CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, STARK DEVELOPMENT BOARD ET AL FAIL TO CONNECT THE DOTS?

Yesterday, likely owing to what the SCPR thinks is an incestuous-esque tie-in with The Canton Repository (former executive editor David Kaminski is the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce [Chamber] public relations main man), the Chamber's chief executive (along with several member entities' executives) got front and center entree to the pages of Stark County's only countywide newspaper to state their case for Stark County economic development.

Very few Stark Countians ever get such an opportunity.

While The Rep is not what it used to be, other than the Stark County Political Report (staffed by one person), it is a main pathway for local leaders to communicate with the Stark County public.

And, of course, in the four-author-shared-piece (Future of  Route 30 is vital to Stark County; Saunier/CEO/Chamber, Paquette/CEO/Stark Development Board Nash/CEO/Kenan and Sibila/Peoples Services), in Sunday's Repository, they only told part of the story on why Stark County is in jeopardy of falling further behind the rest of northeast Ohio's communities in the race to recover from the September, 2008 America "near" economic collapse and to use the recovery modality to bootstrap into realizing not only recovery but beyond that into an economic boon the which Stark County has not seen in a very long, long, long time.

The SCPR thinks that Saunier, Paquettee, Nash and Sibila are "spot-on" in pushing a project like Route U.S. 30 widening all the way to Pittsburgh as being one of a number of vital economic development cogs  to be realized in the quest for Stark County to have any chance whatsoever for a bright economic development future.

But nobody should think for a nanosecond that Stark's economic development future is keyed in so narrowly on Route 30 (as a corridor to the east) or even the expansion of Interstate 77 (as an enhanced commercial-way to the south).

There is much more that needs to be done with Stark's infrastructure on a number of fronts in order for Stark Countians to feel confident that Stark's public officials are on a track to ensure that future generations of Stark Countians will have a better economic development footprint than the county now has.

The SCPR understands that the focus of the column was on U.S. Route 30 and Interstate 77 because the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) recently issued an analysis of the transportation needs/plans? in a report named AccessOhio2040.

The Stark County Political Report today focuses on why Stark County is in the condition it is in (i.e. little if any local funding sources)  - so that it is laughable that ODOT's Jerry Wray (The Rep's companion piece, Local leaders rally against ODOT planning map) is reported as saying, to wit:

In a meeting at Stark State on Nov. 25, Wray told business leaders that if local governments and companies could provide much of the money that would improve the chances of extending Route 30.

Usually for high capital improvement projects money made available by the state or federal government, the local match ranges from 10% to 50%. 

For ODOT's Wray to say "much of the money" needs to come from local sources is like saying forget it Stark County in getting any financial help from the state of Ohio "you are on your own!"

To which the SCPR adds:

"Stark Countians, haven't you gotten the clear message that has come from the Kasich administration and the Ohio General Assembly since January, 2011?"

Less money; not more money is the central message insofar as the state of Ohio is concerned vis-a-vis its political subdivisions.

And even before the Kasich administration went draconian in 2011 and 2012, in one way or another Republican members of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly (John Hagan and Todd Snitchler along with continuing-to-this-day Republican delegation members Scott Oelslager [the 29th Senate district] and Kirk Schuring [the 48th House district; formerly the 51st]) have worked with the Republican majority (except for two years that the Ohio House was controlled by the Democrats during the Strickland administration) to undermine local government finances and began the process that culminated with the gigantic Kasich administration sabotaging of local government funding '11 and '12.

So Director Wray "there ain't no 'much of the money'" for Stark local government to ante up.  And who believes that private companies will be forking any out anytime soon?

That Chamber is agitating for better treatment from ODOT is an implicit plea for more government money to be applied to Stark's vital commercial arteries to the east and south.

Being the political hypocrite he is, Kirk Schuring is quoted in the same Repository article, to wit:

Undoubtedly, the likes of Saunier, Paquette, Nash and Sibila ("the four") think that Republicans  Christina Hagan (of Marlboro Township) , Oelslager (of Plain Township) and Schuring (of Jackson Township) are terrific representatives.

"The four" are likely prone to be the first to glad-hand this legislative trio when they appear in Stark County.  And, of course, The Repository editors - "election in, election out" - endorse the three as being the best that Stark County can send to Columbus.

While it is all well and good for "the four" to try to rally everyday citizens to their cause in commenting on the ODOT plan (as the SCPR advocates that Stark Countians should make their collective voices heard); it is regrettably clear to The Report that the effort will prove futile.

For Stark County - due in large part to the work done over recent years by the likes of the Hagans, Snitchler, Oelslager and Schuring - has no meaningful local money to provide "much of the money."

To be sure, it is not only the Stark's Republicans at the Statehouse who have been factors in depleting Stark's local government funding.

Stark Countians should be placing part of the blame on the 2008 Stark County Board of Commissioners (Bosley and Harmon [Democrats], and Vignos [a Republican]) for "imposing a 0.50 sales tax).

The SCPR thinks that this triad set Stark County finances back more than anybody realizes in terms of undermining the public's confidence that the commissioners' are interested in hearing from Mr. and Ms. Citizen as to whether or not they think the county should have more money.

While the current Stark County Board of Commissioners:

• Thomas Bernabei [a Democrat], 
• Janet Creighton [a Republican], and 
• Richard Regula [a Republican] have done much to restore the public's confidence that the commissioners seek out and listen to them, the fact of the matter is that they:
• SCPR Note:  [Peter Ferguson - a Democrat - was commissioner before Regula when the decision was made],

had to go "bare bones" in asking for a 0.5% sales tax increase for eight years (which Stark Countians passed in November, 2011) because:

• of the damage that the Bosley, Harmon and Vignos board had done, and 

and because

• the damage done when nearly $3 million was stolen from the county treasury probably over a 5 to 6 year (thought to be 2003/2004 through March, 2009) span by former chief deputy treasurer Vince Frustaci,

the SCPR thought and said at the time (early 2011, when the levy increase was put together) that the commissioners should have put a full 1% request on the ballot.

It is understandable that the commissioners felt hamstrung and limited in what they could ask for.

Just a word on the loss of the nearly $3 million.

The damage done to the commissioners' ability to ask for more than a 0.5% increase, many Stark Countians believe - in reference to the Frustaci matter - was due to a public perception that the-then Democratic county treasurer Gary D. Zeigler (originally appointed by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee in 1999 who served until October 19, 2011) did not have in place adequate practices, policies, procedures and physical facilities to have prevented the theft.

Zeigler consistently rejected (in media reports) that he was in any way remiss in the administration of his office.

Understandable or not, the fact of the matter is that Stark County is on a very tight budget and there is "no extra money" to put into something like a local match for U.S. Route 30 expansion.

The major blame though, the SCPR thinks lies with Stark's Republican dominated delegation to the Ohio General Assembly and their unwillingness to fight the firestorm rush in the legislature the draconian cuts (millions of dollars in Stark County alone) in local government funding.

There is no doubt that Hagan, Oelslager, and Schuring have been key factors by way of  their supportive votes of the Kasich administration initiative to cut local government funding and now Stark County is "reaping what they have sown" and the financial "Chickens are - now - coming - home - to - roost."

This year Stark Countians will have Christina Hagan, Kirk Schuring and Scott Oelslager on the ballot once again seeking reelection.

If they are voted in again, then Stark Countian voters in effect ratify (double ratify in the case of Hagan and Schuring) their legislative work to undermine Stark's local governments from having the financial resources to participate in essential economic development infrastructure improvements and enhancements.

The SCRP is reasonably sure that Stark's Randy Gonzalez-led Democrats will not be able to mount and effective campaign with politically viable candidates against Hagan, Oelslager and Schuring and they, consequently, will be returned to the Statehouse for a new term.

Hmm?

So what is the alternative for Stark County government to have the resources to get into serious and effective economic development infrastructure projects?

Doesn't a November, 2014 vote validating Hagan, Oelslager and Schuring mean that Stark Countians should be willing to approve additional revenue sourse (e.g. bumping the sales tax up to a full 1%) to provide monies to fund economic development essentials such as pushed by "the four?"

In a videotaped conversation that the SCPR had with Commissioner Janet Creighton last Monday, she drooled over the fact that Franklin County has a $190 million "rainy day" fund.

While Stark County should have an emergency fund, it should be no more than $5 million.

What would be more visionary and enhancing of Stark County's economic development would be for the county to be able to put $15 million or so in an economic development fund annually (a full 1% sales tax levy would raise about $45 million)?

For Stark County governments to have local match capacity and monies for other types of capital projects,  the commissioners could use/revise (on the agreement of the political subdivisons) the formula currently in place among Stark County's political subdivisions (i.e. the SCOG [Stark County Council of Governments] funding mechanism:  consisting of Stark's villages, cities and townships [and the county itself]), to take the extra $22 million or so over current revenues that a full 1% would produce and distribute the revenues for the political subdivisions to use "exclusively" for economic development purposes.

Now that Hagan, Oelslager and Schuring "chickens have come home to roost," as the SCPR sees it, there is nothing else for Stark Countians to do (presumably in this fall's election having chosen to keep them in office) but to square up with the reality that it will take a local taxes revenue boost if future generations of Stark Countians are going to have a bright economic future, no?

DISCUSSION: HEALY, GONZALES & HARMON "PUSHING FOR CANTON SAFETY DIRECTOR - TOM NESBITT ON 9-1-1 PROJECT MGR JOB?

While the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) believes that Canton Mayor Jamey Healy is trying to squeeze Safety Director Tom Nesbitt out as safety director, it is obvious that Randy Gonzales (the man with a powerless title - Jackson Township Fiscal Officer - but seemingly "all powerful") is pushing Nesbitt into the 9-1-1 tube.

The Report has reason to believe that Canton Mayor Healy in his singular ("you don't know this is happening to you - because I am much smarter than you") mode, "but I just want to know what Tom Nesbitt's chances are to become 9-1-1 Project Manager because I need to plan" This is a phone call The Report believes Healy made to all 9-1-1 Project Manager interviewers over the weekend.

Get it?

Healy is not directly lobbying for Nesbitt for appearances sake, but "really" he is. The Report believes there is a concerted effort on the part of Mayor Healy, Jackson Township Fiscal Officer Randy Gonzales (the de facto head of the Stark County Democratic Party) and Stark County Commissioner Tom Harmon to relocate Nesbitt to the 9-1-1 Project Manager position.

Why Healy?

Because Nesbitt humiliated him about a month ago when he let it be known that he was applying for the 9-1-1 Project Manager job. Nesbitt's application was confirmation to The Report of what was already known; all was not well within the Healy administration. What's more, Nesbitt has been unable to get Canton Police Chief Dean L. McKimm fired as The Report has reported is at the top of Healy's "to do" list.

The Report was the first Stark County media to speculate that the Healy administration was a "sinking ship."

Was The Report correct in your truly's analysis?

You be the judge?

After the Nesbitt incident, you have the Bernabei (Services Director and Chief of Staff) firing, you have the campaign contributions to Healy from figures being investigated by the FBI in what has come to be known as the "Cuyahoga County corruption; you have the campaign contributions from folks associated with 1-888-Workers'Comp (whom Healy awarded Canton's workers' compensation processing contract to - largely on his own); you have Stark Countian Jack DeSario (who has had records of his D&R Consulting subpeoned by the FBI in its Cuyahoga County investigation) and who has former connections with Gary C. Johnson who was recently given a labor negotiation contract by Healy and from whom Healy initially received $1400 in campaign contributions.

The Report is still looking into other campaign contributions that Healy received and The Report is beginning to connect more dots. Of course, the TeamHealy and Mayor Healy himself is refusing to answer the telling questions of The Report.

Stay tuned on the campaign contributions thing.

Mind you, The Report has largely stayed away from the allegations that Healy has had an "inappropriate" relationship with an area 16 year old.

If The Report is so correct, when will the "Ship Healy" finally sink?

Who knows. These things seem to take forever to resolve one way or another. Effective investigators are extremely careful to dot each and every - i - and cross each and every - t -, and doubly so when the subject of the inquiry is a powerful public figure.

Back to the 9-1-1 hiring.

Why Gonzales?

Gonzales started months ago when he was making the rounds of the villages, townships and cities of Stark County lobbying for support of a countywide 9-1-1 system. Only recently The Report learned that Tom Nesbitt was with Gonzales on many, if not all, of the stops that 9-1-1 circuit rider Gonzales made.

Why Harmon?

The Report suspects that Gonzales teamed up with County Commissioner Tom Harmon and Nesbitt several months ago and forged an agreement that if and when the money became available to take a re-worked 9-1-1 countywide, Nesbitt would be the candidate of choice.

The Report believes that Harmon is politically jealous of fellow commissioner Todd Bosley because of the many Bosley attention-getting activities as commissioner and is fomenting troubles for Bosley; unbeknown to Bosley. For appearance sakes, Harmon seems to be working harmoniously (no pun intended) with Bosley.

Does Bosley have difficulties in pressing his support for Peterson?

It is common knowledge that Bosleys man for the 9-1-1 Project Manager job is Nimishillen Township Fire Chief Rich Peterson. However, in the inter circles of 9-1-1 turf struggles, Peterson has created avowed enemies. An expression of the animosity towards Bosley and Peterson was evident in an e-mail recently published in The Report's blog of several days ago. CLICK HERE to see the blog containing the e-mail.

The Report believes that the e-mail may have come from Gonzales or one of his Stark Democratic Party loyalists.

So how will all this work out?

The Report believes that Gonzales will win the day and get Nesbitt appointed.

However, it could devolve into "a battle royal" between Gonzales and Bosley and a compromise candidate will surface.

The Stark County political scene is rich in political intrigue these days!

Only the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT brings you Stark County political developments from the bowels of political infighting.

GRAPHIC "CALL TO ACTION" BY THE STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT

DISCUSSION: ARE STARK COUNTY VOTERS GOING TO ALLOW TOM HARMON TO RUN A "FRONT PORCH" CAMPAIGN FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER?

The Secrest Plan For Stark County? Yes, indeed. The man has a plan; that is Travis Secrest who is the Republican candidate four Stark County commissioner. He is running against a powerful Stark County Democrat - Tom Harmon, who served many years as clerk of courts for the Canton Municipal Court.

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) would be stunned if Secrest were to unseat Harmon (sitting by appointment at the hand of Stark County Democratic political boss Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.). But don't tell this candidate that he has no hope.

Secrest is (from a rhetorical standpoint) running the best countywide (not including the 16th Congressional District race) campaign. Look at his web site. He lists the key issues of the campaign:

(1) Stimulating Stark County's Economy and Protecting our jobs
(2) Enhancing Public Safety
(3) Providing Ethical and Open Government
(4) Maintaining Balance Budget
(5) Revitalizing Stark County Communities
(6) Reducing Unnecessary Regulation
(7) Exploring the Possibilities of Alternative Energy Sources
(8) Trusting and Empowering County Employees

And, if you hit the direct link to his web site above, he provides the core of his answers on each of the first four issues as of the date of this piece.

Now The Report has found Secrest's discussion on issue #1 to be a touch naive and hooked in the typical Republican panacea talking points (i.e. "cut taxes" [which by the way county commissioners do not have much in the way of taxing power]) but at least he is talking on the issues.

More than his opponent Tom Harmon is doing. Unless, that is, you consider articles appearing in The Repository reciting the financial crises in Stark County government.

But what kind of talk is this?

"Anybody got any bright ideas?" Commissioner Tom Harmon asked the group [of county deparment heads and elected officials in a meeting on Tuesday, August 19th].

Is this acceptable? A candidate for county commissioner doesn't expound on his own ideas?

Harmon is apparently feeling smug enough about the prospect of being elected that he proposes no ideas of his own. A google search by The Report does not locate a web site for Harmon. But if you are a shoe-in, what need is there to communicate on the issues with voters.

Are Stark County voters going to let Tom Harmon get away with not having a pro-active campaign (a la Secrest) with proposals for what ails Stark County?

DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER TOM HARMON DOESN'T RETURN PHONE CALLS?

Commissioner Tom Harmon thinks he is above returning phone calls to everyday citizens? If you believe one of the Stark County Political Report's (The Report) sources.

If this is so and if Stark Countians elect John Hagan county commissioner (Hagan v. Ferguson), then none of us will get our phone calls returned, unless, of course, we call Commissioner Todd Bosley.

A The Report source located at Stark County Jobs and Family Services tells us that
Harmon's words to the source were to the effect: "I don't return phone calls - people call me and may or may not get me - but I do not return phone calls." Also, Harmon dubbed himself as management that does not soil himself in dealing with everyday people issues.

Harmon sounds like 50th district Ohio House representative John Hagan (Republican - Marlboro) who is running against Doctor Pete Feguson for county commissioner.

Hagan filters his calls for devoted supporters and followers, or, powerful media he cannot ignore, and those are the only people who can get through to him. The moral of the story: Never take exception to John Hagan or you will end up on his ____ list and you certainly will not get your phone calls answered or returned.

So there you have it folks. County commissioner candidates who think they are not accessible and, it stands to reason, not accountable to everyday citizens?

Question: Do Stark Countians want Ivory Tower commissioners?

DISCUSSION: HARMON (THE LION) VERSUS SECREST (THE LAMB): STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RACE?

As of mid-June, Tom Harmon comes as close as you can get (except for the unopposed candidates) as you can come to as a "unbeatable candidate" in the November 4th elections.

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) tabs Harmon as the most powerful politician in Stark County politics.

He rivals, (and, in the opinion of The Report trumps - when he needs to) Stark County Democratic Party chair Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. as a power center in Stark County Democratic Party politics.

Harmon schmoozes with and has the ear of power brokers in both Stark County political parties. He has the ear of the "captains of industry" and business and has a solid relationship with organized labor. He dominated all his races for Canton City Municipal Court over his years in that office. For the foregoing reasons, The Report tabs him as the "lion" in this race.

His opponent, Travis Secrest, is indeed the "sacrificial lamb" offered up by Stark Republicans. Secrest will learn a lot in this campaign an could develop in to a formidable Republican standard bearer in future elections. But not in 2008.

Secrest's issues as articulated on his website bespeaks of a thoughtful candidate:








Harmon's vision for himself was spelled out in a Repository report (June 14, 2007) on his selection as a replacement for a resigned Stark County commissioner as being:











Undoubtedly, Secrest sees that Harmon has not made sufficient progress on public safety, economic development and government efficiencies, and, he may be right.

Unfortunately, Secrest's campaign will not be heard by Stark County voters. He will, in the end, be the sacrificial lamb of this campaign season barring catastrophic events overtaking the Harmon campaign.

Agree or disagree?