Back in April when news broke that the Rover natural gas pipeline project being installed across parts of southern Stark County experienced a spill of drilling mud which contained diesel fuel, little did about 100 Perry Township families know that the spill would eventually impact their perception of the safety of their household water supply.
The spill threatened and still may be found to threaten the safety of Canton's nearby (within a few hundred yards) Sugarcreek wellfield (located in Bethlehem Township) which is the normal source of the water supplied to Perry. Out of a sense of precaution, Canton water officials decided to reduce the pumping from Sugarcreek and to access the city's Northwest wellfield to supply some of Canton's users of its approximate 24 million gallon daily output to Cantonians and other Stark Countians.
According to area media reports, those 100 families (living in the vicinity of Central Catholic High School) woke up one morning to discover discolored (iron) and generally described users as being "nasty" water.
Nonetheless, the Northwest water IS SAFE WATER, so Canton Water Department told The Stark County Political Report at last night's regular Canton City Council meeting.
Notwithstanding the scare to the Perry users, it appears that there was never a safety issue with their drinking water.
While it is understandable that there was a sense of uneasiness with the Perry users, they and, indeed, all water users as informed/responsible citizens ought to advantage themselves in knowing about water.
An important lesson out of the Rover spill for all Stark Countians who receive water from municipal/private company supplies is to pay close attention and to be completely informed when incidents like the Rover spill hit the headlines even though it may appear that my water has nothing to do with Canton provided water.
According to Converse, Perry users could be back on Sugarcreek water by the end of next week.
An interesting observation on the latter link, to wit:
The only organism that doesn’t understand the importance of water is humans, especially in industrialized countries. Children in those societies turn on the water in a sink and never think about the trouble someone has gone for that "miracle" to occur.
There were a couple of "water" quality (in the monitoring sense of the phrase on last night's council's agenda last night) which prompted Superintendent Converse to provide amplification of and clarification of the status of Canton dealing with the Rover pipeline spill.
From the language of the foregoing resolutions passed by Canton City Council last night, it appears that the Rover spill matter could end up costing Canton water users better tens of thousands of dollars unless, of course, Canton government is successful in getting reimbursed by culpable parties for the spill.
In all, Converse spent some ten minutes updating council on the history, consequences and the path going forward on the Canton Water Department's dealing with the Rover Spill.
First, Canton service director William Bartos on the work of Linda Aller and team (Williams and Bennett) in monitoring/implementing Canton's Water Protection Plan in the wake of the Rover pipeline spill:
Second, Superintendent Converse explains/describes to council:
the drilling mud diesel fuel contaminated removal and testing process,
that early test results are back to Rover but that Canton has not seen those results,
that Linda Aller of Bennett and Williams is right on top of monitoring the remediation process,
that he understands that Canton's water is a high valuable city resource and accordingly is taking a high level approach to protecting it from the likes of a nearby spill to the Sugarcreek wellfield industrial spill, and
reassures council that by Ohio law testing is to continue for three years,
Third, Ward 7 councilman (chairman of Canton Council's finance committee) asks:
Converse about Canton being made financially whole by Rover on account of expenses/damages sustained by Canton in protecting its most valuable resource, and
Law Director Joe Martuccio about the work of the Canton Water Commission to refine its Water Protection Plan and when that product will be ready to present to council,
Finally, Canton council president Allen Schulman who has long served as the chairman of the Canton Water Commission:
weighs-in on the refinement underway of Canton's water protection law, and
lauds Converse for his sterling work in working through the Rover pipeline spill problem
FROM SCPR CONTRIBUTION TO "YouTube" MARIOL ENDORSES ALEXANDER
===================== FROM THE GENERAL POPULATION OF "YouTube" Trials to Triumph A Tribute to Judge Ira G. Turpin includes Ralph Regula interview when he was still a congressman
Everyone that The Stark County Political Report has talked to say that "There is no doubt about it," both Angela Alexander and Kristen Guardado are highly qualified to be Canton's newest municipal court judge.
The opening came about when Stephen Belden stepped down (resigned/retired as of December 1, 2014) in a swirl of controversy about how he handled certain cases during his time as a Canton Municipal Court judge.
On or about January 9, 2015, Governor Kasich appointed Republican Curtis Werren to replace Belden.
This is Werren's "second bite at the apple" inasmuch as he was appointed Kasich to replace a retired judge on the Stark County Court of Common Pleas in June, 2013. However, he failed to hold the office as he was defeated by Democrat Chryssa Hartnett in a very close November, 2014 election.
Though a SCPR analysis of the vote in the Hartnett/Werren race showed that Werren bested her by about 1,000 votes in the Canton Municipal Court district, The Report thinks that Werren is vulnerable notwithstanding his impressive showing as cited above.
Werren has a very large stake in who wins the Democratic primary as between Guardado and Alexander.
His chance to retain his appointed seat is for Alexander to come out on top in the Democratic primary.
However, the SCPR doubts that an Alexander win is in the offing.
A Guardado win likely makes Werren "a two-time-loser" in being unable to retain for Republicans an appointed judgeship.
Alexander will make Guardado work hard to win the Democratic primary. And that will benefit her in what will be a "political life or death" struggle in this fall's general election inasmuch this election has to be "the end of the 'political' road" for Werren, if he loses.
With the bulk of Alexander's stellar (LINK to prior blog detailing her Summit County work) professional legal work having been done in Summit County; whereas Guardado's has been done with the Canton Law Department, such is likely prove to be an Alexander fatal political flaw that provides Guardado a comfortable margin of victory come May 5, 2015.
Both Guardado and Alexander live in Plain Township.
But other than the Summit/Stark thing, there is another significant political difference.
Guadado has been on the Plain Local Board of Education for more than a decade, and, in the course of things, has been on the ballot for three elections achieving "top vote getter" status in two of the three elections. Such only adds to the SCPR's belief that at the end of the day Guardado will prevail against both Alexander and Werren.
The most interesting and significant thing about Alexander's website is the listing of some high profile Canton City Council members endorsing her for judge, to wit:
Surprising, no?
The SCPR surmises from a conversation with one of Alexander's endorsers is that her being African-American is a key component difference maker for some of them in choosing between the two well qualified candidates.
Of course, Chris Smith (Ward 4) and Thomas West (Ward 2) are themselves African-Americans.
The Report's source thinks Alexander is a "win-win" for Democrats if she were to get the nod to go up against Republican Werren in November.
The SCPR's source thinks that Alexander can win such a match up because of her far superior to Werren's legal profession credentials as compared to Werren's being president of the Stark County Red Cross for several years before Kasich first-appointed by to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas bench.
Moreover, it is thought by the source-person that being a minority will be a positive in that voters will see the need for an African-American to be on the bench inasmuch as Canton has a Black population of 24%.
The source said he believes that the Canton Municipal Court has never had an African-American judge and Stark County only one. That being Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge Ira G. Turpin.
However, a Stark County Political Report research reveals that in 1962 Ohio's 60th governor and Democrat Michael V. DiSalle appointed African-American Clay Hunter (1895 - 1976) as a Canton Municipal Court judge. Hunter is referred to in a reverential vein in the video below of Stark County' only ever Stark County Court of Common Pleas and 5th District Court of Appeals (the only Black at the Court of Appeals in all of Ohio, at the time); namely, Judge Ira G. Turpin.
It appears that Hunter was unsuccessful in his effort to get elected in his own right in that The Report's next research shows that Hunter is listed as a magistrate in Stark County's family court in a 1975 The Evening Independent article.
There is no doubt about it. Canton and Stark County seems to always been a tough venue for Blacks.
The SCPR always endeavors for each and every blog to thoroughly search on the Internet for material germane to a given blog.
In yesterday's search for this blog, yours truly found "a gold nugget:" A video entitled "Trials to Triumph - A Tribute to Judge Ira G. Turpin."
Turpin's interviewer is former Timken executive Stephen Perry. Perry's daughter, Andrea, is Canton's safety director.
The SCPR implores The Report's readers to take about 22 minutes and view this YouTube video. It is awesomely inspiring!
While Angela Alexander suffers the same fate as Turpin when he in 1969 failed to win election as a Canton Municipal Court judge, there is no doubt that she is a high quality lawyer and, in time, if she persists become a member of the Stark County bench at some level.
Were Alexander to be the Dems' nominee, it seems to the SCPR that Werren has a huge advantage in Plain Township (22% of the vote in the November, 2014 election) inasmuch he bested Hartnett by 668 votes which was nearly 67% of the 913 votes that he won by this past November election; only calculating the votes in the Canton Municipal Court district.
The Report thinks that if the Dems are to capture this judgeship, their political strength lies with Guardado as pointed out above.
But there is more.
On March 3rd of this year, Kristen Guardado held a fundraiser at Skyland Pines.
This event perhaps more than other advantages that she holds in the mind of the SCPR is indicative of the political strength of Kristen Guardado.
The Report talked with Guardado last week about the event. She was humbled as about 300 people showed up at her fundraising event.
Included in the assembly were former Canton law directors:
Harry E. Klide, (1970s; went on to become a judge a various levels),
W. Scott Gwin (1985 - 1988; now a 5th District Court of Appeals judge) and
Thomas Bernabei (1988 through 2000; now a Stark County commissioner), serves as Guardado's campaign treasurer,
Joseph Martuccio, current law director (appointed by Stark Dems Central Committee members to replace Bernabei who retired mid-term; elected in his own right in November, 2001)
Note: Kristen Guardado works for Martuccio
Republican Canton Municipal Court Judge Richard Kubilus was also in attendance.
The SCPR did attempt to contact Alexander to learn more about her level of support (beyond the four councilpersons identified above), but she as not returned The Report's call as of the writing of this blog.
But The Report has on yours truly's initiative been in touch with three of the five listed Canton City Councilpersons listed on Alexander's website as being endorsers/supporters.
First, Councilman John Mariol.
Second, Councilman Frank Morris, III (council vice president and majority leader). Morris had this to say:
Frank Morris Mar 10 at 3:10 PM
To: tramols@att.net
I feel that Angela Alexander is an outstanding individual with an impressive background as an attorney.
After meeting with her just once I knew she was the candidate I would be endorsing in the primary election.
Her go against the grain, aggressive attitude and strong work ethic is exactly what we need in our court system.
Thirdly, Canton City Council president Allen Schulman.
Schulman made the point that both Alexander and Guardado are clearly and highly qualified to be Belden's replacement.
Without making it sound like he was in favor of some sort of quota for Black aspiring officeholders, Schulman said that it is high time for a richly qualified African-America to attain a judgeship in Stark County.
Since Ira Turpin retired from the bench on January 31, 1982; no Stark County Black aspirant above the Ward level has gotten very close to achieving elective office.
And who can quarrel with Schulman that electing an eminently qualified African-American such as Alexander is long overdue.
Having said that, the SCPR thinks that the political dynamics (i.e. her having a Summit County legal work base and Guardado firmly entrenched in Stark County politics and legal community) are such that were Alexander to defeat Guardado in some 50 days; her success would be billed by most political analysts as being a stunning upset.
To repeat, if the SCPR is correct and election on May 5th is not in the cards for Alexander; she needs to try and try again. She is clearly first-rate.
Like it or not, Alexander needs to square up with the political realities of her being an "outsider" at least as perceived by many leading Stark County-based elected Democrats and work after the election to establish herself with the core leadership of the Stark County "organized" Democratic Party.
In 2015, one likes to think that Alexander being an African-American is not a barrier in Stark County. For in 2008 and 2012 Barrack Obama carried Stark County.
Nevertheless, there are those who think that it is virtually impossible for a Black to get elected above the Ward level in Stark.
The SCPR disagrees. However, it will take hard work and persistence like that demonstrated by Ira G. Turpin. Angela Alexander appears to have Turpin-esque qualities in her make up.
