(VIDEOS) SHOULD CANTON CITY COUNCIL PUT SOMEONE ELSE IN THE "PRESIDENT'S CHAIR" OTHER THAN DAVID DOUGHERTY WHEN ALLEN SCHULMAN CAN''T MAKE IT TO COUNCIL?

VIDEOS

CITIZEN PRESTON

TAKES ON

MAJORITY LEADER DAVID DOUGHERTY

ON

CIVILITY ISSUE

(SCHULMAN DEFENDS DOUGHERTY)

-----------------------------------------------

DOUGHERTY HAS HIS SAY;

PRESTON GETS THE LAST WORD IN

On February 7, 2012 the SCPR is of the opinion that Majority Leader David Dougherty bordered on being "uncivil" in his discharge of the president of council duties during Public Speaks segment of a regular meeting of Canton's city council (Council) in the absence of the elected president Allen Schulman.

In a blog of February 8th, this is what The Report had this to say about the majority leader's conduct of the Public Speaks portion of the meeting:

Understanding time considerations (about 18 people on the list to speak) Dougherty himself last night was in the view of the SCPR unnecessarily brusque and caustic with citizens appearing before Council (not just on the feral animal issue) who spoke more than the 3 minutes allowed by Council rules. 

Dougherty was sitting on the timer as if he was timing the finish of a highly competitive 100 yard dash.   

Hmm? 

The Report has been at a number of Council meetings in recent years and is well taken with how Council President Allen Schulman handles the exact same situation with diplomacy and classy treatment of offenders. 

Dougherty would do well to take lessons from Schulman or defer to another councilmember (when Schulman is absent) who has better skills in interacting with citizens addressing Council.

Yours truly, unfortunately, was not at Council's meeting of a couple of weeks ago when Mr. Harold Smith of Massillon who owns rental property in Canton appeared before Canton's legislative body in the agenda item entitled "Public Speaks."

Smith needed another minute (beyond the allotted three minutes) to finish up.

And Council's rules impliedly provide for the presiding officer at the meeting to allow extra time up to six minutes (Reference:  Rule 15H)

But no way with David Dougherty.

Undoubtedly, the guy is a "the rules are the rules" man and he was sitting all over Smith at the three minute mark to cut him off, to wit:

Apparently, Canton citizen Henry Preston, who also availed himself of the opportunity to speak to Council during the Public Speaks portion of the meeting, was offended at how Dougherty conducted the "Public Speaks" portion of the August 12th meeting.

Last night he came ready to lecture Dougherty on how to conduct a "civil" meeting.



Allen Schulman was back last night and he showed once again how one should run a meeting balancing the opportunity for citizens to get their essential points made while moving the meeting along efficiently and in a civil, respectful manner.

As the above video, Schulman being the diplomat that he is and Dougherty clearly is not, was quick to jump to Dougherty's defense.

It is a credit to Schulman that he did so.  It is a discredit to Dougherty that was a need for him to have to do so.

Of course, no one can be sure whether or not Schulman would have granted Smith an extra minute. But it is clear to the SCPR that he would have handled the dialogue much more skillfully that Dougherty did.

So how did Dougherty receive Preston's admonishment?

Not well.

Take a look at both his "in your face-esque" response and then Preston's rejoinder.



One does have to agree with Dougherty, he is no Allen Schulman.

However, he would do well by himself and in engendering mutual respect if he were to put off his "bulldog" attitude and take on a more attentive and respective demeanor in the manner of Schulman and most other members of Council.

One has to wonder whether or not a Dougherty and his attitude is not a product of one-party-rule in Canton and the fact that he has had no opposition whatsoever going back through the 2007 Canton City Council elections.

And in 2005, he had a walk-in-the-park over Republican, Bill Glenn.

The SCPR would not go so far as to accuse Dougherty of being uncivil in his handling of the August 12th meeting, but yours truly thinks he was rude and brusque in manner vis-a-vis the Public Speaks folks thereby does a disservice to Canton City Council and to the Canton Public.

The kicker was in his videotaped comments he in essence said (paraphrase) "I am the way I am and I ain't about to change."

