WHAT DOES OUTLAWING CITIES SETTING $15 HOURLY MINIMUM WAGE HAVE TO DO WITH OUTLAWING BEASTIALITY?

To repeat the blog headliner:  What does outlawing cities setting $15 hourly minimum wage have to do with outlawing beastiality?

According to Judge Richard A. Frye of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, NOTHING! and consequently Frye (on June 2, 2017; the suit having been filed on March 20, 2017) invalidated the minimum wage aspect, as being unconstitutional(re:  the Ohio constitution), in Ohio Senate Bill 331 passed by the "lame-duck" Ohio General Assembly (OGA) on December 7, 2016.

The suit was filed by 50 Ohio cities in defense of the Home Rule provisions of Ohio law (some of whom joined in on the litigation in order to specifically defend enactment of the $15 hourly minimum wage at the city level.  (See this LINK for other Home Rule victories/defeats)

The Ohio legislature in a clear example of "we have met the enemy and it is us" provided the perfect vehicle to the listed cities to challenge the Legislature's attack on Home Rule, in general, and, specifically, Cleveland's legislation setting a $15 hourly minimum wage for the jurisdiction of Cleveland city government by including in S.B. 331 the following diverse and unrelated (for the most part) topics:

From a Google search:

As far as the SCPR can determine, Cleveland is the only Ohio city who has passed $15 hourly minimum wage laws.

Back on November, 2015, Ward 7 councilman John Mariol expressed interest in bringing the legislation to Canton and thereby into the Stark County political mix.

Ohio U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown is part of a Democratic Party sponsored policy initiative:   "Raise the Wage Act of 2017" to make the $15 hourly minimum wage "the law of the land."

The objective of the 49 other Ohio cities joining in the Franklin County based lawsuit obviously defending Home Rule.

One of the more disturbing phenomenons of  S.B. 331 being enacted  is summed up succinctly by past Ohio Supreme Court chief justice C. William O'Neill:

Even more unsettling for Stark Countians is that three of Stark County's legislators (i.e. Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring; all Republicans [Democrat Stephen Slesnick voted "no"]) voted for the illegality.

If there is any consolation for the Stark County legislators is that they are but part of a gaggle of lawless legislators in that 20 other Republican senators and 53 other Republican representatives who in Sarah Palin's words "went rogue" in disrespect for the rule of law.

One of the recurring themes of The Stark County Political Report has been that many if not nearly all of our elected officials from the White House down through the local boards of education take initiatives, pass laws and do other official acts that send a message:   "the rule of law" be damned.

At play in Beckley v. Ohio was Article II, Section 15D, to wit:

A primary reason that the likes of Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring love catch-all legislation is that they can vary their reasons for having voted yes or no on a given bill and thereby avoid be held accountable on their respective positions on matters like Home Rule and the $15 hourly minimum wage.

To be perfectly blunt about the effort to hide, Frye's decision in Bexley v. Ohio (see the entire decision embedded in PD article at this LINK) makes those voting for the bill "lawless legislators."

With rank-and-file citizens going more and more often rogue and lawless when they find it "inconvenient" to their personal interest to comply with this or that law, it is unacceptably hypocritical for the likes of Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring and their colleagues and indeed all similar acting officials (e.g. Stark County probate court judge Dixie Park being overturned on constitutional grounds by the Ohio 5th District Court of Appeals, Judge Frank Forchione in ordering fine money diverted from the Stark County treasury to a Massachusetts civic effort [later changed his mind]) to expect the respect for and compliance for the "rule of law" when it suits them.

The SCPR recognizes that there is certainly is a legitimate difference of opinion whether a given government official's act is lawful or not.

However, when such officials are determined to have acted unlawfully; acknowledgment and very "public" apologies and a commitment to re-direct actions in a lawful manner are in order going forward.

Moreover, in an egregious context (e.g. the Dixie Park situation), the offending official should resign.

How often does even one of the four of the foregoing repentances happen?

And to the degree that acknowledgment, apology and re-direction or resignation does not occur; make no mistake about it, these government officials make themselves by virtue of their lawless political example a key part of growing lawlessness in America!

Another example of:  "we have met the enemy [to our democratic-republican system of government] and it is us," no?

SHOCKING! MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXPAYER MONEY DOLED OUT TO STARK STATE COLLEGE, KENT STATE - STARK TO GET "AWFUL-ON-STERIODS" GRADUATION RATE RESULTS

It was unsettling to read Bob Dyer's piece (Akron Beacon Journal, August 11, 2013, UA graduation rate is awful) for a variety of reasons.

Being a graduate of Akron University myself (1968 - undergraduate; 1973 - law school), reading his column was dismaying for the very fact of The University of Akron being my school.

Although working a full-time job, I graduated from the university within four years of starting.

Same for law school.

Worked a full-time job but graduated from the night program (which was programmed for all of us as being a four year course of study [three years day school]).

So it was more than a little bit disconcerting to read Dyer's referenced data which puts the percentage graduating from Akron at 14% within four years and 38% within six years.

This from a university board of trustees that seemingly does not hold its CEO (Proenza) accountable. For he recently announced his retirement and, according to press accounts, Akron U officials negotiated a ten year agreement with him that included:

• a salary increase to $500,000 annually (an 18% increase over his present salary), and additional perks of being granted:
• a post-retirement sabbatical (at the $500,000 per rate), 
• the right to participate in the executive level bonus pool over the next three years, and 
• the right to return to the university post-sabbatical to a full professorship and president emeritus at $325,000 annum to be boosted by:
• the creation of a "Trustees Chair in Higher Education and the Economy" with money raised from current among current university trustees and other friends of the university which is expected to add $50,000 per year over the life of his contract.

Moreover, it appears to the SCPR that it does not bother the trustees and Proenza that as a returning professor he will be making about 30% more than next highest paid faculty member.

Of course, this aspect of Proenza's contract raises the question of whether or it it will trigger labor unrest among the university's day-in, day-out full-time faculty.

In the SCPR's way of thinking, the retirement buyout of Proenza has shades of the CEO who has run a corporation into the ground but nonetheless gets paid handsomely to - over time - go away.  Except, in this case, Proenza is not going away.  He will be back.

Obviously, over his 15 year stint with the university, matters in terms of graduation rate have declined even though Ohio's taxpayers have put millions upon millions of dollars into the university's facilities (e.g. $61.5 for the Infocision Stadium complex), programs and operations.

A $61.5 million stadium outlay for a football team that has been 3 wins, 33 losses over the past three years and thereby is nowhere near making enough money to cover the total university athletic program costs as is the case with the likes of The Ohio State University.

A $61.5 million decision that Proenza had to be "up to his eyeballs in" undoubtedly at the expense of the primary mission of the university (academic excellence) and he gets a "golden parachute?"

In his piece, Dyer attributed the unacceptable graduation rate numbers (in his words) as follows:

Add all these numbers together and we are left to conclude that either:

A.) UA is not giving the students the support they need, or
B.) UA is admitting people who simply are not equipped to do the work.

The SCPR would add ", or C.) UA has had in Proenza an ineffective CEO."

The accurate answer to the question of the horrible numbers is likely a combination of all three.

Recently (May, 2012), Akron announced it was rejecting some student applications and referring them to community colleges such as Stark State College with a main campus in North Canton.

All foregoing prompted the SCPR to take a look at what is happening in terms of the graduation rate of Stark County's two public institutions of higher learning:  Stark State College and Kent State - Stark.

To borrow Dyer's term "awful" in his describing Akron U's rate of graduation, the numbers at Stark County's two public institutions of higher learning merit the descriptive expression "awful on steriods."

STARK STATE COLLEGE (SSC)

If you thought Akron's 14% was bad for getting a degree within four years, look at Stark State's: a whopping 7.3%.

And student-wise, it is about as big as the University of Akron.  Stark State officials claim a total enrollment (credit and non credit) of some 19,000 students.

With Stark State at 7.3% (2010 numbers), such a number makes a clear and convincing case public officials (both executive officials and overseeing directors and advisors) are throwing "good and 'hard earned'" taxpayer money after "totally unacceptable results"

Who in their right mind would put millions of dollars into facilities, programs and operations for a prime bench mark success (or, let's say failure) rate of 7.3%.

And Stark State's officials under the leadership of Para Jones (who only recently became president but has been a keep component of SCC administration going back a number of years [less an out-of-state stint for a couple of years right before assuming the presidency]) are not content with limiting the disservice to taxpayers to the institution's main campus.  SSC has expanded its operations to cover most of Stark County (and even into neighboring counties) and, of course, at the expense of millions of dollars in outlay of taxpayer funds in building/renting facilities and the staffing them.

KENT STATE - STARK (KSU - STARK)

While 6.8% graduating in four years may seem to be worse than Stark State College (SSC), it is not.  For to stay the course for four years is much more difficult that hanging in there for a mere two years as is the case with SSC to get a basic degree.

But the difference is not anything to brag about.

An interesting aspect of the Kent Stark - Stark operation is that it does have a list of prominent Stark Countians who apparently are not holding the feet of Dr. Walter F. Wagor (Dean of Academic Affairs/Chief Administrative Officer) and Dr. Ruth Capasso (Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs) to the fire in terms of accounting for the totally unacceptable graduation rate numbers.

Hmm?

Stark County commissioner Richard Regula among them.

Interesting, no?

Canton mayor William J. Healy, II among them.

Interesting, no?

Well known Stark County educator Jacqueline DeGarmo (former superintendent of Plain Local School District) among them.

Interesting, no?

Stark County Educational Partnership president Adrienne O'Neill among them.

Interesting, no?

The SCPR thinks that Stark County, Ohio and federal taxpayers are getting shafted (in terms of achieved graduation rates) by Stark's public institutions of higher learning.

And all this ineffectiveness vis-a-vis the taxpayer is going on right under the nose of Stark County's legislative delegation to the Ohio General Assembly.

Nary a word about this flagrant inefficiency on the part of Messers Oelslager, Schuring Slesnick and Ms. Hagan.  It is not as if this phenomenon has sprung up over night.  For them to have not seen it is to say that they are not seeing something "hidden in plain sight."

Hagan, in particular, via press releases, tries to make out that she is the maven of fiscal integrity.

From a SCPR blog of November 30, 2011:

She would be far more impressive locally if she were to read the riot act to Stark State and Kent State Stark officials for their poor performance in parlaying tax dollars into acceptable graduation rate results.

She is very bullish for vocational education (Stark State's specialty), if Ohio is to invest in higher education at all. Moreover, she can be read by her public statements as being for no education at all beyond high school for many Ohioans.  She is fond of saying that "college is not for everyone."

Isn't that scary in 21st century America?

In an ironical sense, it could be taken that the graduation rate numbers cited in this blog support her - in general - anti-public-supported-higher-education-stance.

But the base question remains.  Why are we taxpayers paying so much to local institutions of higher learning and getting so little in return with no or little accountability on the part the well paid public officials who run them?

Maybe the Ohio General Assembly, at the agitation of Hagan, should be getting some answers and if no convincing answers are forthcoming, perhaps some heads should roll (figuratively speaking, of course), no?

Does she and her fellows have the stomach for holding the likes of Para Jones, Walter Wagor and Ruth Capasso accountable for the deplorable graduation rate numbers that Stark State and Kent State - Stark are producing?

The SCPR's forecast?  Absolutely not!

That's what makes her feints at accountability for the use of taxpayer dollars appear to be just that:  rhetoric, rhetoric and more rhetoric.

In this discussion, the SCPR has not touched on the all-too-frequent need for remediation of students entering college across Ohio at student and taxpayer expense. Such is required because a significant number of graduating college bound high school seniors have not acquired basic academic skills during their K-12 days.

But The Report saves this topic for consideration in a future blog.

It is now time for big time public pressure to brought to bear on the Proenzas, Joneses, Wagors and Compassos of of academia to develop a plan for putting public money to much more productive and efficient use than 14%, 7.3% and 6.8% bespeak.

They are all amply compensated.  True enough, some (i.e. Proenza) much better than the rest.

The SCPR totally subscribes to Dyer's parting shot in his column, to wit:

Area taxpayers should be demanding to know why a university that has been constructing things faster than a post-World War II Levittown is foundering in one of the most important categories in higher education. 

(VIDEOS) ARE OLESLAGER, SCHURING AND HAGAN HEADING TOWARDS A CONFRONTATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OVER DEVASTATING LOCAL GOV'T FUND CUTS?

 VIDEOS

Prosecutor John Ferrero 

tells

Stark County Police Chiefs 

to 

Harass

Stark County Delegation

to 

Ohio General Assembly

on

Local Gov't Fund Cuts

-------------------------------------------------------

SCOG Administrator

Don Archer

Paints

Bleak Picture

on

Financial Future

of

Canton-Stark Co. Crime Lab 

   

-------------------------------------------------------- 

Canton City Council 

President Allen Schulman

Chastises

Stark County Legislators

on

Local Gov't Funding Cuts 

  

Yesterday, the SCPR attended a Stark County Police Chiefs meeting with representatives of the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) Executive Committee.

The Topic?

The threat to the continued existence of the Canton-Stark County Crime  Lab (Crime Lab/CSCCL) due to draconian cuts to local government funding at the hand of the State of Ohio through Ohio Legislature budget cuts over the past several years.

There is in place an agreement that Stark's cities, villages and townships will annually allocate 9% of their local government funding to SCOG in order to fund the Crime Lab.

Here is Crime Lab administrator Don Archer providing the police chiefs with a very graphic description of the dire condition of the lab's financing.  



In 2014, the CSCCL faces a $500,000 short fall.  And  if one goes back to the heyday of Crime Lab funding (2007), its budget has taken about a three quarters of a million dollar ($750,000) hit because of the huge State of Ohio reduction in its distribution from the Local Government Fund.

There were some calls at the meeting for dipping into sales tax revenues being generated from the passage In November, 2011 of an 0.5% issue.  Waynesburg Chief of Police William Bath took the position that the police chiefs supported the sales tax issue, at least in part, because of a promise that a significant part of the Crime Lab's monies would come from the revenues it generated. 

If the commissioners were to specifically earmark sales tax money to the CSCCL, then it would mean less money for the sheriff's department, the prosecutor's office, and other Stark County criminal justice units for which the tax issue was designed.

In effect, Ohio's cut on local government funds forces taxes be raised in one form or another at every level of Stark's local government.

Yes "local tax increases" forced by the Ohio General Assembly:  Be it the county (sales tax), township (road, fire, Park and EMS levies), cities and villages (income tax increases).

And get this.  What has happened to the money taken away from local communities?  The State of Ohio has used the money to balance the state budget.

Such is a form of creative tax increase legislation whereby Ohioans taxes go up at the local level but the appearance is that Ohio is reducing taxes.

Talk is that Governor Kasich who is running for re-election in 2014 is going to push through a tax reduction on the state income tax level during this 130th Ohio General Assembly.

He is depending on an easily fooled electorate buying into the "apparent" tax reduction and ignoring that the cost of government is in reality rising exponentially at the local level.

So who takes the political hit?

You've got it!  Commissioners, mayors, city councilpersons, trustees and board of education members.

Meanwhile, the governor gets re-elected campaigning on:  "Hey, folks, I reduced your taxes!"

One thing you very rarely see among police chiefs (usually very conservative and politically inactive folks, at least in public view) is agitation to get in the face of other public officials.

But yesterday they were exhorted by Prosecutor John Ferrero to do just that each and every time they see a member of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly.

He even used the term expression:  "Harass them."



Interesting, no?

If the chiefs follow Ferrero's admonition, it is likely to get the attention of the likes of state Senator Scott Oelslager, state Representative Kirk Schuring, state Rep. Christina Hagan, (Republicans which constitute a super majority in the Legislature) and state Rep. Stephen Slesnick (a Democrat).

As far as the SCPR is concerned Oelslager (a legislator since 1988) and Schuring (a legislator since 1995) for all their combined 43 years in the Ohio General Assembly (switching back and forth between the Ohio House and Senate to get around term limits) have produced relatively little for Stark County.

Yesterday, Commissioner Tom Bernabei said that about 10 years ago Stark County received about $19 million in State of Ohio local government funding.  The projection for 2013/14 is a little over $8 million.

Hmm?

Stark County has gotten cut almost 60% on the Oelslager/Schuring watch going back to 2002/2003.

Wow!

Nevertheless, Stark Countians keep sending them back to Columbus?

And local officials have in the opinion of the SCPR aided and abetted their becoming fixtures in the Legislature in providing public forums for them to appear in the form of council meetings, trustee meetings and the like to make cameo, grandstanding-esque appearances to engage in glad handing with these very same officials.

It has been rare indeed that the SCPR has ever heard a councilperson, a trustee, or a board of education member put either Oelslager, Schuring, Hagan, or Slesnick on the griddle when they make their public relations appearances at about election time.

These four must chuckle to themselves about how they have just fooled the people, no?

Of course, none of the four have the b_ _ _ s to sit down with the SCPR and answer the incisive questions that only yours truly (of all the Stark County media) has for them.

Not on their life would they ever, ever do that!  

For they know that yours truly has the background knowledge of their specific work in the Legislature and the ability to analyze that work or lack thereof and to frame questions the answers to which (if compelled by the SCPR's persistent questioning on point until the question asked is answered) would prove politically embarrassing to them if not make them vulnerable to not being re-elected.

In short, Oelslager, Schuring, Hagan and Slesnick work very hard to avoid accountability to Stark County voters.

The most active Stark County public official in going after the Legislature and specifically after Oelslager, Schuring and Hagan has been Canton City Council president Allen Schulman.  (LINK to a prior SCPR blog)



A few weeks ago he as council president issued letters to federal and state legislators to come to council and explain why local governments are being cut.

Oelslager said he is too busy.  Schuring and Slesnick said they would come, but does anyone believe they really will?  Hagan just totally blew Canton off.  And the congressmen?  No way they are coming to Canton, Ohio!

The SCPR learned today that Alliance is facing up to a million dollar deficit in it budgeting.

Of course, Massillon has felt the crunch too.  City officials (council, not the mayor) have put an income tax issue on to increase it by 0.2% and also reduced the credit that Massillonians, who work outside the city and pay taxes to other jurisdictions, get.

On March 15th, Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry laid off seven (7) from the city's Roads and Highways department because the city was looking at a $600,000 deficit this year.

North Canton is looking at about a $1 million deficit.

Canton citizens are pushing the Healy administration to add 25 or so new policemen to the Canton force to get it up to 175 officers as soon as possible. 

But where is the money to come from in the face of massive cuts that Ohio has visited on the Hall of Fame city?

Schulman told the activists to go after their legislators.  But will they follow his direction?

All these cuts are being made in the midst of Ohio having generated a $1.7 billion and trending higher surplus (per Schulman, see video above).

Hmm?

With all the furor in Stark County from many different quarters about the cuts being made in various government services, is life in the hometown about get a lot more uncomfortable for Oelslager, Schuring, Hagan and Slesnick?

Are they about to have to face discordant music for their failure to protect Stark County local government funding?

(VIDEO) STARK'S OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS VOTED TO GIVE STATE OF OHIO EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES "SAFE" FRACKING. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO LOCAL CONTROL?

One of the mantras that politicians frequently mouth when they run for public office is how much they are for local government being empowered to do most of government.  For local government is the most accessible to everyday people and the place that their voices are most likely to be heard.

An example of a citizen plea for local government authority and action took place last night (see video immediately below this paragraph) at a Plain Township regular meeting of trustees.  This was the meeting that was supposed to be a forum on fracking at which fracking experts and Ohio Department of Natural Resources were to be present to answer citizens' questions.  However, due to some political maneuverings (in the opinion of the SCPR), the forum part of last night's meeting was canceled, but the 35 or so in attendance were given space under the "citizen concerns" section of the meeting agenda to speak out on fracking.

Here is the video (Greg Coleridge - the speaker - is director of the Economic Justice and Empowerment Program at the Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee):



As we all know, one cannot generally take politicians at their word.  A specific example is action taken by local members of the Ohio General Assembly (OGA) which surely is at odds with their word.  Undoubtedly, they would all say they are about empowering local government.  But do their legislative actions match their political word?

If one measures performance by their support of authority for local government (township, villages and cities) to have some say in how oil and natural gas are mined in Stark County, then all of Stark's reps (Snitchler, Oleslager, Schiavoni [not pictured above] Slesnick, Okey and Schuring) get an "F" for failure.

Let's start with the most recent bill which is Senate Bill 165.  This is legislation that supplement House Bill 278, which was passed in 2004, which adds to the authority (thereby cementing it) of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to "exclusively" control oil and natural gas drilling operations.

What was the vote of area legislators on this bill?

Here it is.

 As mentioned above, SB 165 was on top of HB 278 passed in 2004.  It was HB 278 which took away the then existing authority for localities to have some say in how oil and natural gas drilling was carried out.

Here is part of a Legislative Service Commission analysis of the impact of HB 278:

Under former law, the Division of Mineral Resources Management in the Department of Natural Resources had a certain amount of concurrent jurisdiction with municipal corporations, counties, and townships to regulate the exploration and operation of oil and gas wells.  An applicant for a state permit to drill a new oil and gas well was required to include in the application to the Division a sworn statement that the applicant would comply with all local requirements related to the drilling or operation of an oil or gas well until the abandonment of the well (sec. 1509.06(I)). (emphasis added).

Now, who - of area OGA members - voted for HB 278 (the original bill which took away a local "say-so" on oil and natural gas drilling)?

What is the point of this blog?

Check the voting record of a legislator before taking his/her "glittering generalities" as the gospel!

More times than not, the rhetoric does not match the conduct.  Go figure.

No wonder the public's confidence (about 20% at all levels) in politicians and government is at an all time low.

SCHURING & SNITCHLER GET IT RIGHT. THE REST OF THE STARK COUNTY OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY DELEGATION "GET CAUGHT WITH HAND IN TAXPAYER'S POCKET?"

The Schuring quote is from his op-ed piece that appeared in The Rep shortly after the vote on the Ohio budget bill in July, 2009.

Today, the Ohio Supreme Court in a 6 to 1 vote, validated the Schuring position.

The man who wants to play musical chairs Schuring and become Stark County's primary state senator (once again); namely,  Scott Oelslager (Republican - 51st), crossed aisles to join Democrats on July 13, 2009 to vote for a de facto $851.5 million to deny Ohioans the right to vote on whether not to expand gambling in Ohio.

Oelslager joined Ohio House Democrats Mark Okey (61st), Slesnick (52nd) and Schiavoni (33rd - the Senate) to deny the basic right of Ohioans to self-determine on the spread of gambling.

Why did Oelslager and the Democrats approve the "usurping the voters" measure?

Because, if they didn't; they would have to join opponents Schuring (R - Jackson - 29th/Senate) and Snitchler (R - Lake - 50th/Ohio House) in an up or down vote on a tax increase to plug a nearly $900 million deficit if voters opt not to allow an expansion of gambling come November.

Voting "up or down" is what legislators should have to do.

So one can only look on Oelslager, Okey, Schiavoni and Slesnick as being "political cowards."

The SCPR applauds Schuring and Snichler for being willing to put their political necks on the line next year less than a year before they have to stand for re-election.

You can be sure that all of the Stark County delegation members (including the "apparent for now" stand up guys) will be working overtime between now and the pre-election break next summer/fall to find a way to avoid voter accountability on raising taxes.

Keep tuned on his one.  A front and center up or down vote on a highly controversial issue may well be in the offiing before the November, 2010 elections!

ARE STARK STATE STUDENTS FACING A TUITION INCREASE? HOW ABOUT STARK'S STUDENTS ATTENDING OTHER STATE UNIVERSITIIES IN OHIO?

UPDATE: 07/15/2009

STARK LEGISLATORS WERE UNABLE TO PROTECT STARK STUDENTS FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED TUITION FEES - KENT STATE HAS ALREADY DECIDED TO HIKE TUITION 3.5%

WILL THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON AND STARK STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY FOLLOW?

ORIGINAL STORY

The Stark County legislative delegation is a feeble bunch who are not major players in Columbus and therefore Stark County consistently comes out on the short end of the stick in Columbus largess.

Stark State College of Technolgy students and parents should be just a little bit nervous as the Ohio General Assembly works toward fashioning a permanent budget within the next week or so which includes closing a $3.2 billion gap. Currently, the legislators are working on a second temporary budget.

An interesting piece appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal (ABJ) today, Budgeting befuddles universities, by staff writer Carol Biliczky.

In it she talks about the University of Akron and Kent State University concerns about whether or not they face state cuts which, of course, are concerns to Stark Countians because many of our high school graduates attend either Akron or Kent.

Moreover, the worries are much closer to home: Stark State College of Technology located in North Canton, Ohio.

Here is a quote from the ABJ piece on Stark State:

Stark State College has blazoned across its Web page that tuition would be frozen for a third year in a row. But spokeswoman Irene Lewis Mott declined to say whether the college would increase tuition if the state subsidy is short.

So why is it we haven't heard reassuring words from the likes of Oelslager, Schurng, Okey, Slesnick, Snitchler and Schiavone?

How about it guys? Do Stark's students have anything to fear about tuition increases this upcoming school year?

HAS STARK COUNTY GROWN "STALE" WITH THE LIKES OF SCOTT OELSLAGER IN THE OHIO LEGISLATURE?

Scott Oelslager has announced he is again doing an "in your face" to the spirit of term limits. He is term limited out of the Ohio House. But he is not about to give up a good thing for himself. He is running for the Ohio Senate for a seat he has already held once.

This is not news to the SCPR. Oelslager told yours truly at the Stark County Fair last Labor Day weekend that he would be running for the Senate. His musical chair capers with Kirk Schuring have been treated in a number SCPR blogs since.

It is very likely that state Representative Scott Oelslager will be elected to the Ohio Senate in 2010.

How can the SCPR say that on May 29, 2009?

Easy.

Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. has "no answer" for Oelslager or Schuring (should he chose to play musical chairs with Oelslager and return to the Ohio House in 2010) at the state legislature level.

It took the more personable (than Schuring), "war hero," highly financed John Boccieri (running amidst a huge Democratic year) to wrestle the 16th congressional seat from the Republicans.

Maier had "political" sweetheart relationships with both Oelslager and Schuring since the days he was in the legislature with them. In fact, he got along better with them than he with Canton Mayor William Healy, II's father (also William but called "Bill" by most).

Maier's politically cozy relationship with Oelslager may be the reason he gave Oelslager a free ride (no opponent in 2008; very weak opponents 2000 thru 2006) for all of his time in the Ohio House.

So why would things change in 2010?

They won't.

Stark Countians are used to Oelslager smiling, talking about solving the problems of school funding because his parents were educators (which proved to make no difference in achievement), riding the horse of his solitary significant legislative success (Open Records) and generally being a dull, vanilla-ish and ineffectual legislator.

Just to pause on Oelslager and the fixing public education funding issue.

At one time in his treatment of the topic, he was saying that the Republicans had fixed the funding problem - citing the millions they added to the funding pot.

For him to banter this official Republican Party line at the time, was disingenuous at the very least. He knew or should have now that as a percentage of the Ohio budget, the funding of education was well under historic highs that had been attained by the Ohio legislature decades earlier.

Both Oelslager and Schuring have been "less than spectacular" legislators (to state the obvious) notwithstanding being the majority and sometimes supermajority most of their legislative careers.

There are plenty of powerful Stark County Democrats that could take on Oelslager. Maier, Strickland, Boccieri, Healy could lean on any number Stark Democratic warhorses to take Oelslager on. But they won't.

These Democratic power brokers will stand aside and let Oelslager skate right back into the Senate.

The SCPR won't want to hear local Democrats make excuses for Strickland in his second administration, to wit: "but the Senate is in Republican hands." No, not for a group that lets Oelslager sail back into the Senate

Ohio and, more importantly, Stark County will suffer because Oelslager continues his undistinguished career in the Legislature.

Undoubtedly, devoted Stark Republicans who will dutifully surface in 2014 to help Oelslager celebrate being in the Ohio General Assembly for 30 years. And that may be the first of many celebrations: thirty-five, forty, forty-five and fifty may follow.

However, those Stark Countians who want to see an effective legislator from Stark County will not be celebrating. They will be lamenting how much Stark has lost because of having this colorless, bland and the unadventurous man represent them.

The Stark Democrats themselves have a unexciting representative in Columbus. Stephen Slesnick of the 52nd, from reports the SCPR is getting out of Columbus, is schlepping around in Ohio House hearings.

Back to Oelslager for a final note.

Indeed, Scott Oelslager is getting to be like yesterday's newspaper; stale news.

But it appears all but certain that Stark Countians will be in for a steady diet of "stale - political - bread" from Oelslager at least through 2014. Maybe longer.

Lamentations, lamentations, lamentations!!!

ARE OHIO STATEHOUSE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS CONSPIRING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES?

Are Ohioans (and, of course, Stark Countians) going to be paying more taxes soon?

For sure!

At least $236 million in state services fee hikes that the Democrat Strickland Administration has already gotten the go ahead from Ohio General Assembly Democrats and Republicans to count on them to vote for the fee increase.

Politicians love to raise fees as alternative to the t-word (taxes).

But you and I are not as stupid as they think we are.

Fee increases are tax increases but the they are tax increases in sets of Ohio citizens; not all Ohioans.

To give you an example of who the fee/tax increase falls upon, take the follow description of the $236 million fee increases published on the Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants (Ohio CPAs) website:

Gov. Strickland’s 2010–11 state budget proposes to increase fees ... .

The include 120 fee increases include tipping fees for construction projects, a new hospital franchise fee, a doubling of the nursing home bed tax and an increase in the cigarette wholesale and retail licensing fee.

To see whether or not you will have to pay any of the fee/tax increases, CLICK HERE.

Hold on there is more on tax increases.

Yesterday, the SCPR's favorite Ohio Statehouse reporter Dennis Willard of the Akron Beacon Journal (remember Stark County's only countywide newspaper - The Repository - got rid Paul Kostyu, its Statehouse analyst), wrote a compelling piece that indicates to yours truly that Republicans and Democrats are working to set up a tax increase masked so that no one has to bear potential political consequences.

Willard paints a likely picture of how Ohioans' taxes get increased.

He shows that at the end of the legislative session (mind you, the pressure is on because the biennial budget must get passed and signed by the governor not later than June, 30, 2009) with a $8 billion structural budget looming during the course of the budget implementation; the politicians may well devise a scheme to raise taxes.

Because there will be three different budget bills (one each from the Ohio House, the Ohio Senate and Governor Strickland), the Ohio House and Senate will have to appoint conference committees to iron out their legislative differences. The final component is that the Governor, at least with a "wink and a nod," will have to signal he agrees with the reconciliation because of his veto power.

Here is Willard on the possible structure of how a tax increase gets included:

Typically, the conference committee is comprised of the chairmen, vice chairmen and ranking minority members of the Senate and House finance committees, but legislative leaders might decide to pack the panel with lawmakers who are term-limited or from safe districts.

The conference committee's work on the budget goes back to the House and Senate for a concurrence vote only — meaning up or down without amendments.

Lawmakers could blame the conferees for any controversial ideas like a tax increase or casinos by maintaining that they could only vote to accept or reject the budget. (emphasis added)

Plausible deniability isn't the best excuse, but it might be the only course for lawmakers to pursue on the road to re-election in 2010.

What to do?

Contact Representatives Slesnick, Snitchler, Oelslager, Schuring, Shiavone and Okey now.

What is the point of the contact?

Not necessarily to object to a tax increase. But to insist that they do an up or down vote on any tax increase.

TRACKING OUR LEGISLATORS SERIES: STARK EDUCATORS LEAVE IN "SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS" BEFORE LEGISLATOR PANEL SPEAKS TO EDUCATION ISSUES. HUM?

Before DeRolf (Ohio Supreme Court case ruling - 4 different times - Ohio funding of public schoos being unconstitutional) became old news, appearances of state legislators before educator groups drew big crowds.

No more!

Last night before a Stark Count "All Boards" session, numbers of educators and board members left before the Stark County legislative delegation members (Oleslager, Schuring, Slesnick, Okey, Schiavone and Snitchler (represented by his wife - but not on the panel) sat down to in panel format to answer questions crafted by and asked by David Kaminski (representing the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce who was formerly editor of The Repository).

The mass exiting should tell these legislators that they have lost all credibility with the education community and probably with the Stark County community at large on solving the Ohio's education problem.

Schuring trotted out his tired old plan to make funding the "first" priority rather than it current "what's leftover" priority. Oelslager joined by Slesnick cited the "bad" economy. Schiavone said he's on a steep learning curve. If Snitchler had been there, he likely would have followed Schivone's lead.

Surprisingly, Oelslager did not bring up the fact that his parents were educators. Oelslager likes to bring up these emotive factors but then goes back to Columbus and does nothing - nearly 24 years now.

Schuring? He's only done nothing for 16 years now.

By any measure, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) says Oelslager and Schuring are monumental failures on fixing Ohio public education woes. This even though both have been in the majority most of their careers and for a number of years in a supermajority (veto proof).

On this coming Tuesday Stark's Fairless, Northwest and Plain school districts will have levy issues on the ballots. Over the years Oelslager and Schuring have liked going to these districts for photo ops. But there are nowhere to be seen when it comes to providing solutions.

Why would anyone in Stark County want to return either to Columbus in 2010?

Oieslager (term limited out of the Ohio House in 2010) has already announced that he plans to switch chairs for the third time (in contempt of the voters' desire for term limits) and run for termed-out state Senator Kirk Schuring.

Schuring has not committed to run to replace Oelslager in the 51st yet again, but don't be surprised if he does.

Again, why sould anyone in Stark County want to return either to Columbus in 2010?

DISCUSSION: WILL SENATOR DO WHAT'S RIGHT OR WILL HE DO WHAT'S POLITICAL?

Dennis Willard, Columbus Bureau Chief, of the Akron Beacon Journal (remember - The Canton Repository - [Stark County's only countywide newspaper] has no political reporter in Columbus) wrote an interesting piece about how politicized Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor has become (or, more likely, has always been) a highly partisan politician even though she has a responsibility to be a "rule of law" person as a state government administrator.

It is especially interesting when an "accountability/auditing" person is primarily a political partisan. Because Ohio Republicans are nearly shut out of state government in Ohio these days, the Ohio Republican Party (OPR) is using her (though she likely is fully complicit) as a point person to oppose the Strickland administration in any way she can for any political gain she can make for the OPR.

The flap that Willard writes about is Taylor's prediction (looking into a "red" tinted crystal ball). Before the 2010 - 2011 budget has been dealt with, Taylor is saying that there will be an $8 billion shortfall in the 2012 - 2013 budget.

Strickland through his political mouthpiece (Democratic state party chair Chris Refern) says that Taylor and House Republicans are set to be Ohio's version of the "Just Say No Republicans" (i.e. refuse the stimulus money [including the jobs that the money will create] and, by the way, cut taxes),

Willard points out that "just say no" (or, if you will, play the role of backbenchers) will work with isolated Republicans like Taylor and Ohio House Republicans but not likely with Ohio Senate Republicans. Unlike minority Republican members of the House, "in the majority" Republican state senators actually have a state constitutional responsibility, working with the governor and majority Democrats in the House, to provide Ohio with a balanced budget.

This is where Stark County comes in.

Undoubtedly, Stark Countians Scott Oelslager (Republican - Jackson) and Todd Snitchler (Republican - Lake) will toe the party line in the Ohio House Republican caucus.

Both Oelslager and Snitchler like to insinuate that they seek opportunities to be bipartisan. But the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) sees very little evidence to support either's claim.

Oelslager has done a little bit along bipartisan lines over his 20+ years in the Ohio General Assembly. While Snitchler is in his first term, there is no "real" evidence (only rhetoric) that he will shake free of Ohio minority leader Billy Batchelder and do what is good for Ohio and Stark County over his political party.

If you take his performance at Matt Patrick's and Jason Wise's highly partisan ditty (with denials of partisanship galore - "thou protest too much") at Tax Day, Tea Day - Canton as any indication where Snitchler is on the right wing continuum, it is beginning to appear to The Report that Snitchler is pretty much a carbon copy of his predecessor John Hagan except he may be a little smarter. He should be. After all he is a lawyer who should have superior analytical skills.

Maybe in time Stark Countians will realize that Todd Snitchler is not one wit sharper than Hagan, just more polished. And perhaps even worse on policy matters.

State Senator Kirk Schuring is the local politician to watch on the budget.

Schuring keeps telling yours truly that he is "no cookie cutter Republican."

Well, according to Willard, his vote on the Strickland budget will be "come to Jesus" time for the good senator and his colleagues in the Ohio senate.

We shall see.

Watch Ohio Auditor "Mary Taylor" (from the nearby City of Green - Summit County) speak for herself in the accompanying video snippet from the full piece produced by the Ohio Republicans.

Be sure to note the "great" Ohio economy that Taylor refers to in the video that apparently only a blindly partisan Republican such as Mary can see as having come from Republican one-party-rule for the better part of 20 years in the pre-Strickland political era of Ohio.

How did the rest of us miss the booming Ohio economy that Taylor thinks came out of the Voinovich and Taft administrations and the Republican controlled Ohio General Assembly?

DISCUSSION: ARE STARK COUNTY REPUBLICANS OELSLAGER AND SNITCHLER VOTING FOR THE GOOD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OR FOR THE GOOD OF OHIO?

Dennis Willard of the Akron Beacon Journal (Beacon Columbus Bureau - remember? The Repository doesn't have one after getting rid of Paul Kostyu) wrote an interest piece in today's edition.

It seems as if Republicans from Washington down through Ohio are voting the "party line." We recall Congressman John Boccieri (D-Alliance) complaining about how not one Republican voted for President Obama's stimulus bill.

Has the Republican Party put out the word across the land: "We are going the be the party of no."

Willard's work had to do with how Republicans voted right down the party line on Governor Strickland's Transporation Bill (House Bill 2). Willard put it this way:

In the first vote on major legislation in the new session — since Democrats took the majority with a slim 53-46 margin — all but one Republican opposed Gov. Ted Strickland's $7.6 billion two-year transportation budget.

Quite a change from two years ago, when Republicans controlled the House and the transportation budget passed with a 98-0 vote. (emphasis added)

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) checked on the votes of Stark Countians Republican Scott Oelslager (Plain) and Republican Todd Snitchler.

How do you think they voted?

Both voted no - the official Billy Batchelder (GOP Minority Leader) line.

Maybe Snichler and Oelslager voted this way because the thought on their own it was the way to vote.

The Report is skeptical.

So what The Report is going to do is track "key" votes and see whether or not the consistently vote the party line.

If they do, then we will surely know that they care more about the Ohio Republican Party than the people of Ohio and Stark County.

DISCUSSION: SHOULDN'T THE MAIN PLAYERS - OELSLAGER & SCHURING - BE HANGING THEIR HEADS IN SHAME TODAY?

For years they were in the majority/supermajority as Republican members of the Ohio General Assembly (OGA).

Yes, the two who violate the spirit of term limits (their party instituted as a tool to get into the majority in the first place) are the MAIN political culprits who have brought on this day of massive levey failures (75%) in Stark County, namely; SCOTT OELSLAGER (51st - Ohio House) and KIRK SCHURING (29th Ohio Senate). The now term-limited out (thank the Almighty, friends) Republican John Hagan (formerly the 50th) also bears responsibility.

The Democrats (Boccieri, Healy, Cirelli, and Slesnick) get a pass on this one because as a political minority the Republicans literally froze them out on getting anything done in Ohio's law making halls.

Indeed the "chickens have come home to roost" in Stark. Most of Stark County's school district's are shaky at best. And the majority/supermajority Statehouse Republicans (including our Stark Countians) are responsible.

Oelslager in particular has said many times over his recent times in the Legislature that the OGA had fixed the funding of schools. Well, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) says Oelslager's assertions have a rather "hollow" ring to them on February 4, 2009.

Even though Jackson's levy passed, it is a "get by on the skin of your teeth measure." But Lake's, Northwest's and Minerva's efforts were solidly defeated and in today's economic environment there in no chance that any of them will succeed any time soon.

The Report believes that Schuring was merely toying with and tantalizing the Stark County electorate with his proposal, pre-16th Congressional District race, to begin the process of reforming how Ohio funds public education.

Now that the election is over and Schuring lost, has he come back with his proposal anew? No! And he won't. With the Democrats now controlling the Ohio House, the proposal has no chance at all.

What a thing to do. Play politics with - the future of Stark County kids and concomitantly the financial well-being of Stark County's school districts.

Stark Countians need to be thinking more and more that when the names Oelslager and Schuring appear on a Stark County ballot - to vote for the other person.

Now the ball is in the Democrats court because they control the Ohio House and the governorship (remember Strickland: [paraphrased] "I will have failed as governor, if I do not get the funding of public education fixed").

From a local perspective the glare of the spotlight will be on Okey (61st), Shiavoni (33rd).

Now it's their turn to be politically accountable.

Will they succeed where Hagan, Oelslager and Schuring have failed?

DISCUSSION: STARK COUNTY HAS AT LEAST ONE LEGISLATOR WHO IS AT LEAST WILLING TO CONSIDER FIXING SB 221?

Plain Township trustee Louis Giavasis has received communication from Mark Okey (D - 61st which only includes the extreme eastern slice of Stark County), to wit:

I did recieve (sic) a letter from Representative Okey in support and he is polling other legislators to see if there is any interest in revisting SB 221.

SB 221, what's that?

It is the bill that set up the mechanism for the likes of American Electric Power (locally, Ohio Power), First Energy (locally, Ohio Edison) to ask the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for rate increases and WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE UTILITIES HAVE A "VETO" POWER OVER PUCO MODIFICATION/REJECTION of the request.

SB 221 received "unanimous" support in the Ohio General Assembly which means, of course, no one read the bill. Who would allow an affected party to legislation to have a veto power of the action taken. This is like sentencing to jail then providing the key to the inmate.

Of course, we do have Oelslager on record as saying in effect "no way, Jose" in terms of taking the matter on. Oelslager defers to higher powers in the government of Ohio.

Otherwise, nothing from Schuring, Slesnick, Snitchler, and Shiavoni (also, only the eastern slice of Stark).

To the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT it speaks volumes to their constituents for "core" Stark County legislators to ignore a specific request to act.

Even Oelslager had to be buttonholed by Giavasis at a public event.

And elected officials wonder why the general public does not hold them in high esteem?

DISCUSSION: OELSLAGER IS NO MATCH FOR OHIO'S BIG ELECTRIC UTILITIES - BY HIS OWN WORD?

UPDATE: FEBRUARY 03, 2009

It has been pointed out that Representative Oelslager did write a letter to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) on January 14th objected to the 52%/62% increase request. The objection was received by the PUCO on January 26th and can be viewed by CLICKING HERE.

A STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) source relayed the following description of an exchange he recently had with state Representative Scott Oelslager regarding the source's attempt to have Oelslager excise from SB 221 the right of Ohio electric utilities to "veto" unliked Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) decisions on rate increase requests.

Readers of The Report are reminded of the drumbeat that The Report has going trying to rev up consumers and Ohio statehouse elected officials (including Stark's, to wit: Oelslager (R-51), Okey (D-61) Schuring (D-29), Slesnick (D-52), Snitchler (R-50)and Shiavoni (D-33)) to stop the exorbitant increase (52% over 3 years - residential; 62% over 3 years - business) requested by American Electric Power (locally, Ohio Power).

Only Snitchler and Schuring have put in objections with the PUCO.

A very anti-consumer measure included in SB 221 was a provision giving electric utilities a "veto" over the decisions of the PUCO which modify a utility submitted rate increase request.

All members of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly have been contacted and asked to introduce legislation to take out the veto power (which was the pet project of former Speaker of the Ohio House Jon Husted and nurse-maided by Stark Countian John P. Hagan (R - Marlboro) who is now term-limited out of the Ohio House but who was chair of the House Public Utilities Committee when the veto power was inserted).

All that can be said for Scott Oelslager is his candor (why aren't the others acting on the request?)

Here is the source's description of his exchange with Oelslager and the source's analysis of how the veto power got in the bill:

What is more concerning is the comment that Scott Oeslager gave to me, "If this is legislation is going to change it has to come from someone allot [sic] higher than me." This tells me that this was truly a power brokered deal from the top of the State Legislature.

Has Oelslager been in Columbus too long or has Oelslager been in Columbus too long!!!!!!

DISCUSSION: STARK COUNTY LEGISLATORS COST STARK COUNTY $55,200 IN 2009 ($140,000 - 2011?) ON COUNTY BUDGET VIA UNFUNDED MANDATE!

Who should pay for the operation of the Stark County Law Library?

Lawyers and other users - right?

Not right.

In its collective wisdom the Ohio General Assembly including Stark Countians Kirk Schuring (R - 29th Senate), Scott Oelslager (R - 51st Ohio House), John Hagan (now term limited out R- 50th), John Boccieri (now 16th District congressman - but then D - 33rd - Senate), Steve Slesnick (D 52nd - Ohio House) and Mark Okey (D - 61st which included a part of Stark County) voted to reverse direction on who pays for the operations of the Stark County Law Library.

Now yours truly is a lawyer and a dues paying member of the Stark County Law Library.

But should I and my colleagues-at-the-bar and other users of the library be subsidized by Stark County taxpayers?

A resounding no! - so says the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report).

Kelli Young of The Repository reported on 1/22/2009 that a Stark County Board of Commissioners obligation to pay for the library on a phased out basis was abruptly reversed in December, 2008 when the Ohio General Assembly completed action on HB 420 to re-institute - immediately - an non-reimbursed (from state of Ohio funds) mandate that Ohio's counties (of course, including Stark) pay for the operation of county law libraries.

If you were to ask any of the supporters of HB 420 whether or not they are in favor of "unfunded mandates," undoubted they would also say an unequivocal no.

What these legislators hide behind is no one pointing out chapter and verse where the rhetoric doesn't match the action.

One of the missions of The Report will be to go and check on how these folks vote on "unfunded mandates" and report to Stark Counties name, rank and serial number of the offending legislators.

There is nothing like a "high intensity light" on an legislative activity to put the actions in the public spotlight.

So thank you Stark County - courtesy of your Stark County legislators - for the subsidy.

DISCUSSION: THE REPOSITORY - "THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW?" HOW HYPOCRITICAL CAN YOU BE?

What is Jeff Gauger and his employer The Repository and GateHouse Media, Inc. hiding from the Stark County public?

Those who read The Rep know of the heavy emphasis put on government providing "open access" to public records with greater emphasis during the annual newspaper industry sponsored "Sunshine Week."

Readers also know how much The Rep editorial board has thrown itself into powerful support of Republican Ohio House representative Scott Oelslager because of his singular work on pushing for legislative enactments mandating public access to public records.

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has learned that back in April, 2008, Chris Borello of the Concerned Citizens of Lake Township voice-mailed The Rep's executive editor asking that he free a Rep reporter to give a written statement documenting an oral statement the reporter has made concerning public health issues surrounding the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) site in Uniontown.

Borello followed the voice-mail request with a written request, dated April 29, 2008.

On first take, a reader might think that The Rep is not being hypocritical (as an all out advocate for access to public records) because the request is for information maintained by a private enterprise employer which is putting the squelch on its employee.

On second take, a reader might say - not so quick.

Does a private person/corporation have a right to withhold information relevant to public health issues?

What's more, why hasn't The Repository itself taken this statement and investigated the issues it raises for the public benefit and for public consumption?

The more The Report sees of Gauger and the newly constituted Repository under GateHouse Media, Inc, the less confidence The Report believes the Stark County public should have in the the public reporting integrity of the upper echelons of The Rep's management and editorial board functions.

Does The Rep's refusal to allow its reporter to document what the reporter knows about public safety issues concerning IEL and its environment effects in Uniontown and beyond bother you?