A WELL DRILLING/FRACKING FIGHT LOOMING IN MASSILLON?

Councilman Tony Townsend (a staunch political ally of Massillon mayoral candidate [as a Democrat] Kathy Catzaro-Perry and Clerk of Courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.) won Round 1 of a fight with lame duck Mayor Frank Cicchnelli on whether or not Massillon Council ("Council") would authorize Massillon entering into a "Non-Developmental Oil & Gas Lease" with Ohio Valley Energy Systems Corporation on some 52.51 acres of land owned by Massillon.  Included in the proposal were three locations:  two at Towne Plaza and one in the 300 block of 2nd Street SW (in Councilman Townsend's ward).

But the July 5 "no vote" apparently is not the end of the matter.

The SCPR has learned that Townsend believes that Cicchinelli is coming back to Council on Monday night (August 15) with a new try to get Council to approve the lease.

Here are excerpts from an e-mail (that is circulating among opponents of fracking) that the SCPR received a copy of on the matter:

Tony Townsend, Massillon councilman, wants all of us to attend the city council meeting this Monday Aug 15 ---- 7:30 pm.

Mayor Cicchinelli  will be there. He is going to chastise city council for turning down the well proposel in downtown Massillon. The mayor claims that Massillon lost 500 jobs. The mayor told city council tonight that there was a company that was going to bring 500 jobs to Massillon but changed their mind because they didn't like that council voted no on fracking in Massillon.  

City council [sic] has never heard about any company wanting to locate itself in Massillon like the mayor is claiming. If he knew there were 500 jobs out there, why didn't he tell council.  According to some council members the mayor is probably going to bring another well proposel to council and is going to make those council members that vote no look bad.

It's a scare tactic the mayor is using. He needs 3 more council members to change their vote to yes for fracking downtown.

There is an election this year. Some members on city council are not sure they will be re-elected and don't want to be singeled [sic] out by the mayor as being the reason Massillon lost jobs.

So now a vote on a new ordinance oil and gas proposal would be tied to an argument that voting against drilling would be a vote to pass on new jobs coming to Massillon?

Quite "a different kettle of fish" from the original ordinance (73 B 2011) which was not tied directly to jobs coming to Massillon with Council's approval.  An Ohio Energy Spokeswoman did talk about 14,000 "indirect" jobs that exist in Ohio as a positive attribute of oil and gas drilling activities.

Hmm?

Councilman Townsend, by the way, is running unopposed.

Who might the councilpersons be who do not want to be on record as opposing the 500 jobs that Cicchinelli is said to be referring to?

Start with Councilwoman Kathy Catazaro-Perry, Townsend's political ally, and her run for mayor.

One wouldn't think she in a heavily Democratic city would face much of a challenge from Republican Lee Brunckhart.  Accordingly, and she is not likely to be worried by a possible call-out by Cicchinelli.  However, these are topsy-turvy political times and it is a long time until November 8th and, perhaps, a number of missteps by her could put Brunckhart in play.

Moving on to council-at-large, the most likely worry-wart in this arena is Councilman David Hersher. 

 

In 2007 and 2009 Hersher came in last among the Democrats running.  So he just might be vulnerable to Republican Milan Chovan's challenge. 

Ward 2.  What a delight it likely would be for the outgoing Frank Cicchinelli to take Gary Anderson with him.  Anderson has been a bitter Cicchinelli foe ever since taking office.  Souces deep inside the Cicchinelli administration tells the SCPR that Republican Nancy Halter has an excellent chance of unseating Anderson.  So one wouldn't think that Anderson would relish a vote no as being tantamount to the equivalent of "a job killing" vote?

Ward 5.  David McCune would be an unhappy consequence of a Cicchinelli initiative to put councilpersons on the spot in terms of voting no in the face of the mayor equating a no vote on drilling to a no vote on new Massillon jobs.  McCune has been supportive of Cicchenlli and therefore an unintended consequence of his ongoing feud with the likes of Catazaro-Perry, Hersher and Anderson.

If Cicchinell is to get to five (5) votes, he will have to add to his Manson and Peters support three more votes.

The Report believes that Councilpersons Slagle and Catazaro-Perry are not viable prospects.

Slagle is likely to be vying with Paul Manson as the highest vote getter in the council-at-large race and therefore unlikely to be under any pressure to switch from supporting Townsend.

There is no way Kathy Catazaro-Perry can be seen as knuckling under to Cicchinelli and moreover she is not about to abandon her political ally Townsend.

Are the remaining councilpersons vulnerable to Cicchinelli arm twisting?

Monday night's council meeting could be interesting indeed!

(VIDEO) LWV FORUM FEATURING CICCHINELLI, CATAZARO-PERRY (DEMOCRATS) AND BRUNCKHART, OSER (REPUBLICANS)

A COMPLETE VINDICATION OF FRANCIS H. CICCHINELLI, JR? TODD V. CICCHINELLI, ET AL

DISCLAIMER:  This blog is posted in the context of being opinion journalism and has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that the blogger is an attorney-at-law.

Mayor Francis H. Cicchnelli, Jr., tells the SCPR that the City of Massillon has been victorious on all counts in Massillonian Edward Todd's lawsuit versus Cicchinelli and other Massillon officials in their official capacities.

And, the SCPR has obtained a copy of Judge Haas' decision that validates Cicchnelli's claim, to wit:

Conclusion
Construing the pleadings, affidavits, and other supporting documents in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as set forth. herein.

Ordinance 235-2002 was not unlawful and the Recreation Board legally controls and directs the operation of the Legends.

Further, the Recreation Board has properly used Park Levy funds in its direction and control of the Legends.

With regard to Genshaft Park, the Court will not issue a declaration regarding the lawfulness of the Ordinance purporting to sell the Park as the issue is moot nor will this Court issue an advisory opinion as to whether or not City Council, in passing Ordinance 92-007, abused its discretion.

Finally, any future sale of Genshaft Park may be effectuated through the Massillon Community Improvement Corporation without Recreation Board approval or competitive bidding  

This is a final appealable order and it is so ordered.

The SCPR believes that Cicchinelli has it right and therefore has made the decision to post this blog noting the Cicchinelli-vouched result of the case.  Moreover, The Report believes that the source of the email with the face page of the court order attached is indication in and of itself that matters went well for the Mayor, his administration and other Massillon city officials named as parties in the lawsuit.

The case was filed in May, 2009.

Mayor Cicchinelli has told the SCPR that the litigation was the work of his political enemies, one of whom he identified as being Massillon Municipal Court Judge Edward J. Elum.

 

If Cicchinelli is correct in his assessment of the political motivation, then it will be interesting to see whether or not the result in this case has any affect on the relationship between Cicchinelli and Elum.

Right now there is a fuss underway between Elum and the Mayor appointed police chief Rob Williams.  This afternoon the Mayor repeated to The Report that nothing has changed and that he disagreed that a recent one and one half hour meeting between the Chief and Elum yielded positive results as Elum claimed in an email to the SCPR.

The next thing to look for in the Massillon political scene is whether or not Cicchinelli decides to run for yet another term.  He has been mayor since 1988, but is thought to be in for a challenge by Councilwoman Kathy Catazaro-Perry who is allied with another political enemy of Cicchinelli; namely, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. who is Massillon clerk of courts and a former chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.

Cicchinelli has told The Report he will be making his decision no later than this coming summer.

If he decides to run, a Cicchinelli/Catazaro-Perry will be a continuation of the political "cat fight" that has been going on in Tigerland for some years now!

The Report does not believe this is helpful to a city that is struggling in tough economic times, but such is politics.

DAVID HELD STANDS BY HIS ADMINISTRATORS AND CITY EMPLOYEES ON THE DISPOSITION OF "STREET SWEEPINGS?" DOES NORTH CANTON, ODOT AND THE STARK COUNTY ENGINEER HAVE IT RIGHT?

Mayor David Held of North Canton tells the SCPR that what North Canton has been doing in terms of disposing of its street sweepings has been going on across Stark County (for communities that have street sweepers) for the past ten years.

He stands by his contention that North Canton has only been doing what other nearby government entities have been doing.  Moreover, he says that the local branch of the Ohio Department of Transportation and the Stark County engineer's office has a sort of  "Pied Piper" (the SCPR characterization - not Held's) on the matter of disposing of street sweepings.

Held says that some North Canton government officials are trying to use the North Canton "street sweepings" issue as a pretext to force him to dismiss North Canton administrator Earle Wise, Jr and city utilities supervisor Thomas Chupar, but that these offcials can forget it because he views Wise and Chupar as being officials of the highest integrity and valuable assets to North Canton.

Held is to meet with Ohio EPA officials on Wednesday (December 9th) as well as state Senator Kirk Schuring to determine exactly what is and what is not permitted by operation of Ohio Administrative Code section 2745.27.

As an aside, the SCPR asked about a copy of a test taken by North Canton city employees and administrative officials at a Erosion and Sediment Control continuing education session (put on by Julie Barberi) of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources in March, 2009 and November, 2008.

Why the question?

Because there was at least one of the questions in the 45 question test that is relevant to the North Canton street sweepings mess.

The question:  "Street sweeping material is considered hazardous waste material?  True or False?"

What do you think the correct answer is?

According to the answer key:  "True."

But the real answer is:  "it depends."

Depends on what?

Are the sweepings saturated with the likes of oil, gasoline and the like?

If they are, then the answer is clearly "True."

According to Held, if not; then he believes the sweepings may be "solid waste," but not "hazardous waste."

Of course, Held et al have been working on the premise that the sweepings are "yard waste" and, hence are disposable as "back-fill" as North Canton has been doing at its Jackson Township contracted site.

The SCPR believes that North Canton has been operating under a "wishful thinking" modality.  If North Canton officials determined that the sweepings are "solid waste," the the dumping has to take place at a landfill which runs about $200 a dump.

North Canton has been doing the "yard waste" dumping at least as far back as the days that present North Canton City Council president Daryl Revoldt was mayor of the Dogwood City.

The SCPR believes that "the test question" as set forth above, should have red flagged to North Canton officials that it had a problem with the disposal of its self-defined "yard waste."  The next step down from "hazardous waste" is not :yard waste," but "solid waste."

Held says that "the test question" did trigger North Canton to begin checking out the "real" definition of the street sweepings.  With all due respect to Held, the SCPR is skeptical of his answer.

The Report believes that North Canton citizen activist Chuck Osborne was the trigger.

At the end of the day, getting clarification is critically important not only for North Canton, but also to many Stark County political subdivisions.  Held tells The Report that only Canton and Perry Township (so far as he knows) have properly disposed of street sweepings in recent times.

This issue affects government.  It boggles the mind that even government is not effectively communicating to government.

What is wrong with the "rule-makers" at the Stark County level, the state of Ohio level and the national level that permits a situation that political subdivisions do not know what is expected of them?

However, the SCPR does not excuse North Canton.  The "test event" was months ago.  The test question clearly indicated alarm bells.  Yet, now is Held scheduled to go to Columbus to get to the bottom of the matter.

Moreover, the Held "we are doing what many others are doing" mantra is not acceptable.

When individual citizens are unclear of what the rules, regulations and law requires of them and follows the lead of friends, neighbors and relatives;  courts-of-law generally do not accept the answers like:  "but your Honor, my neighbor Joe does exactly the same thing."

North Canton's mistake could cost the city $100,000 or more in scarce taxpayer money.  Money that could go towards fixing potholes given that North Canton voters rejected (by four votes) providing one mill more to the streets department to take care of city roads and streets.

Undoubtedly Osborne is a pain to North Canton officials.  But folks like Osborne do provide a public service.

The silver lining out of  North Canton illegal dumping revelation is that its occurrence is likely to get Ohio EPA communication more clearly!

But North Canton should have pursued the clarification - a looooong time ago.

AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE!

As a rule public school board members and do not respond to media requests for answers to questions.

Since yours truly has been blogging on Stark County political issues and education issues, the "blow-off" rate by Stark County board members and officials they hire to run the public institutions has been very high.

One of this is not James Carmen, Jr., president of the Canton City Schools Board of Education.

So he is an "exception" to the rule and is a model for all Stark County education officials to follow.

Board members and school officials across Stark County wonder why they have troubles getting public participation and public financial support. It is no mystery to the SCPR. Far too many board members and school administrators - over many years now - have "blown off" the public. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Only the likes of James Carman, Jr. and his accessibility/openess offer any hope to reversing the public negativity. But it is going to be a long road back even if they were to adopt the Caman model today.

A reader of the SCPR asked yours truly to get some answers on a matter of concern on a neighborhood issue involving the Canton City Schools and the former Lehman High School/Junior High School building.

Here is the question:

... [Regarding Lehman] the "new" building was sold to the public with a "plan" for the use of the old building. But, neither the school district nor the city have done anything with the old building except let it sit there and decay, with the decay spreading to the neighborhood. The CCS and the city both say that no one will buy it....but what methods have they used to try and sell it? Even if they sold it for $1.00 it would be used by someone else, and the neighborhood would improve. Let them sell it on ebay or something creative like that!

Here is Canton City Schools board president James Carmen, Jr's answer (bulleted by the SCPR for structural clarity):

• Unfortunately as for the public being told there was a plan for the old building when construction of the new building was announced, I have to apologize and admit I don't know what that plan would have been.
  
• The district wide renovation project that was done in partnership with the Ohio School Facilities Committee was planned in 1999 and begun shortly there after.
  
• The plan was done in partnership with the OSFC, the school district's administration and the board of education. Since that time the OSFC has gone through many configurations and the district has had four different superintendents, two business managers and there is currently no board member serving that was on the board at the time.
  
• If there was some sort of plan for the building established at the time it has apparently been lost through the transitions.
  
• Honestly, I am not sure why there was not money allocated for the demolition of the old building as was the case with several of our other buildings (Cedar Elem, Worley Elem and Belden Elem just to name a few). My only guess would be that Lehman Middle School was, up until 1976, Lehman High School and several influential citizens are alumni from that building which may have made the idea of demolition unattractive at the time.
  
• .... What I do know, is that we currently have a decaying building that we are responsible for and we need to either find a use for the building or find money for demolition. Currently we are exploring both options. Demolition is estimated to cost in excess of $1 million and the district currently does not have the funds available for such a project. The district has also been working with local developers to try and find someone interested in renovating the building (early estimates on renovation have ranged from $10 to $15 million), to date we have been unsuccessful in our efforts. In the meantime, we have met with both the Lehman neighborhood association and the Lehman alumni association to combine our efforts to find a use for the site. We have also taken steps to better secure the building to hopefully stop future vandalism.
  
• As for your emailer's suggestion to randomly sell the building on ebay for $1.00, that is actually something we have promised the neighborhood association we would not do. Whether the building is renovated or torn down there is a hefty price tag associated with it and we do not want to turn the building over to a private individual that does not have the means to do something with the property. If a private individual is holding the building, the neighbors have very little say, if we continue to hold the property the neighbors can have more input in what happens to it. They also can hold us accountable if they do not feel it is being maintained properly, which they have recently done.
  
• The district was not doing a good job in maintaining the property and we have committed to the neighbors that we will do a better job.
  
• ... we are working to do something with the property as soon as possible and we are doing everything we can to keep it from being a problem for the neighborhood.

To the SCPR, this is a splendid example of being accountable!