This time around, it is apparent to the SCPR that Stark County "political insider" Kristen Guardado is the odds on favorite to become the Democratic nominee to challenge Republican appointee Curtis Werren.
While she may lose on May 5th, the SCPR encourages her to cement her professional ties to Stark County and thereby overcome the "outsider" label in future tries for public office.
Who knows what the future brings.
A vacancy can develop in a heartbeat (e.g. Belden's sudden resignation) in the Canton Municipal Court or the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.
Should Alexander lose in the Democratic primary to Guardado, hopefully Alexander will have by the time another judicial vacancy occurs be in a position to become Stark County's "only ever" Black female judge.
List of elected officials who attended Guardado March 3, 2015 fundraiser:
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:
"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."
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.
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]).
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Here is Schulman's complete email uninterrupted (and not restructured) by for the purpose of the SCPR commenting thereon:
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.
No, President Allen Schulman of Canton City Council (CCC) is not playing Santa Claus to the councilpersons.
On second thought, maybe he is?
The Stark County Political Report has been told by a source, in a position to know, that Schulman was a main actor as "the man" behind the December 17, 2103 removal* of Ward 6 councilman David Dougherty as vice president (i.e. also Majority Leader) of CCC.
* SCPR Note: The actual removal did not actually take place until January and the withdrawal of a contest by Ward 2 Councilman Thomas West to the election in council's January organization meeting in which Ward 9 Councilman Frank Morris, III (the one challenged) was elected as majority leader and Ward 4 Councilwoman Chris Smith was elected assistant majority leader.
While on December 18th, the SCPR wrote that the leadership change had the fingerprints of the Canton council's newest foursome of councilmen on it (namely, Councilmen Fisher, Mack, Mariol and Morris, who The Report has tabbed as being "the four young turks"); it now appears that such was only "part of the 'real' story" behind Dougherty's replacement.
Schulman, the SCPR has been told in recent days, was the catalyst that made Dougherty's denouement doable.
And now, it appears, that Schulman is the provocateur for yet another leadership change come the 2016/2017 term of Canton City Council.
Really?
It is only February, 2015 and the Democratic caucus for the 2016/2017 term of council will not occur until December of this year, no?
Indeed!
But the SCPR hears that Schulman and his allies on CCC have "a case of political upset" on the uppityness of Leader Morris in vociferously and publicly questioning/opposing certain "let's rebuild downtown Canton" projects; namely:
Canton's Citywide Comprehensive Plan,
Onesto LLC Lofts, and
Market Square
The Report should have known that Schulman is way more instrumental, directive and controlling than his largely ceremonial position of being council president indicates.
How's that?
Well, it was President Schulman who cast the deciding vote when the Democrats (holding all the seats at the time but, who, after the November, 2013 election held 11 of CCC's 12 seats) "aspirationally" met to determine which councilpersons were going to be vice president (Majority Leader) and 2nd vice president (assistant Majority Leader).
The Report has always been a huge fan of Schulman.
Why?
Because yours truly (who has known Allen going back to the 1970s) has perceived him as been a dedicated small letter "d" democrat as well as obviously being a "left of center" organized Democratic Party person.
But on December 17, 2013, yours truly began to think differently of Schulman's "small letter 'd' democrat credentials.
It was curious to the SCPR that Schulman was the person to break a tie
(in a vote of the participating Democratic elected councilpersons (2011) the "aspirational meeting" to get a sense of who would don council leadership roles beginning in January, 2014)
on the issue of whether or not the meeting would be an "executive session" (the public excluded).
Curious?
Indeed!
Schulman, the supposedly raging liberal, voting to exclude the public from a discussion which The Report strongly suspects was not "executive session stuff?"
Councilman Dougherty, interestingly enough, made the motion to exclude the public. In hindsight, his having done so makes sense. For who wants his/her political laundry exposed to public view?
To the SCPR, Schulman's tie-breaking vote did not fit yours truly's perception of his small letter "d" politics, a core component of which, of course, is openness and transparency.
