STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT

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

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

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

"If any?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To: ...

Save the date: March 10, 2012

From: Don McDonald – Program Director Stark County LEPC

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

Don McDonald, Contact person for the Symposium Planning Committee

Office: 330-451-3907

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

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

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

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

Here are samples of reactions from Giavasis and Borello.

Giavasis:

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

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

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

Borello:

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

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

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

Compare definitions of fracking from diametrically opposed sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

Jobs, pure and simple!

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

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

Yours truly certainly doesn't!

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

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

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

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

In fact, The Report has suggested such to McDonald.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a list of SCLEPC members.

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of doubletalk is that?

Who might that other person be?

Former trustee (1985 to 1992) Gayle Jackson?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this may be a good thing.

A good thing? For whom?

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

That question that went unanswered in Judge Haas' decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undoubtedly, they did not keep this information to themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FERRERO'S OFFICE SHOULD BE EXCUSED FROM ANY COUNTY BUDGET CUTS, HANDS DOWN?

2012-01-25T08:08:00.000-05:00

When Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero appeared before the county commissioners three (3) months to the day that Gary D. Zeigler resigned/retired (October 19, 2011), he had "an ace (perhaps, two aces) up his sleeve" as he confronted commissioners on their proposal to cut his office 23% (along with other Stark County general funding receiving departments) for 2012.

Here is a video of Ferrero (and Commissioner Thomas in response later [01/23/11]) justifying, in part, why his office should not be cut.

Since Ferrero did not come armed with exact figures, the SCPR went checking.

A "lo and behold" The Report found (according to official Stark County auditor office numbers) that Stark County spent $247,604.88.

Multiplying the $247,604.88 three (3) times according to the Ferrero articulated standard, his office saved Stark County taxpayers $742,814.64 or nearly THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS!

So what is the argument about?

Too bad for the rest of Stark County's of general fund supported department of governments, but who among them can say that they more than pay for themselves in savings to taxpayers?

And the Zeigler thing is not the only thing.

Ferrero has the commissioners by the throat on another matter.

If they do cut his office, he will do an end run around them and ask Stark County's courts to appoint counsel who will paid out of guess what?

You've got it, the general fund.

Which, of course, will cost the county a lot more than the $678,000 that they would be saving with a 23% cut on the 2011 budget.

To sum the justification for the commissioners not exacting 23% or any cuts to the Stark County prosecutor's office:

the office has saved the county about three quarters of a million dollars to start with, and
it might cost the county budget hundreds of thousands of dollars more with "appointed special counsel."

Indications are that commissioners are highly sensitive to law enforcement matters, including the prosecutorial function.

So it will be interesting to see whether or not Ferrero has been effective or counterproductive in trying to ward off cuts to his office.

The commissioners main worry?

If they give into Ferrero, what is the message they are sending to the remaining Stark County general fund funded departments of government?

The commissioners' message has been that "we are all in this together."

Will it hold water, if they cave into Ferrero?

(VIDEOS: 3) $1.1 MILLION IN UNEXPECTED (TO THE COMMISSIONERS) REVENUE. WHAT TO DO WITH IT? WILL PROSECUTOR FERRERO'S OFFICE GET ANY OF IT?

2012-01-24T05:37:00.001-05:00

UPDATE: 9:05 AM

ORIGINAL BLOG

When Janet Creighton and Tom Bernabei (about a year ago) became commissioners, they instituted a monthly meeting with the Stark County auditor and treasurer in an "open to the public" work session context so that they can keep abreast of county finances.

Mostly, the news has not been good.

However, at today's (January 23, 2012) meeting, there was some good news.

Auditor Alan Harold shared with commissioners that he had determined that he was willing to transfer most of accumulated (more than 5 years old) "overpaid" real property and personal property taxes. How much will that be? About $1.1 million!

And the news is not only good news for the commissioners, it is also good news for all county departments of government that get funded from the county general fund.

Watch and hear Auditor Harold (the Stark County General Fund 2012 Certificate of Resources) and Treasurer Zumbar (interest income) layout total county revenues for this budget year of $47.7 million compared to $49.9 million last year.

The "new" money (the $1.1 in overpaid taxes) coupled with nearly $4.9 million in 2011 carryover could mean that the projected 23.1% (across all of Stark County government) may be reduced to 15%.

Here is a copy of the 2011/2012 (estimate) comparison on revenues compiled by Auditor Harold.

After Auditor Harold and Treasurer Zumbar made their presentations, the commissioners then reflected on the fact that the $1.1 million (overpaid taxes) in unexpected money would lessen the cuts for some departments. Harold offered several scenarios. Here is a video of the discussion.

As readers of the SCPR will recall, a couple days ago The Report published a video of Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero sort of giving an ultimatum to the commissioners: (paraphrase)"either take me back to 2011 budgetary levels or I will force your hands by having the courts appoint special prosecutors for our cases, which will cost the general fund much more money in the long run."

Yours truly checked with two of the commissioners after Monday's session (Bernabei and Ferguson)and both said that while they sympathized with Ferrero and that they are open to reconsidering the amount of his department's cuts, they believed that he would not be fully restored to his 2011 level of funding.

Here is the video of Bernabei and Ferguson.

The remaining question: Will Ferrero stick to his bottom line or does he blink?

Hmm?

BEING RECRUITED BY ARMOND BUDISH: A "POLITICAL KISS OF DEATH?"

2012-01-23T07:05:00.000-05:00

A properly run campaign should make Ohio's 50th House District competitive for Stark County Democrats this year.

Appointed (March, 2011) Republican Christina Hagan should be vulnerable on at least a couple accounts.

First, she is a political party appointee and has never been elected to anything as a candidate for public office. It is a political truism that the best opportunity to defeat an in-office candidate is the first time they have to stand for election.

Second, as the Republican appointee to succeed Lake Township Republican Todd Snitchler who has become Governor Kasich's PUCO chairman, she has shown herself to be a consummately committed Republican - over and beyond the public good - who has supported some highly unpopular causes in Stark County.

A couple of examples: Senate Bill 5 (Ohio ballot initiative issue #2) - the attack on the collective bargaining rights of teachers, fireman, policemen and other public workers - and her votes to gut state funding of local government by supporting cuts in the Local Government Fund of Ohio's budget (about 50%, on average) and the taking away of significant local government revenues by voting to eliminate Ohio's estate tax beginning in January, 2013.

But did the Democrats pick someone to run against Christina Hagan who can put together a proper campaign?

Of course, it remains to be seen, but the SCPR is skeptical that the Dems have done so in selecting Alliance Councilwoman Sue Ryan.

Why is that?

First, is that appears that she is a desperation candidate (from the perspective of Ohio House Minority Leader Armond Budish).

The Report does not believe that Ryan was ever his first choice but rather a bottom of the list - if all else fails - candidate. What's more, being on Budish's list at all is suspect in terms of political viability.

Budish surprised political junkies of all stripes when he focused in on former Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley to run against Snitchler in his re-election bid in November, 2010. Bosley had been whipped soundly by the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee" in November, 2009 over a Bosley inspired and led imposed 0.5% sales tax increase.

What made Budish think for "one New York second" that Bosley had any chance whatsoever against Snitchler?

Even though the likes of yours truly knew that Bosley had no chance against Snitchler because of the imposed tax issue, there was pause for thought when the Ohio Democratic Caucus pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into a nasty (e.g. Bosley comparing Snitchler to a rat) effort to unseat Snitchler.

As it turns out, the intuition was right on the mark and Budish proved to be "out there" in political "LA-LA Land" somewhere.

Ryan herself has as a spotted political record in her home turf of Alliance:

To the SCPR, Plain Township Louis Giavasis was the only Democrat in the 50th House District who had a realistic chance to defeat Hagan. But as it turns out, Giavasis is unwilling to give up his political comfort of being a Plain Township trustee for some 20 years.

That she was way down on the priority list of candidates does not bode well for Ryan.

But has pointed out earlier in this blog, she does have some issues to work with.

We shall see in coming months how much political savvy she has as a candidate.

Rather than call Hagan a twit on her facebook page (whom it would be embarrassing to lose to), Ryan needs to be out working teachers, firefighters and policemen and other public workers (and there well-moneyed unions) that would have been affected adversely by Senate Bill 5 (State Issue #2) and building up a formidable force of campaign workers and donors.

If she is to have a chance to defeat Hagan, this is one of a number of things Ryan needs to do.

Another thing that Hagan is vulnerable on is her legislative participation in the gutting of local government funding.

Ryan needs to be working city halls, township halls and village halls in the 50th with one simple message: "you can trace your local government funding problems to your state representative - Christina Hagan. - I will work to restore that funding!"

Ryan already has a strike or two against her that Dem Minority Leader Armond Budish had to beg her to become the candidate.

And if she is half-hearted in her campaign and does not exploit to the utmost Hagan's vulnerabilities, then:

The SCPR's suspicion that Armond is using her as mere political fodder will proved to be well-founded and that her recruitment by Budish was early indication that she never really had "a ghost of a chance!"

(VIDEO) FERRERO GOES AFTER COMMISSIONERS IN BUDGET HEARING? BERNABEI: "WHAT DEPT SHALL WE TAKE FROM?" FERRERO: "THAT'S YOUR JOB!"

2012-01-20T13:02:00.000-05:00

UPDATED: 7:30 AM 01/21/2012

It wasn't quite a Phil Davison YouTube viral moment but matters did get a tad surreal between Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero and Stark County Commissioner Tom Bernabei yesterday at the 2012 version of the annual budgeting hearings that commissioners hold.

It used to be optional for county department heads receiving general fund monies as to whether or not they actually appeared at the scheduled hearing for his/her department.

Well, the hearings are optional no more!

As part and parcel of their effort to make county government more transparent and accountable, Democrat Commissioner Tom Bernabei and Republican Janet Creighton instituted in January, 2011 twice weekly "open to the public" work sessions in which they bring in those doing or wishing to do business with the county general fund (government officials as well as private sector types) to provide information, answer questions and dialogue with commissioners over a given topic.

Attending county budget hearings is about as inviting as attending a Stark County Republican Party executive committee meeting which normally are dry, boring and orchestrated.

Surprise!

The Stark GOP executive committee's meeting of September 8th was anything but boring as Minerva Councilman Phil Davison spiced things up as he went "over the top" in a demonstration of partisan zeal is his quest to become Stark GOP's nominee for Stark County treasurer for an election that was held in November, 2010.

Surprise!

Not nearly as dramatic as Davison but the take of the SCPR is that Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero injected "attitude in spades" with commissioners at yesterday's work session budget hearing on his department's appropriation of county general funds for 2012.

To the SCPR, Ferrero's presentation/interaction with the commissioners was a virtual "How Not to Do Budget Hearings 101."

It became instantly apparent to yours truly that Ferrero had ticked off Commissioner Bernabei, for one, big time.

Because they will not be collecting a full year of the 2011 voter approved sales tax increase (collection begins April 1, 2012 but the county has to wait until July 1 to start getting revenue), the commissioners have an overall objective of appropriating an "on average" 23% reduction in county general fund appropriations as compared to 2011 levels.

However, the target of 23% will be tailored from department to department and not an "across the board" type cut.

Commissioners say that a point of the "come in and let's talk" format is designed to elicIt from the likes of Ferrero proposals, supported by solid reasoning, alternative to a flat out 23% cut.

Ferrero was having none of it.

For him yesterday, it was "put me at my 2011 level, and, moreover, look at putting me at the 2010 level" (paraphrase) - pure and simple!

If not, he tells commissioners, he:

he will have to layoff 10 to 12 assistant prosecutors,

including the layoffs of five courtroom lawyers necessitating that his office ask the affected courts to appoint special prosecutors on about 2,000 cases at a cost to the county of "two to three times" the laid off prosecutors' salary (plus benefits);
including the lay off of three assistant prosecutors in the juvenile division (7,000 cases a year) again necessitating a request for judges to appoint special prosecutors;
including the layoff of two assistant prosecutors in the appellate division ("hundreds and hundreds of cases) also entailing the appointment of special prosecutors;
including the layoff of two assistant prosecutors which "might" mean a request to appoint outside counsel,

gave example of the office representing the county in the Zeigler case thereby saving (by the SCPR's analysis) the county hundreds of thousands of dollars that he projected ("three times what the county paid Zeigler's attorneys"),
also said if the 23% in cuts are maintained, his office likely would not have the resources to represent county in a Zeigler like case;

furloughs are not a viable alternative,
his request to fund at 2011 levels amounts to a savings to the Stark County general fund,
that the county ought to restore his office to 2010 levels so that he can recall the laid off administrative employees (13),
commissioners would be sending a bad message to the Stark County public if they do a 23% cut on his appropriations in the light of voters having just passed a "criminal justice levy,"
it is unfair to fully fund the public defenders office at 2011 levels and not the prosecutor's office in the light that the prosecutor's office already had a 16% cut in 2010

"message to the public: criminals are protected by giving them good legal representation, but I guess the heck with victims of crime."

law enforcement agencies are going to be livid if 23% cut is imposed on prosecutor's office,
"tough to tell them [law enforcement], don't make any felony arrests, because we can't prosecute them; I think that's a wrong message, we just can't do that,"
"funding of the jail is going back to the 2010 level. It's nice to have the jail filled up but if you don't have the funding a prosecutor to prosecute the people in there on a timely basis, I sort of question whether that is the right thing to do or not,"

See for yourself.

What follows is an uncut and uncensored video (even leaving in the shifting of the camera; in other words, "raw footage") of Fererro (who complains that the SCPR is unfair to him and therefore, even in his capacity as Stark County prosecutor, refuses to answer the questions of The Report; an interesting position for an elected county official) in his give and take with commissioners.

The truth of the matter is that The Report has been exceedingly fair in covering Ferrero's management of his office.

His real complaint is that telling things "as they are" has not been very flattering of him a la The SCPR's numerous blogs on:

his handling of the Devies case,
his unbecoming (in the opinion of the SCPR) outbursts, for being a public official, in various public venues,
his handling of the Zeigler matter,
indeed, his handling of office budgeting matters (e.g. budgeting with a known shortfall with a hope and a prayer that the missing revenue would materialize out of thin air),
his deep involvement in Stark County Democratic Party politics having been a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (e.g. witness his appointment by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee back in 2003 and, accordingly, to some, thought to be a Stark County Dem "good ole boy"),

to name a few.

He, like Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II, is unhappy unless he can spin media coverage to his liking.

Ferrero now knows that spinning does not work with the Stark County Political Report.

Elected public official John Ferrero not talking to yours truly because he knows The Report is bona fide "no spin zone" in the work of analyzing Stark County's governmental and political leaders?"

The ultimate compliment to the Stark County Political Report!

VIDEOS (RINALDI & 5 SUPPORTERS) RON JOHNSON SUPPORTERS - "HEY - HO THE BOE MUST GO" : CAN THEY PULL IT OFF?

2012-01-19T09:36:00.000-05:00

Yesterday at 4:00 p.m., about 50 or so committed McKinley Bulldog supporters ("Johnson movement") of former head football coach Ron Johnson (as of Board action of January 9th) gathered at a Ironworkers 550 facility on High Avenue to rally the fan base in an effort to force the Canton BOE to reverse its action of the 9th and restore Johnson to his position.

All indications are that offending board members Nadine McIlwain, (a veteran member), Lisa Gissendaner and Ida Ross-Freeman (both newly sworn in earlier this month) are not changing their minds: no way, no how!

In fact, the school administration at the direction of the board has started the process to find a replacement for Johnson.

This whole process has the makings of the situation somewhat similar to the on again, off again, on again removal (finally a negotiated resignation/retirement) of now former Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler.

Of course, the context is totally different but the prospect of a long drawn fight is eerily similar.

What's more, the damage that fights like these do to overall Stark County community cohesion has an erosive quality about it that will manifest itself in subtle ways for years to come.

Although this fight seemingly only involves Canton and its school system, the reality is that the Canton McKinley Bulldog football phenomenon reaches into every nook and cranny Stark as former McKinley players, graduates, current and former faculty and others with McKinley associations are fanned out over the entire county.

If McIlwain et al stick to their decision and the Johnson supporters follow through on their announced plan to force the removal of the trio board members, then this story has the makings of persisting as long as the Zeigler saga.

What the Stark County community should hope for is for a negotiated return of Johnson as coach with accountability criteria built in so as to assure his critics that their message has been heard and progress on resolving the complaints will be tracked in public view.

There is no doubt about the intensity on both sides of the Johnson issue.

The SCPR captured nearly an hour of video of yesterday's gathering.

First up is video of J.R. Rinaldi (who appears to be the main spokesperson for Johnson movement).

Rinaldi is a man with a history vis-a-vis board member McIlwain (note that she ran unopposed in 2001 and 2005) inasmuch as they have overlapped one another's terms as members, to wit:

They have had prior differences as Rinaldi describes one situation in the presented video.

In addition to Rinaldi, the SCPR videotaped various members of the Johnson movement and their take on the non-renewal.

All Stark Countians should be praying for a negotiated settlement of the Johnson issue.

Because as the SCPR sees it, if this fight goes "the full nine yards," then it will go on and on and on with no seeming end in sight as with the Zeigler situation.

Exactly what the city of Canton does not need!

Exactly what Stark County does not need!

If Coming Together Stark County is to mean anything in terms of credibility, then the Johnson matter is an opportunity for its executive director and and Canton BOE member Nadine McIlwain to step up to the plate and show that she can be a player in a real world situation and not merely a person who represents an organization that does good in a world of platitudes.

Will she do it?

MASSILLON IN DESPERATE NEED FOR MONEY TO PAY BILLS WITH. WOULDN'T "BIT OF EDEN" WITH TUSLAW SCHOOLS LOOK GOOD FOR CITY COFFERS NOW?

2012-01-18T07:23:00.000-05:00

On September 23, 2010 the then Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. gave up the ghost in his effort to annex the Bit of Eden mobile home park AND the Tuslaw schools.

The attempted annexation had become a political hot potato and Cicchinelli perceiving such tried to get ahead of the political opportunism of he thought he saw his to be foe availing herself of in what he was sure would be Kathy Catazaro-Perry running against him in the March 6, 2011 Democratic primary. (See the SCPR blog of September 25, 2010)

As it turns out, Cicchinelli was right about his then challenger-in-waiting but his action on September 23rd turned out to be a case of too little, too late.

Cicchinelli himself now says that the hordes of Tuslaw connected people campaigning against him in Massillon (particularly, the sixth ward) was a key factor to his losing to Catazaro-Perry in the primary.

However, Cicchinelli never conceded to those Massillon opponents of Bit-of-Eden who questioned the overall benefit of the schools annexation to the revenue stream of Massillon city government.

A prime reason that Cicchinelli gave for running again in 2011 was his intent to continue pursuit of his aggressive annexation policy.

He was convinced that his dogged annexation program was highly beneficial to Massillon.

At last night's Massillon City Council (Council), Councilman-at-Large Larry Slagle took a few minutes to talk about the shortfall on state funding of local government in the form of no more money from the Ohio Estate Tax beginning in January 1, 2013.

The occasion was the impending Council vote on Resolution 3-12 requesting that the Stark County Auditor and Treasurer pay over to Massillon 75% of the estate and inheritance tax for the period July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 (aka FY 2012).

Slagle who happens to be a staunch Democrat lashed out at Republican Governor Kasich and the Republican dominated Ohio General Assembly for giving away vitally needed local government revenue (he says about $300,000 for Massillon this year, but it varies from year to year).

Getting back to Cicchinelli and annexation, Democrat Councilman Paul Manson told the SCPR last night (himself an ardent advocate of annexation) that had Massillon stayed the course on the Bit-of-Eden annexation that included the Tuslaw schools, the city would have realized about $160,000 annually.

Well, with Massillon unable to pay its bills on a timely basis, wouldn't $160,000 be looking very good these days?

So for Mayor Catazaro-Perry the whole Tuslaw annexation thing has to be bittersweet thing. On the one hand the issue may have been the difference maker in her defeating Cicchinelli. But on the other she now has to govern and one of the major problems besetting her administration and Council is finding the revenues with which to balance the city budget and get back to paying the city's bills as they become due.

And by the way, there was discussion/vote at last night's meeting about whether or not to rescind a service agreement previously approved by Council for the scaled down Bit of Eden annexation. In the end, only Ward 4 Councilman Tony Townsend favored rescission. There does seem to be concern on the part of a number of councilpersons that Massillon not come out on the short end of the financial stick.

Council still has the option to abandon the annexation. However, Councilman Manson tells The Report that he believes that ultimately (perhaps, by spring) Council will formally accept the annexation.

But it will not have the financial benefit that former Mayor Cicchinelli had in mind to the tune of $160,000 or so.

Though he dearly loves Massillon and certainly does want to see the once grand industrial city have financial troubles, if the abbreviated - minus the estimated $160,000 in annual revenue - does get accepted, it could be that Massillonians can be sure that Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr will be having "the last laugh!"

EXACTLY WHAT CANTON NEEDS? ANOTHER CONTROVERSY! THIS TIME WITH THE SCHOOLS & WHO IS FOOTBALL COACH. GO FIGURE!!!

2012-01-17T07:04:00.000-05:00

On a night (January 9, 2012) when it was just getting organized, the Canton City Schools Board of Education (CCS-BOE) appears to have decided (i.e. members McIlwain, Gissendaner and Ross-Freeman) that matters are going too well in the Hall of Fame City and that they needed to stir things up a bit with their majority vote not to renew the contract of successful on the playing field Canton McKinley football coach Ron Johnson.

And cause a political raucous they have!

Yours truly already has received an e-mail from a reader on the controversy which was essentially a:

who is to blame, and
we need a recall in Ohio to get rid of the "radical" members of the board.

type inquiry.

WHO OR WHAT IS TO BLAME?

Given the fact that Coach Johnson is white and the majority voting board members are black is suspicious to some that race may have played a role in the decision.

It has been pointed out that McKinley has never had a black head coach for football or basketball. And one does has to wonder why.

Race as being a factor is being denied by majority trio. And McIlwain did vote to renew Johnson a mere six months ago or so which appears to indicate she has no problem with a white man as McKinley's head football coach even in the face of history that mysteriously a black man has never had that honor.

The important consideration for the SCPR is not the suspicion or the denial but rather the overall perception of Canton residents, in particular, and Stark Countians, in general.

Stark Countians, in general?

Indeed.

Board Member Nadine McIlwain's calling card as its executive director is Coming Together Stark County (CTSC).

The Report's take on CTSC is that the organization is the Stark County political establishment's preferred vehicle for weighing in as being for improved race relations is Stark County.

One would think that a concern for Stark Countians who support the efforts of CTSC (as does the SCPR) is whether or not the CCS-BOE action (since it involves CTSC Executive Director McIlwain, albeit it in her school board member capacity) on Coach Johnson will be largely perceived by the Stark Countians as having racial overtones.

Like it or not, when one serves as an elected official every action, every vote (when one serves on a board) gets heavy public scrutiny and the general public will form an opinion/perception of the significance of a given action/vote.

For the social well-being of Stark County, the SCPR believes it is critically important that the public take on Johnson's non-renewal be that it had a clear and convincing non-race-connected underlying rationale.

Do the reasons given meet a "clear and convincing" standard which the SCPR thinks is an apropos standard given the superintendent's recommendation of renewal?

Board member Ida Ross-Freeman's alleges that Coach Johnson foments community divisiveness. Moreover, she says that Johnson was not communicating effectively with the players' parents. Board member Gissendaner appears to share Ross-Freeman's sentiments.

So does she mean to say that CCS Superintendent Michele Evans would recommend a person for rehire that is divisive and incommunicado?

The Report's take on McIlwain's comments to The Rep's Todd Porter (One voter's change of heart, January 16th) is that they are of pretty much of the "difference of opinion" variety, to wit:

“I can’t say what changed. It’s difficult, without revealing information that was revealed to me in executive sessions, to say what changed. I wish there would have been more outreach from the coach to parents and the community. It sounds like we’re blaming him. We’re not necessarily blaming him. People are who they are. Part of the job of a coach is not only to coach the team, but secure the fan base.”

"... . There are strong Ron Johnson supporters, and there are strong non-Ron Johnson supporters. I’ve heard equal voices.”

Isn't a difference of opinion between the school administration and a majority of the board indication of being anything but "clear and convincing?"

Regarding Ross-Freeman's comment to Charita Goshay of The Rep (Coaching controversy just latest chapter in life of social activist, January 16), "We need to get our community back together," it is a bit more than ironic to the SCPR that she would make that comment given what the coach axing of January 9th in and of itself has done to the Canton school community.

To The Report, such a comment in the light of CTSC countywide objectives indicates a disconnect thinking process in that the contrast suggests that she and her fellows do not understand that lacking clear and convincing reasons for their action they risk undermining the CTSC's effort to have all of Stark County come together.

Appearances are that Ida Ross-Freeman, though just elected, is the lead person in the action taken.

It seems to The Report that Ida Ross-Freeman may be ill equipped to be a board member. Put simply, in the opinion of yours truly, the Canton voting public made a huge mistake in placing her on the board. Perhaps she will grow on the job. But as matters stand now, the CCS-BOE could be on a rocky path for the next four years.

When the vote came in on the eve of November 8th showing that she had won the second of final spot of three running for the position, there was expressed disbelief (as witnessed by yours truly) among some community leaders who know her well.

In a videotape interview with Goshay, Ross-Freeman overstates the volume of her votes ("over 6,000;" the real number 5,396) and then unbelievably muses as to whether not there is a law which would permit her to be both a board of education member and a member of Canton City Council inasmuch as she sees a need to correct some misinformed (in her assessment) decision(s) recently made by council.

Readers should make a point to see the Goshay's interview. Make a judgment of your own as to whether or not Ross-Freeman presents as having the gravitas to be a board member.

A close examination of the votes show that she, Duff and Gissendaner could have received as many as 13,920 votes. Yet the three of them were so unimpressive to Cantonians that the highest percentage against the 13,920 vote potential for any single candidate was Gissendaner's 47%. For Ross-Freeman it was about 39% and for Duff it was 36%.

So the winners Ross-Freeman and Gissendaner only received plurality votes; not majority votes. All the more reason why they should seek to reassure the community that they are in touch with the entire community and not a specific constituency, no?

Another interesting statistic is that Cantonians (having two votes per voter, but only to vote for two "different" candidates, if at all) could have cast 27,840 votes.

How many were actually cast?

16,981 or about 61% of the total potential which means that Canton voters were so unimpressed with the trio that some 10,850 potential votes were not voted.

As a sidenote, had former board member Eric Resnick not been disqualified from the ballot for not getting enough valid signatures, he likely, along with Gissendaner would have been elected and perhaps a Johnson non-renewal controversy would not be on the table.

SO IF CANTON VOTERS WERE SO UNIMPRESSED AND IN LIGHT OF THE JOHNSON DECISION, IS A RECALL IN THE OFFING?

Answer: No.

Ohio does not have a recall process as such.

And the law Ohio has is so burdensome that detractors of former Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler were unwilling to invoke it in order to change the Ohio Supreme Court result restoring Zeigler to office after finding that the Stark County commissioners had unconstitutionally removed him.

A 2004 communique from the Ohio School Board Association puts the procedure this way:

Ohio does not have a statute that permits voters to recall elected public officials. Instead it has a series ofstatutes (Ohio Revised Code (RC) Sections 3.07-3.10) that permit the removal from office of a public officialfor misconduct in office. RC 3.07 specifically provides that a public official, including a school board member “… who willfully and flagrantly exercises authority not authorized by law, refuses or willfully neglects toenforce the law or to perform any official duty imposed uponhim by law, or is guilty of gross neglect of duty, gross immorality, drunkenness, misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance is guilty of misconduct in office.”

RC 3.08 provides the procedure to initiate removal of a public official. It requires that petitions specifically setting forth the charge must be signed by qualified electors residing in the school district totaling 15% of the total vote cast for governor in the most recent election. If that number of signatures is obtained on petitions, the petitions are then filed in the court of common pleas. After notice to the public officials against whom the
charges are filed, a hearing is held before the judge (or in some cases a jury) and the judge renders a decision as to whether the charges have been proved and whether they warrant removal of the individuals from public office.

So it appears to The Report to be impossible to remove public officials from office in Ohio over such things as a disagreement over whether or not a supplemental football coaching contract is renewed.

And that is as it should be.

In time the renewal controversy will blow over.

The concern should be whether or not the controversy has set back the overall cause of Coming Together Stark County!

WILL THE 2012 ELECTION BE ACCOUNTABILITY TIME FOR THE SCHURING & SLESNICK VOTES AGAINST LOCAL CONTROL (FRACKING); FUNDING LOCAL GOV'T?

2012-01-16T06:42:00.000-05:00

One of the reasons that Stark County gets poor representation in Columbus has been the historical unwillingness of Stark County voters to "send a message" by rejecting the return of various and sundry representatives to the Statehouse.

An example is the long-term thumbing of the noses by area legislators (a combination of current and former) in following the order of the Ohio Supreme Court in the DeRolfe line of cases (four in number) mandating the fixing of the funding of public education in a constitutional manner.

