie and William were not being political?

In reality, the political factor is irrelevant. But it can serve as diversionary "stuff."

As the SCPR sees it, Maier's counsel was merely attempting to muddy the water and thereby get the court off focusing on the literal requirements of ORC Sections 311.01(B)(8) & (9).

And, to boot, what logic!

Ohio law provides that politicians (i.e. central committee members) select a sheriff when a vacancy occurs and therefore the Ohio Supreme Court should not entertain a Quo Warranto because politics played into selection process?

And, there is the "the party" determined that Maier (and Darrow and Dordea) are qualified.

Whew!

Who would dispute a political party determining the qualifications of candidates for sheriff?

SCPR sarcasm, of course.

How did the Stark Dems qualify the candidates by the criteria of ORC 311.01?

Chairman Gonzalez asked two "select" attorneys (one in the hire of Gonzalez on a Writ of Prohibition filed by candidate Darrow against the chairman) present at the February 5 meeting what they thought as to the qualifications of the candidates.

As if orchestrated by the chairman, the answer, of course: "qualified."

To him, their opinions were binding.

How convenient.

Other attorneys present at the meeting differed (one of who happens to be the Stark County prosecutor), but, of course, they were ignored by party officials.

To the SCPR, "the party qualification" talk by Maier's attorney was just more of the "stuff" being thrown at the court.

Another diversion from the real role of the court.

The evidence submitted by the Maier camp is replete with George Maier's impressive array of his law enforcement experience going all the way back to when he served as a Hartville police officer and a Tuscarawas Township police officer.

And this, again, is "stuff."

Nobody that the SCPR knows argues that George T. Maier is not de facto thoroughly trained and experienced in law enforcement.

But the generalized training and experience are not the issues addressed by ORC 311. Someone like Swanson needed to bring forth the qualification factor to be adjudicated.

The statute has some very specific requirements that anyone including Maier must meet in order to qualify under the law of Ohio to be sheriff.

Is the rule of law to prevail or is the opinion of political men and women to prevail?

That is the question.

In addition to the Maier brief, the Buckeye Sheriffs' Association (BSSA) a non-profit, law enforcement interest lobbying organization) weighed in with the SCPR deems to be "an almost laughable" - friend of the court - brief. (LINK)

Laughable?

So the SCPR thinks.

How so?

Well, the BSSA took the position that its lobbying the Ohio General Assembly to enact ORC 311.01 and that therefore the Ohio Supreme Court should look to it as to the determiner of legislative intent and more particularly whether or not the OBSA thought George Maier to be qualified.

Legislative intent?

One goes to the Legislature for legislative history, no?

Not to the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association, right?

In its brief, the BSSA references the Maier brief (though it had not yet been filed with the court) which indicates that the BSSA was working hand-in-glove with Maier and his legal team.

Talk about injecting politics into the matter?

One might ask who is Maier's political contact within the BSSA, no?

Just some more of the "stuff" being thrown around?

To the SCPR, it's pretty clear that though George T. Maier appears to be de facto qualified to be Stark County sheriff; yours truly doubts that he is de jure qualifed.

And his deficiency de jure is underscored by the content of the Maier brief.

While he was at it [i.e. throwing what the SCPR thinks is largely irrelevant "stuff" in to his argument, why didn't Maier legal eagle go out and get affidavits from deputies serving under Maier as to how well they think of him?

For the SCPR hears that the rank-and-file at the department think well of George.

Maier also had an offer by the Group 175 folks of Canton's Vassar Park Neighborhood (who are impressed with his effort to get deputies up to strength so as to be able to open up all 501 beds at the Stark County jail) to circulate petitions to gather signatures of Stark Countians who want the Ohio Supreme Court to rule in his favor?

Why not give them the go ahead and throw that "stuff" in to the mix before the court?

Stuff is stuff, isn't it?

WILL THE RULE OF LAW PREVAIL?

What will be interesting to see is whether or not Stark County's chief law enforcer will be held to the de jure standards of the law.

Of course, we will not know such until the Ohio Supreme Court hands down its decision.

The SCPR is not saying that if Maier is successful in having the Quo Warranto denied that such in and of itself indicates he has not de jure qualified.

To know that, one will have to analyze the court's reasoning.

Then and only then will we know whether or not the court found enough in the evidence presented and the arguments made to ensure that the rule of law prevailed.

For now, The Report sees very little in the Maier/BSSA briefs that get anywhere near making the case that George T. Maier literally meets the requirements of ORC 311.01(B)(8) and (9).

Even so, Maier may win with what the SCPR sees at throwing "stuff" and hoping enough of it sticks with the court to give him a victory.

The Report in past blogs has trotted out Craig T. Conley's saying:

The Supreme Court does not have to be right, it just has to be the Supreme Court.

Therein lies the major hope of George T. Maier's quest to remain Stark County sheriff.

ON THE BALLOT OR NOT, THERE WERE SOME "REAL" LOSERS IN YESTERDAY'S ELECTION, NO?

2013-05-08T07:14:00.001-04:00

UPDATE AT 09:20 AM

------------------------------------------------------

SUBTOPICS

LOSERS

CANTON

THE BIGGEST LOSER IN YESTERDAY'S ELECTION:
CANTON MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY, II

COLE LOSS
PORTER LOSS
GROUP 175

CLOSE BEHIND, MARY CIRELLI

NEXT, PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS BUSINESS AGENT DAVE KIRVEN

MASSILLON

A BIG LOSER: MASSILLON'S JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR.

AULT LOSS

FINALLY, MASSILLON MAYOR KATHY CATZAZRO-PERRY

CITY REVENUES PICTURE

WINNERS

BILL SMUCKLER
GREG HAWK
FRANK MORRIS
KIM PEREZ
MEGAN STARRETT

-------------------------------------------------------

THE HEALY LOSSES

The person who had the most to lose in Stark County's 2013 primary election yesterday was Canton mayor William J. Healy, II.

And he came through in flying colors.

By the Stark County Political Report's calculation, on future Canton City Council key votes (meaning on issues that Healy thinks he must win on), as a consequence of Joe Cole's defeat in Ward 9 and Greg Hawk's win in Ward 1, he is likely going to lose at least by a 7 to 5 vote.

Or, as a leading Canton politician told the SCPR last night, at the very least he is going to have to compromise with council to council's liking.

Of course, everyone who understands Hizzhonor, he is a "my way or the highway" type of guy and so there are likely to be some ugly, nasty fights between him and council with the dawn of 2014 and a new make up of council.

While Healy tried to make it appear that he was okay with either Cole or Frank Morris, III (the incumbent Democrat councilman) in the 9th ward in making equal campaign contributions to both; the truth of the matter is that he was an out-and-out Cole supporter and Cole's loss is understood by political cognoscenti to also be a Healy loss.

One of the big fights in Canton politics in 2014 is going to be the fight initiated this year by Citizen Bruce Nordman from Ward 9's Vassar Park and his Group 175's effort to force the city to get the Canton police force up to 175 officer strength.

Healy is against this move because of city's dire financial condition. He has intimated to Nordman et al that he might be open to going up to 165 in 2014.

That was before the Cole/Morris results.

And, make no mistake about it, Vassar Park's Group 175 was a key to Morris' smashing victory yesterday and one can see Healy backpedaling already and scrambling to find the money (about $1.3 million per year) to bring the CPD up to 175 officers strong.

One more thing on the Cole/Morris race.

A humongous loser from an investment standpoint were the Stark County trade unions who contributed to the Cole campaign.

In the end (including monies raised after the last reporting date: 04/17/2013) these unions likely will be shown to put more than $10,000 in to the Cole campaign coffers.

You talk about a bad investment?

Wow!

Didn't Kiiven and union pals come out looking like they flushed a big wad of hard working union members' money right down the toilet?

And the word is that Kirven is working feverishly signing up precinct committee members in his quest to take over the Stark County Democratic Party with the precinct committeepersons elections of 2014.

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly thinks Randy Gonzalez is an ineffective party chairman (e.g. can't get meaningful opposition to Stark's statehouse Republicans [Oelslager, Schuring and Hagan]). But, at least, he not throwing thousands of dollars into hopeless causes.

SMUCKLER BECOMES MAJORITY LEADER?

There are other changes in Canton government as a result of yesterday's election results.

Long time Canton political and government figure Bill Smuckler will be returning as a councilman at large.

And he is not just "any councilman-at-large!"

He is a Healy political nemesis. Smuckler bested Healy in the 2003 Canton Democratic Primary to earn the right to face off against Republican Janet Weir Creighton in that year's general election.

That election was the beginning of a Healy/Smuckler hate/love political affair that has persisted ever since.

Love?

Yes. Smuckler did rely on Healy for help of sorts in his losing effort to become a Stark County commissioner last year in his battle against Republican Regula.

But the SCPR sees the relationship more like "political hate" or at least "intense political competition." And such is to become very evident in 2014 as Smuckler takes control of Canton City Council in either a de facto sense or a de jure (perhaps as majority leader replacing Healy ally David Dougherty - Ward 6) sense of control.

It had to be galling to Healy that Smuckler garnered the "most votes ever for Smuckler in a Democratic primary" in becoming one of three Democrats qualifying for November's general election (which is tantamount to election even if some non-party/independents file).

HAWK BECOMES FINANCE CHAIR, ONCE AGAIN?

Another negative fallout for Healy is the reelection of Ward 1 Councilman Greg Hawk. Should we now be looking to Hawk's return as the finance committee chairman with Cole's (the current chairman) defeat?

Hawk has been nursing a grudge against Healy and his council allies for having removed him as finance chairman after the 2011 elections.

If Hawk returns as the chair, Healy's life will be dramatically affected in a way not to the mayor's liking.

Remember also that Hawk was one of six councilpersons who pushed legislation to significantly increase the pay of cadet Canton police which effort was shunted aside by Cole at the mayor's request.

We should be looking for that issue to resurface in 2014, no?

One final note.

There is speculation that Jimmy Babock (councilman-at-large) will be going to work for his old boss (at the Stark County auditor's office) Kim Perez with Perez's victory in the Canton treasurer's race yesterday.

There is further conjecture that the defeated Joseph Cole would be in line to replace Babcock on council.

Hmm?

Let's see. Cole got hoodwinked into not running for reelection for councilman-at-large by Mary Cirelli. Instead he files for Ward 9. He loses big time. In the meantime he introduces legislation to eliminate council-at-large positions in Canon.

So is this an opportunity for Joe Cole to show once again what a huge political hypocrite he is?

Such would not surprise the SCPR.

JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR. (AND, OF COURSE, SHANE JACKSON) & CATAZARO-PERRY LOSE IN MASSILLON

In Massillon's Ward 5, former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (also Massillon clerk of courts) Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. was "all-in" in the Ault/Geragherty/Starrett Ward 5 Massillon City Council race.

Now held by Republican Donnie Peters, Jr., who is not seeking reelection, this ward is Massillon's "most Democratic ward" and therefore very likely to fall back into the hands of the Dems this fall.

The Healy equivalent in Massillon is Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

He is a guy who is a power politician who looks at politics as black and white (translated: "for Maier or against Maier") and desperately seeks to absolutely control everything he puts his hand to.

His political power perch in Massillon is in the form of Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

He handpicked her to take on the-then 24-year mayor Frank Cicchinelli in the Democratic Primary of 2011 and succeeded in spades in putting his person in charge of Massillon's executive branch of government.

But with her election, a "~~Houston~~ Massillon - we've got a problem" surfaced immediately.

It became obvious early on that KCP was not going to get along with a Massillon City Council controlled 5 to 4 by Republicans.

While it may seem to be a Republican/Democrat problem, it is not.

It is Catazaro-Perry being high-handed (go figure, no? - her political patron is Johnnie A. Maier, Jr) vis-a-vis council which is the bane of her existence.

Solution?

Elect KCP friendly councilpersons to Massillon City Council, no?

Enter Catazaro-Perry self-styled political gurus Maier and his acolyte Shane Jackson (political director of the Stark County Democratic Party).

One such person was supposed to have been Joseph Ault in Ward 5; a November election Democratic "plum for the picking," no?

Maier and friends pumped impressive money into Ault's campaign effort.

It seemed reasonable to think that with help from Massillon's political elite duo, Ault could be the beginning of finding an end of the mayor's frustration with council.

But it will not be Ault!

Lo and Behold! Maier and Jackson fail in their effort to help Catazaro-Perry.

Chalk Ward 5 up to being a winner for Stark County prosecutor John Dee Ferrero, Jr. (a man who has deep political roots in Massillon as having been Tigerland's law director).

Megan Starrett is on Ferrero's prosecutorial staff.

In Massillon there are three factions in the Democratic Party: the Maier faction, the Cicchinelli faction and the Ferrero faction.

While Ferrero may have won the Ward 5 battle, he lost on the city's attempt to get an increase in the income tax. And he lost big time.

Catazaro-Perry has battled Ferrero and his chief counsel John Kurtzman (also a man with deep, deep Massillon ties and history) over her desire:

to have Massillon deal with its financial short fall with a reduction in the credit that Massilonians living in other income taxing jurisdictions get against their Massillon income tax, and
to add fees (e.g. assess citizens for street lighting fees thereby eliminating such as a Massillon general fund expense),

as the way for Massillon to cope with its revenue woes.

Ferrero and Kurtzman make relatively big bucks as the honchos in the county prosecutor's office and by virtue of the office being in the city of Canton they pay Canton's 2% tax which because of the Massillon credit means they pay no tax (given Massillon's 1.8% tax) to Massillon.

Had the Massillon tax issue passed they would have paid an "itsy-bitsy" amount to Massillon because the new tax rate would have increased to 2.1%.

But it didn't and so Ferrero, Kurtzman and their cohort (Starrett) will pay no income tax to Massillon.

Catazaro-Perry may take some delight in the tax issue failing inasmuch as she "quietly" opposed it.

For her to do so is more than a bit perverse.

Because she now faces having to administer a city that will via council action be implementing huge cuts in city services.

Think she isn't going the face a lot of heat from a public who wants it both ways: city services as usual, but do not ask for more revenues.

In view of the lopsided citizen rejection of more revenues for Massillon government, how could she possibly continue her push her "not by a vote of the people" drive for enhanced revenues?

She may not see it this way, but the SCPR thinks that the resounding vote of the people against more taxes was an emphatic loss by her on the issue of whether or not there are to be additional revenues for Massillon government.

If she chooses to persist on her quest, should she decide for reelection in 2015; she will see her position come back to haunt her.

While Maier came up a loser in the Ault/Geragherty/Starrett race, all may not be lost.

In Ward 2 there was a face off between Irwin and Bobby Martin in the Democratic Primary.

And Irwin won.

There is no direct evidence that Irwin (a Stark County recorder employee) is a Maier man, there is plenty to indirect evidence.

Irwin works for Stark County recorder Rick Campbell who is married to Plain Township administrator Lisa Campbell who is the daughter of former Stark County commissioner and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr protege Gayle Jackson (son Shane is Maier's chief deputy in the Massillon clerk of courts).

So there may be hope that Maier can help out Herhonor in getting some support from council?

Probably not.

The SCPR figures that Republican Nancy Halter will win again in the 2nd in November.

So in the long run, Maier likely strikes out totally in his foray into Massillon City Council politics.

Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. a political loser twice on council?

And there could be more.

Still to be analyzed is his involvement in Ward 4 and in Ward 6.

IT'S TURN OUT THE LIGHTS, THE PARTY IS OVER FOR MARY CIRELLI?

The win by Kim Perez in the Canton treasurer's race (in terms of long time Canton politician Mary Cirelli coming in third) was a BIG surprise to yours truly.

Although yours truly did say on Ron Ponder's Points to Ponder on Monday that the SCPR would not be surprised to see Perez win; that Mary Cirelli comes in third was not part of The Report's thinking.

