It is flattering to The Stark County Political Report that someone who wants to get her case in front of the Canton/Stark County public contacts The Report, to wit:
Issue 1 Parks Levy from November 2013 Ballot
Sharon Fladen
Aug 1
To: tramols@att.net
...
I was referred to your blog by a professional acquaintence (sic) and wished to discuss, via this e-mail, an issue that is of great importance to me and hopefully other taxpayers from the City of Canton.
Ms. Fladen has been an "admitted to the bar" as an Ohio attorney since November 20, 1978 (according to the Ohio Supreme Court).
Moreover, she has an indirect connection to the Canton Joint Recreation District (CJRD) in that she does work for Attorney Sally Henning (serving as legal counsel for the district since December 9, 2013, [officially hired] retroactively on January 7, 2014) on assigned (by Henning) CJRD matters.
Henning bills the CJRD and in turn pays Fladen for the work she does for and at the direction of Henning on CJRD matters.
CJRD, in making the two payments shown above, has paid Henning a total of $31,387.50.
- SCPR Note: The Report has learned since this blog was published early this morning that Henning has billed the CJRD for June ($3,737.50) and July ($4,200) bring the total figure on the Henning billings for legal services figure through the end of July to $39,325.00
Henning was officially hired in January, 2014; as the SCPR understands the arrangement, to provide legal counsel to the CRJD board with respect to the board's employer/employee relationship with then-director Nadine Sawaya.
Board member Rinaldi had this to say in response to a SCPR inquiry about the controversy:
Re: Recreation Board flap
J.R. Rinaldi
Aug 12
To: Martin Olson
Dear Mr. Olson,
Thank you for your email. ...
What I am concerned about, and have been concerned about since being seated on the Rec Board are the thousands of dollars being spent on the legal services of Sharon Fladen and Sally Henning. Prior to my being seated on the Rec Board, Sharon Fladen and Sally Henning were brought in on a no bid contract to serve as legal council for a pending discrimination lawsuit by the former director. At some point, without the Rec Board’s approval, they began working on the Stearn Center agreement as well as other duties that could have been handled by the Interim Director. This was especially concerning to me as the Rec Department was being charged $300 per hour for their services.
There is no agreement between the Rec Board and attorneys Fladen and Henning. Upon being seated I inquired about an agreement and asked for a copy. The only record that exist are the January meeting minutes when they were officially hired. I am of this opinion that there should have been a bid process used so obtain legal council and that there should have been a very clear contract addressing the scope of their work.
Sincerely,
John Rinaldi
On August 8th, Matt Rink of The Repository wrote (Rec board will use attorney on “case by case” basis):
Henning was retained in December and officially hired in January to handle personnel issues regarding then-director Nadine Sawaya. Sawaya was placed on unpaid leave after she asked Henning for additional time to answer a series of questions on how she would improve her performance. Sawaya later retired and filed an age discrimination complaint with the Cleveland office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The board voted in April to retroactively terminate Sawaya for insubordination and misconduct.The Report emphasized the latter part of the Rink reported material because that is the heart of the matter as to why Fladen contacted the SCPR so that she can get her point of view before the Canton/Stark County public.
...
In addition to the Sawaya matter, Henning and a second attorney researched how the Canton City School District board made appointments to the Joint Recreation Board, reviewed policies and procedures and assisted in the negotiations between the recreation district and park commission to deliver some $300,000 of funding to the J. Babe Stearn Community Center. (emphasis added by the SCPR)
Interesting, no?
Fladen has tried to get the editors at The Repository to publish a "letter to the editor" spelling out in 300 words or less her dissatisfaction with the agreement between Canton and the private non-profit Babe Stearn Center (BSC, formerly the Canton Police Boys Club and part of Canton government) for the Center to get $300,000 in Canton taxpayer money in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
Fladen has had a number of exchanges with editor Gayle Beck regarding Beck's effort to locate Fladen cited material to Canton City Council minutes.
The Report is suspicious that Ms. Beck has decided she is not going to publish Fladen's letter and that her apparent confusion in tracking down the cited material is a convenient way out.
The SCPR's take on Editor Beck going back ten years is that such is "standard operating procedure" for her when she is trying to avoid publishing certain letters from certain people.
The Babe Stearn Center is located in Canton's Ward 5 which is represented by Kevin Fisher. Councilman Fisher as a lifelong resident of Ward 5 has frequented the Center all the while.
He tells the SCPR that the BSC is in the process of converting into being owned by Canton city government.
Fladen also includes in her objection the agreement to fund the Southeast Community Center (SECC, aka Edward "Peel" Community Center) located in Councilwoman Chris Smith's Ward 4 on the same basis as the BSC.
Picking with another excerpt from the August 1st Fladen e-mail to the SCPR: (Note: the entire e-mail is published in the appendix to this blog)
I contacted my councilman, Edmond Mack, on Monday, July 14, 2014, prior to the Canton City Council Meeting where the final reading on the ordinance approving a service agreement between the J Babe Stearn Community Center and the Canton Parks Commission was going to be considered and posed the question as to why Issue 1 funds were being allocated to J. Babe Stearn Community Center when it was not within the purview of the levy language. Mr. Mack asked if he could forward my question to all other members of City Council and I gave him permission to do so.
My question was met with much skepticism and Mr. Mack did not get back to me. After more than one week transpired, I contacted Mr. Mack and asked him as to the status of my question. He indicated that he could no longer talk to me about this issue and I was to talk to Joe Martuccio.
And, it appears, litigation may be in the offing at the hand of Fladen.
Here is what she says about that in other e-mail exchanges with the SCPR:
I am picking up documents from city of canton tomorrow or Friday. Sally is not a party or litigator. I haven't decided whether to file pro se, have a different person be plaintiff, or engage an attorney. ... I haven't specifically told anyone that I will be filing the lawsuit.
Fladen has caught Canton government's attention.
So much so that Director Derek Gordon wrote this e-mail (provided by Fladden to the SCPR) suggesting that if a lawsuit if filed it could stop the planned merger, to wit:
Derek Gordon
Sharon Fladen
Aug 27 at 9:50 PM
To: Martin Olson
I have this recent e-mail that you might be interested in:
- On Tue, 8/26/14, Derek Gordon <derek.gordon@cantonohio.gov> wrote:
> From: Derek Gordon <derek.gordon@cantonohio.gov>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Attorney Client privilege
> To: "Eric Resnick" <resnickeric@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2014, 1:28 PM
> If she is not doing this
> at the CJRD's direction or cost, then there
> should not be a problem. However, if she
> files a lawsuit in conjunction
> with Sharon
> it likely will be a problem. I am getting into legal
> territory that I am not qualified to discuss,
> so I guess we will just
> wait and see what
> happens. I just know our Law Department is watching
> this very carefully and is concerned about how
> it could impact our
> merger if either of
> them proceed.
For the record, the SCPR favors a merger between the Canton Park System and the CJRD.
However, The Report demonstrates time and again that, even in the face of disagreement on any given issue, the SCPR can be counted on to provide a forum in which opposing viewpoints get space.
It is no wonder that the likes of Sharon Fladen turn to The Stark County Political Report to get her point of view out into the public arena.
APPENDIX
COMPLETE TEXT OF FIRST EMAIL
FROM FLADEN TO SCPR
Issue 1 Parks Levy from November 2013 Ballot
Sharon Fladen
Aug 1
To: tramols@att.net
...
I was referred to your blog by a professional acquaintence [sic] and wished to discuss, via this e-mail, an issue that is of great importance to me and hopefully other taxpayers from the City of Canton.
In 2012, the Parks Commission began a drive to have a levy placed on the 2013 ballot. The original levy language was passed by Canton City Council in February 2013 and included language for capital improvements to community centers. Council people Cirelli and Mack voted against the ordinance which was to be placed on the ballot as Issue 1. Evidently, the language passed by Canton City Council did not pass muster with the Ohio Secretary of State and was rejected.
At the July 30, 2013 Canton City Council meeting, after lengthy debate and dissertations by various people, including Law Director Martuccio, new language for Issue 1 was approved. That language made it to the November 5, 2013 ballot and the levy narrowly passed.
For your information, the levy language as it appeared on the ballot is attached. The funds that were being raised from the levy were to be used for park and recreational purposes within the Canton Park System.
The Canton Park Commissioners have agreed to allocate $300,000.00 of levy funds to the J. Babe Stearn Community Center in 2014, with additional funding in 2015 and 2016. Similar allocations are anticipated to be provided to the Peel Coleman Community Center. These allocations are, in my opinion, not within the purview of the levy. Neither of those community centers are within the Canton Parks System. J. Babe Stearn Community Center is a 501 (c) (3) non profit corporation. There is no way it should be a recipient of taxpayer dollars from the Issue 1 Levy.
I contacted my councilman, Edmond Mack, on Monday, July 14, 2014, prior to the Canton City Council Meeting where the final reading on the ordinance approving a service agreement between the J Babe Stearn Community Center and the Canton Parks Commission was going to be considered and posed the question as to why Issue 1 funds were being allocated to J. Babe Stearn Community Center when it was not within the purview of the levy language. Mr. Mack asked if he could forward my question to all other members of City Council and I gave him permission to do so.
My question was met with much skepticism and Mr. Mack did not get back to me. After more than one week transpired, I contacted Mr. Mack and asked him as to the status of my question. He indicated that he could no longer talk to me about this issue and I was to talk to Joe Martuccio.
I reviewed the Canton City Council Minutes from 2012 and 2013. The July 2013 minutes, especially from pages 502 to 510 were of major interest as there was discussion as to whether under the new language of the levy, money could be given to the community centers. I urge you to review those minutes. I sent all this information to Matt Rink at the Repository who has been very one sided when it comes to the Canton Joint Recreation District Board. I, along with Sally Henning, have provided legal services to the Canton Joint Recreation District Board. The Canton Joint Recreation District had been requested to partner with the J Babe Stearn Community Center and the Canton Parks Commission in disbursing the levy funds to J Babe Stearn Commnity Center. When amendments to the service agreement (indemnification and representations and warranties that this was a valid use of levy funds) were sought, the Law Department rejected them.
I wrote a letter to the editor of the Repository over two weeks ago and to date it has not been published. I was contacted by Gayle Beck who indicated that she was conducting a fact check and my facts did not line up with what I had said about Joe Martuccio. She evidently did not read my letter carefully as I had cited the July 30, 2013 Canton City Council meeting and she was looking at the June 30, 2014 Canton City Council meeting minutes. I will forward to you that correspondence along with my letter to the editor.
I sincerely hope that you will see the merit in my positon and blog about it!
Thank you for your consideration.
Sharon V. Fladen
Park Levy Resolution - Ordinance #132-2013-1 4.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment