FIRST IN A SERIES ON CANTON GOV'T FINANCES: CANTON'S "DEFICIT" FINANCES CAUSING LAW DIRECTOR JOE MARTUCCIO A MAJOR HEADACHE?

UPDATED:  11:16 AM

VIDEOS

Canton Law Director

Joe Martuccio

Pleads for $50,000 More in His Budget

....

Finance Chairman John Mariol

Speaks

to the

Issue

...

Citizen Pete DiGiacomo

Support

Martuccio Request

One can be sure that Canton mayor Thomas Bernabei would like nothing better than to come out full bore in favor of Law Director Joe Martuccio getting $50,000 added to the law department's annual operating budget.

Watch Martuccio's plea at Monday night's (July 17, 2017) council meeting.



For one thing, Martuccio likely is law director today because he received the blessing or former law director Thomas Bernabei some 17 years ago when he gave up the position.

For another thing, Martuccio was among the first high ranking Canton city officials to come out for Bernabei in 2015 when Bernabei announced that he was abandoning the Stark County Democratic Party to become a political "independent" to take on third-term-seeking-Democrat William J. Healy, II for the mayorship of Canton.

But Bernabei sat back and watched on Monday as Martuccio twisted in the political winds of Canton City Council as members were seemingly at a loss as how to accommodate Canton's long time law director in light of the 2017 projected shortfall expenditures over revenues leaving about Three-Thousand-Dollars to carryover to 2018.

In the video Martuccio's main finances-based justification for council to act on his request was his office's highly successful negotiation with utilities proving utility service to Canton government and a resultant claimed by Martuccio savings to Canton of "hundreds of thousand of dollars, if not a million, in utility costs to Canton over the next several years.

There is a problem with this justification.

Finance director Mark Crouse tells the SCPR that it is likely that whatever revenues show up in Canton financial portfolio will likely be deposits into Canton's enterprise fund (users pay) operations and very little if any into Canton's general fund.

Hence the struggle on the part of council to find funding with which to fund the hiring of a new lawyer in the law department.

Director Martuccio points out to the SCPR that his staff provides legal services to several Canton enterprise fund operations and therefore there is justification from his perspective of tapping those funds as a means of financing the $50,000 he has asked for.

The better argument for saving Canton's stressed finances money was his expressed reluctance to hire out to private legal counsel on a project-by-project basis at $200 per hour which—compared at about $50,000 to support an additional in-house hire—would get Canton only 250 hours of legal work contrasted to about 2,080 added capability for an in-house hire.

Watch finance committee chairman John Mariol (Ward 7 Democrat) as he responds to a Stark County Political Report query on Martuccio's request.



I asked the mayor to weigh in on the matter post-council-work-session.

He declined saying that restoring $50,000 of a 2017 law department reduction of $90,000 was a council matter and not an administration matter.

In all due respect to the mayor whom I have cited as being "far and away" Stark County's most capable most disciplined and most future calculating government leader; I believe that the mayor has likely weighed-in "off-the-record."

I can't get anybody to say it, but I think Bernabei has told council leaders privately that restoring the $50,000 would send a message to the rest of general fund funded departments of government that their respective reductions in budget are "elastic" and one can override the fiscal discipline that the mayor has instituted by in effect going over his head and pleading with council as Martuccio did on Monday.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Martuccio absolutely hated to be doing so on Monday especially in light of Bernabei being his mentor and political benefactor.  However, he does say that he thinks the $90,000 or so cut was disproportional to cuts made to other general fund funded departments of Canton government.

It appears that council under Mariol's finance committee chairmanship will find a way to muster up the $50,000 so that the law department can be better positioned to deal with the massive infusion of legal work that has inundated the department over the past year or so.

Yesterday, the SCPR reported in a third blog on a continuing series on the headache that Canton has on its hand with the recent revelation of a Rover pipeline contaminated (with diesel fuel) drilling mud spill near Canton's most vital financial/economic resource that being its abundant water supply and a concern that the contamination could potentially leach into that supply.

The law department is devoting hours and hours of its in-short-supply "time" resources to ensure in a legal monitoring context that Canton is protected by state (OhoEPA) and federal (FERC) regulators and, alternatively, to set Canton up to recover from the perpetrator of the spill losses that Canton might incur as a consequence of the spill.

Beside the Rover pipeline matter, there are other more or less unexpected matters that require large time expenditures in legal analysis.

One such major item is the complexity of working with Pro Football Hall of Fame officials in working out financial (i.e. special sales tax district) and property matters for the $700/$800 million dollars "Village" project that was announced a couple of years ago.

And then there are items like the desire of council to weigh in on the president's announced intention to withdraw America from the Paris Climate Accords.

Martuccio says that because of the influx of work generally he has had putting together a legally appropriate resolution/ordinance on the backburner.

It appears that council will at its July 31st meeting come up with a way to finance a new lawyer position in the Canton law department.

Sometimes citizens do not see the ramifications of deficit budgets in concrete terms.

Here is a video of Citizen Pete DiGiacomo at Monday's meeting.



He seems to think that it is relatively easy for Mariol et al to find a mere $50,000 out of a $50,000 million plus annual budget.

But it isn't

Lurking in the background of this is the stir caused by Stark County clerk of courts Louis Giavasis in a recent Facebook post that he has been encouraged by dozens of Cantonians to challenge Bernabei's continuation beyond 2019, should he decide to run.

While I think Giavasis is doing a Donald Trump in terms of engaging excessive, braggadocio talk, Cantonians who care about the long term welfare of Canton government should take the Giavasis threat seriously.

Ward 9 councilman Frank Morris (majority leader [only Democrats hold council positions in Canton]) has come out of the political closet to endorse Giavasis more than two years before the election.

Giavasis said he would provide the SCPR other names.

To-date, nothing.  Hmmm?  Why is Giavais hiding those names?

Just as it appears that Trump is plunging America into the dark ages of politics and government, I think Louis Giavasis as mayor would be a complete reversal of all the very, very,very difficult fiscal discipline and responsibility work that Mayor Bernabei has instituted.

Louis Giavasis as mayor of Canton would be a return to the days of William J. Healy, II, if not worse.

Of course, it was on Phil Giavasis watch as Dems' Stark County chair that Bernabei bolted to "independent" status in order to take on Healy.

Maybe a little revenge factor at play with Louis' threat to run against Bernabei?

Maybe, just maybe, no?

One of the touchstones of effective fiscal work is sustainability of whatever financial obligations a government takes on.

"Sustainability, " in a word, is the most significant factor of John Mariol's uttered words in the above-presented video.

The SCPR applauds Canton council under Mariol's leadership in vetting the continuing financial viability of granting Law Director Martuccio's work.

When council acts to approve Martuccio's request, members should make it clear that council fully support the Bernabei instituted fiscal austerity and that the law department deviation is merited by an infusion of unforeseen legal work into the law department's operations.

This blog is the first in a series in which the SCPR will be taking a detailed look at Canton's financial picture.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, STARK DEVELOPMENT BOARD ET AL FAIL TO CONNECT THE DOTS?

Yesterday, likely owing to what the SCPR thinks is an incestuous-esque tie-in with The Canton Repository (former executive editor David Kaminski is the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce [Chamber] public relations main man), the Chamber's chief executive (along with several member entities' executives) got front and center entree to the pages of Stark County's only countywide newspaper to state their case for Stark County economic development.

Very few Stark Countians ever get such an opportunity.

While The Rep is not what it used to be, other than the Stark County Political Report (staffed by one person), it is a main pathway for local leaders to communicate with the Stark County public.

And, of course, in the four-author-shared-piece (Future of  Route 30 is vital to Stark County; Saunier/CEO/Chamber, Paquette/CEO/Stark Development Board Nash/CEO/Kenan and Sibila/Peoples Services), in Sunday's Repository, they only told part of the story on why Stark County is in jeopardy of falling further behind the rest of northeast Ohio's communities in the race to recover from the September, 2008 America "near" economic collapse and to use the recovery modality to bootstrap into realizing not only recovery but beyond that into an economic boon the which Stark County has not seen in a very long, long, long time.

The SCPR thinks that Saunier, Paquettee, Nash and Sibila are "spot-on" in pushing a project like Route U.S. 30 widening all the way to Pittsburgh as being one of a number of vital economic development cogs  to be realized in the quest for Stark County to have any chance whatsoever for a bright economic development future.

But nobody should think for a nanosecond that Stark's economic development future is keyed in so narrowly on Route 30 (as a corridor to the east) or even the expansion of Interstate 77 (as an enhanced commercial-way to the south).

There is much more that needs to be done with Stark's infrastructure on a number of fronts in order for Stark Countians to feel confident that Stark's public officials are on a track to ensure that future generations of Stark Countians will have a better economic development footprint than the county now has.

The SCPR understands that the focus of the column was on U.S. Route 30 and Interstate 77 because the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) recently issued an analysis of the transportation needs/plans? in a report named AccessOhio2040.

The Stark County Political Report today focuses on why Stark County is in the condition it is in (i.e. little if any local funding sources)  - so that it is laughable that ODOT's Jerry Wray (The Rep's companion piece, Local leaders rally against ODOT planning map) is reported as saying, to wit:

In a meeting at Stark State on Nov. 25, Wray told business leaders that if local governments and companies could provide much of the money that would improve the chances of extending Route 30.

Usually for high capital improvement projects money made available by the state or federal government, the local match ranges from 10% to 50%. 

For ODOT's Wray to say "much of the money" needs to come from local sources is like saying forget it Stark County in getting any financial help from the state of Ohio "you are on your own!"

To which the SCPR adds:

"Stark Countians, haven't you gotten the clear message that has come from the Kasich administration and the Ohio General Assembly since January, 2011?"

Less money; not more money is the central message insofar as the state of Ohio is concerned vis-a-vis its political subdivisions.

And even before the Kasich administration went draconian in 2011 and 2012, in one way or another Republican members of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly (John Hagan and Todd Snitchler along with continuing-to-this-day Republican delegation members Scott Oelslager [the 29th Senate district] and Kirk Schuring [the 48th House district; formerly the 51st]) have worked with the Republican majority (except for two years that the Ohio House was controlled by the Democrats during the Strickland administration) to undermine local government finances and began the process that culminated with the gigantic Kasich administration sabotaging of local government funding '11 and '12.

So Director Wray "there ain't no 'much of the money'" for Stark local government to ante up.  And who believes that private companies will be forking any out anytime soon?

That Chamber is agitating for better treatment from ODOT is an implicit plea for more government money to be applied to Stark's vital commercial arteries to the east and south.

Being the political hypocrite he is, Kirk Schuring is quoted in the same Repository article, to wit:

Undoubtedly, the likes of Saunier, Paquette, Nash and Sibila ("the four") think that Republicans  Christina Hagan (of Marlboro Township) , Oelslager (of Plain Township) and Schuring (of Jackson Township) are terrific representatives.

"The four" are likely prone to be the first to glad-hand this legislative trio when they appear in Stark County.  And, of course, The Repository editors - "election in, election out" - endorse the three as being the best that Stark County can send to Columbus.

While it is all well and good for "the four" to try to rally everyday citizens to their cause in commenting on the ODOT plan (as the SCPR advocates that Stark Countians should make their collective voices heard); it is regrettably clear to The Report that the effort will prove futile.

For Stark County - due in large part to the work done over recent years by the likes of the Hagans, Snitchler, Oelslager and Schuring - has no meaningful local money to provide "much of the money."

To be sure, it is not only the Stark's Republicans at the Statehouse who have been factors in depleting Stark's local government funding.

Stark Countians should be placing part of the blame on the 2008 Stark County Board of Commissioners (Bosley and Harmon [Democrats], and Vignos [a Republican]) for "imposing a 0.50 sales tax).

The SCPR thinks that this triad set Stark County finances back more than anybody realizes in terms of undermining the public's confidence that the commissioners' are interested in hearing from Mr. and Ms. Citizen as to whether or not they think the county should have more money.

While the current Stark County Board of Commissioners:

• Thomas Bernabei [a Democrat], 
• Janet Creighton [a Republican], and 
• Richard Regula [a Republican] have done much to restore the public's confidence that the commissioners seek out and listen to them, the fact of the matter is that they:
• SCPR Note:  [Peter Ferguson - a Democrat - was commissioner before Regula when the decision was made],

had to go "bare bones" in asking for a 0.5% sales tax increase for eight years (which Stark Countians passed in November, 2011) because:

• of the damage that the Bosley, Harmon and Vignos board had done, and 

and because

• the damage done when nearly $3 million was stolen from the county treasury probably over a 5 to 6 year (thought to be 2003/2004 through March, 2009) span by former chief deputy treasurer Vince Frustaci,

the SCPR thought and said at the time (early 2011, when the levy increase was put together) that the commissioners should have put a full 1% request on the ballot.

It is understandable that the commissioners felt hamstrung and limited in what they could ask for.

Just a word on the loss of the nearly $3 million.

The damage done to the commissioners' ability to ask for more than a 0.5% increase, many Stark Countians believe - in reference to the Frustaci matter - was due to a public perception that the-then Democratic county treasurer Gary D. Zeigler (originally appointed by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee in 1999 who served until October 19, 2011) did not have in place adequate practices, policies, procedures and physical facilities to have prevented the theft.

Zeigler consistently rejected (in media reports) that he was in any way remiss in the administration of his office.

Understandable or not, the fact of the matter is that Stark County is on a very tight budget and there is "no extra money" to put into something like a local match for U.S. Route 30 expansion.

The major blame though, the SCPR thinks lies with Stark's Republican dominated delegation to the Ohio General Assembly and their unwillingness to fight the firestorm rush in the legislature the draconian cuts (millions of dollars in Stark County alone) in local government funding.

There is no doubt that Hagan, Oelslager, and Schuring have been key factors by way of  their supportive votes of the Kasich administration initiative to cut local government funding and now Stark County is "reaping what they have sown" and the financial "Chickens are - now - coming - home - to - roost."

This year Stark Countians will have Christina Hagan, Kirk Schuring and Scott Oelslager on the ballot once again seeking reelection.

