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

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?

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?

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.

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

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?

 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?"

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!"