FULTON ROAD PROJECT ONCE AGAIN DOMINATES COUNCIL WORK SESSION: WHAT IS REALLY AT PLAY ON THIS ISSUE?

Last week the SCPR missed the fireworks directed at Ward 7 Councilman John Mariol (chairman of Canton City Council's Public Property and Capital Improvements Committee) by Councilpersons David Dougherty (Ward 6) and Chris Smith (Ward 4).

However, the SCPR did have excellent sources who enabled The Report to write these two blog last week:

• Wednesday, March 4, 2015,
• Tuesday, March 3, 2015

The issue last night, once again, as clarified by Majority Leader/Vice President of Council Frank Morris (see video below - in response to Councilwoman Smith's comments [see her video below]) was not whether or not Fulton Road NW is going to be repaved with some $1.25 of federal/state grant money plus $314,000 in local match (an 80/20 ratio), but rather where the $314,000 mandatory local match funding is coming from is coming from.



Insofar as Dougherty is concerned, it is NOT to be taken out of a $400,000 budget set aside for paving projects within Wards 1 through 9.  Otherwise, he is fine with the project.

Although Councilwoman Smith did revisit the issue last night, her announced mission was "set the record straight" (the SCPR's expression) as to what her position was last week when she initiated - what turned out to be - the turbulent council discussion on where the funding was to come from on Canton's local share of the Fulton Rd NW project.



While Dougherty was not as vitriolic last night as last week, the sparks did fly in exchanges between Dougherty and Mariol and Mariol supporter Councilman Edmond Mack of Ward 8.



As shown in the video, Dougherty accused Chairman Mariol in presenting a plan for passage at next week's meeting is a case of one councilman making off with money for Fulton Rd at the expense of nine ward councilpersons.

Moreover, it is interesting to see Councilman Mack chide Dougherty over how when it comes to his ward primarily benefiting from macro-road improvement projects, then he is quite content to have other councilpersons whose wards do not directly benefit pitch in with support.

By the way, the SCPR has learned that the wards represented by Smith and Dougherty have in recent years been among the highest recipient wards in terms of paving dollars spent therein.

So it appears to the SCPR that the battle over the funding of Fulton Rd NW is really a fight over at least one "reactionary" (i.e. what's mine is mine and what's yours in mine) councilman (maybe two, depending on how one interprets Smith's stance as clarified) against the rest of council which in the context of this issue, the SCPR sees as being visionary, is to say they "see the whole picture."  Dougherty obviously does not.

Which councilpersons turn out to be reactionary and are visionary on this issue should become crystal clear next week when council votes up or down on legislation to fund the project.

However, you can bet that some face saving work will be done in the meantime to avoid putting Dougherty and perhaps Smith out-on-a-limb.

So on second thought, the vote may not turn out to be a stark contrast.

The SCPR sat down with Chairman Mariol after last night's meeting.

While Mariol does not use the terms reactionary/visionary that The Report does, he does divide council between those who focus on their respective wards as compared to those councilpersons who can shift off the ward focus on matters such as Fulton Road and see/support "the big picture."

THOMAS WEST MUSING: "ARREST SMUCKLER, HAWK, GRIFFIN, FISHER, MARIOL, MACK , MORRIS & SCHULMAN?" BRING THEM TO COUNCIL, RIGHT NOW?

WEST:  RIDICULOUS, SIMPLY RIDICULOUS, NO?

Some really "bizarre" things are happening in Stark County these days.

And one the prime sites of such is Canton City Council.

A main instigator of the strange happenings in the opinion of the SCPR is Canton Ward 4 councilman Thomas West.

The SCPR has had a number of says on the West caper and was prepared to move on.  But it came to light yesterday that Councilman West et al went through with their Special Meeting (January 31st) called for on January 30th and so, accordingly, The Report feels compelled to address West's antics one more time.

