Saturday, October 17, 2009


Day before yesterday Commissioner Todd Bosley went to the monthly Stark County Township Association meeting to push for a Yes on Issue 5 vote.

Imagine Bosley's surprise when Osnaburg Trustee Richard Pero got up and voiced his opposition to retention of the tax.

More interesting is Pero's reason for saying he was going to vote No on Issue 5.

"Because the commissioners had imposed the tax," that's why.

Bosley made the point that "Well, you have the opportunity to vote on it now."  Meaning that it is now time to determine whether or not the county needs the tax to fix 9-1-1 and for general revenue fund purposes.

But Pero was not going there.

He was still "mad" at the trustees for "imposing" the tax and he was not about to cogitate of whether or not the county actually needs the revenue.

The SCPR focuses on the Bosley/Pero exchange because it highlights the need of Stark County voters to make a determination on the substance of the issue.

Pero is an example of Stark Countians who plan to vote No for the sole reason that the tax was imposed.

Pero's fellow trustee Donna Middaugh (both are running for re-election on November 3rd), said she was voting Yes on Issue 5 because she was convinced the money was needed.

The SCPR understands that 80% or better of the trustees attending the meeting favored the Vote Yes position.

Is the 80% approval rating a sign that the tax is going to be retained or is it the opposite?

The SCPR brought you a story on Thursday about Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero getting up and walking out on a Thursday Stark County Police Chiefs Association meeting when it became clear that the Chiefs would be taking a "neutrality" stand on Issue 5.

The question coursing through yours truly's mind is whether or not dissension among the direct stakeholders in the outcome of the issue is a marker indicating that Stark Countians are going to vote No on retaining the tax.

That's the way it's looking to the Stark County Political Report.

No comments: