UPDATE: 10:21 AM
A comment on today's blog:
Blog entry re Allen Schulman and City Council leadership
Chuck Bennell Today at 9:53 AM
To: tramols@att.net
Your blog is always fascinating, and the recent post (and subsequent response) from Allen are interesting. I have known him for more than years, and share your favorable opinion.
I am not surprised (nor do I think it untoward) that Allen plays political hardball and is not afraid to do his best to bend council members to his will. That's what strong leaders do.
We are both old enough to remember the many years George Forbes was the most influential political leader in Cleveland -- no matter who happened to serve as Mayor -- from his perch as City Council President.
We both remember the very strong (often bare-knuckled) leadership of Frank Cicchinelli as Mayor of Massillon. I am pretty sure Massillon is a statutory city with nominally a "weak mayor" form of government.
Strong personalities in positions of elected office find ways to reach their goals. Political influence often involves rewards and retribution. As long as it is legal, it is only offensive if one disagrees with the ends and the means.
I don't live in Canton, although I was a resident for most of my life before moving to Jackson Township. I suspect market forces have had (and will have) a larger impact on downtown than the efforts of city government. On the other hand, neighborhoods that are worth living in (safe, good infrastructure) and schools that are worth sending one's children to (safe, educationally effective) are a good way to stabilize and grow the city's population. An effective ward councilman can do a great job for his/her ward while still keeping an eye on the big picture, just as Ralph Regula served his district well but played a major role within congress on national affairs.
Best wishes!
Chuck Bennell
ORIGINAL BLOG
As readers of The Stark County Political Report know, each and every subject of a SCPR blog gets a full and complete opportunity to answer the points made in a blog, whether at the hand of yours truly or from sources.
Last weekend, The Report received a call from a person that the SCPR considers to be a highly credible source. A person who yours truly has known for years.
The subject matter of the call was a meeting/discussion held recently in which it is alleged that Canton City Council (CCS) president Allen Schulman called and purportedly included Councilpersons Mariol (Democrat - Ward 7), Edmond Mack (Democrat - Ward 9) and Greg Hawk (Democrat - Ward 1).
Supposed topic?
Canton City Council's current leadership (Frank Morris, Ward 9) and Chris Smith, Ward 4) are not setting a good example in supporting efforts to promote downtown development and therefore need to replaced.
Well, the blog caused quite a stir among Canton's councilpersons which undoubtedly prompted President Schulman on Saturday to email a response to the February 17 blog.
SCHULMAN (IN WHITE, BOLD, ITALICIZED TEXT)
Martin
As you know, I am an avid reader of your blog.
SCPR COMMENTS (IN BOLD, ITALICIZED GOLD TEXT)
While the SCPR treasures each and every reader, it is especially gratifying to know that a Canton/Stark County government/political leader of Schulman's status bill himself as an "avid reader" of the SCPR.
Yours truly has known Schulman for over forty years and has a high regard for him:
- as a person,
- as an attorney of the first order,
- as a politically engaged citizen who puts his money where his mouth is, and
- as a government official who comes to the table with a positive agenda that he thinks will improve local, state and national government.
Admiration for Schulman notwithstanding, the SCPR has and will continue to take exception to the president of council in the context of what The Report perceives to be matters of official action.A recent article was of particular interest since it dealt with my role as city council president.
Your view that I am " gunning " ( my word ) for certain council members because they are not in lockstep with my thinking is both disappointing and wrong.
And when Schulman deserves kudos, they will be forthcoming notwithstanding that he is disappointed with this blogger and thinks that The Report is wrong in seeing that there is a rational basis for the SCPR's positing the manipulation perception.Knowing you value a forum for dialog, I would like the opportunity to explain my position.
Does the SCPR think that Schulman is "gunning" (his word) for Council leaders Frank Morris and Chris Smith?
Answer: Not in the sense that he has a personal vendetta against them.
But yes, in the regard that he likely perceives them as negative factors thwarting his zeal and that of his council compatriots on downtown Canton development issues. The Report basis for "he likely perceives" is contained his own words cited immediately below (except from body of Schulman email) as he describes (in his own words) his citywide elective office perspective as compared to Ward councilpersons, to wit:
Under our statutory scheme, the president of council has limited duties."Still, it is an elected city-wide position and, with that in mind, I have tried to advance policies which benefit our city as a whole ... Ward members of council, on the other hand, are elected to represent their ward constituents."
The principal role is to chair council meetings and to cast a vote only in a deadlock.
Still, it is an elected city-wide position and, with that in mind, I have tried to advance policies which benefit our city as a whole. I owe that to the citizens who have given me the privilege of elected office.
Ward members of council, on the other hand, are elected to represent their ward constituents.
While our council has been extraordinarily unified, there are occasions where differences arise between ward needs and a citywide policy.
A major point of the dissent with the Schulman citywide view is in the thinking of a number of councilpersons that Canton is spending millions on downtown economic development (perhaps unnecessarily [e.g. Onesto Lofts]) while the city's infrastructure crumbles (e.g. pothole filled and wasting away streets, sewer lines, police protection, vacant and abandoned buildings and unmowed lots, and the like)This is the democratic process. While we are public servants, there is a political side to our governance. It is at this flexion point that the give and the take of negotiation occurs. Sometimes it can be a bruising process.
The SCPR thinks that there is no problem with Schulman and his fellows taking official umbrage ["it can be a bruising process"] at the Morris/Smith critiques of various pieces of the downtown development pie (e.g. the Onesto Lofts project [both], Canton Citywide Comprehensive Plan [Morris]).Your article suggested that I am seeking retribution against Leader Morris and Assistant Leader Smith for their strong views and public statements regarding downtown development.
If Schulman et al were to publicly say, "we do not think Canton City Council should have leaders who lead in the manner of Morris/Smith on 'critical to downtown Canton development issues" and we therefore advocate their replacement," it would be one thing.
Whether he realizes it or not, Schulman in being a player (allegation of the SCPR's well placed source) in who serves as CCC leadership will give rise to a perception that he goes after those who disagree with him on the business of council.
Actually, the retribution factor was the point of the SCPR's source. But the SCPR does sees that there is a reasonable basis on which one might conclude that retribution was at play with Dougherty's replacement and that Schulman is now trying to generate support for removing Morris and Smith because they have spoken out.Since we have been friends for over 40 years, I hope you know that I would never " punish " someone for their deeply held opinions. I would never do that personally, professionally, or politically. It's not been my style and it serves no useful purpose.
Exactly!
The Report knows Schulman to be a small letter "d" democrat and a political liberal who encourages public debate and may the person with the better argument win.
The Report was surprised to hear from the source that there is a perception among some councilpersons that Schulman in allegedly calling the informal meeting/discussion was an act of retribution.
As stated in the outset of this blog, yours truly holds Schulman in high, high regard.
But The Report thinks likewise of the SCPR's source.
The main point in writing the blog was to raise a red flag that "differences" may be escalating into retribution, at least in the minds of some councilpersons which, of course, should be of concern to Schulman, whether he agrees or not.
To clear up any confusion on whatThe Report is saying, the point is "perception" which, to repeat, the SCPR thinks there is a rational basis for for thinking so.
The Report has not come out and said yours truly is convinced that retribution IS at play. Only that such is plausible.In fact, I was a supporter of Frank and Chris when they ran for their positions.
The Report said so in the original blog. And as such, Schulman's prior support is some evidence that the perception of retribution being at play may be wrong.
However, as an astute and candid political observer has to acknowledge the truisms that: "politics makes for strange bedfellows," and there is the political reality of "the shifting sands of political alliances and distancing."Each is an effective and talented leader of council who works diligently on behalf of our city. They represent their wards with great heart and passion. And both get results for their constituents.
When differences do arise, our council joins together toward a resolution.
Compromise is the political side of public service. It's a give and a take.
While I may not agree with a member's position, I would never try to suppress or silence a different point of view.
On the contrary, listening to an opposing view is a way to learn, grow and , sometimes, change your mind.
Similarly, I expect the same consideration for my positions on issues of public import.
Hear! Hear! This is the Allen Schulman Cantonians want hear.
In he SCPR's experience, Schulman is one of Stark County's few public officials who will name names of those fellow public officials who are not getting the job done for Canton/Stark Couny's citizens.
You suggest that there is a move to replace our leadership. I know of no such discussion.
"I know of no such discussion."
This Schulman statement in his email is the most troubling part to the SCPR because The Report's source is adamant that such a discussion did take place.
The Report checked back with the source who was astonished at Schulman's categorical denial of having called/held the informal meeting to discuss the future leadership issue.
And The Report's source was markedly blunt in labeling Schulman's assertion.
The SCPR is not of a mind to get into a "he said, she said-esque" debate.
Some help in resolving the different recollections of what did or did not happen may in terms of a discussion having taken place on the Canton City Council future leadership question may lie in a definition of the word "meeting' or, if you will "discussion."
As we all know from the Clinton/Lewinsky scenario, that is to say, for example, the Bill Clinton deposition testimony on the matter of whether or not Clinton had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky came in Clinton's answer to a question thereon, to wit: "That depends on what IS is." t
By way of analogy, it could be that whether or not there was such a meeting could all be wrapped up in how one defines the word "meeting."
So the SCPR will just leave it at that and not get into the pejoratives.
Schulman thinks no such meeting/discussion took place.
Obviously, the SCPR's source is absolutely convinced that such a meeting/discussion took place.
The SCPR thinks there was some kind of meeting/discussion, however, the word
"meeting" or "discussion" is defined.
As Schulman says, it makes no sense whatsoever for such to have taken place this much in advance of the decision on the leadership matter. But we human being do things from time-to-time which make no sense, no?In fact, both Frank and Chris are well respected in council, and each is conscientious of their respective leadership roles.
Our city is on the verge of a transformative change.
Now is not the time to create manufactured political squabbles.
To your " impeccably placed source " I would say : " Step out of the shadows and tell us why you believe anyone would be working months in advance to replace a leadership team that is both respected and effectively performing council's will? "
"Now is not the time to create manufactured political squabbles."
Really?
Manufactured?
Not in the SCPR's book.
The Report thinks that the points that Morris, Smith and others have raised are authentically and deeply held by the articulators thereof.
If what the globalists want to get the approval of council on is worthy of and beneficial to Canton, a legislative debate is not only helpful but of critical importance in making sure that a program, policy or financing has been thoroughly vetted.
How many times over the history of this the government of this country (national, state and local) have there been adoptions of the foregoing by legislative and executive action unvetted only for huge problems to develop later on.
Do we have to go any further than Obamacare to make that point in spades?
To your "impeccably placed source" I would say : " Step out of the shadows and tell us why you believe anyone would be working months in advance to replace a leadership team that is both respected and effectively performing council's will?"
Were it not for the media to allow sources to be unidentified, the general public would not know much of what goes on behind closed doors.
Schulman does make a good point as to it not making sense in a sense to be plotting so far in advance.
However, skilled political people, which the SCPR considers Schulman to be one of, gauge the resistance that might get from this or that objective and create a timetable within which they can succeed.
A case in point is Councilman Edmond Mack's work on bring Charter government to Canton.
He started his work back in 2013 and it will be November, 2015 just to get the question of whether or not Cantonians will authorize the formation of a Charter commission to be formed to come up for a vote. But of course "it does make sense" for him to start work on a what is going to be a tough piece of work to get Cantonians to pass the issue.
By way of analogy, maybe convincing council to replace Morris and Smith as leaders is going to be hard sell, no? And if it is, maybe getting started now does make sense?But because your "source" is unidentified, I am at a disadvantage in explaining why your were told something patently untrue. (I do think it ironic that your plea for transparency in government is based on an anonymous tip from an undisclosed person.)
Now exactly, pray tell, how not knowing the identity of the SCPR's source puts Schulman at a disadvantage?
Allen merely makes the assertion without any supporting rationale.
We all know that he is a highly skilled lawyer who knows full well that it is amazing how one can make "a mere assertion," and for some people it is proof in and of itself.
Well, not for the SCPR.
Try that one on somebody else, Allen.
In re:
(I do think it ironic that your plea for transparency in government is based on an anonymous tip from an undisclosed person.)
What a laugh!
The SCPR is not a government agency. Yours truly is not an elected official.
Allowing public figures to "speak off the record" is an essential tool in the arsenal of media to obtain information to bring "the light of day" to what is really happening in the halls of government.
Schulman himself uses the phenomenon.
Of course, yours truly never speaks "off-the-record." Each and every blog has the name Martin Olson emblazoned on it.
Talk about an apples to oranges comparison and thereby invoking specious reasoning (i.e. superficially plausible, but actually wrong), such it seems to The Report is the technique Schulman is using.
As with the "disadvantage" thing, isn't this a demonstration by Lawyer Schulman tailoring one's argument to one's self-interest at a given point in time and hoping the undiscerning cannot figure out what he's up to?
Schulman has not gotten to the place that he has achieved in terms of having a reputation of being a highly skilled lawyer undeservingly.
He is absolutely sharp as a tack and the SCPR has enjoyed engaging him on this matter.Nevertheless, Marty, I will promise you one thing. I will always encourage and welcome dissenting viewpoints. No one's deeply held opinions will be silenced or suppressed. No one need be fearful of " retribution ". Not while I am council president.
With warmest regards my friend,
Allen
Terrific!Here is Schulman's complete email uninterrupted (and not restructured) by for the purpose of the SCPR commenting thereon:
Schulman being the classy person he is, ends his email on a high note, to wit:
No one's deeply held opinions will be silenced or suppressed. No one need be fearful of " retribution ". Not while I am council president.
Martin
As you know, I am an avid reader of your blog. A recent article was of particular interest since it dealt with my role as city council president. Your view that I am " gunning " ( my word ) for certain council members because they are not in lockstep with my thinking is both disappointing and wrong. Knowing you value a forum for dialog, I would like the opportunity to explain my position.
Under our statutory scheme, the president of council has limited duties. The principal role is to chair council meetings and to cast a vote only in a deadlock. Still, it is an elected city-wide position and, with that in mind, I have tried to advance policies which benefit our city as a whole. I owe that to the citizens who have given me the privilege of elected office.
Ward members of council, on the other hand, are elected to represent their ward constituents. While our council has been extraordinarily unified, there are occasions where differences arise between ward needs and a citywide policy. This is the democratic process. While we are public servants, there is a political side to our governance. It is at this flexion point that the give and the take of negotiation occurs. Sometimes it can be a bruising process.
Your article suggested that I am seeking retribution against Leader Morris and Assistant Leader Smith for their strong views and public statements regarding downtown development. Since we have been friends for over 40 years, I hope you know that I would never " punish " someone for their deeply held opinions. I would never do that personally, professionally, or politically. It's not been my style and it serves no useful purpose.
In fact, I was a supporter of Frank and Chris when they ran for their positions. Each is an effective and talented leader of council who works diligently on behalf of our city. They represent their wards with great heart and passion. And both get results for their constituents.
When differences do arise, our council joins together toward a resolution. Compromise is the political side of public service. It's a give and a take. While I may not agree with a member's position, I would never try to suppress or silence a different point of view. On the contrary, listening to an opposing view is a way to learn, grow and , sometimes, change your mind. Similarly, I expect the same consideration for my positions on issues of public import.
You suggest that there is a move to replace our leadership. I know of no such discussion. In fact, both Frank and Chris are well respected in council, and each is conscientious of their respective leadership roles. Our city is on the verge of a transformative change. Now is not the time to create manufactured political squabbles. To your " impeccably placed source " I would say : " Step out of the shadows and tell us why you believe anyone would be working months in advance to replace a leadership team that is both respected and effectively performing council's
will ? "
But because your " source " is unidentified, I am at a disadvantage in explaining why your were told something patently untrue. ( I do think it ironic that your plea for transparency in government is based on an anonymous tip from an undisclosed person. )
Nevertheless, Marty, I will promise you one thing. I will always encourage and welcome dissenting viewpoints. No one's deeply held opinions will be silenced or suppressed. No one need be fearful of " retribution ". Not while I am council president.
With warmest regards my friend,
Allen
No comments:
Post a Comment