Blogger Tips and TricksLatest Tips And TricksBlogger Tricks
Showing posts with label Commissioner Bosley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commissioner Bosley. Show all posts

Sunday, November 28, 2010

STARK COUNTY DOG POUND VOLUNTEERS: A CASE OF "NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED?"



Stark County Dog Pound (SCDP - Pound) volunteers - are they "a gift to the [Stark County] community?"

The Stark County Political Report says:  ABSOLUTELY!

Civic volunteers are the personification of everyday citizens being part of the governance of our local community.  They have no political motivations (i.e. getting re-elected, et cetera).  They are involved because they consummately care about their specific project.

In the case of the dog pound volunteers, if the animals do not have the volunteers looking out for them, their needs and safety concerns may go unmet.

So why raise the question in the first place?

Because the SCPR  is increasingly hearing suggestions that the volunteers (i.e. unpaid Pound workers and Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board [SCDPAB] members) have become a case of "the tail wagging the dog."

The Report has been hearing these rumblings ever since the SCDPAB got very active in forcing the county commissioners' hands in removing Evert Gibson as dog warden earlier this year and in weighing-in against a last minute "surprise" candidate to replace Gibson.  Other criticisms of the commissioners include the appointment of former commissioner Tom Harmon's stepson as a deputy dog warden, the failure of the commissioners to control the union (Local 94, Teamsters Union) and ensure that the Pound function properly.

And there is also the matter of the Animal Welfare Society of Stark County (AWSOSC) being led to believe (by Commissioner Bosley?) that the county would be putting county money into a facility on SCDP grounds to house a spay/neuter clinic operated by AWSOSC (a non-proift).  So far as the SCPR knows, commissioners have not delivered on the commissioner suggestions of financial help (i.e. $1 a year lease, and, perhaps up to $100,000 for reconstruction costs?).

The commissioners "apparent" change in attitude is probably the case (in addition to the evaporation of the political motivations - see below) because of the very limited funds that the county has for such purposes these days.  When it was "more or less promised."

While he has been commissioner, Todd Bosley has been "apparently" been very supportive of the volunteers.  It will be interesting to see whether or not his support continues as ex-commissioner Todd Bosley.  The SCPR suspects that Bosley's interaction with the volunteers will disappear now that he has no political purpose in doing so.

Moreover, former Commissioner Steve Meeks seemed to be on board with Bosley on being gungho for the volunteer groups until November 3, 2010.  Whether or not Meeks genuinely supports the volunteers will be shown by his involvement or non-involvement now that the political purpose is gone.

The Report believes that "in reality" the volunteers have been "a pain in the __ __ ___" to the commissioners including Bosley and Meeks and that the negativity has been embraced by Commissioner Ferguson (see yesterday's video in which he talks about "the - limited - role of the SCDPAB" (a body of volunteers).

Within the past few days, the SCPR has learned that an employee of the Stark County Dog Pound has been written up a second time and/or suspended, depending on whom you believe.

Commissioner Ferguson tells the SCPR (last Wednesday that a Pound employee was "written up a second time", but not suspended).  However, here is a edited e-mail that The Report has gotten on the matter which suggests a suspension, to wit:

I heard that ...  was hosing out a dog cage with the dog still in it. ( supposed to take the dogs out before cleaning the cages , which is more time consuming) The volunteer reported this to the Warden and she said she would handle the situation. A short time later ... came up to the volunteer screaming at her , saying she should not go behind his back , she did not see him spraying the dog ,and on and on .....About this time the Warden walked up and ... stopped shouting (sic) and walked away. The Warden told the volunteer to write a report of the incident and give it to her.

After this, ... again approached the volunteer , saying he wanted her to talk to his wife in the parking lot, implying that his wife would handle the situation, if the volunteer got smart with her.

I heard some of the volunteers that witnessed this, passed the info on to the commissioners, and ... was suspended with pay until a hearing takes place. Not sure how long the suspension is.
Here is another excerpt from an e-mail received by the SCPR that suggests reasons why acrimony is seeming to prevail between the volunteers, county commissioners, and Pound employees. To wit (with minor editing):
I see that this issue is taking a disturbing turn; that being that the real problems that have existed at the pound for some  time, the very same issues that provoked the installation of video cameras in the first place (by Evert Gibson) to record abuse and unnecessary rough handling by the deputies are now being used to defend the abusers.  I believe the freedom of information act makes the tapes available, but the reason they were installed was so that the WARDEN (who it now appears has become the darling of Ferguson and Hanke) can review them on a regular basis.  Obviously the darling is not doing so.  It should also be noted that according to inside sources the deputies have learned how to avoid being photographed.  I have been told that the "program" to view the videos is complicated, hence the evidence that does exist may not have been thoroughly viewed/edited.

As for the dog food:  Food has always been supplied by donations.  When Evert was the warden, if donations ran out, he bought food for the dogs out of his own pocket, but such needs were very few because the pound had (PAST TENSE) the support and respect of the community, so donations were usually plentiful.  I think the current issue is not (as suggested in your video) that dogs are starving, but that moldy food is considered acceptable by this warden.  In some cases there are dogs that come in so malnourished that feeding them extra would be a logical and humane act, but (as I understand) the deputies refuse to allow volunteers to provide extra food to such animals, not for any economic reason, but because the dog might poop more, thus the deputies who are being paid outrageous salaries to CARE for these dogs might have to clean the cage. 

I have personally experienced the irresponsible, inexcusable and irreversible act of ... kill at will behavior.  I have personally seen ...  lift a big dog using a snare pole.  Several people in this neighborhood have seen him exert utterly unnecessary force and roughness, in addition to extreme rudeness to themselves when the pound was called regarding 2 apparently lost dogs that did not require the force used. 

To suggest that the volunteers are making false claims regarding what is and is not basic humane and responsible treatment of animals, civil behavior toward the tax-paying public and competent management by the person who was hired to 'fix' the problems is disturbing to me.  While there may be a volunteer or two who have unrealistic expectations is possible.  I don't know as I don't go down there, but I do know that these people (volunteers) are not working their asses off for any gain or glory.  They are doing so because there is a tremendous need and that need exists because the employees do NOT work their asses off.  Rather, they prefer to do little more than sit on them.