It never happened largely because there were no political consequences visited by voters across Ohio (including, of course, Stark County) on transgressing legislators.

For all their huffing and puffing, the Ohio Education Association and its local unions and local school officials across the state of Ohio (including the Stark's 17 school districts) proved to be a lot of hot air that legislators could easily ignore.

2012 presents a new opportunity for area voters.

Two huge issues have surfaced since they were last elected (2010) on which voters might do Stark well by sending Republican Kirk Schuring (the 51st [to be the 48th] and Democrat Stephen Slesnick (the 52nd [to be the 49th] packing.

In two years, Republican state Senator Scott Oelslager should be considered for the same honor.

One issue is the failure of state government to adequately fund local government at historical levels so that local governments can provide basic services without asking local taxpayers to add add taxes a the local level.

A second one is the passage of legislation beginning in 2004 whereby the Ohio General Assembly took away what little say local governments have to say as to whether or not drilling for oil and gas by a process known as fracking will be allowed in Stark County at large as well as in the cities, villages and townships of the county.

It has always been the position of the SCPR that unless and until Stark County voters are willing to play "musical chairs" with whom gets a chair in the Stark County delegation to the Ohio Legislature, nothing will change in terms of quality (i.e. responsiveness to the needs of Stark County) of representation that members of the current delegation render.

Schuring is guilty on both counts; Slesnick on some local control of the oil and gas extraction process.

Schuring has voted for a state budget which makes draconian cuts in the Local Government Fund and also voted to terminate beginning in 2013 the Ohio Estate tax. The cuts team up to either a reduction in local government services or, if local governments have the fortitude to ask, a possible increase of taxes for what has been paid for once at the state level.

Schuring (HB 278 [2004], SB 165 [2010]) and Slesnick voted for SB 165 and thereby took away what little say local governments has about oil and gas extraction processes (including fracking operations).

Proponents of oil and gas extraction processes rightly say, in the opinion of the SCPR, that management should primarily be at the state level to ensure uniformity. But to take away "all" local government say is an overreach and that is exactly what the combo of HB 278 and SB 165 did.

When the Stark County commissioners decided that they needed to ask Stark Countians to consider an increase in the county sales tax by 0.5%, Commissioner Creighton expressed her frustration at the apathy level of Stark Countians.

While she and her fellow county officials via a vigorous campaign shook Stark's voters out of their slumber enough to get their attention about the need to increase the sales tax, The Report believes that it is likely that county voters will promptly go back to sleep unless, of course, somebody presses a matter with them.

One hears the likes of county officials, city officials, village officials and township officials and unelected public officials moan and groan about state cuts in local government funding that will seriously curtail the delivery of service to their respective constituents or require them to ask for more local taxes.

One hears the likes of Chris Borello (Concerned Citizens of Stark County) and her anti-fracking friends (including some local public officials such as Plain Township Louis Giavasis) gripe and complain about the effect of the passage of HB 278 and SB 165 to deprive local governments of any say in oil and gas extraction processes.

But what are they going to do about it?

(YouTube Video) QUERY TO "THE REP" & "THE INDEPENDENT," IS STATE REP. STEPHEN SLESNICK STILL A STARK COUNTY LEGISLATOR?

2012-01-13T08:31:00.003-05:00

Late last night Doug Staley of the Massillon Independent posted a story online: Area legislators ready to get down to business.

The SCPR was interested to see what momentous plans the Stark County Ohio General Assembly delegation had in mind for the benefit of Stark Countians and, of course, derivatively for all of Ohio.

After perusing the article, an stunning realization came to mind: no mention of Stark County state Rep. Stephen Slesnick (Democrat - Canton).

Hagan (R-50th), Schuring (R-51st) and Oelslager (R-29th [Ohio Senate], but no Slesnick.

Hmm?

The Rodney Dangerfield of Stark County politics?

Well, The Report went checking on Slesnick and did find what is consuming his legislative passion these days.

It is House Bill No. 338, to wit:

To amend sections 3313.60, 3313.6011, 3314.03, and 3326.11 of the Revised Code to establish statutory standards for comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention education in public schools and to designate section 3313.6011 of the Revised Code as the "Act for Our Children's Future." (from the Ohio House website)

And after doing a little googling, found this video of Representative Slesnick being sort of a "keynote speaker" (if you can feature him being front and center about anything) at "Trust Women Lobby Day" at the Ohio Statehouse on May 11, 2011.

"Trust Women Lobby Day" is described by The Big Ohio Blog (Ohio's Blog for Sexual Politics) thusly:

The 2011 "Trust Women" Lobby Day was a smashing success! In total, over 585 women and men from across Ohio visited the Statehouse in person or via email to deliver a clear message to Ohio lawmakers: Stop wasting precious time and money on measures that would remove our rights.

And by Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio thusly:

On Tuesday, May 10th Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio participated in the sixth annual Freedom of Choice Ohio Lobby Day. Over 160 citizen-lobbyists gathered in Columbus with a shared message for Ohio’s legislators: Trust Women!

The agenda for the day included a legislative update, lobby training, and breakout sessions hosted by experts in the fields of politics, reproductive justice, and health care.

Here is Representative Slesnick speaking to the issue on the follow YouTube video:

Apparently, this piece of legislation is his cause for celebrity as he had introduced in a prior Ohio General Assembly session to no avail.

It is interesting that The Independent (Massillon will be a part of Slesnick's new "redistricted" district, if he is re-elected) in yesterday's piece and The Repository (Slesnick's hometown newspaper) have chosen (The Rep - at least on his "crown jewel legislative effort") to ignore Slesnick.

Of course, there is not much to report. Slesnick is a retiring type legislator in the first place and secondly he is a Democrat which puts him in a distinct minority in the Legislature and therefore unable to get anything passed unless the Republican majority allow it.

Here is a list of media outlets published by Planned Parenthood as covering Slesnick in his "star billing" moment.

Hmm? The Repository nor The Independent is listed.

How interesting it is that The Independent and The Repository are ignoring state Representative Stephen Slesnick!

So that Slesnick is not shut out, the SCPR presents Slesnick's list of bills he has sponsored in the 129th Ohio General Assembly.

JACKSON'S ENTRY INTO PERRY TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE SWEEPSTAKES CHANGES EVERYTHING?

2012-01-12T07:12:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: 11:30 AM

See that part of the original blog that deals with the now Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

ORIGINAL BLOG

“They just seemed to come out of the woodwork,” so said Perry Trustee Leebacher when asked by Massillon Independent reporter Matt Rink (Jackson among applicants for Perry trustee post, January 11, 2011).

But Gayle Jackson is not just any "they." By the SCPR's estimate, she is part of a vast Stark County political machine with tentacles (officeholders and machine-connected appointees) headed by Massillon Clerk of Courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr who was recently elected to a new term. Of course, Johnnnie's chief clerk of courts deputy is Gayle's son Shane.

Though not related by blood, the Maiers and Jacksons certainly are political first cousins. Included in the extended political cousin relationship would be Stark County Democratic Party Chairman Randy Gonzalez, Stark County Recorder Rick Campbell (an actual relative - a son-in-law - married to Plain Township Administrator Lisa Jackson Campbell and who has Randy's son Kody on the payroll as his chief deputy), Plain Township Trustee Louis Giavasis (also Stark County Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold's [who the SCPR deems to be a Jackson/Maier political relative] car title czar), his brother Phil who is Canton Muny clerk of courts, newly elected Massillon Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry, and, of course, a number of others.

In 2001, likely before she mainstreamed into the Jackson/Maier Stark County political cabal, Catazaro-Perry ran for Perry trustee. A source tells the SCPR that Trustees Chessler and Laubacher were so worried about her knocking one of them off that they went out and recruited a person with the same name in order to cause and split of the vote to the benefit of Chessler and Laubacher being re-elected.

Most importantly in terms of relevance to the trustee selection process, the SCPR believes that Trustee Craig Chessler qualifies to be part - at least in the sense of an "wannabe - of the Jackson/Maier political machine.

When Maier is asked to introduce Jackson at a Stark County Democratic Party political event, he waxes eloquently about how Jackson is the greatest Stark County commissioner ever.

On the surface it might appear that Jackson is one of eighteen applicants and she along with the others has about a 5% chance of being selected as the trustee to succeed Republican Anna Capaldi.

Not on your life!

It's more like 95% chance for Gayle with the remaining 5% being divided among the other 17 applicants.

Jackson was a Perry trustee from 1990 through 1992. She defeated Democrat and former Stark County Commissioner Norm Sponseller (last served 1985) and incumber Republican Commissioner Tom

Rice.

She remained as commissioner until 2007 when through Maier's close association with the Strickland administration, he apparently obtained a political appointment for Jackson to the Ohio Lottery Commission which, of course, she was bounced from when Republican John Kasich took over as governor.

Jackson's entry into Stark County politics runs parallel to that of Maier.

If memory serves correctly from Maier accounts, Jackson was the only Stark County elected official who supported his effort to succeed Republican Charles "Red" Ash as state representative (the 49th district) in the reconstituted (because of decennial redistricting) in November, 1990.

So goes the Jackson/Maier connection that remains to this day an unbreakable political bond.

An interesting sidenote is a Jackson/Maier attempt to place son Shane into the slot she vacated when she left Perry Township government at the end of 1992. While Shane is the political director of the Stark County Political Party, he is no politician himself.

Note that Chessler and Jim Miller were elected trustee for that term and that the other current selecting trustee (then defeated in his try) is none other than Lee Laubacher. To thicken the plot, current applicant Jim Holmes was already a sitting trustee.

To add further to the political intrigue in Perry, catch this. Jim Miller stepped down as trustee mid-term and current trustee applicant Vickie Motts was selected by then trustees Chessler and Holmes.

However, in the election of November, 1997 she was defeated by guess who?

