WHO ON CANTON COUNCIL OWNS THE HEALY GENERATED $3.7 TO $5 MILLION PROJECTED 2016 BUDGET DEFICIT?

HAS HEALY DUPED COUNCIL?

OR

IS COUNCIL A FULL PARTICIPANT IN THE DUPING?

"ENCORE" VIDEOS

COUNCIL PRESIDENT

ALLEN SCHULMAN

ON

STATE FUNDING CUTS

MAYOR HEALY

ON

THOUSANDS & THOUSANDS

OIL & GAS JOBS

COMING TO AREA

Fiscal Year 2016 (Canton) and fiscal year 2017 (Massillon) budgeting could bring political infighting among council members to a new high.

In Massillon such a scenario might be averted with the infusion of new revenues if a primary election results in an increase in the city's income tax revenue which would the first since 1977, except for a parks issue passage.
Canton has no such hope on the immediate horizon.

However, there is some background noise in the context of exploratory discussion of ways and means to increase the financial pie in the Hall of Fame city.

Two carryover Canton councilpersons who have lead the fight against outgoing Mayor William J. Healy, II (overspending?) budgets have been 26 year councilman Bill Smuckler (at-large) and current finance committee chair and Ward 1 councilman Greg Hawk.

Here is a listing of councilperson voting records going back to the 2012 budget:

2012

2013

2014

2015

And, of course, inbound 2016-2017 councilpersons Jason Scaglione (Ward 3 councilman-elect) and Tom Harmon (at-large councilman-elect) are exonerated from ownership of the arguable projected deficit of $3.7 million to $5 million.

One of the primary defenses that the Healy administration and supporting councilpersons have to charges of fiscal irresponsibility in formulating and passing budgets since 2010—2011 and the onset of deep, deep, deep cuts in State of Ohio local government funding in the form of:

• huge reductions in the local government fund itself, 
• termination of revenues to Ohio political subdivisions with the elimination of the Ohio Estate Tax, 
• cessation of the utility tax, and
• shortfall from promises of hold harmless of monies to local governments as a consequence of the elimination of Ohio's tangible property tax with the passage of a replacement corporate taxes (i.e. Commercial Activities Tax [CAT]).

A source tells the SCPR that Canton has with the maturing of the foregoing listed cuts sustained losses of some $6 million annually (with the full implementation of the state funding cuts) gross and passage of the casino tax which only recently has developed of history for Canton of offsetting the loses with about $2 million for a net annual loss of about $4 million or so.

A 2014 Columbus Dispatch article (LINK) is a good summary of what has happened to Ohio local government funding since the onset of the Kasich administration.

From that piece, this quote from Cincinnati councilman and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate (2016) P.G. Sittenfeld:

And, locally, Canton City Council president Allen Schulman on February 15, 2013:

And, of course, both Sittenfeld and Schulman are right.

But the political reality is that there are three more years of Kasich and the hostile-to-Ohio's-urban areas if not to local government finances in general coupled with an equally if not moreso anti-city Republican heavily dominated Ohio General Assembly which includes Stark County's:

• Scott Oelslager (Republican—29th Ohio Senate District),
• Kirk Schuring (Republican—48th Ohio House District), and
• Christina Hagan (Republican—50th Ohio House District)

Which means, of course, that the likes of Sittenfeld and Schulman are deemed in Columbus as being some sort of political white noise to be dismissed out-of-hand.

In Canton, Massillon and other Stark County financially strapped local government venues, the "blame-Columbus" routine has played out.

Roads not getting repaired, fire houses shut down, safety forces' vehicles being unsafe overwhelms blaming Columbus, no?

Since the state cuts have been become the new fiscal reality in Stark County, local governments overspending their revenues should now be deemed by the voting public as a case of councilpersons, trustees and board of education members being fiscally irresponsible, no?

And in Canton that appears to mean - on balance in voting "yes" on "since the full onset of state local government cuts" Healy administration budget proposals; the following councilpersons, no?

• Ward 2 councilman Thomas West,
• Ward 4 councilwoman Chris Smith,
• Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher,
• Ward 6 councilman David Dougherty,
• Ward 7 councilman John Mariol (except 2013),
• Ward 8 councilman Edmond Mack,
• Ward 9 councilman Frank Morris, III
• Councilman-at-Large Jimmy Babcock

It could be that the foregoing councilpersons bought "hook, line and sinker" this hyped up presentation by Mayor Healy on March 1, 2012 in his post annual State of the City Address press conference about the thousands and thousands of jobs that the oil and gas industry might be bring to Canton and Stark County which of course suggest significantly higher tax revenues for Canton.

Accordingly, who has to worry about vetting budget proposals?

Here is Healy spewing out unbounded optimism about thousands and thoursands of jobs coming to the area.



But it wasn't long until the Healy-hype was following apart.

(LINK)

(LINK)

The Report finds it fascinating that this now exiting mayor as of December 31st has seemingly had a mesmerizing affect on most of the councilpersons listed above.

Interestingly enough, seven of the eight (not Babcock) who joined in a lawsuit as the window dressing for Healy to deny Mayor-elect Thomas Bernabei (the man who Healy fired as chief-of-staff and service director in January, 2009) the right to change his political affiliation from Democrat to "independent." 

 (Stark Dems subsequently withdrew)

The change part of his plan and mission to right all that is financially and economic development (i.e. producing net gains in Canton income tax paying jobs) wrong with Canton and thereby has or currently prevents Canton from delivering to Cantonian residents/taxpayers:

• Full strength policing services,
• Full strength fire and EMS services,
• Needed infrastructure repairs/reconstruction,
• For example:
• Streets and roadways,
• Removal of abandoned residential housing,
• Storm sewers
• Implementation of the Canton Comprehensive Citywide Plan (study cost of $350,000; opposed by Councilman Morris),
• Having capital for infrastructure improvements in relation to linking the Hall of Fame Village Project (HOFVP) with downtown Canton, 
• Financing need infrastructure improvements in the neighborhood of the HOFVP, and 
• Enhancing/fostering the development of the Market Square Project,

Now with the park levy being defeated in the November 3rd election, will Canton have to be dipping into general fund revenues perhaps to the tune of $3 million annually to keep the parks system afloat?

A source tells the SCPR that the deficit picture in Canton is likely to get worse before it gets better.

What has not been fully factored in for FY 2016, according to the source, is the full impact of the loss of some 400 Nationwide Insurance jobs and income tax revenue loses for Timken jobs moving out of the city.

Of great concern to some Canton councilpersons is that a interim temporary budget to get FY 2016 off and running is coming from what those councilpersons think is a fiscally irresponsible lame duck Mayor William J. Healy, II.

Given the projected $3.7 to $5 million project full FY 2016 budget, the question is on the part of critics is: how can council as a whole possibly be considering passing yet another Healy proposed budget?

As for Mayor-elect Thomas Bernabei, he is the one who during his successful campaign to unseat Healy alerted the Canton public that all was NOT well with Canton finances.

That the number could be as high as $5 million is indication that Bernabei was not in to hyperbole (so common in electioneering) when he projected $3 million in campaign statements.

It is amazing to the SCPR that Bernabei was willing to wade into the obvious fiscal mess that Canton now finds itself in running for mayor.

But if anyone can provide the leadership to bring Canton to fiscal responsibility over the next four years, it is Bernabei who has a track record of having done so as interim CEO as the Stark County Area Transportation Authority (SARTA/2009) and in conjunction with is fellow commissioners (Creighton, Ferguson succeeded by Regula) as one of three commissioners with his election in November, 2010.

Short term what Canton will need is the undivided attention of members of Canton City Council members working with Mayor Thomas Bernabei vetting each and every outlay of funds so as to put the sparse Canton revenues to their most effective use.

Long term the goal will be to restore trust in Canton City government that the city lives within its means and merits being entrusted with more taxpayer dollars so as to be in a position to deliver quality basic services to the city's citizenry.

Such is something that the SCPR thinks that a working majority of Canton's councilpersons have not done heretofore.

Some councilpersons might argue that had they known Canton was headed for a $3.7 to $5 million 2016 budget deficit they would have voted differently on the budgets leading up to the upcoming 2016 budget, but were they duped by a slick talking mayor into thinking all was well.

One of the points made by several councilpersons on the election of Bernabei as mayor is that the mayor is really not that much of a factor in Canton government decision making inasmuch as Canton has a strong (LINK to council minutes containing Councilperson Smith's comment) council form of government, to wit:

It they really believe that the mayor in the end has to bend to the will of council, then it appears to the SCPR that they have been will participants in the Alice in Wonderland 2012—2015 which spent like money

Accordingly, council-as-a-whole now owns the problem that they followed Healy on as he led them down the primrose path.

In a practical sense, they will now have to acknowledge that forthcoming reductions in city services were precipitated largely by the strong council's failure to be strong in sufficiently vetting the 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 budgets and council's failure to recognize the onset of a net loss of income tax revenues inherent in the exchange of relatively high paying jobs (Nationwide and Timkens) for low paying jobs like the Healy administration touted VXI telemarketing jobs.

It will be interesting to see how council's consistent year-in, year-out majority budget endorsers handle a problem that is largely one of their own making whether as being a "dupee" or a willing participant in the 2012 through 2015 "smoke and mirrors" budgets.

So much for the rhetoric of being a strong council, no?

UPDATE:  (12:18 AM) - MORE HEALY SPIN?

After learning last night at Canton City Council meeting that Warren Price "is back" according to clerk of council Cynthia Timberlake and that he was not present at council tonight because of "illness," and council President Allen Schulman saying that he knew nothing (until he read it in yesterday's SCPR blog) about Safety Director Warren Price having had a heated argument with Mayor Healy late last week over Price's alleged authorization of overtime emergency ambulance service contrary to Healy's wishes and consequently quitting 159 days shy of last agreed quit date of December 31, 2013, the SCPR minutes ago checked with The Report's source as to the accuracy of yours truly's original report as "breaking news" on Saturday evening as amplified in a blog published yesterday which is set forth in full below.

In short, the source stands by his account.

This source is one of the SCPR's most credible "go to" people in terms of being borne out as having the essence of his story correct as communicated to The Report.

The conjecture is that, as he always does when he does something goofy or bizarre, Healy summoned the help of someone like an Allen Schulman (who truly and genuinely cares about Canton over his personal interests) to make a telephone call to Warren Price and implore him to retract his having summarily quit on Friday of last week.

So the Price quit date:

• originally two weeks,
• turned into 90 days, 
• turned into December 31, 2013 and 
• which is now August 31, 2013;

is a quintessential William J. Healy, II face-saving move.

As the SCPR has stated numerous times, Healy is Stark County's version of William Jefferson Clinton and his "Well, it depends on what is is?  Moreover, his escaping one scrape after another after another after another makes him the envy of a cat having nine lives.

And The Report believes that being the good soldier he is (loyal to the end), Price is willing to help Healy save face.

For he too is a guy who cares about the city of Canton and The Report thinks he realizes that to leave precipitously (i.e. "I quit today") from the key position he serves in is not in the best interest for the stability of Canton city government.

In time (sometime after August 31st), yours truly believes that The Report's source will be vindicated in an "off the record-esque" acknowledgment.

The SCPR is of the mind that Healy is once again in "damage control" mode.  Just think of the number of times over the past 5-1/2 years Healy has had to scramble to get himself out of a bind.

It is truly amazing that this modern day Houdini is the mayor of Canton.

May God save Canton!

UPDATE:  (08:50 AM) INPUT FROM CANTON PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR DEREK GORDON

As is the policy of the SCPR, yours truly publishes in its entirety the Healy's administration's reaction to information published in today's blog as provided to The Report by a well-placed source in terms of generally having high quality information about the work/actions of the administration.

A big "thank you" to Derek Gordon.

Mr. Olsen (sic),

I wanted to provide a point of clarification on your blog post from this morning in regards to the park levy.  The decisions regarding millage adjustments, legal options, and the inclusion of the Community Centers have been determined by the Park Commission, representatives of the Canton Recreational Services Coalition and the Law Department.  Mayor Healy has had relatively little involvement with the process or conversations with the Law Department regarding the levy since he originally brought the representatives of each organization together in 2012.

I can provide more details on the content of these discussions with the Law Department following tonight's Council meeting.  However, the majority of the decisions made by the Park Commission regarding the levy have been a result of legal limitations discovered by our Law Department.

Thanks,
Derek

-- Derek Gordon
Canton Park Commission
Park Director

ORIGINAL BLOG

Unbelievable!  Simply unbelievable!!  A third time: utterly unbelievable!!!

After agreeing to stay on until the end of the year, Canton safety director Warren Price abruptly quit Friday after a heated discussion with Mayor William J. Healy, II over Price recently having authorized overtime for ambulance runs out of the Canton Fire Department.

So the SCPR has been told by a source.

It is becoming readily apparent to the SCPR that - not only - is William J. Healy, II too arrogant to be mayor of Canton; he is obviously "in over his head."

During his five and one-half years as mayor, he has gone through three very good administrators:  Tom Bernabei (a former long time Canton law director and city councilman), Tom Nesbitt (a former top official with the Nebraska Highway Patrol) and now - as of Friday, July 26, 2013 - the very loyal and dependable (since being hired in 2009) Warren Price.

