SCPR "ELECTION 2009 SERIES" (VOL 13): WHO FROM THE "VOTE YES FOR SAFETY COMMITTIEE" WILL ANSWER THE "STARK CITIZENS FOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE?" IS THE "VOTE YES FOR SAFETY COMMITTEE" RUNNING AN HONEST CAMPAIGN? DOES CHARLES SNYDER OF THE STARK CITIZENS HAVE HIS FACTS RIGHT?

A pox on both their houses?

Such could be the response of Stark County voters on Issue 5 come November 3rd.

But the "pox" remedy won't work.

Because it's an up or down vote on Issue 5.

"Not voting," is not a viable option. 

There will be a winner and there will be a loser in the early hours of November 4, 2009.

Listen to Charles Snyder of the Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote committee (SCRVC) giving that groups take on the issue and a recent NAVE gathering at the Canton Civic Center:  (Vote Yes for Public Safety had no representative present)



Take a look at the full web page on the website of the Vote Yes for Safety:

As the SCPR sees it, the most glaring problem for the Stark Citizens folks is that a 39% net increase in revenue to the county is simply inaccurate.

As the SCPR sees it, the most glaring problem for the Vote Yes folks is its avoidance of forthrightly discussing the fact that there is a revenue enhancement for the county general fund in Issue 5.

Yours truly is not surprised that Snyder et al can't or won't get their fact right.  The Report's take on these folks is that they are so impassioned about their cause that they fail to bring themselves (because of the fervor) to informing the electorate in a thoroughgoing and hence accurate fashion.

Yours truly is surprised that the Vote Yes folks mimic the Stark Citizens in not presenting a complete picture by their avoidance of the revenue ramifications of Issue 5.

Why does the SCPR differentiate between the two?

Because Vote Yes leaders are former and current elected public officials who are duty bound to keep the public trust.

No excuses for the Snyder and friends.  They are utterly unimpressive with their "let's throw everything including the kitchen sink" approach.

Their only valid argument is that citizens should send a message to the commissioners by repealing a imposed tax.

For Stark Countians who vote No on Issue 5, such is a valid basis in the opinion of the SCPR.  The rest of the Stark Citizens' arguments are bogus except the point about alternatives to fix 9-1-1 should be considered.

They have hurt their cause in playing loose with the facts and throwing in the irrelevant (e.g. the Gary Zeigler argument).

So have Reinbold (a former Stark County Common Pleas Court judge) and Jane Vignos (a former county official who voted to impose the tax) and their allies Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez (also a Jackson Township official and Canton Municipal Court official), Commissioners Harmon, Bosley hurting the "Yes" cause by virtue of their trying to mislead the voters into thinking that Issue 5 is all about fixing Stark's broken 9-1-1 system.

The SCPR calls this "the fear factor."   And if there wasn't a tax increase for general county operations, the public should be fearful of not having a properly functioning 9-1-1. (though the fix must be cost effective and rational). With the general revenue raising part of Issue 5, came the responsibility to go beyond "fear" and justify the need for general operations money.  Stark officials are operating on fear alone.

For former and current public officials, who are often victims of distortions and outright untruths, to engage in the "avoidance" tactic on Issue 5, should make fair minded people less sympathtic when the cry foul in their victimhood.

Moreover, if the "Yes" folks win, the failure to be totally forthcoming with all the sub-issues on Issue 5, de-legitimizes, in a de facto sort of way, the general revenue fund aspect of the increased tax.

When a public official achieves an objective through a deception worked on voters, then they increase the cynicism of day-in, day-out Stark Countians who then get knee-jerk when other public officials asked for increased taxes in their venues.

School, fire, police, road and social service levies difficulties increase incrementally with every misleading campaign that a public official has a hand in.

The SCPR suspects that the out-and-out politicos among the group of current and former public officials named above have come up with the deception campaign.    But their should be no protest from the "go along, to get along" about being lumped in.  They have lent their public prestige to a highly unsavory approach.

Shame on them.

And, shame on the Stark Citizens group.  These folks are setting the cause of citizen activism back with their approach.  Ordinary folks need to think twice, three, four and more times when asked by the likes of the Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote to join their effort.

Because people to get judged by their associations.

Both groups are having a hand in the degeneration of public discourse concerning the hard issues that everyday Stark Countians have to deal with on November 3rd.

So what to do?

For the SCPR, the inclination is to vote with the "Yes" folks.

However, it is only an inclination.  Imposition and deception by public officials do not sit well with yours truly, by anyone, but especially by folks charged with exercising the public trust.

The Yes folks have to provide a compelling fact-based REASON to vote yes.

The No folks have to provide a compelling fact-based REASON to vote no.

The SCPR is skeptical that either group will do so.

SCPR "ELECTION 2009 SERIES" (VOL 4): BOSLEY ACCUSES NIMISHILLEN TWP FIRE CHIEF RICH PETERSON OF WORKING WITH ANTI-SALES TAX COMMITTEE. HMM?

They used to be tight with one another.

But that is all changed now.

Nimishillen Township Fire Chief  Richard J. Peterson and Commissioner Todd Bosley couldn't be further apart.

Yesterday,  in a one-on-one conversation with Bosley, the commissioner told the SCPR that Peterson is working with the Stark Citizens Right to Vote Committee to have Stark Countians vote "No" on Issue 5; a "no" vote being "not to retain the 0.5 imposed sales/use tax" voted by the commissioners in December, 2008.

The SCPR took Bosley's comments to mean that he thinks Peterson is running a 5th column-esque movement in which Peterson and his sponsors, the Nimishillen Township trustees are working to undermine the Stark County Council on Governments Governance Committee's effort to fix the county's broken 9-1-1 system.

Bosley said that Peterson is "the Wizard behind the curtain" who is providing the anti-tax movement with information such as cited by movement spokesman Charlie Snyder that 9-1-1 does not need $5.5 million a year.

Why would Peterson do this?

Bosley believes that it is because Peterson was not selected to head up the Governance Committee's effort.  He lost out to Joseph Concatto for the position of project manager to put together the Countywide 9-1-1 Dispatch Center.

There is heavy irony in this falling out between Bosley and Peterson.

Fixing 9-1-1 was a collaboration between Peterson and Bosley going back to the days that Bosley was a Nimishillen Township trustee.  Fixing 9-1-1 is the reason, in the opinion of the SCPR, that Bosley was elected over sitting commissioner Richard Regula in November, 2006.

Bosley says that the 9-1-1 plan he has been pushing, is a plan conceived and constructed by Richard J. Peterson.

So what went wrong between Peterson and Bosley?

Two things, according to Bosley:

One - Peterson was not selected as project manager (even though Bosley fought tooth and nail with Gonzalez trying to get Peterson) and

Two -  Nimishillen Township Fire Station Number 3 (which houses Nimishillen's CenCom Dispatch Center) is to be phased out as a surviving Stark County dispatch location under the SCOG plan.

Back in June the SCPR reported that Peterson was "a fire chief scorned" and, moreover, yours truly was of the opinion that Peterson was already working to possibly scuttle countywide centralized dispatch.

So between June 30th and September 30th, has Peterson been marking his time, waiting to pounce on SCOG and Bosley?

Bosley thinks so.  And he hopping mad.  In fact, like Howard Beale of the movie Network, Bosley is, in effect, saying of Peterson "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

Bosley is out talking to media big time.  Not only is he talking to the likes of the SCPR, The Rep and others; the commissioner is going the extra step.
He sent yours truly the following link to an Alliance Review article dated, get this, March 8, 2008 which reveals a different sounding Chief Richard Peterson.  Politician Bosley does do his political research.  And he will beat an opponent's head in with it!

For Bosley, his tiff with Peterson appears to be more than "let's agree to disagree."  No, the Bosley offensive has the markers of being an all out offensive to smoke Peterson out and discredit him.

Bosley says that Stark Right to Vote Committee leader Tom Marcelli was quoting Peterson (according to Commissioner Tom Harmon, per Bosley) in The Rep's endorsement interview on Issue 5 which was held on September 29th.

Moreover, Bosley says that Charlie Snyder's (who acted as spokesperson for the anti-tax group) questioning of  the need to fund Countywide 9-1-1 Central Dispatch at the rate of $5.5 million annually could only come at the coaching of Peterson.

Snyder, according to Bosley, - on his own - would not have a clue as to the amount needed to run a centralized dispatch center.

Additionally, Bosley says that Peterson has been out trying to disaffect other Stark County based fire chiefs from their support of a countywide dispatch.  Bosley specified that North Canton Fire Chief John P. Bacon is a primary target of Peterson's effort, but that there are others that Peterson is working on.

Get the idea of the scope and the ferocity of  the Bosley political attack on Peterson?

THE SCPR REACTION

What is the SCPR's reaction to this hubub?

No surprises here.

The SCPR was the first to say that Peterson was badly stung in being rejected as project manager.  He has been highly critical of Joseph Concatto to yours truly from the time it became known that Concatto was selected over him.

While the SCPR has not made a final determination as to whether or not to vote to retain the tax or to vote for its repeal, yours truly is leaning towards supporting retention.

THE PERSONAL AXE TO GRIND FACTOR

What turns yours truly off, and likely most Stark County voters, is the personal agenda of many of the of cast of characters who have involved themselves in this political fight.

Peterson and the Nimishillen trustees fit the "personal agenda" billing in their trying to force Nimishillen's CenCom on the rest of Stark County.  They have a lot of explaining to do to Nimishillen taxpayers about the continued utility of Fire Station #3.

Many Stark County politicos fill the "personal agenda" billing in their working over Stark County taxpayers by seemingly using Stark County government as a personal employment agency.

Why would Stark County taxpayers want to fund support for the sales/use tax increase?

What public official's relatives, friends and political supporters will end up on the county payroll, if taxpayers decide to retain the tax?


THE IRRATIONAL FACTOR

Most of the Stark Citizens Right to Vote Committee appear to be irrational on whether or not the tax is to be retained.

Take Charlie Snyder.  Three of the four reasons he gave, as spokesperson for the Stark Citizens Right to Vote, as seen/heard on his Repository video, were out there somewhere.

Reason #1 - The implied "we are going to punish Stark County as a whole" for the tax imposition action of the county commissioners.   The anti-tax group remedy to the commissioners' action bears no rational relationship to whether or not Stark Countians need to have an up-to-date 9-1-1 system and whether or not Stark County government needs more money for day-to-day operations.

What would be rational is for these folks to work to defeat Bosley and Harmon when they run again and thereby send the message that any commissioner that does not afford citizens the right to vote on taxes will not be abided by Stark County voters.

Reason #2 - A $22 million tax increase would be irresponsible,  a point made by Snyder, if that was the plan.  But he misstates the total revenue that is to be generated, if Stark voters decide to keep the tax and the commissioners implement the promised termination of an existing tax.  The increase at the end of the day should generate about about $11 millon annually.

Certainly, Snyder knows this.

Is it irresponsible/irrational to misstate the facts, Mr. Snyder?

However, Snyder does make a point that is rational in this argument.  Sales/use taxes are regressive.  The rationality:  0.5 percent on a person earning and spending $20,000 a year is a lot more burdensome that 0.5 percent on a person who spends $20,000 a year but has total annula income of $50,000.  It is simple, basic math.  Even Charles Snyder can figure this out.

Reason #3 - $5.5 million is too much to put into making 9-1-1 viable, according to the Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote Committee.

Okay, Mr. Snyder; what should the cost be?   In his comments, Snyder said that the hodgepodge of  Stark communities are currently spending $6.8 million.

So is it logical that Stark Countians should continue to spend $1.3 million a year more (in the context of a fragmented collection of communities) that the proposed $5.5 million for a system that is not working at an acceptable level?

Reason #4 - Mismanaged funds?  That's what Snyder says, then he goes off on a non-sequitur about the alleged theft in Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler's office.  Stolen funds are not mismanaged funds.   Hello there, Charles Snyder? 

 There you have it folks.

Those of us who want to do what is best for our community in the long term have to wade through the maize of personal agendas and irrationality/irresponsiblity to get to the correct decision.

Democracy is messy, isn't it?

STARK CITIZENS RIGHT TO VOTE COMMITTEE SUCCEEDS IN SPADES!

The Alliance Review reports that the Stark Citizens Right to Vote Committee scored big time in its effort to get 13,950 signatures to place the Stark County commissioner "imposed" sales/use tax increase (0.5 of a percent) on Stark County purchases.

Not only did the committee get the 13,950, they went well beyond and the minimum and ended up with 19,309.

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly has been skeptical of the committee's ability to collect the minimum number of valid signatures because of a perceived weakness in the leadership of the group.

Clearly, the group has proved yours truly's skepticism as being unfounded.

Hats off! to the Stark Citizens Right to Vote Committee.

You have to wonder whether or not Commissioner Todd Bosley (who was the driving force behind imposing the increase) is beginning to have concerns that this effort may have on his re-election chances.

Last evening, the SCPR talked with Jackson Township trustee Republican James Walters who indicated that he is taking a serious look at challenging Bosley in 2010.

Walters says that the sales/use tax increase repeal will be approved in "slam-dunk" fashion.

If Walters is correct, then Bosley has a lot to worry about in terms of his re-election prospects because of how he is "joined at the hip" with the increase.

THE STARK CITIZENS FOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE COMMITTEE TO EXPERIENCE THE FURY OF STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONER TODD BOSLEY?

The SCPR knows Commissioner Todd Bosley well enough to believe that he has been working non-stop since the Stark Citizens Right to Vote Committee (The Committee) formed in early 2009 to find ways to defeat the committee's initiative.

What is the initiative?

To get an issue on the ballot come November to repeal the imposition of a 0.50 county sales/use tax designed to generate money to fix Stark County general fund woes and to come up with the wherewithal to repair Stark's broken 9-1-1 system.

And Bosley is not alone.

He will have the full force of Stark County government behind him.

Already, according to a Massillon Independent article Legal questions remain as sales tax foes submit repeal petitions (online - August 18):

... Assistant Stark County Prosecutor Deborah Dawson, prompted by a news article on a sales-tax repeal effort in Allen County, began researching whether the Right to Vote Committee needed to file a petition to also repeal the county use tax ...

Doesn't surprise the SCPR.

This move has Stark County commissioner Todd Bosley's handprints all over it.

Bosley does not play nice. It is hardball all the way with this guy. Just ask Richard Regula and anyone else who gets in his way.

Bosley's political future is tied to two key factors:

(1) He promised to fix 9-1-1 in his campaign against Richard Regula (2006) and he must deliver or be tagged as a failure on an issue that he said was all-encompassing.

(2) The 0.50 sales/use tax imposition was his idea and a loss means that Stark County Republicans (even lead by the squeamish Jeff Matthews) will scurry about to get an opponent for Bosley in 2010. A loss on the tax issue likely means that even a John Hagan could be problematical to Bosley's re-election prospects.

The moral of the story: Bosley is motivated.

Stark Countians and The Committee should expect a number of measures like the Dawson one and others that try to short circuit validation of the petitions.

The SCPR questions whether Debbie Dawson came up with the "news article" all by her lonesome. Perhaps a little prompting from Bosley?

And if The Committee gets by the the pre-certification challenges, the committee members can expect a full scale warfare from the hand of Bosley but also from nearly every other Stark countywide elected official (except for the judges).

The SCPR believes that committee leader Tom Marcelli will be a focus of the anti-repeal forces. Marceill's past Stark County property tax problems (he paid up on August 7, 2009) and his intemperate remarks to county officials widely reported in area media make him - in the opinion of yours truly - a distraction and perhaps a reason the repeal effort fails.

Stark Countians only need to look to the north to see what Mayor Don Plusquellic's forces did to Plusquellic recall leader Warner Mendenhall.

It strikes the SCPR how naive activists are in terms of "they better be 'squeaky clean'" on matters like taxes and personal conduct because if they are not; their political enemies will make them the issue and the issue they care about goes down in flames.

So if Marcelli remains "the visible one" for The Committee, then watch for Bosley et al to concentrate on him.

Once Bosley and friends are done with him, an unfamiliar out-of-towner would be asking: what office is Tom Marcelli running for?