(VIDEOS) CANTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: GOING NOWHERE?

VIDEOS

Councilman/Majority Leader

Frank Morris, II

April 28, 2014 

Morris

on

October 2, 2014

Citizen Sandy Reo

October 2, 2014

Ward 1

Councilman Greg Hawk

October 2, 2014

Ward 7

Councilman John Mariol

October 2, 2014

Councilman at Large

Bill Smuckler

October 2, 2014

On Thursday last, Ward 9 councilman and Canton City Council majority leader Frank Morris, III hosted a series of community meetings designed to acquaint Cantonians with Canton's Comprehensive Plan.

Announced by Canton mayor William J. Healy, II in his "State of the City" Address on April 2, 2014 and authorized/endowed by Canton City Council to the tune of $350,000 to hire a consulting firm, "the plan" does have its skeptics.

Council on April 28th did vote to finance the plan on a 7 to 4 vote.  (Morris, Babcock, Hart and Smuckler voting "no")

The foremost "negative" is Morris.

Here is Morris on the 28th.



Here is Morris last Thursday evening at Schreiber Elementary School:



Also chiming in on the plan were:

CITIZEN SANDY REO (WARD 9)



WARD 1 COUNCILMAN GREG HAWK



WARD 7 COUNCILMAN JOHN MARIOL



CITYWIDE COUNCILMAN BILL SMUCKLER



The SCPR attended the first Canton Comprehensive Plan meeting in Edmond Mack's Ward 8, (September 16) and midway-point meeting last Thursday and contemplates attending the finale in Kevin Fisher's Ward 5 on October 16th at the J. Babe Stern Center.

The "elephant in the room" question is whether or not the Canton Comprehensive Plan has "a snowball's chance in Hell" of ever being implemented.

Because Canton officialdom is mired in despair over the decades decline of the Hall of Fame city, an implemented Canton Comprehensive Plan is viewed by some on council as Canton's last chance at resurrecting this once proud city.

The SCPR gets the impression from Councilman Morris that he views the plan as much hogwash and he will be holding the Healy administration accountable for wasting $350,000 of taxpayer money if all the plan proves to be is a publicity stunt of sorts.

One Cantonian (Citizen Cantonian) has asked what the SCPR thinks is a very good question:  If a plan is constructed from citizen input from the city's nine wards, where is the money coming from to implement it?

The SCPR is told that within the next week or two, the Healy administration will be sending legislation to council for passage with respect to generating some $15 million to $17 million in bond money to help finance various projects throughout the city in a kind of a "pre-plan:  Canton Comprehensive Plan."

Well, a second question has to be:  If it is taking $15 million to $17 million to "pre-plan" plus millions more as Canton's share of the Mahoning Road and 12th Street corridor projects, where in "God's little green acre of Canton, Ohio" are the millions upon millions to come from - that, undoubtedly, will be needed - to fund Canton's "in the works" Comprehensive Plan?

The Report is told that various council members (Ward one's Greg Hawk [finance committee chair], Ward seven's John Mariol and Morris) have been involved in discussions with the mayor regarding "how much" and for "what uses" will the contemplated bond issue defined.

Here is a speculated preliminary list:

1.  $5,000,000.00    Hall of Fame project.

2.  $2,000,000.00   Onesta Loan

3.  $2,000,000.00   Chamber Downtown Project (The Kresge Lot)  Amphitheater I believe.

4.  $2,000,000.00   New Roofs (Civic Center, Sears building etc.)

5.  $2,000,000.00   City share of demolitions cost.

6.  $2,000,000.00   Street Department new building and truck wash.

And The Report is told that the Healy administration is working on a sub-plan to sell the Sears building which houses various city offices and relocate them in substitute purchased alternative site; namely, The Canton Jewish Center on 25th Street.

The point being that if the Sears/Jewish Center story is accurate (which surely will require "above and beyond" revenues from the sale of Sears) to get The Jewish Center rehabbed and ready for Canton government's use.

Again, if this report proves to be well-founded, you have a $15 million to $17 million bond fund expenditure, you have millions of city money going into Mahoning/12th Street, and - perhaps - money going into rehabbing the Jewish Center; the question compounded comes out:  Where is the money going to come from for implementing a Canton Comprehensive Plan.

The SCPR thinks Citizen Cantonian is asking the correct questions about the funding of a Canton Comprehensive Plan.

The SCPR thinks Frank Morris is not being a "doom and gloom" councilman in his consistent expressions of skepticism of about the practicality, reliability and viability of the much touted Canton Comprehensive Plan.

The SCPR thinks that Mayor Healy and his planning gurus need to start answering those questions.

For now, the administration should be projecting a "within our 'maximum' capability" skeletal capital needs budget that Canton finances and projected taxpayer support will allow for.

The Report thinks the planners need to know Canton's "reality-based" financial capability before coming down with a plan.

The only thing worse than having no plan at all, is to have a "pie-in-the-sky" plan that has no chance of complete implementation.

The SCPR thinks such is what concerns Frank Morris.

Though Morris' views do not appear to be popular among his peers, they would be wise to pay attention to his skepticism and insist that any Canton Comprehensive Plan be fundable and therefore doable!

(VIDEO) LEGAL BUSINESS ON NEARLY $100 MILLON STARK CO. CONTRACT TO GO TO COLUMBUS LAW FIRM. CITY OF CANTON SAYS COUNTY INSISTED ON IT!

Canton service director William L. Bartos (only very recently appointed) told Canton City Council on Monday night that Stark County commissioner Thomas Bernabei (former Canton law director) was insisting that the Columbus-based law firm of Bricker and Eckler be hired as a condition of the county joining Canton and North Canton in doing a nearly $100 upgrade on Canton's "water reclamation facility" (WRF).

While Bartos did also refer to "needed expertise" as a factor, my prime takeaway on his presentation was that the county was firm on the Bricker and Eckler law firm being hired.

And knowing Commissioner Bernabei as well as I do, I knew I needed to check Bartos' statement out.

On June 2nd of this year Canton, North Canton and the Stark County commissioners (acting on behalf of the Stark County Sewer District) reached an agreement on the upgrade.

Here is a graphic of a typical water reclamation facility.

The WRF is described on Canton website thusly:

The Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) of the City of Canton, Ohio is responsible for treating all sanitary sewage that flows to the facility from a variety of sources throughout the greater Stark County area.

Between Stark County, Canton and North Canton, some 46,270 Stark County-sited households use Canton's facility.

In the past, the facility has received numerous awards.  However, none in the last three years

According to an Ohio construction and business news website:

The project came about after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a mandate stating that the plant must have lower phosphorus levels come year 2018. The EPA is also expected to require the plan to lower nitrogen levels soon.

The same publication broke down Stark County's, Canton's and North Canton's participation this way:

• Canton City will provide for 51 percent, or $45.2 million;
• Stark County will pay for 47 percent, or $41.7 million, and 
• North Canton City will take care of the remaining 2 percent, or $1.7 million.

So where is the controversy in this matter?

Answer:  the purchasing of out-of-town legal services in the putting together of the construction contracts necessary to bid out the upgrade.

Anyone can appreciate that when one is dealing with upwards of $100 million in contracts, the legal fees for analyzing the project's legal needs in terms of materials, labor and guarantees on the quality/accountability provided by contracting companies, will be considerable.

Certainly, to the tune of many thousands of dollars.

And, of course, with the hiring of a Columbus-based law firm; these are Stark County user fee dollars (those 46,270 households using the WRF) of which my household is a part of, which will be going to the capital city to be recirculated for for goods, services and whatnot in the Franklin County vicinity which is some 100 miles away from Stark County.

Ward 8 city councilman Edmond Mack (himself a lawyer with the law firm Tzangas Plakas Mannos Ltd) raised the issue of "buying local" in council's work session and again right prior to the vote on the proposed ordinance authorizing Canton enter into the joint agreement.

Others raising concerns included Councilman Greg Hawk (who joined Mack in voting "no" in what turned out to be a 10 - 2 (ayes prevailing) vote.



Inasmuch as I have sat through many a Stark County commissioners meeting since the SCPR began in 2008 and, having heard the various boards of commissioners that have served during the ensuing time span emphasize buying Stark County-based goods and services,  I was taken aback (to repeat myself) with Bartos' assertion that Commissioner Bernabei (or, if you will, Stark County) was adamant about having Bricker and Eckler be awarded the WRF legal services contract.

Inasmuch as I was at the commissioners' work session meeting of yesterday, I made a point of cornering Bernabei and quizzing him about Bartos' assertion that the county was fixed on having Bricker and Eckler.

To get to the end of it, it appears that there must have been a communications problem between Bartos and the county folks because it turns out that there was no mandate from the county that Bricker and Eckler be hired.

County officials were clear to me that if local law firms could be shown to have the requisite expertise, then - by all means - hire locally.

The closest that the county came to an expression that could be remotely construed to be a county condition that Bricker and Eckler be the law firm to provide legal service was a off-hand statement by county legal counsel David Bridenstine that Bricker and Eckler as "an example" of a firm, in Bridenstine's opinion, which is up to providing the expertise needed to deal with the complexities and ensuring protection of users/local government units interests going forward.

Bridenstine did say that he believes that no Stark County law firm is in a position to provide a level of legal expertise needed in formulating the WRF construction contracts.

Well, Mack disagrees with him.

Here is what Mack told the SCPR in an email dated September 24th:

Martin,

I am in no position to disagree with the legal counsel provided by Attorney David Bridenstine to his client, the Stark County Commissioners.  Attorney Bridenstine has a good reputation as an experienced lawyer, and it would certainly be inadvisable for the Stark County Commissioners to disregard the legal advice of their attorney under any circumstances.

I further do not dispute that the Columbus based-law firm of Bricker & Eckler would be sufficiently competent to serve as counsel relating to the Water Reclamation Project.  Bricker & Eckler is a good law firm with experience advising clients in sophisticated construction matters with environmental considerations.

However, I do not agree with the notion that the legal work associated with the WRP is beyond the capability of our own Stark County law firms.  For example:

Krugliak Wilkins, a firm with 50 lawyers located in Jackson Township, has vast experience representing commercial and municipal entities in a wide range of construction related assignments.  Krugliak also has a significant environmental practice.

Day Ketterer, a firm of over 40 lawyers located in Downtown Canton services both public and private clients in a wide range of construction and environmental related issues.  Its list of clients includes not only municipalities, but also several fortune 500 companies

Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, a firm of over 60 lawyers with an office located in Jackson Township, has significant experience in both construction and environmental law, navigating sophisticated projects and disputes on behalf of both large companies and municipalities.

Black McCuskey, a firm located in Downtown Canton with 28 lawyers, has significant experience advising clients in sophisticated matters where environmental considerations are prevalent.  A summary of this experience can be found here:  http://bmsa.com/practices/environmental_services.

Although I am a member of a local law firm that is likewise qualified, so as not to distract from the point, I will not list my firm with the above examples.

As a litigation attorney, I often encounter situations where adverse local businesses believe their interests are better served by attorneys from Columbus or Cleveland.  Presumably, their thinking is that, if the firm is located in a bigger city, the quality of the legal representation must be better.  Many times this comes at greater cost.  It is not until after judgment is rendered do they realize that this is not true, and that our attorneys in Stark County are very equipped to handle the most sophisticated legal matters.  More often than not, at greater value to the client.

Many of our local municipalities, such as Jackson Township and Plain Township, utilize the services of our local Stark County attorneys in a wide range of legal matters.  I hope it becomes the standard that, no matter the perceived complexity of a project, all of our political agencies first contact our local law firms.  If the matter is indeed too sophisticated for a particular firm, all attorneys have an ethical obligation to decline the assignment.  However, I do not believe our local attorneys should be “skipped over” in favor of out-of-town lawyers based upon the perceived notion that it is beyond our skill set.  When this happens we are missing out on an opportunity to re-invest our tax dollars back into our local economy.  This should be avoided at all costs.

In sum, our political subdivisions request that our local law firms support their operations, which is done through paying taxes.  Our political subdivisions should in turn support our local law firms by hiring our local attorneys when services are needed.  We all support the hiring of local labor in connection with public projects because it re-invests in our local economy.  Hiring local law firms is no different.

Edmond

To me, there was not enough "due diligence" done by city and county officials in determining whether or not Stark County has law firms that have the competence and experience (and specifically, litigation experience, for the eventuality that could there be a contract enforcement problem) to qualify for the WRF business.

It is unacceptable to me as Stark County Sewer District customer and as a media person who closely watches the processes of government, to see this apparent "goof up" on "due diligence" in determining who is correct (Bridenstine or Mack) as to whether or not the business could have been awarded locally.

The county and city both need to adopt a more formal way of evaluating local capabilities and avoid what Mack was faced with Monday night:  a piece of emergency legislation that needed more work to determine whether or not Bartos' assessment was correct.

In this instance, because the WRF is Canton's facility, the burden was on the Healy administration and, in terms of thorough oversight, Canton city council.

Only members Mack, Hawk, Cirelli and Schulman raised questions/concerns or made comments.

Where was the rest of council?

With Canton and Stark County struggling to cope with currently stressed economic/financial conditions, we citizens cannot abide "stumbling, bumbling local governments."

And such is what I have seen in all too many times coming out of the Mayor William J. Healy, II administration!

SCPR ELECTION SPECIAL: PORTER UPSETS WARD 1 COUNCILMAN GREG HAWK & CHANGES BALANCE OF POWER IN CANTON CITY COUNCIL?

UPDATE

Bill Smuckler (a long time former councilman who is running for councilman-at-large unopposed this election cycle) in a telephone conversation today tells the SCPR that Greg Hawk is in fact walking the neighborhood visiting with constituents.

Smuckler says he knows because he recently participated in a neighborhood walk with Hawk which lasted a couple of hours.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The SCPR has been hearing a  "buzz" flowing through political-junkie-land of late that the race to watch in Canton is not so much the Cole/Morris match up in Ward 9 but rather the Hawk/Porter face-off in Ward 1 located in Canton's near west/center side.

The word is that incumbent Councilman Greg Hawk (D - Ward 1, LINK to Facebook page for Ward 1) has grown complaisant and is perhaps shrugging this race off as just another in a series of efforts by Democratic Canton Mayor William J. Healy to unseat him.