Schulman likely would answer that he did not want to see Dougherty embarrassed.
Now, a little over a year later (i.e. December 17, 2013 as contrasted to February 17, 2015) it seems to the SCPR that Schulman and his allies on council may have had something to hide.
The apparent - from a public perspective - the contest was between David Dougherty (Ward 7) and Frank Morris, III (Ward 9).
What the general public did not know in December, 2013, according to The Report's source, is that there was absolutely no way Schulman was going to abide Dougherty continuing on.
For public consumption, it appeared in the period preceding Dougherty's ouster, that Schulman, as council president, and the Ward 7 councilman, as council vice president (and leader of the Democrats on council) worked smoothly together on council's business.
But, the SCPR is told, that was all appearances.
The reality is, the source says, Schulman simply could not abide Dougherty as a council leader.
So where does he turn?
Ward 9 councilman Frank Morris, III.
As we all know, Frank Morris, III is not exactly a candidate for a presidential appointment to a diplomatic post a decade or two down the road when he has accumulated a personal fortune and national political notoriety.
Morris, at the time, seemingly was an acceptable if not desirable alternative to Dougherty as far as Schulman was concerned.
But not to all the Democratic councilpersons participating in the December 17, 2013 which, at the time, was termed by Schulman as being an "aspirational" meeting of council.
So with Dougherty out insofar as Schulman was concerned, who were the "we cannot support Frank Morris" councilpersons to turn to as an alternative?
Councilman Thomas West, that's who.
Hence the battle between West and Morris ensued.
In that battle (see links above and the videos contained therein), Schulman made a ruling on the "rules of council" which favored Morris (against the advice of Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio) and obviously therefore at the time in clear evidence that Schulman was a Morris supporter.
Accordingly, West "officially" became the anti-Morris rallying point which phenomenon stagnated council in moving forward for considerable time in January, 2014.
For West is as far from Morris as West is from East in terms of their respective diplomatic qualities.
The SCPR sees (as apparently a number of his council fellows do) Councilman West as also being as a matter of personality Councilman Smooth.
At this point in this blog we have come full circle.
Morris is now the person (given his lack of support of Schulman-favored council policy/action as cited above) that Schulman cannot abide as council vice present and leader of the Democrats on council.
Moreover, The Report is told that Councilwoman Chris Smith has lost favor with Schulman as 2nd vice president (assistant majority leader) because she too has shown signs of not taking orders from headquarters.
And so Schulman - apparently - ten (10) months in advance is allegedly marshaling his political allies in order to force yet another leader to the sidelines come December, 2015.
The SCPR likes Morris and his bluntness in calling things as he sees them and follows through with action.
While the SCPR has always understood that Schulman is well-liked by nearly all, if not all, of the members of Canton City Council; it had not dawned on The Report that in a "political back room sort of way" Schulman is much more of a factor in what happens or does not happen in terms of who leads council's legislative agenda from among the 12 other than Schulman councilpersons. So who is, 10/11 months out from decision date for the 2016/2017 CCC leadership - as having the blessing of Santa Schulman - slated to become majority leader and assistant majority leader?
How about Ward 9 Councilman Edmond Mack and Ward 2 Councilman Thomas West, respectively?
That is what the SCPR is hearing.
As readers of The Report know, yours truly is enormously impressed with Mack.
his political maturity that belies his age as evidenced in discussions with Ward 9 constituents in listening to them in not pressing forward with an unpopular Canton parks development issue,
his thoroughness as a councilman witness his extraordinary work in developing a case for Cantonians to latch onto in determining whether or not to authorize the formation of a Charter commission; a goal that the SCPR supports
Recently, Mack told the SCPR that he will be filing petitions with the Stark County Board of Elections so as to qualify a "create a Charter commission" issue placed on the November, 2015 ballot.
Unless a political independent files on or before May 4, 2015, Mack will be running unopposed in November.
So he will be free to run an all out campaign to get Canton voters to approve the formation of a 15 member commission.