If they are voted in again, then Stark Countian voters in effect ratify (double ratify in the case of Hagan and Schuring) their legislative work to undermine Stark's local governments from having the financial resources to participate in essential economic development infrastructure improvements and enhancements.

The SCRP is reasonably sure that Stark's Randy Gonzalez-led Democrats will not be able to mount and effective campaign with politically viable candidates against Hagan, Oelslager and Schuring and they, consequently, will be returned to the Statehouse for a new term.

Hmm?

So what is the alternative for Stark County government to have the resources to get into serious and effective economic development infrastructure projects?

Doesn't a November, 2014 vote validating Hagan, Oelslager and Schuring mean that Stark Countians should be willing to approve additional revenue sourse (e.g. bumping the sales tax up to a full 1%) to provide monies to fund economic development essentials such as pushed by "the four?"

In a videotaped conversation that the SCPR had with Commissioner Janet Creighton last Monday, she drooled over the fact that Franklin County has a $190 million "rainy day" fund.

While Stark County should have an emergency fund, it should be no more than $5 million.

What would be more visionary and enhancing of Stark County's economic development would be for the county to be able to put $15 million or so in an economic development fund annually (a full 1% sales tax levy would raise about $45 million)?

For Stark County governments to have local match capacity and monies for other types of capital projects,  the commissioners could use/revise (on the agreement of the political subdivisons) the formula currently in place among Stark County's political subdivisions (i.e. the SCOG [Stark County Council of Governments] funding mechanism:  consisting of Stark's villages, cities and townships [and the county itself]), to take the extra $22 million or so over current revenues that a full 1% would produce and distribute the revenues for the political subdivisions to use "exclusively" for economic development purposes.

Now that Hagan, Oelslager and Schuring "chickens have come home to roost," as the SCPR sees it, there is nothing else for Stark Countians to do (presumably in this fall's election having chosen to keep them in office) but to square up with the reality that it will take a local taxes revenue boost if future generations of Stark Countians are going to have a bright economic future, no?

SCPR 2013 EDITION OF STARK COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIAL, PUBLIC FIGURE NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION

DISCUSSION: YOU BE THE JUDGE, IS HEALY SETTING UP TO FIRE CHIEF POLICE MCKIMM?

Some time ago the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) wrote that Mayor William J. Healy, II attempted to fire Canton Police Chief Dean L. McKimm (CLICK HERE TO SEE PRIOR REPORTS).

Of course, all Cantonians have gotten is denial, after denial after denial.

Denials seem to "the coin of the realm" in the Healy administration these days.

The Report has known from the day yours truly first laid eyes on Healy that - to say the least - he is a "self-assured" person; some say "cocky;" while The Report (as has written before this piece) says he is arrogant.

The Report has come to an additional assessment of Healy based on his response on governing issues on the table regarding Canton government. To say the least, he is disingenuous. The Report believes that he is unbelieveable on most of the critical matters that are swirling around Stark County about Mayor Healy and his conduct in office.

But readers of The Report should be equipped to make their own assessments.

In that spirit, The Report endeavors to provide readers with documents generated by the Healy administration itself, to assist in the assessment task.

Doesn't the letter printed in the accompanying graphic give credibility the thinking that Healy is building a record on which to fire McKimm through the Canton Civil Service personnel process?

DISCUSSION: IS MAYOR HEALY A CANTONIAN "THROUGH AND THROUGH?"

He brags about his New York education (the NYU Stern School of Business), he brings quite of number of out-of-towners into his administration and he accepts large numbers of out-of-town contributions; all of this raises a question with the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report).

Is Mayor William J. Healy, II really committed to Canton, Ohio?

How much listening is there in the Healy administration to the voices of day-in, day-out Cantonians when one considers how suffused with the "out-of-town" factor?

Yesterday, The Report went to the Stark County Board of Elections to do a check of Healy's campaign contributions. In the ensuing days, The Report will be writing about whom and how much out-of-towners have contributed to his campaign. All of which raises the question of how much Cantonians are heeded by this administration.

The Report was surprised to learn how relatively little of Healy's big contributors were from Canton or even Stark County. Although Canton City Council President Allen Schulman made a $500 contribution on June 11, 2007 (The Report didn't pick up on any other Schulman contributions), and to most of us $500 is huge; for Allen Schulman this is "chump change," and in light of the huge out-of-town contributions $500 is indeed "chump change."

Normally Allen Schulman is a huge voice in Canton, Stark County, Ohio and significant voice in Washington political circles because of his record of being a prolific and generous campaign contributor. But in his hometown? Not with the Healy administration. Why he wasn't even told that his good friend Tom Bernabei was about to be fired. Allen Schulman on the outside looking in? Wow!

Follow The Report over the next number of days as we detail some the "persons of interest" who have contributed to the "TeamHealy" mayoralty campaign.

DISCUSSION: RESISTER-IN-CHIEF - BILL SMUCKLER?