Mary has a history of doing well in three person races.

So her third place finish is indication that she is done in Canton politics.

Inasmuch as Mayor Healy was a big Perez supporter, he gets a little bit of being a winner with Perez's election.

More importantly, he will not have to deal with (at least, in an official capacity) Mary Cirelli any longer.

She will be off council in January, 2014.

Cirelli, while having fun with Cole in the filing deadline saga with him as to whether she was running for reelection to council or for Canton treasurer, made had huge political blunder (in hindsight) on her own.

She should have stayed in the council race. Certainly, one would think, that she could have come in at least third, if not second, in a three person race, no?

Apparently, the voters knew that Mary was unsuited to be treasurer. Prior to running for treasurer, she had never be THE person in charge. She always been either one of twelve councilpersons, one of three commissioners or one of ninety-nine state representatives.

In such contexts she could ask questions galore and thereby served in a "for the public benefit" prized role. And, she could not make screwy decisions for the body politic in these settings.

However, a Canton city treasurer, she would have been the "elected" by the people and only accountable to the people at reelection time chief executive.

Hmm?

Like her or not on a personal basis, who thinks that Mary Cirelli is chief executive material?

But do not count her out from trying a council comeback in 2015.

Probably the person who - on the merits - should have been elected is Kelly Zachary. And she did make a very credible showing. And this on top of a respectable showing against Republican Alex Zumbar in the Stark County treasurer race of 2012.

Perhaps the Stark County Democratic Party leadership should be finding a place for Ms. Zachary on next year's ballot?

SCPR CONCLUSION ON THE BIGGEST LOSER IN THE 2013 STARK COUNTY PRIMARY ELECTION

The bottom line of this SCPR analysis is that - all-in-all -Mayor William J. Healy, II stands as the biggest loser in yesterday's primary election!

This election could be the beginning of the end of William J. Healy, II has a viable Stark County political figure!

PRIMARY ELECTION DAY

2013-05-07T06:20:00.003-04:00

POLITICAL BULDING BLOCS: WILL MASSILLON'S WARDS REMAIN REPUBLICAN 2014-2015?

2013-05-06T07:43:00.002-04:00

UPDATED/REVISED 09:38 PM

A huge surprise coming out of the Massillon city elections of 2011 was the attainment by Massillon Republicans of a majority of Massillon City Council's 10 (counting the normally non voting council president) seats.

The current make up?

Seemingly, it is a tie: 5 to 5. But not really.

The president of council only votes when the remaining nine councilpersons are tied, which, of course, means for such to occur a council person or three would have to be absent or abstain from the voting on a particular matter.

Hence the Republicans had a 5 to 4 marjority on council beginning with the new session of council on January 1, 2012.

Contrasting that with the 2010-2011 line up, quite a contrast, no? Eight (8) Democrats, one (1) Republican.

And the SCPR is told that the Republicans is told that the turnaround from the Dems to the GOP was done without any meaningful help from Chairman Jeff Matthews and the Stark County Republican Party.

The question now going into the 2013 election cycle (for the 2014-2015 council make up) is: whether or not Massillon City Council will remain in the control of the Republicans?

The SCPR thinks not.

Although in political predisposition Wards 1, 2 and 3 are said to be Republican in orientation, The Report thinks that the GOP has a difficult time holding on Ward 1 and it is highly likely that Democrat Andrea Scassa will continue to represent Ward 3 (perhaps, going way back, the most Republican ward in the entire city). Only if someone files as a non-partisan or independent candidate by the filing deadline in August, will Scassa face any opposition whatsoever. The SCPR does not look for that to happen.

The Report believes that former councilman (Democrat, at-large) Mike Loudiana (also, former Cicchinelli service/safety director) will end up as Ward 1 councilman.

Current GOP Councilwoman Sarita Cunningham has done nothing in the view of yours truly to distinguish herself. The only question about Loudiana is whether or not Loudiana's health will hold up in what is likely to be a highly contested race.

In The Report's estimate Republican Nancy Halter survives in the 2nd ward. Yours truly thinks she is the real leader of the Massillon GOP contingent on council due to her prior service on council in the late 1990s and because of her demonstrated legislative leadership on council during her current term.

The second ward is the one in which Frank Cicchinelli got his start in some three decades or so ago.

Halter likely will face a stiff test in November from the victor of Tuesday's Democratic Primary between Dave Irwin:

a employee of the Stark Co. Recorder's office
run by Rick Campbell, who is married to Shane Jackson's sister Lisa,

Shane is:

a staunch Johnnie A. Maier, Jr man;
political director of the Stark County Democratic Party,
he's Maier chief deputy clerk of courts]

Lisa Jackson Campbell

also happens to be Plain Township administrator, and

he daughter of former Democratic Stark County commissioner Gayle Jackson,

Gayle Jackson

was an appointee of former Democratic governor Ted Strickland to a regional Ohio Lottery post probably as a consequence of a lobbying effort of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman and currently Massillon's clerk of courts)

and Bobby Martin who is close to Loudiana and therefore likely supportive of former mayor Frank Cicchinelli.

In an overall sense, while the contests may seem to be a Republican versus Democrat scenario, the real battle is between:

the forces of former mayor Frank Cicchinelli (defeated by the captive Johnnie A. Maier, Jr protege Kathy Catazaro-Perry in the 2011 Democratic Primary)
and the Maier forces,
and to, a lesser extent those loyal to Massillonian (former Massillon law director and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman) John D. Ferrero, Jr.

Even with the Republicans in control of council, they have nobody to rally behind in terms of Massillon's executive function.

The GOP's candidate (Lee Brunckhart) against Catazaro-Perry in November, 2011 proved to be a political sacrificial lamb.

In the fourth ward, Councilwoman Hampton is in the same situation as Andrea Scassa. Only if a non-partisan or independent files, will she have any opposition. Ward 4 is a base Democratic area of Massillon.

However, the Republicans have convinced Republican Jim Triner to take the Democrats on in Ward 4. Although The Report is told that he had to be nudged into do so.

By all political rights Wards 5 and 6 should be served by Democrats.

However, of late, Republicans have surfaced as the elected representatives.

In Ward 5 (which folks say is Massillon's most Democratic ward), Donnie Peters, Jr., who many think is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) is currently councilman. However, he is not running for reelection.

This ward presents an opportunity for the Democrats to gain another seat on Massillon City Council.

The Democratic candidates are:

This ward will be a test of political strength between the Maier and Ferrero forces.

Ault is politically married to Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., to wit:

Megan Starrett has to be an ally of John Dee Ferrero, Jr inasmuch as she is a Stark County prosecutor.

She did not file a campaign finance report for the primary, but if she survives the primary, expect the Ferrero branch of the Massillon Democratic Party to open the wallets big time for her in the general election.

Terry Geragherty appears to be unaligned and therefore is unlikely to surface in Massillon Democratic politics as the party's nominee.

This race will be a barometer of the influence that Maier and Ferrero have in Massillon ward politics especially since the 5th is the heart of sole of Democratic politics in Tigerland.

It does not appear that either Ault or Starrett wil have an easy time of it in November's general election.

Republican Theresa Mattox (a sister of Repository reporter Todd Porter) is a formidable political force in Massillon politics. The SCPR is told by a politically astute Massillon elected official that she is likely responsible for the passage of a Massillon school levy.

In Ward 6 November general election, it is likely to be a head-to-head between Democrat Linda Litman and Republican incumbent councilman Ed Lewis, IV.

Litman appears to be an organized labor candidate for council. And, if elected, she likely would be aCatzaro-Perry supporter given the heavy union support she received in her 2011 Democratic Primary election victory over Frank Cicchinelli.

Unless Republican Ed Lewis, IV makes a monumental goof between now and the general election, he should retain his place on counci as the sixth ward representative.

While the SCPR thinks that Councilwoman Nancy Halter is the "real" leader of the Republicans on council, Ed Lewis appears to be their most articulate spokesperson and from looking at who is contributing to his campaign seems to be "a star on the horizon" in terms of potential future as a Stark County-based GOP standard bearer.

Luminary contributors include:

Jane Timken, vice-chairman of the Stark GOP and co-chair of the Romney presidential effort in Stark County,
Stark County Commissioner Janet Weir Creighton,
Stark County Auditor Alan Harold,
Plain Township trustee Scott Halls,
Sarah M Brown (a former Alliance councilwoman) who is the wife of retired judge Charles Brown and was once chairman of the Stark County Republican Party,

(Pre-primary report as reconstructed by the SCPR in a spreadsheet format):

All that remains in the SCPR analysis of the ramifications of Tuesday's Massillon City Council election are the at-large seats.

There are only three candidates (barring someone filing as non-partisan/independent):

Paul Manson, a long time Democrat on council,
Milan Chovan, a Republican vying for a second term, and
Michelle Del Rio-Keller, a Democrat who is a member of the Masllion Parks and Recreation Board (appointed by Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry) and who is said to lunch with the mayor weekly and therefore has to be taken as and out-and-out Catazaro-Perry supporter.

The SCPR thinks that the likely Republican victors, from a May 6, 2013 vantage point are Halter, Lewis and Al Hennon (a former Massillon City Schools superintendent), the latter of which is running for the largely procedure-only (voting only in the case of tie votes on council) president of council.

If such is the case, then the Republican control of council will have been short-lived.

But the R &D thing is not the main thing.

The main thing is whether or not the winning 2013 general election candidates are pro or anti Catazaro-Perry.

From that perspective, little change is in the offing in the make up of Massillon City Council.

The SCPR projection of how the 2013/14 Massillon City Council will shake out come January 1, 2014.

RESPONSES TO MORRIS VOLUNTEER "COLD CALLS" INDICATE "A NUMBERS EDGE" FOR THE INCUMBENT 9TH WARD COUNCILMAN?

2013-05-03T05:49:00.000-04:00

Frank Morris is no stranger to close Democratic Primary elections.

In 2009, with 689 votes cast, he lost by a mere seven (7) votes to the late Joe Carbenia.

Then on August 10, 2009 Carbenia passed away.

One would have thought that the Stark Dems would have selected Morris to be his successor inasmuch the May 5, 2009 primary election was a virtual tie.

But no, it turns out, it is likely that there was some resentment among Stark County Democratic Party officials that Morris challenged Carbenia in the first place.

And beyond the Stark Dems factor, the nominee (Brian Horner) had connections to the Carbenia family through his wife (a cousin). It appears that the family may have weighed in with the Dems as to the family's preference. (LINK to prior SCPR blog which goes into more detail)

So between the two factors, it was a "no go" for Morris in 2009 and he had to wait until 2011 (Horner having decided he wanted no part of Canton politics) to take office, ironically, running - get this , "unopposed" in the 2011 Democratic Primary.

There were 562 votes in that primary election.

Going back even further to the 2007 election, we find that there were 759 votes cast in the Democratic Primary.

So it seems as if we can expect anywhere from 550 to 750 or so votes in next Tuesday's hotly contested race between fellow Democrats Morris and Joe Cole (a councilman-at-large who got hoodwinked by Mary Cirelli into giving up his at-large seat [see this LINK to a prior SCPR blog which details the hilarious account of how Cirelli did Cole in]).

On Wednesday the SCPR learned that Ward 9 resident and voter Mark Bowman was engaged in a big time calling program on behalf of Morris. By election day on Tuesday he says he projects that he will have made 865 calls.

What is interesting about the calls is the information he shared with the SCPR as to the nature, content and responses he is getting to his "cold" calls made to likely Democratic voters, to wit:

the calls' entree are that they are tailored to remind Ward 9 voters that Tuesday's primary election is at hand and that the caller is asking for voters to help reelect Frank Morris as the ward,s councilman on the basis of the good job Frank has done for the ward over the past couple of years,
out of every 100 calls, he is getting voice mail responses for about 45 to 60 of the calls and he simply leaves messages promoting Frank Morris,
of the 45 or so calls per 100 in which voters engage Bowman, he gets some 10 to 15 who favor Morris whereas an average of 2 to 4 favor Cole,
by the time election day rolls around he will have reached in pre-determined limit of 865 calls, and
that is is cautiously optimistic that Ward 9 voters will reelection Frank Morris as the ward's councilman,

To the SCPR, the disparity between those who are pro-Morris as compared to those who are pro-Cole is validation of The Report's earlier projection (based on a number of non-quantified factors) that Frank Morris is very likely to win over challenger Cole.

One does have to be a little hesitant about making such a projection given that Cole has already raised over $11,000 and The Report understands that he had another fundraiser Wednesday evening. (LINK to a SCPR blog detailing the campaign finance reports submitted by the candidates by the reporting deadline of April 25th).

In a relationship that nobody can figure out, Stark County's trade unions have pumped some $8,000 into the Cole campaign and it is likely that after Wednesday's event it will be $10,000 or so.

Plumber and Pipefitters business agent Dave Kirven denied previously to the SCRP in an email that the unions were going to put $10,000 into the Cole campaign.

Hmm?

The campaign finance reports tell a different story.

And, of course, Frank Morris hasn't exactly been "chopped liver" in his raising of money. He's at $6,360 as of the April 25th report.

Normally, if a candidate puts $1,000 into a Canton council race, that is a big deal.

But the Morris/Cole match up is not just any race.

It, coupled with the Greg Hawk/Tim Porter (Mayor Healy has put $500 into Porter's campaign) first ward race, is about which power bloc in council will control going forward into 2014.

Depending on how Wards 9 and 1 go, this election cycle's results could mean a 7 to 5 majority for the victorious bloc.

Voting blocs on council?

Yes. On certain key issues that come along, to wit: traffic cameras, merging parks and recreation, a $1 million tax abatement for a proposed hotel, giving $175,000 to the Canton Chamber of Comerce, et cetera.

As the SCPR sees council, for lack of a better descriptor, there is the anti-Healy-bloc and the pro-Healy-bloc.

The anti-Healy folks (more or less):

Frank Morris, III, Ward 9,
John Mariol, II, Ward 7,
Edmond Mack, Ward 8,
Kevin Fisher, Ward 5,
Greg Hawk, Ward 1,
Mary Cirelli, at-large,

The pro-Healy folks (more or less):

Jimmy Babcock, at-large,
Joe Cole, at-large,
David Dougherty, Ward 6,
Jim Griffin, Ward 3,
Chris Smith, Ward 4,
Tom West, Ward 2

Coming on council for sure (in the opinion of the SCPR) are former Councilman Bill Smucker and Roland Burns, II (as at-larges) who are likely to replace Mary Cirelli (who is running for Canton treasurer) and add one to the "anti-Healy-bloc."

This scenario would give the anti-Healys a 7 to 5 margin.

However, if Cole were to defeat Morris and Tim Porter were to take out Greg Hawk, the margin swings 7 to 5 in favor of the pro-Healys.

Of course, in case a reader does not already know, Healy is Canton mayor William J. Healy, II.

Healy has proven to be one of the most polarizing mayors in Canton's history (at least, in the modern era) pretty much because is consumed with a quest to political power (either "in your face style," or through finesse or manipulation) so that he can enforce his basic way of administration which is to say "my way or the highway!"

Until Cole opened his mouth at the council meetings of April 22nd (calling the votes [including Morris'] against giving $175,000 to the Chamber deplorable) and disparaging some Vassar Park (located in Ward 9) residents (i.e. calling them right wing Tea Party types, charlatans, and snake oil salesmen), it appeared that with all the money the unions pumped into the Cole campaign, that Morris could be in trouble.

And it could be that he is,

But the SCPR is skeptical.

The Report believes that Cole has so discredited himself that all of the money in the world is not going to help him retain a seat on council.

But we shall see come Tuesday, May 7, 2013!

The important question is how are those 550 to 750 Ward 9 residents going to react to the unprecedented barrage of politiking (probably involving total expenditures of $20,000) going on in their ward?

Total expenditures nearing $20,000.

Hmm?