For the most part Hawk has had no problem whatsoever in meeting the Healy challenge in the Democratic primaries of 2009 and 2011.

Hawk was first elected in November, 2001 and has been a fixture in Canton City Council ever since which as of December 31st will be 12 years.

Of course that was in the days that Harper was a Republican.

The SCPR is being told his Democratic opponent Tim Porter (LINK to Facebook page) that Hawk is not doing door-to-door but rather is sending a former Obama worker out to knock on doors on his behalf.  Porter also says that Hawk does show up for community events but stands off to himself and doesn't mix with Ward 1 constituents.

Porter says that he has been going door-to-door at a feverish pace and thinks he has a very good chance of knocking Hawk off.

Both are members of the Summit United Neighborhood Association but Porter (who is an official in the organization) claims that Hawk is not all that involved.

Hawk's resume indicates his involvement as being:

• Administrative Representative to Summit Neighborhood Housing Coalition,
• Member, Summit United Neighborhood Enrichment Team

If Porter is correct on his political assessments of Hawk, then the SCPR can see that the recipe is in place for a pretty stunning political upset in city of Canton politics.

You can factor William J. Healy - the second - in as being a primary sponsor of the Porter effort.  Porter winning equals his ridding himself of nemesis Hawk (especially the case when Hawk was finance committee chairman) from the Canton political scene.

Hawk feels that Healy was instrumental (through David Dougherty) in his being removed as finance committee chair when the 2012 - 2013 council organized.

And, if Porter pulls off an upset, you can bet that Healy will bill himself as the political Wizard of Oz who made it possible and will often and repeatedly remind Porter in one way or another that BUT FOR William J. Healy II, Tim Porter would not be on Canton City Council.

A consummately manipulative politician is who the mayor is.

Porter says he is a political novice but that he is getting helpful advice from Stark County Democratic chairman Randy Gonzalez.

Gonzalez (of Jackson Township [fiscal officer]) seems to be significantly involved in the Canton council races.  He is on record of having contributed to the Frank Morris campaign in Ward 9.

To the SCPR, the shifting and variant political alliances in Canton politics is intriguing.  In this regard, Porter says he is supporting Joe Cole in Ward 9.

He sees Frank Morris (D - Ward 9), Edmund Mack (D - Ward 8), John Mariol (D - Ward 7) and Kevin Fisher (D - Ward 5), a group that the SCPR has tabbed as being "the four young turks" of city council, as opposing  much of the agenda developed by the Healy administration in concert with Majority Leader David Dougherty (D - Ward 6) and Councilman Tom West (D - Ward 2).  They do so, he says, merely for the sake of opposition and creating political mayhem and thereby get in the way of Canton making progress in solving its many, many problems.

Porter cites Dougherty and Jimmy Babcock (D, at-large) as the councilpersons he respects most.

Just looking at the Porter/Hawk campaign finance reports gives credence to the notion that should Porter be elected, given human nature being what it is, he going to remember that Councilmen Mariol ($600) and Mack ($140) supported Hawk while Mayor Healy supported him.

Porter denies that such will be the case. He says that he is for what's in the best interest of people of Canton and Ward 1 and that such will be the standard he invokes in determining how to vote as issues come before council.

The SCPR passed several issues by him in our discussion yesterday and The Report's take is that he agrees with very little that

• "the four young turks," 
• Mary Cirelli (who is leaving council), 
• and Greg Hawk

have stood together on in seeming opposition to Healy administration proposals on key issues.

Porter singled out Cirelli and Hawk as targeting Councilman Thomas West (D - Ward 2) with "no" votes for any of his legislative proposals.

And that opposition remains very much in tact as the 2013 council races come to a conclusion.

As late as this past Monday night's council meeting, the administration was forced to put off a vote on the third reading of $1 million dollar or so tax abatement for a planned Canton sited hotel because it appears that a majority (likely 7 to 6 with President Schulman breaking a tie) are not satisfied that the developers of the hotel will be hiring union workers to do the construction work.

While the SCPR does not see a Porter victory in Ward 1 as bringing Healy the majority on council that he undoubtedly quests for; it would likely bring him a 6 to 6 tie (assuming Morris holds on in the 9th).

The SCPR thinks Porter will line up more with Healy loyalists Babcock, Dougherty, Griffin, Smith, and West than he is to vote without awareness that there are two distinct camps on council.

For Healy to get his "on key issues majority," Cole would have to take Morris out in the 9th inasmuch as certain to be new class of 2014 members council-at-large candidates Bill Smuckler and Roland Burns will likely line up with the "four young turks."

All of which, of course, retains Council President Allen Schulman in an all too familiar role in terms of being the "break the tie" man on council.

Porter has a lot of regard for Schulman as does, seemingly, both of the political continental divide-esque blocs of council.

From a Canton public interest standpoint, it might be a good thing that the mayor does not get a majority.  The SCPR sees Healy as a whimsical type who flits from idea to idea with little thought for how this or that policy/program fits into an well-thought out overall plan that will bring Canton out of its financial/economic doldrums.

For a different mayor who has a more wholesome, integrated policy and practice outlook (let's say a Warren Price); one would want a council working more closely and coordinatedly with the administration.

But William J. Healy, II is the mayor of Canton and political power is the name of the game with him.  Accordingly, he does need to be "check[ed] and balance]d."

And though Canton council has all Democratic councilpersons, the Will Rogers quote:  "I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat" is in full play in Canton politics.

Between Ward 1 and Ward 9, the 2013 election is a battle for control of Canton City Council not between Democrats and Republicans but between political Democratic blood brothers and sisters.

With Joe Cole antagonizing the Vassar Park folks (see yesterday's blog - LINK), it is hard to see him being victorious in Ward 9.   In a telling synopsis by former Councilman Brian Horner  (a Cole supporter) in a SCPR chit-chat with him yesterday, he impliedly conceded that Cole is likely to lose next Tuesday in saying that "it will be closer than folks think."

Up until recently the Ward 1 race has been flying under the political radar.

But no more.

The Stark County Political Report has a feeling that this race has all the makings of going down in the annals of Canton as being one of the most stunning of political upsets in all of Canton politics.

Probably less than 500 Ward 1 voters could determine the course of Canton government and politics over the next two years.

And the ramifications go beyond just Canton.

For the Hall of Fame city is Stark County's seat of government and SCPR believes that to a very large degree "how goes Canton - so goes Stark County."

While the contending parties debate/decide:

• how to get more police on the streets of Canton,
• whether or not to fund $175,000 to the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce,
• the matter of having traffic cameras at key downtown Canton intersections,
• how much and how quick the city will demolish neighborhood eyesores,
• who gets tax abatements and for how much,
• what to do with its parks and recreation infrastructure, and, indeed
• what the rules of council itself will be going forward,

the real contest in the 2013 election is which of the contending groups will control the "balance of power" on Canton City Council.

It could swing 7 to 5 either way.

However, the SCPR thinks it could well end up as a mirror image of the 6 to 6 stand-off that currently plagues council.

Whatever unfolds next Tuesday, it is looking more and more like the Ward 1 contest could end up being the 2013 election headliner.

Challenger Tim Porter defeats incumbent Greg Hawk in Ward 1 stunner?

(VIDEO) CANTON CITY COUNCILMAN JOE COLE: ON HIS WAY OUT?

Looking at the petitions taken out so far in Canton's city council race "at-large," it looks like an incumbent councilperson will not be returning?

Who might that be?

The SCPR is projecting that the "odd-man-out" may well be Councilman Joe Cole.

But the projection is presuming that Councilwoman Mary Cirelli will decide not to run for Canton treasurer, which is definitely the politically smart thing for her to do.

It has to be tempting for her to opt for a more secure position so that she does not have to gear up for election every two years, but The Report figures that it would take Councilman Greg Hawk (Ward 1) staying in the race (rather than trying to hold on to his ward seat) and Cirelli winning a plurality vote between herself, Perez (the frontrunner in the SCPR's estimate), Hawk with Kelly Zackary picking off enough of thought-to-be "normally" Perez votes to take first prize.

Quite a gamble for the long time Canton political fixture to take.

The Report believes she will want to ensure that she remains a fixture and decides that the inconvenience of having to run every two years is a small price to pay for having a continuing elective-political existence.

And, most assuredly, she and former councilman Bill Smuckler are likely to place 1, 2 in this vote for three contest.

No Republicans have taken out petitions so far.  For someone to do so would be a politically vain act in this Democrat 9 to 1 registration majority city.

So the likelihood of the odd-man-out is reduced to Councilman Joe Cole (in his second term) and Jimmy Babcock (in his first term).

The SCPR's analysis is that Cole, though rank with promise when first taking office, has not lived up to expectations and, accordingly, may well lose out to the established Democratic political name of Babcock (Charles, a past Canton mayor and Mary, a former councilwoman).

Though Councilman "Jimmy" Babcock (the son of Charles and Mary) in the opinion of the SCPR is less able than Cole; the Babcock name is likely to carry him through the 2013 Democratic primary in at least the third spot of the three positions to be elected.

The SCPR projected finish:  Smuckler, Cirelli and Babcock.

So what has happened to Cole, the former bright star of Canton City Council?

In the SCPR's assessment, he has chosen to play it safe and sell out to the Healy administration (LINK to prior SCPR blog on Cole, among others) as a dependable foot soldier and accordingly has chosen not to tap into his native resources to make a name for himself as an up and coming leader in Canton government and politics.

And the man has credentials galore.

Take a look!

On credentials, there is no way he should come in behind Jimmy Babcock and thereby be the odd-man-out.

