(VIDEO) "THAT'S WHY IT'S NAMED THE "STARK COUNTY LAND REUTILIZATION CORPORATION" - ALEX ZUMBAR, CHAIRMAN

UPDATED:  09:00

VIDEO

See/hear Mayor Healy tell Councilwoman Cirelli and the rest of Canton City Council about his effort to get all $2.3 million of the Stark County Land Reutilization monies

In 1992 Summit County's Green Township became the City of Green.

By his actions, one might think that Canton's mayor William J. Healy, II thinks that Stark County and the city of Canton are one and the same.

Can you imagine Healy as the mayor of a 378,000 metropolis?

Evidence of such possibly being his mindset came out at Monday night's Canton City Council meeting.

The setting was a Q&A between Councilwoman-at-Large Mary Cirelli and the mayor over $1 million that Canton is covering for the Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation (SCLRC) which is Stark's vehicle for handling state of Ohio grant money for demolishing Stark County-based abandoned/foreclosed residential housing.

For those readers who are not familiar with Ohio's program (Moving Ohio Forward Demolition Grant Program), CLICK HERE to see a July 3, 2012 blog explaining the background of the program.

Back in 2012, Mayor Healy was acting like Canton might have to pass on the program because of the necessity of a local match (50/50) required for each SCLRC dollar that a Stark County community gets.

The Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation was formed in 2013.

Two members of the board include Healy antagonists and Stark County commissioners Tom Bernabei and Janet Creighton.

Stark County's grant from Ohio is $2.3 million.

In the last census (2010), Stark County had a population of about 378,000 citizens whereas incorporated Canton has about 73,000 or about 19% of the county's total population.

So it was astonishing to the SCPR that Mayor Healy would be dismissive of the rest of Stark County on Monday in terms of his saying that Canton really should have been granted $2.3 million of the county's $2.3 million, and that had the SCLRC seen it his way, Canton was prepared (remember, at one time [July, 2012] there was a question of whether or not Canton had the financial wherewithal to participate at all) to spend $2 million of its own money to be matched with SCLRC money for a total of $4 million to be spent demolishing Canton dilapidated residential housing.



Canton is currently in the process of demolishing some 517 units by December 31st with the total of $2 million ($1 million in city of Canton money; $1 million in SCLRC money) which  if expanded to $4 million ($2 million/Canton - $2 million/SCLRC) would presumably lead to over 1,000 blighted Canton city properties being demolished.  It is believe that Canton has roughly 5,000 blighted residents that need demolished.

But, of course, there is no way a "Stark County" Land Reutilization Corporation was going to allocate 100% of state of Ohio total funding to an entity that has 19% of the county's population.

Yesterday yours truly crossed paths with Alex Zumbar (chairman of the SCLRC; also Stark County treasurer [Republican - Alliance]) and mentioned to him Healy's Monday night insinuation that the SCLRC had its priorities screwed up and that Canton should have gotten $2.3 million rather than $1 million.

Hence Zumbar's response:  "That's why its named the Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation."

Healy has a history of thinking that the only thing that matters in Stark County is its county seat Canton which he happens to be the chief executive of.

Whether it is named consolidating/merging/collaborating or whatever one wants to label the process, the only way the city of Canton under Mayor William J. Healy, II is going to be part of the effort is if Canton government ends up in charge.

Efforts at bringing efficiency through countywide integration to various health departments, building departments, emergency call dispatch scattered across Stark County seem always to get sidetracked by the city of Canton factor.

Recent progress was reported on the effort to achieve a countywide emergency forces dispatch operation (or at least 75% countywide, since Nimshillen Township's CenCom remains opposed) because Warren Price, at the time newly named as Canton's safety director, had taken charge and convinced Healy that integrating Canton into the operation was the thing to do.

Originally, Canton had been on board with countywide dispatch (2009, 2010) only to change to not being on board in 2011.  Such is life with William J. Healy, II.

But with Price now out as safety director, the SCPR would not be surprised to see Healy reverse himself once again on that matter.

And there is the situation with the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab.

•  LINK - Blog of February 11, 2013,
•  LINK - Blog of February 13, 2013,
•  LINK - Blog of February 21, 2013,

In essence, earlier (February) this year Healy tried to water down the requirements of the director of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab (CSCCL) to non-scientist status so that he could pick Rick Perez as director.

And "all Hell broke loose" on Healy at the hand of the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) Executive Committee.

The issue?

Guess?

You've got it:  Who was in charge of the Canton - Stark County Crime Lab?

