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."

THE BATTLE FOR "THE SOUL OF CANTON?"

A number of Canton councilpersons tell the SCPR that "all Hell broke loose" (The Report's interpretation) at last night's council meeting.

Chances are normally pretty good that the SCPR would have been there to video record the event "blow-by-blow."  However, yours truly underwent surgery on Thursday of last week and is not quite up to making it out to local government meetings.

But of course the SCPR has a rich base of "on the scene" resources upon which to write a blog.

One might ask, why the need to write a blog (an opinion supported by data/facts) on a matter that appears to be nothing more than a turf war: that is to say a "ward councilperson perspective" versus "Canton as a whole councilpersons?"

Answer:  The SCPR thinks this battle is one of a number that have been fought and will continue to surface as Canton's government sorts out "what really is important" for the Hall of Fame city to drag itself out of decades of decline.

The fight going on among Canton city council members appears to be the age old among humans "short-term" versus "long-term."

Last night the short-termers where Councilwoman (and assistant majority leader) Chris Smith, Ward 4 and Councilman David Dougherty, Ward 7 (former majority leader).

Interestingly enough, the SCPR thinks Dougherty was ousted as majority leader January, 2014 because he had run afoul of Canton City Council president Allen Schulman who clearly is foremost among council's long term thinking councilpersons.

And, the SCPR is told (which Schulman vehemently denies), that President Schulman has been working "behind the scenes" to replace Smith as assistant majority leader (1st vice president) because of her opposition to recent council initiatives including the Onesto Loft project and the $5 million that Canton has designated for the long term economic development project known as the Hall of Fame Village.

And, it could be that after last night's performance, Vice President and Majority Leader of council Frank Morris (in more or less siding with the visionaries) has extricated himself from Schulman's "hit list" inasmuch as he too in the last SCPR City of Canton government blog was said to be on "the wrong side of" President Schulman.

What prompted last night's fight?

Answer:  The repaving of Fulton Road Northwest from it terminus at Tuscarawas Street Northwest to out at the city limits which is at point beyond the Pro Football Hall of Fame complex.

The short-termers are furious that $400,000 set aside recently to be used for road maintenance projects "in the wards" is now being proposed to be tapped into in order for Canton to come up with "the local match" dollars needed for Canton to get $1.25 million in state of Ohio and federal grant monies with which to repave Fulton.

There is no doubt that one way or another Canton WILL come up with "the local match" to get the $1.25 million.

Can you imagine the political ruckus that foregoing $1.25 million would create in Canton?

The SCPR would daresay that such an occurrence would doom Dougherty and Smith in the November elections.

Though neither has a Democratic opponent in the May primary, should Dougherty and Smith convince five other councilpersons to join them in defeating the diversion of the $400,000 to the Fulton Road project (which the SCPR thinks is highly unlikely); does anybody doubt that an "independent" candidate will file before the May 4th filing deadline?

Such fate is not likely what Dougherty and Smith have to look out for.

What should be of concern to these short-termers is the "long-term" effect on their respective relationships with their fellow councilpersons.

It should be instructive to both that, though we live in a deliberative democratic-republic in which legislative debate is prized; if they are perceived "overall" to be on the wrong side of issues important to the power brokers, their devotion to their respective wards in council deliberations may be retributed upon by the "real" powers in Canton City Council.

The SCPR appreciates Dougherty and Smith "standing their ground" on last night's issue and encourages them in their short-term pursuits for the interests of their respective wards.

However, on this issue The Report agrees with the long-termers.

That we can disagree with one another in the United States of America without retribution is a quality that sets us apart from the rest of the world.

Of course the stakes were much higher.

But we saw in Russia this past weekend how some body politics handle their disputes.

To The Report, the blog of February 17th (though denied by Schulman), is this writer's contribution to the notion that we Americans can disagree in a deeply felt manner and life goes on as before.

And such should be the case on the Fulton Road repave issue.

Councilman Bill Smuckler (at-large; formerly a ward councilman) tells the SCPR is that he is working on a plan to satisfy both "the local match" problem and going ahead with the $400,000 neighborhood street repair plans.

He says that he is working with Canton's finance director to find those dollars in the nooks and crannies of Canton city finances and thereby satisfy both the short-termers and long-termers.

Another top-flight Canton councilman is Ward 8 councilman Edmond Mack.

The SCPR queried Mack and other councilpersons about their reaction to last night's session.

Here is what he has to say:

RE: Fulton Road Matter

        Edmond J. Mack
        Today at 10:31 AM

To: tramols@att.net

Thanks for the note, Martin.

The Fulton Road NW re-surfacing project is simply a no-brainer.  It is a major corridor in our City.  This road is not only a residential thoroughfare, but it connects our major tourist attraction, the Pro Football Hall of Fame, with our downtown and arts district.  And anyone who has driven on this road recently knows that it is in absolutely deplorable condition.  Though this road is not in my ward, the economics are clear – if we have the opportunity to accept a grant that pays 80% of this desperately needed project, we capitalize on the opportunity.  Regardless of the ward a particular councilperson may represent, the policy conclusion that should be drawn is obvious.  End of story.

Regrettably, last night’s council meeting devolved into a ward versus ward turf battle, with members criticizing the Fulton Road project as an expense to their ward’s self-interest.  This was very disappointing.  While each ward councilmember has an obligation to advocate for their respective ward, fighting for a member’s ward should not come at the expense of the City as a whole.  We have made much progress overcoming this old “ward versus ward” mindset, and it seems as if last night was a bit of a backslide.  The fact of the matter is that we all rise and fall together.

All of our wards – including my own – have been the recent beneficiary of critical infrastructure grants.  E.g., The 55th Street NE Improvement Project (Ward 8:  $1.1 Million); Sherrick Road SE Resurfacing (Ward 4:  $1.27 Million); 12th Street NE /Mahoning Road NE Corridor Project (Wards 2 and 6:  $53.55 million); Southeast Community Center Spray Park (Ward 4: $556,363).  These projects provide an undeniable ROI, often at rates in excess of 400%.  We should therefore encourage the utilization of these grants on projects that are needed, such as the Fulton Road NW project.  Not opposing them simply because they are not in our respective ward.

I do believe, however, that yesterday’s backslide was temporary.  It was simply a manifestation of the frustration all of us on Council feel regarding the extremely limited resources we have to manage our City’s roadways and infrastructure.  The funding cuts imposed upon us by the Columbus State Legislators are very real and very deep.  We are all human with human emotions, and our frustration will invariably express itself from time to time.  Nevertheless, we have a very good City Council, and I believe every one of us are serving for the right reasons.  I predict that the vote on the Fulton Road NW project will be unanimous, and our body will maintain its excellent work of collectively moving our City forward.

Sincerely,

Edmond J. Mack
Canton Council, Ward 8

In last night's meeting there was the offer by Councilman Morris to release some $120,000 of the $400,000 for projects in Ward 9 to help reach "the local match."

Also, Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher tells the SCPR that he is willing to join Morris in his offer by offering to forego some $57,000 of the $400,000 dedicated to his ward.

This folks is mature leadership and being responsible councilpersons.

The SCPR compliments Morris and Fisher for stepping forward with their offer.

Both short-term and long-term interest are legitimate in terms of dealing with city priorities.

The players (Canton's councilpersons and leadership) need to cultivate a climate of satisfying both in the give and take of council's proceedings.

It looks to the SCPR that the actions of Morris, Fisher and Smuckler are in the right direction.

In order for "the soul of Canton" to be saved consistent with the American structure of government, it is imperative that various ward and citywide interests be debated and resolved without there being a lingering ill feeling and possible retribution hanging in the air!

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!!!

WHAT WAS UP AT JASMINE'S ASIAN BISTRO (02/11/2013) WITH BUTTERWORTH, COLE & HEALY?

Whether there is anything political to it or not, when a former councilman (Butterworth) sits down with the mayor of Canton (Healy) and a current city councilman (Cole), people are going to speculate that some sort of deal is being cut.

Former councilman Mark Butterworth (a Republican - Ward 8), has filed petitions to run against the man (Democrat Edmond Mack) who defeated him in his bid for reelection on November 8, 2011.