It should also be noted that one of the final blows to Gibson's tenure at the pound came because Ferguson didn't feel   he had received an appropriate response to a personal issue he'd reported.  Now that citizens have boldly come forth to reveal some inexcusable behaviors at the Pound (Greathouse and Beaver) that have resulted in the loss, not to mention heartbreak and financial costs due to a lack of competence and management under the new warden, Ferguson himself seems to be very forgiving. 

Does anyone think that this warden who lives in another county is going to even show up for work when the weather gets bad?  I doubt it.  Has anyone asked WHY she left her previous job?  I'd like to know that answer.  And finally,  her public statement that the heart-stabbing ... and a few other deputies can't bear to have dogs named because it's too upsetting when they have to "put them to sleep"just about made me spew! 

It appears to this reader that certain commissioners have tired of this issue and are taking the easy way out by siding with their new hire rather than making management demands upon her as they did upon her predecessor.  I hope that the new commissioners will use their authority to address this situation. 

So there you have it folks!

It appears that the relationship between the current commissioners (not including the "new to be soon installed" Tom Bernbei) and the volunteers is not the best.

As stated by the second e-mail writer, the new commissioners (Creighton and Bernabei) need to take a firm hand on matters at the Stark County Dog Pound and solve this festering problem "once and for all!"

It is disturbing that there may be those and including, perhaps Commissioner Ferguson and County Administrator Hanke, who find the volunteers as communication "inconvenient truths" especially at a time the county is experiencing severe financial shortages and therefore are to be diminished in terms of their believability so that they do not get in the way of county officials getting public support for additional revenues so sorely needed by the county.

Had Bosley, Meeks, Ferguson, Vignos and Harmon effectively tackled the long brewing SCDP problems over the past five years, the commissioners would not have the current set of problems.

But they didn't.

The SCPR finds it to be an outrage that there might be a subtle trashing of the dog pound civic volunteers by public officials.  If such is the case, cooler heads (Creighton and Bernabei) need to step forward immediately and diffuse this problem which seems to be at "a low boil" currently before it hits "a high boil" and gets out of control.

Civic volunteers and their "check and balance" on how government functions is a critically important part of the public's confidence in government institutions, the local government included.  Commissioners should be pleased that the Pound volunteers are bringing the problems of the Pound to the public's attention.  The way to honor the volunteers is to take their complaints seriously and to solve the problems, post haste

Stark County, with the Frustaci matter fresh in the local collective memory, does not need another "bad taste in the public's mouth" event.  If the commissioners fail "to take the bull by the horns" and solve the Pound problems, "Hell will freeze over" before any kind of tax issue passes in Stark County.  And, inaction or ineffective action could result in a new round of ex-commissioners dotting the Stark County political landscape.

The SCPR applauds the Pound volunteers for exposing the SCDP problems and pushing for resolution.

In doing so, they can expect to kicked around.  The Report has experienced the same fate with the reports and investigations that surface in these pages.  One of the reasons that politicians and many elected officials are disdained by the public (only about 20% of Americans have confidence and trust in government) is because they look after themselves and their political hides rather than the general welfare of the governed.

So rather than fix problems as they can and will continue to surface, the politicos and highly politicized elected office holders either bury the problems or try to make victims out of those in the greater Stark County community who "put the light of day" on their self-serving ways.

Lamentably, the SCPR reminds the Dog Pound volunteers that in looking after the public interest, oft times "their good deeds will not go unpunished."

Such is the reality of life, especially when the electoral fate of public officials may be at stake!

But the Stark County public undoubtedly esteems the likes of the Stark County Dog Pound volunteers!!!

Here is a video of SCDP Advisory Board members discussing "volunteer policy," "whether or not there is a dog food shortage," and "whether or not there is abuse at the Pound."

Saturday, August 7, 2010

VIDEO: PART 5 - "BATTLE OF THE TODDS" CONTINUES; BOSLEY ACCUSES SNITCHLER OF FAVORING LEGISLATION THAT WOULD RESULT IN "LESS" SUPERVISION OF SEX OFFENDERS & FOR THE DISMISSAL OF 18,000 PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS?


WHBC's ("Points to Ponder") Hour 2 of the "Battle of the Todds" (Republican incumbent Todd Snitchler - Lake and Democrat challenger Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley - Marlboro) got "hot."

Because he signed on as a cosponsor of House Bill 400 (which provides for a income tax phaseout over 10 years), Todd Bosley is accusing Todd Sntichler of favoring the loss of 18,000 Ohio teacher jobs, the loss of many, many fire and police jobs and and the relaxation of supervision of convicted sex offenders.

As readers of the SCPR will see in the accompanying video below, the Bosley charge got Snitchler HOT!  The two are vying to be the state representative in Ohio's 50th House District.


Snitchler explains why he signed on as a cosponsor of HB 400.  However, that is not a place he wants to be in this campaign (on the defensive).

Todd Bosley, undoubtedly, is spreading the 18,000 less teachers, less fireman and policemen and the loosening of controls on sex offenders in every nook and cranny of  he 50th District.  And, of course, in the door-to-door Snitchler is not there to defend himself.

Just wait until the campaign literature starts flowing.

Wouldn't surprise the SCPR if there is charge after charge after charge filed with the Ohio Ethics commission (from both sides) when the literature shows up in the mailboxes of 50th District residents.

By the time election day rolls around, Stark Countians will be shaking their heads in amazement when reflecting on the "down and dirty" nature of the campaign.

Bosley is having his fun now, but The Report expects the Snitchler campaign to get rolling on its "Taxing Todd BOSLEY" probably somewhere right after Labor Day.  It likely will feature surrogates attacking Bosley, while Snitchler himself will appear to take the high road.

Watch this compelling segment video of the appearance on WHBC's "Points to Ponder."   Well known radio personality and local celebrity Ron Ponder is the host!

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

SNITCHLER: A SINGLE ISSUE CANDIDATE?


It is looking more and more like Ohio Representative Todd Snitchler (Republican - Lake Township) is going to pretty much be a "one-issue-candidate."  Is he putting all his eggs into a one basket containing only one kind of eggs?

What is the issue?

Performance audits!

Although Democrats are hard pressed to find a reason why they would oppose such an apparently politically benign idea (who can be against government efficiency); you can bet that Snitchler's Democratic opponent (Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley of Marlboro Township) will try.

Why?

Because it is basically a Republican initiative.

Though Republicans deny it, the idea is the focal point of many Ohio Republican candidates and practically no Democrats have embraced performance audits as a "be all" of their campaigns.

At Navarre's tea party on Sunday last, tea partiers heard, perhaps, the foremost advocate for performance audits in all of Ohio in Representative Snitchler.  He spent nearly all of his speaking time at Navarre talking about his House Bill 65 which he introduced in March, 2009 and which has only had one hearing to date.  So it is a long, long way from passage.

Don't look for House Speaker Armond Budish, who personally persuaded Snitchler opponent Bosley to take the first term incumbent on, to allow Snitchler's legislative pet project see the light of day.

The SCPR has learned that Bosley has in hand a recent poll that shows him with a healthy lead with very few voters in the "undecided" category.  Such a small number of undecideds four months out from the election is unusual for a race at this level.  That is what makes these races like these for the likes of The Report to call.

And the SCPR is not about to call this one.

The Report is convinced that this race will be every bit the equivalent of the Bosley/Regula contest for Stark County commissioner in 2006 in which Bosley came from nowhere to defeat the incumbent Richard Regula.

The question for the SCPR is this.  Can Bosley do it again?

Maybe.

Snitchler is in the unhappy position of being a minority party candidate and as evidenced in the tea party speech video presented at the end of this blog, he is totally frustrated at Budish's blocking of his HB 65.


Perhaps Snitchler ought to issue a challenge to Bosley to call on Budish to let the bill get an up or down vote?

Here is a SCPR video of Snitchler's entire speech made to the Navarre tea partiers.

.

Friday, June 18, 2010

REVISION & UPDATE: STARK COUNTY'S TOP FOUR RACES - 2010

 
For Stark County only, the Stark County Political Report believes that the four listed in the graphic above will prove to be the most interesting and, perhaps, the most significant.

This blog is a revision of one published on February 18th.  Why a revision?  For a couple of reasons.

First, Richard Reinbold has made himself uncompetitve in the 29th Ohio Senate race by eschewing PAC money.  The saying is that "money is the mother's milk of politics."  Reinbold's action is admirable, but going up against the well-established Scott Oelslager is not a race one takes on without mucho, mucho campaign funds.

The SCPR is told that the Ohio Senate Democratic Caucus has no money to put into the Reinbold effort.  And, The Report has learned, Reinbold was not the first choice anyway.  Both county Auditor Kim Perez and Plain Township Trustee Louis Giavasis were preferred over Reinbold to make the run at Oelslager.
 
As if the Senate Democrats are in a position to prefer anyone.  The Caucus is a pathetic excuse for an organized political entity.  Senate minority leader Capri Cafaro has proved to be an ineffective leader.

Apparently, Reinbold is looking to surprise us all and defeat Oelslager by being the unconventional candidate and thereby appeal to an electorate that seems to be tiring of "politics as usual."

The SCPR wishes him well, but The Report does not think this gambit will work to generate interest among Stark County voters.  Moreover, Reinbold by force of his personality does not generate excitement.  Couple having no money with a dull personality and you have a contest that loses its place in the SCPR top four Stark County races for 2010.

Second, The Report's listing of the Meeks/Creighton face-off as the number one attention getter in Stark County politics this year needs a little more explanation.

While the SCPR believes the Snitchler/Bosley match up will be the closest race this fall (likely to remain too close for the SCPR to call right up to election day), its intensity of interest will be for folks like yours truly, the pols in Columbus and, of course, the voters of the 50th Ohio House district.  Not as much in other parts of Stark County which also has the 51st district (Haines [Democrat] v. Schuring [Republican]) and the 52nd (Slesnick [Democrat] v. Secrest [Republican]).

The Meeks/Creighton square-off because the commissioner election will be on the ballot in every Stark County precinct.  

For the foregoing reasons, the SCPR thinks Meeks/Creighton is the top race.

MEEKS/CREIGHTON

Former Canton mayor Janet Creighton entering this field for the full-term commissioner seat being vacated by Commissioner Todd Bosley made this contest #1 on the SCPR's list.  Another factor in bringing this contest to the #1 ranking is that all of Stark County will be voting whereas on the Snitchler/Bosley match-up; only about 1/3rd of Stark County will be voting.

Steve Meeks was appointed by the Stark County Democratic Central Committee to the seat formerly held by Tom Harmon.  But Meeks wants no part of coming up for re-election in two years.  The next two years may be the most difficult that Stark County (in the government sense) has ever faced.  

Why?

Because there is no money and there is not going to be any new money for the foreseeable future. Maybe, and only maybe, there might be a renewal of the existing sales tax.  

How will this impact running for commissioner in 2012 for an incumbent?

This way.

The commissioners will have to make draconian cuts in county services to Stark Countians.  And the cuts are not going to set well.  The public really does expect the commissioners to take care of the entire county with a few fishes and loaves.  When the manna from Heaven stops raining, then the grumbling will start and in the end sitting commissioners will be the butt of citizen anger.

So 2012 is not a time to be running for re-election.  That's why Meeks ducked out of the two years left on his term for the four years that Commissioner Bosley would have stood for if he had not decided to run for state representative (the 50th).

Meeks might have made an unwise choice.  Had he stayed in the two-year term race, he would have won hands down as former Canton law director, city councilman, chief of staff and service director (Healy administration) will.  However, Bernabei likely just plans to be a commissioner for two years to do what he can to help straighten Stark County finances out and then move on with his life.

Another thing that Meeks had planned on was who his opponent would be on the full term.

Undoubtedly, his jaw dropped when he saw that former Canton mayor and countywide officeholder Janet Creighton had taken out a petition.

And so it should.

It is pretty clear to the SCPR that Meeks cannot defeat Creighton and that he will be giving up his commissioner's seat come December 31, 2010. 

A Creighton victory will be good for Stark County.  Democrats have had a stranglehold over countywide offices for a number of years now.  Such has turned out to be a bad trip for the county.

BOSLEY/SNITCHLER

Number 2 on the SCPR list.  

Why?

Because this seat is a Republican gerrymandered one designed to keep a "safe district" Republican in the Ohio House.  The gerrymandering sheltered the lazy, politically inept John Hagan for a full 8 years in the House.  Hagan proved his political ineptness when - notwithstanding his long run as a Stark County politician -  he lost to political novice Pete Ferguson over a 2008 commissioners position in a politically competitive environment.

However, with the entry of Todd Bosley into the 50th Ohio House district seat, there is a chance that the Republican "fix" will become unfixed.

Had he not been the leading architect for the imposing of a 0.50 of a percent countywide sales/use tax increase in December, 2008, Bosley likely would be a shoe-in to win the 50th.

Because he did the "politically" wrong thing to do, he is reduced in the SCPR's opinion to having a chance to win the 50th.

Bosley will be hammering away at Snitchler as being a "do-nothing," "right-wing ideologue" state representative. Moreover, Snitchler's political romance with the right wing of Stark County Republicans (the teabaggers) could end up costing him the election.  He spoke at the original teabagger event on April 15, 2009 and is scheduled to speak once again at a teabagger event in Navarre on June 27th.

Snitchler, on the other hand, will - one way or another - play to the imposed tax as indicating that Bosley will be a "tax and spend" Democrat if he were to be sent to Columbus.  The Report has been told that "Vote No Increased Taxes" member Tom Marcelli (Bethlehem Township - the home of Navarre) will be working on the Snitchler campaign.  

This could be a good development for Snitchler.  He could appear to be taking the "above it all" road while letting the likes of Marcelli and his "Vote No" friends hammer Bosley on the imposed tax.  If the Vote Nos can turn a substantial portion of the 60 plus percent of "no" voting Stark Countians on the retention of the tax into Snitchler voters,  such could be a difference-maker positive for Snitchler.

One other important note about the outcome of Bosley/Snitchler.
Could a loss by either be the end of a a Stark County political career?

BOCCIERI/RENACCI

This race will be won or lost in Stark County, Although the 16th congressional district includes Wayne County and parts of Medina and Ashland, Stark will dominate.

Jim Renacci has made a huge blunder in his campaign.  He has drifted to the right of the Republican Party.  In order to win in the 16th, one needs to be at least "right, center."  

The reason that three (Stark, Medina and Wayne) of the four county Republican chairmen endorsed Renacci in the Republican primary was that he was perceived to be the most moderate and therefore the most capable of winning in November.  Otherwise, the person to get behind would have been Matt Miller of Ashland County who gave Ralph Regula and Kirk Schuring (2008) all they wanted in terms of competition for the Republican nomination.

The SCPR expected Renacci to be way more moderate in his views than Miller, Smith and Schiffer.  But he wasn't.  Everything that The Report saw coming out of the Renacci camp was:  "How can I appeal to the Miller and Schiffer" crowd.  

Jim Rennaci should be going nowhere near the Navarre teabagger event scheduled for June 27th.  But he is.  And his doing so will help solidify in the mind of Stark Countians that Renacci is a Republican right type candidate.

Very few, if any, right wing voters are going to vote for incumbent Congressman John Boccieri (Democrat - Alliance).  However, Boccieri is a conservative Democrat who will play well in the district.  Especially well in the Stark County part of the district.

So for Reanacci to court the teabaggers is like preaching to the choir.  And the choir will vote for him.  There are just not enough of them in the 16th to elect him.

There is plenty for Renacci to go after Boccieri on:  Flip-flopping just to name one (cap and trade as well as healthcare).  However, he will be so hung up on the right wing lunacy that he, in critiquing Boccieri, will sound likes Michele Bachman of Minnesota.  The right wing message will not play in most of Stark County.

Also, in this election for Stark Countians, Renacci is the outsider.  Boccieri is a Stark Countian for two years now.  Rennacci is not even a native Ohioan.  Rather a Pennsylvainian.  So he will not be able to whip up the winds of discontent on Boccieri being a capetbagger.  No much of a loss for Renacci, as we all saw how much of a non-issue that was with voters for Schuring in 2008.

By the way, if Kirk Schuring were running this time around, he would do much better in Stark County and, perhaps, be able to eke out a narrow victory.

Even so (Renacci drifting to the political right), Boccieri/Renacci will be a competitive race.  Boccieri will not win by the roughly 10% (as predicted early on by the SCPR) he won by against Stark Countian Kirk Schuring.  More like about three or four percentage points this time around.

This is not a Democratic year for congressional races.  That Boccieri wins in an off year for Democrats means that he could be on his way to being a long-term congressman from Ohio's 16th congressional district.

 PEREZ/HAROLD

The main question here is:  Will Alan Harold stay in this race?

Two years ago he was slated to run against the now-beleaguered Gary Zeigler (Stark County treasurer).  But he didn't.  The "story on the street" is that Harold's employer asked him to step aside after high-level state Democrats complained about Harold's candidacy to Huntington.

The SCPR asked Harold about this story.  His response:  "No comment."

Harold's whole handing of the Zeigler thing leads The Report to believe that Harold has no stomach for "down and dirty" politics.

And if he gets queasy about roughhouse politics, taking on Stark County auditor Kim Perez is not the place to be in a run for political office.

Although somewhat of a maverick in Stark County Democratic politics with his own political base (much like Commissioner Todd Bosley), he is a political power broker and likely will teach Harold a political lesson that Harold will not forget for years.

Harold will learn that taking on Perez is not like showing up at a Congressman John Boccieri campaign event (at the Sunoco station on Tuscarawas) with a sign in hand and yelling at the top of one's lungs.

Perhaps, in the light of the BP Gulf of Mexico massive oil leak, Harold would like to do an encore performance of his "drill, baby, drill" chant at the Sunoco station?

And it is not like running for a place on the Stark County Educational Service Center (formerly known as the Stark County Board of Education).

Apparently, the board candidacy was a "dry run" for taking on Perez.  Well, if Harold duplicates that effort in his vying with Perez, he will be looking wistfully at his numbers achieved in the board race (he narrowly lost).

Another campaign like that one will leave him a distant, distant second in a two-man race!

Friday, February 19, 2010

THE PETITIONS ARE FILED: WHICH STARK COUNTY RACES WILL COMMAND THE MOST ATTENTION OVER THE NEXT 8 PLUS MONTHS?





For Stark County only, the Stark County Political Report believes that the four listed in the graphic above with prove to be the most interesting.

For sure there will be other exciting races for Stark Countians to pay attention to.  To mention a few, there is the governor's race as well as the 16th congressional district, a U.S. Senate seat and several statewide offices being contested.

But today the focus of the SCPR are four The Report believes could be very close races.

MEEKS/CREIGHTON

Former Canton mayor Janet Creighton entering this field for the full term commissioner seat being vacated by Commissioner Todd Bosley made this contest #1 on the SCPR's list.

Steve Meeks was appointed by the Stark County Democratic Central Committee to the seat formerly held by Tom Harmon.  But Meeks wants no part of coming up for re-election in two years.  The next two years may be the most difficult that Stark County (in the government sense) has ever faced.  

Why?

Because there is no money and there is not going to be any new money for the foreseeable future. Maybe, and only maybe, there might be a renewal of the existing sales tax.  

How will this impact running for commissioner in 2012 for an incumbent?

This way.

The commissioners will have to make draconian cuts in county services to Stark Countians.  And the cuts are not going to set well.  The public really does expect the commissioners to take care of the entire county with a few fishes and loaves.  When the manna from Heaven stops raining, then the grumbling will start and in the end sitting commissioners will be the butt of citizen anger.

So 2012 is not a time to be running for re-election.  That's why Meeks ducked out of the two years left on his term for the four years that Commissioner Bosley would have stood for if he had not decided to run for state representative (the 50th).

Meeks might have made an unwise choice.  Had he stayed in the two year term race, he would have won hands down as former Canton law director, city councilman, chief of staff and service director (Healy administration) will.  However, Bernabei likely just plans to be a commissioner for two years to do what he can to help straighten Stark County finances out and then move on with his life.

Another thing that Meeks had planned on was who his opponent would be on the full term.

Undoubtedly, his jaw dropped when he saw that former Canton mayor and countywide officeholder Janet Creighton had taken out a petition.

And so it should.

It is pretty clear to the SCPR that Meeks cannot defeat Creighton and that he will be giving up his commissioner's seat come December 31, 2010.

A Creighton victory will be good for Stark County.  Democrats have had a stranglehold over countywide offices for a number of years now which has turned out to be a bad trip for the county.

BOSLEY/SNITCHLER

Number 2 on the SCPR list.  

Why?

Because this seat is a Republican gerrymandered one designed to keep a "safe district" Republican in the Ohio House.  The gerrymandering sheltered the lazy, politically inept John Hagan for a full 8 years in the House.  Hagan proved his political ineptness when - notwithstanding his long run as a Stark County politician -  he lost to political novice Pete Ferguson over a 2008 commissioners position in a politically competitive environment.

However, with the entry of Todd Bosley into the 50th Ohio House district seat, there is a chance that the Republican "fix" will become unfixed.

Had he not been the leading architect for imposing of a 0.50 of a percent countywide sales/use tax increase in December, 2008, Bosley likely would be a shoe-in to win the 50th.

Because he did the "politically" wrong thing to do, he is reduced in the SCPR's opinion to having a chance to win the 50th.

Bosley will be hammering away at Snitchler as being a "do-nothing," "right-wing ideologue" state representative. 

Snitchler, on the other hand, will - one way or another - play to the imposed tax as indicating that Bosley will be a "tax and spend" Democrat if he were to be sent to Columbus.

One other important note about the outcome of Bosley/Snitchler.
Could a loss by either be the end of a a Stark County political career?

OELSLAGER/REINBOLD

Scott Oelslager should be vulnerable in playing musical chairs with now state Senator Kirk Schuring and they bounce from chair to chair between the 29th Ohio Senate district and the 51st Ohio House district. 

But he won't be.

The Stark County Democratic leadership decided to get behind former Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Dick Reinbold to contest Oelslager in the 29th.

This match up will go down in the annals of Stark County political history as one of the most boring on record.

Both Oelslager and Reinbold are colorless.

Oelslager has been in the Ohio General Assembly well over 20 years and has very little to show for it.

Anyone with much background in the huge funding of public education problem would be highly troublesome to Oelslager as an opponent.  Democrat Dick Reinbold is not that person.

Reinbold is one of a growing number of Stark County leaders who are leaders because they have ingratiated themselves to the political powers that be, not because he has innate qualities of leadership.

He and wife Nancy (Stark County clerk of courts) have used Stark County Democratic Party organized political apparatus for feathering their own nest.  The SCPR take on Reinbold is that he fits in very neatly with the likes of party chair Randy Gonzalez, Commissioner Steve Meeks and former chair Johnnie A. Maier as being consummate politicians.

While Oelslager has been a gigantic disappointment to The Report, Dick Reinbold, who has not legislative bona fides, would never, ever take exception to the Democratic Senate Caucus.  Oelslager, as a redeeming quality, has - here and there - done so.

Oelslager should be politically punished for not having been effective on not taking a leadership role in solving the public education funding problem.  But with the Democrats picking Reinbold, Oelslager got a huge boost in terms of not being that great until you look at the alternative.

Maybe Reinbold has qualities the SCPR hasn't been able to discern over the years.
If he does, he better not wait until September to make them apparent.  For such a delay will ensure the re-election of Oelslager.

The Report doubts that Reinbold will ever be anything other than a mediocre candidate that hopes against hope that he can out I.D. Scott Oelslager.

Talk about not having a handle on political reality!

 PEREZ/HAROLD

The main question here is:  will Alan Harold stay in this race?

Two years ago he was slated to run against the now-beleaguered Gary Zeigler (Stark County treasurer).  But he didn't.  The "story on the street" is that Harold's employer asked him to step aside after high level state Democrats complained about Harold's candidacy to Huntington.

The SCPR asked Harold about this story.  His response:  "No comment."

Harold's whole handing of the Zeigler thing, leads The Report to believe that Harold has no stomach for "down and dirty" politics.

And if he gets queasy about roughhouse politics, taking on Stark County auditor Kim Perez is not the place to be in a run for political office.

Although somewhat of a maverick in Stark County Democratic politics with his own political base (much like Commissioner Todd Bosley), he is a political power broker and likely will teach Harold a political lesson that Harold will not forget for years.

Harold will learn that taking on Perez is not like showing up at a Congressman John Boccieri campaign event (at the Sunoco station on Tuscarawas) with a sign in hand and yelling at the top of one's lungs.

And it is not like running for a place on the Stark County Educational Service Center (formerly known as the Stark County Board of Education).

Apparently, the board candidacy was a "dry run" for taking on Perez.  Well, if Harold duplicates that effort in his vying with Perez, he will be looking wistfully at his numbers achieved in the board race (he narrowly lost).

Another campaign like that one will leave him a distant, distant second in a two man race!

Monday, January 4, 2010

STARK CAN HAVE A FIX TO THE 9-1-1 SYSTEM WITHIN 6 MONTHS: WHY WOULD ANYONE PLAY POLITICS WITH STARK COUNTY SAFETY ISSUES?





Towards the end of last week, the SCPR got a telephone call from a county official saying that Stark County's fire chiefs had met recently and voted to reject Nimishillen Fire Chief Rich Peterson's "alternative" to centralized, countywide 9-1-1 dispatch.

The official said that the information had come from Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) Governance Committee chair Randy Gonzalez.

The Report immediately began contacting alternative sources for confirmation or disaffirmation of the reported Gonzalez read.

This is what yours truly has learned.

North Canton Fire Chief John Bacon told the SCPR that the Peterson Plan (which he now calls the Fire Chiefs' Plan) is the plan that  Stark's fire chiefs will present to the Technical Advisory Committee of SCOG at its January 22nd meeting.

Bacon said that not only did the fire chiefs not reject Peterson's alternative, but that they voted "unanimously" to adopt the plan as their own.

One of the leading proponents of a centralized, countywide Plan; namely, Ted Heck, fire chief in Gonzalez's home area (Gonzalez is the elected fiscal officer in Jackson), voted in favor of the alternative plan.

Bacon said that the vote was not anti-centralized, countywide dispatch, but that the Peterson Plan is doable within six  months whereas the Gonzalez Plan (a SCPR phrase coined by The Report as a shorthand reference to the centralized, countywide plan) will not be up and running for two years.

The fire chiefs believe they are putting community safety first by doing the fix now (within six months) and not delaying the project for up to two years.

The Peterson plan, according to Bacon, can be done with the money currently available to support 9-1-1 (the cellphone surcharge and the small property tax levy) and no money collected from the commissioner  "imposed" sales/use tax (December, 2008) will be needed.  However, the Peterson Plan does not include all first reponders having 800 megahertz radios.

Bacon does not deny that there may be a turf issue involved in the Peterson Plan for the benefit of Peterson and Nimishillen Township trustees.  However, he said that he was willing to abide that possibility because he feels that the alternative, in terms of the timing issue, puts the safety of Stark Countians first.

The SCPR maintains that the Peterson/Nimishillen self-interest is a primary motivation for Peterson's Plan.  The Report accepts Bacon's take that parochial interests can be accepted when "the greater county good" is also achieved contemporaneously.

More troublesome to the SCPR are the positions of Commissioner Bosley and Governance Committee chair Gonzalez.

Why were they so set on going centralized and countywide dispatch in "one fell swoop?"

Why not get the fixes done immediatley within the concepts of four to five dispatch centers with up-to-date equipment which makes calling 9-1-1 seamless to callers and which will be state-of-the-art in terms of identifying locations of cellphone callers?

The Report suspects that if there are politics involved, it is coming more likely from the commissioners' office and from Gonzalez than from the professional emergency services folks.

A main ingredient in Bosley becoming commissioner was his embracing of Peterson's Plan , as a central aspect of his campaign, when he decided to take on incumbent Republican county commissioner Richard Regula in 2006.

Along the way Bosley got off of the Peterson Plan and bought into the Gonzalez Plan.

It was Commissioner Bosley who conceived the idea of imposing the 0.50 percent increase in the sales/use tax and sold fellow commissioners Republican Jane Vignos (since retired) and Democrat Tom Harmon (since resigned) on the idea.  In December, 2008 the commissioners imposed the tax.

A major part of the tax was splitting the revenue with the county's general fund.  County administrator Mike Hanke has been saying for some time now that substantial cuts in county department budgets would be in the offing by 2011, if additional revenues were not found.  In fact, the county is looking at a average of 3.5% cuts (on average) across Stark County government dependent on general fund monies.

The SCPR believes that Bosley saw the imposed tax as being a way to further his future political ambitions (i.e. the "fixer" of  9-1-1 is a natural progression from his 2006 campaign) and, at the same time, he could make his future as county commissioner financially viable by bringing additional funds in to county general fund coffers.

Gonzalez has many government roles in Stark County, one of which is being Stark County Democratic Party chairman.

As readers know, the SCPR is not wild about party chairpersons having a government role.  The Report repeatedly expressed a sour attitude about John Ferrero, county prosecutor, having been Stark County Democratic party chairman before becoming prosecutor.

Party chairpersons are about "political power" and what it can do to enhance them  and their constituents (candidates for office and elected officials).  In the opinion of the SCPR, Gonzalez and "his many political irons in the fire, is not the best person to be heading up the Governance Committee effort.  It should be someone who is not so ensconced in Stark County politics.

Gonzalez and Bosley have already locked horns over who should be the 9-1-1 project manager.  Bosley fought long and hard to make Nimishillen Fire Chief Rich Peterson that person.  In a classic and ironical "politics makes strange bedfellows" twist; it is interesting that Peterson and Bosley - once bosom buddies -  are now squaring off on 9-1-1.

Politics have a way of working themselves out (i.e. "shifting political alliances), and longer term Stark County may well indeed get over the politics of fixing 9-1-1 and eventually get to the Gonzalez Plan.

Bacon is hopeful such will be the case.

One lingering issue is, if the Technical Advisory Committee accepts the chiefs' recommendation, what to do with the money collected for the Gonzalez Plan from the imposed tax?

Bosley has already suffered one defeat on this issue.

While Harmon was still a commissioner, he brought up for a vote what to do with the monies collected post-voter rejection of retaining the tax.

The decision:  put it into a "stabilization fund (aka a "rainy day fund").   Administrator Hanke had asked the commissioners  for guidance on the tax revenues because the formulation of the 2010 budget is underway and Hanke and his fellow administrators needed a financial basis on which to project cuts to county departments. 

Bosley vigorously objected.  He insisted that half the money go towards implementing the Gonzalez Plan.

By the way, Hanke tells the SCPR that the "rainy day fund" could reach $6 to 7 million  before the county needs to dip into it come 2011.

Some final notes:

The SCPR was not well taken with the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee."   Now The Report has somewhat of a changed look at the work the Committee did in convincing Stark Countians not to retain the imposed tax.

The Committee did create conditions for the Peterson Plan to see the light of day and the SCPR recognizes the Committee for this contribution of time and space for a reconsideration of how and on what timetable Stark County fixes 9-1-1.

However, a big negative remains.  Stark County does indeed need new money beginning in 2011 for its general fund.

One more thing.

If the Technical Advisory Committee accepts the Peterson (err) Fire Chiefs' Plan, what will come of the money being held for the Gonzalez Plan implementation?

Bacon says that is for the politicians (Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) to figure out.