The Special Meeting was so much "over the top" that the SCPR hereby dubs Thomas West as "Councilman Ridiculous."

It needs to be added, though, that The Report thinks Canton mayor William J. Healy, II lurks in the background.  Under the former council, he could have his council majority engage raw political power.  With the change in the power quotient, he has go more "cloak and dagger."

Back in December (if not before) West initiated a drive to succeed David Dougherty as vice president when it became clear to him that Dougherty was not going to be acceptable to a majority of the Democrats on council (there is only one non-Democrat of the 12 in the new council).

As early as December 17th, it had to be abundantly clear to West that there was no way he would become majority leader.  Nevertheless, he showed that he was willing to "bog down council" by his persistent parliamentary maneuvering (done very poorly, if not ineptly, The Report thinks) to keep the fight going.

Here are a number of blogs for those readers of the SCPR to click on and read who are not up-to-date on all of West's shenanigans.

•  January 13th blog,
•  January 14th blog,
•  January 28th blog,
•  January 31st blog,
•  February 4th blog

On Monday evening, West finally "gave up the ghost" on the fight when it finally dawned on him that there was no way for him to prevail.

A convincer to West had to be and to do with a "let it be known" and a "word to the wise" that he was going to be blasted in public by a highly influential Canton public figure if the 2nd Ward representative continued his ridiculous nonsense.

In any event, "Hell was going to freeze over," before West (or his stand in Chris Smith) became vice president/majority leader of council.

West "huffed and puffed" as if he was going to blow the Canton City Council house in.

And, oddly enough, he seemed to be getting "aid and comfort" from Canton law director Joe Martuccio in that the "Joe that everybody likes" was dilly-dallying around with issuing a forthright opinion on the issue that West was pushing.

Let's say West wasn't "huffing and puffing" and had actually filed (or talked the law director into filing) a lawsuit.

Let's go even further and say that a court comes down with a ruling validating West.  (Of course, there is a distinct possibility that the plurality vote [6 to 5] of January 9th [with Councilman Hart abstaining] might have proved to be a loser)

So where does that leave things?

If the West position wins?

The court remands the matter to council for a re-vote.

If the West position loses?

Hmm?

What?

Everybody on council simply forgets what he has put the body and the City of Canton through and council goes on as if the West generated disturbance never happened?

Even if the West position wins, what does he "really" gain?

If Hart votes in a re-vote (Hart already announced as supporting West) rather than abstaining again, there is a 6 to 6 tie.  President of Council Allen Schulman (again, already announced) breaks the tie for Frank Morris.

If Hart continues to abstain, (in a speculated re-vote) eventually either Babcock, Griffin (the most likely in the thinking of The Report) or Dougherty votes for Morris.

Such an eventuality was there to be seen when West lost 8 to 4 on his motion to have council reconsider the 6 to 5 vote.

In the interim (while the fight goes on) anything that Canton City Council does in terms of passing legislation "during the uncertainty" has somewhat - perhaps - of a legal cloud over it in the event someone adversely affected by a city ordinance elects to challenge the composition of council in passing any such legislation.

How is that good for Canton?

West, if he is all about "what is best for Canton" as he says he is, once he saw there was no pathway to his or Chris Smith becoming vice president/majority leader he should have been willing - in order spare Canton the agony of a stalemate -  to vote for Morris.

Result:  7 to 4 for Morris.  Problem solved, no?

Early on in the consideration of the "who will be vice president/majority leader" such a West move would have been what?

Magnanimous, no question about it.

But West could not find it within him to be magnanimous.

So is pursuing the absurd is one of the two reasons the SCPR will think of him henceforth as being "Councilman Ridiculous."

It was simply ridiculous to continue a fight he could not - ultimately - win.

And the effective functioning of Canton City Council goes into limbo while "the for the sake of West's ego" his political power fight goes on.

Although The Report was thinking West as being ridiculous in terms of his handle on "realpolitik" in the vice president/majority leader thing before "it" occurred, if there was any doubt about the applicability of the "ridiculous" moniker to West, all doubts were removed with the SCPR in the conduct of the Special Meeting of Council (the "it" referred to in the preceding clause) that he, Babcock, Dougherty, Hart and Smith called for January 31, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. in Canton City Council chambers.

It is worth reviewing the Special Meeting proceedings in detail for all to see how patently ridiculous West got on "who is to be majority leader" issue.

Here is an extracted version of last Friday's meeting:

Note:  highlighting was added and the structure was changed by the SCPR to fit the capability of the blog format to present in a readable fashion)

Keep an eye out for the observation (highlighted in green and blue underlining) by West on the matter of possibly compelling his fellow councilpersons to come in and be part of the January 31st meeting.

How ridiculous, no?

"[D]o a call of the house?"

"[H]ave the Members picked up by the Police and brought here?"

Over his fight to have himself or Chris Smith voted in as majority leader?

West tries to make it a case of principle over personal/power politics.

Trouble is:  very few were buying West's line.

To their credit, his core loyalists in Councilpersons Smith, Hart, Dougherty and Babcock were not going from what they might at one time thought to have to have been a "sublime" argument to a "ridiculous" "... we could actually do a call of the house and have the Members absent picked up by the Police and brought here ... "

"Let it be written, let it be said!"

Ridiculous, simply ridiculous, Councilman Ridiculous!!!

(VIDEOS OF UNION LEADER SCIURY & COUNCILMAN COLE) CANTON CITY COUNCIL MAJORITY SHOWS DISRESPECT FOR STARK CO. ORGANIZED LABOR?

At last night's Canton City Council meeting Hall of Fame AFL-CIO president Dan Sciury was indignant (to use a nice word) with council as he scolded (another nice word) them during "Public Speaks" for voting last week to spend $25,000 of the money of Canton, OHIO citizens in a "promote Canton, Ohio marketing initiative" to possibly (i.e. who really knows) provide jobs for workers located in Canton, CHINA.

Here is a video of Sciury's admonition:



Stark County unions have poured mega bucks into the collective political campaigns of Democratic members of council over decades and decades only to seemingly get kicked in the teeth by the council beneficiaries of union largesse.

Only 5th Ward Councilman Kevin Fisher (new elected in 2011) stood by organized labor in voting "no" on Ordinance 61/2012.

The SCPR has to believe that council President Alan Schulman too would have voted no had there been a tie (the only time the president votes) as he has always been the most vocal pro-organized-labor member of council.

The lopsided 11 yes and 1 no vote occurred notwithstanding Sciury's lobbying council to reject the proposal days before the vote was called.  He pled with a primary proponent of the ordinance; namely, Councilman Joe Cole (who joined with the author of the legislation, according to Cole, Councilman David Dougherty of the 6th Ward who serves as the majority leader in a council that has no Republicans) to stop the project.

But to no avail.  To The Report it is no surprise that Cole is not moved by a "for union jobs" argument.  After all, he is the principal of a charter school which has no union teachers.

Here is a video of Cole's (last night) weak defense of the out-of-area contract, to wit:  "this was the only full service vendor we could find."



Sciury later told yours truly that Cole's point was utter nonsense.  That he can provide council with the names of companies who do full service promotional services work.

Joining in with council members was Mayor William J. Healy, II in that he had to sign the legislation for it to become the law of Canton, Ohio.

He gave the lame reason why the legislation got his signature:  "in the rush of winding up the meeting."  Really?  Obviously, the mayor thinks everybody is totally stupid.

The SCPR has underway a compilation of campaign finance contributions to Healy going all the way back to when he first sought public office in Stark County.

So far the consolidation of Healy's campaign contributions goes back through the successful re-election bid for a second term as mayor.

Healy collected a whopping $70,000 plus from Canton/Stark County/Ohio/USA in campaign contributions!

He signed the legislation inadvertently (i.e. "in the rush of winding up.")

Hmm?

A $70,000 plus contribution and you can't keep track of a piece of legislation that you know your union friends do not like?

He did promise to push for council to revisit the matter.  In a post-council-meeting with Councilman Cole, the SCPR did not get the impression that Cole was in favor of undoing the ordinance.  But he did not completely rule it out.

So what are the unions going to do about Council's "in your face?"

Probably very little.

Unions are so tied to Democrats that they have nowhere else to go and accordingly they get treated as the proverbial "step-child."

They do have opportunities.  For instance, they could draw back on their support of Healy's sister Joyce Healy-Abrams in her quest to unseat Republican Congressman Bob Gibbs.

But do not look for them to do it.  Healy and Canton council members may use and abuse them, however, it would be quite a step for them

Democrats have unions exactly where they want them:  no place to go.

Beyond the jobs for unions question are a number of other issues with the expenditure of $25,000.

First, what about the point Sciury made:  jobs for Canton and Stark County at large even if they are non-union jobs.

Canton Council and the Healy administration makes a huge public relations to-do out of "new" jobs brought to Canton.

Then to support sending Canton taxpayer money out of the city perhaps all the way to the likes of Canton, China?  Hmm?  Will that play with the citizens of Canton, Ohio?

Second, as Councilman Fisher pointed out to the SCPR, how is it that an administration and council who has a looming $4 million plus budget shortfall to make up come 2013 can spend $25,000 on anything but absolutely essential city services?

Of course, this is not the only glaring inconsistency that Canton government has engaged in lately.  Last year Canton Council approved an ordinance with the blessing of the Healy administration that resulted in tens of thousands of dollars for pay increases for Mayor Healy, other members of his administration and council members.

It appears to The Report that Healy and council are building up to asking voters to increase Canton's city income tax from 2% to 2.5% in this November's election.

Hmm?

Multiple thousands upon thousands of dollars being spend on non-essentials and you're are asking for a tax increase?

For the SCPR what is happening in Canton government is a consequence of the arrogance of one-party-rule.

Even the union-bankrollers of the Democrats' absolute control of the seat of Stark County government are powerless to check the cockamaimee ideas that come from the likes of Dougherty and Cole.

Has the Canton City Council REALLY considered an Animial Control Policy Change to Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR)?

What follows is a "real life" Stark County Politics 101 lesson on how political/governmental factors come together in public policy decision making (in this instance Canton City Council) and who impacts those decisions and why or why not. 

The SCPR is not taking a position for or against a Canton policy change on its animal control policy.

Only and only when a YouTube video surfaced purportedly showing animal abuse by Canton Animal Control Officer Phil Sedlacko (in the context of his Stark County Dog Pound employment) did Canton City Council seemingly take a look at Canton's animal control policies which at the end of the day appear to be "trap and have euthanized."

The supposed examination of policy was in response to a "hue and cry" coming from the great body of animal lovers who inhabit Stark County (not necessarily Canton) and beyond.

From what the SCPR can see, the look-see was just that - a glance - and there was never any real intent on the part of Canton officials and most council members that the complaints from a few Cantonians and a large group of out-of-towners of council and the Healy administration seriously reviewing its policies on animal control.

Now word comes down that council is going to move forward at tonight's meeting (7:30 PM) to extend Sedlacko's contract for nearly two years (until December 31, 2013).

Moral of the story?

• Canton's lawmakers (in the majority sense) have predetermined that they are not going to allow out-of-towners to affect its policies, and
• Canton's governmental procedures, processes and resources will be brought to bear to ensure the predetermined outcome

And that is the message most councilpersons are sending out in a number of ways.

It is a truism that those who own and/or work with animals in a public service context (i.e. dog pound volunteers, trap-neuter-return, et cetera) are passionate about animals.