Dougherty, by his own words, is not about to take lessons from Schulman or anybody else.

After all, "He is the man!"

Just a terrific example of mature leadership, no?

We all should hope that the composition of Council will change as a consequence of November's election results and that Dougherty will no longer be majority leader and therefore not in a position to be the first substitute when President Schulman cannot be present.

(VIDEO) UNDER "MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS" ON THE CANTON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN SCHULMAN SHINES!

It would be a mistake to leave a Canton City Council meeting before the final bell.

The very last item on the meeting agenda before adjournment is "Miscellaneous Business."

The SCPR has learned over the years that some of the most riveting stuff occurs during this part of the Canton City Council agenda.

It is the opportunity for council members and members of the Healy administration to pipe in with just about anything that they want to get out into the public.

Council President Allen Schulman is a regular participant in "Miscellaneous Business" and is known to use this aspect of the meeting for going after various national, state and Stark County political personages on "issues of the day."

Monday night's meeting was Schulman at his finest insofar as the SCPR is concerned.

Earlier in the day, The Report published a blog (LINK) showing how disingenuous the Ohio General Assembly (OGA) can be and indeed is on the matter of K-12 public school funding.

The main point of the blog was working through the numbers from $45.4 million newspaper headlines in casino profits (per half) that the OGA has earmarked for local school districts and how by the time one gets to how much it means per student the amount gets whittled down to $20.

Compared to the cost of educating a student in Stark County's schools (ranging from a high of $11,631 in Massillon to $7,426 in Tuslaw), the $20 is "one big - though cruel -laugh" at the expense of public education.

But the legislators always focus on the $45.4 million like they really have done something for the financing of public education.

A particularly reprehensible part of the actions of the Republican super-majority (meaning governor veto proof) in passing the 2014-2015 biennium budget bill (including Stark County Republicans Scott Oelslager, Kirk Schuring and Christina Hagan was to make it more difficult for local school districts and other local government units to get new property tax issues passed.

Schulman picked up on the essential points of the blog plus other "screwings" of local government by our state government in his quintessential and unique style on Monday past.

He also got on the voting public for its apathy in just sitting by and dutifully accepting whatever the Legislature dishes out to the public's own detriment.

And he fired a shot across the bow to the local print media for largely ignoring what transpires at the Statehouse that damages the ability of local governments to responsibly and effectively serve their cities, villages, townships and local school districts.

For the SCPR's money, Canton City Council President Allen Schulman is a model of passion and political energy that other Stark County officials would do well to emulate.

Many, if not most Stark County elected officials, are like eating vanilla ice cream.

Few local officials have the spark and fire of Democrat Schulman.

Another Stark County political figure who has loads of "fire in the belly" is Republican Stark County commissioner Janet Creighton.

With a few other exceptions, in the view of the SCPR, Stark County officialdom is a pretty bland lot which explains in large part what local government is getting dumped on by the folks in the Washington and Columbus beltways.

Here is Schulman at his finest!

(VIDEO) CANTON COUNCIL PRESIDENT PUTTING OLESLAGER, SCHURING, HAGAN & SLESNICK ON THE SPOT!

MUST SEE VIDEO!

Canton Council President Allen Schulman

Rips

Stark County Legislators on Local Gov't Funding

The Stark County Political Report can think of a number of Cantonians who should be sitting in the mayor's chair over William J. Healy, II.

One would be Canton service director and chief-of-staff Warren Price.

But the SCPR's prime choice would be council president and premier personal injury attorney Allen Schulman.

One of the most exciting parts of the Canton City Council agenda is the last item on it:  "miscellaneous business."

On occasion, at this point in council proceedings, President Schulman will launch into a polemic that is absolutely spellbinding.

While Healy is a quintessential calculating politician that spins everything to make himself look good, Schulman, on the other hand, is a "what you see is what you get," passionate politician.

As mayor, the SCPR can only imagine what Schulman would be as an inspiring politico who could lead the people of Canton to a restoration of the Hall of Fame City to heights that the city has not seen in many decades.

But for whatever reason, he had decided not to go that route.

Nonetheless, he is a force and factor in Canton politics that merits the attention of other area politicians.

It is rather obvious that he works behind the scenes in Canton and Stark County political and governmental circles agitating local politicos "to do the courageous and right thing" for the interests of Cantonians/Stark Countians.

On this past Monday, Schulman let loose with a political/verbal barrage of castigation on Stark County's legislators, namely:

• state Senator Scott Oelslager, Republican of Plain Township,
• state Representative Kirk Schuring, Republican/Jackson Twp,
• state Representative Christina Hagan, R-Marlboro Township, and
• state Rep. Stephen Slesnick, Democrat, Canton

Why the castigation?

Because they have done very little, if anything, to stop the bloodletting by the Kasich administration of local government funding.

In the video that follows at the end of this blog Schulman shares with Canton City Council members that Senator Oelslager has shared with him that Governor Kasich has squirreled away $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds.

Schulman's point?

Ohio urban areas (including Canton, of course), while the state of Ohio is awash in surplus monies.

The SCPR applauds Schulman for his willingness to confront these "ineffective on state funding of local government" Stark County-based legislators.

Mostly local government officials (especially school board members) fawn over Oelslager, Schuring, Hagan and Slesnick when they have had the chutzpah to show up at local government meetings against a background of having voted for measures to gut local government funding.

But not Schulman.

Recently, he was in a back and forth with Stark County Concerned Citizens leader Chris Borello on her groups' failure to take these same legislators on with regard to their support of legislation to take away from local governments the ability to manage and control the environmental consequences of fracking for natural and wet gases.

It is easy to criticize others.

But how about one's self.

Well, Schulman with his polemic and insistence that Oelslager, Schuring, Hagan and Slesnick come to Canton City Council and explain themselves is demonstration that what he applies to others (i.e.the environmentalists), he applies to himself.

Being the evaders of anything unpleasant, the SCPR doubts that any of the four will show up at Canton council February 25th meeting.

They will have one excuse or another.  Most likely it will be 'we are in session we simply do not have the opportunity to break away'.

Council does not meet until 7:30 p.m.  So even if they are in Columbus, they all could hop in a car at 4:30 and be in Canton in time to go face-to-face with council.

The SCPR is willing to bet that they will find an excuse not to be in Canton on the 25th.

If, perchance, any of them do show up, it will be interesting to see which of the council persons "suck up" to them?

While the SCPR thinks that council members should be courteous, civil and respectful, there should be no cloying of them.

A SCPR "tip of the hat" to Allen Schulman for putting Stark County's legislative delegation ON THE SPOT!

(VIDEO: SCHULMAN GOING AFTER STARK UNITED WAY) -CANTON CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN SCHULMAN TAKES ON UNITED WAY OF STARK COUNTY FOR "DEFUNDING" PLANNED PARENTHOOD. WILL HE BE ASKING CITY OF CANTON EMPLOYEES AND STARK COUNTIANS TO CONSIDER NOT CONTRIBUTING TO UNITED WAY'S ANNUAL FUND DRIVE?

UPDATE

ORIGINAL BLOG

Last night a firestorm broke out at Canton's city council meeting when Council President Allen Schulman leveled a blast at United Way of Stark County (UWSC) for its decision to defund Planned Parenthood of Stark County.



Why would United Way decide to defund Planned Parenthood?

Because of the organization's peripheral involvement in counseling and assisting women with abortions.

Planned Parenthood counters that its abortion work is limited to about 3% of its clients.  Moreover, it points to the many other women's health services it provides.

Who is putting political pressure on the likes of Stark County's United Way to deny Planned Parenthood funding?

Answer:  the "politicized" element of the religious right in America.  Here is a typical quote:

"You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to know that we are on the verge of seeing the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment. Every 24 hours we slaughter approximately 4,000 innocent babies. Where is the outrage about that in the media, in the halls of Congress? Sadly, society doesn't even give it a second thought and has fully embraced this 'culture of death' which hangs over this nation like a black cloud."  (Evangelist Bill Keller)

The first step of the United Way decision was actually made as Stark County's leading nonprofit charitable agency announced at the beginning of its 2011 annual fund drive that it had "reclassified" Planned Parenthood of Stark County (PPSC) as an "affiliate" which means that Planned Parenthood will have to apply for a United Way grant each year and will not automatically be included in the agency's annual distribution of Stark County citizen contributed funds.

In October, 2010 UWSC announced it would no longer giving PPSC approximately $140,000 annually as a matter of course, but did soften the blow by making a two year grant of $140,000 which meant that there was an immediate cut of $70,000 annually.

The grant runs out in March of 2013.

Apparently, the timing of Schulman's outcry against United Way's action is designed to coincide with UWSC's upcoming 2013 annual fund drive.

It is interesting to note that United Way's action vis-a-vis Planned Parenthood actually preceded the national firestorm which erupted when the Susan G. Komen Foundation (Komen) on January 31, 2012 decided to quit funding Planned Parenthood.  Later the decision was reversed but Komen suffered damage in its fund-raising efforts which linger to this very day, to wit:  (Amid resignation, Susan G. Komen CEO 'still doesn't get it,'  Tripp Frohlichstein, August 10, 2012)

She still doesn't get it. I am talking about Nancy Brinker [sister of Susan G. Komen who died of cancer in 1982] who finally announced her resignation as CEO of the Susan G. Komen For the Cure [of breast cancer]. Also departing are the breast cancer foundation's president and two board members.

Why doesn't she get it? Because she says these resignations had nothing to do with the controversy earlier this year when Komen announced it would cut funding of Planned Parenthood. Under immense pressure, it reversed its decision.

But the damage was done.   The Wall Street Journal reports that fundraising is down across the country. Certainly, a lot has to do with the way Komen mishandled the crisis.  (emphasis added)

So the question for Stark County is whether or not Schulman will ratchet up the pressure on United Way Stark County if it does not do a Susan G. Komen-like reversal in putting Planned Parenthood of Stark County back on its listed of annual donees?

As noted from the video above, Schulman (who a a non voting member of council, absent a tie) says that a resolution will be offered at Canton City Council's September 10th meeting taking UWSC to task.

A hint of controversy surfaced after Schulman's outburst on United Way when Majority Leader David Dougherty (Ward 6) cautioned Schulman on the offering of a resolution plan.

However, before Schulman spoke, Councilman John Mariol, II (Ward 7) spoke up in favor of United Way funding for Planned Parenthood of Stark County.

Schulman told the SCPR after last night's meeting that if United Way does not mend its ways, he will be calling for Cantonians/Stark Countians to consider not contributing to the annual United Way drive.

Speaking at last night's meeting was Elizabeth Bowen, Regional Director of Health Center Operations for Planned Parenthood Stark County.



For Stark Countians the question is whether or not a war is about to break out between Schulman and United Way and perhaps Schulman and Majority Leader Dougherty and maybe other members of council?

Stay tuned!

OHIOANS FOR CONCEALED CARRY "ONLY HALF RIGHT:" DANIEL HARLESS SHOULD RESIGN BUT NOT ALAN SCHULAMN

Ths SCPR thinks it is absolutely wild that an organization that bills itself as being:  "[f]ounded in 1999 ...  [and] one of the largest civil rights organizations in Ohio" calls for the resignation of a man who was doing what?

Exercising his civil rights!

His First Amendment civil rights!!

Listen carefully to what Schulman actually said (source WHLO News via YouTube):



Agree with or disagree with him (The Report happens to agree with him), Schulman was merely exercising his right of free speech that all Americans are endowed with.

Had Ohioans for Concealed Carry (OFCC) disagreed with Schulman's comments, fine.  End of story.  Because that is the American story.

But no, the OFCC folks apparently do not respect the First Amendment.  For disagreement to them seems to mean that you cannot hold public office.

So what the OFCC needs to do is to change its self description to the following:

"[f]ounded in 1999 ...  [and] one of the largest FOR SELECTIVE civil rights organizations in Ohio."

In the view of the SCPR, it is not accurate for the OFCC to bill itself as a broad-based civil rights organization.

