LET'S SEE IF KEVIN FISHER CAN LIVE BY A STANDARD HE WOULD IMPOSE ON OTHERS?

Yours truly has known Kevin Fisher for approximately 14 years.

Before Monday night's debate about an amendment (#2) to a ordinance to require approximately 1,200 signatures by September 1st for a Cantonian to get a place on the November 3rd ballot seeking to be elected to one of 15 Charter Commission members on the condition that voters in that same election authorize the formation of such a commission, the SCPR has had a positive take on Fisher.

That is all changed now.

To The Report,  in his joining Democratic Ward 9 councilman Frank Morris, III (majority leader, believe it or not) and seconded by Democratic Ward 4 councilwoman Chris Smith (assistant majority leader, believe it or not) in making the amendment, Kevin Fisher showed that he is no enduring friend of our American democratic-republican system of government.

Fisher repetitively cites his promise to Ward 5 voters that he would never support a Charter government initiative for Canton; elevating the promise to  a point of personal and official honor on Monday.

Moreover, he allowed his foolhardy promise as a basis upon which prompt him to violate a ruling by Judge Frank Forchione of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas that Fisher's fellow councilman Edmond Mack (Democrat - Ward 9) had complied with the Constitution of Ohio and Ohio statutory law as interpreted by case law in, in offering up to Cantoninans, a fourth opportunity since 1913 to go charter government.

Foolhardy promise?

Indeed!

Who as a responsible, rule of law and oathed "I will support the Constitution" (of the United States and Ohio) elected official would make a promise that might place him in the position Fisher found himself on Monday night past?

The defect in Fisher's argument and his comment in Monday's debate to wit:

And I’m about to make liar out of myself in a few minutes on final passage. So, I’m going to
offer what, an Amendment that will change that number from, I believe the previous was 25 signatures, up to 10% of the electorate voting in the previous Governor’s election. If Members wish to vote that way, that is fine, I’m going to vote yes on that Amendment ... ."

is what he had to know from get-go that he had not made a "rule of law" consistent and therefore unsustainable promise.

And this ridiculous and disturbingly anti-democratic-republican-system of government statement from Majority Leader Frank Morris, III:

I compliment Member Fisher for coming up with a great idea. We’re not going to vote no, we’re going to put it on ... we’re going to give you the right to vote on it.  And to comment on Member Smuckler’s remark that we’re going to make it hard, no, we’re going to make it downright damn impossible.

To carry The Report's argument forward, Fisher's unvetted promise suggests that he lacks the judgment to be seriously consider as a candidate for Stark County commissioner.

In order to make it impossible for him to even make it to the ballot he should as a matter of applying his own defined standard (ramped up equivalency wise because he supposes to run countywide; not merely with Canton) as indicated by his support of and vote for the aforementioned Charter Government ordinance Amendment #2 suggests should be proportionally applied to him - unless, of course - he does mind being thought of as an out-and-out hypocrite.

Accordingly, if Fisher is truly the man of political honor that he attributes to himself, he will self-impose the SCPR suggested 5,000 signatures all with seven days from yesterday the day he sent out a press release announcing his candidacy for Stark County commissioner.

Of course, such is not going to happen.

Now - all of a sudden! no - there will be extenuating circumstances, don't you think?

Though Fisher's focus on countywide economic development is an attractive feature of his candidacy announcement, his anti-democratic role on Monday night's Canton City Council vote causes yours truly's ears to be afflicted with deafness.



One of the things that Fisher likes to chortle about is his role as campaign manager for the 2006 Democrat Todd Bosley campaign for Stark County commissioner in which Bosley surprised every Stark County-based political pundit in his defeating incumbent Republican commissioner Richard Regula (son of retired longtime Congressman Ralph Regula [16th District which then included all of Stark County]).

Actually, that credential is not very flattering.

Bosley showed himself to have an anti-democratic streak in joining with then (December, 2008) commissioners Tom Harmon (a Democrat) and Jane Vignos (a Republican) in "imposing" a 1/2 cent sales tax on the Stark County public.

Consequently, Bosley became a political pariah in Stark County and probably cannot be elected to anything anywhere in Stark County.

We will know one way or another soon about Bosley.

He is one of four candidates for Nimishillen Township trustee (from wench he cameth in his 2006 upset of Regula) in November.

Could it be that the Nimishillen race is one step towards reuniting with Fisher in the Stark County commissioners office in 2018?

Let's hope not.

For if that happens, the new day of open county government which dawned with the election of Janet Creighton (a Republican) and Thomas Bernabei (formerly a Democrat; now an "independent") in 2010 will be in jeopardy.

Fisher has in conversations with yours truly shared that he has bounced back and forth between running for commissioner or getting out of government altogether.

In the past, yours truly has thought Fisher to be "an up and comer" younger politician (e.g. one of the "four young turks [Fisher, Mack, Mariol and Morris]) that bode positively for Canton, Stark County and perhaps even the state of Ohio level.