An example of Cole fooling around on trifling stuff (as chairman of the finance committee) is to be found in his support of fellow Councilman David Dougherty's (who, the SCPR, was the surrogate for the Healy administration brain trust) marketing scheme of promoting Canton (made in China merchandise).

Here is a video of civic activist James Parker this past Monday (Public Speaks) excoriating council for having passed the measure.



The Report has checked with Canton's council office and here are the results of sales for a little over a half of a year.

Hmm?

Really serious stuff, no?

As far as the SCPR is concerned, it is a sad day for the future of Canton to see such a once bright star possibly fading into political oblivion.

(VIDEOS) DEMOCRACY IN ACTION! DOES CANTON CITY COUNCIL FEEL "UNDER THE GUN" ON THE FERAL ANIMAL (CAT) ISSUE?

UPDATE:  02/08/2012 at 09:45 AM - Having realized that a post-Canton-City-Council meeting mini-press conference (involving the SCPR and a WHBC reporter) was inadvertently omitted from the original video featuring Councilman Barton (at the end of the blog), The Report is supplementing via this update a video of the post-meeting interview.



ORIGINAL BLOG

For the past two weeks what Canton is going to do in terms of animal control within the city has been a "hot button" with Canton City Council (Council).

And it hasn't helped any to defuse the controversy that Canton's animal control officer, Phil Sedlacko, submitted his resignation to Safety Director Thomas Ream last Thursday in an apparent move to force the hand of Council to renew his contract for an extended period of time.

The SCPR's take is that most if not all of her fellows do not agree with Councilwoman Mary Cirelli; nevertheless she expressed her view that the Sedlacko action was a ploy tantamount to putting a gun to the head of Council.

Her description caused a sharp reaction from Majority Leader David Dougherty.  Here is a video of that part of last night's 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.

It seems to the SCPR that Canton will in time solve the controversy over the treatment of feral animals running the streets of the city.

Everybody appears to be united on whether or not Canton needs to continue to have an animal control officer and the consensus seems to be:  absolutely, Canton will continue to have an animal control officer.

So what is the question?

First, whether or not it will continue to be Phil Sedlacko?  Councilwoman Chris Smith and Councilmen Greg Hawk and Tom West and spoke highly of him but he  drew negatives from Councilwoman Cirelli and Councilman Frank Morris.

Here is a video of councilmembers talking about Sedlacko himself.



If Sedlacko's surprise resignation (which Ream, as of Monday night, was holding in abeyance) is an indication of a "my way or the highway" (which is typical of a number of Healy administration folks including the mayor himself), then he could be history at his own hand.  For The Report's sense of the situation is that if he will abide with whatever policy Council settles on, he will be renewed for a longer term.  Area media reported yesterday that Sedlacko has accepted the 90 day contract passed by Council on Monday for $6,782.25.

Because it seems to The Report that Council is of a mood to change its animal control policy to accommodate some of the concerns of the opponents to current Canton policy.  However, the SCPR believes that Council will only do so provided that the opponents present Council with a viable, workable and realistic plan.

A simple "Trap, Neuter and Return" policy is not going to fly in Canton.   As Councilman Hawk told yours truly is that he has to deal with ward residents who will not accept as an answer that a trapped cat is returning to the neighborhood to take up where it left off.

So abating the unacceptable wild animal behavior (cat or otherwise) seems to be the key.  And if opponents to the euthanasia track that the city is currently on want to be effective, they must come up with a plan that empowers councilpeople to solve ward resident problems.

The SCPR did contact one of the opposition leaders for elaboration on this point and this is how he (Toby Franks, who appears on the video below) responded via e-mail, to wit:

...

We do work with people in the neighborhoods resolve their issues, and its actually rare that we find an area that cats simply cannot be returned to. Cat-haters & cat-lovers, we ALL want the same thing - less cats outdoors.

The issue is how do we do it humanely & effectively.

If it truly is a hostile environment & the cats lives would be in danger, there is the last resort option of relocation to a farm or other feral-friendly location. Relocations are rare & must be done carefully. Alley Cat Allies offers a guide to safe relocation of feral cats.

The removal of feral cats from an area creates a vacuum that is quickly filled by new cats. Survivors of the cull invariably breed back to capacity & new cats move in. It’s called the Vacuum Effect & it’s very well documented. Trap & Kill is expensive, ineffective & inhumane.

Thankfully, forward-thinking communities are moving away from it & adopting the TNR approach. Even our neighbor to the east, the Village of East Canton has a S/N program for feral cats.

... 

With TNR the sterile, vaccinated cats are returned to their territory, so the breeding stops. The population is stabilized immediately & begins to decline naturally & gradually over time. And nuisance behaviors like scent marking, yowling, fighting stop as well.

So instead of a vacuum that is quickly filled by new cats, you have a stable population that creates a disease-free, kitten-free buffer zone & the population decreases over time.

... .