Most of the money and nearly all of the equipment has been anted up by SCOG, and Canton under Healy wants to be in charge?

Again, Warren Price stepped in and the controversy seemed to be headed towards resolution.

But now that Price is gone, are we back to square one on that issue?

The SCPR asked SCOG chairman Tom Bernabei the question yesterday whether or not 9-1-1 countywide consolidation and figuring out who is in charge of the CSCCL are now off track with Price's departure.

Answer:  "We shall see."

In a way, it is good to see Healy try to dominate Stark County.

Good?

Yes.

Because out in the county there are public officials who have no trouble at all with reining Hizzhonor in.

As Chairman Zumbar says:  "That's why it's named the 'Stark County Reutilization Corporation" Mayor Healy!!!

And look for SCOG chairman Tom Bernabei to do pretty much the same with him on the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab situation.

After Bernabei gets done with Healy, do not look for what remains of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab to be under Canton's control.

WHO DOES COUNCILMAN-AT-LARGE JOE COLE THINK HE IS KIDDING?

Yours truly gets one hoot after another in following the political career escapades of Canton Councilman Joe Cole.

Now a lame duck councilman, having lost to Frank Morris, III (a fellow Democrat) in Ward 9 this past November, Cole - once a very promising councilman - in his work as councilman seems to the SCPR to have totally lost it.

For those readers who missed it, here is a LINK to the SCPR blog which details the hoodwinking Mary Cirelli gave him back in February at the filing deadline for the May 7th primary election.

The Cirelli move caused him to end up running against the Ward 9 incumbent Morris.

Why?

Likely because Cole, believed he would have to run against Bill Smuckler, Cirelli and Jimmy Babcock and (in the light of is previous "weak" election showings [see number below]) be the "odd-man-out" [so to speak]) in the 2013 council-at-large Democratic Primary.

As it turned out, Mary Cirelli made her own bad decision in opting to run for Canton treasurer. Astonishing nearly all of us who think we know something about Canton politics, Mary ran third of three candidates for the Canton city treasurer post.

So in the end, the "cloak and dagger-esque" scene at the Stark County Board of Elections between Cole and Cirelli was politically fatal to both of them.

Before the Board of Elections fiasco, Joe - in the opinion of the SCPR - made a big mistake in throwing in with Mayor William J. Healy, II.

But he probably was feeling politically vulnerable and thought that closely associating with the mayor might help him.

When he first ran in 2009, he barely bested Babcock in a field of 10 Democrats vying for the three council-at-large seats in the Democratic Primary.

Then in the November election he was way, way behind Smuckler and Cirelli.

And in subsequent elections, he has always been third in the race for one of the three Canton council-at-large posts up for election.

Cole was likely (well before the filings, when he was in the throes of picking his political allies) figuring that Bill Smuckler who lost to Healy in the Democratic mayoralty primary in 2011 and to Republican Richard Regula in November, 2012 for county commissioner would be itching to get back onto Canton council.

He knew that Healy was the political adversary of both Cirelli and Smuckler and what better ally than the mayor, no?

And, apparently, the mayor likely brought him the support of Stark County's trade unions and the man the SCPR believes is the Trades' most active political type; namely, Dave Kirven of Local 94 of the Plumbers and Pipefitters.

The SCPR has received a number of opinions from various Stark Democrats that Kirven is in cahoots with the mayor to take over the Stark County Democratic Party.

Local political observers can't quite figure out the Kirven/Cole relationship inasmuch as Cole is the superintendent of a charter school which, of course, do not generally hire unionized teachers.

The Report thinks that it is Healy who is the nexus between the Trades/Kirven and Cole.

The SCPR has reported the huge amount of money (probably to be shown to have been in excess of $10,000 in  post-primary campaign finance reports) [LINK]) that Kirven apparently was instrumental in getting the Trades to put into Cole's campaign against Morris (himself a member of an Akron-based glaziers' union).

So the moral of the political story for Cole is that the mayor was of no help in his race against Morris and that the large union war chest was of no help.

But how can anybody help a candidate who - during the campaign:

• dissed a key segment of Ward 9 voters (LINK - i.e. Vassar Park residents [Group 175] who are pushing Canton government to increase the Canton police force to 175 strong)
• in an open council meeting, singled out Frank Morris as being deplorable in voting no on funding the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce at $175,000 city taxpayer dollars.  (Morris wanted to the money to go towards hiring more police).
• decided - during the campaign - he was against Canton having "council-at-large positions altogether beginning with the 2015/2016 term if approved by Canton's voters.

To the SCPR, the Cole Ward 9 campaign was "one big laugh" and all that union money from the hard working members' membership dues was not going to help a "comedy of errors" campaign.

Rather than admit the obvious that his anti-council-at-large-seats stance was born of having been hoodwinked by Cirelli, he persisted to bringing the matter to a vote this past Monday.

He only got two votes, other than his own:  Edmond Mack, Ward 8 and David Dougherty, Ward 6.

The Report sees the initial "during the campaign" proposal by Cole as being a political gambit (much after the model of that Mayor Healy presents in his "everything is political" way of thinking) that was laughably silly if he thought it was going to benefit him in terms of getting newspaper ink during his race against Morris.

While his reasoning may have some validity, to wit:

“This is territorial in a sense [...] These are individuals worried about their political futures and I understand that. That’s not a criticism. They are worried about what would be the landscape if you had individuals who would normally be at-large, who now don’t have those seats, they’re going to becoming into ward (races).”  (Source:  City Council keeps at-large seats, Rink, The Repository, May 20, 2013).

Of course, the best evidence of his point is himself.

When Mary Cirelli bamboozled him into thinking that she was going to run for council-at-large, what did Joe Cole do?

You've got it.  He took on the incumbent councilman in the ward he lives in:  Ward 9.

When his personal political survival was at stake, Cole showed how utterly political he is.  That his opponent was a fellow Democrat and an incumbent didn't faze him one bit.

What he did not talk about in his justification(s) for eliminating the council-at-large seats is that there is a better justification for keeping the at-large positions and redrawing the wards (to make them larger) so that there are fewer of them and thereby achieve a "cost to taxpayer" savings.

But who really believes that saving money was his "real" motivation?

More likely is:  "If I can't be councilman-at-large, then let's eliminate it for everybody."  In other words, as vain as it seems, "sour grapes - pure and simple!"

A the SCPR sees it, having three council-at-large positions is in moderation of the "territorial" feature and not territorial in the sense that Cole defined it (political self-interest, which he so amply demonstrated in Ward 9).

In The Report's definition of territorial, having three council-at-large slots on council should provide a more city-wide (i.e. global) input into what happens in city government and thereby lessens the competition among the Wards for city taxpayer money to be spent for parochial interest as opposed to matters which will benefit the entire city.

For instance, the three at-large councilpersons (Babcock, Cirelli and Cole) were naturals to take up the cause of Group 175 because presumably a greater police presence benefits the entire city.

But, as we know, only Cirelli supported Group 175.

The SCPR does not think Babcock and Cole function in a de facto sense as city-wide representatives.  Both have wedded themselves to Mayor Healy and his specific political agenda.

And in doing so, they are more narrowly focused than a number of the ward councilpersons.

The bottom line though is that the Cole proposal to eliminate the council-at-large positions were never about what is best for the structure of Canton government.

To repeat, the SCPR believes that Cole's proposal was a political gambit borne of the frustration of having been outwitted by Mary Cirelli and therefore, in the end, was nothing more than "a case of sour grapes!"

COUNCILMAN JOE COLE WILL NOT BE STARRING ON "I AM A SURVIVOR." MARY CIRELLI DOES A NUMBER ON HIM AND HIS COUNCIL PAL JIMMY BABCOCK?

 CORRECTION

David Kiven (business agent for the Pipefitters and Plumbers, Local 94) has sent the SCPR a email correcting The Report's recollection of how Councilman Morris voted on the proposal for Canton City Council to authorize the expenditure of $25,000 for city of Canton promotional materials for products made in China.

Morris joined Kirven's candidate for the 9th Ward (Joe Cole) in voting for the measure.  Only 5th Ward Councilman Kevin Fisher voted no in an 11 to 1 vote.

The SCPR regrets the error and thanks Kirven for bringing the mistake to The Report's attention.

ORIGINAL BLOG (Revised to account for the error)

Probably due to a SCPR political analysis blog showing that if Bill Smuckler, Jimmy Babcock, Mary Cirelli, and Joe Cole were to run for the three slots up for election in Canton's council-at-large race this coming May that Councilman Cole would be the "odd man out," he apparently decided to play a game of "political musical chairs" with Cirelli on Wednesday, February 6, 2013.

A SCPR source (confirmed by Mary Cirelli herself) says that Cirelli and Cole (along with his fellow councilman and pal Jimmy Babcock) were camped out in their cars in front of the the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) as the 4:00 p.m. filing deadline for the 2013 elections neared.

Cole seemed intent on waiting for Cirelli to declare herself as to whether she was going to run to be Canton's next treasurer or seek to retain her seat as councilwoman-at-large.

And any one who knows Mary Cirelli has to know she would not be outdone.

Cole had taken out petitions for his current seat (council-at-large) and to run against incumbent Democratic 9th ward Councilman Frank Morris.

Finally, Cole enters the BOE and Cirelli follows.

But she does not see Cole when she gets into the building.

She assumes Cole has already filed.  But que sera, que sera, Cirelli tells the SCPR.

She plomps her petitions for council-at-large down on the counter and asks the nearby Jeanette Mullane (deputy director of the BOE) to check them out as to accuracy.

While Mullane is doing the checking, Cirelli excuses herself to go to the ladies room.

Meanwhile, Cole makes his appearance at the counter of the BOE.

Likely, Cole sees Mary's council-at-large petitions laying on the counter and ASSUMES thereby that she has opted to run for re-election as councilwoman-at-large.

So Cole files for the 9th ward against Morris apparently figuring that running in the 9th was his best chance to stay on council.

Out comes Mary Cirelli.  She asked Mullane if the petitions appeared to be in order. 

Mullane responds:  "Yes".

Whereupon Cirelli whips out her treasurer's petitions and said:  "Okay, then these must be alright, too."

And she files for treasurer.

Cole has to be utterly shocked.

What a hoot!, no?

But worse for Cole, getting out maneuvered by Cirelli probably means his days on council are numbered.

Had he gotten the filing process right by filing for council-at-large, he would be a shoe-in to be reelected.  With Cirelli out of the race, and two political newcomers vying against him for the third of three slots (assuming that his friend Babcock and former councilman Bill Smuckler will win the first two slots as the SCPR does), The Report believes that the lackluster Cole would clearly be in a position to place third.

But there is more to the story.

Probably Cole's biggest booster is Dave Kirven who is the business agent for Plumbers and Pipefitters, Local 94 located down on 13 Street, SW.

The Report's source tells yours truly that Kirven was told weeks ago that Cirelli was going to run for treasurer.

Kirven denies to The Report that he was told any such thing.

But now that the die is cast and his man is running against Morris, this is what he had to say:

Make no mistake Joe Cole is Local 94's guy in whatever race he would have decided to run in. Joe has been a good friend to Labor and in my opinion deserves our support (Local 94) and I will express my opinion to other Local Unions in the area. It's unfortunate that our local Dems put more energy into fighting each other than finding common ground.

This is just plain crazy.

One Stark County's main trade union guys campaigning against Morris who is himself a union glazier.

Democrat against Democrat.

Union member against union member.

And what's even stranger, is that Cole is superintendent/principal of a Canton-based charter school.

What is a prime characteristic of charter schools?

They do not hire union teachers!

Wow!  Kirven is big time advocate for "justice for local workers."  On July 1, 2010 he was the main organizer of a "justice for local workers" (LINK to a prior SCPR blog) rally.

While Kirven likes to say that the rally was not only for union workers but for all (union/nonunion) Stark County-based workers; make no mistake about it, the bottom line:   the rally was for union jobs.

As was the picketing effort in April of 2012 against the Outback Steakhouse and Bonefish Grill building projects adjacent to The Strip in North Canton (LINK to North Canton Patch article and video featuring Kirven).

Last year (May, 2012), Hall of Fame AFL-CIO president Dan Scuiry appeared before the Canton City Council to talk down a Healy administration plan to market city of Canton promotional materials made by non-union workers in China.  (LINK to prior SCPR blog)

Who was a major proponent of the plan which was ultimately passed by council?  You've got it:  Councilman Joe Cole.

But strangely enough so did Morris and everybody else on council.  It is hard to believe that Morris, being the strong union man he is, would vote for such a piece of legislation.

Apparently, everyone has his weak moments.

As the SCPR sees this race, Cole has very little chance to unseat Morris.

So not only does Kirven have a problem identifying with the councilman who best represents union interests (Morris); he picks a likely loser come November (Cole).

Hmm?

Morris is part of a group of Canton City council first termers (Morris, Fisher [5th], Mariol [7th] and Mack [8th] who the SCPR has termed as being "the young turks."

The young turks have banded together to defeat a number of Healy administration legislative initiatives and moreover have become aggressively proactive in a united effort to reverse Canton neighborhood deterioration.

The SCPR is well taken with their political courage and their positive plan to change Canton for the better.

They have been aided in their effort by Councilwoman Cirelli, Councilman Greg Hawk (Ward 1), both of whom are long time Healy foes, and here and there by Ward 3 Councilman Jim Griffin.

Cole, completing his second term, has decided to fall in line with the Healy administration and along with councilpersons Babcock (at-large), Dougherty (Ward 6), Smith (4th) and West (2nd).

The Report is told that "the young turks" will be campaigning together.

Cole, on the other hand has been a major disappointment.  Among his impressive credentials:  (from LinkedIn profile)

• -YSTARK and The Canton Repository’s “Twenty under 40,” (Inaugural Class)
• -Stark County Young Democrat of the Year, 2009

The SCPR once had high expectations for him.  But he has failed to deliver as an independent minded, energetic and visionary Canton legislator.  Rather he has decided to fall in with the mayor and base his political survival on being joined at the hip with Healy and his allies.

Come November 7th, the SCPR believes that Joe Cole will be ex-Councilman Joe Cole.

For he played the game of "filing for political office musical chairs" with Mary Cirelli and ended up without a chair.

Joe Cole outfoxed by veteran Canton/Stark County politician Mary Cirelli!

(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 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: ANGELI & CIRELLI) CITIZEN DELORIS ANGELI STEPS FORWARD TO CRITICIZE OPERATION OF CANTON COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION (CIC). WILL SHE BE HEARD? MUCH WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE TO REFORM THE CCIC METHODS OF OPERATIONS, NO?

It was a week ago today that the Canton Community Improvement Corporation (CCIC) met to consider the "accidental" (Mayor William J. Healy, II) and unauthorized use of a CCIC credit card account by Healy and other members of the organization from February through mid-summer of this year.  (LINK - see video of entire meeting included last Friday's SCPR blog)

The meeting as conducted was nothing more than window dressing for the organization to do formally what it had no choice but to do, to wit:  make it official that Healy's claimed "accidental" use was not approved by the non-profit, "quasi-governmental" corporation headed up by none other than the mayor himself.

Oh yes, Healy was asked by Canton law department attorney Thomas Burns to recuse and absent himself from the meeting (also, Service Director Warren Price) which request was complied with.

But one could not help but feel that members Steve Katz (Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce), Don Peterson, III (business representative [general manager of Q92 - Alliance] and, the SCPR believes, a personal friend of Healy), Robert Thompson (union representative - regional director of AFSCME, Region 8) and Canton City Council members Joe Cole (at-large) and Jim Griffin (Ward 3) were well aware that if they went further than the obligatory, they likely were in for a tongue lashing at the hand of Healy once the CCIC returns to its "business as usual" modality.

So it should be no surprise to anyone that the CCIC members failed to censure Healy.  While he says that the personal use of the credit card was inadvertent, the SCPR has found nobody who believes the claim.  But if Hizzoner has any distinguishing quality about himself, it is his audaciousness.

At the end of the meeting, Canton citizen Deloris Angeli (a member of the CCIC during the Janet Creighton administration) asked to address the members.

Request denied!

Here is a video of union representative and acting CCIC board chairman denying Angeli the right to address the board's members.



Had she been allowed to have her say, this is what she would have said, if permitted, last Friday:  (taken from email by Angeli to the SCPR, 09/25/2012)

• As a Canton business owner, former CCIC Board Member (under JWC) & supporter of the local art scene, I felt it was my civic duty to attend the Sept. 21 CCIC Board Meeting.
• During the meeting, it became very clear to me that this hand selected board (by Wm. Healy) was NOT capable in reprimanding Healy for:
• taking out Credit Cards WITHOUT their knowledge or approval.   
• ps..........note that there are no other community & economic development boards that have their own Credit Cards.  Any debt that incurred as a result of Healy's unilateral decision to unscrupulously obtain a credit card, should be the sole responsibility of Mr. Healy and not the responsibility of the CCIC or of the Board. After all, all expenditures must have the approval of the CCIC board prior to the purchase.
•  ANDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD....that there was going to be NO ACCOUNTABILITY on Healy's, Fonda Williams, or Linda Barnes part.
• My questions were about the accountability of the parties included:
•  What else has he been spending the tax payers money on???   
• Automatic blinds for the 8th floor?  
• Big screen TV [actually a "smartboard" with big screen TV capability] in the board room?
• ...  There are more employees on the 8th floor than ever before!!! 
• Shouldn't this money go somewhere else? Why cut the safety force while maintaining a fully staffed administration? 
• Healy reduced the starting salary for police officers, stating that anyone would take the job.
• These officers risk their lives for us. Yet Healy insists that he must pay higher starting salaries for his staff, while all they risk is carpal tunnel syndrome.
• We are a small city, getting smaller with each & every shooting, We need to do more to protect our citizens not the administration.

Under the category:  "How naive can you be," The Canton Repository Editorial Board published an editorial on September 25th - 'Embarrassed' mayor learns his lesson, in part, to wit:

.... a plea to the mayor: Please be more careful next time.

Pulling the wrong card out of your wallet? It can happen to anybody ... but 16 times?

It seems that the mayor is genuinely embarrassed by and remorseful for this episode. We trust that he has learned his lesson and will be more careful in the future.

A SCPR question to the editors:   How many embarrassing episodes over five years in office is the mayor entitled to before one concludes that the mayor is beyond redemption?  Was the mayor summoned to 500 Market Avenue, South for a metaphorical "a slap on the wrist?"

For the SCPR's part, it seems that Citizen Angeli has a much better take on Mayor William J. Healy, II than the editors of Stark County's only countywide newspaper which has the advantage of being the only newspaper in a one-newspaper-town.

Interesting, no?

After the meeting the SCPR caught up with Canton City Councilwoman Mary Cirelli who had a number of thoughts to share, to wit:



Cirelli:  "conflict in interest."  Hmm?  Interesting.

To the SCPR, while the claimed  "accidental" Healy credit card use and the unauthorized obtaining of the credit card in the first place are very important issues; one comes away from the September 21st meeting wondering about seemingly inherent conflicts in interest that may have been present in CCIC members voting to use CCIC funds to pay for certain expenses of a sitting board members (e.g. Steve Katz  in his Canton Chamber capacity and city employees in their official city employment capacity ) with Katz  and city representatives (Cole and Griffin) on the board voting to approve those very expenditures.

What if there had been a disagreement among board members about whether or not to pay for Katz attending an event at CCIC expense?  And what if he becomes a difference maker in the outcome of such a vote?

It also cuts that way for Canton's city officials who serve on the CCIC board but in an more exaggerated situation.

Let's see.  You have Councilmen Cole, Griffin, Mayor Healy, Service Director Price (all city officials) and a majority of the entire board (four out of seven) who can vote to pass what should have been a city of Canton expenses onto the CCIC.

Hmm?

Quite a temptation that is for a city that is strapped for cash, no?

The CCIC money is for economic development, is it not?

And The Rep editors did not pick up on the potential conflicts issue?  They are more concerned with being understanding of Healy and hopeful he has learned his lesson?

As the SCPR recalls, on asking legal adviser Burns about the potential conflicts after last week's meeting,  he responded that perhaps there needs to be more members added to the CCIC so that there are enough disinterested voting members who can make a conflict free decision.

The Report thinks he is correct.

What's more, there has to be a mechanism instituted so that Mayor Healy does not have carte blanche to appoint political friendlies to the CCIC board.

And lastly, why doesn't a citizen like Deloris Angeli have the opportunity to address the board on citizen concerns?

The SCPR came away from the September 21st meeting totally unimpressed with CCIC procedures and the manner in which it does business with taxpayer (from various levels) money.

The way Canton handles its CIC function through the non-profit, quasi-governmental mechanism provided for by Ohio law is one more reason why Cantonians are losing confidence in the integrity of city government.

It is appearing more and more that Canton will be asking for a tax increase come the primary election of 2013.

Hmm?

Who would vote to increase their taxes for a government that abides a quasi-government operational model demonstrated by the current makeup of the Canton Community Improvement Corporation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moral of the story?

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

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

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

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

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

And out-of-towners are not constituents.

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

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

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

Answer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently, not Franks. 

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

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

(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.

DID MARY CIRELLI MISS HER OPPORTUNITY TO BE MAYOR OF CANTON? ALSO, WHY IT APPEARS THAT CIRELLI WILL VOTE NOT TO SUPPORT A COUNCIL SALES TAX "INFORMAL" RESOLUTION AT TONIGHT'S MEETING

The SCPR was told by a Stark County official last week that several Canton officials were either wavering on whether or not to support the Stark County sales tax issue of a 1/2% increase (Issue 29) or in some cases had definitely decided to vote no when the matter comes up for a vote at tonight's council meeting.

Issue 29 committee members Belden (a Canton Municipal Court judge), Bernabei (a Stark County commissioner), Sherer, Sr. (a former ironworker and Stark union insider) and Swanson (sitting Stark County sheriff) will be there in full force to convince "all" members to support the informal resolution of support.

One name mentioned was that of Councilwoman-at-Large Mary Cirelli.  Also named as possibly not being supportive was Councilman Thomas West (Ward 2) who The Report is told will not be at council meeting tonight because of a death in the extended family, and 8th Ward Councilman Mark Butterworth who is in his second consecutive political fight of his life against Democrat Edmond Mack.

He barely eked out Democrat Karl "Butch" Kraus, Jr. two years ago.

Cirelli is one of Canton's most popular politicians.  In fact, these days there is evidence that she may be more popular than Mayor William J. Healy, II.  (See "On Cirelli's Missed?  Opportunity to be Mayor" below).

Mayor Healy is reported to be saying that "he will have to think about it" as to whether or not he will support Issue 29.  Of course, he has trouble supporting anything that might benefit arch political enemies and Stark County commissioners Janet Creighton and Tom Bernabei.  More than that, he is always angling for political positions which he thinks benefits his personal political objectives.

When The Report brought up the Yes for Stark Issue 29 claim that Canton stands to lose $400,000 in income tax revenues should the issue fail due to the layoff of county employees who pay the Canton income tax, Cirelli questioned the validity of the claim.

On questioning Councilwoman Cirelli about whether or not she was going to vote for a resolution that Majority Leader David Dougherty was putting together supporting Issue 29 for tonight's meeting, she replied that she was only considering voting for the measure if certain conditions were met.

Conditions?

What are her conditions?

Here they are (as the SCPR understands them):

• that Healy, all city employees, department heads, vendors selling to Canton government and non-profits getting funding from the city sign on (apparently, verbally support) any such resolution,
• that she have some assurance that the turf fights within Stark County over consolidating/merging such government services as building permits, public health services, information technology services and 9-1-1 operations be ended, and
• that Stark County get back to providing services in a highly efficient manner.

Hmm?

It appears that Cirelli - if she sticks to her conditions - has set them up so that it will be hard for her to say they have been met thereby freeing her not to vote for tonight's expected resolution.

ON CIRELLI'S MISSED? OPPORTUNITY TO BE MAYOR

What evidence is there that Mary could have been on her way to being mayor of Canton.  Mary's political history in Canton and even parts of Stark County outside of Canton proper is rich indeed, to wit:

In the course of conversation with Mary on Saturday, Mary told The Report that Councilman Bill Smuckler, who actually ran against Mayor Healy in the May 4th Democratic Primary, pointed out to her that she ran ahead of Healy in her Democratic Party re-nomination for council-at-large quest.

Cirelli received 3,137 voters compared to Healy's 3,031.  So Cirelli bested HIZZHONER by 106 votes.  Impressive, no?

But then again Jimmy Babcock also beat Healy's number. The Report does not think Babcock could defeat Healy, but could Cirelli given her long line of electoral successes?

Cirelli said that she had considered a run against Healy.

As anyone who follows political races knows, each and every race has its own dynamics.  In fact, one of her few electoral defeats came at the hand of Mayor Healy when he committed a political unpardonable sin in running against and defeating Cirelli as an incumbent Democratic state representative in 2004.

The near 2,500 vote Healy victory in the state representative race contraindicates that Cirelli could have defeated Healy in May.  However, a significant part of the vote in the 52nd House District comes from outside Canton proper.

Given Cirelli's longtime Canton-based political success and Healy's strong 2004 win over her, a straight up race within the political bounds of Canton between two would have been a political sight to behold!

(VIDEOS 3: CIRELLI GRILLING HEALY, CARCIONE ON SAFETY, MORRIS ON SAFETY) ISSUE: IS MAYOR HEALY BY HIS STAFFING DECISIONS MAKING "UNACCEPTABLE" CHOICES IN PRIORITIZING CITY SPENDING?

At Monday night Canton City Council meeting the president of the Canton Firefighters union raised his voice in protest of the Healy administration's failure to take any of the money from $1.2 million in increased city income tax collections for fire and ambulance safety.

Here is a video of Carcione speaking:



Carcione was followed up by (to be councilman - 9th Ward) Frank Morris III who spoke to the issue.  A little over a week ago Frank's relative died as a consequence of stab wounds received in an altercation at a location about one tenth of a mile from Canton fire station 8.  However, due to cutbacks in staffing of fire stations, station 8 was closed at the time and a Canton policeman loaded the victim in his cruiser (after learning that there would be a delay of getting an ambulance to the scene) and transported him to the hospital where he died.

Here is a video of Morris speaking:



Mayor Healy gave a vigorous defense of his administration's staffing of police, fire and emergency personnel. Moreover, he defended his perceived need to raise the pay of key members (managerial types) of his administrative teams. Here is a video of the Cirelli/Healy exchange:




In analyzing the politics of the back and forth between the firefighters union and their allies on council and Mayor Healy (and Safety Director Ream), the key consideration is how the Canton voter wills side up on the controversy.

Do they expect and demand that Mayor Healy to the impossible? If he can't/dosen't, will they punish him in November when he goes up against Republican A.R. "Chip" Conde. If he senses that there is political "hay to be made," will Conde try to exploit the emotional factor to his favor irrespective of the whether or not Healy makes a persuasive case of the merits of the action he is taking?

The Healy camp is already campaigning, but it appears that Conde has yet to take the wraps off his campaign. Unless he gets up and moving in a big way what little chance the SCPR thinks he has will evaporate very, very quickly!

(Video) N.A.V.E. (NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATE'S VOTES EMPOWER) CANDIDATES NIGHT PRODUCES SURPRISE IN TERMS OF ONE TOP ISSUE?

While she was not permitted to speak because N.A.V.E. (Neighborhood Associates Empower - the sponsor of last night's Candidates Night at the McKinley Grand) would not allow her to on account of the organization not receiving back a response from Mary Cirelli she would be attending, her presence was certainly in attendance.

Along with Plain Township trustee Louis Giavasis Canton, Councilwoman Mary Cirelli stands as one of Stark County's foremost opponents of hydraulic fracturing (aka "fracking) to get at natural gas deposits encased in rock some 8,000 feet below the surface.

The process involves injecting a solution of chemicals (many of which are deemed hazardous to human health) and sand under high pressure down a well shaft vertically and then horizontally to fracture the rock so that the natural gas can be recovered.  The chemical laced solution is then brought back to the surface.

The concerns center on the integrity of the casing through which the solution is conducted downwards passing through the drinking water table, the disposal of  recovered chemical-ladened waste water, the damage done underground by the violence of the pressurized solution and the escape of gases into the air that we all breathe.

It was surprising to the SCPR that the fracking issue had such a prominent place in the discussion among candidates.

Fracking was not the most predominant issue presented, but it probably ranked second.

The main issue, of course, was the position of candidates stopping the deterioration of Canton's neighborhoods and restoring business and jobs to Canton proper.

Nontheless, Fracking appears to a "an elephant in the room" sort of issue.  And, it is giving Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio fits.  He tells The Report that Councilwoman Cirelli has been steadfast in her insistence that that he write an ordinance prohibiting fracking in Canton a la Buffalo, Pittsburgh and other localities across the fracking belt of America.

Martuccio is sympathetic, however, being the lawyer he is, his take on the state of the law in Ohio is that localities have been shut out of regulating fracking or any kind of oil and gas drilling.

Readers will recall that Trustee Giavasis (Plain) backed off his resolution to ban fracking in Plain when local attorney William G. Williams (who has a close association with the oil and gas industry) suggested to him that doing so could subject the township to huge liabilities.  Instead, Giavasis got his fellow trustees to pass a resolution supporting a moratorium on drilling.

It struck the SCPR that a number of candidates for Canton City Council are very intense in their opposition to the issue.

Here is a video of the view of council candidates who were asked the fracking question.

VIDEO SERIES: ODNR ANSWERS STARK COUNTIANS' QUESTIONS - "20TH" OF A SERIES FOR SCPR READERS TO VIEW THE Q&A. CANTON COUNCILWOMAN MARY CIREILLI TO ODNR ABOUT ROADS AMONG OTHER ITEMS

With this blog series, the Stark County Political Report is posting the Q&A session featuring the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) held at Plain Township's Oakwood Middle School on January 27th. The meeting was put together by Plain Township Trustee Louis Giavasis (Democrat), Ohio Representative Kirk Schuring (Republican - 51st) and Ron Ponder.

Ponder is the talkshow host of Points to Ponder which can be heard M-F, 10:00 a.m. to Noon at WHBC-1480AM on your radio dial.

In this 20th blog video, well known Stark County (Canton) politician Mary Cirelli expresses concerns to ODNR about requiring that drillers use certain practices and inquires about who will be responsible for road damage done by drillers' heavy equipment.