But to many members of Canton City Council,  animal control within Canton's boundaries is not a matter or liking or disliking animals.  It is a matter of the political business of responding to the complaints of their constituents.  Non-constituents can take a hike!

The focus of broadly defined animal control in Canton as the underlying hot topic is with feral (wild) cats.  Residents (who, of course, are councilmember constituents) have been complaining to council for years that these animals are a nuisance at best, a health threat and/or property destroying at worst and need to be controlled by elimination.  Most Cantonians who have an opinion on feral cats and who are communicating with councilpersons, do not want feral cat trapped, neutered (and, perhaps, inoculated) and RETURNED to their neighborhoods.

And out-of-towners are not constituents.

While council (except maybe perhaps Councilman David Dougherty - when he subs for President Alan Schulman as president) will listen respectfully and in a courteous manner at Public Speaks to the pleas from those who come to Canton council from out-of-town, it appears that their cry for a change in Canton's animal control policy has always fallen on deaf ears as far as a majority of Canton's councilmembers are concerned.

Only Councilwoman Mary Cirelli (at-large) seems interested in the out-of-towners mission to effect a policy change as well as terminating Phil Sedlacko's job with Canton.  The SCPR's take on Councilman Frank Morris III is that he does not necessarily object to current policy but that he does favor the ending of Canton's contractual relationship with Sedlacko.  However, Councilpersons Smith, Hawk and West speak glowing of Sedlacko.

A soon as the YouTube generated controversy surfaced, one can see the wheels of Personnel Committee Chairman Patrick Barton (7th Ward) turning.  A burgeoning crisis to be contained, no?  Undoubtedly, he had conversations with Safety Director Thomas Ream as to how to handle the outpouring of animal lover outrage that they were beginning to receive as a consequence of the video surfacing.

Answer?

Renew the Sedlacko contract for 90 days to cool things down in the immediate time frame and schedule a meeting in the context of a council work session for Canton Health Director James M. Adams who, Councilman Barton certainly knew beforehand, would come in a say that having feral cats - neutered or not - running at large in Canton are a health risk to Cantonians.

At best Adams arguments were "a matter of opinion," no better, no worse than those of the TNR crowd, and the truth of the matter is that there is no definitive study that established the fact of the matter either way.

However, the work session context was the perfect setting to protect Adams from any critically bent questions from the TNRers in attendance.  Only councilmembers are allowed to question/speak at work sessions unless outsiders are given special dispensation by a committee chair and Patrick Barton was having none of that.

In fact, after Adams left the work session chamber he was sort of cornered by TNR advocates peppering him with questions which prompted Chairman Barton to get a bit unnerved.  He pounced on the scene and asked Adams whether or not he felt bothered.  To which Adams responded in the negative.

It is interesting that shortly after Barton expressed his concerns about Adams, a Canton policeman could be seen to be posted nearby.

A TNR advocate Tobin Franks of Louisville, Ohio has gone to the trouble of putting together a Town Hall Meeting put on by Ally Cats Allies mainly for the benefit of Canton city councilpersons on the merits of TNR for this coming Wednesday.

It is interesting that a vote on Sedlacko has been scheduled two days prior to councilmembers having the opportunity "to be educated."  Coincidence?  Hmm?

The SCPR believes that the extending of Sedlacko's contract is a clear indication that council's majority has no interest whatsoever in changing its feral cat policy.  Moreover, if council acts tonight, as many expect, to extend Sedlacko, then - pardon the pun - "the cat is out of the bag."

Who thinks many, if any, Canton councilpersons or Healy administration members will be attending Wednesday?

Apparently, not Franks. 

It seems to the SCPR that "the achilles heel" of the TNR folks' position is not so much the weakness of their argument but that they are by-and-large from out-of-town.

Here is a copy of a plea Franks' has issued for Cantonians (evidence that the out-of-towners factor is not lost on him) to show up in numbers to stop council's contemplated action on the Sedlacko contract.