THREATENED LEGAL ACTION JEOPARDIZES CANTON PARKS & CANTON JOINT RECREATION DISTRICT MERGER?

UPDATED:  1:54 PM

It is flattering to The Stark County Political Report that someone who wants to get her case in front of the Canton/Stark County public contacts The Report, to wit:

Issue 1 Parks Levy from November 2013 Ballot

        Sharon Fladen
        Aug 1

To:  tramols@att.net
...
I was referred to your blog by a professional acquaintence (sic) and wished to discuss, via this e-mail, an issue that is of great importance to me and hopefully other taxpayers from the City of Canton.

Ms. Fladen has been an "admitted to the bar" as an Ohio attorney since November 20, 1978 (according to the Ohio Supreme Court).

Moreover, she has an indirect connection to the Canton Joint Recreation District (CJRD) in that she does work for Attorney Sally Henning (serving as legal counsel for the district since December 9, 2013, [officially hired] retroactively on January 7, 2014) on assigned (by Henning) CJRD matters.

Henning bills the CJRD and in turn pays Fladen for the work she does for and at the direction of Henning on CJRD matters.

CJRD, in making the two payments shown above, has paid Henning a total of $31,387.50.

• SCPR Note:  The Report has learned since this blog was published early this morning that Henning has billed the CJRD for June ($3,737.50) and July ($4,200) bring the total figure on the Henning billings for legal services figure through the end of July to $39,325.00

Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher says he has been told that there may be another $20,000 billing that Henning is believed to be prepared to submit to the CRJD.

Henning was officially hired in January, 2014; as the SCPR understands the arrangement, to provide legal counsel to the CRJD board with respect to the board's employer/employee relationship with then-director Nadine Sawaya.

Board member Rinaldi had this to say in response to a SCPR inquiry about the controversy:

Re: Recreation Board flap

        J.R. Rinaldi
        Aug 12

To:  Martin Olson

Dear Mr. Olson,

Thank you for your email.  ...

What I am concerned about, and have been concerned about since being seated on the Rec Board are the thousands of dollars being spent on the legal services of Sharon Fladen and Sally Henning.  Prior to my being seated on the Rec Board, Sharon Fladen and Sally Henning were brought in on a no bid contract to serve as legal council for a pending discrimination lawsuit by the former director.  At some point, without the Rec Board’s approval, they began working on the Stearn Center agreement as well as other duties that could have been handled by the Interim Director.  This was especially concerning to me as the Rec Department was being charged $300 per hour for their services.

There is no agreement between the Rec Board and attorneys Fladen and Henning.  Upon being seated I inquired about an agreement and asked for a copy.  The only record that exist are the January meeting minutes when they were officially hired.  I am of this opinion that there should have been a bid process used so obtain legal council and that there should have been a very clear contract addressing the scope of their work.

Sincerely,

John Rinaldi

On August 8th, Matt Rink of The Repository wrote (Rec board will use attorney on “case by case” basis):

Henning was retained in December and officially hired in January to handle personnel issues regarding then-director Nadine Sawaya. Sawaya was placed on unpaid leave after she asked Henning for additional time to answer a series of questions on how she would improve her performance. Sawaya later retired and filed an age discrimination complaint with the Cleveland office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The board voted in April to retroactively terminate Sawaya for insubordination and misconduct.

...

In addition to the Sawaya matter, Henning and a second attorney researched how the Canton City School District board made appointments to the Joint Recreation Board, reviewed policies and procedures and assisted in the negotiations between the recreation district and park commission to deliver some $300,000 of funding to the J. Babe Stearn Community Center. (emphasis added by the SCPR)

The Report emphasized the latter part of the Rink reported material because that is the heart of the matter as to why Fladen contacted the SCPR so that she can get her point of view before the Canton/Stark County public.

Interesting, no?

Fladen has tried to get the editors at The Repository to publish a "letter to the editor" spelling out in 300 words or less her dissatisfaction with the agreement between Canton and the private non-profit Babe Stearn Center (BSC, formerly the Canton Police Boys Club and part of Canton government) for the Center to get $300,000 in Canton taxpayer money in 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Fladen has had a number of exchanges with editor Gayle Beck regarding Beck's effort to locate Fladen cited material to Canton City Council minutes.

The Report is suspicious that Ms. Beck has decided she is not going to publish Fladen's letter and that her apparent confusion in tracking down the cited material is a convenient way out.

The SCPR's take on Editor Beck going back ten years is that such is "standard operating procedure" for her when she is trying to avoid publishing certain letters from certain people.

The Babe Stearn Center is located in Canton's Ward 5 which is represented by Kevin Fisher.  Councilman Fisher as a lifelong resident of Ward 5 has frequented the Center all the while.

He tells the SCPR that the BSC is in the process of converting into being owned by Canton city government.

Fladen also includes in her objection the agreement to fund the Southeast Community Center (SECC, aka Edward "Peel" Community Center) located in Councilwoman Chris Smith's Ward 4 on the same basis as the BSC.

Picking with another excerpt from the August 1st Fladen e-mail to the SCPR: (Note:  the entire e-mail is published in the appendix to this blog)

I contacted my councilman, Edmond Mack, on Monday, July 14, 2014, prior to the Canton City Council Meeting where the final reading on the ordinance approving a service agreement between the J Babe Stearn Community Center and the Canton Parks Commission was going to be considered and posed the question as to why Issue 1 funds were being allocated to J. Babe Stearn Community Center when it was not within the purview of the levy language.  Mr. Mack asked if he could forward my question to all other members of City Council and I gave him permission to do so.  

My question was met with much skepticism and Mr. Mack did not get back to me.  After more than one week transpired, I contacted Mr. Mack and asked him as to the status of my question. He indicated that he could no longer talk to me about this issue and I was to talk to Joe Martuccio.  

The SCPR talked with Councilman Mack (Ward 8) and he tells The Report he dropped the matter with Fladen at the request of Canton law director Joseph Martuccio because of attorney/client factors.  Martuccio represents Canton government including council should litigation surface in this matter.

And, it appears, litigation may be in the offing at the hand of Fladen.

Here is what she says about that in other e-mail exchanges with the SCPR:

I am picking up documents from city of canton tomorrow or Friday. Sally is not a party or litigator. I haven't decided whether to file pro se, have a different person be plaintiff, or engage an attorney. ... I haven't specifically told anyone that I will be filing the lawsuit.

Fladen has caught Canton government's attention.

So much so that Director Derek Gordon wrote this e-mail (provided by Fladden to the SCPR) suggesting that if a lawsuit if filed it could stop the planned merger, to wit:

Derek Gordon

        Sharon Fladen
        Aug 27 at 9:50 PM

To:  Martin Olson

I have this recent e-mail that you might be interested in:
- On Tue, 8/26/14, Derek Gordon <derek.gordon@cantonohio.gov> wrote:

> From: Derek Gordon <derek.gordon@cantonohio.gov>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Attorney Client privilege
> To: "Eric Resnick" <resnickeric@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2014, 1:28 PM
> If she is not doing this
> at the CJRD's direction or cost, then there
> should not be a problem.  However, if she
> files a lawsuit in conjunction
> with Sharon
> it likely will be a problem.  I am getting into legal
> territory that I am not qualified to discuss,
> so I guess we will just
> wait and see what
> happens.  I just know our Law Department is watching
> this very carefully and is concerned about how
> it could impact our
> merger if either of
> them proceed. 

For the record, the SCPR favors a merger between the Canton Park System and the CJRD.

However, The Report demonstrates time and again that, even in the face of disagreement on any given issue, the SCPR can be counted on to provide a forum in which opposing viewpoints get space.

It is no wonder that the likes of Sharon Fladen turn to The Stark County Political Report to get her point of view out into the public arena.


APPENDIX

COMPLETE TEXT OF FIRST EMAIL
FROM FLADEN TO SCPR

Issue 1 Parks Levy from November 2013 Ballot

        Sharon Fladen
        Aug 1

To:  tramols@att.net
...

I was referred to your blog by a professional acquaintence [sic] and wished to discuss, via this e-mail, an issue that is of great importance to me and hopefully other taxpayers from the City of Canton.

In 2012, the Parks Commission began a drive to have a levy placed on the 2013 ballot.  The original levy language was passed by Canton City Council in February 2013 and included language for capital improvements to community centers. Council people Cirelli and Mack voted against the ordinance which  was to be placed on the ballot as Issue 1. Evidently, the  language  passed by Canton City Council did not pass muster with the Ohio Secretary of State and was rejected. 