And, oh by the way, Ohioans for Concealed Carry:  "Mother may I" invoke my First Amendment right to disagree with the OFCC?

BUTTERWORTH DECLINES OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO CANTON COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALAN SCHULMAN'S SLAM ON OHIO GOP - AND - BY INDIRECTION ON HIM. IS HE UP TO THE ROUGH AND TUMBLE OF POLITICS?

There has not been any "new life" on the Republican side Canton city government in many a year.  So when political neophyte Mark Butterworth pulled off a stunning victory over Democratic political warhorse Karl "Butch" Kraus (a staunch union man) in November, 2009, there was hope that perhaps Butterworth could be the leading edge of a Republican renaissance which would result in Cantonians getting better quality of government through a Republican-initiated "check and balance."

However, as he approaches his bid for re-election this November, the SCPR's take is that Butterworth does not have the gumption to be the leading edge of anything in the political world.

In fact, The Report is beginning to think he may not be re-elected as Canton's only Republican councilperson.

He has drawn a equally young Democratic opponent for his re-election bid.  Edmond Mack is an associate with the law firm of Tzangas, Plakas, Manos & Raies, Ltd.  Mack impressed The Report with his vigor and acuity at this spring's Neighborhoold Associates Empower Votes (NAVE) primary election event for candidates held at the McKinley Grand.  Specifically, he outlined his plan to accelerate dramatically Canton's program of tearing down abandoned properties.

Butterworth:  "not enough gumption?"

How's that?

It occurred to yours truly that such might be the case growing out of an incident of about two weeks ago or so in which Canton City Council President Alan Schulman launched an attack at a council meeting on statehouse Republicans for the severe cuts on local government funding (including eliminating Ohio's estate tax) that is forthcoming after July 1 (this year - fiscal years 2012/13).

In the course of his attack, Schulman "with all due respect" (Hmm?) included Mark Butterworth's name among the Republicans in the sense of a generic "let's include them all while we're at it" type of approach.

At first blush, the SCPR thought the inclusion of Butterworth's name was unfair. 

After the event Butterworth contacted yours truly (left a message) saying in effect that he was steamed about being included in Schulman's remarks.

However, The Report was unable to contact Butterworth (left a message on his home phone) in several attempts to afford him the opportunity to respond in these pages to Schulman.  Finally, at Monday night's council meeting, The Report was able to ask Butterworth for a response (camera in hand).

But Butterworth declined.

Then, in a short conversation, it surfaced that maybe Schulman's inclusion of Butterworth was not so far off the mark (no pun intended) after all.  For Butterworth told yours truly that he supports the local government cuts as austerity (The Report's word) needed to start somewhere.

What a surprise that was!

That got The Report to thinking:  Butterworth, when it appeared Schulman was being unfair to him, did not have the moxie to step front and center.  Moreover, on further examination, when it seemed it was not unfair, where was Butterworth to step forward to publicly defend the Republican caucuses of the Ohio General Assembly for the draconian cuts in local government funding?

Then yours truly started reflecting on some Butterworth actions (in council - e.g. his charter government initiative), inactions and conversations and is coming to the believe that Butterworth may be a politician who does not  have the "courage of this convictions."

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the political luster is off Butterworth.  It does not appear to The Report that he has a steely quality about him that he needs to make an impact on the quality of Canton local government that Cantonians receive.

A lamentable turn of events.  Canton needs a vigorous Republican presence on council as a check and balance to Democratic politics playing into government and as a check on Healy administration excesses.

With Bill Smuckler leaving council on December 31st, apparently only Mary Cirelli and Greg Hawk will be left to protect Cantonians from Healy and his allies on council.

Even if he is re-elected, Mark Butterworth has shown the SCPR that he is not up to the task!

IS CANTON CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN SCHULMAN "SCAPEGOATING" COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR ADAM HERMAN?

A significant part of last night Canton City Council meeting was Council president Allen Schulman's grilling of Mayor Healy on his need for a communications director.

Here is Schulman grilling on video.

As yours truly was leaving the meeting last night, I heard "Martin" uttered from the distance.  Turning to see who had called for me, lo and behold it was Adam Herman, Mayor William J. Healy, II's communications director.

It soon became obvious that Director Herman was not happy with Schulman singling him out.

"You know," he said "there are other departments with employees that are similar in significance to me.  Why is Schulman's focus on me?"

To which, yours truly retorted:  "You have a good point and I am the guy to make good points to."

The Healy top-level administration thinks that the SCPR is dead set against the mayor.  Actually, the opposite is true.  The analyzing and critiquing is designed to prod the administration into doing better.  Healy is the mayor of Canton, like it or not, and everyone should be pushing him to become a better mayor.

If Healy can control his arrogance and demonstrate that he can work with others and take hard questions, governmental and political, and be responsive, and, above all, demonstrate that he has good, workable ideas to bring the city of Canton out of its funk, then The Report is open to revising his take on Healy et al.

Healy has been two years in creating a negative impression; it is likely to take that amount of time - perhaps longer - to reverse the impression.  Should Healy be of a mind to change himself, there is hope.  But he better get cracking because in a little over a year the 2011 Democratic primary will be upon us and Healy will have to had done enough by then to have any chance at all of surviving the primary.

Back to Adam Herman and the communications director job.

Herman does have a good point.  He appears to have been made the "poster child" of everything that Schulman and others do not like about Healy and his close-in staff and cabinet. 

Is it fair for Schulman and other critics to tie Herman's job to the $4.5 million projected city deficit for 2010?  Are there jobs in other departments that merit the same scrutiny that the communications director job has gotten?

Perhaps, Canton does need to eliminate the communications director job, but it should not be just that job.  There have to be others spread out over Canton's 35 departments of government.  If there were 15 such jobs (at a total cost of about $70,000 per), you would have $1 million in savings.

There was much talk about shared sacrifice at last night's Council meeting.  The SCPR gets the idea that there is an Animal Farm-esque (remember:  "more than equal") quality about the cuts that are going on.

There is some evidence that the firefighters are among the "less equals" with the Healy administration.  Healy never really answered Schulman's question on whether or not the director of communications job is essential.  Of course, everyone knows that firefighting and police jobs are essential.

It is obvious that there is a lot of political infighting going on among Canton city employees over who gets cut or the size of pay cuts or the number of furlough days.  And, the elected officials are doing a lot of demagoguing the "cuts" issue.

Schulman is, in the opinion of the SCPR, the brightest of all of Canton's Council.  Accordingly, he has to fully understand that he was grandstanding - on Herman - as a play to the Canton firefighters assembled at last night's meeting. He did seek to tamp down the raucous response of the safety forces, but he had achieved the desired reaction.  Kind of like asking the "inadmissible question," getting a response, and then having the judge to tell the jury to disregard, no?

Having said the "demagoguing" thing, the SCPR will say that Schulman has, over the years, been highly attentive to the voice of organized labor, while Mayor Healy has not.

So what is the SCPR position the director of communications job?

If the effort is to embarrass Healy and single out Herman, then the matter should be dropped.  All a move like this would accomplish would be to fan the fires of mutual animosity that now engulf City Council and Mayor Healy.  Yes, there would be some savings to be applied to saving a firefighter job or two; however, the "intangible" cost in terms of damaged relationships may not be a good trade off.

If Herman's fate is meted out to similarly situated employees (i.e. useful, but not essential) in other departments and the city can save a half-millon, a million or more, then by all means make the cuts.

Above all, scapegoating Adam Herman in his capacity of being the communications director will not help Canton through this financial crisis!

A LESSON IN HOW POLITICIANS WORK

Canton City Council president Allen Schulman just delivered a "classic" political lesson to Cantonians.

What lesson?

The lesson of the "political" trial balloon, that's what.

SOME BACKGROUND FIRST

Because Canton is in a financial mess (despite having a graduate of the New York University Stern School of Business at its helm), city officials are desperately looking for ways out.

If you read The Rep's account of the meeting (Canton looks for ways to cut budget deficit) held at the Canton Civic Center this past Tuesday, you know that Canton is facing a nearly $3 million deficit when the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 2009.

City officials say that they have cut $1.2 million (leaving $1.8 million to be cut) and are looking at ways to cut more.

Here's a list of what they are looking to cut:

Dismissing 15 cadet firefighters, $153,000
Furloughing management types one day a week, $16,500
Furloughing all non essential employees one day a week $168,000
Limiting city cellphone and vehicle use $5,000
Increasing health premiums for non-union city employees $46,480
Cuts in the operational costs of the mayor's office $25,250

The total?

$414,230.

The remaining deficit?

$1.4 million

Doesn't make much of a dent, right?

So what is left to be done?

You've got it - RAISE TAXES!

NOW TO THE DISCUSSION ON COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN SCHULMAN'S LESSON ON POLITICAL "TRIAL BALLOONS."

Let's go to another Repository article: Canton officials discuss raising income tax rates (Ed Balint, August 26th).

Everyone knows that it can be instant political death for a politician to out-and-out advocate for a tax increase. Stark County commissioner Todd Bosley may become a casualty next year because he was a front and center proponent of "imposing" (which the commissioners did) a .5 of a percent sales/use tax increase to build general fund revenues and to fix the county's broken 9-1-1 emergency dispatch system.

So Schulman, perhaps a tad more politically suave than Bosley, approaches advocating a tax increase by denying that he is for a tax increase BUT it is something to talk about. After all, "everything has to be on the table."

Here is how The Rep's Balint characterized Schulman's position:

But Council President Allen Schulman says the city should explore a modest and temporary increase of its 2 percent income tax strictly as a last resort and as one of many options to climb out of the city’s budget hole.

Mayor Healy (an arch enemy of Schulman's) and most likely the reason Canton is in a budget crisis, gets coy and cute.

The SCPR believes that in reality Healy wanted to immediately go to Schulman and give him a big hug and kiss.

However, one maintain his dignity and political appearances.

So Healy says he is against a tax increase.

Here are his exact words:

“There’s been no conversation, no consideration whatsoever in reference to a tax increase at this point, I just think the recommendation of a tax increase is just a sign of being out of touch right now, and is just the last thing the people of Canton need.” We have an income tax right now, (and) we know what it generates. I haven’t even wasted 10 seconds on this.”

You've got to be kidding Mayor Healy. "Out of touch," who is more out-of-touch than Healy.

So the SCPR believes that his reaction is "phony-baloney" and, that has far-fetched (Schulman/Canton City Council and Healy working on anything together) as it might seem, a tax increase has been considered in the inter recesses of city government and Schulman bringing it up in an politically oblique fashion is likely some kind of grand plan formulated in the back rooms of City Hall to see how the idea flies when it hits the streets of Canton.

As we all know, "politics makes for strange bed fellows," especially in the context of the financial crisis that Canton currently faces.

Schulman dances all over the place as if he is dancing with a "hot" potato rather than a delightful lady.

Balint does a beautiful job "undressing" Schulman's game by allowing the Council president to ramble on:

Schulman said the city should examine the possibility of a temporary income tax increase that would expire or “sunset” after a specified amount of time and not be permanent. Income tax revenue is the largest single funding source for the city’s general fund, which supports the police and fire departments and the offices of elected officials and other city services.

Schulman said Wednesday that he’s not advocating an income tax increase. Schulman said he posed the question to find out “whether that could be one of the remedies they could look at to cover these enormous deficits.

“Clearly, our people don’t need to be taxed anymore,” Schulman said. But “I understand that we have to do what’s in the best interest of the city irrespective of political consequences.”

"Irrespective of political consequences." Another "you've got to be kidding." Allen Schulman never does anything in the public arena with out considering the political consequences.

He may and has on a number of occasion made faulty considerations, but "the political consequences" of what he says and does is always at the forefront.

THE SCPR FINAL ANALYSIS OF SCHULMAN'S FORAY INTO "TRIAL BALLOONING"

Good try Allen, but these balloons are not going to fly. As Law Director Martuccio reminded one and all. The people of Canton have to vote on this.

No trial balloon is going to fly in air that includes a 13% plus unemployment rate!