And if he succeeds on the commission formation issue, as council vice president/majority leader, he will be in position - though not allowed to be a member of the commission itself "as a matter of law" - to push for the commission's recommendation being approved by voters which vote presumably will come before voters in November, 2016.
Therein likely lies an additional reason (the other being Morris' transgressions of not supporting downtown rehab projects that Schulman does) why President Schulman appears to be pushing for Mack to replace Morris as council vice president.
As for Councilwoman Chris Smith and her speculated Schulman approved replacement by Councilman Thomas Smooth err West?
If you are a liberal Democrat (i.e. Schulman), how could he replace a council minority member with a non-minority member?
The overall moral of this blog is that Canton city councilpersons need to be on Santa Schulman's "gift list" and not his "sh*t" list.
With President Schulman, it appears to mean everything whether he perceives a given councilperson as being "naughty or nice."
Remember, as council president, Allen Schulman has no vote unless council as a body is deadlocked.
Hmm?
How is that Schulman has so much "unofficial" sway on council?
Schulman is a highly skilled "inside the political beltway" politician who has a way of projecting as an "aw shucks, me?" persona about himself to the general public.
But, as the reported machinations on who is to lead council seem to reveal, the reality of Allen Schulman as the driving political force on council is something quite different than the public perception.
That being said, the SCPR sees Schulman as being a first-rate leader notwithstanding what appears to be his possessing a retributive aspect to his political personality.
The surfacing of this perceived take (retribution for disagreement) on Schulman is inconsistent with how Schulman handles himself from the president's chair.
However, the SCPR believes this blog's source to impeccably credible.
It appears that the lesson of the leadership jockeying reports, if true, is that Schluman cultivates and exercises political power "behind the scenes!"
And that is okay. Such is politics.
But the SCPR disapproves of any public official taking action to punish those who initiate and participate in vigorous debate on issues that come before a body such as Canton City Council.
Thoroughgoing discussion, disagreement and voting one's conscious as to what is best for Canton without political recrimination is the "mother's milk" of our democratic republic.
They may be other reasons for Morris' replacement but disagreeing with and voting contrary to the wishes of any other councilperson IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE REASON.
Canton is the "only" major Ohio city that is allowing Columbus (i.e. the Ohio General Assembly) to dictate how it city government manages itself.
Canton City Council president Allen Schulman said it best at yesterday's council work session (in the context of a meeting of council as "Committee of the Whole"):
And Ward 8 Councilman Edmond Mack (now in his third year as a councilman) agrees:
However, it has been a "no-go" for charter government in Canton.
Recently, (June 20, 2014) Canton Law Director (elected) sat down and a review of the history at attempts for Canton to make itself a charter government city, to wit:
In 1913, over 60% of Canton's resident voters rejected the first proposed charter, which suggested that its local government be operated by five non-partisan commissioners. In 1921, nearly 70% of Canton's voters rejected a charter that proposed a city manager form of government with a seven member council. In 1962, 71% of Canton's voters rejected a proposed charter that would have had all members of council elected at large, among other changes. The proposed 9 member council would have been quite a change from the existing 15 member council, including 12 from wards, and 3 at large. Many of the proposed changes have come to pass, e.g. more simplified publication in the reading and summarizing of ordinances, a Mayor and Law Director to be elected for four year terms separately, professional qualifications for some members of the Board of Health, and other less significant changes. In 1984, City Council indefinitely tabled a resolution to submit the issue of forming a charter government to the Canton City voters. In 1987, City Council's affirmative 8 to 3 vote was one shy of the necessary two-thirds to submit the charter question for a ballot election by the voters. The primary reason reported was that Council was not allowed to determine the exact structure of the charter commission pursuant to state law.
In 2006, an ordinance providing for the submission of the charter issue to the city's voters was defeated by a vote of 8 to 4, failing to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote.
The 2010 charter government initiative was doomed to failure because it was perceived by council members as being politically motivated because the effort was being pushed by a former Stark County Republican Party executive director and the-then Republican councilman (interesting enough, Edmond Mack's predecessor) Mark Butterworth.