You've got it - Lee Laubacher (being as he had less votes than Chessler). So in 1998 you have Chessler, Laubacher and Holmes as Perry Township trustees.

(Note: see 2001 race result published above in which Motts lost once again).

Hmm?

To put icing on the Perry Political Cake, another applicant for the current trustee appointment (Vernon Bedell - see 2001 race results above), also has run before.

In prior blogs The Report has discussed the applications of former candidates for Perry trustee; namely, Crisiva Varner and Chuck Reigler.

Is there any wonder that everyday citizens get nauseated with local government and the political retreads who just won't go away?

A LARGER LESSON TO BE LEARNED FROM PLAIN'S DISMISSAL OF CUGINI FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION?

2012-01-11T06:42:00.001-05:00

UPDATE: 01/11/2011 - 4:20 PM

Trustee Haws has contacted the SCPR and informed that he did not make the fence sitting comment attributed to him by The Repository. He says the comment was made by Brewster Councilman Steven Tharp, Jr. Here is a copy of The Rep's correction confirming Haws. The correction was made hours after this blog was published.

Haws also asserts that at the meeting he supported the Plain Board of Education dismissal of Cugini at the meeting. Taking Haws at his word, there no reference in The Rep article as to his support of the Cugini dismissal.

Obviously, in light of the misattributed Repository quote in the context of the Cugini removal, the SCPR's take that Haws' comments could be taken as an example of irresponsible partisanship as being mitigated.

But perhaps not.

The only part of the SCPR reference of Repository material not attributable to Haws is the "fence-sitting" language.

There was additional quotes of Haws which he does not say were not uttered by him, to wit:

“As an elected official, we are held to be an active official in our government,” he said. “It’s an honor and it comes at a high price ... “ Haws said.

But he chastised the board for taking action in public, and for coverage in The Repository. “This (session) should have been closed door,” he said.

These words in and of themselves connote (in the opinion of your's truly) a empathy/sympathy with Cugini and, by the SCRP's definition of responsible partisanship, do not measure up to the Harold example.

Moreover, The Report has been following Scott Haws from the time he was elected Plain trustee in 2009. The Report's overall take (e.g. PLAs and fracking issues) on Haws is that he is unduly partisan.

Accordingly, the SCPR stands by the original blog admonition to Haws - going forward - that he would do well to mimic the Harold example which is in the vein of being responsibly partisan.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The drama a Monday night meeting of the Plain Local Schools Board of Education (Board) meeting was the removal by the Board of member Chris Cugini.

It seems to the SCPR that the board had plenty of justification for removing Cugini in that he has not participated in a formal school board meeting according to a newspaper report (Plain school board vacates seat, January 9th) since August, 2011.

According to the Board, it acted pursuant to a provision in Ohio law empowering boards of education to remove a member who has missed 90 consecutive days of board proceedings.

What was, at least, equally significant to Plain Township and Stark County voters should be the reaction of certain public officials: Plain Township Trustee Scott Haws (a Republican) and Stark County Auditor Alan Harold (who lives in Plain Township), also a Republican.

Cugini, according to Stark Board of Elections records, is a Republican. He attracted attention of the media when as a graduated high schooler (2009) and embarking on a college trek at Mount Union he ran for and was elected to the Plain Local Board of Education.

Unfortunately, the SCPR believes, he was going to be elected because he was one of three candidates for three positions to be elected.

In hindsight, it seems apparent he did not have the maturity to be seeking public office.

Even as he knew that he was in jeopardy of being removed from the Board, he is reported to have asked for exceptional treatment and then, when his quest failed, dissed the remaining board members for never accepting him because he asked questions and he supported the teachers and students.

What anyone familiar with political partisanship would expect from officeholding partisans of either party is for such an official, again Democrat or Republican, to make excuses for a fellow partisan when they experience troubles like Cugini did on Monday night.

In the case of Scott Haws, the SCPR's expectations were met, to wit (from The Repository) :

~~Plain Township Trustee Scott Haws~~ Brewster Village Councilman Steven Tharp, Jr. (correction by The Rep - see above) said he was “on the fence” about the issue.

“As an elected official, we are held to be an active official in our government,” he said. “It’s an honor and it comes at a high price ... “ Haws said.

But he chastised the board for taking action in public, and for coverage in The Repository. “This (session) should have been closed door,” he said.

But Stark County Auditor Alan Harold did not follow suit. Here is what he had to say in the comments section to The Rep's story:

As a Plain Twp. resident, I have followed this case closely since earlier this year.

This case is about choices and the opportunities and consequences that come as a result of these choices.

The facts are not in dispute, and Ohio law is very clear.

Contrary to many comments that have been made, I think the action of the Board sends a strong message to its students - if you make a commitment, you keep it and, further, serving in public office is a sacred duty. Cugini made a commitment to Plain Twp. when he ran, he made a choice to pursue other interests, and he now must deal with the consequence.

The Board made the right move.

The SCPR has no problem whatsoever with party partisanship so long has it is subservient to community interests.

It is refreshing and encouraging to see Auditor Harold exercising responsible partisanship.

Harold and Haws seem to be political if not personal friends.

Haws would do well for himself if he were to model after Harold.

RAMOS TO GET PERRY TRUSTEE APPOINTMENT?

2012-01-10T07:12:00.000-05:00

The Stark County Political Report hears from an interesting source that David Ramos, Secretary of the Perry Township Zoning Commission is likely to be the selection of remaining Perry Township Democrat trustees Craig Chessler and Lee Laubacher when they choose a successor to resigned Republican Trustee Anna Capaldi.

There appears to be a lot of "cat and mouse" politicking going on in Perry these days.

As pointed out in the SCPR's previous blog on this topic, there is a history in Perry in which trustee infighting resulted in the defeat of long time trustee Jim Holmes and relative newcomer (at the time) Lee Laubacher.

The Report's source says (which seems credible) that it unlikely that Holmes (the logical choice) will get the nod because residual political bad blood taints the relationships among Holmes, Chessler and Laubacher.

Moreover, yours truly hears that Chuck Riegler is a remote likelihood because he has incurred the ire of Chessler and Laubacher in being a chronic complainer as a regular at township meetinga about various township policies and practices and by being a thorn in the side of Capaldi in pushing for her resignation on the suspicion that she has not been living in Perry for the past year.

It could be that Reigler's pressure was the factor more than any other resulted in Capaldi's resignation at the Perry trustees' first meeting of this new year.

Another reason that neither Homes nor Riegler nor Varner (for that matter, in addition to being a Republican) have much a a chance to get selected is thought to be that Chessler wants them in the race when he has to be up for re-election is that they all will be motivated to run against him and the appointed trustee and thereby dilute the vote so that he is highly likely to be re-elected.

Sounds plausible to the SCPR.

The Report's source indicates that Trustee Chessler's (who works for Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio) consuming passion is to become a Canton Municipal Court or Stark Common Pleas Court judge. It appears he missed his opportunity via the appointment process when Democrat Ted Strickland was governor of Ohio.

The word from the source is that Stark County Democratic Party Chairman Randy Gonzalez (a Chessler political friend and confidant) let him down in failing to help him land a judicial appointment.

To the Report, this was never, ever going to happen given the context of the only appointment that came up during Strickland's time as governor which went to Taryn Heath. Heath had run two very competitive campaigns for a Stark County judgeship prior to getting the Strickland appointment.

There continues to be a number of Stark County Democrats well ahead (e.g. Chessler's boss Martuccio and Stark Prosecutor John Ferrero, for just a couple) of Chessler in the quest to secure a judicial appointment, even if a Democrat was governor, which, of course, with Republican John Kasich in place is not the case.

So if he wants a judgeship, he will have to roll up his sleeves and run for one.

The SCPR's source says that Chessler and Laubacher have already reached an understanding that current Perry Township Zoning Commission secretary David Ramos will be their appointee.

Could be.

There is little doubt with the SCPR that political machinations galore are underway in pantherland!

STARK COUNTY PROSECUTOR RACE - VOLUME 1 - POLITICAL NEOPHYTE THINKS HE CAN UNSEAT PROSECUTOR FERRERO. HMM?

2012-01-09T07:22:00.000-05:00

Recently retired as chief legal counsel for the Babcock & Wilcox Company headquartered in Charlotte, NC but with key facilities just up the road for Canton and Stark County in Barberton, Lake resident Micheal J. Grady thinks he is a realistic hope for Stark County Republicans to wrestle the Stark County prosecutor's office from the Democrats come this fall.

The SCPR thinks that it should have been a slam dunk for the Stark GOP to have done so given what many view in a less that stellar performance by Prosecutor John Ferrero's office in the handling of the civil side of the Vince Frustaci (former chief deputy of the Stark County treasurer who sits in federal prison for having stolen what some think was nearly $3 million in Stark County taxpayer money) engendered "confidence in Stark County government" which lingers to this very day.

Despite a voluminous report by the state of Ohio Auditor's office (OA) expressing opinion to the contrary, the then Stark County treasurer - Gary D. Zeigler denied he had done anything wrong in the management of the treasury in terms of practices, policies and infrastructure structure so as to prevent thefts like that pulled off by Frustaci.

Ferrero's office had the responsibility to provide legal advice and representation to the Stark County commissioners as they endeavor to remove Zeigler from office (by virtue of ORC 321.38) and to recover bond and insurance monies as well as Ohio statutory imposed personal liability (ORC 321.37) on Zeigler himself in order to make Stark County taxpayers whole on the loss.

The Report has been discussing for some time with various Republicans as to who the Republicans were going to put up against Democrat John Ferrero (who was appointed prosecutor by Stark Democrats in 2003 when then prosecutor and Democrat Bob Horowitz became Stark County Probate Court judge).

The Democrats have held the prosecutor's office since 1985 when, in November, 1984, Horowitz defeated Republican Rick Ketler (who had served in the administration of the last Republican - Jim Unger - to hold the office) in a very close race. Prior to 1985, the Republicans had held the office for many years witness the names Jim Unger, David Dowd and Norm Putman.

It became apparent early on to the SCPR from the tone of the conversations that the Republicans were probably going to blow this opportunity.

With the selection of Grady, The Report thinks that it is likely that Ferrero is going to survive his office's lackluster performance in handling the civil aspects of what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (also a Republican candidate for county commissioner against Democrat Commissioner Tom Bernabei) has termed as being "Zeiglergate."

Although Grady has impressive credentials as having been a lawyer for the Babcox & Wilcox Company which had its origin in Barberton, he lacks experience in holding public office and, more importantly in terms of gaining office in the first place, in how to run an effective political campaign.

This blog is the first in a series that the SCPR will be running between now and November of several key races that are likely to be competitive.

SHORTLY AFTER THE ELECTION, STARK COUNTY TREASURER ALEX ZUMBAR SUGGESTED TO THE PRESS THAT LAKE'S UNIONTOWN POLICE LEVY EXPANSION MIGHT HAVE HAD A FATAL FLAW IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. ALSO, DID TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS KNOW ABOUT THE PROBLEM BEFORE THE ELECTION?

2012-01-06T06:16:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: 10:30 AM

The Report has just obtained information to the effect that the Stark County auditor's office is effectuating the voted in millage on Lake Issue #6 (Uniontown Police District expansion) by direction of state of Ohio taxing authorities unless, of course, a court order to the contrary is issued out of the pending Stark County litigation.

ORIGINAL POST

Today, Stark County Common Pleas Judge John Haas will be holding a hearing on a lawsuit filed by a group of Lake Township citizens to invalidate the November 8, 2011 vote approving expansion of the Uniontown Police Department. (Yours truly lives in the Uniontown Police District (UPD) and voted for the levy which, if passes court review, will result in a property tax reduction for UPD residents)

The SCPR recalls that once the story broke that the ballot language had faulty language yours truly and another person from Stark County media engaged in some banter with Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar.

Zumbar is charged with mailing out property tax bills to with either the $4.50 or $0.45 per thousand assessment as determined by others to Lake Township residents beginning with tax year 2012.

Yours truly was surprised to hear Zumbar suggest (being careful to disclaim that he was not a lawyer) that, despite Lake Township attorney Charles Hall's (in the media) assurance to the contrary, he thought there may well be a problem in collecting at the rate of $4.50 "for each one thousand dollars of valuation ... ." on Lake Township's Issue 6 given that the clear language on the ballot was $0.45 "for each one thousand dollars of valuation ... ."

The Report asked Stark County Auditor Alan Harold what he thought of Zumbar's musings.

Harold (who has a role in adding the assessment to tax bills) declined any comment which The Report thought was a little bit strange in light of the fact that Harold (to his credit) was not shy in offering that he would not permit former Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler to use county equipment (e.g. telephones, computer et cetera) until he posted a bond on resuming the office of treasurer after being reinstated by the Ohio Supreme Court on June 25, 2011.

Strange?

Yes, the SCPR's take on Harold is that every "i" had better better be dotted and every "t" had better be crossed before he would act to allow/implement anything that had questionable legality to it.

Apparently, the fact that the Stark County Board of Elections certification was enough for Harold, to wit:

The interesting thing about the Issue 6 controversy (other than on the merits of the issue itself in terms of being for or against it) to the SCPR is the unbelievable number of government employee reviewers who missed the errant language, to wit:

Lake Township attorney Charles Hall,
Lake Township trustees,
Stark County prosecutor's office,
Stark County Board of Elections personnel, and the
Ohio Secretary of State.

Moreover, the SCPR has heard of suspicion and speculation that local officials (at the township level) may have known about the mistaken ballot language and elected not to stop it from going to the ballot notwithstanding such alleged knowledge, apparently, on the assumption that there would not be a court challenge to the validity of the vote and, if there was, Ohio Supreme Court case law would save the day on its ultimate validation.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, Lake Township residents for sure, and Stark Countians to boot ought to be awfully upset.

The Report's opinion is that no matter what the case was, that is to say:

all those taxpayer paid for government eyes failed to find this fundamental flaw and thus demonstrating that they are not taking their work seriously enough in the sense of concentrating and focusing on legal matters they scrutinize, or
someone in the chain (as speculated) knew of the flaw and thereby had time to fix it or have it withdrawn for another election cycle.

The SCPR thinks it does not speak well of the the quality (in the sense of "due diligence" examination) or, perhaps, rectitude of government officials (if the speculation of prior knowledge is well-founded) that the flawed language got voted upon.

The Stark County Political Report believes that there will be political consequences for Lake Township Trustees Ellis Erb and Galen Stoll - no matter what the cause for the errant language making it to the ballot - come their next election cycle, should they decide to run for re-election.

Although yours truly has supported township wide (except 1998, which was merely a proposed incremental expansion into the Greentown area) police levies which have been on the ballot two times before Issue 6 and failed by huge numbers in 1988 or thereabouts, in 1998 (limited expansion to Greentown area) and in 2005, The Report is for spotless elections and, accordingly, admonishes township officials and any other local and/or state officials who were in a position to catch the error and stop the erroneous version of Issue 6 from appearing on the ballot.

Even if Judge Haas (and/or a higher court) ultimately determine that the flawed language is not fatal, the remiss public officials have cost township and county taxpayers a significant number of dollars in getting to a final determination.

Should the decision be that the language is fatally flawed, then the costs to taxpayers will be magnified and Lake Township voters who wanted township wide police protection over and beyond what the Stark County sheriff currently provides will likely have been undermined - for who knows how long - in their endeavor.

A SCPR "hats off!" to the over twenty-five Lake citizens (minimum of 25 required) who at their own expense and effort and in the interest of being good citizens have taken this matter to court.

They names verifying the petition (292 by the SCPR's count) include:

Janet L. Bishop

William N. Doty

James E. Miller

Cynthia V. Shaffer

William L. McClelland

Michael R. Johnson

Anthony Graham

Elizabeth M. Graham

Daniel L. Mihalik

Patrick Mihalik

Catherine M. Mihalik

James M. Dickerson

Bliss L. Dickerson

Paul Venditti

Robert P. Ramsey

Nancy L. Ramsey

James S. Biddle

Pamela Pelini

Susan Wright

Darrell Wright

Steven M. Landy

Craig Pelini

Jason A. Richardson

Patricia A. Richardson

Shelley L. Landy

Karen B. Plaster

Tina M. Bell

Steven M. Bell

Thomas J. Firestone

Joellen Bergert

Julia Appleby

Michael Zaluski

Jean M. Zaluzki

Kara R. Firestone

Patrick P. Fladung

Chris Kellamis

Mark K. Plaster

Julie A. Sincere

Mary Jane Stryker

Christine Fladung

Michael S. Gruber

Leslie C. Gruber

Charles Sincere

Anne Montgomery

Bryan Schuster

Jennifer Schuster

Becky Taylor

Randy Montgomery

Rebecca Montgomery

Frank Magisano

Deanna Magisano

Janice Thompson

W.H. Thompson

Michael D. Babics

Lynn Hruschak

Lance Runion

Richard Maggorie

Kathi Maggorie

James A. Vega

Lisa Vega

Lillian P. Morrison

Mark A. Esposito

Michael J. Frear

Debra M. Frear

Julie L. Johnson

Robert M. Swope

Susan J. Swope

J. Geoffrey Bishop

Robert Obermiller

Michael Kapas

Albert S. Kilmer

James L. Shaffer

David J. Barrett

Deanna Barrett

Tom F. Cassetty

Chad Baucum

Susan I. Kerr

Gary B. Kerr

Lucille J. Ruble

Glen C. Mori

Gloria Z. Mori

Earl G. McClung

Jo I. McClung

Ronald Fether

Virginia Haas

Arley Kay Deering

Thomas E. Deering

Joseph Deering

Matthew M. McClung

Benard D. Haas, Jr.

Sherry J. Mendoza

Antonio M. Mendoza

Maria A. Brown

Michael L. Brown, Jr.