Canton City Council has the very best forum in Stark County (when Schulman is at the head) for citizens to express themselves at the Public Speaks part of Council's agenda.  And The Report's take is that the speakers are genuinely welcome and councilmembers appear to listen to them very attentively.  And, from time-to-time, it is apparent that citizens do affect councilmembers' thinking as they formulate policy.

Here is a video from the perspective of the citizens (in abbreviated format) that is a representative sampling of the feral animal Public Speaks debate which occurred Monday night.



Last but certainly not least is a video of Councilman Barton and his management of the issue.

Councilman Barton in his "on camera" response is especially impressive in the way he, as chairman of the Personnel Committee, is managing deliberations and the process of solving Canton's animal control problems.

MAYOR HEALY: "LAUGHING (OUT-OF-VIEW, OF COURSE) ALL THE WAY TO THE - POLITICAL - BANK?" VOLUME 4 - CANTON'S FINANCIAL MESS SERIES

Yes, "a political paradox."

How so?

Mayor William J. Healy's administration of the city of Canton has been one debacle after another with sideshows galore.

One would think there is no way he could be re-elected.  But think again.  The SCPR believes that he is now the odds-on-favorite to win.

Wow!

No one should underestimate Healy's ability to politically contrive as a vehicle to his own political survival.

A part of the "teflon William" vignette is now being played out in Canton via his "I've got religion" series of meetings on Canton's deplorable financial conditions.

He blames his predecessor Republican Janet Creighton (now county commissioner), he blames the overall economy and any other diversionary factor he can find.  But he does not blame himself and his utter lack of foresight.

Talk about diversionary.  He has one of his opponent's (Councilman Bill Smuckler) chief supporters focusing on the city's travel expenditures.  Councilman Greg Hawk is playing right into Healy's hands in introducing a bill to limit travel to "essential" travel.

Not that travel expenditures in a symbolic sort of way should not be monitored, but does anyone really think that this line item expenditure is going to resolve Canton's financial crisis?

Hawk's move is political posturing at its worst.  There are much more significant things to lambaste the Healy administration over.  Healy must be totally amused when he sees such stuff as this.

A clue for Smuckler/Hawk is contained in the following video at the first of a number of meeting that political-maestro Healy has concocted to make it appear he is dealing with Canton's financial crisis.

In this video Canton Finance Director Karen Alger talks about the "non-payroll" part of the Canton budget which in toto only amounts to 18% of a nearly $50 million annual budget or about $10 million. As she points out, a goodly number of these are mandatory.

However, the most significant item she talks about is the "underfunded" police and fire salary/benefits part of the budget.  Yes, "underfunded."  Underfunding is a "smoke and mirrors - creative financing" vehicle invented by Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. of Massillon and picked up upon by Canton's Mayor Healy.

As Council President Allen Schulman has said, Canton's finances are in a death spiral and no amount of meeting the public is going to solve that.

While Healy says everything is on the table, he then turns around and says the table is bare.

More political sophistry by a Mayor who is trying to survive politically day-to-day.

Here is Finance Director Alger's bio which is followed a video of part of her presentation on February 8th.

MAYBE IT WON'T BE FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT SCUTTLES THE CHARTER INITIATIVE IN CANTON; THE NUMBER MAY BE DOWN TO THREE?

AN AMPLIFICATION:  It has been pointed out by a reader of the SCPR that by the Rules of Procedure of the Canton City Council that a council member may ask Council as a body to remove an item from within a committee. If Council refuses to remove the matter from committee and the committee never reports it out, then the matter is effectively killed at the end of Council's term.  It would have to be reintroduced in a new term.

If Council does remove, by a majority vote, the measure from Council, then it goes to Council's Committee of The Whole where it will need seven votes (a simple majority) to get on City Council's agenda for consideration of passage.

ORIGINAL POST

The SCPR wrote on Tuesday that Councilman Mark Butterworth (R - 8th Ward) may have trouble finding eight of twelve votes within Canton City Council to get a measure on the May, 2011 to create a Charter Commission to formulate a charter for Cantonians to vote on in November, 2011.

Like it or not, this measure is getting caught up in politics and the political insecurities of at least two of the councilpersons who sit on the Judiciary Committee headed up by Councilman Thomas West (D - 2nd Ward).

So it could turn out that only three "no" votes (25% of the voting members of Council) refusing to report out the measure to full Council will kill the charter movement for Canton.

Another factor is that the Healy administration is cool to the idea of Canton going to a charter.

In a larger since, it is also probably a case of the "establishment" caucus of the organized Stark County Democratic Party on Canton Council who are trying in a stealth manner to kill the charter proposal.

Why?

Because the establishment folks are in charge now and any change is likely seen by them to threaten their control of Council.

Who are some of these folks?

A source tells the SCPR that Councilmen West, Cole and Hawk, if they can conjure up a superficially plausible basis for voting "no," they will do so.  The source says that one of the consequences that West and Hawk fear is that the drawing of new council district lines under a charter would put them in the same district and therefore have to run against one another in a face off.  Such a race would likely mean the end of Hawk's career on Council.