The SCPR does believe that the commissioners and Governance Committee chairman Gonzalez care about the safety of Stark Countians.

However, the SCPR trusts the fire chiefs, police chiefs and emergency medical chiefs to filter out the politics inherent in the situation  more effectively than folks running for elective office.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

SCPR "ELECTION 2009 SERIES" (VOL 24): JACKSON TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE WALTERS DOESN'T KNOW IF HE WILL VOTE "YES" ON ISSUE 5 OR NOT? WHAT WILL JACKSON & STARK COUNTY POLITICAL POWER RANDY GONZALEZ THINK ABOUT THAT?


Yours truly loves going to Stark County commissioners meetings.

Why is that?

Because you come across Stark County's "politically" significant people there.

For instance:

Two weeks ago it was Sheriff Swanson in his dress top and blue jeans.

Last week Perry Township trustee Anna Capaldi and Deputy Sheriff Rick Perez.

And yesterday?

Jackson Township James Walters.

Walters' visit could be a harbinger of an "up close and personal relationship" with Commissioner Todd Bosley.

How's that?

The thinking is that Walters is assessing whether or not Walters is going to run against Bosley when Bosley comes up for re-election next.

But that possibility is not the focus of the blog, the graphic notwithstanding.

The treat was a colloquy between Bosley and Walters on the 0.50 percent "imposed" sales/use tax Issue 5 coming up for a vote this coming Tuesday.

In the opinion of the SCPR, Bosley was trifling with Walters on whether or not this Jackson trustee is going to vote for "Yes" on Issue 5.  The SCPR suspects Walters knew what was going on and was having a hard time finding an exit point.

Moreover, he was likely thinking:  "how is sales/use tax promoter Randy Gonzalez (Jackson Township fiscal officer) receive this report when he hears about?"

Hopefully, Gonzalez (said to be a huge fan of the SCPR), will send yours truly an e-mail with his reaction.

Bosley tells the SCPR that the conversation got quite heated later on (after yours truly left).

Next time, The Report will stay until the bitter end.

Nevertheless, watching the commissioner and trustee parry with one another was a treat.  And just in time for Halloween.  Or, was it Bosley playing tricks.

The video that follows is The Report's Halloween treat to SCPR readers.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

SCPR "ELECTION 2009 SERIES" (VOL 4): BOSLEY ACCUSES NIMISHILLEN TWP FIRE CHIEF RICH PETERSON OF WORKING WITH ANTI-SALES TAX COMMITTEE. HMM?



They used to be tight with one another.

But that is all changed now.

Nimishillen Township Fire Chief  Richard J. Peterson and Commissioner Todd Bosley couldn't be further apart.

Yesterday,  in a one-on-one conversation with Bosley, the commissioner told the SCPR that Peterson is working with the Stark Citizens Right to Vote Committee to have Stark Countians vote "No" on Issue 5; a "no" vote being "not to retain the 0.5 imposed sales/use tax" voted by the commissioners in December, 2008.

The SCPR took Bosley's comments to mean that he thinks Peterson is running a 5th column-esque movement in which Peterson and his sponsors, the Nimishillen Township trustees are working to undermine the Stark County Council on Governments Governance Committee's effort to fix the county's broken 9-1-1 system.

Bosley said that Peterson is "the Wizard behind the curtain" who is providing the anti-tax movement with information such as cited by movement spokesman Charlie Snyder that 9-1-1 does not need $5.5 million a year.

Why would Peterson do this?

Bosley believes that it is because Peterson was not selected to head up the Governance Committee's effort.  He lost out to Joseph Concatto for the position of project manager to put together the Countywide 9-1-1 Dispatch Center.

There is heavy irony in this falling out between Bosley and Peterson.

Fixing 9-1-1 was a collaboration between Peterson and Bosley going back to the days that Bosley was a Nimishillen Township trustee.  Fixing 9-1-1 is the reason, in the opinion of the SCPR, that Bosley was elected over sitting commissioner Richard Regula in November, 2006.

Bosley says that the 9-1-1 plan he has been pushing, is a plan conceived and constructed by Richard J. Peterson.

So what went wrong between Peterson and Bosley?

Two things, according to Bosley:

One - Peterson was not selected as project manager (even though Bosley fought tooth and nail with Gonzalez trying to get Peterson) and

Two -  Nimishillen Township Fire Station Number 3 (which houses Nimishillen's CenCom Dispatch Center) is to be phased out as a surviving Stark County dispatch location under the SCOG plan.




Back in June the SCPR reported that Peterson was "a fire chief scorned" and, moreover, yours truly was of the opinion that Peterson was already working to possibly scuttle countywide centralized dispatch.



So between June 30th and September 30th, has Peterson been marking his time, waiting to pounce on SCOG and Bosley?

Bosley thinks so.  And he hopping mad.  In fact, like Howard Beale of the movie Network, Bosley is, in effect, saying of Peterson "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

Bosley is out talking to media big time.  Not only is he talking to the likes of the SCPR, The Rep and others; the commissioner is going the extra step.
He sent yours truly the following link to an Alliance Review article dated, get this, March 8, 2008 which reveals a different sounding Chief Richard Peterson.  Politician Bosley does do his political research.  And he will beat an opponent's head in with it!

For Bosley, his tiff with Peterson appears to be more than "let's agree to disagree."  No, the Bosley offensive has the markers of being an all out offensive to smoke Peterson out and discredit him.

Bosley says that Stark Right to Vote Committee leader Tom Marcelli was quoting Peterson (according to Commissioner Tom Harmon, per Bosley) in The Rep's endorsement interview on Issue 5 which was held on September 29th.

Moreover, Bosley says that Charlie Snyder's (who acted as spokesperson for the anti-tax group) questioning of  the need to fund Countywide 9-1-1 Central Dispatch at the rate of $5.5 million annually could only come at the coaching of Peterson.

Snyder, according to Bosley, - on his own - would not have a clue as to the amount needed to run a centralized dispatch center.

Additionally, Bosley says that Peterson has been out trying to disaffect other Stark County based fire chiefs from their support of a countywide dispatch.  Bosley specified that North Canton Fire Chief John P. Bacon is a primary target of Peterson's effort, but that there are others that Peterson is working on.

Get the idea of the scope and the ferocity of  the Bosley political attack on Peterson?

THE SCPR REACTION

What is the SCPR's reaction to this hubub?

No surprises here.

