NC-CC PRESIDENT DANIEL "JEFF" PETERS: STARK COUNTY'S "IMPULSIVE" PRESIDENTIAL-ESQUE SOCIAL MEDIA STYLE OPEN TO QUESTION?

"You know, I know, everybody knows" that North Canton civic activist Chuck Osborne can "get the goat" of the best of us with his persistent, dogged and seeming everlasting dedication to task when it comes to critiquing the process and substance of North Canton government.

And last week North Canton president of council Daniel "Jeff" Peters apparently fell victim to having had his "goat gotten."



(Note:  President Peters tells the SCPR that his FB piece was taken down by him within 24 hours of being published, copy of post provided SCPR by Chuck Osborne)

Osborne has been surveilling North Canton government for some 15 or better years now and shows no signs of slowing down.

The Stark County Political Report's (SCPR) favorite account of Osborne going beyond due diligence in gathering evidence to make his point occurred when Jon Snyder was president of North Canton City Council during the big hubbub of council having the city pay for health care insurance on several of its members (Peters, Snyder, Kiesling and Werren) despite a voter referendum in which nearly 80% of North Cantonians said part-timers like the councilpersons should not get health insurance unless they had no alternative source.

Osborne traveled all the way to Buffalo, NY (the site of the headquarters of Snyder's then-employer) to learn whether or not Snyder had the option of getting private employer health insurance coverage.

There is no question about it.  Chuck Osborne is the Make North Canton Great Again "pit bulldog" of Stark County civic activism.

A good thing or a bad thing?

It depends where one is situated.

If you are Councilwoman Marcia Kiesling,  probably a bad thing.

It is likely she thinks Osborne's tenaciousness is over-the-top as exemplified by the videotaping/picture taking of her at the soccer event incident.

Take another look at the reputed Facebook posting of North Canton City Council president Jeff Peters:

Going back over Kiesling's 15 year career as a North Canton councilperson, she seems to have had some difficulty from time-to-time in making it to council meetings and also to meetings of the North Canton Planning Commission.

On Monday past (August 21st), council's work session only lasted 15 minutes or so.

Kiesling easily could have satisfied her official obligation and her desire to support her student-child school connected activity.

There are those public officials who are similarly situated who resolve such conflicts in favor of prioritizing the office they ran for and were elected to.

Can you imagine a candidate saying:  "I will faithfully attend council meetings unless my son/daughter is participating in a school activity at the same time as the meeting."

We all recognize that that there might be an exception here and there but not at the rate that Kiesling seems to have exercised in prioritizing attending a child school connected activity over her official obligation.  And Kiesling does get paid North Canton taxpayer dollars for being a councilperson whether or not she attends meetings.

One has to say "God Bless You" to any parent who prioritizes family over all else.  One of the more troubling phenomenons in American life, is that all too many parents have priorities that trump family values.

But in the case of putting family school activity matters over official duties, the appropriate remedy is, in the SCPR's view, not to run office until after the children have graduated.

Obviously, Councilwoman Kiesling "wants her cake" and "to eat it, too."  Which, of course, is, unfortunately, is a common characteristic of politicians.

As if Kiesling's too frequent absenteeism weren't enough, enter in North Canton "apologist in chief" and council president Daniel "Jeff" Peters with the Facebook entry.

It could be that for President Peters, President Donald J. Trump is a model in terms of using social media to bash those who differ with him or, worse yet,  call him/his administration of the executive branch of federal government into question.

While acknowledging that the Trump Twitter phenomenon in terms of name calling and the like is not a model for Trump or any other public official to engage in, he says that his personal history with Osborne:

• (e.g. commenting in the past as "Big Daddy" on Repository articles in response to Osborne entries, and, he says, countermeasures taken by Osborne against him), and
• His (Peters') perception that Osborne wished him dire personal consequences for his having participated in having North Canton pay health care insurance for him [note:  Peters reimbursed North Canton for the payments],

were factors in his succumbing to the temptation to publish his social media rebuke of Osborne.

Other points made by Peters:

• He assessed that some of the commenters on the piece were over-the-top on their condemnation of Osborne,
• When the over-the-top factor of some of the comments dawned on him, he personally removed the entry,
• He realizes that public officials (especially one with a special role [e.g. president of council] should not use Facebook in the manner in which he did vis-a-vis the Osborne/Kiesling matter and will not in the future repeat such an approach,
• He has reached out to Osborne to apologize, but that Osborne is refusing to accept his attempted contacts, and
• While he agrees that part of the price that public officials pay is that they often have to sacrifice family time to the discharge of public duties, he sees the latest Kiesling missing of a meeting as being understandable.  Moreover, he points out that she had no leadership role (i.e. a committee report) to share.

Peters, in a rough equivalency to Trump, is chief administrator of how North Canton city council functions.

For Council President Peters to defend what the SCPR thinks is  indefensible and then endeavor to smear via social media the messenger as being a "bully" and, to boot, a sexist, is clearly unbecoming of a president of any office including that of city council.

As the Peters' Facebook entry shows, there were those who as commenters joined in with Peters to disparage Osborne for tracking the whereabouts of Kiesling during last Monday's North Canton's Committee of the Whole meeting.

For Peters to incite, seemingly on whim and impulse, via social media a pummeling of a civic activist is clearly unbecoming of presidential leadership even at at a city council level of government.

It is however interesting that a few commenters take Osborne's side.

Could it be that these brave souls were key factors in the post being removed?

Unfortunately, Peters is running unopposed for re-election to North Canton's Ward 2 seat.  The ideal solution for conduct like Peters' is a Ward 2 voter having the opportunity via the ballot to remove him from office.

However, two of the candidates for the November 7th general election include two former council presidents.

One in particular, namely; Daryl Revoldt—at large, has a solid if not exemplary track record as a former council member/president of managing the processes/substance of North Canton council without resort to measures demonstrated by Peters with his Facebook post.

Revoldt tells the SCPR that he is not interested in re-assuming a presidency role once again.

It is likely that Revoldt will be one of the three top vote getters on November 7th and whether he wants the role or not, the SCPR thinks he will be deemed by some to be a de facto/shadow president of council even if Peters continues to occupy that role in the post-November election of a new council.

And, Stephanie Werren who has attendance problems of her own (especially, the SCPR is told, with regard to her non-attendance at Zoning Board of Appeals meetings) could be ousted by Snyder in the Ward 3 race come November.

Accordingly, even if Peters remains as council president in a new term, he is likely (at least behind closed doors) to be admonished for acting impulsively and thereby "unpresidentially" as council president should he do a repeat of the removed Facebook post.

It is not enough that the Facebook post has been taken down and relatively soon after it was published.

Peters ought at North Canton council's next public meeting apologize to the North Canton public for being irresponsible and unpresidential in his functioning as North Canton City Council.

As for Oborne, in general the SCPR thinks he has done productive work in holding North Canton government accountable.

However, Osborne is not flawless in approach and demeanor and therefore has not and does not and will not get unfettered support from the SCPR even though The Report is sympathetic with the civic activist model.

He like those who he unmasks as falling short of what they ought to be as public officials is himself as a civic activist accountable for how he conducts himself.

He, along with Peters, needs to be responsible in the way he handles himself in the interaction between government and citizens participating in government.

VIDEOS: CATAZARO-PERRY LOSES ANOTHER VOTE WITH MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL. WHAT IS HER PROBLEM?

VIDEOS

Councilwoman Andrea Scassa On Her Vote

Councilwoman Nancy Halter On Her Vote

Councilman Ed Lewis, IV On His Vote

Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr.

 On the Dire Consequences Massillon

Council Paul Manson On His Vote

The Entire Debate/Vote on Ordinance 35

While the final vote last night at a special session of Massillon City Council went 6 to 3 against the Catazaro-Perry administration negotiated deal with the Hampton Inn located in downtown Massillon whereby the city would cancel its second mortgage ($2.25 million) and liens in exchange for a payment of $1.2 million, the SCPR believes that the dynamics of getting to that final vote was a lot more fluid and "touch and go" than the final number indicates.

The Report had the 6th sense that if the mayor had the requisite persuasion skills one must have to be an effective government executive especially in relation to legislative body, she could have won the vote - perhaps even reversing the 6 to 3 vote to being in favor of the ordinance.

Democratic Councilwoman Andrea Scassa (Ward 3 - the mayor's old ward), said she did not make up her mind until the last moment.



Last week, before the regular city council meeting, Republican Ward 2 Councilwoman Nancy Halter was telling The Report that she did not know how she would vote on the measure.  But by last night, she definitely had decided.



It could be that in the end, her historical opposition to the deal in the first place (back in 1999) was a critical factor.  As show in the video above, she also articulated a council fear that were it to agree to the deal and the hotel was subsequently sold for a handsome profit that council would look - in hindsight - like it had been duped.

And Ed Lewis, IV (Republican - Ward 6) said at the special session that he had been leaning towards voting for Ordinance 35.  Here he explains why he decided to vote "no."



In the end, the mayor and her administration was not persuasive with him and a majority of the Massillon City Council.

One has to wonder whether or not the administration's failure to get the hotel to agree to $10,000 a year downtown Massillon beautification as opposed to $5,000 was a key to the Lewis vote?

Last night's vote against her seems to be a confirmation that the mayor has very little, if any, sway with council members.

It could be that she is having an effect on Councilwoman Quenessa Hampton (Democratic Party appointee - Ward 4) who was one of the three yes votes along with Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr. (Republican - Ward 5) and Democratic Councilman Paul Manson (at -large).

Peters was the most dire in his prediction of the long term consequences to Massillon.



Paul Manson, while he voted "yes" was obviously tentative about that vote.



He was more measured and reflective of the consequences of the "no" vote than Peters, and, interesting enough, he suggests that the mayor may bring negative reaction from some members of council upon herself.  

Most intriguing of all is his suggestion that the issue may still be alive. He did note that the hotel has been doing relatively well of late which could explain why he thinks that there could be ongoing discussions with the hotel's developer (John Helline) to coming to a solution more palatable to a majority of council.

Apparently, the mayor sees herself as a persuasive person.

She shared last night how she was able to convince five Ward 4 residents, brought to her attention by Councilwoman Hampton, of the wisdom of her hotel financing mitigation effort.

Implicit in the mayor's recital is that Councilwoman Hampton was soft on the hotel finance deal, if not adverse to it, prior to the administrations' successful turnaround of some of her constituents.

So why is Mayor Kathy apparently ineffective with many other, if not most, members of council?

There are several possible reasons to ruminate upon:

One being that a number of the councilpersons feel she has not been transparent with them as promised when she first took office.

A second could be a feeling that she is only a figurehead mayor and that folks calling the shots in the executive suites of Massillon City Hall are named Maier and Jackson from their clerk of courts perch.

Thirdly, how about a perceived obstinance?

Witness her go-around with council on her adamant insistence that Massillon raise sorely needed revenues via reducing the tax credit that Massillonians get on out-of-town income taxes they pay coupled with things like having residents pay street lighting fees.

The Report is told that she is meeting on a more or less a weekly basis with fellow Democratic Mayor William J. Healy, II.

There is no doubt about him.  He clearly is a "my way or the highway" type guy.

Question:  Is he rubbing off on Catazaro-Perry?

The mayor, Catazaro-Perry, appears to turn heads and get things going her way out in the Massillon and Stark County social circles.  However, such does not seem to be the case in Massillon's internal political milieu.

In short and in summation, for whatever reason it appears to the SCPR that Mayor Kathy does not have the trust and confidence of much of Masillion's legislative body.

And the prospects of that changing with 2014 - 2015 council to be elected in November are virtually non-existent.

Perhaps it would be helpful to the mayor were she to reconsider her ways (attitude) with council.

If she were to do so, could it be that she might win some of the controversial votes that come before council?

Here is the SCPR video on the entire Ordinance 35 debate.

SCPR 2013 EDITION OF STARK COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIAL, PUBLIC FIGURE NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION

REPUBLICANS TO CONTROL MASSILLON COUNCIL AFTER 11/08/2011?

Recently, the SCPR spent time talking with a number of the candidates for Massillon City Council (both Rs & Ds) as well as an official in the Cicchinelli administration about their take on the upcoming election.

The read that The Report is getting is that this will be a very close election across all the contested races for council (ie. Wards 1, 2, 3, 6 and the last spot for council at large).

Control of council will likely be 5 to 4 either way.  But for Republicans to win control, nearly everything - in terms of the highly contested races - will have to fall their way.  They will have to win four of the five contested seats, assuming that Councilman Donnie Peters holds his seat in Ward 5.

Either way the citizens of Massillon win in the event of a one vote margin by the prevailing party.  Both parties will have to pay closer attention to the will of the people of Massillon looking forward to the 2115 election.  Overwhelming Democratic control has not served Massillon well.

THE ANALYSIS

COUNCIL AT LARGE

The SCPR believes that Republican Milan Chovan, Jr. may be able to salvage one of the three council-at-large seats for the GOP.  Democrats Paul Manson and maverick Democrat Larry Slagle should win two of the three seats for the Dems merely because overall Massillon is solidly Democratic.

Had the Republicans not run two candidates in 2007, it is likely that Democrat Hersher would not have won one of the three seats then and would not be an incumbent this time around.

Republicans have learned that lesson.  They are only running Choven this time around.  But it could be too late.  Now that Hersher is an incumbent, he will be more difficult to defeat.

However, the  Maier faction of the Massillon Democratic Party appears to dislike Hersher because they view him as a loyal foot soldier for Mayor Cicchinelli.  If the Maier faction let it be known that Republican Chovan is preferred over Hersher,  the Republicans' faux pas of 2007 may not come back to haunt them.

WARD 6

It could be that Councilman David McCune's absentee problem, a family parking ticket flap and equivocation on an annexation issue may come back to haunt him in this election.

McCune is another councilperson who is not a favorite of the Maier faction.

This ward is one that the Republicans are counting on.

Ward 2 Republican council candidate Nancy Halter (a former Massillon councilwoman) rounded up GOP candidates (including Lewis, but not Chovan) so that the Republicans could have a nearly full slate (4th Ward excepted) and thereby enhance their chances of gaining control of council.

If he loses, it will be quite a fall for McCune.  Last time out, he ran unopposed.

The Report believes Lewis has a chance to unseat McCune.  And if the Republicans are going to control council, he will have to.

WARD 5

Seems solid for incumbent Councilman Donnie Peters.   Though it appears to him that Democrat Vaughn Mohler is not running much of a campaign, he is not taking his reelection for granted, as he tells The Report that Ward 5 is a Democratic predominate registration area of Massillon.

Peters was unopposed last time out.  In 2003 he lost by a handful of votes to Council President Glenn Gamber (a Democrat).

If Republicans win five seats, Peters says he will be president pro-tem. 

WARD 4 - Democrat Tony Townsend (uncontested).

WARD 3

This is Kathy Catazaro-Perry's ward.

However, before she was elected in 2003, this was a Republican-leaning ward.

With Catazaro-Perry vacating the seat in her run for mayor of Massillon, two political newcomers are vying for the right to represent the 3rd.

Who wins in the 3rd, is anybody's guess.

Scassa tells The Report that while Catazaro-Perry has provided her guidance on how to win in the ward, she is running her own campaign with the help of relatives, and that as a councilperson, she will be her own person.

In terms of the outcome of this race, a big question remains:

Were the Catazaro-Perry victories in 2003/2007 an indication of a shift to Democratic leaning?  Or can Republican Hayden depend on it returning to the Republican fold?

WARD 2

If anyone deserves to win a seat, it might be Nancy Halter.  She is the driving force behind getting Republicans to run in all the wards except for the fourth.  Moreover, she is at least as experienced in the ways of council as Anderson.

She was an at-large councilperson from the mid-nineties through 2003.

Anderson has been an avowed "anti-all-things Cicchinelli" councilperson.  Is this enough of an agenda for the voters of the 2nd Ward to want to return him to office; especially in light of the fact he will not have Frank Cicchinelli to kick around any more?

Halter may be able to take this one for the Republicans.

WARD 1

Another key to which party controls Massillon City Council is Ward 1.

If the Republicans are to take control of council, they will have to overcome the entry of Marc Sober into the race.  He describes himself as a Libertarian-leaning candidate which indicates to The Report that he is likely to siphon off votes from Republican Sarita Cunningham.

Cunningham should be the favorite because she narrowly lost (47 votes) to Ronald Mang (who is not running for reelection) in 2007.  Accordingly, she will have a voter name ID advantage over Sober.

If she can find a way to convince the Republican part of the electorate to stay with her rather than drift in significant numbers to Sober, she might still win despite his presence.

However, that will be a tall order for her.

Democrat Majcan (who The Report understands in connected to Johnnie A. Maier, Jr in that his wife works for Maier) undoubtedly will be looking to the Maier factor to play to his advantage.

But will it be?  Or, in the first, could it be a disadvantage?

WHAT IS COUNCIL PRESIDENT DARYL REVOLDT'S HURRY?

Does anyone on North Canton City Council, besides Councilman Jeff Davies, have any backbone?

North Canton is about to finalize an agreement with Maple Street Commerce (Stu Lichter) on the continuing development of the former Hoover complex into a facility reconfigured, refitted for new tenants.

North Canton officials released the proposal at the past Monday's council meeting as emergency legislation. The SCPR's sources have no idea what the emergency is and even after asking Council president Daryl Revoldt still do not know.

Councilman Davies did try to put the breaks on by asking for a second reading prior to the vote. Council President Revoldt was having none of that.

Of course, there are other concilpersons. Let's see there is Doug Foltz (Ward 1), Daniel Peters (Ward 2), Jon Snyder (Ward 4) and Marcie Kiesling (at-large). Pat DeOrio (at-large) was on vacation.

Apparently, Foltz, Peters, Snyder and Kiesling sat there mum. No support at all for Davies.

We all know that when someone (in this case, Revoldt) is giving something the "bum's rush," watch out. Someone is about to get the shaft. In this case, it is likely the "someone" is going to be North Canton taxpayers.

Deals with developers are notorious for not protecting taxpayers.

Public officials are under enormous pressure to give developers everything they ask for because of the politics of producing jobs to replace rapidly vanishing jobs.

If Council sits back and let's Revoldt rush this agreement through without being properly vetted, then they share in the public accountability should things go wrong.

As we all know from life experience, "haste makes waste."