The SCPR believes Mayor Healy is "cool" to the idea of charter because Councilman Bill Smuckler is for it.  Smuckler has for many years advocated for Canton going to a charter form of government.  Smuckler is likely to run against Healy in next May's Democratic primary to be the Democratic nominee for mayor in November's election.

An important factor in all of these political maneuverings is that a Republican (Mark Butterworth) is pushing the charter thing.  A mistake that Butterworth made in proposing a charter commission is not getting a Democrat, any Democrat, to join him.

His mistake seems credible to the "establishment" Democrats being whispered around City Hall that this is a plan by Republicans to gain more representation on Council.  After all, it was Republican operative Michael Cunnington who earlier this year call a community meeting at Malone College to discuss the idea of circulating petitions for a ground-up movement to install a charter in Canton.

The SCPR is told that Cunnington ran into a buzz saw of "establishment" Democrats beholden to Mayor Healy who caused a ruckus at the community meeting over the Cunnington proposal.

The SCPR believes that it is a difficult task that the "establishment" Democrats have to pull off.  With Canton being in the financial/economic doldrums, it is clear that something has to be done to reverse Canton's fortunes.  But what?

Well, how about a change in structure of government which suggests the infusion of "new" blood into Canton government?  One not overwhelmingly controlled by the organized Stark County Democratic Party.

Cantonians are likely to be infuriated if they come to believe that they are being denied the right to vote on whether or not they want to go to a charter government by insecure Democratic politicians.

So the "establishment" Democratic forces have a touchy matter in their hands.

We will know better after August 9th and a meeting of the West-controlled Judiciary Committee at which Councilman Butterworth will seek to educate committee members on the ramifications of going charter.

Will this matter get out of Judiciary?

The SCPR thinks it depends on Councilman Joe Cole.

Why Cole?

Well, he is the new kid on the block in Council and has not really identified himself as being part and parcel with "establishment" Democrats on Council and also with the Healy administration.

The Report believes that if Cole signals he favors a vote of the people, then West and Hawk will likely flip over to voting "yes" with him.

But if he indicates strong reservations about charter proposal, it would not be surprising at all to see 25% of the members of Canton City Council deny the entire City of Canton electorate the opportunity to vote on the charter measure.

It all boils down to what the anti-charter folks can cook up that makes it appear to Cantonians that they are not being obstructionists.  But, rather, they are doing the responsible and productive thing for Canton.

The charter thing presents an interesting sideshow to the looming showdown between Mayor Healy and powerful Canton Council Bill Smuckler in a mayoralty face off in May of 2011!

HEALY AT IT AGAIN: FIGHTING WITH ARCH-ENEMY GREG HAWK (FINANCE CHAIR) OVER SEMANTICS (NUMBERS)? ANOTHER TWIST: IS HAWK TRYING TO FORCE TREASURER ROBERT SCHIRACK TO RESIGN?

Hey, when you are a graduate of the New York Stern School of Business, why would you abide the audacity of Councilman Greg Hawk, Ward 2 in a quibble over semantics - err - numbers.

Word is that Healy put up an opponent against Hawk last November, but the Healy supported candidate lost to the venerable councilman who has been on Canton City Council since 2002.  Think there might not be some residual "bad blood?"

Well, the SCPR thinks there is and it spilled over at Monday night's Canton City Council meeting.  And it was over the silliest thing.  Is the $58,000 saved from the salary of the departing communications director Adam Herman to remain in the eighth floor kitty or is it to be part of a mere $100,000 carryover to the 2011 budget.

Because of Healy and his insistence on fighting over bragging rights (ego) as to the "accounting" location of the money, Council reconvenes this evening at 5:30 p.m. for Hawk to preside over the humiliation of Healy.  At least that's what the SCPR is told.  A source on Council says that Hawk will win this fight.

Speaking of Councilman Hawk, the SCPR hears that he is taking aim at Canton City treasurer Robert Schirak and is looking to replace him as treasurer.  But Schirak was just re-elected last year and is not due to run again until 2013?

Seems to be a long time away for Hawk to be posturing for an electoral challenge, no?

The Report's city hall source says that Hawk has been all over Schirack's job performance of late and that there is more to it than prodding Schirack to do a better job. Moreover, the source says that the talk at Canton City Hall is that Hawk is aiming to take Schirack on in 2013.

The source could be onto something, but something much more immediate than 2013.

More likely, the SCPR thinks, is that Hawk is trying to put so much heat on Schirack that the Canton treasurer will step down and Hawk - well connected to Stark County Democratic Party kingmakers - will be in the cat bird's seat to get the Central Committee appointment.

Political intrigue continues to plague Canton government as such is grounded in egoistic grandstanding and personal political ambition and, in the meantime, the citizens suffer!