NORTH CANTON COUNCIL TO TRYING "TO FOOL THE PEOPLE 'ALL OF THE TIME''

Shame on North Canton City Council and the council's president Jon Snyder (Republican - Ward 4)!

Who does Snyder think is going to believe his statement to area media, to wit:

Council President Jon Snyder, Ward 4, says most ordinances are passed as emergencies because they’re administrative actions and officials want to avoid cumbersome delays. He said he has never attached an emergency clause to a bill to avoid a referendum (Emergencies routine for North Canton council, Wang, August 12, 2013) (emphasis added)

Apparently, Snyder and his fellows on council think that the North Canton citizenry are made up of a bunch of naive, unsophisticated rubes who do not know "up from down," "backwards from forwards" or "how to come in out of the rain" and the like.

Most people (except perhaps former president Bill Clinton of "that depends on 'what is is'" fame) know when they have been caught on deceit, own up to it, apologize and move on.

It seems to the Stark County Political Report that all of North Canton Council has been caught by council's nemesis and seemingly perpetual and eternally persistent Chuck Osborne in what most folks most certainly have to believe is a bold face lie.

Only a fool would believe that North Canton has had 90%, 93%, 83% and 90% from 2013 (so far, the year is not yet over) back through 2010 of its legislation to be of an authentic emergency nature.

Those are the numbers that Osborne cites in a lawsuit he filed against council on August 5th in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to invalidate council pay raises passed as an emergency ordinance with the emergency being articulated as being necessary "to meet the Stark County Board of Election's deadline for the November 5, 2013 general election."

As Osborne points out in his lawsuit, these council members have been on council since 2011 and could have moved on the legislation way, way before getting into an emergency situation.

It was "all to convenient" for council to induce an emergency and thereby avoid a vote of the people of whether or not future councils will be getting a raise.

As readers of the SCPR know, while yours truly treasures folks like Osborne who are eternally vigilant in keeping Stark County's villages, cities townships and boards of education on the "up and up," he himself has been the subject of critical blogs in terms of his motivations for doing this thing or that than vis-a-vis North Canton Government (e.g. his initiative petition to make the mayor of North Canton a full-time position, which The Report thinks is a thinly veiled attempt to in effect oust political enemy David Held from office).

But in filing this lawsuit, Osborne is performing an extraordinary public service.

While it has been pointed out that as the law of Ohio stands now, the odds (in the opinion of yours truly) are against Osborne prevailing on getting the courts to invalidate the recent pay raises, The Report applauds the effort.

Applauds the effort?

Yes, not so much because the SCPR thinks the raises are undeserved, but for the reasons that yours truly:

• does believe that the legislation was an end run around North Canton's voters on being to put the matter of the raises on the ballot for voter determination, and
• does believe that the pay raise was a consequence of the passage of an initiative referendum by Osborne whereby part-time North Canton elected officials (i.e. North Canton's councilpersons) are not eligible for health care benefits at city of North Canton expense.

Because of the "in your face" via disingenuousness attitude of Snyder in his public comments, a remedy that North Cantonans should avail themselves of this fall is:

• one, for North Canton's fourth ward voters to replace Jon Snyder as the ward's councilperson (Hillary Mueller is his opponent), and
• two, to replace one of North Canton's council-at-large candidates (Kiesling, Cerreta or Griffith - all of whom have consistently voted for what the SCPR believes to be largely "phony" emergency legislation) with newbie Jamie McCleaster.

The election of Mueller and McCleaster will go a long way in ensuring that future bogus use of emergency legislation will be vetted far better than the current make up of council is able to do.

Osborne's lawsuit is likely to have ramification across Stark County's skyline of local governments whether or not it achieves its specific goal.

And, should it make its way up the legal trail to the Ohio Supreme Court, it may have a major impact on governments throughout Ohio.

No matter how the suit fares before Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge John Haas, we should all earnestly desire that the losing side appeal the case first to the Fifth District Court of Appeals and beyond that step to the Ohio Supreme Court.

As matters stand now, some take the position that existing Supreme Court articulated law to - in its essence - stand for the proposition that though Ohio statutory law requires written specificity be part of any ordinance designated as being an emergency, the mere statement of some superficially plausible reason is enough to carry the day.

Others, obviously, including Osborne's legal counsel Robert Cyperski, argue that such is not the case. That there is, in the mix of Ohio Supreme Court cases, law to the effect that Ohio's courts are to look into the actual facts and circumstances of legislation being designed as an emergency and to make a determination on a case-by-case basis as to whether or not the procedure as been exercised lawfully so has to deprive the citizenry the right to overturn a given piece of legislation by an initiative referendum.

The argument as outlined above makes it imperative that the issue be resolved "once and for all" by Ohio's "court of last resort."

In the meantime, this November (it is highly unlikely that Osborne's suit will be settled before then) North Canton voters have an opportunity in Ward 4 and "at-large" to make their presence felt.

McCleaster and Mueller should make the over and indiscriminate use by council of emergency designation in legislation as being an overriding issue that strikes at the very heart of the integrity of the processes of our democratic-republican system of government.

It does appear that Councilman Snyder and his fellows are trying to play North Cantonians for "being the fool."

It is up to North Cantonians to take the opportunity in November to drive home Abraham Lincoln's point:  "you can't fool all the people all the time."

And a "Hats Off!" to North Canton civic activist Chuck Osborne for bringing this issue into focus.

(VIDEO: NORTH CANTON LAW DIRECTOR ON "PUBLIC SPEAKS" RULES) CONCERNED THAT NORTH CANTON NOT DUPLICATE CANAL FULTON PROBLEM?

Last night at North Canton City Council, Law Director Tim Fox reiterated the rules for "Public Speaks" at regular sessions of the council.

Here is Fox in a SCPR video making his presentation.



And well he should have in light of potential civil liabilities that may be sustained if such rules and actions based on the rules are not adequately constituted in terms of policies and procedures (including supervision and training) for dealing with what council members to be unruly Public Speaks participants.

It appears that Fox's guidance for council members is that above all, they be even-handed in applying the rules.

Another concern is that local officials provide for the proper training and supervision of any personnel who might be called upon to enforce those rules in terms of forcibly ejecting a Public Speaks citizen exercising his/her Constituional First Amendment rights.

The SCPR has learned that Fox took his cue from an incident which occurred in a Canal Fulton (Lawrence Township) on November 1, 2011.

In that evening's Canal Fulton City Council meeting (extracted account taken from plaintiff's allegations contained in pleadings of Mouse v. Swartz, et al, Stark County Court of Common Pleas, filed November 1, 2012) the following is alleged to have occurred:

Now to the part of the lawsuit that had to perk up the attention and interest of Law Director Tim Fox of North Canton.

The complaint alleges six "causes of action."  And it is the sixth, the SCPR believes, that gets to the heart of Stark County local government concerns, to wit:

The Report has been covering local government meetings for nearly five years now.

And in the course of such coverage, yours truly has observed a number of tense moments when local government leaders were put to the test in properly managing their Public Speaks segment of a given meeting.

In one instance, North Canton civic activist Chuck Osborne was escorted from a council meeting at the direction of the-then council president Daryl Revoldt.

Current council president Jon Snyder told The Report last evening that Fox's presentation was not designed to target Osborne who is North Canton's most frequent presenter at Public Speaks.

Rather, Snyder says, the publication of the Mouse complaint on its filing with the Stark County Court of Common Pleas and the startling allegations gave North Canton Council pause for thought as to its policies, practices and preparation in prevention of a replication of a Canal Fulton incident in North Canton.

Fox doubled down on Snyder' point in telling The Report that it fair to say that his goal is to ensure that there is not a duplication of the Canal Fulton incident in North Canton.

The Report captured Fox on video in making his presentation.  It is interesting to note that he says nary a word about Canal Fulton as if he got a message from God that it was time to refresh everyone on the need to have a decorous public discussion during the time set aside for same.

Off camera, his discussion with the SCPR was quite another thing.  In this venue, he expressed his astonishment at the allegations made in the Canal Fulton pleading and his determination to prevent a similar occurrence in North Canton.

Off camera?

Yes, off camera at Fox's insistence over the protest of yours truly.

He had the lame excuse that he doesn't come across well on camera.

Hmm?

The Report thinks the refusal was a retributive action on his part because of his distaste for prior SCPR blogs on questionable procedures employed by council (in the opinion of yours truly) in his becoming law director.

As SCPR readers know, a video does not lie.

Reporters taking notes are always open to an allegation that they "misquoted" the subject.

Okay.  Go on camera.  Tell your story in your own words.  That's the SCPR response.

So The Report doesn't want to hear it from Fox that he was "mistook!"

The SCPR has seen many different versions of Public Speaks throughout the county and is convinced that Canton council President Allen Schulman is the most effective moderator of citizens addressing council.

He manages to keep order and decorum while managing to give citizens their full say.

If you take the same system and put Majority Leader David Dougherty in charge, Public Speaks in Canton does not go nearly as well.

Jon Snyder of North Canton seems to have Schulman-esque skills.

You can bet that all Stark County government entities that have Public Speaks forums will be paying close attention to the outcome of Mouse v. Swartz, et al.

As well they should!

HOME COOKIN' IN NORTH CANTON?

It is beginning to look more and more like former North Canton Councilman Tim Fox (Republican - 3rd Ward - see bio LINK) has been the pick to replace former North Canton Law Director Hans Nilges (resigned June 29, 2012) ever since council had a inkling earlier this year that there was going to be a parting of the ways between North Canton and Nilges.

Getting to the point where Council President Snyder now says he would be surprised if a majority of council did not join him (he is definitely a Tim Fox man) in selecting Fox on Monday evening next, has been tortured.

Fox defeated fellow Republican Jeff Davies last November.

After a mere eight months and a few days in office, Fox, currently working as an attorney for Black, McCuskey, Souers and Arbaugh (since 2006), has surfaced as the odds-on-favorite to become North Canton's next law director.

While North Canton City Council apparently (at least to The Report) has toyed around with some 16 attorneys who have applied for the postion, Fox bided his time until September 6th before resigning from council and submitting his application for the $72,000 or so position.

And only on the initiative of fellow councilman Jeff Peters, Snyder says, did Fox consider taking on the law directorship.

While Snyder appears to the SCPR to be continuing a charade of acting as if the five other remaining candidates are still in the running; the politically savvy have to believe that Fox would have never, ever resigned his council position if he did not have absolute assurance that he will be named Nilges' successor.

Snyder counters that as far as he knows, the fact of the matter is that Fox talked to nobody on council (even informally) about the position let alone resigning knowing full well he had secured the directorship.  Moreover, Snyder says that he is only sure about his vote for Fox and that he cannot speak for others.

Nonetheless, the  Fox situation is exactly the kind of "apparent" political maneuvering that turns everyday folks off and makes it more and more difficult for government (even local government) to be credible with them.

In hindsight, Snyder is quick to say that council should have focused on Fox at the beginning, asked him to resign his council seat and spared everybody what is likely to end up as having been exercise for the 16 initial and 5 final candidates.   But he insists that while he understands the appearance, such was not the intent of council.

Snyder says he knows that there are folks in the public who see the process of getting to Fox as council's choice as being "a good ole boys" type process, but that such is simply not the case.  Moreover, he says that he is more than willing to sit down with any North Cantonian individually and explain the hiring process.

The SCPR raised with Snyder the potential difficulty of council (which, if he gets selected, will be evaluating the work of Fox) might have in dealing with a former colleague.  Snyder says council has crossed that bridge with Fox and neither side sees it as being a problem.

But the question remains with the SCPR.  Does anybody believe Sndyer's assertion that Fox has had no engagement whatsoever, even informally, with his fellow council members on the open law director position before Peters approached him?

No doubt Sndyer et al have crossed their t's and dotted their i's on the formal stuff (i.e. do not allow Fox to sit in or executive sessions which discuss the vacant law director position and have him resign from council before actually applying), but it is quite a stretch to ask everyday North Cantoninans to believe that Fox has not been involved in "informal" discussions about the viability of his filling the position before the Peters' approach.

Before Fox put his two cents in, highly regarded North Canton attorney Donald P. Wiley (Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Matthews - bio LINK) was thought by some to be the frontrunner.  However, Snyder says, Wiley took himself out of what certainly could have been being the leading candidate by presenting a plan whereby the firm he is a member of would be providing counsel (with Wiley being the lead) to council at a lower price than Nilges did with the firm approach.

As it turns out, Wiley himself is a former North Canton councilman.  He was appointed to fill a council-at-large vacancy in 2000, but was defeated in the 2001 election.

So there you have it folks.

There is no doubt about it.  It is likely that many amidst the North Canton citizenry are going to say that the law director process that North Canton council put together stinks!

Some might even say that "there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, err 'the city government of North Canton.'"

The ultimate question is:  Will the smell linger?