At the July 30, 2013 Canton City Council meeting, after lengthy debate and dissertations by various people, including Law Director Martuccio, new language for Issue 1 was approved.  That language made it to the November 5, 2013 ballot and the levy narrowly passed.

For your information, the levy language as it appeared on the ballot is attached. The funds that were being raised from the levy were to be used for park and recreational purposes within the Canton Park System.

The Canton Park Commissioners have agreed to allocate $300,000.00 of levy funds to the J. Babe Stearn Community Center in 2014, with additional funding in 2015 and 2016.  Similar allocations are anticipated to be provided to the Peel Coleman Community Center. These allocations are, in my opinion, not within the purview of the levy.  Neither of those community centers are within the Canton Parks System.  J. Babe Stearn Community Center is a 501 (c) (3) non profit corporation.   There is no way it should be a recipient of taxpayer dollars from the Issue 1 Levy.

I contacted my councilman, Edmond Mack, on Monday, July 14, 2014, prior to the Canton City Council Meeting where the final reading on the ordinance approving a service agreement between the J Babe Stearn Community Center and the Canton Parks Commission was going to be considered and posed the question as to why Issue 1 funds were being allocated to J. Babe Stearn Community Center when it was not within the purview of the levy language.  Mr. Mack asked if he could forward my question to all other members of City Council and I gave him permission to do so. 

My question was met with much skepticism and Mr. Mack did not get back to me.  After more than one week transpired, I contacted Mr. Mack and asked him as to the status of my question. He indicated that he could no longer talk to me about this issue and I was to talk to Joe Martuccio. 

I reviewed  the Canton City Council Minutes from 2012 and 2013.  The July 2013 minutes, especially from pages 502 to 510 were of major interest as there was discussion as to whether under the new language of the levy, money could be given to the community centers.  I urge you to review those minutes.  I sent all this information to Matt Rink at the Repository who has been very one sided when it comes to the Canton Joint Recreation District Board.  I, along with Sally Henning, have provided legal services to the Canton Joint Recreation District Board.  The Canton Joint Recreation District had been requested to partner with the J Babe Stearn Community Center and the Canton Parks Commission in disbursing the levy funds to J Babe Stearn Commnity Center.  When amendments to the service agreement  (indemnification and representations and warranties that this was a valid use of levy funds) were sought, the Law Department rejected them. 

I wrote a letter to the editor of the Repository over two weeks ago and to date it has not been published.  I was contacted by Gayle Beck who indicated that she was conducting a fact check and my facts did not line up with what I had said about Joe Martuccio.  She evidently did not read my letter carefully as I had cited the July 30, 2013 Canton City Council meeting and she was looking at the June 30, 2014 Canton City Council meeting minutes.  I will forward to you that correspondence along with my letter to the editor.

I sincerely hope that you will see the merit in my positon and blog about it!

Thank you for your consideration.
Sharon V. Fladen

Park Levy Resolution - Ordinance #132-2013-1 4.pdf
   

THE HEALY ADMINISTRATION'S (TOM WEST) "REDFLEX" TRAFFIC CAMERAS REQUEST IS HEADED TO THE "DEAD LETTER" FILE AT CANTON CITY COUNCIL?

MAYOR HEALY IS BACK ON TRAFFIC CAMERAS

On September 17, 2012, Mayor William J. Healy, II of Canton seemed to suffered a fatal blow to his hopes to bring Redflex traffic cameras to downtown Canton.

The SCPR wrote on the 18th (LINK) "[l]ast night's council action was an outright defeat for the mayor." 

But was it?  Is this 3rd try at Redflex headed to the "dead letter office?"

In a nightmarish, Freddie Krueger-esque fashion - "I'm back" - Hizzhoner, through the offices of Ward Two Councilman Tom West, has returned to trying to get Redflex traffic cameras installed at select downtown intersections (e.g. Market Avenue, North and 12th) as a "pilot project."

Call it getting "a foot in the door," "a trojan horse," or whatever but Healy is proving again that he a "never-say-die" politician.

And somehow he is consistently able to maintain a group of loyalists at his side to keep him politically alive.  In this instance, witness his hold on Councilpersons West, Smith (Ward 4), Dougherty (Ward 6), Babcock (at-large) and Cole (at-large).