The Stark County Political Report did a "breaking news" at 6:30 PM on Saturday on Price's abrupt department but at the time did not know the reason.

It turns out that Price walked out on Healy Friday after what is said to have been a ferocious argument between the two over Price's having recently authorized Canton Fire Department ambulance service overtime.

Really?

Overtime for an ambulance run.

Apparently so.

The Report has been told several times going back a spell of time that Healy has been furious for some time about Local 249 (Canton Professional Firefighters) members of the Canton Fire Department having endorsed a number of his political opponents over the past two years or so including Republican A.R. "Chip" Conde when he ran against Healy in November, 2011.

A number of Canton politicians are alleging to the SCPR that Healy has threatened the leadership of the union with station closings if they supported folks like Mary Cirelli (D-Canton) when she ran against Healy pal Kim Perez (D-Canton) for treasurer of Canton and Councilman Joe Cole (D-Canton) when he ran against Ward 9 incumbent Democratic councilman Frank Morris in this year's May primary election.

Healy has tried to make out like that the political actions of IAF Local 249 has had no ramifications on his administration's relationship with the fire department.

But The Report's take on the mayor is that he has a long memory and it is unbelievable that he takes such as being "so much politics" and simply lets political opposition roll off his back as water runs off the back of a duck.

The Report chooses to believe those who assert that the mayor is out on a vendetta against the fire department which has the potential to adversely affect the safety of everyday Cantonians.

The SCPR thinks that:

• Healy is a "hothead" (e.g. arguments with 9th Ward residents [and Councilman Morris] on Facebook, arguments with Bruce Nordman of Group 175, and directing sneering comments at Mary Cirelli in Canton City Council meetings), who cannot handle it when disagreed with, and
• he makes too much of having graduated from the Stern School of Business of New York University and as a consequence of being well-taken with himself, has hugely overestimated his abilities to be an effective chief executive of the Hall of Fame city.

If one goes back to January 1, 2008, the SCPR believes one can find quite a few examples that should give rise to the question among Cantonians on Healy's ability to govern effectively.

A shorter and more pithy way to say the same thing is to raise the question:  Is Healy in over his head?

Only a few days ago, it came out that the Canton Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) is floundering (CIC working through major 'flaws,' Matt Rink, The Canton Repository, July 27, 2013).

Until he resigned recently in the context of a controversy surrounding his "inadvertent/mistaken" use of a CIC credit card (the issuance of which was not authorized by CIC in the first place) for personal items and which he has reimbursed the CIC for,  Healy has been chairman of the semi-private, economic development organization of the city.

Flaws pointed out by Rink:

• the organization nearly running out of money for day-to-day expenses,
• having only one employee, and
• having no director for over a year

At a recent meeting, board member Allen Schulman (only on the board since February), the SCPR thinks, impliedly (at least for the 5-1/2 years he has been mayor) makes a telling criticism of Healy (remember, only recently resigned as chairman) with a series of negatives about the operation of CIC, to wit:

• "We don't know how we inherited properties" (going back 20 years - undetermined by the Healy administration over the past 5-1/2 years),
• "We don't know what their purpose is,"
• "We don't have a [job] description for a director,"
• "We don't have HR policies,"
• "We don't, as far as I can determine, have a vision,"
• "I don't know exactly what it is we are doing,"
• "I don't know our goals," and
• "I don't know the vision we have for this organization."

One of the things that yours truly heard from Healy shortly after he took office is:  "what a mess the predecessor Republican Creighton administration had left things in."

The clear implication of what some of the board members said in Rink's report is that it has not just been the Healy administration who has presided over the "flaw[ed]" organization but also goes back to the Purses administration.

But another implication of Healy's criticism of Creighton et al  is that it would be up to him to straighten things out.

Has he straightened things out not only with the CIC but the rest of the city that he alleges Creighton left in shambles?

While not agreeing with Healy's assessment of the Creighton years, he has not by his own in the SCPR's estimate of the condition of the city on July 29, 2013.

An argument is to be made that Healy has overblown any problems that he may have inherited and that he has created many more of his own over his time in office.

And who suffers from a deteriorating Canton?

You've got it.  Everyday Cantonians.

The Report has a source saying that the Healy administration has another current botch job in process.

It has to do with the parks and recreation levy.

Out-of-the-blue two weeks ago, we learned that there was a snag in the wording in the 4 mill property tax levy which is set to be voted on in November.

Snag?

Yes.

The Report is told by a source that Healy is asking that the J. Babe Stern Community Center, non-profit, 501(c)3 organization (located in Ward 5), be included as a recipient of funds from the levy and specified as such in the ballot language.

"No can do," The Report is told is the word from Canton law director Joe Martuccio to Mayor Healy inasmuch as it is not a part of the Canton parks and recreation system.

So what does Healy want to do?

Reduce the millage of the levy.

It will be interesting to see how the tale is told at tonight's council meeting, no?

Beyond those matters already cited in this blog, who can forget a number of other Healy administration miscues.

To name just a few:

• Trying to water down the requirements of the director of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab (CSCCL) to non-scientist status so that Healy could pick Rick Perez as director,
• NOTE:  the CSCCL remains more or less in a state of limbo as to its future.
• Canton missing out in $481,000 in Housing and Urban Development Funding for Canton economic development because the city missed a March 31, 2010 application deadline.
• The fiasco with Canton retire/rehire of some 30 Canton employees that still is not fully settled.

On and on and goes the beat with the Healy administration.  Not as much with his appointees as with the mayor himself and his micromanaging, intermeddling style.

One more story about the mayor and his self-importance and his estimate of his abilities.

The Report is informed by one who formerly served in his administration that a question of the basis of Canton's participation in Ohio's (by statutory authority) natural gas aggregation came up early on in the administration.

Canton had an expert consultant on the natural gas industry advising the city.  The consultant gave his opinion in which direction Canton should go on the particular issue whatever it was.

That pretty much closes off the discussion, no?

Not with Mayor Healy.

After all he was a graduate of the Stern School of Business of New York University and when he was a student at NYU, he had taken a course that indicated to him that the city should take a different tack than that suggested by the expert.

Conclusion?

Insufferable!

A man who doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Not only a "hothead," arrogant man but also a man who doesn't know when he is in-over-his-head.

No wonder Warren Price walked out is disgust on Friday, July 26, 2013, some 159 days short of his originally promised staying date.

Who can blame him?

But a lament to the citizens of Canton.

Most of them cannot go anywhere.  Those who can are leaving in a steady stream (i.e. population continues to edge downwards).

Those who remain just have to sit and suffer with William J. Healy, II as their mayor.

(VIDEOS) IS THERE A DETROIT LOOMING IN STARK COUNTY?

UPDATED:  To clarify that Alliance income tax increase is subject to voter approval come the November election.

VIDEOS

MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL

COUNCILMAN PAUL MANSON

ASKS

FOR A NEW LEVY BALLOT INITIATIVE

COUNCILMAN DONNIE PETERS, JR

QUIZZES

AUDITOR JAYNE FERRERO

ON

POLICE AND FIRE PENSION ARREARS

Today at 10:00 a.m. in Detroit, Michigan an event - beyond belief in 1950 as "the motor city:" the auto manufacturing behemoth of the world reached it high point in population growth - will go down.

That event:

Even though we have all known that Detroit was in trouble with General Motors and Chrysler needing federal bailouts in the financial crisis that hit the country in the fall of 2008, it still was nonetheless shocking to hear on July 18th that this once great American city had filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy code.

Yesterday, it was somewhat jarring for yours truly receive the following e-mail:

The Independent recently reported that the Massillon Auditor's office reported it would not be able to make a pension payment for its employees. Considering that Massillon is running a $2 million plus deficit, is Massillon on the verge of bankruptcy and is it Stark County's version of Detroit?

Actually, Massillon is projecting a deficit of anywhere from $2.5 to $2.7 million.

Of course, Massillon is not alone.

Stark's other two major cities are not in the greatest of shape either.

For Canton, it is hard to know exactly how tough things "really" are.  There you have a mayor who plays volleyball with the financial numbers with one side of the net being "woe is me" numbers and the other being "things are looking very promising" numbers.  Of course, we who are familiar with this Stern School of Business MBA graduate master manipulator are not surprised.  It seems that on a daily basis he concocts "a message of the day" to spread throughout the county depending on his political needs.

The mayor and his manipulations notwithstanding, the SCPR's sense of Canton's finances is that they are shaky at best.

For Alliance, on July 15th its city council voted unanimously to increase its income tax by a full 1/2 percent to 2.5% which by the SCPR calculation will make it the highest rate in all of Stark County if passed in November by the voters of Alliance.

The city is facing a $1 million deficit if the issue does not pass.

All three cities have long passed the high water marks of population growth.

It may appear that Massillon is rebounding somewhat but such is not really the case.  Former mayor Frank Cicchinelli was an aggressive annexer and therefore the seeming population recovery is just that in that its population gains of late are likely do from annexations of peripheral township neighborhoods.

Even before she took office, Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry was asking Ohio's auditor (December, 2011) to audit Massillon finances.  She was refused at the time, however she has renewed her request and it appears that any day now we will know the results of an agreed to audit as to whether or not Massillon is in a "fiscal watch" or "fiscal emergency" which will - if so determined - bring the state of Ohio into the management of Massillon's finances.

During a July 8 Massillon City Council work session there were two interesting discussions.

First, was one initiated by Democratic Councilman-at-Large Paul Manson asking that council consider putting on another income tax levy from 1.8% to 2.0% (Massillon hugely defeated a .3% issue in the May primary election) in light of Alliance (at the time) considering a ballot initiative going from 2% to 2.5% (see Alliance discussion above).



Second, was one between Republican Ward 5 Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr. (not seeking re-election) and Massillon auditor Jayne Ferrero regarding the decision by Ferrero to apply new revenues to arrears in police and fire pension fund payments.  She also brought up other arrearages that Massillon has.



The two of them are further substantiation of the e-mail cited by The Report and the fact of the precarious financial condition of Massillon city finances.

While neither Alliance, Canton or Massillon appear to be at the point of a Detroit-esque financial crisis, one gets the feeling that none of them may be that far away.

Dire finances are becoming more and more common across Ohio.

A Dayton area newspaper reported earlier this week that 24 Ohio cities are facing fiscal crises.

It might not be Alliance, Canton or Massillon but might it be that sooner than we may think that Ohioans will wake up to a headline:

Cleveland declares Chapter 9 bankruptcy!

WARREN PRICE OUT AS CANTON'S SAFETY DIRECTOR?

UPDATED:  11:45 AM - 07/17/2013

A source tells the SCPR that Price has agreed to stay on as safety director through the end of 2013 at Healy's insistence.

However, The Report has learned that Healy is already sending out administration emissaries contacting possible possible replacement candidates.

As the mayor seems to be a highly whimsical person, who knows when Price will actually move on.

A reader has written yours truly to say that Price is not likely to run against Healy in 2015.  The reader says that Commissioner Tom Bernabei is being targeted to run.

It is hard for The Report to believe that Bernabei would entertain entreaties that he run for mayor of Canton.

ORIGINAL BLOG

It may be stunning news to some Cantonians/Stark Countians, but not to the Stark County Political Report.

The Report is getting indication from multiple sources that Mayor William J. Healy, II's "Jack of All Trades" - Warren Price plans on leaving the beleaguered mayor's administration within 90 days.

Price was not present at last night's council meeting.

And the SCPR is told that "the straw that broke the camel's back" is Healy's playing policeman at Trinity Place on July 2nd.

In a blog of July 8th (LINK), The Report opinionated that the incident was one more example in a string of incidents in his 5-1/2 years in office that the mayor is a "Mister Do-It-All," who, when it suits his political needs, does what he has to for what he perceives as being in his personal political interests.

In the July 8 SCPR blog, yours truly revealed a highly reliable source had shared that Price had been looking for new personal opportunities even before the Trinity Place incident.

While the likes of Ream, Price, Williams and others who serve (or have served) at the pleasure of the mayor may think they are in charge of the particular bailiwicks of their offices, the reality is that to think so is to engage in an illusion.

In time "the light comes on" and disaffection for the mayor sets in.

Consequently, a number of city officials have had their fill of Healy and his intermeddling and undermining and have moved on.

If Price carries through with his reported planned departure, his leaving will leave a gap that may prove to be the proverbial "nail in the coffin" which ends Healy as a viable Stark County politician.

Price's plan, the SCPR, is told is to go into the private practice of law reportedly either with Canton City Council President Allen Schulman (Schulman and Associates, a well known and highly regarded personal injury oriented law firm) or former Alliance city government ally Steve Okey.

Last evening yours truly asked Schulman whether or not Price was going to join Schulman and Associates.

His response?

Predictably:  "no comment."

Beyond Price's speculated leaving of the Healy administration, there is the prospect that Price may be a candidate to unseat the mayor in the Democratic primary that will be coming up in May, 2015 - less than two years away.

We do know that Price has a political side to him. That is, "interested" in running for office.  In 2007, the ran a very respectable race against Republican Toni Middleton (the-then incumbent mayor of The Carnation City), to wit:

Last night Bruce Nordman told The Report that he and his Group 175 are "all-in" in putting together an effort to have Price take on Healy.

Nordman and his Vassar Park centered allies are engaged in a protracted battle with Healy on their insistence that the monies are in city coffers to beef up the city's police force to 175 officers strong.

The SCPR has been impressed with Price and has written (LINK) that Canton would be far better off with a Warren Price-esque person as mayor.

From all yours truly can determine in the many conversations with local political figures about the state of political affairs in Canton city government, Price is viewed as a steady, stable, listening, receptive, get-the-job done type that may not have the political pizzaz of a Healy but who would likely be "what the doctor orders" in terms of bringing Canton out of his economic and social (i.e. the crime problem) despair.

The first of the "parting of the ways" was the firing of the then Canton service director/chief-of-staff but now Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei (D - Canton) on January 26, 2009.  A little over a year after Healy took office on having defeated Republican Janet Crieghton (also a current sitting Stark County commissioner) in the November, 2007 elections.

At the time preceding the Bernabei firing, the SCPR was hearing story after story after story about how the mayor would do some bizarre things that prompted Bernabei to sit him down and lecture him as if Hizzhonor was a six year old needing correction and redirection.

Bernabei's firing was a stunner but it should not have been.

If nothing else, Healy has a ton of ego and over the longer term he does not brook tongue lashings from anybody.  So while it may have appeared to Bernabei that he could redeem the mayor from "the error of his ways," such is an illusion.  It may take awhile, but Healy will "do whatever it takes" to satisfy his ego needs.  Such is especially the case when he has the actual political power to do so.

Not all that long after Bernabei's firing, seeing the handwriting on the wall; Healy's first safety director Tom Nesbitt (whom Healy recruited from Nebraska where he held an important position with the Nebraska Highway Patrol) quit.

Nesbitt, like Bernabei, was viewed by locals as a highly competent director whom Healy could ill-afford to lose if his administration was to have any chance whatsoever to dig itself out of the economic and "crime rate out-of-control" doldrums.

He, like Bernabei, was a strong leader which this headstrong mayor could not abide.

The SCPR is prone to believe that Warren Price is at the end of the day pretty much his own person in the mold of Bernabei and Nesbitt.

Hence the talk he is leaving.

Reportedly, he wanted to leave within two weeks of the the Trinity Place story breaking.  But the mayor is said to have begged him to stay on for longer and hence the 90 days.

Since his hiring on January 27, 2009, he seems to have been much more patient with the mayor than either Bernabei or Nesbitt.

And he has filled multiple needs (annexation director, chief of staff [March, 2010] and - his last stop - safety director [mere days ago]).

While his salary has climbed from $70,000 to over $100,000 in his multiple roles as service director and chief-of-staff (his initial hire), annexation director and finally as safety director (Healy having thrown Ream "under the bus" in the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab flap (LINK), it appears to the SCPR that the 30% increase over less that five years service is justified.

With Price's conjectured departure, the political parade of William J. Healy, II is definitely being rained upon.

And the rainmaker - with his incident, after incident, after incident on ad infinitum - is?

Hizzonor William J. Healy, II.

Healy for the sake of his personal political survival probably ought to be spending the next 90 days trying to get Warren Price to change his mind, no?

WHATEVER CASE CANTON MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY, II WANTS TO MAKE - THE NUMBERS ARE SURE TO FOLLOW!

One should be careful indeed in latching onto any numbers that Democratic Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II (WJH-II) may through your way in making this or that argument in support of this or that program, policy or whatever that he wants to make in any given situation.

Apparently, a part of the mayor education at the New York University Stern School of Business was on "how to work the numbers."

At the end of May, Canton Repository reporter Matt Rink wrote a piece (Canton mayor changed tune on doom, gloom) which does a masterful job of documenting the trail of Healy being all over the place with this or that number depending upon what the mayor's objective has been.

According to the article,  Canton (by the gospel of WJH-II)  was facing a $4 million deficit a year ago, a multi-million dollar shortfall in October, 2012.

But wait a New York minute, by the time the New York educated number cruncher applied some Healy miracle-making-potion to the numerics, SURPRISE:  Canton receives a financial blessing out of nowhere (reference Councilman's Hawk's "miracle of loaves and fishes" in Rink's piece) and shows a $3.5 million carryover from 2012 to 2013 in the recently Canton City Council passed budget.

So now, according to Healy, Canton is in the best financial shape it has been in the last five years.

Sounds like a back hand compliment to his predecessor Republican Janet Creighton in implying that Canton was in decent financial condition during her administration?

Well, that is not what he told yours truly in early 2008 at a Democratic Governor Ted Strickland visit to a Brewster business.  Then it was:  "Janet Creighton had left him a terrible mess" type talk.

Which is it Mayor Healy?

Did Creighton leave you with a mess or is it a sign of financial health and progress getting back to the Creighton standard?

Surprise? (i.e. the "miracle of loaves and fishes).

Not at all!

One should come to expect "about faces," "turning on a dime," and the like from Stark County's most eely politician in many a decade if not over the total existence of Canton since it first achieved corporate existence.

Canton Chief Deputy Auditor Gary Young said it best in describing Healy and his revenue/deficit machinations, to wit:

• he did not change his message when it had to be clear to him that alternative (counterbalancing Ohio's local government funding cuts) sources of revenue were filling in the void,
• “The only person saying that last year was the mayor.  There was never any statement by the auditor’s office. ... We never believed it was true.”
• “Every time he talked about it [Canton finances] he only talked about what we were losing,”

Of course, there is still that $1.2 million or so deficit that Canton is facing on its 2014 budgeting.

The SCPR predicts that Cantonians are in for more finessing of the numbers by this mayor.

It is pure and simple to him like breathing is to the rest of us.

 In Matt Rink's reporting of the: 

• Who, 
• What, 
• Why, 
• When, 
• Where, and 
• How 

with respect to the use of the numbers by Mayor Healy in making this or that case for a particular "agenda for the moment" being promoted by Canton's chief executive, he did a masterful job of documenting the "cherry picking" being done.

Indeed there is "Danger Ahead" for anyone who would buy into Mayor Healy's  "Cherry-Picking Data."

Ask the residents of Canton whether or not they feel safer when the mayor trots out his crime statistics?

What was that number at one time?

Oh yes!

"0" tolerance of crime.

Hmm?

IS CANTON'S 9TH WARD ELECTION A MID-TERM MINI-REFERENDUM ON MAYOR HEALY?

Mayor William J. Healy, II is not on the upcoming May 7th ballot in a literal sense but the SCPR posits that he is figuratively.

His proxy, by accident, is Councilman Joe Cole (currently, at-large) who got hoodwinked into giving up his at-large seat by Councilwoman Mary Cirelli in one of the most humorous, vaudevillian-esque cloak and dagger political dramas in the all time political annals of Stark County.

An excerpt from a prior SCPR blog, to wit:

Probably due to a SCPR political analysis blog showing that if Bill Smuckler, Jimmy Babcock, Mary Cirelli, and Joe Cole were to run for the three slots up for election in Canton's council-at-large race this coming May that Councilman Cole would be the "odd man out," he apparently decided to play a game of "political musical chairs" with Cirelli on Wednesday, February 6, 2013.

A SCPR source (confirmed by Mary Cirelli herself) says that Cirelli and Cole (along with his fellow councilman and pal Jimmy Babcock) were camped out in their cars in front of the the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) as the 4:00 p.m. filing deadline for the 2013 elections neared.

Cole seemed intent on waiting for Cirelli to declare herself as to whether she was going to run to be Canton's next treasurer or seek to retain her seat as councilwoman-at-large.

And any one who knows Mary Cirelli has to know she would not be outdone.

Cole had taken out petitions for his current seat (council-at-large) and to run against incumbent Democratic 9th ward Councilman Frank Morris.

Finally, Cole enters the BOE and Cirelli follows.

But she does not see Cole when she gets into the building.

She assumes Cole has already filed.  But que sera, que sera, Cirelli tells the SCPR.

She plomps her petitions for council-at-large down on the counter and asks the nearby Jeanette Mullane (deputy director of the BOE) to check them out as to accuracy.

While Mullane is doing the checking, Cirelli excuses herself to go to the ladies room.

Meanwhile, Cole makes his appearance at the counter of the BOE.

Likely, Cole sees Mary's council-at-large petitions laying on the counter and ASSUMES thereby that she has opted to run for re-election as councilwoman-at-large.

So Cole files for the 9th ward against Morris apparently figuring that running in the 9th was his best chance to stay on council.

Out comes Mary Cirelli.  She asked Mullane if the petitions appeared to be in order.

Mullane responds:  "Yes".

Whereupon Cirelli whips out her treasurer's petitions and said:  "Okay, then these must be alright, too."

And she files for treasurer.

Cole has to be utterly shocked.

What a hoot!, no?

Cole is among a gaggle of Healy loyalists (i.e. Babcock, Cole, Dougherty, Griffin, Smith and West) on Canton City Council.

If Cole loses his council seat, Healy most likely is going to be on the down side of a 7 to 5 mix on council, and so the mayor has to go all out for Cole in the Ward 9 race just to have political equilibrium on council in hopes he can get Allen Schulman (council president) to vote his way in a tie-breaker (the only time he votes).

So that is why The Report believes that to some degree, the outcome of the Cole/Morris match up might well be indicative of Healy's political heft in Canton.

The mayor's stakes could not be higher.

To add to the bizarre humor of the Cole situation was his coming out about a week ago to eliminate the council-at-large seats.

To the SCPR, Cole's ploy is so Healy-esque (i.e. spinning a given matter his way no matter how unbelievable, self-serving) that it is as if Cole is the political clone of the mayor.

From Matt Rink's (The Repository) Cole: Reduce size of Canton City Council, April 12th:

• “Since I’ve been on council I’ve always worked to streamline government and make things more efficient,” Cole said. “People have told me, ‘Joe you can’t do this.’ But it is something we can do, and I just don’t think having nine ward council members and three at-large is the best use of our resources.”
• Cole said he’s not using the issue as an excuse for running for a ward seat, rather than running for reelection for his at-large position, which he’s held for two terms.
• “This is why I took out two petitions,” [Cole] said, “because (the idea) took a lot of thought and consideration. This is doable. Your political opponents are always going to say things. You’ve got to have thick skin in this business, so that’s of no concern to me.”
• Mayor William J. Healy II, an ally of Cole’s, supports the concept.
  
  “We’ve got 13 members for a city under 75,000 population,” he said. “Columbus has seven council members and they have a population of more than 785,000 people. They (Canton’s seats) probably should have been eliminated years ago. ... It’s a long time coming, but people are afraid of change.

While Cole and his patron are fighting hard to keep him on council, it appears to the SCPR that he is likely in for a political trouncing.

Ardent Frank Morris supporter C. David Morgan (Morris is the incumbent Ward 9 councilman and Democrat as is Cole), recently put out a letter to the ward's voters imploring the reelection of Morris.

Excerpts from the letter:

Joe Cole is Not “Our” Councilman.  Recently you may have received a piece of political literature touting candidate Joe Cole as “our Councilman” and urging us to “Keep Joe Cole.”  In my opinion, this is another piece of misleading advertising from a guy who continues to try to bamboozle the public into supporting him.  Joe Cole is NOT our Ward 9 Councilman.  ...

Joe Cole Does Not Stand for Our Neighborhoods.  Who is this Joe Cole guy?  He says he's standing up for neighborhoods and families, but have you ever seen him at your neighborhood meetings (except when he is running for election)?   ... .

Joe Cole Does Not Stand with Police.  Joe Cole says he supports “intelligence led policing” but does nothing to increase the number of police officers who are to be so led.  In fact, Joe Cole used his position as Council Finance Chairman to quash efforts by hard-working Council members to make starting police salaries more competitive and attract more police officers.  .... .

Joe Cole Does Not Care About Canton Ward 9.  Friends, do not be fooled by Joe Cole.  Since moving to Canton in 2005, his only idea to become a piece of legislation was the one buying foreign-made hats and shirts through a Summit County vendor to “promote” the City of Canton.   

...  I think Joe Cole is a slick politician - a political hack who makes promises he will not keep to people whose concerns he does not share in order to take taxpayer monies he does not earn and hold on to a position of public trust he does not deserve.

Yesterday, another Ward 9 key civic activist Bruce Nordman, who heads up the Group 175 Vassar Park-based initiative to get Canton police strength up to 175 officers, told the SCPR he is squarely behind Morris and figures that that Cole is in for a political beating.

If Nordman is correct, and the SCPR suspects he is, then Mayor Healy, because of his out-and-out support of Cole, will be sharing in the result.

It appears to The Report that as Canton continues to deteriorate and Healy's non-stop spin of blaming others becomes recognized for what it really is:  excuse making; his Stark County based future political prospects are growing dimmer and dimmer.

Cole is likely to be fading from the local political scene come May 7th.

Can his protege Healy be all that far behind?

After all, "birds of a feather, [do] flock together, no?"

(VIDEOS) SPLIT AT CANTON CITY HALL WIDENS? COLE'S DECISION TO RUN AGAINST WARD 9 INCUMBENT COUNCILMAN MORRIS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR?

 VIDEOS

The Entire Debate 

on the 

Nonbargaining Employee Pay Raise Issue 

Citizen Leon Cote Speaks Out Against Raise

Citizens David Morgan & Bret Moore

Make a Point of Identifying

9th Ward Incumbent as being

Frank Morris

Yours truly has the feeling that the race between incumbent Ward 9 Councilman Frank Morris and "hoodwinked by Councilwoman Mary Cirelli" Joe Cole (currently councilman-at-large) into running for the ward seat is reverberating throughout Canton City Hall these days.

Two Morris supporters (Morgan and Moore) are shown in the following video making it abundantly clear to Cole that Morris is the incumbent councilman in the 9th. 



Last night the battleground was how much of a raise are non-bargaining city hall employees going to get? 

Answer?  2.5% rather than the alternative of 2% preferred by the anti-Healy bloc. 

Before the debate on what amount the raise should be, Cantonian Leon Cote spoke to the issue.



What the SCPR thinks is the anti-William J. Healy bloc (more or less) of Canton councilpersons (Cirelli, Fisher, Hawk, Mack, Mariol and Morris) lost one last night to the Healy loyalists (Babcock, Cole, Dougherty, Griffin, Smith and West) on a tie roll call vote on an amendment of the original legislation.

There was language in the amendment curtailing the frequency of which non-bargaining employees can get raises which was sort of a concession to those voting no on the modification as was language excluding elected officials (including council itself) from participating in the raise.

In what The Report thinks was dubious legal reasoning on the part of Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio that although council president Allen Schulman is not entitled to vote on tie votes on amendments of legislation (only on tie votes of the prime legislation itself) that because the council members actually voted roll call rather than a more typical voice vote basis, they thereby empowered Schulman  to break a tie he could not otherwise have voted on.

Yours truly's recollection is that tie votes where there is no tie breaker means the proposal fails.

This was after Martuccio made a passionate plea for the raise on behalf of employees in his office to get the 2.5% rather than the 2%.

Maybe just an itsy-bitsy conflict in interest?  Think maybe?

Before the vote, Schulman himself said to council that if it came down to his voting on a tie among council members, he was voting for the 2.5%.

To the SCPR, this was a not too subtle hint that members might just as well vote for the 2.5% figure.

An interesting tidbit:  Schulman is the one who called for the roll call vote.  It was not a councilperson that made the call.  And that equals council consenting to Schulman voting on what he is not otherwise entitled to vote on?  Hmm?

Kevin Fisher did flip on the vote on the legislation itself thereby sparing Schulman from actually having to break the tie on the underlying legislation as (properly ?) amended.

Even the normally "cool as a cucumber-esque" Warren Price got caught up in the emotion of the evening in announcing that he was rejecting his $12,000 raise for taking on Tom Ream's duties as safety director inasmuch as Ream is leaving in about two weeks.

Price offered that the 2.5% raise would cost about $150,000 and therefore ($150,000 minus $12,000) makes the cost $138,000) which is only $18,000 over the $120,000 estimated cost of a 2% raise.

Indications are that while Price's outburst was in the order of being high drama, council is not going to stand for him being service director, annexation director, safety director and chief of staff without receiving the additional $12,000.

Apparently, the Healy administration asked Canton city government department heads to be at the meeting in force.

Why?

So that those who wanted the raise to be 2%,  inasmuch as Canton still faces a projected $1.3 general fund shortfall for the 2014 city budget, had to look the managers in the eye before voting against the amendment calling for a 2.5% increase.

In light of the full court press applied by Healy, it was pretty impressive to the SCPR that Cirelli, Fisher, Hawk, Mack, Mariol and Morris stood their ground on the amendment issue and voted no.

Here is the SCPR video of the entire debate on the pay raise issue.



Question?

Who was representing the Canton taxpayer?

Presumably the six no votes on the amendment. However, only Councilman Mack articulated that he was fending for the taxpayers.

One has to wonder why council didn't come up with an amendment to make the pay raise applicable only to non-supervisory, non-bargaining employees?

How does Canton justify increases to those making let's say $50,000 and up in the light of the constant crying by Mayor Healy (when it suits him) about the dearth of revenues.

Moreover, we all know Healy always manages to find money for what he thinks is important.  Witness his 2011 out-of-town trips.

The pay increase fight is just one of quite a number between the warring forces on council.

The underlying political tussle has gone under a variety of names over the past 16 months:  Redflex traffic cameras, the parks' funding and structure, fee increases for various city services, to name just a few.

The clearest manifestation of the war is the Morris/Cole face off.

If the Healy administration fails to keep Cole on council then it looks very likely that the mayor will be facing a clear 7 to 5 majority against him on controversial legislation.

Some may look at the 9th Ward race as a localized affair that has nothing to do with the political divide that currently consumes city hall.

But to do so is to be politically naive.

The stakes in the Ward 9 election could not be higher.

It is not a question of whether or not council will still be divided.

The question is which side of the divide will control Canton City Council!

CANTON CITY GOVERNMENT "MISUSES" EXECUTIVE SESSION?

UPDATED:  AT 02:39 PM

VIDEOS

Healy Gets Council to Agree

 to

 Call for Executive Session

With Nary a  Question?

***********************************

Bates-Aylward

Justifies

What SCPR & Others

Question as Being a Valid Use of

Executive Session 

It is apparent to the SCPR.  Once again, William J. Healy, II is stomping mad that Canton City Council is intent on sitting on his imperial executive style.

So what does he do?

Well, he asked for and received (with no dissent) authority from that very same council to hold an executive session on a discussion that has every outward appearance of being a policy matter that Ohio's Open Meetings law requires be held in public view.

To yours truly, for not one single council member to have asked why the session had to be an executive session is simply unbelievable.

Here is a video of how the request and how the vote went down:



On to council's post executive session reaction to the session itself.

Other than glittering generalities, to wit:

• “very general information explaining the basic framework:" Councilman John Mariol, Democrat 7th Ward,
• “It could have been done in public:” Councilman Greg Hawk, Democrat 1st Ward,
• “[o]utside of some examples used, I didn’t think there was anything discussed that we needed an executive session. They were using examples. There were a couple of names thrown out just because everyone in the room knew who they were:  Council Kevin Fisher, Democrat 5th Ward,  (for quotes see Canton talks raises behind closed doors, The Repository, Matt Rink, 04/01/2013)

which validate the SCPR's position (the executive session "appears" to have been improperly held), there is very little, if anything, to indicate that the session was, in de facto reality, one that fit within the scope of Ohio Revised Section 121.22 (Public meetings, exceptions):

(G) Except as provided in division (J) of this section, the members of a public body may hold an executive session only after a majority of a quorum of the public body determines, by a roll call vote, to hold an executive session and only at a regular or special meeting for the sole purpose of the consideration of any of the following matters:

(1) To consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official,  ... .

With Healy in public sessions telling Cantonians that Canton can't do this and Canton can't do this because Canton has no money and then to shower certain of his most loyal Canton city government managers with "merit" raises doesn't quite wash.

And it seems that there is a clash coming (perhaps as early as next week's meeting) between the mayor and the likes of Cirelli, Fisher, Hawk, Mack, Mariol and Morris on proposed legislation to empower the mayor to give raises of 2.5% (to match what unions received earlier this year) to nonunion members of his administration.

Perhaps the most telling revelation of what the mayor took council into executive session last night is contained in this excerpt of an email sent out by staunch Healy supporter David Dougherty (Democrat - 6th Ward):

There will be a couple of proposed amendments that night.  The first one submitted by Majority Leader Dougherty pertains to the twelve individuals who received a 3% salary increase in December of 2012.  Majority Leader Dougherty is suggesting if this legislation passes that these twelve individuals will not receive an additional 2% salary increase.  The amendment will read to the effect of "provided they haven't received a salary increase in the last six months". 

The second proposed amendment is by Member Mack eliminating Elected Officials participation in increases. 

Section 2 of the proposed legislation also provides the possibility that elected officials of the City of Canton will similarly enjoy a 2% wage increase at some point in the future by increasing the maximum salary of said elected officials. 

In light of the budget constraints discussed elected officials of the City of Canton should lead by example. 

Member Mack is requesting that all elected officials be removed from the unit classifications described in Exhibit A to the proposed legislation.  He feels this will eliminate the possibility that the salaries of our elected officials will be increased during a time when our City is experiencing economic difficulty.

Also, in the near future Personnel Chairman Griffin will be having a personnel committee meeting to discuss amending Ordinance 100/2011.   The goal of this amendment is to eliminate the discretion the Mayor has in regards to dispersing increases every six months and have the salary increases come before Council for approval.
(underlining emphasis added by SCPR)

As anyone can see in reading this excerpt, it is pretty obvious that there is nothing private or sensitive about the debate between Healy and his opponents on council, it is, to repeat, about curbing Healy's authority to pass out raises to administration favorites:

Also, in the near future Personnel Chairman Griffin will be having a personnel committee meeting to discuss amending Ordinance 100/2011.   The goal of this amendment is to eliminate the discretion the Mayor has in regards to dispersing increases every six months and have the salary increases come before Council for approval.

The SCPR believes the proffering of the names by the administration of specific individuals was a CYA operation that may make the session (if it were to be challenged in court) "technically" legal.

Nonetheless, from a political standpoint Cantoninans should be affronted that its government is willing to debate what appears to the SCPR to be policy questions out-of-the-public-view.

Predictably, post-council-meeting, Deputy Chief Counsel Kristen Bates Aylward (Canton Law Department) provided her justification for the Healy executive session call.



Good try chief counsel, but the SCPR is not buying.

We all know that Healy (the MBA graduate New York University's Stern School of Business, he is) is well taken with himself (some might, certainly not the SCPR [sarcasm, no?], even say he is arrogant) who brooks no opposition to what he determines he wants to do with the taxpayer provided resources.

Witness his firing of Tom Bernabei (service director/chief-of-staff; now a Stark County commissioner) early on in his administration and his encouraging of former Safety Director Tom Nesbitt to move on is ample indication of Healy's "my way or the highway" mentality.

More recently, his attempt to bring former Chief Deputy Sheriff Rick Perez on board as director (re: "the sort of" Healy administration of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab), is recent indication that the "tiger (in his own mind) has not changed his stripes."

The "sort of" Healy administration of the Crime Lab entailed taking the directorship out of civil service (giving the mayor power to hire and fire) and collaterally reducing the qualification to the point that, perhaps, the all important evidence certification, validation and verification function of the lab has less credibility because its chief is not required, under the revised job description, to be a scientist.

What is at stake, mind you, is "putting bad guys/girls away" for the benefit of the public's safety, no?

So do Cantonians/Stark Countians want "the imperial one" in his apparent insatiable drive for enhanced personal political power anywhere near being in charge of Crime Lab administration?

One wouldn't think so, no?

Because he is forced to work with the Stark Council of Governments (SCOG) and because Canton is a minority factor (in financing, utilization and equipment ownership compared to the outside-of-Canton Stark County part of SCOG) is in the process of reining him in.

And when "the writing was on the wall" in terms of SCOG calling him on his political power move, what did he do?

He threw Safety Director Tom Ream under the bus.  According to Healy, it was all Ream's doing.

Do not believe that.

The Crime Lab fiasco has Healy written all over it.

But that will not stop Healy from being the quintessential political hypocrite he is.

Soon (it was announced last night) Healy will put on a "dog and pony show" testifying to what a terrific safety director Tom Ream has been.

Hmm?

Ream has been asked how it felt having the Healy driven bus run over him.  He reportedly feigned showing the tire marks across a part of his anatomy.  Despite the joking attitude about it, he had to feel the pain. 

Perhaps the upcoming show will lessen the pain?

Moreover, The Report thinks he did not deserve the treatment he received at the hand of Healy.

And, by the way, the SCPR is told that Healy has offered the safety director position to two or three, but has been turned down flat out.

Hence, Warren Price is to now be:

• service director
• annexation director
• safety director, and
• chief of staff

Coming full circle, the ball is in council's court.

Is council going to allow Healy the authority to use the hard earned Cantonian taxpayer money to reward his out-and-out loyalists while throwing the rest a few crumbs?

Make no mistake about it, at bottom, this battle is on the issue of whether or not Canton is going to be an example of "for the people and taxpaying public" open, accessible, communicative, accountable or transparent government.

Or, if the mayor controls the agenda, is it going to be about an (in his own mind) philosopher-king-esque mayor who thinks he can politically maneuver in secret (which the SCPR thinks may be a clear indication of "bad faith" in doing good things for the taxpaying public) to enhance his personal political power?

Massillon, Plain Township and Stark County government (the commissioners) are making great strides in making local government for democratic friendly, but Canton appears to be backsliding.

Last night Canton City Council did not do a good thing in voting unanimously - without having questioned the need - to go into executive session with nary a question or protest.

And to add to "the bad night" they were having, they stayed the course for 45 minutes when it should have been apparent that the session was about public policy and not about the privacy rights of individuals and their pay.

One would have thunk that once the reality of the meeting sank in, at least one of the councilpersons would have gotten up and walked out.

It should be distressing to Cantonians that nobody did!