The SCPR was the first to say that Peterson was badly stung in being rejected as project manager.  He has been highly critical of Joseph Concatto to yours truly from the time it became known that Concatto was selected over him.

While the SCPR has not made a final determination as to whether or not to vote to retain the tax or to vote for its repeal, yours truly is leaning towards supporting retention.

THE PERSONAL AXE TO GRIND FACTOR

What turns yours truly off, and likely most Stark County voters, is the personal agenda of many of the of cast of characters who have involved themselves in this political fight.

Peterson and the Nimishillen trustees fit the "personal agenda" billing in their trying to force Nimishillen's CenCom on the rest of Stark County.  They have a lot of explaining to do to Nimishillen taxpayers about the continued utility of Fire Station #3.

Many Stark County politicos fill the "personal agenda" billing in their working over Stark County taxpayers by seemingly using Stark County government as a personal employment agency.

Why would Stark County taxpayers want to fund support for the sales/use tax increase?

What public official's relatives, friends and political supporters will end up on the county payroll, if taxpayers decide to retain the tax?


THE IRRATIONAL FACTOR

Most of the Stark Citizens Right to Vote Committee appear to be irrational on whether or not the tax is to be retained.

Take Charlie Snyder.  Three of the four reasons he gave, as spokesperson for the Stark Citizens Right to Vote, as seen/heard on his Repository video, were out there somewhere.

Reason #1 - The implied "we are going to punish Stark County as a whole" for the tax imposition action of the county commissioners.   The anti-tax group remedy to the commissioners' action bears no rational relationship to whether or not Stark Countians need to have an up-to-date 9-1-1 system and whether or not Stark County government needs more money for day-to-day operations.

What would be rational is for these folks to work to defeat Bosley and Harmon when they run again and thereby send the message that any commissioner that does not afford citizens the right to vote on taxes will not be abided by Stark County voters.

Reason #2 - A $22 million tax increase would be irresponsible,  a point made by Snyder, if that was the plan.  But he misstates the total revenue that is to be generated, if Stark voters decide to keep the tax and the commissioners implement the promised termination of an existing tax.  The increase at the end of the day should generate about about $11 millon annually.

Certainly, Snyder knows this.

Is it irresponsible/irrational to misstate the facts, Mr. Snyder?

However, Snyder does make a point that is rational in this argument.  Sales/use taxes are regressive.  The rationality:  0.5 percent on a person earning and spending $20,000 a year is a lot more burdensome that 0.5 percent on a person who spends $20,000 a year but has total annula income of $50,000.  It is simple, basic math.  Even Charles Snyder can figure this out.

Reason #3 - $5.5 million is too much to put into making 9-1-1 viable, according to the Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote Committee.

Okay, Mr. Snyder; what should the cost be?   In his comments, Snyder said that the hodgepodge of  Stark communities are currently spending $6.8 million.

So is it logical that Stark Countians should continue to spend $1.3 million a year more (in the context of a fragmented collection of communities) that the proposed $5.5 million for a system that is not working at an acceptable level?

Reason #4 - Mismanaged funds?  That's what Snyder says, then he goes off on a non-sequitur about the alleged theft in Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler's office.  Stolen funds are not mismanaged funds.   Hello there, Charles Snyder? 

 There you have it folks.

Those of us who want to do what is best for our community in the long term have to wade through the maize of personal agendas and irrationality/irresponsiblity to get to the correct decision.

Democracy is messy, isn't it?

Thursday, September 10, 2009

BOSLEY: BIG-SPLASH ARTIST, AT IT AGAIN?

You can bet that Stark County's other elected officials are not amused with Commissioner Todd Bosley's "big-splash" announcement at yesterday's county commissioners' meeting.

With Bosley, it is one upstaging after another, after another, after another - on ad infinitum.

Bosley is fast turning into the most publicity hawking politician Stark County has seen in many of a year.

In reading The Rep's account of the meeting Stark commissioners consider furlough, other cuts in face of budget shortfall (Kelli Young, September 9), you can see that Auditor Kim Perez and Recorder Rick Campbell are not amused in the slightest by Bosley's latest attention getting maneuver.

What's more, this Bosley gambit is likely to make it more difficult for the sales/use tax repeals (Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote Committee) to convince Stark Countians that rolling back the December, 2008 "imposed" 0.5 percent tax increase is a good idea.

Bosley does worry about how his fellow county office holders view his bold move.  But the SCPR believes that Bosley is irrepressible when it comes to his need to be in the limelight.  However, that does not mean that his daring moves are not good for Stark Countians.

Fixing 9-1-1; good idea?  The SCPR thinks so.

Having adequate resources for essential local services, good idea?  The SCPR thinks so.

Having county employees and elected officials share in economic bad times; good idea?  The SCPR thinks so.

Bosley tells The Report that Stark County faces a potential $6 million shortfall next year.

If he is accurate, taking preventative actions now; a good idea?  The SCPR thinks so.

There is no doubt that Bosley is a "political showman."  And there is a method to his political madness.  It is all about Bosley getting voter attention and parlaying the spot light on other public officials as impediments to getting Stark County as a whole fixed as a way to whip these folks into line.

The SCPR believes that fellow commissioners Harmon and Ferguson are dead weights on Stark County.  If Stark County keeps electing these types to Stark County leadership positions, it will be in someone else's lifetime that Stark rebounds from the economic abyss she now rests in.  Neither has a clue on how to dig Stark out of its current mess.

So Bosley has put the spotlight on his fellows in county government.  How will they respond?  Do they have any choice?

They could hide behind the Ohio Constitution provision which precludes any change - up or down - in their remuneration during their elected term in office.

But they won't.

Bosley is a step ahead of them.  He has worked out a plan where there is no change but that each elected county official will write a personal check to the county treasurer as a "voluntary" give-back that meets constitutional standards.

Bosley has politically check-mated Perez, Ferrero, Reinbold, Swanson, Campbell, Rehfus, Murthy and Zeigler and they really have no choice but to fall in with Bosley's 10 day give back proposal.

One even has to wonder whether or not the Stark County's judges (Common Pleas/Court of Appeals) will want to be included and will join in?

The SCPR has learned that "give-backs" will be a campaign issue in at least one Stark municipality this fall.

Will it surface in township races, board of educations races?

After all, shouldn't everyone have to share in economic hard times?

Ever wonder how much your county elected official are paid?

Here is a list pushlished by Auditor Perez: