(VIDEOS: CIRELLI, SCHULMAN, McMASTERS, HEALY & REAM) IS ISSUE 29 HEADED TOWARDS APPROVAL? CO-CHAIR DAN McMASTERS SAYS STARK COUNTIANS SHOULD FEAR CONSQUENCES OF NOT PASSING THE ISSUE. A KEY QUESTION: IS PASSAGE OF ISSUE 29 AT A RATE LESS THAN IS NEEDED A WISE THING FOR THE LONG TERM?

It is hard to know about Issue 29 (the 0.5% sales tax increase) prospects on next month's ballot:  are the stars lining up as a omen that the issue will pass?

Well, the "Yes for Stark Safety - Issue 29" (YFSS-29) campaigners are scattering to and fro across Stark County trying to get all 35 of Stark County's local government entities to endorse the effort.

Last night YSFSS-29 forces showed up at Canton City Council and got a 10 to 1 thumbs up (Councilwoman Cirelli voting no and Councilman West absent due to a death in his extended family) on a requested endorsement via an informal resolution.

Cirelli seemed to cause consternation among the pro-29 folks in questioning the courage of the Stark Commissioners in not voting to impose the proposed tax increase rather than leave it up to a vote of Stark Countians.  Apparently, the councilwoman has forgotten that a former board of commissioners (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) imposed a 1/2 cent sales tax (December, 2008) which Stark Countians overwhelming repealed in November, 2009.

Another point that Cirelli pushed hard on to make clear is that while county officials say that Issue 29 money will be used "primarily" to make the sheriff's department whole to 2010 levels, the fact of the matter is that the 1/2% increase will not be used exclusively for that purpose or even the expanded notion of the entire Stark County criminal justice apparatus.   A significant part of the money will still be used to cover all other county operations that currently participate in county general fund allocations.

Here is a number of video excerpts indicating the frustration of Issue 29 supporters with Cirelli's argument and point.



If it were just local government types that were voting on the issue, there is no doubt that the issue would pass overwhelmingly.  But there is a detectible nervousness emanating from the campaigners for 29.

Why so?

Because it is believed that some 100,000 or so Stark Countians will be voting on the issue on November 8th and notwithstanding a strong campaign to reach all of them with convincing proof that Stark County government is on the brink of a massive financial collapse come 2012 should the issue fail, and uncertainty persists that given the stubbornly down economy and the influence of a general anti-tax attitude as overtly manifested by the the likes of the Tea Party movement whether or not YFSS-29 can get to 50,001 votes.

Most of the YFSS-29 campaigners have stayed away from out-and-out using fear of the consequences to voting no in terms of the devastation they say the failure of a tax increase failure will have on Stark County governmental services.

But Co-Chair Dan McMasters (a Massillon State Farm Insurance agent) is not one of them.

Here is a video of McMasters articulating on the "fear argument" last night.



All-in-all it was a very good night for YSFF-29, witness this video of endorsements by Mayor Healy and Safety Director Thomas Ream.



It is looking more and more to the SCPR that the stars may be taking on a favorable alignment for the passage of Issue 29.

But, at best, the commissioners are only treading water if the issue passes.
On this point, Council President Allen Schulman had the best question of the night in pointing out what the 1/2 cent tax does not do in terms of not providing money for economic development and job production.

A major concern for commissioners should be whether or not the passage of the 1/2% increase will make it impossible for an additional hike in a year or so.

For it is abundantly clear that even with a 1/2% increase that Stark County will be right back in a financial crisis very soon indeed.

In fact, word has just come out that the Veterans Service Commission (VSC) which is entitled as a matter of Ohio law to about $3.2 million in the county's share (about 4% of the total take) of property tax assessments is going to be taking about $2.5 million for 2012 as compared to $1.3 million this year.  On October 14th, the VSC board is holding a meeting of Stark County veteran stakeholders to consider using much of its available money to facilitate a plan being pushed by Commissioner Pete Ferguson to develop a Veterans Home in Stark County.

So in one-fell-swoop it appears that beginning in 2012 commissioners are going to lose $1 million or so annually for its general fund operations in heretofore unused VSC fund set asides.

The SCPR believes that this action is at least - in part - a VSC board reaction to Commissioner Janet Creighton's question (paraphrased) earlier in this year when the board gave VSC pay raises over the objection of commissioners, to wit:  "What does the VSC do for Stark County veterans, anyway?"

These are times that call for very wise political/governmental leadership in Stark County.

The ultimate question which Issue 29 raises is this:  Are Stark Countians getting wise leadership from the current crop of county officials?

(VIDEO OF CO-CHAIRS OF "YES FOR SAFETY ISSUE 29")STARK COUNTY'S MAYORS MISSING FROM EFFORT TO PASS 0.5% SALES TAX INCREASE? FOR CANTON: HEALY HATRED OF ALL THINGS CREIGHTON & BERNABEI THE CHIEF REASON? CANTON STANDS TO LOSE $400,000 IN CITY INCOME TAX DUE TO LAID OFF COUNTY EMPLOYEES WORKING IN CANTON?

Should Issue #29 fail, Stark County commissioners and other elected officials say they will have to lay off Canton-sited county employees.  And co-chairman of the Yes for Safety: Issue #29 Dan McMasters said in remarks yesterday (see video below) that the city of Canton stands to lose $400,000 in sales tax revenue as a consequence of the laid off employees.



Stark's elected officials and county employees gathered yesterday at the Stark County District Library (Canton branch) in a public political campaign meeting (public because two or more Stark County commissioners were present) to finalize plans for gaining passage of the tax.

If it still existed, the short-lived Stark County Mayors Association (the brainchild of Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II) could be a handy organization to help Stark County pass its sorely needed 0.5% sales tax on November 8th.

But it doesn't.  Because of Mayor Healy's insistence on being "the man in charge," the organization, announced as being formed on December 29th, 2008, quickly fell apart and was officially pronounced dead by the SCPR on May 15, 2009; less than six months after its formation.

One key campaign official intoned to The Report (paraphrase):  "Why is Mayor Healy among the missing and silent as this campaign get underway?"

Short answer:  If Healy is not running an activity from top to bottom, forget him being a part of anything.

That's why his promising idea of a Stark County Mayors Association fell apart quickly.

Longer answer:  Mayor Healy REALLY DOES NOT LIKE Stark Commissioners Tom Bernabei and Janet Creighton and is not real fond of the commissioner that everybody else in Stark County officialdom absolutely loves (Pete Ferguson).

Democrat Healy ran against and defeated Republican Creighton in November, 2007 in a bitterly fought campaign.  After the election, Healy trashed Creighton has having left him a mess to clean up.

To clean up the mess, Healy brought in fellow Democrat and for Canton Law Director Tom Bernabei into the  TeamHealy administration as one of his very top officials.  But lo and behold, Healy found out that Bernabei has a mind of his own and was not reluctant to criticize Healy's fanciful ideas of how to fix what Healy termed as being the Creighton train wreck that he says the former mayor left behind.

Ferguson?  Well, he had this idea that it might be a "good idea" for Stark County's villages, cities and townships to merger whatever functions they could (building departments, health departments, informational technology departments, et cetera).  However, the "fatal flaw" in Ferguson's approach was that Canton would not be in charge of the newly merged functions.  Result:  Healy telephoned Ferguson and read him the riot act on putting together mergers and

The campaign official went on to ask:  "Where is the mayor of Massillon, the mayor of Louisville, mayor of Alliance?"  He should have included township officials, too.

While these political subdivisions do not stand to lose much, if any, tax revenue as a consequence of an Issue 29 failure, they will lose the ability to take people at all hours of the day and night to be booked at the Stark County Sheriff's department and, moreover, even when they are booked they will be put out on the streets pronto because the Stark County Jail will be cut down to 122 beds.  And these beds will be set aside for murders, rapists and the like and not the day-in, day-out type of offenses that most village, city and township police departments arrest for.

None of Stark's political facilities have jail facilities of their own to house the folks they arrest.

An obvious campaign strategy of the Yes for Safety Issue 29 campaigners is to wake up the sleeping giant of political subdivision officials and employees who are scattered across every nook and cranny of Stark County.

Former Commissioner Todd Bosley's idea, when he joined the then Commissioners Tom Harmon and Jane Vignos is "imposing" a 1/2% sales tax (December, 2008) for rehabbing Stark's broken 9-1-1 emergency service system and for additional county general fund revenues, was to give Stark's political subdivisions a stake in the revenues generated by promising "free" 9-1-1 call receiving and dispatching services.

It was a grand plan that Bosley hatched, but he was never able to get village, city and township officials on board in a unified way.  Consequently, a committee of ordinary citizens (Vote No Increased Taxes) mounted a drive that resulted in the imposed tax being overturned in an overwhelming fahion in November, 2009.

In an ironical sense, 9-1-1's rehab is still not completely done despite the fact that over $2 million sits in the county budget set aside for the project.

Why is 9-1-1 not yet complete?

The SCPR believes "the failure to complete" is owing to Mayor Healy and his insistence that Canton be in charge at the end of the day when a revamped 9-1-1 is up and running.

When the general public sees the self-serving shenanigans of the likes of Healy, they develop a jaded attitude towards government in general and efforts like Yes for Public Safety Issue 29 get caught up in the public's dismay.

The question of success or failure for Yes for Safety Issue 29 may well be whether or not they can mobilize their natural allies fanned out across Stark County?

A key question:  Will the mayoral likes of Healy (Canton), Cicchinelli (Massillon), Held (North Canton) and Middleton (Alliance) be sitting this one out? If they do and the issue fails, what are they going to tell their constituents when they see that those charged with serious crimes are walking the streets of their respective communities?