Such should tell anyone that the stakes in the outcome of this particular election could not be higher!

WILL CATAZARO-PERRY'S "QUIET" OPPOSITION SINK MASSILLON'S FIRST TAX INCREASE IN 35 YEARS?

2013-05-02T07:19:00.002-04:00

"In the best of times" let alone "the worst of times" it is difficult for people to vote a tax increase on themselves.

While it might not exactly be the worst of times in Massillon when one goes back through the total history of the city, these days have to be on the top ten list in terms of the financial crisis the city faces if the Save Massillon Committee's bipartisan effort to raise Tigerland's income tax rate by 0.3% (to 2.1%).

For if the issue does not pass, the SCPR is told, Massillonians will face massive cuts in city services.

What makes this particular effort herculean is the "quiet" opposition of Mayor Catazaro-Perry.

Save Massillon Committee member Nancy Halter when asked by The Report as to whether or not Catazaro-Perry's "quiet" opposition will prove to be a fatal blow to the prospect of the issue passing, she said "that it doesn't help."

In an impressive show of unity, eight of Massillon's nine councilpersons are committee members and are aggressively campaigning for the issue.

Only council president Tony Townsend (up until Glenn Gamber's recent resignation, Ward 4 councilman) who is deemed to be the mayor's staunchest ally on council, is standing down on supporting the issue.

But it is very unlikely that he is going to be on council come January 1, 2014 when the benefits or negatives of the voters' May 7th decision Issue 3 takes hold.

Of all the council races, the SCPR is already calling Townsend's November match-up with former Massillon superintendent of schools Al Hennon for Hennon.

Though Townsend only votes in council in the case of a tie, we already know that with Townsend's almost certain exit from the scene, Catazaro-Perry will be even more isolated from council than she has been.

Looking over the entire field of council candidates both in this coming Tuesday's primary as well as the November face-off between Republicans and Democrats and their likely posture vis-a-vis the mayor, it is looking like her final two years is going to be rough sailing indeed.

The ironical thing about the mayor's "quiet" opposition is that if the tax issue passes, it will make life livable in the executive sweets of the mayor's office. A failure of the tax, the SCPR believes, will make being mayor of Massillon "one Hell of an experience."

If a full-blown "worst of times" materializes, Mayor Catazaro-Perry only has herself to blame. Her obstinate holding onto raising revenue via a reduction in the credit that out-of-town-working Massillonians (as exemplified by tax credit reduction opponent Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero, Jr) get on their Massillon income taxes, and her insistence that Massillon generate through raising street lighting fees are the two big specifics of her willfulness.

The Report is told that council had high hopes for Mayor Kathy when she took office in that she was saying that she wanted to make her administration the most transparent that Massillon has ever had especially in terms of its relationship with council.

Well, the word is that the Catazaro-Perry administration is viewed as being even more closed-mouth than the Frank Cicchinelli administration was.

As an example, The Report is told that council only knew about the flap over the Massillon Civil Service Commission Board and Massillon police officer Thomas Rogers and its denial to him of a promotion to sergeant (over Mike Maier, son of former service/safety director George Maier and nephew of Catazaro-Perry political patron Johnnie A. Maier, Jr) only became known to council through the blog on the topic done by yours truly (LINK).

It will interesting to watch council and the mayor after Tuesday's election no matter how the tax issue fares. The SCPR thinks that the mayor's "quiet" opposition will prove very costly for her going forward no matter what the fate of the tax issue turns out to be.

Only council's devotion to the well-being of the citizenry of Massillon is likely to provide any cover whatsoever to what will certainly be a lingering ire on the part of council towards the mayor and her political handlers (Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. and Shane Jackson).

The SCPR cannot tell which way the vote on the tax is likely to go.

Obviously, the Save Massillon folks are hopeful and optimistic but they are likely interacting to receptive Massillonians.

In The Reports contacts with former administration figures, the feedback is decidedly more negative.

The big plus for the Save Massillon Committee effort is that voters most certainly understand that no tax increases over an approximate 35 year span (except for 0.3% increase earmarked for the Massillon parks) is not going to cut it no matter how frugal a city is.

However, there is the problem of explaining to voters such things as the over expansion of Legends golf course, council's ill advised decision to help finance the Hampton Inn and a number of other unwise votes by previous councils.

It could be that the near unanimous unity of council in coming to together (5 Republicans [Chovan, Cunningham-Hedderly, Halter, Peters and Lewis] and 3 Democrats [Manson, Scassa and Hampton] will "save the day" for Massillon.

The committee has raised as of April 19th nearly $4,000.

It is noteworthy that nearly all, if not all, of the Massillon officeholding contributors are from offices "independent" of the executive branch (offices controlled by the mayor's office) of Massillon city government.

One would think that the "quietly" opposing Catazaro-Perry would give a "wink and a nod" to her appointees to go ahead a support the levy. After all, they in terms of having access to enough revenues to effectively run their departments with have a huge stake in the outcome of the levy effort.

But, as the SCPR has written many times over the past one and one-half years, inasmuch as the Catazaro-Perry administration clearly appears to in a de facto way to be run by Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and given what the SCPR believes to be Maier's model of brooking no dissent from his way of doing things; it is not surprising see the absence of executive department employees as contributors to the Save Massillon Committee campaign.

How "quiet" is the Catazaro-Perry opposition?

Here is a list of the contributors (reconstructed from original campaign finance reports):

SCPR ELECTION SPECIAL: PORTER UPSETS WARD 1 COUNCILMAN GREG HAWK & CHANGES BALANCE OF POWER IN CANTON CITY COUNCIL?

2013-05-01T04:33:00.000-04:00

UPDATE

Bill Smuckler (a long time former councilman who is running for councilman-at-large unopposed this election cycle) in a telephone conversation today tells the SCPR that Greg Hawk is in fact walking the neighborhood visiting with constituents.

Smuckler says he knows because he recently participated in a neighborhood walk with Hawk which lasted a couple of hours.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The SCPR has been hearing a "buzz" flowing through political-junkie-land of late that the race to watch in Canton is not so much the Cole/Morris match up in Ward 9 but rather the Hawk/Porter face-off in Ward 1 located in Canton's near west/center side.

The word is that incumbent Councilman Greg Hawk (D - Ward 1, LINK to Facebook page for Ward 1) has grown complaisant and is perhaps shrugging this race off as just another in a series of efforts by Democratic Canton Mayor William J. Healy to unseat him.

For the most part Hawk has had no problem whatsoever in meeting the Healy challenge in the Democratic primaries of 2009 and 2011.

Hawk was first elected in November, 2001 and has been a fixture in Canton City Council ever since which as of December 31st will be 12 years.

Of course that was in the days that Harper was a Republican.

The SCPR is being told his Democratic opponent Tim Porter (LINK to Facebook page) that Hawk is not doing door-to-door but rather is sending a former Obama worker out to knock on doors on his behalf. Porter also says that Hawk does show up for community events but stands off to himself and doesn't mix with Ward 1 constituents.

Porter says that he has been going door-to-door at a feverish pace and thinks he has a very good chance of knocking Hawk off.

Both are members of the Summit United Neighborhood Association but Porter (who is an official in the organization) claims that Hawk is not all that involved.

Hawk's resume indicates his involvement as being:

Administrative Representative to Summit Neighborhood Housing Coalition,
Member, Summit United Neighborhood Enrichment Team

If Porter is correct on his political assessments of Hawk, then the SCPR can see that the recipe is in place for a pretty stunning political upset in city of Canton politics.

You can factor William J. Healy - the second - in as being a primary sponsor of the Porter effort. Porter winning equals his ridding himself of nemesis Hawk (especially the case when Hawk was finance committee chairman) from the Canton political scene.

Hawk feels that Healy was instrumental (through David Dougherty) in his being removed as finance committee chair when the 2012 - 2013 council organized.

And, if Porter pulls off an upset, you can bet that Healy will bill himself as the political Wizard of Oz who made it possible and will often and repeatedly remind Porter in one way or another that BUT FOR William J. Healy II, Tim Porter would not be on Canton City Council.

A consummately manipulative politician is who the mayor is.

Porter says he is a political novice but that he is getting helpful advice from Stark County Democratic chairman Randy Gonzalez.

Gonzalez (of Jackson Township [fiscal officer]) seems to be significantly involved in the Canton council races. He is on record of having contributed to the Frank Morris campaign in Ward 9.

To the SCPR, the shifting and variant political alliances in Canton politics is intriguing. In this regard, Porter says he is supporting Joe Cole in Ward 9.

He sees Frank Morris (D - Ward 9), Edmund Mack (D - Ward 8), John Mariol (D - Ward 7) and Kevin Fisher (D - Ward 5), a group that the SCPR has tabbed as being "the four young turks" of city council, as opposing much of the agenda developed by the Healy administration in concert with Majority Leader David Dougherty (D - Ward 6) and Councilman Tom West (D - Ward 2). They do so, he says, merely for the sake of opposition and creating political mayhem and thereby get in the way of Canton making progress in solving its many, many problems.

Porter cites Dougherty and Jimmy Babcock (D, at-large) as the councilpersons he respects most.

Just looking at the Porter/Hawk campaign finance reports gives credence to the notion that should Porter be elected, given human nature being what it is, he going to remember that Councilmen Mariol ($600) and Mack ($140) supported Hawk while Mayor Healy supported him.

Porter denies that such will be the case. He says that he is for what's in the best interest of people of Canton and Ward 1 and that such will be the standard he invokes in determining how to vote as issues come before council.

The SCPR passed several issues by him in our discussion yesterday and The Report's take is that he agrees with very little that

"the four young turks,"
Mary Cirelli (who is leaving council),
and Greg Hawk

have stood together on in seeming opposition to Healy administration proposals on key issues.

Porter singled out Cirelli and Hawk as targeting Councilman Thomas West (D - Ward 2) with "no" votes for any of his legislative proposals.

And that opposition remains very much in tact as the 2013 council races come to a conclusion.

As late as this past Monday night's council meeting, the administration was forced to put off a vote on the third reading of $1 million dollar or so tax abatement for a planned Canton sited hotel because it appears that a majority (likely 7 to 6 with President Schulman breaking a tie) are not satisfied that the developers of the hotel will be hiring union workers to do the construction work.

While the SCPR does not see a Porter victory in Ward 1 as bringing Healy the majority on council that he undoubtedly quests for; it would likely bring him a 6 to 6 tie (assuming Morris holds on in the 9th).

The SCPR thinks Porter will line up more with Healy loyalists Babcock, Dougherty, Griffin, Smith, and West than he is to vote without awareness that there are two distinct camps on council.

For Healy to get his "on key issues majority," Cole would have to take Morris out in the 9th inasmuch as certain to be new class of 2014 members council-at-large candidates Bill Smuckler and Roland Burns will likely line up with the "four young turks."

All of which, of course, retains Council President Allen Schulman in an all too familiar role in terms of being the "break the tie" man on council.

Porter has a lot of regard for Schulman as does, seemingly, both of the political continental divide-esque blocs of council.

From a Canton public interest standpoint, it might be a good thing that the mayor does not get a majority. The SCPR sees Healy as a whimsical type who flits from idea to idea with little thought for how this or that policy/program fits into an well-thought out overall plan that will bring Canton out of its financial/economic doldrums.

For a different mayor who has a more wholesome, integrated policy and practice outlook (let's say a Warren Price); one would want a council working more closely and coordinatedly with the administration.

But William J. Healy, II is the mayor of Canton and political power is the name of the game with him. Accordingly, he does need to be "check[ed] and balance]d."

And though Canton council has all Democratic councilpersons, the Will Rogers quote: "I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat" is in full play in Canton politics.

Between Ward 1 and Ward 9, the 2013 election is a battle for control of Canton City Council not between Democrats and Republicans but between political Democratic blood brothers and sisters.

With Joe Cole antagonizing the Vassar Park folks (see yesterday's blog - LINK), it is hard to see him being victorious in Ward 9. In a telling synopsis by former Councilman Brian Horner (a Cole supporter) in a SCPR chit-chat with him yesterday, he impliedly conceded that Cole is likely to lose next Tuesday in saying that "it will be closer than folks think."

Up until recently the Ward 1 race has been flying under the political radar.

But no more.

The Stark County Political Report has a feeling that this race has all the makings of going down in the annals of Canton as being one of the most stunning of political upsets in all of Canton politics.

Probably less than 500 Ward 1 voters could determine the course of Canton government and politics over the next two years.

And the ramifications go beyond just Canton.

For the Hall of Fame city is Stark County's seat of government and SCPR believes that to a very large degree "how goes Canton - so goes Stark County."

While the contending parties debate/decide:

how to get more police on the streets of Canton,
whether or not to fund $175,000 to the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce,
the matter of having traffic cameras at key downtown Canton intersections,
how much and how quick the city will demolish neighborhood eyesores,
who gets tax abatements and for how much,
what to do with its parks and recreation infrastructure, and, indeed
what the rules of council itself will be going forward,

the real contest in the 2013 election is which of the contending groups will control the "balance of power" on Canton City Council.

It could swing 7 to 5 either way.

However, the SCPR thinks it could well end up as a mirror image of the 6 to 6 stand-off that currently plagues council.

Whatever unfolds next Tuesday, it is looking more and more like the Ward 1 contest could end up being the 2013 election headliner.

Challenger Tim Porter defeats incumbent Greg Hawk in Ward 1 stunner?

(VIDEO) VASSAR PARK RESIDENT TAKES ON WARD 9 CANDIDATE JOE COLE DURING CANTON'S "PUBLIC SPEAKS!"

2013-04-30T07:39:00.001-04:00

Last week at Canton City Council, Councilman Joe Cole (presently a councilman-at-large who seeks to become 9th Ward councilman) lashed out as being "deplorable" a vote by fellow councilpersons Cirelli, Fisher and Ward 9 opponent Frank Morris not to fund the Canton Regional Commerce to the tune of $175,000.

But he was not content to stop at that in his "apparently?" desperate campaign to stave off becoming ex-councilman Joe Cole as many political observers think he has an uphill fight to unseat fellow Democrat Frank Morris who was first elected two years ago.

After the meeting, as the SCPR was interviewing Vassar Park resident Bruce Nordman (Vassar Park is located in Ward 9) about his Group 175 effort to nudge the Canton Mayor Healy administration into finding the million dollars plus needed to fund the addition of 25 policemen to the Canton force to bring its strength to 175 officers, Council Cole stood nearby (within earshot and unleashed a political diatribe against the group.

Political diatribe?

What did Cole have to say?

Obviously, yours truly was focused on the interview and had to rely on others to fill in the details.

According to Ward 5 Councilman Kevin Fisher (who serves as Morris' campaign manager) and a nearby newspaper reporter Cole said:

Group 175 is a right wing, Tea Party-esque organization,
Group 175 leader Bruce Nordman (who conducts "concealed carry weapons" [ccw] workshops) does not care about solving Canton's crime problem but is really about promoting his ccw classes which are designed to arm residents, and
Group 175 has members who are "charlatans" and "snake oil salesmen,"

Last night Group 175 had their say as spokesperson Bret Moore used council's Public Speaks forum to fire back at Cole.

One has to wonder who Cole is relying on for political strategizing.

Blasting a politically active group within Ward 9 would not seem to be the wisest action in the world, no?

One has to wonder if organized labor (Cole's prime support) can see its upwards of $10,000 campaign contribution investment going up in smoke as Cole seemingly self-destructs the more he opens his mouth.

Other than the unions there is very little that is noteworthy about Cole's list of contributors, but there are a few, to wit:

Tom Ascani of the Canton Civil Service Commission - $100,
Angela Cavanaugh of the Canton Building Department, $75,
David Dougherty (Ward 7 councilman) who is majority leader, $100,
Brian Horner (former Ward 9 councilman), $25,
Andy Padrutt (former Summit County Democratic Party executive director), $100,
Kim Perez who is a candidate for Canton treasurer, $120,
Warren Price (Canton's service director, safety director, annexation director and chief-of-staff all rolled up into one), $100,
Robert Schirack, the sitting Canton treasurer, $100,

It was surprising to see Price's name come up in Cole's list to the exclusion of having contributed to Morris' campaign - that is - so far.

Hmm?

While Frank Morris' has not piled up the massive dollar amounts (which are "unreal" for a council ward race) that Cole has, his "put your money, where you mouth" support among fellow councilpersons is impressive.

Among his council contributors:

Ward 5's Kevin Fisher ($50) who is serving as his campaign manager,
Ward 7's John Mariol, II who to-date has given a whopping $2,100.00,
Ward 8's Edmund Mack who also has made a head-turner contribution coming in so far at $1,000, and
Canton City Council President Allen Schulman who made an in-kind contribution valued at $400.

But it is just not current councilpersons weighing in for Morris:

former long term Councilman Bill Smuckler (who will be returning on January 1, 2014 as a councilman-at-large) has made $550 ($500, in-kind) in contributions so far, and
former Ward 8 Councilman Karl "Butch" Kraus has chipped in with $100,

And, of course, some Vassar Park folks are among those contributing to Morris:

Jean Hershberger, Vice President of the Vassar Park Neighborhood Association is in at $50, and
Bret Moore, (the Public Speaks presenter of last night) has contributed $35,

Other notable Morris contributors include:

former Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley at $500,
Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez ($100) along with his son and chief deputy Stark County recorder Kody Gonzalez at $100,
North Canton Councilman Doug Foltz who has anted up $35,

Mayor Healy and Canton treasurer candidate Kelly Zachary contributed but they also contributed to Cole's campaign as an obvious "we're not taking sides in this race" gesture. (Plain Township trustee Lou Giavasis did the same)

But The Report is not buying the Healy contribution as an indication of neutrality. As far as the SCPR is concerned, Healy is squarely on Cole's corner.

With last night's council session, the "political spillover" is over as the meeting was council's last meeting before next Tuesday's final voter tally.

However, the SCPR suspects that in taking on the Vassar Park folks, Joe Cole put the final nail in his political coffin insofar as his remaining on council is concerned.

And if he is gone and at-large candidates Smuckler and Burns (who likely will be unopposed in November's general election) take office, there will be a different kind of political spillover for Mayor William J. Healy, II.

He will likely be facing a 7 to 5 downside on key issues that come before council.

Interesting, no?

Here is the entire Morris report (reconstructed by the SCPR from original Stark County Board of Elections records):

DOES JUDGE HAAS' DECISION IN ROGERS V. MASSILLON CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GIVE CREDENCE TO THOSE WHO SUGGEST THAT "CHANGED" ORIGINAL COMMISSION DECISION DOES NOT PASS "THE SMELL TEST?"

2013-04-29T07:16:00.000-04:00

On April 17, 2013 Judge John Haas of the Stark Court of Common Pleas reversed the findings of the Massillon Civil Service Board (Board) that it would not count "the seniority factor" in favor of Massillon policeman Thomas Rogers in determining who had the most points to qualify for promotion to sergeant in the Massillon Police Department (MPD). (see the Judge Haas' order at the end of this blog)

So?

Well, let's play a little Jeopardy.

Answer: "Seniority entitles a competitor extra points."

Question: What was the Massillon Civil Service Board's ruling on the impact of superior seniority in the Board's determination of who scored highest in the competition between Keith Moser and Joe Herrick back in 2012?

The rest of the story is that under the rules in play Mayor Kathy Catazaro Perry (according to a source in a position to know) was obligated to appoint Keith Moser as Massillon police chief. And she did so on June 7, 2012.

So?

What does have to do with Tom Rogers getting or not getting promoted sergeant?

Maybe nothing.

But there are those who say that the cast of characters competing for the sergeant promotion may have had something to do with who got promoted.

Okay, let's go the next step. Who was among several Massillon police officers competing with Rogers for the promotion?

Answer: Officer Mike Maier of the MPD.

So?

Well, he is son of current Stark County sheriff George T. Maier (service/safety directory at time of the promotion). Also, he is the nephew of Massillon Clerk of Courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr who also a seasoned politician in that he was formerly chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.

And get this.

Guess who sat in on the civil service hearing in which the Board determined that seniority points would not be added to Rogers total score?

Answer: None other than George T. Maier (this is information provided the SCPR by the attorney [Craig T. Conley] for Rogers.

So?

Well, he was service/safety director at the time and he had no input into the proceedings.

Nonetheless, some Massillonians feel that it was highly inappropriate for father to be present when the son was a subject of consideration.

And this seemingly is one of the fundaments of some in Massillon (including, the SCPR is told, a media type) who question whether or not the Board's initial decision passes "the smell test."

There is another factor which some suspect may have had an impact on the thinking on the Board's disparity in its seniority ruling.

Back in 2010 Officer Rogers was a player in a dispute between the-then Massillon police chief Robert Williams (he retired in January, 2012) and Judge Edward Elum of the Massillon Municipal Court. (See Massillon municipal judge, police chief at war, Matt Rink, The Independent, March 5, 2010)

You got to be kidding, what does that have to do with anything?

Well, some Massillonians say that Judge Elum is a political ally of Clerk Maier and that Rogers' tete-tete with Elum in the context of the Williams/Elum tiff earned Rogers a special place on Johnnie Maier's "sh_t list?"

Undoubtedly and understandably that the Maiers would be supportive of and hopeful of son and nephew Mike getting the promotion, but certainly one would think that a civil service board (which is devoted by its very nature to measure according to merit and objective criteria exclusively) would be impervious to considering as even as a scintilla a factor that a person with the surname Maier was a competitor for the promotion, no?

It is believable that it might be very important to the Maiers that Mike become a sergeant so that he can begin is climb to one day become Massillon's police chief. The family has a rich and deep history with the MPD and with Ohio policing in general.

So exactly what is wrong with the Maiers supporting a Maier, pray tell?

And consider this.

Members Walterhouse and Simpson were appointed to the Board by avowed Maier political enemy Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr.

One Massillonian keeps telling the SCPR that the supposed political feud between Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and Frank Cicchinelli going back to their political competition when they were both students at Kent - Stark is a ruse.

The Report thinks that is more than a stretch.

The Maier political machine with Kathy Catazaro-Perry as its candidate put Cicchinelli on the political sidelines in the 2011 Democratic Primary after having served as mayor for 28 years and even more in Massillon elective office and its all political theater?

Who is going to believe that one?

And to thicken the political thicket, get this.

Yes! In the 2007 general election Democrat Catazaro-Perry takes out Republican Walterhouse in Massillon's Ward 3. And, by a pretty considerable margin.

So Walterhouse is going to pay attention (even subconsciously) to the hopes and prayers of the Maiers and their political allies?

Not likely, huh?

A Maier political foe and SCPR source also speaks very highly of Board member Marcus Simpson who, at last report, is dean of students at Massillon Middle School.

Undoubtedly, those who suggest that the changed original decision of the Massillon Civil Service Board "does not pass the smell test" certainly know about all the disconnections/connections cited above in this blog, no?

So what is the world is going on with the suggestion: "the Rogers denial of promotion to sergeant 'does not pass the smell test'?

The SCPR says it is hard to say.

Could be good ole fashion sour grapes, no?

But there is no doubt that Judge Haas' decision has caused a flare up of the political fires between those who think well of the Maiers and those who think that at least Johnnie is a out-and-out political opportunist who is relentless in his drive to see to it that his kin and political friends get taxpayer supported positions.

Some folks believe that he is the reason brother George became deputy director of the State of Ohio Department of Public Safety (and even director in the last few days of the Strickland administration in January, 2011).

Johnnie was the chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party when Ted Strickland ran for governor in 2006 against Republican Ken Blackwell.

Strickland has made it very plain (reference an appearance in Canal Fulton in behalf state Representative candidate Celeste DeHoff [October, 2008]) that he was highly appreciative to Johnnie for his having been the first party chairman in all of Ohio to have endorsed him during the 2006 Democratic primary season.

If memory serves correctly, The Report's recollection is that local parties taking sides in a intraparty gubernatorial contest was pretty much of an "no-no." But one does what one has to do, no?

Johnnie did have good material to work with IF he did lobby Strickland to promote brother George.

George, as we have learned from selection by the Stark Dems to be Stark County sheriff (replacing Mike McDonald who could not as sheriff elect take office because of health reasons) on February 5th of this year, has impressive de facto policing credentials (George Maier may or may not have the de jure credentials to remain sheriff. The Ohio Supreme Court will decide the matter).

But does anyone believe that the Johnnie Maier/Ted Strickland connection didn't have a great deal to do with brother George becoming a top official in the State of Ohio Department of Public Safety?

Probably darned few, if anybody, no?

Anyway, in reading Judge Haas' decision, it is apparent to the SCPR that there was a "color of law" argument advanced by Massillon Law Director Perry Stergious that state law did away with the requirement (per the contract between the Henderson Lodge of the Massillon Fraternal Order of Police [FOP]) and the city of Massillon) that seniority points be granted by the Board to the likes of Rogers.

But Judge Haas did not see it that way.

And the SCPR thinks his reasoning is sound.

Moreover, his reasons seem to The Report to cut through any distinction that may have been in the minds of Chapanar, Walterhouse, and Simpson between the Keith Moser and Thomas Rogers situations.

Moser's was based pre-July, 2012 whereas Rogers' was post-July, 2012 which may be the basis in the distinction in the Board's thinking.

The Report is told that Law Director Stergios has not decided whether or not he is going to appeal the Haas decision.

If there is no appeal and thereby a lack of a higher court decision that results in a vindication of the Board, does not the Massillon Civil Service Board have some "explainin" (a la Sarah Palin) to do?

"Explainin to do?"

Yes.

How does seniority apply to the police chief competition but not to the sergeant competition?

Shouldn't the Board address this question head on in a direct comparison?

Because the way things stand now, there are those Massillonians who think that Rogers' failure to get those seniority points "stinks to high heavens" and that thinking will undoubtedly persist and likely will cast doubt on the processes and procedures of the Board.

And how that can be good for anybody is beyond the SCPR.

Here is the Judge John Haas decision.

STATE REP. SCHURING PUSHES LEGISLATION TO HELP TIMKEN COMPANY EXECUTIVES AVOID PAYING CANTON'S CITY INCOME TAX? (LEGISLATION ALSO APPLIES TO OTHER OHIO-BASED COMPANIES & THEIR RESPECTIVE MUNICIPALITIES)

2013-04-26T03:53:00.000-04:00

BLOG TOPICS

Timken Lobbyist Asks for Schuring Help

in Producing Municipal Income Tax Breaks

for CEO James W. Griffith & Others

Schuring Momentarily Slipped in
a Last Minute Amendment in Ohio's

Budget Bill to Exempt Millions of Dollars in

Executive Retirement Income

from City Income Taxes

Weighing the Impact
on
Schuring's Political Future

One week ago yesterday (April 18, 2013), the Republican controlled Ohio House of Representatives took exception to Republican Governor John Kasich and passed it own budget bill for fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

The main controversy between the House and Kasich was whether or not to provide for a Medicaid expansion for needy Ohioans under incentives from Obamacare.

The House opted out, over the governor's objection.

But that is not the only controversy.

THE TIMKEN COMPANY CONTROVERSY

It appears that moneyed Timken Company executives through Timken's lobbyist Robert J. Lapp have been working with Stark County state Representative Kirk Schuring (Republican - Jackson Township - the 48th Ohio House District) to get "fair" (Schuring's appellation) tax treatment for the millions they earn in company bonuses in terms of retirement benefits in relation to municipal income taxes.

Hmm?

The SCPR has endeavored to get a reaction from Lapp but he has failed to respond to e-mailed questions.

SLIPPING IN THE AMENDMENT

A question arises: Was the flap over Medicaid expansion the perfect cover for Schuring to slip language into the budget bill at the last minute modifying Ohio Revised Code Sections 718.01 and 718.03 whereby the Timken executives and every other Ohio-based corporate honcho getting compensation in the form of retirement benefits would not have to pay municipal income taxes on those benefits going forward?

An extract from an email (circulating among members of the Ohio Association of Tax Administrators) that the SCPR obtained a copy of Wedneday, summarizes proposed changes, to wit: (confirmed by Representative Schuring to the SCPR)

A last minute addition to the budget bill exempts Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans from qualified wages. Amendments are made to 718.01 definitions, and 718.03 exempts the SERP from qualifying wages.

The SCPR has learned that The Timken Company CEO James W. Griffith likely paid about $180,000 to the city of Canton in 2012 on an estimated $9.7 million in a bonus from Timken in the form of supplemental executive retirement benefits.

Moreover, The Report is told that Griffith et al, unlike the fabulously wealthy Warren Buffett and Microsoft mogul Bill Gates, bristle at paying taxes.

Apparently, executives of Ohio-based companies feel they are unfairly treated as participants in "traditional" retirement compensation plans under Ohio law as compared to other taxpayers who are already exempt from having their retirement income taxed by municipalities.

Yours truly understands that the Timken executive officer hierarchy through Lapp have been negotiating with Canton officials over the taxation of the Timken provided supplemental executive retirement payments.

Canton like many other if not most Ohio cities is strapped for revenues and has joined other municipalities in not going down without a fight on the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not into the millions, that the cities could lose if the Schuring amendment becomes law.

When the political heat was applied to Schuring back on April 18th (reference: passage of HB 59 - "the budget bill") by the Ohio Municipal League lobbyists, he backed down and withdrew the amendment for the time being.

It will come back according to what Schuring told the Stark County Political Report in a conversation Wednesday evening: Either in the budget bill or in House Bill 5 which is a bill which, if passed, would significantly alter how municipal/village income taxes are processed in Ohio.

There is almost universal objection and resistance to HB 5 by Ohio's cities and villages through their association: the Ohio Municipal League.

A case can be made that Republican legislators are not all that fond of Ohio's largest urban and ethnically diverse communities.

And Representative Schuring has had his own moments in that regard.

Readers of The Report will recall that Schuring caused an uproar back in 2008 (June 5th) in his campaign against Democrat John Boccieri (who won the election) to succeed Ralph Regula in Congress in referring in a campaign stop in Ashland, Ohio at a John McCain for President Rally to Canton thusly:

So the other thing I know is that Ashland County has a rich history and tradition of rallying around Republicans, and I was telling people earlier where I come from we could never have a rally like this in the center of Canton. If we did we might be shot at, but not in Ashland and that's what makes you so great. (emphasis added)

However, he has been the only Stark County member of the Ohio General Assembly to actually try to do something to help Canton and other Stark County cities, villages and townships lessen the impact of a dramatic drop off of State of Ohio local government funding over the last State of Ohio budgeting biennium (FY 2011-2012).

Schuring and Democratic Representative Stephen Slesnick of the 49th House District (state Senator Scott Oelslager [the 29th Ohio Senate District] told Canton City Council officials he was too busy]) met with Canton officials on March 28th (LINK to a prior SCPR blog) and on the following Tuesday Schuring introduced HB 115 (LINK to prior SCPR blog) which is designed to allow for some transitory relief as local governments get used to and adjust to having less state aid.

Christina Hagan (Republican - the 50th - Stark County's mostly rural district) did not respect Canton officials enough to reply to their request that she come to Canton Council and address the city's revenue crisis.