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has learned that the brouhaha going on in Canton politics has a strong Smuckler versus Healy tint to it.

When you look at the historical political relationship between the two men, it certainly makes sense that the "real" fight is: Who is going to control the city of Canton - Smuckler or Healy.

In 2008 Democrat Bill Smuckler was "entitled" to take on Republican Janet Creighton-Weir for the mayoralty of Canton. But the "having paid his political dues" factor flew out the window when political newcomer (from an established Stark County political family) decided he needed a job.

Healy's father had lost in a mayoralty race to Republican Richard Watkins in 1999. Looking around the political landscape, Healy decided to run against the "entitled one" for two reasons. First, Smuckler only appeals to Democrats and not to all of them. Smuckler in particular is not a favorite in the African-American community. Therefore, the "Team Healy" forces decided Smuckler was vulnerable. Second, there was the "redeeming the family honor" factor. Healy's father had served in various elected political offices (most notably as state representative) covering the city of Canton. To Healy, the senior Healy's defeat did not set well. Becoming mayor of Canton became a consuming passion for the junior Healy.

As it turns out, Jamey (as his close friends call him) made a huge political miscalculation that haunts him to this day. He loses to Smuckler in the primary and then, in the minds of Smuckler supporters, "sat on his hands" while watching Smuckler lose to Creighton in a heavily Democratic city. The Report believes that Smuckler to this day nurses a political grudge against Healy.

Another political mistake was his running against popular Canton and Stark County Democrat Mary Cirelli while she was the incumbent in the 52nd House District seeking re-election.

Mary is a "homespun" type who is absolutely loved by many Canton voters. Her major strength is servicing her constituents; not thinking up and seeing enacted into law policy initiatives. The Report believes that Cirelli severely underestimated the drive, the determination and the polish of Healy and his "Team Healy" campaign force.

So Healy wins this one. Subsequently, Cirelli runs for city council at large and has no problems whatsoever getting elected.

Healy doesn't enjoy being a "little fish in a big pond" and so he decides to run for mayor once again. He has a relatively easy time against Creighton as any Democrat ought to and wins with a significant margin.

Well, who sits on city council as Healy takes the oath of office as mayor of Canton? Indeed, Smuckler and Cirelli.

In probably one the worst moves that he could have possibly made, Healy chose another Canton political mainstay as his service director and chief-of-state: Tom Bernabei.

Really? The worst?

Yes, the worst from the Healy interest standpoint.

Tom Bernabei is, perhaps, the most respected and skilled politician and elected official to ever serve the people of Canton. You have to give Healy credit. He knows a gem when he sees one.

What he didn't see was that Tom Bernbei is a man of his own mind. His loyalty and devotion to Canton clearly trumps political loyalty to his boss. In this case, Mayor William J. Healy, II.

Bernabei tries to talk sense to Healy but (as The Report has written before) Healy is arrogant and cannot take counsel from anyone for more that in an episodic fashion. Who knows better than William J. Healy, II, Healy muses to himself.

Bernabei has a solid relationship with Canton City Council, having been a key member of that body. While Healy was denying to The Report that he had troubles with council, Bernabei in a deflected sort of way admitted such to be the case but clearly felt he used his relationship to smooth things out for the Healy administration. Smuckler, in particular, has almost reverential respect for Benerbei.

So it should be no surprise that Bill Smuckler - especially in the light of the Bernbei firing - is the resister-in-chief to Mayor Healy.

Being a resister is one thing. But, to imply, as Healy has; that anyone who is a resister to Healy's self-assumed role as "changer-in-chief" is somehow a suspect in the "anonymous letters" matter - is way over the line of propriety.

It is more than a bit ironic that the mayor gets very indignant at malicious rumors being spread by someone who is not willing to be "front and center" about the allegation(s) and to provide the proof - and, indignant he should be. Then, on the other side of things Healy suggests, implord and aspersesd that mere political opposition is grounds in and of itself to merit inference that the opponents are behind the anonymous letters.

The Report knows that Healy is well-taken with his own intelligence. And smart he is.

What the mayor hasn't realized is that there are people in and about Canton city government that are every bit as sharp as he is - if not sharper!

A final point.

Playing his own game, one might ask: Why is Mayor Healy - as a matter of a full court press - engaging in these diversionary tactics anyway?

DISCUSSION: WHAT'S NEXT FOR BERNABEI? A RUN AGAINST SCOTT OELSLAGER FOR THE OHIO'S 29TH DISTRICT SENATE SEAT?

Currently, Republicans control the Ohio Senate 21 to 12. Half those seat will be up for election in 2012. One of the contested seats will be Ohio's 29th now held by Kirk Schuring.

Anyone who has followed the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) knows how utterly dissatisfied The Report is that Stark County is in this vicious political cycle in which Republicans Schuring and Oelslager trade the 29th and Ohio House District #51 back and forth as if they were playing a two man game of volleyball.

Well, its not volleyball and Stark County is getting the "short shrift" while Schuring and Oelslager circumvent the spirit of term-limits (which, by the way, was instituted by the Republicans back in 1994 as a way to get back in power in the Ohio General Assembly.

Oelslager told The Report (previously reported on this blog) at the 2008 Stark County Fair that, yes, he intends to run once again for the 29th.

Schuring has not definitely decided to run for the 51st. He may run for county commissioner or county auditor. The Report believes he will take the safe way out and run for the 51st. However, Jeff Matthews and other "top gun" Stark County Republicans will be putting pressure for Schuring to run for a county office since there are no non-judicial Republicans currently serving in countywide office.

Part of the problem of Schuring and Oelslager having license to trade the 29th and 51st back and forth lies with Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. Stark County Democrats either put up novices in these districts or nobody (as in the case with Oelslager in the November, 2008 elections).

Over the years The Report has noted how glowingly Maier, Schuring, and Oelslager speak of each other. Not that folks on the other side of the isle have to be mortal enemies with one another, but Stark Countians do not need any sweetheart deals. What we need is strong political competition across the ballot.

In the case of the 29th and 51st we are not getting it.

Since Maier has NOT been able to figure out how to get strong candidates in these districts, The Report will move in to assist.

Now that Healy has fired Tom Bernabei, Stark County Democrats have the ideal person to take on Oelslager in the 29th.

Early on The Report predicted early that Boccieri would defeat Schuring in the 16th Congressional District.

Just look at the map that accompanies this blog. Does anyone doubt that the popular Tom Bernabei would be a lock to defeat Oelslager.

Viable Democratic candidates do not lose countywide in Stark County these days. Only those who do not focus almost exclusively on the core Democratic areas lose.

This is the strategy that propelled Commissioner Todd Bosley (over sitting commissioner Republican Richard Regula) and Commissioner Pete Ferguson (over term-limited out 8 year representative - 50th - Republican John Hagan).

Neither Bosley nor Ferguson were household names when they filed to run for commissioner. But they did focus on the Democratic base.

Bernabei would handily win over Oelslager countywide. Oelslager would win Jackson and Lake by comfortable margins. However, Bernabei would win much stronger in Canton, Plain and Perry. The rest of the county would split about evenly.

What's more. Bernabei has solid legislative experience. His years in Canton City Council put him in good stead. Bernabei is generally recognized as being the best city councilman of modern times.

The Ohio Senate and Governor Ted Strickland desperately need Bernabei's knowledge of the legislative process and his leadership abilities (even William J. Healy, II recognizes his leadership ability - remember Healy rated Bernabei 49 out of 50).

Right now Bernabei very likely just wants to chill.

The Report calls on Governor Ted Strickland, Ohio Democratic Party chair Chris Redfern, Senate minority leader Capri Cafaro and Stark County Party chair Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. to urge Tom Bernabei to run against Oelslager in Ohio's 29th.

DISCUSSION: WILL HEALY'S ARROGANCE DO HIM IN?

It is never a pretty sight, but there are unending examples, in the political history of America, of "political arrogance" that end up doing a politician in.

Are Stark Countians about to witness a local example?

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has been a political observer of Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II for a number of years.

The Report has had an inkling from the beginning of his political questing in Canton that Healy has a haughty tinge to him. He may now be into full-blown arrogance.

On what basis?

1. Born and schooled in Canton (also Kent State/associate degree) he expatriated from Canton to New Jersey (bachelor degree from Rowan) and then to New York to attend "the Stern School of Business." (Remember "the Stern School of Business" - it's his main claim to fame, before, of course, he became mayor of Canton)

His first time out on the political hustings was to contest the right to be the Democratic mayoralty candidate (he lost narrowly to long term Democrat Bill Smuckler in the primary) against Republican Janet Weir-Creighton.

2. Healy: A man who had never run for anything in Canton or Stark County (remember he had relocated to New York) prior to the mayoralty foray. Apparently, he felt compelled (in the motivational sense) and perhaps entitled to run for mayor of Canton (2003) because his father was a long time state representative for Canton who lost a mayoralty contest to Republican Richard Watkins in 1999.

3. Having lost to Smuckler, Healy decided to take on sitting Democratic state representative Mary Cirelli in the Democratic primary (2004). Healy won.

4. Ineffective in the Ohio House (he probably would say because the Democrats were in the minority - but he was never a major player in the Democratic caucus) he decided to run for mayor again in 2008.

When you have been prepared at the "Stern School of Business," aren't you just wasting your time and talents being 1 of 99?

5. In 2007, he defeats Creighton.

Wow! Canton had not had a Democrat mayor since Sam Purses (1991).

6. After Healy defeated Creighton and took office, he was quick to bash Creighton for leaving Canton in a huge mess.

One has to wonder. Was he setting himself up to be the Sir Galahad of Canton?