But that is all gone now.

The SCPR has now seen enough of Kevin Fisher to know that he lacks the overall qualities that Stark Countians should want in one of their commissioners.

In time, he may redeem himself.

But on Monday he showed bad.  Really, really, really bad on issues of first order importance to those of us committed to a vibrant easily accessible democratic-republican system of government.

To say it again.  Fisher's unsustainable promise (if one is committed to the rule of law) was foolhardy and demonstrates a flaw in his judgement.

Everybody makes mistakes and politicians make blunder after blunder after blunder as daily news headlines attest day after day after day.

But when one makes a mistake on fundamental American democratic-republican values (e.g. Bosley on the "imposing" issue; Fisher on the Charter government issue), such is not the equivalent of a "bad hair day."

Voters cannot afford to hope that these folks are changed persons going forward.

The burden is on them to convince.

And Kevin Fisher has some convincin' to do!!!

AN UNLIKELY PAIR: CANTON COUNCILMAN KEVIN FISHER & NEW ENGLAND PATRIOT OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR JOSH MCDANIELS?

VIDEO

JOSH MCDANIELS

HONORED

BY

CANTON CITY COUNCIL

AND

FORMER MCKINLEY CLASSMATE

COUNCILMAN KEVIN FISHER

The photos above (provided the SCPR by Fisher) are of Ward 5 Canton City Councilman Kevin Fisher and New England Patriot offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach Josh McDaniels, a former Canton McKinley football star, when they were in high school.

Last week at the beginning of Canton's council meeting, Canton City Council member voted unanimously to honor McDaniels for the fame that he as brought to the Pro Football Hall of Fame city in being the member of the coaching staff of the 2014-2015 edition of the Patriots who won the Super Bowl in dramatic fashion.

While Josh was not born in Canton (rather, Barberton), his father says that he considers Canton as being his hometown.

The interesting twist to this Stark County Political Report blog is that Fisher should sponsor the forgoing informal resolution and be the councilperson making the presentation on March 9th to Josh's father and longtime McKinley football coach (1982 - 1997) Thom McDaniels.

Interesting twist?

Indeed!

While Kevin and Josh graduated together from McKinley (named after the sister of President William McKinley), they were miles apart in terms of academics, athletics and accomplishment as students at McKinley.

McDaniels' McKinley High School (MHS) bio:

• Boys Basketball, grades 9 and 11,
• Canton Scholars, grade 12,
• Class officer, Vice President, grade 9,
• Computer assistant, grade 9,
• Football, grades 9, 10, 11 & 12,
• Captain, grade 12,
• International Club, grades 10 & 11,
• Office assistant, grades 11 & 12,
• Saxton, grade 12,
• National Honor Society, grades 11 & 12,
• Spanish Honorary, grade 11,
• Student Council Vice President, grades 9, 10, 11 & 12,
• Teen Board, grades 11 & 12

Fisher's MHS bio?

Get this:

Proof enough that while they were both at McKinley through high school, they were worlds apart, no?

In not, then let Kevin Fisher speak for himself:

Marty,

I have been trying to think how to frame your request for a snapshot of Mckinley when Josh and I attended.

What i think is best is to show a comparison between the two of us at that time... .

Its pretty interesting,  actually,  in my opinion because Josh and I had such drastically different backgrounds and experiences in school.

For one, I didn't really know Josh. McKinley was much bigger back then (I would guess about 3500 to 4000 students).  I've included 5 pics from the yearbook for you...including a list of extracurricular activities for each.

As you can  see, Josh was very involved as a student, an athlete and socially.

I on the other hand "attended" high school only  in a technical sense.

While being long-winded even back then, the fact that i spoke a lot in school didn't translate into really knowing anyone. 

I didn't run with any particular crowds, nor did I associate with people outside of school.

Associating inside of school was rare in fact, as my attendance was scarce at best.

Where josh was a national honor society member, I managed to graduate with the bare minimum number of credits.

In fact, I did not even attend my graduation ceremony,  opting instead to take an extra shift at work.

So, where Josh received an academic scholarship to John Carroll  where he continued to play football,  I went to work at a series of assembly lines and retail stores, mostly earning minimum wage for the next 3 to 4 years.

I guess showing up and doing homework may have been the better call...lol

The one thing we both seemed to have in common was an intense love for Canton and McKinley sports.

So, 20 years later...I find myself sponsoring a proclamation honoring my classmate.

While on the surface,  some may see this and think that it a councilman honoring a high school buddy who made good, the truth is it is more a story about how McKinley HS has a way of uniting people from different worlds, even if they are from the same city.

Obviously, Fisher did not apply himself in high school.

But he has certainly made up for lost time over the past 20 years.

The SCPR considers Fisher as among a group of Canton Councilpersons The Report has tabbed as being "the four young turks," (Fisher, Mack, Mariol and Morris), he and his compatriots are the future for Canton in terms of getting the Hall of Fame city back to any semblance of her former glory.

He is and continues to be a difference maker in the process of slowly but surely bringing Canton back from the abyss.

Of course, the SCPR does not have access to Josh McDaniels for purposes of this blog, but yours truly has to think that Josh has to be proud of the work of Councilman Kevin Fisher on projects like the Hall of Fame Village endeavor as part of a citywide comprehensive plan to restore city to being one of the great cities in Ohio and indeed in America.

They may have been worlds apart in high school.

But they are united not only as McKinley forever football fans but in making their hometown of Canton, Ohio the better for having walked the streets that President William McKinley once walked.

Here is the video of Councilman Kevin Fisher making the presentation to Josh's father Thom of Canton City Council's informal resolution honoring one Josh McDaniels:

THE MESSAGE TO ADRIAN ALLISON? SLOW DOWN ON McKINLEY TAKEOVER OF TIMKEN?

VIDEOS

CANTON CITY SCHOOLS
AT
JANUARY 20, 2015
COMMUNITY LEADERS FORUM

=================================

LEADER INPUT WITH ALLISON’S RESPONSE

COUNCILMAN KEVIN FISHER

DR. ADRIENNE O’NEILL

ATTORNEY GUST CALLAS

TAGGART’S ERNIE SCHOTT

COUNCILMAN RICHARD HART

MALONE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT DAVID KING

It is appearing more and more that Canton City Schools (CCS) superintendent Adrian Allison has a hearing public.

The predominant message that The Stark County Political Report is hearing from stakeholders is that the "acquisition" (community activist/former board member Eric Resnick's word) by school officials/a majority of board members of the Canton City Schools' Timken High School to be totally absorbed in the more highly renowned and titled McKinley High School.

A week ago yesterday, Allison invited what he terms as being community leaders to a breakfast meeting (muffins and coffee) at the McIllwain Center located at the schools' administrative complex on - where else - (only kidding) 305 McKinley Avenue.

Last week the SCPR focused on the major dissident to seeming "fast track" that the administration and school board have embarked upon in "merging" (if one opts for Allison's descriptive term rather than Resnick's pejorative one) Timken and McKinley into one secondary school.

(Video LINK to Resnick/Allison tete-a-tete; also SCPR blog LINK commenting thereon)

Most of those present (The Report's take) supported Allison's/the board's timeframe.  But not all.  And Resnick was not the only "cautioning voice."

The major question now is whether or not Superintendent Allison will pause to listen even if it means postponing the scheduled February 25 meeting which as of now is supposed to be "the drop dead date" on  CCS Board of Education voting "yes" or "no" on what is formally known as Phase III of the school systems "Brighter Tomorrow Plan."

Here is an indicative e-mail that the SCPR received about a perceived need "to slow down the process," to wit:

Interesting enough, the e-mail is from a McKinley alum.

And noted in the above e-mail there is an allegation of politics being played.  Undoubtedly, there are many Cantonians who buy into "this is politics as usual" scenario.

Moreover, there is the Hall of Fame Village (adjacent to the formerly name "Fawcett Stadium/McKinley High School) project thing.

The SCPR was present with camera in hand on January 20 when Allison made his presentation to about 40, more or less, community leaders.

The Report starts its "video-run-through" with the Hall of Fame issue.

To the SCPR, the most disturbing thing about Allison's presentation of Phase III was his outright dismissiveness of the signifIcance of the Hall of Fame project and an apparent disinterest (or, at least, a low priority) by Allison and the BOE about the effect that shutting down of Timken will have on efforts of Canton and Stark County leaders to revive downtown Canton.

Here is Allison had to say about any coordination between the CCS and the HOF Village project.  In a word:  "none."  Which, the SCPR thinks, should be alarming to all.



The SCPR wholeheartedly agrees, though, with Greater Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce president Denny Saunier's word of admonition on the schools connecting to Greater Canton concerns on a nexus with the the HOF complex and a continuing presence in downtown Canton, to wit:



From this point on The Report's video track starts at the beginning of Allison's presentation.

In Part I Allison's focus is on four factors in implementing Phase III of the Brighter Tomorrow plan:

• efficiency,
• necessity,
• cutural, and the
• law

The one which is causing the big fight between the administration and the BOE is the "cultural" factor.

In the Resnick blog, one gets a full dose of this fight from the Timken perspective.

It appears to the SCPR that most of the community leaders assembled on January 20th at the McIllwain Center were pro-merger community leader supporters.

Later on in this blog will focus on the community leader feedback - leader by leader, except for Resnick who has already had "his day in the sun" of a SCPR blog - with video footage of their respective comments.

Of course, The Report has already presented Canton Chamber of Commerce CEO Denny Sanuier's reaction/input above.

That reaction was, the SCPR believes, prompted by Allison's discouraging comments about CCS's lack of liaison with the HOF Village project.

Here is Part I:



And Part II:



And Part III:



Finally, Part IV - Phase III Decision Timeline



The important part of the presentation and the one which should have taken up most of the superintendent's time and attention was the reaction of the community leaders who made the early morning (7:30 a.m.) trip to the CCS McIllwain Center.

Considering the schedules that community leaders have to meet, he correctly allocated one hour for the session.

However, he took way too long for his presentation.

Accordingly, the SCPR thinks that he and board members present (Brahler, Rinaldi, Milligan and Ross-Freedom) were denied the opportunity to hear a spontaneous exchange between the community leaders present and Allison.

In this section of today's blog, the SCPR honors the community leader participants in creating a separate video for each and every one of them in their back and forth with Superintendent Allison.

KEVIN FISHER

• Ward 5 councilman
• talks about brand name value of McKinley

(Canton City Council, Ward 5)



DR. ADRIENNE O'NEILL

• Long time Stark County Educational Partnership president
• keep a competive factor in play
• maintain presence in downtown Canton

GUST CALLAS

• Repository "intellectually dishonest" on Phase III timeline matter,

ERNIE SCHOTT

• the owner of Taggarts Ice Cream Parlor and Kennedy Barbecue.
• commends CCS BOE for effort to save taxpayers money

RICHARD HART

• Canton councilman at large,
• questions on cost to CCS on home schooling and charter schools

DAVID KING

• president of Malone University,
• keep the focus on the students

There is no doubt that the Timken/McKinley merger is a hot topic that has the potential to create yet another division in Canton.

The Hall of Fame city has all too many ruptures in relationships that have materialized over the decades of Canton's continuing decline.

The Report has the sense that the CCS BOE and Superintendent Allison are not effectively managing the implementation of the Brighter Tomorrow concept.

They need to step back, regroup and take whatever time is needed to ensure that all stakeholders in the reorganizing and restructuring of Canton's schools is bought into by the vast majority of Cantonians.

If they rush "pell mell" forward and the "rush to judgment" is just that, Canton may be set back even further than it is on getting things going in the right direction.

CANTON'S VERY OWN "MASON-DIXON-LINE" ON CHARTER GOV'T ISSUE?

UPDATE:  1:20 PM

Canton Charter

• Richard Gatien
• Today at 1:14 PM

To:  tramols@att.net

Mr. Olson,

Please see attached for my comments on today's blog.

Thank you.

Rick Gatien

Mr. Olson,

I read with interest your August 11 blog concerning the formation of a charter commission for Canton.  As you know, I am a long-standing strong proponent of the formation of a charter commission.  I continue to believe that any charter which is proposed MUST contain ward representation for members of Council. Your blog cites “a fear that a charter commission may take away some if not all of the ability of Cantonians living in Wards 2,3,4,5 and 6 to have any representation on Council.”   Further, that Councilmember Fisher says one of the charter proponents advocates a Columbus plan whereby all members of Council are elected “at-large.”  Who is this person?

If a Charter Commission did propose a plan whereby Ward representation is changed by either actually or substantively eliminating ward boundaries, the proposed charter would very likely be defeated. It would make no sense to invest a year in the preparation of a document that makes good on the alleged fears of half the city’s population (fears expressed by some elected representatives).

Let me pass along some commentary from the Introduction to the “Manual for Newly Elected Charter Commission Members in Ohio” authored by Dr. James B. Tinnin and John E. Gotherman:

“… It will not surprise most charter commission members to find that not everyone is for a charter. It does surprise many to find out that so many persons are opposed to charters generally or to the particular charter being proposed. Take, as an example, the situation where the people vote to choose a charter commission by a 2-1 favorable vote. While the margin of the vote seems impressive, it is important to remember that one third of the votes were against a charter generally. The second election to approve the charter deals with a particular charter document. Specific issues with respect to the form of government, civil service, etc. will be argued and it is expected that some of those voters who supported choosing a commission will be opposed to the particular charter proposed by the commission. In order to win a majority of votes, with an assumed one third of the voters against charters generally, it will be necessary to win the vote of 76% of the two-thirds of the voters who voted for choosing a charter commission in the election to approve the charter. Of course, there are many variables and our examples will not apply in every case. But it has been the experience that many charters are approved by a very narrow margin, and, of course many proposed charters are rejected by the electors.”

I believe the issue will make it to the ballot and a proposed charter will pass if it is well-balanced and reflective of the views of both sides of the North/South geography of Canton.

Rick Gatien

ORIGINAL BLOG

There is going to be a political fight in Canton come the May, 2015 primary election.

It will be Wards 1,7, 8, 9 versus 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Kind of reminiscent to the SCPR of the Civil War between the North and South of the early United States of America.

With one critical difference.

In Canton's version of a division between North and South, there will be no bloodshed.

However, there could be some hard feelings.  It depends on how it all shakes out.

Councilman Edmond Mack (Democrat, Ward 8) tells The Report that the numerous folks helping collect petition signatures (762 needed) are about 70% of the way to the required number.

Mack is the leader of a movement to convince Cantonians that the city needs to become a charter government so that to the degree allowed by State of Ohio law, it controls its own structure, processes and substance of government rather than being controlled by Columbus.

Mack figures that signatures will be gathered into December.  He plans on gathering signatures outside Ward 8 polling places come the November 4, 2014 general election

One of the primary signature gathers that Mack cites is former Canton city councilman Robert Capestrain.  He was among a number of Cantonians who on July 14th spoke out in favor of council approving putting the measure on the ballot for this November.  Council rejected his and other citizens' request by a 7 "no" to 5 "yes" margin.



One of the more interesting analyses of the vote comes from Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher.

He pointed out, last evening to The Report, that the seven "no" votes came largely from councilpersons who represent areas of the city that roughly approximate the southern reaches of Canton when compared to the locale of those voting "yes."

The huge exception to Fisher's theory is, of course, Ward 9 councilman and majority leader (vice president of council Frank Morris).  But the SCPR has learned that Morris has signed one of the petitions and perhaps such is evidence that he is supporting the creation of a charter commissioner of 15 members to be elected come May, 2015.

Fisher himself has not and will not be signing a petition, he tells the SCPR.

The Report wrote on July 15th that the "no" majority was grounded in "the fear factor."

In Fisher's case, at least, and perhaps for the other council persons voting "no," the SCPR accepts that it is not out of "personal political fear," but out of fear that a charter commission may take away some if not all of the ability of Cantonians living in Wards 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to have any representation on council.

Fisher says that one of the proponents of a charter for Canton is advocating a Columbus plan whereby all council persons are elected "at-large."

Well, that is not what Edmond Mack has in mind.

Mack, it seems to the SCPR, merely wants Canton - for immediate future - to be a charter city and thereby be in a position to have the flexibility to make changes to Canton government over time and with a thorough vetting having taken place of any proposed changes before enacted.

Fisher pointed out that those currently in Canton government who may have personal political axes to grind (the SCPR's words, not Fisher's) would include:

•  the mayor 
• Healy  the power to appoint, let's say, the city treasurer, 
• the treasurer 
• Perez, who likely would want to keep his office elective, and
• the auditor 
• Mallonn, also, who likely would like to keep his office elective 

all of who are eligible to stand for election to the charter commissioners whereas council members - as a matter of Ohio law - cannot.
Fisher says he will run one more time (May/November, 2015) and if elected does not presently plan to seek a new term in 2017.

He also shared, which the SCPR had heard from another highly reliable source, that Councilman James Griffin will not be running for reelection in May, 2015.

However, both Fisher and Griffin have to be concerned that a charter government might result in citizens of their respective wards losing their right to be heard in future councils.

The SCPR understands those concerns but does not think that Canton adopting a charter form of government will entail much if any structural change.

In the meantime, it appears that the campaign for voter approval/disapproval on the issue of creating a charter commission will center largely on geographical divisions within the city.

I was born and raised in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania ("the turning point of the civil war) which sits a mere eight (8) miles north of the Maryland border.

The Pennsylvania/Maryland border, of course, was fixed by the Mason-Dixon Line.

Though the line started out as being in Colonial days as a resolution of boundary disputes between Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania,  that line pretty much separated the American states who favored maintaining slavery (south of the Mason-Dixon Line) and those opposed (north of the Mason-Dixon Line).

While, as set forth above, the political fight in Canton come May, 2015 thankfully will not be one fought with bullets, if not conducted with civility and due regard for the "local" (i.e. at the Ward level) interests of all Cantonians having a formal/institutional voice in Canton government, then this city which is already beset with many, many problems may well take on another.

If Cantonians create and elect a charter commission, in the up-to-a-year time span within which the commissioners have to put a plan of governance together to be put to a vote of the people, the resulting commission must be careful not to alter the representation scheme currently in place.

Otherwise the result might be the creation of a "virtual" Mason-Dixion Line which would not be helpful to Canton in its effort to bring itself out of the downward spiral that the SCPR thinks it is currently in.

SCPR Note:  The graphic at the beginning of this blog is - in part - an extract from the ward map provided on the city of Canton website and re:  the Mason Dixon Line and extract of a national map published at www.studies.com.http://www.studiesweekly.com/online/images/pubimages/485/2243/mason%20dixon%20line.jpg

2013: STARK COUNTY PUBLIC FIGURES/OFFICIALS TO BE THANKFUL FOR!

Correction: 

Judge Kristin Farmer was appointed by Governor Kasich to replace Judge Charles E. Brown, Jr not Judge V. Lee Sinclair as previously reported.

Original Blog

The Stark County Political Report wishes each and every reader an abundantly thankful Thanksgiving Day, 2013.

On this day, which was first celebrated in Plymouth colony is 1621 because of a bountiful harvest that year, the SCPR takes a pause to be thankful for the good deeds enhancing our democratic-republican institutions performed by various Stark County elected officials and public figures.

In no particular order of importance, only that each recipient made the coveted SCPR "the top 5 billing," I elaborate on the reasons why each merited making this year's list.

JOHN FERRERO

Stark County's prosecutor since 2003, Ferrero, never heretofore a SCPR favorite, outdid himself early this year (January, February) "he did the right thing" in "standing his ground" to the Johnnie A. Maier, Jr Massillon-based political machine and looked his successor "in the eye" and declared by affidavit that brother George was not qualified under Ohio statutory law to be Stark County sheriff.

In so doing, The Report sees Ferrero as having placed himself in "a front and center" for "the rule of law" in this specific situation.

It had to be under great duress that he faced off against the Maiers inasmuch as Ferrero himself is - make no mistake about it - a Stark County Democratic Party insider (SCDP chair from 1996 - 2003) who has benefited greatly from such status as a base and an accelerant to his rise in Stark County elected officialdom.

The SCPR doubts that the challenge to George Maier (manifested by the 84 votes against him) would have gotten to first base BUT FOR Ferrero's courageous act.

You can bet that the Maiers (George and Johnnie) will long remember the year of political Hell that Ferrero initiated for them with his affidavit.

John Ferrero's deed established the base for the quo warranto Ohio Supreme Court challenge to Maier's right to hold office under the Stark Dems appointment.

The Report figures that the Maier forces were figuring on bullying their way through the selection process and that none one who wanted a future in Stark County Democratic Party politics would dare oppose them.

That Ferrero stood in their path was a surprise to the SCPR and likely astounded Stark County Democratic Party chair Randy Gonzalez, Maier and Maier.

Of course, the SCPR does not know the "inside himself motivation" for John Ferrero having "stepped up to the plate," but The Report does know the "effect" of his having done so.

Because of the action of Prosecutor John Dee Ferrero, in Stark's political future, folks like George Maier will think twice about trying to steamroller "the rule of law" in arrogantly asserting:  "I guaranty that if I apply, I will be qualified."

All Stark Countians who care about our democratic-republican process should pause for thought in appreciation for Ferrero's "standing in the breach" and giving "the rule of law" a fighting chance.

KRISTIN FARMER

The SCPR was skeptical that this daughter of one of Stark County's most pre-eminent elected/political officials; namely, Judge Sheila Farmer (Republican), now of the 5th District Court of Appeals would "anytime soon" be up to striking a blow for the proper application of Ohio's election laws in the Stark County context and thereby enhancing and strengthening "the rule of law" in our county.

Appointed by Ohio Republican governor John Kasich in December, 2012 to replace the highly respected Charles E. Brown, Jr, on the Stark County Court of Common Pleas when he retired, I was one who thought that Kristin Farmer (also, of course, a Republican like her mother) was one who traded on her maiden name and heritage to get the appointment.

Not to be naive, I do believe she used the Farmer name to gain the advantage in getting the appointment and like any savvy candidate for elective office will continue to use her "politically powerful," in Stark County, family name.

However, the SCPR remains open-minded, notwithstanding appearances.

Farmer distinguished herself in the case of North Canton councilman-at-large Mark Cerreta of earlier this year in which he was ruled off the ballot in what turned out to having been an "abuse of discretion."

Per a prior blog published by the SCPR, to wit:

But Judge Farmer was able to see that it is in the interest of the North Canton voter base to have a "real" choice and was able - in yesterday's decision - to find legal justification to side with "the spirit of the law" in finding that the BOE "abused its discretion" and "clearly disregarded applicable law" in jumping on a legal technicality to keep North Cantonians from having that freedom loving choice.

Unlike her colleague on the Stark County bench (Judge Frank Forchione) in the Stark Dems qualification process in SCDP-CC Ohio Supreme Court ordered re-do of its sheriff appointment as referred to in the Ferrero piece above, in the opinion of the SCPR, her legal decision was a well reasoned decision with cited legal authority.

The Report's take on Forchione's action is that his re-opening of the application process to new applicants was an arbitrary decision that should not be validated by Ohio's "court of last" resort given its opinion in Swanson v. Maier in the consideration of the Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez "mandamus" action currently on the court's docket.

To repeat the point of the cited earlier SCPR blog, for a new judge to demonstrate the sound judgment and well-reasoned basis in finding for Councilman Cerreta was "Simply Impressive."

Stark Countians too should be well taken with Judge Kristin Farmer and, what's more, be thankful for her making "a rule of the case" determination that enhances the election process in our democratic-republican system of government.

TIM SWANSON

Democrat Timothy Swanson is a storied person in Stark County politics and government.

As Stark County sheriff from 1996 through 2013 (currently as interim sheriff), he has both his admirers and detractors.

You can bet that George T. Maier and his allies who control the leadership of the Stark County Democratic Party are not among his admirers.

The SCPR is impressed with Swanson on two counts.

First, notwithstanding that the SCPR has been a on, off, on-again, off-again critic of his over the nearly six years of existence of The Report (e.g. his ragging on Stark County voters who opposed and rejected [November, 2009] an imposed 0.5% sales tax by the-then commissioners Bosley, Harmon (Democrats) and Republican Jane Vignos), he has remained open and accessible to The Report when I have had questions for him to respond in his capacity as sheriff.

Second, his having "the intestinal fortitude" to stand up for "the rule of law" in the face of (one would presume) intense pressure of the Gonzalez/Maier faction of the Stark County Democratic Party for him "not to challenge" what turned out to be SCDP-CC's illegal appointment of George T. Maier to the Stark County sheriff's office.

Of course, The Report is cognizant that Swanson does have a stake in the outcome of the whole "replacement of the sheriff" scenario.  Pure and simple he wants his guy Lou Darrow appointed.

Nevertheless, Tim Swanson is standing tall and will be leaving his long-held sheriff's post in dignity.

And Stark Countians should be among the admirers of and be appreciative of the Swanson's contribution to "the rule of law," especially at this season of thanksgiving.

We all should be appreciative of not only material bountifulness but also of the fruit of doing what is right in support of our precious constitutional way of life.

Swanson could have chosen to disdain (as only one of three officials who have legal standing) challenging the Stark Dems illegal process and walk off into the sun of Florida never to be heard of again in Stark County official circles.

But he did not and we should all be thankful and this sacrifice should be his lingering legacy in Stark County.

CRAIG T. CONLEY

Craig T. Conley is a very outspoken conservative Republican.

However, he demonstrates time again that he is able to set aside his political biases and push Stark County officials and public figures "to do the right thing" by Stark Countians.

Too quite a few Stark County officials he has proven to be the proverbial "pain in the arse."

Whether it has been dealing with former Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler, Prosecutor John Ferrero, Judge Frank Forchione or the Stark County commissioners (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos [2008/2009] all very powerful figures in Stark County government - he has pushed for accountability in behalf of Stark County taxpayers.

Yesterday, he picked up the challenge to go after George T. Maier in order to recover for Stark County taxpayers monies he feels are returnable to taxpayers on account of Maier's appointment being void ab initio to the office of Stark County sheriff on February 5th of this year.

If one wants local government officials to be accountable and transparent and adherent to "the rule of law, then ought to be bullish on Craig T. Conley.

His latest target is Ohio Supreme Court tagged George T. Maier as usurper sheriff from February 11th through November 6, 2013.

While he recognizes that Maier certainly has historical policing credentials and performance indicators to be able to say that Maier was during his time in the Stark County sheriff's office a de facto qualified even in light of the the Supreme Court's determination on the 6th that he was not de jure (as a matter of law) qualified, goes further than the de factor factor to evaluate Maier.

Today the Alliance Review published a letter to the editor written by Conley questioning whether or not Maier has the requisite character (his expression:  "character counts") to be sheriff, to wit:

It is clear to the SCPR that one does not want to be in Conley's "line-of-fire."

He is dogged, he is persistent and he is tireless in his utmost devotion to "the rule of law" and concomitant ethics in the discharge of public duties by public officials.

And he follows up with taking on legal causes (many times "free of charge") as an attorney in the way of obtaining public official performance accountability.

At least one detractor has endeavored to tarnish his public repute as a dedicated supporter of the American/Ohio system of justice, but he has been vindicated.

Stark Countians need to reflect on Conley and think back over the years that he has taken on public interest legal enterprises that have benefited the Stark County public.

On this November 28, 2013 the SCPR highlights Conley's contributions to the public good as a recognition of what surely is a deserved public thankfulness for his standing up of the public interest.

KEVIN FISHER

On October 4th of this year the SCPR did a blog on Canton Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher (Democrat) and his tireless effort to put legislation in place (2012) to give Canton a fighting chance to solve - over the longer haul - its neighborhood blight problems which gets in the way of Canton turning around the city's over downturn and get heading into a better and rehabilitative direction.

His 2012 legislation was just the beginning and he stayed with the effort and 2013 was instrumental in putting the finishing touches on the legislation so that it provides city officials with the legislative and enforcement teeth to stop the blight and thereby stabilize Canton's neighborhoods.

He has worked diligently and tirelessly in the trenches of Ward 5 neighborhood life to become an effective force in neighborhood turn around.

Witness his work with SWIFT (Southwest Investment For Tomorrow) which is ensconced in Ward 5.

Undoubtedly, Fisher has the thankfulness of his constituents on this Thanksgiving Day for his hard work towards reviving and redirecting his neighborhood in a better direction.

A SCPR "Happy Thanksgiving Day Weekend" to the readers of The Report!

CANTON COUNCIL MAJORITY (LEADER?) DOUGHERTY GETS REALLY DUMB?

UPDATED:  03/04/2013

After about a year of non-action, Healy acts to staff Tree Commission:

VIDEOS

Council Votes Down Rule Changes

Schulman Reacts

Morris and Cirelli React

Schulman Questions Redflex Representative

Morgan on Healy Failure to Appoint Tree Commission

The Stark County Political Report has seen political figures do some "really" dumb things.

But the apparent attempt by Canton council's political cabal of Dougherty (6th Ward; also majority leader), Griffin (3rd Ward; also assistant majority leader), Cole (at large), West (2nd Ward) and Babcock (at large) last night to slip through changes to the rules of council as if they were merely "cleaning up the rules" ranks up there as being a huge blunder.

Seemingly, the "suggested changes" to council's rules have been in the works for some time.  They were published on February 8th.  But Councilpersons Frank Morris (the 9th Ward) and Mary Cirelli (at large) told The Report (see video below) that they only learned of them on Friday, February 22nd at the end of the business day.



Just on that count alone (i.e. springing changes on council "not involved in the committee process" councilpersons "at the last moment) is not a politically wise thing to do.

And add to that a provision to strip council president Allen Schulman of his task, as the presiding officer, to assign proposed ordinances to committee.

A source (not Schulman himself) tells the SCPR that Schulman, when told of the proposed change, was "bouncing off the ceiling" as in upset.

The Report did get Schulman on camera last night.  If the "upset" account is accurate, then he certainly had cooled down by last night. 

Schulman is much more politically skilled than Messers Dougherty, Griffin, Cole, West and Babock as his measured response shows.



Another of the proposed rule change that was upsetting to the vote "no" group (Cirelli, Hawk, Fisher, Mariol, Mack and Morris) was one requiring that council members submit copies of proposed informal resolutions and other communications (agenda items) to the majority leader and the appropriate committee chairperson.

Seems harmless enough, no?

But not to the six who voted "no" on the "amend council rules" informal resolution.



To pass, the amendment needed eight votes.  It got only five (likely six, if Smith is present).   Who is doing Majority Leader Dougherty's counting?

The six no votes obviously had concerns about the new requirement.

The SCPR understands that "mum was the word" among the dissident councilpersons as they geared up to vote the proposal down in terms of tipping off Leader Dougherty at their plans.

Hmm?

Talk about "a lack of confidence" in Leader Dougherty!

Obviously, the six did not think talking sense to the Leader would change the minds of him and is consorts.

Of Canton council's 10 standing committees, only two are chaired outside the Dougherty, Griffin, West, Cole, Smith and Babcock council combined.

Likely council's most able financial man Greg Hawk (Ward 1), was removed as finance committee chair after serving for years in that capacity when council reorganized in January, 2012.  And he tells the SCPR, he was pushed off; he did not ask for another assignment.

Makes one wonder whether or not Leader Dougherty and assistant Leader Griffin can expect a new term as council leaders in the 2014/15 council?

Councilman Thomas West has practically been down on his hands and knees begging in trying to get his fellow council members (most of who, if not all, are among the six voting "no" last night) to vote as a majority of council in favor of his Redflex traffic camera "pilot project" proposal.

After having put the proposal back on council's agenda for a second reading last night, he had to have Leader Dougherty send it back to committee after it became apparent that council was not going to vote favorably on it likely due to concerns raised by Council President Allen Schulman (in the pre-council-meeting work session) about the desirability of contracting with Redflex given the media revelation that the company has been the subject of an investigation in the Chicago area.

Schulman (in this video) asks Redflex's representative to Canton City Council to get back to council with a full report of the extent to which Redflex is being investigated.

• LINK:  Chicago area,
• LINK:  Jefferson Parish Louisiana,

Strange that a man who needs the support of his fellow council members would participate in what seems to be a more or less a secretive rule change process until it got sprung on council at virtually the last minute?

To boot, about a month ago he and fellow councilperson Chris Smith were impliedly accusing councilmembers Fisher, Mack, Mariol and Morris of not being team players in going off and holding their combined meeting with residents of their respective wards.

The Report has got to think West is politically smarter than that!

All-in-all, last night's council meeting was very interesting.

And this blog does not even get into the details the matters of:

• Schulman skewering state and federal legislators for their making no response (except for Scott Oelslager [Republican state Senator - 29th - chairman of the Senate finance committee] to council's request and explain state and federal cuts to urban communities' funding, and
• Citizen and civic activist C. David Morgan's chiding of Mayor Healy for not appointing members to the council-voted in Tree Commission which passed a year ago.  (Healy said he will get the job done this week)

The big story (from a "politics of council standpoint" standpoint) as far as the SCPR is concerned is the snub by the Dougherty, Griffin, West, Cole and Babcock fivesome (perhaps six, if Chris Smith had been present) of the remainder of council on the amended rule proposal.

The snub shows that there is a deep, deep divide on council and that the majority leader and assistant majority leader (of all the councilpersons ?) were in on the clandestine rule action does not indicate that relationships will improve anytime soon.

The ultimate loser?

The citizens of Canton.

The Report believes that the division is a product of and a consequence of a "divide and conquer" strategy that seems to be embedded into the political sinew of Mayor William J. Healy, II working hand-in-glove with Dougherty.

It is really weird that they apparently think this helps them politically over the long run and, more importantly, the well-being of Canton.

(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?