Here are the points that Schuring made to yours truly in that discussion mentioned above as the talk is tied to the substance of the amendment:

His amendment is designed to treat Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERP) like all other "traditional" retirement plans and exempt them from municipal taxation,
He took the SERP language out of the budget bill (it had been part of an omnibus amendment package) so that it can be debated in the Ways and Means Committee. He did so:

in deference to those who expressed concerns about the amendment on April 18th,
on the condition that the amendment receive a fair hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee,
and, with the understanding that once the amendment is thoroughly debated the consensus language will either become a part of HB 5 (which is doubtful because it appears that HB 5 is not in any condition to be voted out of committee anytime soon), or other legislation,

He is pushing the amendment so as:

to attract the best and brightest executives to Ohio,

he compared the Ohio SERP situation to professional sports free agency saying that if there were some impediment to Ohio based professional sports teams from going out and getting free agents, then Ohio teams would not be able to compete
he says:

that eliminating local taxes on SERP benefits is a critical factor in attracting the best free enterprise executives from the midst of a worldwide market is essential to Ohio,
these are the folks "who will guide the ship and make sure that Ohio's top businesses are growing,"

to achieve basic tax fairness. He wants SERPs to be treated like any other Ohio-based retirement plan which are not - in contrast to SERPs - subject to municipal taxation,

While Representative Schuring would not specifically identify Timken lobbyist Robert J. Lapp as a person who contacted him relative to promoting the amendment, the SCPR has information to the effect that it was indeed Lapp who got this proposed legislation rolling.

Continuing the trek through the SCPR's Wednesday chat with Schuring, here are points he made on how he became the point man for advancing the amendment:

he said The Timken Company is a vibrant part of our local economy and Ohio's economy and whether or not Lapp was part of the group lobbying for the exemption has no bearing on his driving the amendment forward,
again, while not specifically identifying Lapp, he did admit that Timken was among those lobbying him for the change to the taxation of SERP,
he held himself up as not catering to the concerns of the rich and insisting that he treats everybody alike whether poor or wealthy,
he offered to provide the SCPR with specific accounts showing that he has throughout his legislative career consistently helped middle and lower income constituents as evidence that he is not toadying up to the rich and powerful on the SERP issue,

With respect to Canton and its revenue interests in the light of his proposed amendment to ORC 718.01 and 718.03, he had this to say:

Canton is more than welcome to come to the table and discuss with him and legislators who staff the Ways and Means Committee their concerns,
Canton officials have to know how important The Timken Company is to the well-being of Canton and that they need to support moves to keep Timken being "a happy corporate citizen,"

Canton officials need to meet with Timken officials (a meeting he would gladly participate in) so that the city and the company can reach an accord on the matter,

ORC Sections 718.01 and .03 as they currently stand are an impediment to companies like Timken to recruit top level executives,
Stark County-based companies other than Timken have not been a part of the discussion on SERP with him but that companies across Ohio have been part of the discussion,
He understands that some will think that he is the captive of The Timken Company but he insisted that such is not true. He emphasized that he takes each and every contact seriously and deals with them attentively with constituent input no matter what their economic/financial status is and no matter what their political persuasion is.

One might think that it is inconsistent to on the one hand, seek to help struggling urban area of Ohio (reference: HB 115) while at the same time, "apparently" undermining them with his amendment to ORC Sections 718.01 and 03.

Schuring says that there is no inconsistency.

He says that if the Timkens of Ohio do well, then economic growth will take care of local government financial woes.

THE POLITICAL FALLOUT FROM SCHURING'S AMENDMENT

It was indeed an interesting conversation for yours truly to have with Representative Schuring.

More important will be what the Timken executives and Canton city officials think.

For it is folks like these who determine whether or not a Representative Schuring remains a viable political and government official.

The SCPR thinks Schuring took a huge political risk in taking the amendment on.

Undoubtedly, the flap has to be embarrassing to the multimillionaires who run the internationally respected and renowned Timken Company to possibly be thought of by the public as folks who begrudge local governments of 2% (more or less) of millions of dollars in tax revenues.

And it has to be ouchy for Canton officials too.

A disaffection on the part of Timken's managers with Canton government over a matter like the Schuring amendment could have dire long term consequences for a city that seems to be on the rebound from the ravages of The Great Recession which took hold in September, 2008.

For Representative Schuring, it could be either a political feast or famine; if not defeat in the November, 2014 elections.

If he can get his amendment in its final form accepted by the likes of the Ohio Municipal League and the likes of Timken Company officials, then he could become a rising star within the Republican dominated Ohio House. The Republicans currently are near a veto proof majority and likely will achieve supermajority status in coming weeks as the debate on the outcome of the 98th House District election contest is being concluded in the House.

As we all know, Republican-legislators-in-general across the country, both at the federal and state levels, are bananas for tax cuts notwithstanding what they do to undermine governments' abilities to provide services demanded by their respective constituents.

To boot, the higher income one has, the more joyous they seem to be in achieving tax cuts.

As a matter of political philosophy, Republicans want to starve the beast called government. For those government services that survive, they must be super efficient.

A successful amendment effort by Schuring would likely put him in the Ohio House Hall of Fame as an blue ribbon tax cutter and thereby to be trusted as being on the team in the Republican quest to make government more efficient and to cut government at all levels where possible.

Moreover, he has been in the Ohio Legislature since 1995 and certainly has the longevity and the experience to be one of the institution's prime movers and shakers.

On the other hand, he risks incurring the ire of both:

the cash-strapped-urban areas officials of Ohio local government who will be hurt by his initiative, and
the executive types who will benefit from his proposed legislation.

Local governments stand to lose millions upon millions; the company bigs stand to be placed in the glare of the public spotlight for their seeming greediness.

If his initiative turns sour, it could be that both interests demand Schuring's political scalp.

Representative Schuring is on the spot.

Is he up to the challenge?

CANTON CITY TREASURER RACE: WHO WINS? WHICHEVER CANDIDATE GETS HER/HIS VOTERS TO THE POLLS!

2013-04-25T06:15:00.002-04:00

As to who will win the Democratic Primary for Canton city treasurer on May 7th, one veteran Canton politicians tells the SCPR that he thinks:

Kelly Zachary wins Wards 2 and 4,
Kim Perez wins Ward 1 (his former ward when he was in council),
Mary Cirelli wins Ward 3 (which she formerly represented) and Ward 5 and, perhaps 6, and
Wards 7, 8 and 9 are up for grabs,

The overall winner, he thinks, will be the candidate that gets her/his voters to the polls.

Not a whole lot there to disagree with from the SCPR's vantage point.

But there are a number of things to consider.

First of Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher has sided up with Kim Perez. He worked for Perez when Perez was county auditor. And it would have been surprising indeed for Fisher to abandon him in the treasurer's race.

So Mary Cirelli winning Ward 5 with Fisher doing a campaign flyer for Perez? The SCPR is skeptical. It makes a lot more sense that Fisher pulls Perez through in Ward 5.

If he doesn't, he may give pause for thought for someone to take him on two years down the road.

The Report believes it is likely that Cirelli comes in a competitive second in the 5th and by coming in second in the wards she does not win could be the key for a squeaker overall victory for her. Should she slip to third in this ward, it could portend a Perez victory.

Also, Ward 6 is a troublesome spot for Cirelli. Majority Leader Dougherty is the councilman for Ward 6 and one only has to take in his sighs of exasperation when Cerelli speaks up at council meetings to pretty much know that he (being Healy's point man on council) is going to be supporting the mayor's choice who, of course, is Kim Perez.

So yours truly does not see Cirelli winning Ward 6. But she does come in a relatively close second.

But she will have to place first somewhere other than in the 3rd to become Canton treasurer.

Cirelli wins the election if she is victorious in Wards 7 and 8.

They are Canton's largest (in terms of number of voters who show up on election day; election year-in, year-out) voting wards. And they are Canton's most Republican wards. Of course, this is not the general election and Republicans do not factor in.

The only question along these lines would be if the Democrats in these wards are more Republican like than any other wards in the city? If they are, Cirelli wins because Perez is the personification of Democratic establishment politics (i.e. one of the Dems "good ole boys").

Keys in these two wards are Councilmen John Mariol (who is running unopposed in the 7th through the general election) and Edmund Mack (unopposed in the primary in Ward 8).

You have to believe that they are leaning Mary's way inasmuch as they often vote with Mary when opposing controversial Healy administration legislative proposals.

A Cirelli triump in Ward 9 (Frank Morris' ward - likely to have a large turnout because the of the Morris/Cole face off) would be icing on her political cake. Cirelli is nonstop wearing her Group 175 button in support of Vassar Park (located in the 9th Ward) resident Bruce Nordman's campaign to force Canton to add 25 or so police offices to the Canton force.

The SCPR thinks her solidarity with the Vassar Park folks could be a key to a Ward 9 win for Mary.

Speculation is flying around that Fisher and Councilman-at-Large Jimmy Babcock (who also worked for Perez at the county auditor's office) are in line to work for Perez once again.

Fisher says emphatically that he will not be becoming a Perez employee.

Political sideliners seem convinced that Babcock will be off to the treasurer's office in a heartbeat if Perez wins. And so he is certainly going all out for his former boss.

Why is the SCPR focusing on Cirelli and Perez and pretty much leaving Kelly Zachary out of the discussion up to this point?

Though she has impressive educational background and has the support of the Stark County Black Caucus (Caucus) and current treasurer Bob Schirak, the SCPR sees her likely to take Wards 2 and 4 and running third in the rest of Canton's wards.

It is hard to see how she has a winning campaign strategy.

She is part of a line up at a Stark County Black Caucus Candidate Support Gospel Concert Rally to be had at the Mount Olive Baptist Church this coming Saturday beginning at 5:00 p.m.

While the Caucus should be able to deliver Wards 2 and 4 to her, the SCPR believes that such a base is a losing proposition citywide in heavily Democratic Canton with the likes of Kim Perez and Mary Cirelli on the ballot.

However, one has to wonder whether or not she might be vulnerable to being upset given her thrashing (though running as the incumbent) at the hand of current Councilwoman Chris Smith in the 2007 Democratic Primary?

Smith is now solidly behind Zachary and a good word from Chris may pull her through to victory.

Cirelli and Perez are proven vote getters citywide in Canton.

The city treasurer match up will be unlike Zachary's race against Republican Alex Zumbar in November, 2012 in which Zachary ran well against the Republican in Canton (winning by a substantial majority) but losing it once she got out into the townships and burgs of Stark County.

Her real role in the city treasurer's face off, the SCPR believes, revolves around the question: Can she be a difference maker as between Perez and Cirelli?

Potentially she can be.

However, only in the sense of BUT FOR ZACHARY being in the race, the Caucus undoubtedly (with Councilpersons Smith and West being solid Healy supporters and therefore presumably Perez supporters) would steer the Caucus to endorse Perez which could have produced enough votes for him to edge out Cirelli citywide in a nip and tuck contest.

Other than being in an off-hand spoiler role, the SCPR does not see Zachary as having much to do with the overall outcome of who becomes Canton city treasurer.

WHAT? A FINDING OF "PROBABLE CAUSE" ON JUDGE FRANK FORCHIONE? "NO WAY, JOSE!!!

2013-04-24T06:25:00.002-04:00

Re: the "no" probable cause (by Judge Michael McNulty) that Judge Francis G. Forchone committed a "theft-in-office" in his handing of the $5,000 Sandy Hook School Support matter growing out of the Scott D. Studer case.

Links to prior SCPR blog for background on this and the Studer case:

April 22, 2013 blog, and
April 15, 2013 blog

If there was any doubt whether or not Judge Michael McNulty was going to find "probable cause" that Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione committed the offense of "theft-in-office" as alleged in the affidavit/complaint of one Louis W. Demis (filed February 28, 2013 in the Canton Municipal Court), it became clear that the answer would be "no" after Akron prosecutor Craig Morgan took his turn to address McNulty.

Watch the hearing (LINK). It takes less than 10 minutes. Morgan's presentation sealed the deal. There would be no finding of probable cause.

What judge in all of America would find probable cause in the face of a prosecutor saying "I can't prosecute" and intimating "I will not prosecute?"

While McNulty said he would take the case under advisement and such usually means at least a day or two and in some cases weeks, even months with some judges; it took him probably less than an hour.

The hearing had to be over by 9:30 a.m. and the decision was filed with the Clerk of Courts' office at 10:35 a.m. Obviously, it took some time for the judge to:

form his thoughts,
articulate them,
dictate them,
have them typed, and
sign them

So now we have a new definition - time wise - for "under advisement?"

So why didn't he just make his decision from the bench and end what suspense there may have been?

Hmm?

One reader of the SCPR wrote to yours truly:

Did you hear the judge overruled Conley?

From your video, the prosecutor acted more like a defense attorney.

It was surreal to watch and hear Craig T. Conley (a local civic activist and attorney) make a well researched and planned argument get blown out of the water by Morgan's decidedly pro-Forchione stance.

Although Conley had to be pi _ _ ed, he didn't say a word.

Yours truly half-expected Conley to turn to Morgan at any minute and say to him something like: "what's this all about, pal?"

Conley thinks Morgan made "much ado about nothing" about Demis' failure to appear. Everything about the underlying facts of the case, Conley says, were agreed to. What was there for Demis to add?

To boot, from his responses to press questions post hearing (LINK), The Report thinks that Morgan was more than a tad uncharitable to affiant Demis in saying:

his affidavit "reeks of being in bad faith" inasmuch as he was not present at the hearing,

A SCPR question. How could he know at the time of the hearing that Demis didn't experience a problem that prevented him from being present?

So it only appears in Ohio that there is such a thing as a similitude of "citizens arrest" (i.e. the right to bring criminal charges) in Ohio. In reality, whether or not there are going to be charges is up to a prosecutor.

In this Demis/Forchione matter, Akron's deputy chief assistant prosecutor made it plainer than a bright sunshiny day that there was "no way, Jose" that this prosecutor was going to prosecute Judge Frank Forchione EVEN IF McNulty found probable cause.

How so?

Prosecutorial discretion is the magic phrase!

In one instance (in a case cited by Conley to McNulty), appeal to the Ohio's 5th District Court of Appeals (which sits primarily in Canton) had to be taken on a case in which an affidavit was filed because the prosecutor refused to call for a probable cause hearing.

The appellate court required that a probable cause hearing be held.

A curious part of McNulty's decision was that part that reads: "Further it is doubtful that the $5,000 in question was ever the property of Stark County."

Must be that Judge McNulty thinks that the check was made payable to the Sandy Hook School Support Fund on a certified check bought by Scott D. Studer means that it never belonged to Stark County. However, when Forchione revised his order, then it did belong to Stark County? Hmm?

Guess where it sits today?

In the Stark County treasury.

So does Judge McNulty's point leave Stark County open to having Studer reclaim the money? Hmm?

Conley tells the SCPR he is looking into whether or not case law will support an appeal. If so, it is ultimately up to affiant Demis as to whether an appeal will be made.

To sum up Conley's take on the day's proceedings he gave the SCPR this quote:

"Our justice system does not always do justice and this case [State of Ohio v. Forchione] is an example."

To the SCPR, the most disturbing part of this saga is that two prime Stark County media outlets (The Repository and WHBC) sat on this story for weeks without nary a word to their readership/listenership which happens to be a significant part of the Stark County public.

It is only when the SCPR got wind of the story and started writing blogs did they get flushed out.

One has to wonder what else they may be sitting on when the topic concerns a prominent Stark County citizen?

As this blog is being written, yours truly is working on a topic involving some of Stark's rich and powerful who appear to be undermining the Stark County public interest in seeking a change to law to protect their private interests at public expense.

Who thinks that the editorial board of The Repository would turn their reporter staff loose on this story?

In Stark County, it appears that going forward it will be up to the likes of Conley to ensure that the powerful are accountable to the rule of law.

While Prosecutor Morgan may think in his own mind he was acting as an "independent-esque third party" yesterday, the SCPR's take was that he had pre-determined that:

"No way, Jose" was this case going anywhere!

Perhaps, in the future, Canton's Law Director (Joe Martuccio) should be rethinking who he brings into Stark County to try his conflict-in-interest cases?