David M. Morgan

Norma J. Morgan

Joshua David Kerr

Edwin G. Lytle

Brenda L. Coblentz

Joseph G. Corbi

Beth E. Penaflor

Patricia A. Nesbitt

June A. Higgins

Shelby L. Estep

Mark A. Estep

Gail M. Estep

Paul M. Bozman

Lynne M. Bozman

Sidney E. Beardshaw

Donald R. Tuck

Brandon Tuck

Carolyn D. Tuck

Charles F. Myers

Micheal D. Neely

Elizabeth M. Neely

Matthew J. Muriol

James C. Goulet

Michael J. Stackpole

Charles Groves

Gabriola A. Simon

Jon L. Nicholson

Joan M. Rodemeyer

Larry V. Beisel

David S. Simon

Robert W. Freeland

Toni L. Freeland

Evan C. Miller

Larry D. Alltop

Kimberly D. Alltop

Sarah Alltop

John Rybkoski

Daniel C. Atkinson

Timothy S. Nehlen

Roy P. Yoder

Susan E. Yoder

Beth A. Stover

David L. Stover

Phyllis L. Beisel

Mike Kartler

Donald R. Oscai

Enos C. Kurtz

Donna L. Kilmer

Kirk McCauley

Annelise Waterfall McCauley

Keith E. Rawling

Michael J. Paschke

Patricia Paschke

Jeannette Paschke

Rodney P. Bowsky

Robert L. Kisha

Michelle L. Kisha

Richard L. Sherer

Chad Longfellow

Lawrence J. Hays

Sheree L. Estes

David A. Estes

Gregg L. Pavlides

Bonnie Pavlides

Paul D. DeGarmo

John Ruch

Mark D. Regener

Kyle Bonsley

Alex H. Pavlides

Cheryl E. McKee

Richard L. Whitmyer

Terrance M. Nesbitt

Tonee L. Moreland

Keith A. Sherer

Donna M. Knotts

Denver Bishop

Tony Gingerich

Richard E. Moles

Dawn Thoenen

Jacqueline Moles

Daniel D. Beachy

Celia F. Chandler

Sherri Landis

Randall Spargo

Robert D. Eaver

Alfred H. Raber

William Gingerich

Joseph Gingerich

Harley E. Evans

R. Laverne Wittmer

Eugene Miller

Laverne Raber

Mary Sue Kerata

Ken Kerata

Micheal Kamerer

David L. Claytor

Susan C. Claytor

Ruth A. Miller

David A. Barnes

Valerie Barnes

Randolph Robert Wadley

Michelle R. Lippe

William P. Motler

Julie Fallick

Michelle Michel

Guy K. Michel

J. F. Davis

Sandra R. Langley

Keith M. Fallick

Anita L. Severtis

Ronald E. Servertis

Lena C. Stankus

Craig S. Boyle

Robin Boyle

Valerie Waldorff

Brian T. Nutt

Alison R. Nutt

Franklin D. Leopold II

Carol L. Leopold

Ann Williams

Mark F. Deering

Pamela S. Deering

Michael S. Lucius

Mary Ann Grady

Kathy L. Motter

Michael B. Neville

Kenneth D. Swallen

Pamela H. Grady

Dennis J. Grady

Carol L. Mallamaci

Albert J. Wagner

Jane W. Wagner

Peggy Haney Ingalls

John D. Ingalls

Judy K. Zeiger

Marilyn L. Bennell

Sandra G. Myers

Ron Myers

Daniel J. Hoskins

Ginevra Hoskins

Linda Karlo

Cheryl Andrews

Christopher Andrews

David A. Stanek

Margaret L. Stanek

Joan E. Kress

Roberta A. Vine

Larry K. Mundorf

Margaret J. McClusky

Tirza Huetter

Richard W. Huetter

Marilyn K. Mundorf

James B. McClusky

Leonard P. Bossart, Jr

Charlotte A. Bossart

Shelley A. Johnson

Craig E. Johnson

B. Vincent Dollive

Melinda E. Dollive

Donald Sponseller

Vera M. Sponseller

June D. Wall

Robert D. Wall

Myron D. Draper

Sandra L. Draper

Leo E. Doyle

Rebecca M. Pitea

Victor S. Pitea

Kelley Kinnett

Devora J. Doyle

Margaret A. Batista Bazzoli

Steven R. Wagner

Robert Hiram Bazzoli

James A. Fuller

Janet M. Fuller

Larry K. Graham

Robert Testa

Kathleen M. Gross

George S. Gross, Jr

Lanco Bezek

Kimberly J. Bezek

Janet C. Graham

Susan M. Hunt

Jon S. Hunt

Clarence M. Chandler

Phineas Miller, Jr

Laverne Slabaugh

Patricia A. Testa

Ronald J. Keagy

Donald E. Higgins

Sara L. Chambers

Neal Snodgrass

Barbara N. Snodgrass

Daniel H. LaHaie

Timothy S. Eberly

Carol E. Eberly

Jennifer C. LaHaie

Ann M. Smith

EITHER FORMER TRUSTEE JIM HOLMES OR 2011 NEW ENTRY CHARLES RIEGLER SHOULD BE CAPALDI'S REPLACEMENT. BUT WILL POLITICS ALLOW THAT?

2012-01-05T07:01:00.002-05:00

The word went out yesterday that Perry trustee aspirants to replace Republican Trustee Anna Capaldi, who surprised all at Tuesday night's trustee meeting in announcing her resignation, is 4:30 p.m. on January 10, 2011.

Two of the applicants will be former trustee Jim Holmes and newbie wannabe Charles Riegler. Both confirmed to the SCPR that they will be submitting their applications.

But do either have "a snowball's chance in Hell" of getting appointed?

If you look at their credentials, they should be at the top of the list.

Both are Democrats as are sitting and appointing trustees Lee Laubacher and Craig Chessler.

For this reason alone, it would seem that consummate Republican Crisiva Varner (political sidekick of former Stark GOP executive director Travis Secrest) can forget applying although she came in ahead of Reigler but behind Holmes in the Holmes, Reigler and Varner effort to unseat Laubacher this past November.

It is hard to believe that office holding Democrats anywhere in Stark County would abide appointing a Republican after the Stark County Democratic Central Committee was pretty much forced by the underlying circumstances to appoint Republican Alex Zumbar Stark County treasurer and thereby likely lose the office for years if not decades.

Holmes (currently an elected member of the Stark County Educational Service Center, a body which yours truly's spouse is president of) by virtue of having been trustee for 28 years until his defeat by Laubacher in 2007 appears to be the logical choice to succeed Capaldi.

However, this is where the political/electoral history between Holmes and Laubacher gets dicey.

Laubacher was originally elected as trustee in 2001 along with Chessler was bounced in 2005 by Capaldi, necessitating his run against Holmes in 2007 if he were to get back in office.

If Holmes was to be selected to replace Capaldi, he would then be in an election cycle (if he wins in November, 2012) alongside Craig Chessler (two seats elected) and thereby avoid future face offs with Laubacher.

Of course, the same situation would attain, if Chessler and Laubacher appoint Riegler.

While he does not have experience as an elected official, he has been a lifelong educator and a member/official of some of the most powerful unions in Ohio and the nation in the guise of the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and the National Education Association (NEA).

Should Trustees Chessler and Laubacher decide not to appoint either Holmes or Reigler or, alternately, neither; then the SCPR believes that either or both, as the case may be, will be candidates once again in November, 2012.

It is possible that Chessler and Laubacher cannot agree on whom to appoint.

In that case, there would possibly be a way back into the hunt for Republican Crisiva Varner.

For as The Report understands the process, the choice would then fall to a Stark County Probate Court Judge Dixie Park.

Judge Park's political ID?

Republican.

Hmm!

PoliFact.com SAYS NRCC (WHICH INCLUDES 16TH DISTRICT CONGRESSMAN JIM RENACCI) MAKES "MOSTLY FALSE" STATEMENT ABOUT RENACCI 2012 OPPONENT BETTY SUTTON. RENACCI MUST BE WORRIED ABOUT KEEPING HIS SEAT? EARLY POLL SHOWS "DEAD HEAT!"

2012-01-03T17:09:00.000-05:00

Today the SCPR adds a widget in the blog sidebar from PoliFact.com.

According to Wikipedia:

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which its reporters and editors "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups...." They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a "Truth-O-Meter" rating. The ratings range from "True" for completely accurate statements to "Pants on Fire" (from the taunt "Liar, liar, pants on fire") for outright lies.

Stark Countians who will continue to be a part of the 16th congressional district should keep abreast on who is telling the truth and who is not in the square off between incumbent Congresspersons Jim Renacci and Betty Sutton.

At the conclusion of this blog, the SCPR shares a PoliFact report showing that the National Republican Congressional Caucus ("NRCC" - which, of course, Congressman Renacci is a part of) has started the campaign with a "mostly false" political allegation against Sutton.

FIRST, WHY ARE RENACCI AND SUTTON RUNNING AGAINST ONE ANOTHER?

Sutton was forced into the race against Renacci because her seat was eliminated in terms of being moved from where she lives (Copley in Summit County).

Sutton could have run again in the 13th because the U.S. Constitution does not require a congressperson to live in the district they run in. But as a practical matter it is unlikely that the "new" 13th (population centered in Mahoning, Trumbull and Portage Counties and Youngstown) is going to elect a Summit County resident congressperson.

WHY THE POLITICAL MUD IS FLYING ALREADY?

A recent poll shows Renacci and Sutton pretty much in a "dead heat" with, perhaps, a little bit of an edge to Sutton.

This development was unexpected by the Republicans. The Ohio Legislature is required (as are all 50 state legislatures) by the U.S. Constitution to redraw congressional districts every ten years to adjust for populations shifts.

Ohio lost population in the 2010 census and therefore is losing two congressional seats. The Ohio Legislature is controlled by the Republicans and accordingly they have Ohio's lines to favor Republican candidates (a process call "gerrymandering").

So the Renacci/Sutton poll has to be a big concern to the likes of Republican U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner and Ohio Republican Party Chairman Kevin DeWine to say nothing of Stark GOP Chairman Jeff Matthews whose wife Heidi has a high paying job on the Renacci congressional office staff.

REMEDY?

Start defining Betty Sutton in a false way.

THE ALLEGATION!

The only truth to the allegation was that Sutton along with 12 Republicans voted against a Republican bill called the Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act because it contained - along with a prohibition of welfare recipients accessing their banked welfare funds from ATMs possibly located at "casinos, strip clubs and liquor stores" - provisions such as:

requiring an accelerated review of the Keystone XL oil pipeline (from Canada to Texas),
restrictions on unemployment compensation benefits,
TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) reform,
a federal worker pay freeze (including congresspersons),
defunding of certain aspects of the Affordable Health Care Act, and
the imposition of restrictions on the EPA.

In a separate bill, Sutton voted in a unanimous floor vote to ban welfare recipients accessing their banked welfare funds from ATMs possibly located at "casinos, strip clubs and liquor stores."

As far the SCPR is concerned, Renacci's participation in the slam on Sutton by virtue of his being a member of the NRCC and not having disassociated himself since its publication on December 13th suggests that he is engaging in political sleaze and ought to be held accountable by Stark County voters living - in the main - in Jackson, Lake and Lawrence Township.

In a close election, Stark Countians can be a difference maker.

To be fair, Stark Countians should be on the lookout for Sutton appearances (as the SCPR will be and be reporting and commenting upon - yours truly lives in the 16th) on PoliFact.com to determine whether or not she stoops to the disappointingly low level that Renacci has.