Butterworth was a timid soul who had very little if any political courage and therefore had no chance whatsoever to get council to consider his proposal to go charter.
Ward 2 Councilman Tom West (a Democrat) was then chairman of council's judiciary committee and he was not about to allow Butterworth's proposal to get out of committee.
On August 19, 2013, Councilman West debated the issue in a special session of the judiciary committee:
As sort of a "coming out" on the charter government issue, Ward 8 Councilman Edmond Mack stepped boldly forward in support of charter government for Canton:
Mack's presentation was a fine argument for Canton to go charter but it lacked specificity in terms of "concrete advantages" for Canton.
Last night in the Committee of the Whole he supplied those specifics.
After the meeting, the SCPR spoke further with Mack:
To the SCPR, the main thing about those councilpersons opposing charter government is "fear about what may happen to their individual political careers.
One such councilman, the SCPR believes, is Councilman Jim Griffin (Democrat - Ward 3).
One has to read between the lines spoken by Griffin, but The Report thinks his opposition is a worry about what happens to Jim Griffin in a newly structured Canton City Council.
Another unspoken concern about reworking Canton government on the part of a few on council, the SCPR thinks, is a suspicion that a proposal will emerge that allows Republicans to get a toehold into a future Canton city council.
On the latter point, who really believes that Republicans in a 9 to 1 registered Democrat supermajority voter base can under any conceivable restructuring could achieve much more than one seat on council.
Butterworth (mostly, the SCPR thinks because of timidity) lasted only one term as a councilman (2010 - 2011).
On the former point, Griffin and other council fearfuls (Ohio law does not allow council members to be on the commission) fail to realize is that it is highly unlikely that there will be any change whatsoever in the structure of Canton city government as a consequence of a proposal being written by a 15 member charter commission whose work will have to pass a vote of the people.
The best chance for voter approval is to be able to tell the Canton voting public is for a commission to leave the structure of Canton government unchanged and to make the argument that Allen Schulman and others make: "Better that Canton run its own ship to the extent allowed by Ohio law rather than being dictated to by the State of Ohio."
Another factor that might be the catalyst that Canton needs to get "over the hump" in going charter is the bold, courageous leadership of Edmond Mack.
The SCPR sees Mack:
as a very bright guy,
who can think his way through the issues inherent in a discussion of Canton going charter,
gain the ear of those who are skittish about change, and
provide solid, convincing reasons why Cantonians should give charter a chance
Moreover, he is no "shrinking violet" as Butterworth was.
He more than held his own against the much more experienced (ten years) as a councilman Thomas West back on August 19, 2013 as they more or less debated the issue.
Mack certainly understands that Canton's history on the going charter consideration does not bode well for his current effort.
But he is unbowed.
He knows he has five votes.
The question is whether or not Edmond Mack can find three more between now and Canton council's next meeting of July 14th.
The SCPR believes he will.
And if he does not, The Report does not think he will "tuck tail" and run away from the measure.
Edmond Mack is not a quitter.
Sooner or later he will get Cantonians the opportunity to vote on whether Canton will have the greatest measure possible of local control or they prefer to be dictated to by the State of Ohio.
Presented to the voters as Canton versus Columbus, how can the issue fail?
For those councilpersons who are posed to vote "no" on Mack's legislation, the question is why would they get in the way of democracy in action?
SCPR ANNEXED PUBLICATION
Here is a Law Director Martuccio's entire "LOCAL GOVERNMENT - TO CHARTER OR NOT TO CHARTER (without original formatting)
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT - TO CHARTER OR NOT TO CHARTER? (A primer by Law Director Joe Martuccio)
HISTORY
The State of Ohio has approximately 250 cities. Over 180 of them have charters, or localized constitutions. The City of Canton is one of the largest cities in Ohio without a charter. It operates subject to laws prescribed by the Ohio General Assembly in Title VII of the Ohio Revised Code. Canton is called a statutory city because it operates according to State statutes under what is commonly known as the General statutory form of government. Pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, from which all local governmental power is derived, political subdivisions have the right to protect the public health, safety and welfare as provided by state law.