FULL VIDEO OF STATE OF OHIO V. FORCHIONE "PROBABLE CAUSE" HEARING

2013-04-23T11:47:00.003-04:00

UPDATE: (2:55 PM)

The SCPR has learned that Judge Michael McNulty has found "no" probable cause that Judge Francis G. Forchone committed a "theft-in-office" in his handing of the $5,000 Sandy Hook School Support matter growing out of the Scott D. Studer case. (LINK to prior SCPR blog for background).

See the judge's order at the end of this update.

A complaining affidavit was filed with the Canton Municipal Court on February 28, 2013 by one Louis W. Demis now of Columbus, Ohio but formerly of Navarre (Stark County) Ohio.

Local media failed to inform the Stark County public about the filing of the affidavit when it was filed even though there is indication that they had access to the filing early on.

The SCPR published a blog on the matter forthwith on first learning about the existence of the filed affidavit.

Of course, both outlets (The Repository and WHBC) were all over the story.

Demis' attorney, Craig T. Conley, told yours truly that depending on his analysis of the articulated basis of Judge McNulty's decision, he may look into whether or not there is an app

The Report will have an analysis of the proceeding and the judge's decision in a blog planned for tomorrow.

ORIGINAL BLOG

VIDEOS

Hearing: State of Ohio v. Forchione

Press Conference

First Up: Craig T. Conley

Followed By: (same video)

Craig Morgan

The Stark County Political Report presents the entire video of the probable cause hearing of Stark County Common Pleas Judge Francis H. Forchione,

For background see the below lined blogs.

April 22, 2013 blog, and
April 15, 2013 blog

Press conference video: Conley followed by Morgan.

(VIDEOS) COUNCILMAN-AT-LARGE JOE COLE IS LOSING IT IN BID TO BECOME WARD 9 COUNCILMAN??

2013-04-23T06:16:00.000-04:00

VIDEOS

President Schulman Frames the Debate

Cole Slams Morris; Morris Responds

The Entire Debate

(Including Chamber of Commerce Input)

In what seemingly had nothing to do with 9th Ward politics, Councilman-at-Large Joe Cole lashed out at his May 7th primary opponent Frank Morris last night as being "deplorable" on Morris' "no" vote on spending $175,000 in city of Canton general fund dollars on what amounts to be a government subsidy of free enterprise; namely, the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce.

The ordinance:

18. AMEND APPROP O#209/2012; AUTHORIZE MAYOR &/OR SERV DIR TO ENTER INTO GRANT AGMT W/CCIC IN AMT NOT TO EXCEED $175,000.00 FOR PURPOSE OF FUNDING CANTON REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ACTIVITIES; EMERGENCY

Actually, as the SCPR sees it council president Allen Schulman had it right in saying that those who voted "no" were not against economic development and those voting "yes" were not against increasing the numbers of Canton safety forces.

However, the political stakes are such these days that such is exactly how Cole and Morris were trying to paint each other in last night's regular weekly meeting of Canton City Council.

With Morris, it is not so clear that he was going after Cole. But the SCPR believes that he was.

With Cole, in referring to "him" as being the object of his (Cole's) scorn, it was rather obvious that the "him" was Councilman Morris.

It further appears to yours truly that Cole realizes that it will take a political miracle for him to defeat fellow Democrat Morris in the May 7th Democratic Primary election.

Though he is a resident of the 9th Ward, it seems as if the Morris political forces have been able to paint Cole as a carpetbagger of sorts (i.e. someone coming into an area from the outside) who really does not belong in Ward 9 politics and certainly not one to represent the ward in city council.

Cole has fed into the perception in posting signs in the ward suggesting that he is the incumbent councilman.

If one thinks about it, in being a councilman-at-large, Cole does have some basis on which to claim a connection to Ward 9 (other than living there) because in being a councilman-at-large he does represent the entire city.

All of which makes it totally confusing as to why Cole would want to eliminate the three council-at-large seats.

There can be little doubt as to Cole's motivation for pushing the "eliminate council-at-large" legislation.

Back at the filing deadline for council positions, Cole got hoodwinked by fellow council-at-large Mary Cirelli into giving up his council-at-large position (i.e. she finessed Cole into believing that she was running for reelection and therefore he would be the odd man out in the face of Cirelli, Babcock [an incumbent councilman-at-large], and former Councilman Bill Smuckler competition) in a political cloak and dagger-esque drama at the Stark County Board of Elections.

If you haven't read the SCPR blog on this political vignette, you must do so. It is the "political hoot of the year" if not of all time in the annals of Stark County politics (LINK).

Cole's plainly lashing out at Morris last night bespeaks an indication that Cole knows that he is not likely to prevail in the 9th and he is lobbing "hail Mary" after "hail Mary" in desperation to find something that sticks to Morris in order to pull out a stunning, "at the last second" come from behind victory.

The election is two weeks away.

And the stakes are not simply personal in the sense of who is going to remain on council: Cole or Morris.

It could be that who wins in the 9th will determine where the balance of political power will lie in the new council which takes office in January, 2014.

By the SCPR's calculation, a Morris victory would likely mean, that on legislation that is the key to Mayor Healy realizing his agenda ambitions, a potential 7 to 5 vote against the mayor.

So Healy is solidly in Cole's corner.

But as The Report sees it, having the mayor in one's corner could be more of a liability in the 9th rather than a help.

The mayor is currently in a tussle with some Ward 9 residents (who have named themselves Group 175) over the overall manpower strength of the Canton Police Department.

They are intent on raising the force strength to 175 and the mayor determinedly resisting saying that the city does not have the $1.4 million or so to finance 25 additional officers.

So to have Healy as an ally appears to the SCPR not to be helping Cole in the slightest and in fact likely hurts him and therefore one can understand why the councilman-at-large is hurling "hail Mary."

And, of course, Cole has his own baggage on the police issue.

He (as chairman of council's finance committee) along with Ward 3 Councilman Jim Griffin (unopposed in the May 7th primary) deep-sixth legislation proposed by Councilpersons Cirelli, Fisher, Hawk, Mack, Mariol and Morris recently to increase the starting pay of Canton cadet police officers so as to stay competitive with surrounding communities in attracting new hires.

Cirelli, last night, was heard referring to the Cole/Griffin act as being two thwarting the will of six (six being exactly one-half of the voting members of council).

All this trashing about by Councilman Cole appears to the SCPR to be an example of one who is the midst of political death throes.

So, so sad for someone who at one time was thought to be an up and coming star on Canton City Council, no?

Here is a video of the entire debate over the $175,000 Canton Council contribution to the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce.

APRIL 23, 2013: BEGINNING OF THE END FOR JUDGE FRANCIS G. FORCHIONE? "PROBABLE CAUSE" HEARING SET FOR 9:00 AM IN CANTON MUNY COURT

2013-04-22T05:34:00.001-04:00

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 could be the most crucial day in the life (some 50 years, now) of Stark County Common Pleas Judge Francis G. Forchione.

For tomorrow is the day that Judge Michael McNulty (formerly of the Barberton Municipal Court, but now retired) is to determine whether or not there is "probable cause" to believe Judge Forchione committed the crime of "theft-in-office" in his handling of the fine portion of the penalty meted out to the now-former Jackson Township resident Scott D. Studer.

Studer pled guilty (December 19, 2012) to multiple felony counts of the Illegal Use of a Minor in a Nudity-Oriented Material or Performance [Ohio Revised Code {ORC} 21907.323(A)(1)](F2) in secretly taping Jackson Township High School freshman basketball players in the school's locker room.

A Columbus resident (some suspect with Stark County ties) on February 28th of this year filed what appears to be a "sort of" equivalent of a "citizen's arrest" of His Honor (as provided for ORC Sections 2935.09 and .10) growing out of an incident in late December, 2012 in which he issued a series of orders and letters against now-former Jackson Township resident Scott D. Studer.

In this blog, text bearing the color as exemplified in this particular text indicates a timeline for the orders/letters/lawsuits related to how Judge Forchione dealt with the sentencing of Studer.

In this blog, text bearing the color as exemplified in this particular text indicates a timeline for the affidavits/pleadings/orders related to the probable cause matter re: Judge Forchione recited above.

For the uninitiated, here is a string of links to prior SCPR blogs in which the Studer case and its ramifications are discussed:

On December 31, 2012, Judge Forchione sentenced Studer to 15 years in prison and fined him $5,000.

Here is where the judge got off the track of following the law of Ohio with respect to the fine.

"[T]he court orders [the $5,000] be forwarded to the victims of [the] Newtown, Connecticut tragedy."

Getting more specific on the January 2, 2013, Judge Forchione issued a follow up order, the key portions of which are:

Now comes the Court who hereby confirms that the Defendant, Scott D. Studer, has complied with the Court's previous order to pay the sum of $5,000.00 to the Sand Hook School Support Fund. ...

The check was provided to the Court on January 2, 2013. The Court forwarded the check along with a letter of instruction, attached to the entry hereto. (emphasis added)

Here is a re-creation (emphasis added) of Judge Forchione's "letter of instruction."

--------------------------------------------------------
January 2, 2013

Sandy Hook School Support Fund
c/o Newtown Savings Bank
39 Main St.
Newtown, Ct 06470

Dear Sir or Madam,

Recently I presided over a criminal case in Stark County, Ohio regarding Scott D. Studer. Mr. Studer was a coach at Jackson High School who was caught videotaping basketball players in the locker room for his own self-gratification.

A part of his sentence, I ordered him to pay the sum of $5,000, as well as serving a 15-year jail sentence. Since the nexus of the crime took place in an educational setting, I felt it more appropriate that the funds be given to the Sandy Hook School Support Fund. While it is unthinkable to compare this case to the tragedy that has occurred in your community, the Studer case shocked Stark County and left many people asking the same question with which Newtown surely struggles: "How cound this happen?" "What can we do to prevent this in the future?"; and, "How can we best help those affected?" It is my hope that some good can come out of this case by helping those in your community as they work to rebuild their lives after the Sandy Hook School tragedy.

I would greatly appreciate it if the Court could receive a confirmation of this donation, so that I can ensure its proper application. (emphasis added)

Respectfully,

The Hornorable Frank G. Forchione, Judge

----------------------------------------------

On January 23, 2013, Belthlehem Township resident Tom Marcelli asked local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley to initiate efforts (to the point of filing a lawsuit, if necessary) to compel the payment of the $5,000 fine to the Stark County treasury maintained county general fund as required by ORC 2949.11, in part to wit:

[A]n officer who collects a fine shall pay it to into the treasury of the county in which such fine was assessed, within twenty days after receipt of the fine, to the credit of the county general fund."

To that end, Conley wrote Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero asking:

... on behalf of the taxpayers of Stark County, and more particularly on behalf of my client, Thomas M. Marcelli (a County [sic] resident, taxpayer and electorate), I request you immediately institute a civil action against Judge Forchione for the recover of and payment into the Stark County Treasury of Mr. Studer's fine ... .

On January 30, 2013, Civil Division Chief Ross Rhodes wrote to Conley rejecting his request (Note: to see the entire Rhodes letter go to this LINK).

On February 1, 2013, Conley files a declaratory judgment action against Forchione on behalf of client Marcelli (LINK).

On February 4, 2013, Forchione wrote a letter (via fax) to a Sandy Hook School Support Fund officials acknowledging a telephone call of the same date wherein communicated: "As I indicated, a Stark County taxpayer has filed a lawsuit over the donation. The returned donation will need to be made out to the [sic] Nancy Reinbold ... ."

On February 6, 2013, the Sandy Hook School Support Fund wired the $5,000 payable to Stark County Clerk of Courts Nancy Reingold.

On February 14, 2013, Judge Forchione held a video-conference with Studer (who by then was in prison) wherein he re-sentenced Studer without mention of the $5,000 being for the Sandy Hook School Support Fund.

On February 15, 2013, Tom Marcelli instructs Conley to dismiss the February 1, 2013 filed declaratory judgment action inasmuch as Conley had advised him that the return of the $5,000 rendered the case without a justiciable issue.

On February 28, 2013, Louis W. Demis files his ORC Sections 2935.09 and .10 authorized affidavit alleging that Judge Forchione's actions as described above constitute "theft-in-office" which gave birth to the selection by Canton Law Director Joseph Martuccio of an out-of-town prosecutor (Craig Morgan, Akron's chief assistant [criminal] prosecutor and Judge Michael McNulty to conduct a probable cause hearing, ;which, as indicated at the beginning of this blog, is sent for tomorrow: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in the Canton Municipal Court.

Probably to Judge Forchione's chagrin, guess who is lingering in the shadows in the prosecution of the probable cause hearing?

You've got it! None other than his nemesis Craig T. Conley.

And Conley is taking his role very seriously.

He has prepared a well-done and thorough brief and supplement thereto (the SCPR provides a copy of the brief at this end of this blog for those readers who want to take them in) that appear to present the distinct possibility that Judge Francis G. Forchione of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas will have to defend himself on the accusation that in his handling of the Studer case he has committed a theft-in-office.

Judge Forchione has stated in area media accounts of the Studer matter that he does not believe in "creative sentencing." But that is exactly what the SCPR believes that the $5,000 Studer fine being directed to the Sandy Hook School Support Fund is a clear case of. And that is to put a kind face on it.

To be less than kind, one can do what Conley did with the area media in calling Judge Forchione out on "grandstanding" in making the order.

And to be ultimately unkind, to accuse someone of theft-in-office (as Demis has done Forchione) presents a real challenge to Forchione's continuance in office.

Neither creative sentencing nor grandstanding has a place in American jurisprudence.

Everybody participating in our civil and criminal system need - simply - to do one thing.

Follow the rule of law!

Wasn't the Marcelli/Conley declaratory action was the nudge that rectified Forchione deviation therefrom?

Does anyone believe that Frank Forchione will ever again venture into the "creative sentencing" waters?

So is the Demis action a case of overdoing it?

And will Judge McNulty see it as such?

It is regrettable that Judge Forchione went "off-the-reservation" and it could prove very costly indeed to him.

It is vitally important to the integrity of our way of life that no man, no woman, nor non-emancipated person be above the rule of law.

And that the SCPR thinks is what Marcelli's declaratory judgment action was all about.

And that is what Demis' affidavit appears to be about - underscored.

Nothing else matters!!!

ATTACHMENT 1 (OF 2): CONLEY'S MAIN BRIEF

ATTACHMENT 2 (OF 2): SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

(VIDEOS: BURGASSER, GONZALEZ & CONCATTO) IS JOE CONCATTO'S DREAM OF A STARK CO. CENTRALIZED DISPATCH "FAR-FETCHED?"

2013-04-19T03:48:00.000-04:00

UPDATED: 09:00 AM

VIDEOS

Gonzalez: The Original Purpose

Burgasser: The Selfishess

Concatto: The Dream

Concatto: The Nuts & Bolts

A week ago yesterday, the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) Governance Committee (chaired by Jackson Township Fiscal Officer Randy Gonzalez) met at the training room of the Stark County Sheriff Department regarding the seemingly eternal quest of SCOG to realize a centralized, countywide 9-1-1 state-of-the-art dispatching center.

This is news?

It is.

How so?

First of all, the effort has been stalled for months. No meetings, no nothing!

Secondly, the topics discussed.

An important starting point is a statement made by Chairman Gonzalez during the meeting in reminding the members that the first and foremost goal of the committee starting out was to make Stark County a safer community in terms of providing emergency services to Stark Countians.

In that regard the discussion turned to:

What is Stark County going to do with the approximately $2.35 million sitting in a "9-1-1 fund" within the county general fund?

Is SCOG going to purchase a state-of-the-art Computed Aid Dispatch (CAD) system or to apply the money towards getting all Stark County safety forces "up-to-snuff" on state-the-art 800 mhz radios?

This is money that remains from tax revenues collected from the-then (December, 2008) Bosley, Harmon and Vignos Stark County Board of Commissioners' imposed 0.5% sales tax.

Readers will recall that the public presentation was that the tax was primarily for a rehab of a broken county 9-1-1 system (according to a report commissioned by SCOG).

However, on deeper scrutiny, it was discovered that the tax also included half of the revenues generated going to the county general fund.

This discovery together with the tax being "imposed" was enough to get the blood of a band of irate citizens boiling to the point of successfully circulating petitions for a ballot initiative to repeal the tax on the November, 2009 ballot.

The rest is well known history, The repeal was overwhelmingly approved.

As it turns out the Bosley, Harmon and Vignos group of commissioners were exercising vision in providing for a rehabbed Stark County CAD and radio system.

But they got greedy in tagging on the general fund money.

And they got arrogant in "imposing" the tax.

But for those fatal flaws, the necessary financing was in place and Stark County might well have by now realized Concatto's dream.

In a little bit of an ironical twist, one of the attendees at last Thursday's meeting was former Commissioner Jane Vignos.

Another factor in the interruption in the march towards having one Stark County dispatch has been Mayor William J. Healy, II of Canton.

After saying that he was for countywide centralized dispatch with Canton's Communications Center and the Stark County Sheriff's dispatch hub serving has redundant physical infrastructure to house operations, when presented with a lease by SCOG he backed away.

Reason?

The SCPR's take is that Healy would no longer be in charge after the convergence and therefore, as - seemingly - always, if Hizzoner is not the chief of things post-merger then it (whatever the project is) is "no go."

So what did the Thursday, April 11 produce?

Well, to tell the truth, it is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Some of Stark County's safety force gurus want the CAD system, some want the radios and a number want a mix of the two.

And this division of desires is another key component of Stark County's 9-1-1 consolidation problem!

Fragmentation, fragmentation and fragmentation, once again.

One could also say turfism, turfism and turfism, once again.

The frustration of fragmentation or turfism, whichever term one might use, was best articulated at the meeting by Fire Chief Tom Burgasser of Massillon.

The SCPR's take on the April 11th meeting at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard was that there was "no big picture to emerge."

Such was the case even though the the assembly had the advantage of having RCC Consultants, Inc's Leo Birbilas (PMP, ENP) present.

The fallback position?

More inquiry, more surveying of the Stark's safety forces and more consultation.

But then this past Tuesday (April 16) 9-1-1 Project Coordinator Joe Concatto (on a contract basis) appeared at one of the Stark County commissioners' work sessions to give an overview of where SCOG Governance is in developing and implementing a plan to use the $2.35 million.

In an overall sense the encouraging thing about Concatto's commissioners' meeting appearance was his articulation of still having a dream for Stark County to achieve a state-of-the-art centralized dispatch system.

Encouraging? Yes. For those of us who think 9-1-1 is not yet what it ought to be and for the enhanced safety of Stark Countians:

a new centralized CAD system needs to be purchased and implemented whereby all of Stark's dispatchers are centrally located, and
Stark's village, city and township police, fire and EMS workers and deputy sheriffs, are connected on state-of-the-art radios communicating over a state-of-the-art broadcasting system (e.g. MARCS - "Multi-Agency Radio Communications System" LINK to slide presentation)

Realistic? Probably not.

Why not?

In the view of the SCPR because of:

the lack of a visionary, take charge person who will take ownership of bringing Stark County into the 21st century with its emergency services communication system,
the lack of a leadership person with the commitment and dedication to find:

the lack of necessary monies to purchase the CAD system and to fund the system's annual maintenance costs,

(probably about $1.5 million capital purchase and $0.6 to $0.9 million or so in maintenance over a five year period of time),

the lack of necessary monies to get every safety service provider (police, fire and emergency forces) on 800 megahertzP25 radios,

(probably about $2.5 million in capital purchase costs [between new radios {$3,000 to $4,000 each} and upgraded radios {$300 each}] constituting a total of approximately 1500 radios across Stark County)

the lack of necessary monies to hook on the State of Ohio MARCS radio network

The Stark County Political Report also makes available (see at the end of this blog) the rest of Concatto's entire presentation which goes into the details of his effort to put together a plan to use the $2.35 million.

Time seems to be of the essence.

The CAD bids, Concatto says, have a limited life span.

Reviewing Concatto's presentation to the commissioners, the following points stick out:

the State of Ohio's CAD system is not a cost effective for Stark County to join. Other negatives include:

Stark County being the first non-state agency on the state CAD and therefore would experience integration pains that being the first would ential,
Ohio's system, though a good system, would "compromise" Stark County's "perhaps, best in Ohio" GIS (Graphic Information System) mapping system,

SCOG is narrowing down (to be done in 30 days or less) from the nine bids to two or three bids to choose from ($1.5 million for the capital purchase [paid for from the $2.35 million currently held in the county general fund by the commissioners] and $0.6 to $0.9 million spread over a five year period in annual maintenance costs [to be borne in fees charged to participating Stark County-based dispatch centers],

Stark County currently has eight such centers with the main three in terms of projected participation would be:

the Stark County sheriff,
the Canton Communications Center, and
the Regional Emergency Dispatch (RED) Center (located in Jackson Township's government complex)

there is (and the SCPR adds in Concatto's estimate) "renewed hope" among the SCOG membership growing out of last Thursday meeting (something the SCPR did not catch) of renewing the effort to go to a one-dispatch-center as originally envisioned when the imposed 0.5% sales tax occurred,

(SCPR note: apparently Concatto bases the "renewed hope" with the introduction of George T. Maier as sheriff (appointed to replace Mike McDonald by Stark Democrats on February 5th) and with Warren Price taking on the duties of safety director in Canton

acknowledged that SCOG cannot continue to "talk about renewed hope, but that the have to do new hope,"
competitive to buying a CAD system with the $2.35 million in funds available is upgrading the the $20 million in cost 800 mhz city/county radio system purchased over recent years with local, state and federal dollars,

but that like CAD, Stark County's 800 mhz radio system is a hodgepodge of differentiated systems some of which cannot talk to each other,

e.g. North Canton has a 800 mhz system that is with the State of Ohio MARCS system, and
Canton Township has a 800 mhz system and the township is looking to join MARCS,

that the wave of the future is for the county to join MARCS in its Tier II mode and that the county is zeroing in on that cost.

(Note: Concatto gave an example of MARCS telling Stark County that MARCS needed 5 of Stark County's 10 towers for MARCS to upgrade (so that the system and be accessed from within fire, police and ems stations) at perhaps a cost of $2 million 50% of which would be rebated to the county in the form of credits for ongoing annual maintenance costs,

e.g. MARCS charges $20 per month per radio, so using the estimate that there are 1500 Stark County-based radios the annual fees would be about $360,000 (a SCPR calculation; not Concatto's),

Concatto also revealed that going to MARCS and 800 mhz P25 X7 platform would entail the purchase of 20 work stations at a cost of $1.4 million as necessary hardware to handle the 800 mhz radio traffic,
there would also be a "connection cost" from Stark County dispatch to the Lake County site of MARCS,

that the need to go to MARCS is based on the current cost to Stark County of spending about $700,000 a year in tower maintenance and 800 mhz system maintenance not that Stark County's 800 mhz does not have additional life (perhaps, as much as 4 to 5 years),

What follows in a spreadsheet in which the Stark County Political Report projects costs of implementing a state-of-the-art CAD and 800 Mhz radio system.

While it is Joe Concatto's dream to have a state-of-the-art countywide central dispatching system; given:

the current rivalries among Stark County political subdivisions
Prime culprits are (in the opinion of the SCPR):

Nimishillen Township's CenCom headed up by Fire Chief Rich Peterson), and
Canton's Mayor William J. Healy, II (as mentioned above),

the lack of dynamic, committed leadership in terms of fashioning a vision of moving persistently towards realizing what might be,

While the currently Stark County of Board Commissioners is likely to stick to their plan to spend the remaining monies from the "imposed" sales tax on 9-1-1 improvement in some way, shape or form, they are not visionaries who might put together a financial plan to complete the project.
The SCPR believes that the commissioners were very conservative in putting forth a 0.5% sales tax in November, 2011 which passed by a comfortable margin. The Report believes that their shortsightedness and their lack of fortitude in making tax a 1% increase will haunt Stark County government for years to come.

the lack of a skilled leader who can generate funding mechanisms that are essential ingredients if capital and maintenance needs are to have adequate financial resources, and

One has to wonder where the leaders are that Leadership Stark County (a Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce project) is supposed to be producing. The Report's take is that Leadership Stark County is mostly a "splash and dash" effort that participants are using to build impressive sounding resumes with little to show in actual leadership for projects such as the 9-1-1.

local interests prevailing over countywide interests,

it is likely that Joe Concatto will have to "dream away!"

Definition of expression Dream Away: "to waste away a period of time having fantasies."

Is "Dream Away" what Concatto is into on his vision that Stark County one day soon might have centralized, countywide state-of-the-art dispatch center with Stark's police, fire and EMT workers having state-of-the-art communication?

Or will someone in the Stark County pool of leadership talent step forward and make it a "dream realized?"

Here is the rest of the Concatto video in which he explains (in detail) what it will take to realize his dream.

IS CANTON'S 9TH WARD ELECTION A MID-TERM MINI-REFERENDUM ON MAYOR HEALY?

2013-04-18T05:57:00.001-04:00

Mayor William J. Healy, II is not on the upcoming May 7th ballot in a literal sense but the SCPR posits that he is figuratively.

His proxy, by accident, is Councilman Joe Cole (currently, at-large) who got hoodwinked into giving up his at-large seat by Councilwoman Mary Cirelli in one of the most humorous, vaudevillian-esque cloak and dagger political dramas in the all time political annals of Stark County.

An excerpt from a prior SCPR blog, to wit:

Probably due to a SCPR political analysis blog showing that if Bill Smuckler, Jimmy Babcock, Mary Cirelli, and Joe Cole were to run for the three slots up for election in Canton's council-at-large race this coming May that Councilman Cole would be the "odd man out," he apparently decided to play a game of "political musical chairs" with Cirelli on Wednesday, February 6, 2013.

A SCPR source (confirmed by Mary Cirelli herself) says that Cirelli and Cole (along with his fellow councilman and pal Jimmy Babcock) were camped out in their cars in front of the the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) as the 4:00 p.m. filing deadline for the 2013 elections neared.

Cole seemed intent on waiting for Cirelli to declare herself as to whether she was going to run to be Canton's next treasurer or seek to retain her seat as councilwoman-at-large.

And any one who knows Mary Cirelli has to know she would not be outdone.

Cole had taken out petitions for his current seat (council-at-large) and to run against incumbent Democratic 9th ward Councilman Frank Morris.

Finally, Cole enters the BOE and Cirelli follows.

But she does not see Cole when she gets into the building.

She assumes Cole has already filed. But que sera, que sera, Cirelli tells the SCPR.

She plomps her petitions for council-at-large down on the counter and asks the nearby Jeanette Mullane (deputy director of the BOE) to check them out as to accuracy.

While Mullane is doing the checking, Cirelli excuses herself to go to the ladies room.

Meanwhile, Cole makes his appearance at the counter of the BOE.

Likely, Cole sees Mary's council-at-large petitions laying on the counter and ASSUMES thereby that she has opted to run for re-election as councilwoman-at-large.

So Cole files for the 9th ward against Morris apparently figuring that running in the 9th was his best chance to stay on council.

Out comes Mary Cirelli. She asked Mullane if the petitions appeared to be in order.

Mullane responds: "Yes".

Whereupon Cirelli whips out her treasurer's petitions and said: "Okay, then these must be alright, too."

And she files for treasurer.

Cole has to be utterly shocked.

What a hoot!, no?

Cole is among a gaggle of Healy loyalists (i.e. Babcock, Cole, Dougherty, Griffin, Smith and West) on Canton City Council.

If Cole loses his council seat, Healy most likely is going to be on the down side of a 7 to 5 mix on council, and so the mayor has to go all out for Cole in the Ward 9 race just to have political equilibrium on council in hopes he can get Allen Schulman (council president) to vote his way in a tie-breaker (the only time he votes).

So that is why The Report believes that to some degree, the outcome of the Cole/Morris match up might well be indicative of Healy's political heft in Canton.

The mayor's stakes could not be higher.

To add to the bizarre humor of the Cole situation was his coming out about a week ago to eliminate the council-at-large seats.

To the SCPR, Cole's ploy is so Healy-esque (i.e. spinning a given matter his way no matter how unbelievable, self-serving) that it is as if Cole is the political clone of the mayor.

From Matt Rink's (The Repository) Cole: Reduce size of Canton City Council, April 12th:

“Since I’ve been on council I’ve always worked to streamline government and make things more efficient,” Cole said. “People have told me, ‘Joe you can’t do this.’ But it is something we can do, and I just don’t think having nine ward council members and three at-large is the best use of our resources.”
Cole said he’s not using the issue as an excuse for running for a ward seat, rather than running for reelection for his at-large position, which he’s held for two terms.
“This is why I took out two petitions,” [Cole] said, “because (the idea) took a lot of thought and consideration. This is doable. Your political opponents are always going to say things. You’ve got to have thick skin in this business, so that’s of no concern to me.”
Mayor William J. Healy II, an ally of Cole’s, supports the concept.

“We’ve got 13 members for a city under 75,000 population,” he said. “Columbus has seven council members and they have a population of more than 785,000 people. They (Canton’s seats) probably should have been eliminated years ago. ... It’s a long time coming, but people are afraid of change.

While Cole and his patron are fighting hard to keep him on council, it appears to the SCPR that he is likely in for a political trouncing.

Ardent Frank Morris supporter C. David Morgan (Morris is the incumbent Ward 9 councilman and Democrat as is Cole), recently put out a letter to the ward's voters imploring the reelection of Morris.

Excerpts from the letter:

Joe Cole is Not “Our” Councilman. Recently you may have received a piece of political literature touting candidate Joe Cole as “our Councilman” and urging us to “Keep Joe Cole.” In my opinion, this is another piece of misleading advertising from a guy who continues to try to bamboozle the public into supporting him. Joe Cole is NOT our Ward 9 Councilman. ...

Joe Cole Does Not Stand for Our Neighborhoods. Who is this Joe Cole guy? He says he's standing up for neighborhoods and families, but have you ever seen him at your neighborhood meetings (except when he is running for election)? ... .

Joe Cole Does Not Stand with Police. Joe Cole says he supports “intelligence led policing” but does nothing to increase the number of police officers who are to be so led. In fact, Joe Cole used his position as Council Finance Chairman to quash efforts by hard-working Council members to make starting police salaries more competitive and attract more police officers. .... .

Joe Cole Does Not Care About Canton Ward 9. Friends, do not be fooled by Joe Cole. Since moving to Canton in 2005, his only idea to become a piece of legislation was the one buying foreign-made hats and shirts through a Summit County vendor to “promote” the City of Canton.

... I think Joe Cole is a slick politician - a political hack who makes promises he will not keep to people whose concerns he does not share in order to take taxpayer monies he does not earn and hold on to a position of public trust he does not deserve.

Yesterday, another Ward 9 key civic activist Bruce Nordman, who heads up the Group 175 Vassar Park-based initiative to get Canton police strength up to 175 officers, told the SCPR he is squarely behind Morris and figures that that Cole is in for a political beating.

If Nordman is correct, and the SCPR suspects he is, then Mayor Healy, because of his out-and-out support of Cole, will be sharing in the result.

It appears to The Report that as Canton continues to deteriorate and Healy's non-stop spin of blaming others becomes recognized for what it really is: excuse making; his Stark County based future political prospects are growing dimmer and dimmer.

Cole is likely to be fading from the local political scene come May 7th.

Can his protege Healy be all that far behind?

After all, "birds of a feather, [do] flock together, no?"

QUO WARRANTO: SWANSON V. MAIER - "SWANSON'S SOLID BRIEF!" SHOULD GEORGE MAIER BE PLANNING A NEW CAREER - AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING?

2013-04-17T06:05:00.002-04:00

REVISED & UPDATED

In the opinion of the SCPR, it is looking awfully good that Timothy Swanson is going to be returning as Stark County sheriff.

At least until the Stark County commissioners appoint a replacement which should occur in pretty rapid order.

But first, a word of caution.

"The Supreme Court doesn't have to be right, it just has to be The Supreme Court."

If the Ohio Supreme Court follows the law as neatly laid out by Greg Beck (legal counsel for Tim), George T. Maier (the appointee of the Stark County Democratic Party on February 5, 2013) will prove to be a short time sheriff.

Of course, there i the matter of Maier's lawyers filing their brief in 20 days.

And the SCPR is excited to see what they (Roetzel & Andress) possibly could do to counter Beck's outstanding legal work filed on Monday, April 15th (LINK).

Undoubtedly, they will cobble something together. And "cobble together" may be the appropriate expression. For as far as yours truly can see, they do not have much to work with from the evidence submitted and in light of the Swanson brief.

It was interesting in viewing the depositions of Swanson, Maier and Harrison County Sheriff Ronald Myers, to read as Maier's attorneys quizzed Swanson about who was "really" paying for his challenge of Maier's right to stay put at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

Interesting? Why?

Because Stark County taxpayers are set to pay the bill for Maier up to $20,000.

At today's Stark County commissioners meeting, commissioners are likely to approve the initial billing for Maier's attorney fees in the amount of $9,175.55

One local attorney suggests to the SCPR that if Maier loses: the decision is likely to be that the Stark Dems' appointment will be ruled void ab initio: a latin expression (ab initio: "from the beginning") meaning in effect that he never was sheriff.

According to that attorney, it is likely, in the event of such a ruling, that Maier will have to foot the bill for defending his right to be in office.

Hmm?

From a political analysis standpoint, the SCPR believes that should Maier be turned out of office by the high court, you can bet your bottom dollar he will be running for sheriff come 2014.

And in the meantime, he likely would be returning to Massillon to be Massillon's public safety/service director, once again. Interesting enough, his replacement (he quit February 7th to take on being sheriff) is the "interim" safety/service director.

Hmm?

Is brother Johnnie hedging his bets and using his influence with the Catazaro-Perry administration (his candidate for mayor in 2011 who successfully took down Johnnie's "down through the years rival:" and long time Massillon mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr.) to keep the safety/service directorship open in the sense of the mayor having named an interim appointee - just in case?

Moreover, there is another interesting tidbit.

There is speculation that Catazaro-Perry herself is looking to leave Massillon. Things are not going well for Mayor Kathy and there is conjecture that she is negotiating with folks in Washington to become an employee of the United States Department of Transportation.

Hmm?

So what does that have to do with George T. Maier?

Well, the same folks who are speculating on the D.C. thing are thinking that he gets turned out as sheriff, Maier becomes mayor of Massillon.

But such is not doable under the succession scheme that Massillon is under.

If Catazaro-Perry were to step-down, the SCPR is told (by Massillonian Scott Graber, who cited the appropriate authorities referred to below) that council president Tony Townsend would become mayor until the next election cycle which depending on the timing of a resignation could be in the 2014 election cycle.

How about a scenario in which Tony Townsend becomes the Maier faction stand-in for election should Catazaro-Perry resign.

Wouldn't that be a sight to behold?

This revised/updated blog is a correction of yesterday's version of this blog in which yours truly erroneously applied Ohio Revised Code Section (ORC) 705.81 as being applicable.

However, Massillon City Council has adopted Rules of Council Rule 14 (being a ORC 731/733 city) which reads:

Rule 14. In case of the death, resignation, or removal of the Mayor, the President of the legislative authority of the City shall become the Mayor, and shall hold the office for the unexpired term. Thereupon the President Pro Tempore of such legislative authority shall become President thereof for the unexpired term, and shall have the same rights, duties, and powers as his predecessor. The vacancy thus created in the legislative authority shall be filled for the unexpired term as provided in Ohio R. C. 731.43, and such legislative authority shall elect another President Pro Tempore to hold such office for the unexpired term.

In any event, the SCPR does not believe George Maier would have any interest whatsoever in being mayor if somehow it were possible in let's say an election scenario (to fill the unfilled term) should the conjecture about a Catazaro-Perry resignation materialize.

Why not?

Because:

he has now had the taste of being sheriff,
he reportedly is well liked by the deputies and has their full confidence,
he has been making reforms (interesting enough, pretty much those promised by Hartville Police Chief Larry Dordea had he defeated Mike McDonald in November, 2012), and
he has "being a policeman" in his blood. Remember, with the Maier family police work deeply embedded in their sinews/bones going back to the family patriarch.

The SCPR believes Catzaro-Perry's speculated departure in just that (speculated) and that it is likely that Catazaro-Perry family and business circumstances are such that leaving Massillon simply does not make sense for her.

And, of course, there still is the possibility that Maier's attorneys will "pull a rabbit out of the hat" and he wins and remains Stark County sheriff.

A number of Stark Countians with law enforcement/legal community connections are impressed with Maier's de facto qualifications to be sheriff (and the SCPR agrees, except maybe for his temperament) even if the Ohio Supreme Court may well say he lacks the de jure (as a matter of law) qualifications of Ohio Revised Code Sections 311.01(8) and (9).

Moreover, they (the supportive law enforcement/law enforcement types) like how he has handled his two and one-half months in office.

So one should never forget, and as his supporters may be wishing:

"The Supreme Court doesn't have to be right, it just has to be The Supreme Court!"

(VIDEOS: COUNCILMEN SNYDER & FOLTZ) A FESTERING SORE CONTINUES IN NORTH CANTON OVER WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY COUNCIL IS A "RESPECTER OF PERSONS" IN ITS "PUBLIC SPEAKS" FORUM

2013-04-16T06:00:00.000-04:00

REVISED & UPDATED: 12:15 PM

See Osborne's exception to Snyder at the end of the original blog.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The Stark County Political Report can understand why certain members of North Canton City Council get irritated with civic activist Chuck Osborne (a former city councilman himself [December 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003] corrected), but to single him out for different treatment when he accesses council's Public Speaks forum is totally unacceptable, IF singling out is occurring.

Assessing whether or not the former city councilman's claim of discrimination is borne out by the facts is sort of like figuring out "which comes first: the chicken or the egg."

The SCPR's perception - from having attended many North Canton City Council meetings over the last five years - is that the relationship is a little like "it takes two to tango."

The SCPR for one finds Osborne to be a whiny, "How can you possibly see things differently than I do" type who thereby stretches the patience of his hearers to the limit of their tolerance of being annoyed.

Here are links to a number of blogs that the SCPR has done relative to Mr. Osborne and his interaction various North Canton officials:

It appears to The Report that council (mostly personified by Councilman Doug Foltz (re: meeting 8/23/2010, Foltz wanted Osborne banned from council for a period of time: LINK) and now council president Jon Snyder are at the end of their patience with one of Stark County's leading gadflies.

And The Report believes that to some degree Osborne has brought the "by the rules" administration of North Canton's "Public Speaks" forum down upon himself by his from time-to-time interjections from the audience when things are not going his way in council deliberations, considerations and responses regarding his public speaking forays.

Yesterday, Osborne e-mailed a local reporter (with a copy to the SCPR) his viewpoint on how he thinks he has been treated by North Canton City Council in its "Public Speaks" forum (in part) to wit:

The bigger picture, which you should be reporting on is the bold and brazen inequality that exists in the way I am treated.

You were there three weeks ago when Mr. Wechter spoke. Mr. Wechter was not even flagged for exceeding his allotted five minutes until after six minutes had elapsed. And when he was alerted that his time had elapsed, Councilmember Foltz quickly called for allowing Mr. Wechter to be able to continue and the five council members who were present, (two could not even bother to attend the council meeting) voted to allow Mr. Wechter to continue. Mr. Wechter was allowed to continue. His remarks to council lasted a total of 20-25 minutes.

[SCPR note: see transcript of exchange below in this blog]

Several weeks earlier, the individual (Tom Besozzi) who assaulted me and who later apologized publicly with the approval of the Canton City Prosecutor, was never advised he had exceeded his five minutes. The overflowing audience shouted him down after six minutes.

This country is all about equal treatment under the law. If the law says five minutes for Public Speaks, it should be five minutes for everyone.

North Canton City Council has repeatedly played favorites and this has gone on for years.

Just last week there was a new incident of an Osborne outburst in which he narrowly missed being "police escorted" out of council's meeting that earned him the ire of Councilman Snyder, to wit:

Moreover, it is the SCPR's assessment that Osborne has antagonized council members and members of the Held administration (and the mayor himself) with his from time-to-time "in your face" style.

If such were not enough, he has, on at least two occasions, more or less taken over council's legislative function as evidenced by his legislative initiative drives designed to get the people of North Canton to approve ordinances over the head of council as a body.

One of the initiatives passed last November. The ordinance prohibits council members (as part-time elected officials) from participating in North Canton's health care plan.

Back in November, 2005 Osborne's initiative petition ballot quest to curb use of city funds for its Community Improvement Corporation operations was rejected by North Cantonians.

Still further back (2003) Osborne failed in an effort to get to the ballot a referendum of whether or not North Canton should purchase Arrowhead Country Club.

At last check, Osborne says that North Canton has yet to include the healthcare ordinance in its codification of North Canton law.

So it appears to the SCPR that there is plenty of "bad blood" between him and North Canton officialdom and that he may now be paying the price.

It may well be that council members are not consciously singling Osborne out. But it is hard to believe that clash, after clash, after clash does not taint the way that council views him and, perhaps, deals with him.

On March 25th of this year, several speakers appeared at North Canton's regular meeting to address council as participants in the Public Speaks forum.

One was Gary Wechter a former North Canton councilman (like Osborne) who wanted to express his concern to council about how American Electric Power was handling the trimming of trees as they affect electric power lines.

Turning to a transcript of the meeting, follow along:

Fox: (Tim Fox, North Canton law director)

Excuse me sir.

Wechter: Yeah ...

Fox: I apologize. You have reached the five-minute point.

Wechter: Okay.

Fox: But if the Chair wishes, it can extend ...

Snyder: (Jon Snyder, council president) I'll allow him to speak.

Foltz: (Doug Foltz, Ward 1)

(The same Doug Foltz who wanted to ban former Councilman Chuck Osborne from council for a time back in August, 2010)

I'll make a motion to approve the additional time for Gary Wechter. He is a former councilman and a great community activist here so I'll make a motion to do that.

Clerk's note: Mr. Foltz moved and Mrs. Werren seconded to all Mr. Wechter additional speaking time [no limit? hmm?]. All members present voting: Yes: Griffith, Kiesling, Snyder, Peters and Foltz. No: 0.

Fast forward to Chuck Osborne and his use of Public Speaks.

Osborne: (after having made his substantive points to council)

And also Mr. Foltz. I'd like to thank you for extending the extended time to Mr. Wechter. It was only the right thing to do. It shouldn't be an ordeal for anybody to come up here and speak and if they have anything intelligent to say. I'm a former councilman myself. I'm battered up here every time I come to speak. And I only hope I get the same courtesy the next time I come up here to speak.

Foltz: I was afraid of that, Chuck. But I think Gary is [the] exception rather than the rule. So we're going to leave it at that. As long as there are four votes on Council, we can discuss that. Okay?

Clerk's note: (Laughter)

Snyder: Thank you, Mr. Osborne.

Osborne: (Apparently directed to Foltz) You never cease to amaze me.

To the SCPR, this vignette encapsulates the acerbic relationship between council and North Canton's leading provocateur.

Note the sarcasm initiated by Osborne: "I'd like to thank you for extending the extended time to Mr. Wechter. ... And I only hope I get the same courtesy the next time I come up here to speak."

To be contrasted to laughter (apparently directed at Osborne).

Laughter, hmm? Who was laughing? Hopefully, no one on council the democratically elected body it is, was participating in the laughter.

Fairness and equal application of the rule of law gets laughter?

But Osborne's unhelplful injection of sarcasm is an example of his fanning the fires of council antagonism going forward.

It would have been constructive and helpful for either President Snyder or Councilman Foltz to admonish that the laughter apparently directed at Osborne was unwarranted.

Here is what Councilman Foltz did have to say to the SCPR last evening.

The SCPR is inclined to say that North Canton Council demonstrates in its relationship with the former councilman of being respecters of persons but said assessment is far from clear.

Yours truly is struck by the numerous times over the years that councilpersons have praised Osborne for his ongoing contribution to the public discussion on issues that council has to deal with.

He has demonstrated that he can be a constructive force.

While The Report knows full well that Osborne can be a proverbial "pain in the _ ss; in our democratic republic, he is entitled to be such to some degree.

On the other hand, council does have a responsibility to the orderliness of public proceedings to keep dialogue from getting out of hand.

Small letter "d" democrats treasure citizen-generated corrections in a "check and balance" way that "Public Speaks" utilizers from time-to-time bring to bear on our government.

The answer to the seeming loggerheads appears to the SCPR to be that each (council, in its implementation of the "Public Speaks" rule of five minutes each) and Osborne (as a speaker) think twice, perhaps three times, about drawing lines which lead to confrontation.

So here we are at the end of the blog and yours truly still cannot say who is to blame.

Yes, we are stuck on "which comes first: the chicken or the egg" and "it takes two to tango."

It does nobody any good to try to place blame on who is at fault in the clearly deteriorated relationship.

What is needed is for both council and Mr. Osborne to strive to build a constructive relationship going forward!

The SCPR liked Councilman Foltz (in the video) putting his "ban Osborne for a time" threat in the past, not to be acted upon for now.

Osborne should take the Foltz position as the offering of an olive branch.

Why shouldn't he, why can't he tone down the rhetoric?

Why shouldn't council, why can't council soften its seeming hostility?

There is no reason why there cannot be a healthy give and take that benefits the citizens of North Canton.

OSBORNE'S RESPONSE:

Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:14 AM

Hello Martin

I have looked at your video interview with Mr. Snyder and his account of the treatment of me at last week’s council meeting differs from what the record will show when the council clerk completes the transcript of the meeting.

First Mr. Snyder says the issue had been discussed for 55 minutes prior to my remarks and seems to say there was no reason to repeat that discussion. Public Speaks occurs in the first five minutes of every council meeting, shortly after the Pledge of Allegiance. When I hear gross distortions of facts from any individual, I very quickly begin to discount what it is they say on the subject at hand.

Second, Mr. Snyder’s assertion that I spoke for 11 minutes is also incorrect. Time was quickly called on me at five minutes. There is absolutely no doubt about that as well. There is no way on God’s green earth that they would have let me or anyone go on for 11 minutes without an act of council and probable an act of Congress as well.

I did advise Mr. Snyder that I was almost done and he said he would give me thirty seconds to finish. With interruptions from the Law Director, I am not really sure if I got thirty seconds. I only had two sentences to finish my prepared remarks but was unable to finish.

My remarks were prepared and they addressed the Mayor’s public actions as Mayor. They were critical of the Mayor’s conduct of public business, but the remarks were civil. You have a copy of my prepared remarks.

City Council cannot defend their actions and now they have to distort their account of the meeting to justify their conduct. As an attorney yourself, if Mr. Snyder were cross-examined in a court of law, his testimony would easily be questioned and discounted by any juror. Sad commentary regarding an elected public official.

Mr. Snyder is generally a very likable individual who I enjoy talking with. I have told him many times that when he reaches his days of retirement that I hope he can look back on his days as a representative of the people and remember that he always did right by his constituents while conducting the public’s business.

Thank you,
Chuck Osborne