DOES CANTON'S MAYOR HEALY HAVE A LONG RANGE PLAN TO GET STARK COUNTY BACK IN PLAY FOR A CONGRESSIONAL SEAT?

2012-01-03T07:40:00.000-05:00

The significance of Canton Mayor William J. Healy's sister filing for the Democratic Primary (March 6, 2012) for the new 7th congressional district should not be lost on Stark County political operatives and for that matter sitting Republican Congressman Bob Gibbs.

On the Democratic side of the Stark County political isle, the Stark County Political Report's master politician is not: Chairman Randy Gonzalez, former chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., and certainly not the politically servile political director Shane Jackson.

Rather The Report's assessment is that Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II is in the process of consolidating his power among activist Democrats and even now has surpassed Gonzalez, Maier, and his political acolyte Jackson, individually or in combination, as being the dominate Democratic player in Stark.

It is obvious to the SCPR that Healy has much higher political ambition than being mayor of Canton and is in the process of putting together a plan of developing a political infrastructure to enable him to springboard to higher office.

While Gonzalez has dropped the ball in securing a viable candidate to oppose Republican Congressman Bob Gibbs of rural Holmes County (Lakeville), Healy appears to have been out shopping for a Stark County name to plant in the minds of the voters of the newly created 7th congressional district. The 7th came into being due to the loss of two Ohio congressional seats on the basis of Ohio having lost population in the 2020 census.

In the move from the 18th (the old district from which he was originally elected) to the 7th, Gibbs (with only one two year term as congressman) is forced run a largely reconfigured district in which he is not known in a significant part of the district. An another interesting note is that before his election in 2010 over the incumbent Democratic Congressman Zack Space the 18th (being the totally rural district it was) elected a Democrat (that, of course, being Space).

One would think that these circumstances, and 2012 being a presidential year in which Democrats vote in greater numbers, would have prompted Gonzalez to look for a Democrat that can appeal to the general Stark County desire to have their congressman be from Stark (or at least from nearby [e.g. Renacci - the 16th district - Wadsworth]) and parlay that sentiment in to a strong Stark County vote for a Stark County based candidate.

But he didn't and thereby has opened up an opportunity for Healy to take advantage.

The opportune time for Healy himself to have run for Congress against Gibbs would be 2012. But having just been re-elected mayor of Canton, it would not set well for him (even for Stark Countians who would like to see a Stark Countian as congressman) to do so.

However, 2014 will be a different matter.

Healy will just have one more year left on his second term as mayor of Canton. Barring some major negative happening (which Healy is fully capable of), he undoubtedly can remain mayor for a very long term.

But anyone who knows Healy should understand that Healy has already fried that fish (vindicated his father's loss in the mayor's race of 1991) and 2014 would be a good time to move on to fry other fish.

Since it is not a politically pragmatic thing for Healy himself to have run this year, the next best thing is to have Joyce Healy-Abrams on the ballot.

Because of the family connection, the composition of the Healy-Abrams campaign in terms of the intensity of the effort and the amount of money raised and from whom (i.e. from Mayor Healy's documented supporters?) should tell a lot as to how much the mayor is invested in the campaign.

One wouldn't expect Healy-Abrams to be in a position to pull off a political upset. But if she does, yours truly can see her handing it off to brother Bill when he decides it is time to move on from being mayor of Canton.

CICCHINELLI'S FINAL ACT: SIGNING LEGISLATION TO HELP CATAZARO-PERRY AS SHE TAKES OVER AS MAYOR. ALSO, LOOK FOR COUNCIL TO BE MORE TURBULENT THAN BEFORE.

2012-01-02T10:40:00.000-05:00

Love him or not, a fair-minded person would say unequivocally that Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. truly loves the city of Massillon, Ohio.

It has been a bitter political tussle between the long time mayor and neophyte Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry and her prime promoter Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (Massillon clerk of courts). Much longer than the formal period when Catazaro-Perry filed to run in the Democratic Primary against Cicchinelli. But in the end, Cicchinelli exits gracefully and with the best interest of Massillonians in mind.

A last minute glitch that might have tarnished Cicchinelli's transition to civilian life was the thought by some that he might not sign legislation to finalize Ken Koher's appointment by Catazaro-Perry to be her budget director.

In fact, one Massillon politico e-mail the SCPR that Cicchinelli had not signed the legislation as 4:30 p.m. December 30, 2011.

However, a source tells The Report that he (apparently, after agonizing over the decision) did go back to the office on the 31st and sign the ordinance.

So in the end, he did what is best for Massillon. Tigerland did not need a gap in governance in the context of Koher having to wait a period of time before having official status.

Catazaro-Perry's problems are far from over.

The word is that an ultimatum has been laid down by recently elected Massillon City Council (Council) Republican councilpersons Cunningham (Ward 1), Halter (Ward 2) and Lewis (Ward 6) to Donnie Peters (R - Ward 6) and Republican Milan Chovan (council at large) to sign onto a Massillon Republican Caucus or else.

Or else?

Republican opponents in 2013?

Hmm?

The problem for Peters and Chovan is that both have close associations with Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. and that he undoubtedly is putting pressure on them to support everything Catazaro-Perry.

The Report hears that Peters is set to become majority leader. The source says that Peters will not be able to maintain control of the Republican side of the isle and, of course, much less the direction of Council. Peters is painted by the source as being an undisciplined councilperson that has a hard time paying attention for an entire meeting.

A source of the SCPR says this about Peters and Chovan.

First, Peters:

Current Councilman Donnie Peters, who used to be a democrat (sic), shunned the other candidates during the campaign. He refused to take part in any campaign events with them and boycotted the candidates' group photo used in their ads.

Second, Chovan:

Milan Chovan, who also is a democrat (sic), was selected to run as a republican (sic) for an at large council seat by Johnnie Maier only after he declined an offer by Maier and Elum to back him in a run as a democrat against Cicchinelli in the primary for the mayor's seat.

[Cunningham, Halter and Lewis] have a dilemma with Chovan when it comes to private republican political caucuses. They know that whatever is discussed will immediately be reported to Maier and Elum.

While Cunningham, Halter and Lewis will likely support the new mayor's initiatives here and there, do not expect them to be interested in being reliable support in the sense of whatever Mayor Kathy comes up with and the ramifications that such would have for the 2015 mayoral elections.

Democrats Townsend, Scassa and Slagle likely will be.

But Paul Manson? Not on your life! He likely to be: "If Mayor Catazaro-Perry is for it, then I am against it!"

So there will be a real fight within the membership of Massillon City Council on any given piece of controversial legislation that the Catazaro-Perry administration offers.

As the SCPR sees it, on any controversial vote on a Catazaro-Perry proposal, the decision will likely turn on a 5 to 4 vote with a lot of political arm twisting going on in the background.

SCPR 2012 NEW YEARS RESOLUTIONS FOR STARK'S PUBLIC FIGURES/OFFICIALS

2011-12-31T11:20:00.000-05:00

ON WEALTH FACTOR: RENACCI BEATS SUTTON "HANDS-DOWN" IN "NEW" 16TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT BATTLE OF INCUMBENT CONGRESS PERSONS (2010 DATA)

2011-12-30T12:18:00.001-05:00

ALLIANCE VOTERS DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH-IN ON PAY INCREASE?

2011-12-29T14:06:00.000-05:00

Four years ago former Alliance Police Chief Larry Dordea decided to go political as a Republican and run for Stark County sheriff against long time Democratic Sheriff Tim Swanson.

The SCPR's take on Dordea is that he is one of the least political of those holding or aspiring to office in Stark County.

The Report has believed that Dordea shows more political courage (in the sense of being independent minded and not a political party puppet) than many who seek office, but an article by Stephanie Ujhelyi of The Alliance Review in today's edition (Alliance elected officials to see pay increase) may show that Dordea is changing in that he seems to yours truly, perhaps, to be fitting in more and more in with "the politics as usual" crowd.

For the record, Dordea emphatically denies that any kind of political fix was in the making as Alliance City Council (Council) voted last night 5 to 2 (including three lame duck council persons Andreani, Rhome and Thompson voting yes and Democrats Okey and Phillips being the two no votes) to increase the salaries of a number of elected city officials with the advent of the new year (except for mayor which takes hold after Mayor-elect Alan Adreani's first term).

One of the matters that the SCPR has worked hardest on in the nearly four years of the blog's existence is exposing backroom politics deals designed to thwart public imput and participation in the decisions of government.

In the view of The Report, one such major example was the December, 2008 deal in which the commissioners (then Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) imposed a 0.5% sales tax.

Notwithstanding Dordea's denial for both himself and the advocates of the Alliance public official salary increase, The Report sees in what happened in Alliance as having all the earmarks of a process to avoid the public in terms of electoral accountability in the context of the ward council, council-at-large and mayoral races of November 8, 2011.

Yours truly has heard numerous Stark County political subdivision officials lament the general public's disdain, skepticism and cynicism of local government and seemingly always deny that backroom deals are going on in Stark.

If one takes these local officials at face value, political chicanery happens elsewhere. Not in Stark!

Hmm?

An interesting case study of "what if" may be present in the Alliance council-at-large race.

Dordea says that he would have welcomed a discussion of the merits of the pay increase issue in the midst of his campaign for re-election as councilman-at-large.

Question. Would the candidates and their positions on the issue have changed the outcome of the results? Dordea won over Dierre Upshaw by 203 votes. If they differed on the issue, could the difference have resulted in a 102 vote turnaround and a Democrat Councilman-elect Dierre Upshaw?

But the fact of the matter is that there was no such discussion.

Dordea is a Republican candidate for Stark County sheriff which was a poorly kept secret that he would be even as he filed for re-election as councilman-at-large. If he ends up being elected, then, of course, he will have to resign from Council and his successor appointed by whom?

The Alliance members of the Stark County Republican Central Committee.

Hmm?