7. His campaign name: "Team Healy."

Oh yes, a real team player this Healy. He came out of nowhere to run against two established city of Canton Democrats in Democratic primaries (Smuckler & Cirelli). Moreover, this Democratic team player probably has a much worse relationship with the 100% Democratic council than did Republican Creighton.

8. During all his campaigns Healy had difficulty attracting energized organized labor support, even though he is a Democrat.

From The Report's perspective, Healy - ever the suit, white shirt and tie guy, just didn't seem to fit with workaday folks. Moreover, he took positions on issues important to organized labor that union leadership didn't cotton to.

And he just loved to repeat ad nauseum his business credentials and his masters degree from where? You guessed it. New York University's Stern School of Business.

9. There is a highly officious side to Healy. Remember officiousness is the first cousin of arrogance.

An example of his officiousness: He is known to take people aside and tell them how to dress. Of course, from a man who is the most impeccably groomed and dressed man in Stark County except maybe for Jimmy Babcock.

10. We all know his penchant for firing.

Perhaps, there is a lot of George Steinbrenner (New York Yankee owner - did I say New York) in Healy. When a person is perfection personified in his own mind, it is hard to brook the "merely" near perfect, let's say for example, former Yankee manager Joe Torre and, closer to home, former service director and chief-of-staff Tom Bernabei.

11. Ah, the anonymous letters; the Healy request for an FBI investigation.

The Report has this gnawing feeling that the Healy FBI move was a gambit devised by a person well taken with his own intelligence.

12. There is a report in The Rep today that indicates:

• Healy will be less of a give-and-take mayor in his relationship with council.
• Healy has an marked inability to work with those who disagree with him.
• Healy cannot work with strong administrators; he fires them or they look to leave.
• He apparently does not trust his own law department to do labor negotiations.
  

13. Council president Allen Schulman sums it up best in saying that Healy is not a strong mayor BUT The Report add he desperately wants to be and in a twisted, gnarled, arrogane, out-of-touch was has and says he is going to refortify playing the "bull-in-the-china-shop."

We all what a bull leaves behind in the china shop. Wreckage, that's what. Apparently, that will be the consequence to Canton as Healy embarks on his quest to be a stronger mayor.

Kind of like: "Pride goeth before a fall."

DISCUSSION: WHEN SHOULD WE TAKE MAYOR HEALY AT HIS WORD?

One the problems with all too many elected public officials is that if you check their statements and actions on any given topic, you are likely to see that they are a bundle of contradictory statements/actions.

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) thinks that Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II ("tongue in cheek") deserves an award for his believability.

Working our way back from today to the beginning of his administration.

1. His hiring of Warren Price as service director. Of Price, Healy said:

"I am thrilled to have Warren Price join my team as service director," "With his valuable experience in local government and his strong work ethic, I know he will be an incredible asset to my administration and the people of Canton." (The Rep, 1/29/2009)

Rewind to November, 2007. Price applied for the service director job. Healy selects Price's predecessor - Tom Benernbei.

How could Healy have failed to hire an "incredible asset?"

2. Healy's hiring/firing of Tom Bernabei and service director and chief-of-staff.

Healy: "Tom Bernabei did a great job, ... a wonderful public servant."

Six months after giving his chief of staff a glowing review, Mayor William J. Healy II has fired Thomas Bernabei, a veteran of city government. The move drew harsh criticism from some council members. (quote and reference to Healy evaluation of Benabei - The Rep - 01/26/2009)

Ever heard about "actions speak louder than words," Mayor Healy?

3. There is the matter of Mayor Healy hiring a Cleveland firm to do Canton's workers' compensation claim representation.

As The Rep framed the matter (01/16/2009):

During his mayoral campaign in 2007, Healy received campaign contributions totaling $4,600 from four associates of 888-OHIOCOMP and $500 each from the Cuyahoga County Auditor Frank Russo and Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora, who are both under investigation by federal agents, according to The Plain Dealer.

During an interview in December, Healy said the campaign contributions did not influence his decision to select 888-OHIOCOMP. Citing his campaign theme of bringing positive change to Canton, Healy said he picked the firm because it offered an opt-out clause after six months and because it would consider opening a branch office in Canton.

Do you believe Healy?

4. And there is the hiring/firing of the finance director Frederick Green. The hiring was announced January 11, 2008. Four months later Green was fired.

Four months on the job and the guy gets fired?

Who interviewed this guy anyway?

Mayor Healy.

Really.

Someone with Mayor Healy's business experience can miss the mark this widely?

When he hired Green, this is what Healy had to say:

Healy said the finance position is key [emphasis added], since the city's revenues are not projected to grow significantly, if at all, this year and next year. 'We need someone who can look at the way we're spending money and find ways to trim the fat, Healy said in the press release. From what we.ve seen and heard thus far, I think that.s exactly what Mr. Green will be able to do for the city of Canton. (The Rep - 01/11/2008)

FOUR MONTHS LATER, YES - FOUR MONTHS LATER:

Frederick J. Green was fired by Healy in May. Healy made the announcement Monday [of a replacement hire] in a press release (07/29/2008) In explaining the decision to fire Green, Healy said in May that the administration decided "to go in another direction." With Green as finance director, Healy had said the administration "had a difficult time getting through the (city) budget (process)," (from The Repository/07/29/2009)

Does the mayor's hiring skills belong in "Ripley's World of Believe it or Not?"

So with all the foregoing in mind, The Report awards Mayor William J. Healy, II it coveted "tongue-in-cheek" Most Believable Character ? award.

SCPR BULLETIN: WKYC - CLEVELAND - SCOOPES THE REP ON HEALY STORY

A story on the WKYC-TV (CHANNEL 3) website describes the breaking Canton Mayor William Healy story thusly:

Mayor William Healy asked the FBI to investigate a series of anonymous letters sent to his office and to family members that included implications the first-term city leader had crossed the line with a female.

As the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) mused in our earlier post, it is hard to imagine the mayor's political survival if the allegation proves - as an outcome of investigation - to have substance.

Even though the story was first published by Channel 3, Stark County readers are likely to get much more substance by reading The Repository print edition or online.

What will be particularly interesting is whether or not the Safety Director Nesbitt's desire to exit the administration and Service Director/Chief-of-Staff Benabei's forced exit have anything to do with reactions they may have had on first getting wind of this hubbub surrounding the mayor on this matter.

SCPR BULLETIN: CHECK FREQUENTLY WITH THE "THE REP" ONLINE, MAJOR STORY INVOLVING MAYOR HEALY ABOUT TO BREAK!

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has learned that The Repository is about to break a major story about Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II.

Well, you say we have already had a major story: the sacking of Service Director and Chief-of-Staff Thomas Bernabei.

True enough.

Nevertheless, The Report has learned from a highly reliable source that an even bigger story is about to break. The Report has no precise timeline, but cannot imagine that the cap will stay on this bottle very long.

The Report know something was terribly wrong within the Healy administration when Safety Director Nesbitt applied for the 9-1-1 leadership position.

Today - which has to go down as BLACK MONDAY for the city of Canton - we get another bombshell with the Bernabei firing. The Report speculates that Bernabei may have given the mayor an some very direct advice about staying in office - and - the consequence: "you're fired."

From what The Report knows of about the story about to hit the front page of The Rep, it is hard to imagine that Healy can withstand political pressure to resign if the allegation he is dealing with is shown to have any substance.

Advice from The Report, check frequently with:

DISCUSSION: HEALY SAVES BERNABEI FROM A SINKING SHIP?

It should be obvious to one and all that the city of Canton Healy adminstration is in crisis. Exactly what Canton and Stark County needs in a time of national, state and local economic severely troubled times.

Earlier in January, Safety Director Thomas Nesbitt tries to jump ship by applying for a 9-1-1 post.

Now this.

Mayor Healy pushes Services Director and Chief-of-Staff Thomas Bernabei overboard (fires) - according to a call from an elected official to the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report).

Earlier this month Bernbei was subjected to questioning by the FBI about whether or not there was any connection between campaign contributions received by Team Healy, if any, from a trio of Cuyahoga County political figures and a switch ordered by Healy to 1-888OhioComp (a workers' compensation processing company).

One step further.

Is there any connection with Bernabei's firing and the answers he gave the FBI? Or, is the reason that Bernabei has too much clout among administration staffers and most members of Canton City Council.

The Report has recounted previously on reports that Bernabei had assumed the role of being de facto mayor in light of the crisis atmosphere that is enveloping Canton City Hall.

The Report has been hearing for months of ongoing friction between the mayor and city council. Asked by The Report about these report, Bernabei acknowledge that there were problems but that he (Bernabei) had a handle on matters and that there was a working relationship between council and the mayor.

Another possible reason is that there is a dispute as between Mayor Healy and Canton City Council as to whether or not the contemplated Cooperative Economic Development Agreement (CEDA) being proposed by Council is good for Canton.

De facto, leader Bill Smuckler (Don Casar is the de jure leader) is pushing the CEDA. The Report believes that Healy may remain opposed to the council initiative (primarily because of the 99 year agreement not to annex) and, perhaps, blames Bernabei for not managing council effectively on the Canton/Jackson Township dance.

The Repository's coverage of the firing today has the following in terms of Healy's evaluation of Bernabei:

In a written job performance review on July 25, 2008, Bernabei scored 49 of a possible 50 points. In it, Healy noted Bernabei was “across the board — great,” and “I am honored to have you as Chief of Staff.”

Why do you think Bernabei got fired?