In the long run, knowing this mayor and how pugnacious he is; he never, ever is going to give up on any issue.  Even if it is clear that most Cantonians do not want what he is offering up.  That's how much ego this man is consumed with.

EXAMPLES OF HEALY WORK-AROUNDS

When it became apparent that his plan to interest oil/gas drillers into fracking (a controversy to a number of citizens and councilpersons) on Canton owned lands was not going to make it through council, he withdrew it and went back to the drawing board.

Mark the SCPR's word; in time Healy will be back.  His ego simply will not allow him to be bested by anyone.

When it became apparent in August of this year that Healy's plan to dismantle the "independent" Canton Board of Park Commissioners (which has be around for nearly 100 years) was not going over with council and many in the electorate, he withdrew the proposal.  (Reference:  see Canton to seek levy for parks, Ed Balint, The Repository, November 28, 2012)

End of story?

Not on your life!  Not with the "my way or the highway" Healy!!

It appears that he now has commandeered the Canton Recreational Services Coalition (CRSC) which was started about two years ago considering ways and means to possibly merge the Canton Parks and the Canton Joint Recreational District.

Commandeered?

The SCPR thinks so.

He has his main man administrative assistant Derek Gordon serving as "interim assistant park director" and Healy himself has led the discussion with the CRSC (undoubtedly made up of those committed to doing his bidding) to get it to promote putting a levy on at next May's primary election towards getting funding together to provide the finances for his outflank council move.

The eventual goal:  merge the recreation and park functions of Canton into an entity controlled by the mayor of Canton.

And for anyone who knows Healy, it would be a big mistake to count him out on reaching his goal.

This guy is a political Houdini who has demonstrated that "a cat with nine lives" has nothing over him.

WILL HE BE SUCCESSFUL ON THE TRAFFIC CAMERAS?

No, if you believe Ward 5 Councilman Kevin Fisher's take on the matter.

Here is what Fisher had to say to a SCPR inquiry about West's effort as specifically whether or not the 7 to 5 "no" will hold this coming Monday's council meeting.

Martin,

I have every confidence that the Redflex contract will be defeated by the 7 to 5 margin, if not by a wider one. Despite the rebranding of the contract as a "Pilot Program", this is the same vote that was held a mere couple of months ago and in my frequent discussions with my colleagues on city council, I have seen zero indications that anyone has flip flopped on the issue since then.

I did not attend the sales pitch given by Reflex Tuesday evening. As I said when I was invited, that my presence would merely be a waste of my and everyone else's time. I am absolutely opposed to red light/speed cameras at every level and there is no sales pitch that Redflex could make to overcome my constitutional and philosophical objections. Furthermore, I do not feel that Redflex as a company is the type of vendor that Canton should consider doing business with (see their long history of suing their municipal "partners") even if I did not hold such objections.

The people of Canton are absolutely opposed to these cameras and recognize them as nothing more than a "cash grab" and their council has rejected them twice in 3 years. I look forward to voting against them again and putting this issue to bed for good. I think 3 "bites at the apple" are plenty for the proponents of Redflex and once we reject them for the third time, we should consider the topic dead.

... 

Kevin Fisher

As The Report has written before, this council with the new "four young turks" (and yes, Frank Morris, you are young) as newly elected members being on board; Healy ought to be getting used to the new reality that his slick moves are losing their teflon qualities with the growing discernment that increasing numbers of councilpersons are demonstrating.

It has been talked for some time now that Healy is tiring of the mounting rancor he faces from week to week in the hubbub of Canton politics and governance and is looking to move on to a venue more fitting of a man of his political talents.

In a direct question put to him by the SCPR on his looking to move on, he has not denied that he is indeed surveying the field of possibilities.

While The Report thinks he has the "cloak and dagger" political skills and other oily qualities needed to succeed at a higher level, yours truly thinks it would be a mistake for voters to carry him to a higher level.

Why, you ask?

Though many of the folks who staff elective offices across Ohio and the nation are not Sunday School teacher types, it seems to The Report that Mayor Healy is over-the-top in terms of his ego and Canton government and politics should be his last stop on the political trail.

The nightmares "for the people" need to stop!!!