In 1912, the Ohio Constitution was amended by the adoption of Article XVIII which is known as the "Home Rule Amendment." Home Rule powers are self executing and do not necessarily require a statute or adoption of a charter to implement them. However, a charter may afford a municipality some flexibility in matters that are of unique local concern as opposed to general statewide concern. Most of Ohio's largest cities voted for charters prior to 1920.
CANTON'S CHARTER ATTEMPTS
In 1913, over 60% of Canton's resident voters rejected the first proposed charter, which suggested that its local government be operated by five non-partisan commissioners.
In 1921, nearly 70% of Canton's voters rejected a charter that proposed a city manager form of government with a seven member council.
In 1962, 71% of Canton's voters rejected a proposed charter that would have had all members of council elected at large, among other changes. The proposed 9 member council would have been quite a change from the existing 15 member council, including 12 from wards, and 3 at large. Many of the proposed changes have come to pass, e.g. more simplified publication in the reading and summarizing of ordinances, a Mayor and Law Director to be elected for four year terms separately, professional qualifications for some members of the Board of Health, and other less significant changes.
In 1984, City Council indefinitely tabled a resolution to submit the issue of forming a charter government to the Canton City voters.
In 1987, City Council's affirmative 8 to 3 vote was one shy of the necessary two-thirds to submit the charter question for a ballot election by the voters. The primary reason reported was that Council was not allowed to determine the exact structure of the charter commission pursuant to state law.
In 2006, an ordinance providing for the submission of the charter issue to the city's voters was defeated by a vote of 8 to 4, failing to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote. Discussions were revived in 2010 and 2013.
GETTING STARTED
Adopting a charter involves two steps. First, either a two-thirds vote (8) on a council ordinance or the councilmanic submission of a petition of 10% of the electors is necessary to place the issue on the ballot. The question of whether or not a commission shall be elected to propose and frame a charter must be placed on a ballot for the voters of the entire city. The ballot is non-partisan. It would present the voters with two issues. The first is whether or not a charter commission is to be chosen to frame a charter and second, the voters would be asked to elect 15 members from the city at large to comprise the charter commission. If a majority of the voters vote for forming a charter commission, then the same votes are tallied to determined who the commission consists of. Selection could occur during a general, special or primary election, and its timing depends on the passage of the ordinance.
The 15 member commission would be charged with assembling a proposed charter, mailing it to all electors and scheduling a vote during a primary, general or special election within one year of the election of the charter commission. According to the Ohio attorney general, a member of city council may not serve as a member of a municipal charter commission.
The charter would describe the form of government, e.g. strong mayor, weak mayor, city manager or some other form of government. The charter should provide for formal periodic charter review. The charter may also seek to frame an identical form of government, which is subject to periodic, incremental changes.
CHOICES
Having a charter does not appear to be a "magic bullet", as many cities with charters also experience financial difficulties, and litigation over the extent of their home rule powers. However, proponents of charter government believe it can operate more efficiently. Careful thought, analysis and discussion is necessary on the major decision of whether to proceed with the pursuit of a charter.
PROs CONs
Flexibility No increase in Constitutional
Structure, choices power when state laws conflict
Combining positions Potential loss of individual
accountability
Council composition Initial costs
- terms Possibly fewer checks and
balances
- primaries
Civil service modifications
Citizen vote Charter review
B.A. - Political Science
J.D.
AN INDEPENDENT MINDED POLITICAL COMMENTATOR
Until 1976 I was a Republican. Since then I have considered myself a Democrat. So after long term stints of being a Republican, then a Democrat, I have come to the political position I feel most comfortable with - being an INDEPENDENT MINDED ANALYST who demands effectiveness of our politicians - Republican, Democrat or whatever.
I have changed my political affiliation to "non-partisan" by not voting in either political party primary election.