So, of course, the sit down which occurred at Jasmine's Asian Bistro located on 30th Street is going to create a political buzz.

Especially when:

• Butterworth is taking on one of four troublesome councilpersons (Fisher [5th], Mariol [7th], Mack [8th] and Morris [9th] to Mayor Healy and his chief ally on council (Cole), and
• Cole himself is taking on a second of the four troublesomes (Mack).

The SCPR did contact Mark Butterworth to get his side of the story.

He tells The Report that "No," Joe Cole and Mayor Healy did not hand him a manila envelope containing his marching orders for his November, 2013 campaign to reclaim the 8th Ward seat.

So whom contacted whom to set up the meeting?

Butterworth's answer was forthcoming about two or three minutes after the question was posed after some dithering by Butterworth on whether or not he could recall who made the initial contact.

Butterworth says that he had heard that Cole was experiencing personal difficulties that Butterworth himself had gone through and that he had contacted Cole (about February 8th) to see whether or not he could be of some guidance on the matter.

Hmm?

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly is a devotee to political competition as the cure to a lot of bad politics and bad governance.

When Butterworth was elected in 2009 as the lone Republican on council, The Report was pleased and expectant that - though just one person - he would put together a sort of "loyal opposition" plank to Healy administration/Democratic council member proposals.

However, in The Report's judgment, Butterworth was not up to the task.

Oh, he did have convictions about this issue or that issue.  But he seemed to lack the courage of the convictions.

One of his big issues was getting a measure through council for Cantonians to decide whether or not the city should become a charter city.  However, Councilman West (chairman of the Judiciary Committee) proved too much of a hurdle for the-then eighth ward councilman.

Other matters came along during his term that the SCPR had gathered were important to Butterworth, but seemingly time and time again, one by one they faded into being political mist.

On the other hand, his successor Edmond Mack picked up with an agenda and has been able to forge a political alliance of sorts with Councilmen Fisher (Ward 5), Mariol (Ward 7) and Morris (Ward 9).

What the SCPR has been impressed with is the coming together of these four in a collective effort to put their heads together to help solve Canton's neighborhood problems.  Problems fueled by Canton's burgeoning and chronic crime malady, notwithstanding Mayor Healy's "zero-tolerance-to-crime" first term political campaign promise which The Report and many others think has been a huge failure.

The Report has dubbed the four as being the "four young turks." 

The four have been a real thorn in the side of the Healy administration and a couple of Healy's most loyal council members (West and Smith) who have openly attacked (The Report's take) the four during a council session on the four having held a consolidated ward meeting with their constituents.

Being the pure driven politician he is, one might well think Healy would be behind a Mark Butterworth (though a Republican) running against Mack and his loyalist Cole running against Morris.

Butterworth flat-out denies that such is the case with him.

He owns up to not handling his interaction with the overwhelmingly Democratic council/Democratic mayor in his 2010-11 stint on council well.

Because both Mack and Mariol were part of the collection of Canton politicians present at Jasmine's on February 11th, the SCPR believes that Butterworth's denial of deal making with Healy/Cole is credible.

It would be rather ridiculous to be plotting political strategy as your opponent sat nearby, no?

At the very least, though, it was politically unwise for him to be seen in public with Cole and Healy.

It was totally predictable that the Jasmine's meet up would set off speculation that Healy was behind Butterworth's filing.

Healy has a history of doing things such as this - witness his involvement in trying to get Councilman Hawk defeated in Ward One (denied by Healy) and his attempt to become a power player in the make-up of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee in the last election cycle for committeepersons.

The SCPR believes he aspires to be Stark County's Democratic Party's kingmaker.

Back to Butterworth and his trying to reclaim the Ward 8 seat.

In so many words, Butterworth told the SCPR that if elected he will be a councilman who scrutinizes everything brought forward in council deliberations and proposals, either by the mayor or the Democratic supermajority.

And, he added, it would not be outside the realm of possibility, that if elected he would seek to join in with Fisher, Mariol and Morris (if he is reelected) as one of the four young turks.

Does The Report believe him?

Not really.

He will want to be a different type councilman but the SCPR does not see him as having the strength of personality to persevere on his vision for Canton in the face of inducements/pressures from Healy or his fellow council members.

Councilman Mack, in contrast, has demonstrated in this term of council by real action what former Councilman Butterworth aspired to during his 2010-11 cycle.

In his meeting with Cole and, perhaps, Healy; one should not totally dismiss the notion that it was part of a deal being cut as absurd as the setting was.

One would hardly expect Butterworth to fess up, if such were the case.

The SCPR's take on Butterworth's description of the conversation was that nearly everything was of a personal nature and very little was in fact political talk.

That is hard to believe.

Get a bunch of politicians in a room and they are going to talk about everything else but politics?

Where did you say that swamp land you wanted to sell is located?

(VIDEOS OF CANTON COUNCIL IN ACTION) "FOUR YOUNG TURKS" BEGINNING TO DRAW "THE FIRES OF JEALOUSY" FOR THEIR EFFORTS TO PULL CANTON OUT OF ITS PLUNGE TO THE BOTTOM?

The political sniping has begun!

The SCPR, from many decades of life experience, knew that it was inevitable that the activism and energy of a group of Canton councilmen whom The Report has affectionately dubbed as "the four young turks" (Fisher, Ward 5; Mack, Ward 8; Mariol, Ward 7 and Morris, Ward 9) would draw the attention of those whom have not been all that effective in solving Canton's longstanding problems.

The Report believes that a line of inquiry at Monday night's council meeting initiated by Councilwoman Chris Smith (Ward 4) on the availability of a downpayment subsidy for those who want to locate in Canton's surplus housing was a tip-off that the inquiry is, perhaps, indicative that there is a sub rosa discussion underway among oppositional circles within Canton City Council, with contribution from the Healy administration, on finding ways to rope in the straying councilmen.

Joining Smith (by happenstance, of course) in the indirect criticism of the Ward 5, 7, 8 and 9 councilmen, was Ward 2 Councilman Tom West.

It was a weird sort discussion that involved, in turn, Smith (to start), then Mariol, then West and then Mack in sort of a zigzag line and finally Councilwoman Mary Cireilli (at-large) defending her fellows from 5, 7, 8 and 9.

Smith obliquely approached what The Report believes to be the real issue:  What are these councilmen doing banding together, just the four of them, to lay a foundation for finding solutions for Canton's decaying neighborhoods in partnership with the people?

Cutting through all the crap, The Report  believes that is where she and West were heading.

Take a look at this little "dog and pony show" (so, The Report thinks) put on by Smith and West.



Judge for yourself.

Please note that Smith's apparent "mask question" asked of Community Development Director Fonda Williams was, in effect:  "Doesn't Canton already have the ability to subsidize the downpayment money to those who want to buy redeveloped/rehabbed property in the city?

It so happens that the idea of a downpayment subsidy was discussed at some length by Fisher, Mack, Mariol and Morris at their joint townhall meeting of December 5th.

But it seems to The Report that there was just a tad of dissembling going on by Smith, West and their "silent" allies.

So, whose bright idea was this to, by insinuation and in misdirection, to start a "below the radar" campaign against the collaborative effort of the four?

The Report believes that Mayor William J. Healy, II is the "behind the scenes" person.

His objective?

Yours truly thinks: to create just enough turmoil (a divide and conquer strategy) to make Fisher, Mack, Mariol and Morris back off their scrutinizing of his poorly thought schemes of government and to back off their aggressive and proactive search for effective and enduring solutions for what ails Canton.

They have been a primary force is making him retreat from several legislative initiatives and you can bet that this man MBAed by the New York University Stern School of Business is not liking it one bit!

The Report thinks he will do what he has to in order to come out on top.

And there is precedent for Healy trying to put others up to doing his dirty work.  It could be that the tools of Healy's effort are not even aware of how they are being manipulated.

Does anyone doubt that as Canton's chief executive that Healy (given his grandiose view of himself), in his heart of hearts, thinks he and his administration is the only legitimate authority to deal with Canton's overwhelming problems?

However, Healy has one huge chore in trying to sell that notion to Cantonians.

Notwithstanding his having been mayor for five full years, Canton is not making headway in solving its problems.  Many think Canton is sliding more quickly and deeper into an abyss of no return than ever before.

Healy undoubtedly sees that if allowed to show success, the four newer council members will put him on the sidelines looking on.

Anyone who knows Hizzoner has to know that being on the sidelines is not a option for him.

So we shall see what kind of determination that Fisher, Mack, Mariol and Morris have.

All they have done so far is to start meeting with their constituents on a regular and sustained basis and in doing so they are raising eyebrows.

And for the four to have come together on December 5th for a mass meeting, wow!  The raised eyebrows appear now to have been converted into clanging alarm bells.

If they actually get some "redeem Canton" solutions up and running and showing effectiveness restoring Canton into becoming a viable city, they "ain't seen nothing yet" in terms of the subterranean lighting and thunder that will began flashing to the surface.

It could be they will "get the message" and back off.  After all, they are elected officials likely with future political aspirations. Moreover, they are human beings.  And if they start producing results, the pressure to back off will ratchet up proportionally. 

If they do, then Canton loses perhaps its last chance to escape its inexorable destiny of political and governmental oblivion.

The Report looks for Healy to try to use the likes of West (Ward 2), Smith (Ward 4), Babcock (at-large) and Cole (at-large) in one fashion or another to stymie Fisher et al.

They already are pretty much in Healy's hip pocket.  But that is not enough to fire them up to do "in the trenches battle" with the insurgent councilmen.

Aha! (a finagler might think)

Who likes to standby and watch peers achieve what one has not been able to do him or herself?  Think that won't generate some passion?

Indeed, the recipe!  "Look, you are being shown up!!"

Go figure that one of the observations on Monday night was in effect a finger pointing at the four young turks as being a cause for concern as bringing division within council for actively pursuing solutions - just the four of them - for Canton's deep, deep problems.

Blame the victim, pure and simple!

Another telltale sign that an attack is underway?

As far as the SCPR is concerned, what is beginning to unfold has William J. Healy, II's hand written all over it.

For the future well being of generations of Cantonians, the question is: will these "can do councilmen" have the strength of character and personality to hold their ground in doing the right thing; not the politically expedient thing?

(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.

MAY, 2011 DEM PRIMARY IN FULL SWING? HEALY TRYING TO FORCE A VOTE ON CHRIS SMITH WATERPARK ISSUE?

It is "political" game on for Mayor William J. Healy, II.  He is in a delightful side of this game.

Which side?

Answer:  either side.

At last Council meeting, he had Communications Director Adam Herman agitating various members of Council to force an "up or down" vote on Councilwoman Chris Smith's effort to get Council approval of using $495,000 in Ohio grant money to fund the building of some version of a waterpark in Smith's ward.

Why and "up or down" vote?

Because Healy wants to put prime 2011 opponent Councilman Bill Smuckler on record one way or the other on the issue.

Smuckler's "real" position is that the finances on the project are shaky and that a prudent councilperson would vote "no" on Smith's pet project.

However, if he votes that way, he has no hope at all that Smith and others representing "inner-city" wards will be neutral in a Smuckler/Healy primary in 2011.

His preference?

Keep the measure bottled up in committee and then he does not go on the record at all.

For Healy's part, he thinks he wins either way.

If the the project gets approved, he can say that it was his Administration that provided the heft to get the bill out of committee and up for the approving vote.

If the project gets voted down - even if Smuckler votes for it; Healy can and will say that the Administration tried.

So what will the Smuckler game plan be?

Keep Smith's measure bottled up in committee.

Will Smuckler's game plan work?

Probably.

Smuckler's key ally Greg Hawk is chair of the Finance Committee!

WILL CANTON CITY COUNCIL (CANTON WITH A $1.5 2010 DEFICIT) GET ROLLED BY COUNCILWOMAN CHRIS SMITH?

The SCPR is told that Councilwoman Chris Smith gets real ugly with anyone on Canton City Council who acts like he/she might not support her pet project of having the State of Ohio and City of Canton finance a water park at the Edward L. "Peel" Community Center located in southeast Canton.

Back in December '09, Smith (D - 4),  who is passionate and determined about the project,  introduced a resolution in Council to have the entire Council go on record in supporting her pet project. 

The SCPR has learned that even though the resolution passed unanimously, on the track for an up or down vote, it is bottled up in the Canton City Council Finance Committee.  Smith's initiative may not make it out of committee, however, it would be a mistake to count her out on dislodging the matter out of Finance.

Her major ally, at the moment, is Mayor William J. Healy, II.

The water park idea has been brewing for about three years, but has never gotten off the ground. 

Why?

The SCPR believes because it is not economically sustainable and Council as a whole knows it. 

The Report is told that Corey Minor Smith (compliance officer for the Healy administration) is working on the sustainability issue for the project and has no satisfactory plan nor answers on how a water park, if built, would not be a drain on city finances which is at least $1.5 million in the hole for 2010.

One matter, which has not hit public print until this blog, is the condition in the $500,000 Ohio Department of Natural Resources grant that the project be up and running for 15 years or Canton will be required to repay Ohio the $500,000.

Coupled with the $800,000 Canton is putting up, if the project fails, which appears likely because of the virtually nonexistent sustainability plan, then Cantonians could be out $1.3 million plus have to deal with any liabilities should an accident occur in the use of the facilities.
The liability concerns is why even the Smith-friendly Healy administration is talking about a "shallow" pool or waterway, if any at all.

The SCPR believes that whether or not the water park is sustainable may prove to be beside the point.

For whatever reason, Councilwoman Smith has taken the project under her wings and apparently is daring the rest of Council to have the political guts to turn her down.

A SCPR source believes that Smith is impliedly playing the race card.

A Democratic primary fight over the Canton mayoralty is on the political horizon in 2011 (as well as three council-at-large seats) and that none of the incumbents can afford to offend Smith who represents a minority dominated ward and is a major center of influence in the African-American community to whom many black Cantonians look for advice and counsel on voting matters.

The Canton black vote can be determinative of who wins citywide in an otherwise close vote in Democratic primaries.

While Bill Smuckler (who The Report believes is itching to run against Mayor Healy in 2011) cannot expect much support at all from Canton's black wards.

His poor showing - in terms of black support for his candidacy - in his 2003 run against Republican Janet Creighton for Canton mayor is the reason, in the SCPR's assessment, why he lost to Creighton by a scant 300 plus votes.  Accordingly, Smuckler would not want to become a Smith target because of being perceived to not be supportive of measures deemed by the Councilwoman to be desirable for her ward.  Nor would fellow councilpersons such as Mary Cirelli nor Joe Cole.

So political considerations of mayoralty/council candidates seem to be the major asset in favor of Councilwoman Smith in getting Council to force Finance chairman's Greg Hawk's hand to release the legislation.

While racial politics (in terms of whom the black community will support in the 2011 city elections, or, on the flip side - politicians pandering to political correctness) is not openly discussed in the interplay among the Canton's political players in the context of the water park issue, the SCPR's source appears to believe that a subsurface race is a subtle factor in the consideration of whether or not certain councilpersons - if not Council as a whole - end up supporting the project.

If the the source's suggestion is an accurate perception, then the question becomes whether or not there are any Canton city councilperson who will stand up to Smith and force her and the Healy administration to prove that a water park is a sustainable enterprise and decide the matter on that basis alone?

No monies should ever, ever come from the Canton general fund for the park.  The project, if it goes forward, should only be constructed as an "enterprise fund" type operation that sustains itself.

The SCPR is not optimistic that Canton officials will ensure that the project is developed on a fiscally sound basis.

After all, these folks (the councilpersons and Mayor Healy) are politicians.  One should never, ever forget that.

Although Healy likes to blame the recent $4.5 million deficit wholly on the downturn in the economy, the SCPR believes that he and his top administrators failed to read the tea leaves and put Canton's fiscal operations on solid footing and thereby contributed unnecessarily to Canton's current financial woes.

The final question?

Are Canton City Council members and Mayor Healy about to allow another unsustainable project in the form of the proposed water park burden city coffers on the basis of being the politically correct and expedient thing to do?