(VIDEOS) THE 2013 STARK CO. BUDGET. ARE THE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DEMONSTRATING PRUDENCE?

 VIDEOS

Bernabei:  Summarizing the 2013 Budget

Harold:  The Impact of State Gov't Funding Loses

Creighton:  "A New Day in County Finances" 

Tomorrow, the Stark County commissioners will likely adopt a budget for 2013 they presented to Stark County department heads and to the general public last Wednesday.

It appears that it is now financial recovery time for all Stark County departments of government.

2011 was an absolute nightmare for county offices because a 0.25 sales tax levy expired and commissioners determined prior to its expiration that because of a loss of confidence in county government (i.e. the imposed sales tax of 2008 and Zeiglergate, et cetera), it would be unavailing to put a renewal or replacement issue on the ballot.

In the interim, the commissioners have practiced what they preached in terms of leading by example in fiscal austerity.

With the passage of the November 2011 0.5% sales tax increase, it is make up time for them and the remaining county departments of government.  In the opinion of the SCPR, the commissioners' increase, for one, is justified from 2012's $523,020 (all numbers rounded off) to $819,629.

The $819,629 represents a accurate accounting of what the commissioners are actually spending to run their office.  In 2011, 242,632 to had been shifted off the commissioners' general fund allocation to three non-general fund budget categories.

To the SCPR it was pretty amazing what former Chief Administrator Mike Hanke was able to do in maintaining a high level of commissioner administrative functions (including his wearing many, many hats) by becoming creative in finding the financing to maintain a core staff in the face of cuts being made.

Hanke retired March 1st.  However, the 2013 budget is his handiwork working with his top associate Rick Flory.

As alluded to above, making up for previous cuts across county government operations is a theme of the approved appropriations for the 2013 budget.

Already in the headlines of various media have been the restoration of large amounts of general fund budgeting to the Stark County sheriff's department.

The sales tax increase was promoted to the voters that the proceeds' first priority use would be to restore the criminal justice system (the sheriff, the courts, the prosecutor and other associated offices) to its 2010 levels (the last year that the county received sales tax revenues prior to the tax expiration in 2011).

As it turns out, former Sheriff Tim Swanson had not preplanned adequately in getting up to full bore with his department's operations (i.e. hiring enough deputies/corrections officers to full staff the jail so that its 501 beds can be fully utilized) with the infusion of new funds to finance same.  In fact, he was so unprepared that the department returned unused funds in 2012.

Oh, he has his excuses.  But the SCPR thinks that is exactly what they are.  The truth of the matter is that despite his many years in office and cumulative experience, he proved (with the rehiring debacle) why he did the Stark County public a favor in retiring.

Unfortunately for Stark Countians, notwithstanding the fact that the sheriff will be hiked from the 2011 budget appropriation number of $13,884,409 (seven/eight digit numbers to be read as being in the millions) to 2013's $17,937,214, the latter number is $1,156,382 less than could be available if current sheriff George T. Maier were able to make up for Swanson's deficiency in planning.

But he can't.  And what's worse for the safety of Stark Countians is that in the opinion of the SCPR, it is unlikely that Maier will be anything other than a short term sheriff.  The Report fully expects that the Ohio Supreme Court will - ironically - find for Swanson in his Quo Warranto against Maier and turn Maier out of office within, perhaps, the next 60 days.

A parade of sheriffs is not what Stark County needs in order to shore up and stabilize Stark County's maximized safety for the citizens.

The SCPR believes that the Stark County Democratic Party leadership (i.e. Chairman Randy Gonzalez and Executive Vice President Johnnie A. Maier, Jr [brother of George Maier] a former chairman) are to blame for the deficiency in the appointing process that is likely to result in George Maier's removal by the high court.

Another key player in the criminal justice system is the Stark County prosecutor's office.

Headed up by John Ferrero (another former Stark County Democratic Party chairman), the prosecutor's office is another example of the Stark County public being poorly served.

The one public official that had to be drug along kicking and screaming during the county's hard financial times (LINK to a prior SCPR blog that details much of same) was Prosecutor Ferrero.

Ferrero will get the funding to restore to his office the 14 employees that he lost in the austerity drive.  His office goes from $2,937,064 (2011) to $3,344,136 (2013).

In the opinion of the SCPR, given the deficient way in which The Report thinks Ferrero manages his office, he could probably do with a few more employees.

At that, the commissioners show their frugality in reducing the prosecutor $288,004 from his requested to appropriated funding.

Good for them!   The Report believes they need to be especially diligent in scrutinizing any requested numbers that come from Mister Fererro.

Another office deserving special attention is the Stark County Recorder.

Rick Campbell and John Ferrero are fiscal twins in the judgment of the SCPR.

A bellyacher-extraordinaire who apparently (according to Auditor Alan Harold) has a difficult time finding his way to the office, Campbell merits close watching.

Figuring out how many new employees (given the confusing numbers game that Campbell appeared to be playing with commissioners in the budget hearings on Recorder employees compared to Microfilming employees) Campbell wanted seemed to merit the hiring of a private investigator.

Whatever the actual number turned out to be, it appears the commissioners had the good sense to cut Campbell's request in half and also to cut him substantially from his requested 2013 ($670,590) to what they actually appropriated ($618,665),

Still Campbell managed to cajole them into a huge increase from 2011 in which he received $517,010.

Campbell used to be one (circa 2004 - 2008) of the Stark County's most impressive elected officials in terms of adopting technology and thereby becoming more efficient. 

But since then, The Report has become completely disenchanted with him.

In yours truly's estimate, Campbell and Ferrero rank right at the top of those Stark County elected officials that the voters ought to be of a mind to replace.

In sum, the SCPR thinks the commissioners (err Michael Hanke, well, on second thought - the commissioners deserve credit [especially Tom Bernabei]) has done a superlative job in managing the 2013 budget.

Totally impressive is the fact that they have set aside $5.5 million in unappropriated funds for future capital projects, wit:

• A rainy day fund,
• Repairs to the county ditch drainage system,
• Roof for Stark County jail,
• Relocation of the Stark County Board of Elections,
• Creation of a sinking fund to provide for county employee retirement payout liabilities,
• Bow building roof repairs (Bow was obtained by the county from the federal government to house some county operations), and
•  county office building repairs

Newly appointed Brant Luther has big shoes to fill for the 2014 budget.  Mike Hanke proved to be a master budgeteer.

The SCPR presents a full video presentation of the proceedings of March 13, 2013.

First let's discuss aStark County Auditor Alan Harold's presentation.  (note:  Harold's presentation begins at the 11 minute mark of the video)

Harold makes a very telling description of the scam job (the SCPR's characterization; not Harold's) that the Republican controlled Ohio General Assembly [including our local representatives Hagan, Oelslager and Schuring] did in taking away millions of local governments (from $6.2 million [2007] to $2.9 million [2013]) to be supposedly replaced by revenues from casino operations (originally projected at $5.4 million which is likely to, in fact be $1.8 billion) which in fact looks likely to be a  net loss of revenues from the State of Ohio in the amount of $4.4 billion since 2007.



Next up is Commissioner Tom Bernabei and his summary of the budget.  Also featured in this video clip:  comments by Stark County  Commissioners Creighton and Regula (at the end of the video).

And finally, Commissioner Creighton in a one-on-one interview.

A "FRIENDLY" FIGHT AMONG STARK COUNTY'S EMERGENCY FORCES FOR $2.35 MILLION IN COUNTY FUNDS?

UPDATE:  03/05/2013 AT 2:30 PM

PROJECT MGR JOE CONCATTO E-MAIL

Martin,

The Request for Competitive Sealed Proposals for a Countywide Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System for Stark County was designed around three Dispatch Centers in the County which are the Canton Communication Center, the Sheriff's Dispatch Center and the RED Center.

There are six other Dispatch Centers in Stark County which are CenCom, Alliance, North Canton, Minerva, Plain Fire and Perry Police.  

The County 9-1-1 Call Center does not use a CAD system.  Although the system was designed around three centers the other six would also have the ability to join.  The connectivity between all nine dispatch centers would be the same as the new Next Gen 9-1-1 connectivity.

The CAD bid (which is 90% software) consists of two parts; one, the CAD and Mobile Data Computer system; and, two a five year maintenance cost.

The plan is for the the County to pay for the CAD and Mobile Data system, however, the maintenance fee would be shar[e]d among those dispatch centers th[at] would connect to the system. 

After we determine which proposal is chosen, which will then identify the cost for 5 years of maintenance, we will then go first to the three dispatch centers and see if there is a desire to join.  We have yet to approach the other six dispatch centers because we don't know what it would cost for them to join.  As you know, no one will commit without knowing their annual cost.

The CAD Project Team which includes members of each of the three dispatch center along with our CAD Consultant and me are reviewing the vendor bids and hope to have a group of finalist (one to three) by the end of March.  

At that time we will have an idea of the costs for both the system and the maintenance fee.  We can then approach all the dispatch centers regarding their interest in being part of a countywide CAD System.

ORIGINAL BLOG

 VIDEO

Commissioner Tom Bernabei

on

WHAT TO DO WITH STARK'S $2.35 MILLON
 ON 
   9-1-1? 

The Stark County commissioners have a daunting task in front of them.

How to spend $2.35 million in dedicated funds (i.e. though in the general fund, set aside) in the continuing effort to upgrade 9-1-1 emergency call receiving and emergency vehicle/personnel dispatch to Stark Countians in dire need of EMS, fire and police services?

Unfortunately, for the commissioners; no matter which choice they make, it is unlikely that the impact of spending the money will be all that apparent to Stark County taxpayers and citizens who use the county's EMS, fire and police emergency services.

Unfortunate?

Indeed!  In this day and age of heightened accountability, it is a very unhappy day for a public official to plow money into unseen, unfelt (by taxpaying consumers) but vitally essential infrastructure improvements.

Elected officials are likely to live or die politically at the hand of a public perception that they are/are not doing things that tangibly benefit the public.

Last Tuesday, 9-1-1 Project Manager Joe Concatto (former Canton fire chief and Creighton administration safety director) appeared before commissioners in one of their frequent work sessions (generally held at 10:00 a.m. on Monday and Tuesday in each week) to advocate (sort of) for them to agree to purchase a state-of-the-art Computed Aided Dispatch (CAD) system.

Sort of?

Yes, in the opinion of the SCPR.

While Concatto certainly would like to see a new CAD installed in Stark, he realizes that there are just so many dollars to go around and a key component for a successful CAD operation is to have all Stark County emergency services providers to also have state-of-the-art radio interoperability radio system.

And even the direction to go with the radios option is not quite as simple as buying enough state-of-the-art 800 mhz radios to ensure that each and every nook and cranny Stark County provider of emergency services are, so to speak, "on the same [radio] wave length."

North Canton and Canton Township have already signed on to the State of Ohio MARCS (Multi-Agency Radio Communication System - LINK).

MARCS is believed by many in the emergency services field to be the ultimate goal of integrated radio communication between and among all emergency forces within Ohio.

Another "this is the future" factor is that the State of Ohio has a State CAD system that many believe is where all State of Ohio political subdivisions (e.g. Canton, the Stark County sheriff's department, Nimshillen's CenCom and the like) are heading longterm.

The question is likely not if MARCS and the State of Ohio CAD system will one day reign supreme, but when.

It is the timing of the "when" (in terms of statewide integration of radios and CAD) that is the puzzler for local emergency forces and the commissioners; not the "if."

So there may be a need to do a Stark County CAD and/or upgrading of the Stark County 800 mhz radio system in order to have first rate emergency service in Stark even if longterm the answer is integrating with the State of Ohio because the "longterm" is not near enough.

So the order of the day for the financial efficiencies of Stark County-sited taxpayers (whether they be at the village, city or township levels) seems to be to the SCPR to not jump off in different directions but to hold the course until the efficiencies can be figured out.

But given "Good Ole Stark County" and its deep-seated territorialism, its turfism; one can depend on various local government agencies going off on a tangent (i.e. from the mainstream) and doing their own gig that may undermine the county effort as a whole.

But these mavericks line up for monies designated for Stark County as if they are looking at county well-being as a whole.

In all, there are six Stark County local governments (according to Concatto) who have strayed from a unified countywide fix to 9-1-1 in all of its aspects so as to facilitate Stark County's achieving a complete 9-1-1 system that is among, if not the absolute best in all of Ohio.

The divisions, The Report believes, started with Nimishillen Township which is both a touch ironic and logical.

Ironic in the sense that the SCPR believes that there once was a plan for Nimshillen's CenCom to be the King Kong of a revamped Stark County 9-1-1 system.

Logical that Nimishillen should separate from the countywide rehab if its CenCom could not dominate in the sense that:

• the township had a huge mortgage on its CenCom building, and if it was not to be the core of the countywide effort (and impliedly generate for Nimishillen the funds needed to service its mortgage),
• then Nimishillen had to compete with the countywide effort in order to make township financial ends meet.

Fire Chief Rich Peterson of Nimishillen originally back in the mid-2000s appears to The Report to have formed a political alliance with the-then Nimishillen trustee Todd Bosley to forge a political campaign for Bosley to become a Stark County commissioner, and from that perch shepherd a rebuild of what was widely believed to be a broken Stark County 9-1-1 system.

The Report believes that as part of the the Bosley/Peterson plan, Nimishillen's CenCom was to become the flagship site for the rebuilt, state-of-the-art Stark County 9-1-1 which would be headed up by guess who?  You've got it:  Rich Peterson.

By the way, Peterson denies that being the head of a repaired 9-1-1 was ever his objective.  However, the SCPR does not buy his denial.

Democrat Bosley was elected by a narrow margin over Republican Richard Regula (who in 2012 regained his office) and proceeded to talk fellow commissioners Tom Harmon (a Democrat) and Jane Vignos (a Republican) into imposing a 0.5% sales tax with the apparent objective of providing adequate, if not surplus monies, to bring 9-1-1 call receiving and dispatch up to state-of-the-art.

Longtime advocate for rehabbing 9-1-1 Randy Gonzalez  must have thought he died and went to heaven.

He is a key figure in the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) which commissioned a study in 2007/2008 on the state of repair/disrepair of Stark's 9-1-1.

He has been working about 20 years on improving Stark's 9-1-1 system.

However, he has had to come back to earth.

Stark Countians rose up in droves to repeal the tax in November, 2009 (under a movement led by local civic activist and attorney Craig T. Conley) and, of course, consequently Bosley was "political" toast as he moved off running for reelection as commissioner onto running for state representative for the 50th Ohio House District.

And in the jockeying between Peterson, RED Center director Mark Busto, the-then Canton safety director Tom Nesbitt and Concatto for the project directorship, Concatto won out probably as a compromise between Bosley and his political adversaries in the Stark County EMS, fire and police community.

A thing or two needs to be said for Bosley.

But for his action in convincing Harmon and Vignos to impose the December, 2008 0.5% sales tax on Stark Countians:

• the county would not have a 9-1-1 system that is nearly in good a shape as it is now, and
• the county would not have survived the financial crash as well as it did during the lean times of 2010 and 2011.

A strong reason - the SCPR is told by the proponents of the repeal of the imposed sales tax - that the repeal prevailed by a very, very large margin is that the tax included monies for Stark County's general fund which was facing hard times even when Bosley was commissioner.

The repeal proponents say, the campaign to retain the imposed sales tax:

• focused exclusively on the 9-1-1 factor,
• while not mentioning or, at the very least,downplaying the general fund revenue factor
• which, they believe, enabled them to convince Stark Countians to reject continuing the tax.

In the interim, "you can depend on him to be a problem, if he is not in control of the finished product."

Depend on "him?"

Yes, "him" being, of course, Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II, who at first was a zealot for the 9-1-1 countywide fix, promising Canton's full cooperation.

However, when it became obvious that Canton was not going to dominate, he withdrew Canton's support for an all-out countywide 9-1-1 operation and has remained largely incommuicado with Gonazlez and Concatto on Canton's role ever since.

Another irony of Tuesday's commissioners' work session is that:

• one of the alternatives 
• (maybe even, the most likely alternative) 
• for the spending of the $2.35 million 
• (as communicated by former Canton police chief Dean McKimm - now the head of Canton's call receiving/dispatch center and who had with him John Whitlatch and Raymond Friedmann of the Canton Fire Department)  
• would fix Canton's way-out-of-date CAD system were commissioners to select the CAD option.

Another stroke of good fortune for Mayor Healy?

Hmm?

Or, perhaps, another example of "what goes around, comes around" if the commissioners choose not to go with accepting a CAD bid?

Also weighing in on Tuesday last, was Mark Busto as head of the RED (Regional Emergency Dispatch) Center which serves much of western Stark County.  He had with him Assistant Director Jamie Wood also of the center.

Busto seemed equally satisfied whichever way the commissioners elect to go.

The RED Center, the Stark County sheriff's 9-1-1 center, and the City of Canton Communications Center each serve about 100,000 Stark Countians.  The rest of Stark County (about 78,000 according to the 2010 census) is served by a variety of smaller 9-1-1 centers.

The person in Stark County that the SCPR is most on top of what ought to be done with the $2.35 million is, in the opinion of The Report, Commissioner Tom Bernabei.

Bernabei sits on the board of SCOG (which provides funding for 9-1-1 and for the Stark County Crime Lab) and has devoted countless hours in trying to become informed on matters that play large into what direction Stark County should take in parsing out the $2.35 million.

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly does not pass out many accolades to Stark County local government officials and political figures.

But Bernabei is an exception.

Stark Countians can feel assured that Bernabei will have done his homework by the time decision day arrives on dispensing the $2.35 million and that it is likely that Commissioners Janet Creighton and Richard Regula will have wisdom to follow his recommendation.

While The Report has had a difference or two with Bernabei, he remains responsive to yours truly's probing questions.

He presents a mature governmental/political figure model for the overly-sensitive and "I want to be unaccountable" types (all too many of them who populate Stark County government and politics), who clam up when the tough questions come.

In the video presented below,  Bernabei makes the following points bearing on what factors are in play as the commissioners contemplate how they will apply the $2.35 million:

• follow SCOG's recommendation:
• that the commissioners first apply the money to purchase a CAD system,
• that any excess monies be used to purchase state-of-art 800 mhz radios (which cost about $4,000 each) to distribute throughout Stark County's emergency forces towards meeting an ultimate goal that everyone have an inter-agency-operable radio (i.e. between and among Stark County EMS, fire and police units),
• on a RFP (request for proposal - about 165 pages in length) bid put out by the commissioners which generated 13 bids (about twice the size of the 165 page RFP) only one of which was from an Ohio based company, the committee formed to review the RFPs narrowed the field from which to select to three which bids (which include both the software and a five year maintenance coverage) came in at:
• $2.109 million,
• $2.15 million, and
• $2.785 million; respectively
• with the caveat that each Stark County entity (e.g. Canton, Stark County, the RED Center and other users) will be charged, if a CAD system is purchased, a fee for their proportional uses,
• alternatively (as a possible disposition of the $2.35 million terms of holding on to it for the foreseeable future, perhaps, two to three years down the road), Bernabei discusses the possible financial benefit for Stark County to wait for Ohio's MARCS system to mature to NextGen and then Stark County upgrading some of its 10 transmission towers to allow MARCS to penetrate buildings so that it could be used by Stark's fire departments,
• alternatively, holding the $2.35 million in 9-1-1 rainy day fund in order to be in a financial position to join in with the State of Ohio's CAD system when the timing in ripe

Here is a videotaped Bernabei SCPR interview wherein he reviews quite thoroughly the options that the commissioners are considering in making the soon forthcoming decision as to what to do with $2.35 million of Stark County taxpayer dollars.

ANOTHER STARK COUNTY DOG POUND ADVISORY BOARD (SCDPAB) MEMBER CRITICIZES COMMISSIONERS' OVERSIGHT OF STARK COUNTY DOG POUND OPERATIONS. WILL THIS BE "THE STRAW WHICH BREAKS THE CAMEL'S BACK" AND CAUSE THE COMMISSIONERS TO DISBAND THE SCDPAB? OR, IS THIS A OCCASION TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE "A CUT ABOVE?"

One of the things that yours truly has said repeatedly about the current Stark County Board of Commissioners (with the election of Thomas Bernabei and Janet Creighton) is that they are much more open, accessible, communicative, responsive, attentive, accountable, transparent and politically mature than any board of commissioners going back quite a few years.

And the Stark County voters recognized the change in November, 2011 in providing the commissioners with a solid victory in approving a 0.5% sales tax issue as a signal that the commissioners have been successful in restoring voter trust in their stewardship of county government.

However, it could be that the current board's enthusiasm for a different way of being and operating is ebbing.  They have been through a lot of trying times in the one year and a half that this board has been in place.  Perhaps they are growing wary of the day-to-day of this problem, then that problem and here comes another problem syndrome.

Or, it could be that operations at the Stark County Dog Pound (Pound - SCDP) is something that is an aberration from their up-to-this-point general "embracing the problems" and solving them approach to county government.

The SCPR has observed that from the very beginning of the current regime of commissioners that they have not been all that well taken with the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB).  In this aspect of their boardmanship, they are much like their predecessor boards.

Rightly or wrongly, it appears to yours truly that the commissioners have taken on an attitude of "there is nothing we can do to satisfy these (advisory board members) people.

On July 6th, The Report did a blog (LINK) on another in a long series of complaints that a SCDPAB member (Judith King) have of Pound operations.

Recently, another SCDPAB member has written the SCPR.  Here is that letter:

Hello Martin-

As a member of the Stark County Dog Warden Advisory Board, I am not surprised that the commissioners are thinking of disbanding the board.

They do not return phone calls nor attend any of our meetings.

I am sure we are a thorn in their side with our pleas to improve the horrible conditions at the pound; however eliminating the board is not going to stop us or private citizens from demanding some action be taken with regards to the "catch and kill" mentality of some of the employees at the pound and the lack of interest by  warden (sic) Tetrault of the pound's conditions.

I would love to see the commissioners' institute a forum with a "come and let us reason together " attitude., as you suggested. Unfortunately, I doubt very much that will ever happen .

Sure, the ventilation problem is a big concern during this extremely hot summer; however there are also many other problems that need to be addressed, many of which only require a look at some  ( not all, but some) of  the staff's inadequate performance.

Aren't the commissioners at all concerned about the warden who is rarely seen outside of her air-conditioned office and has no knowledge of the dogs in the pound, instead asking volunteers to do various jobs for her?  How can she be a leader when she has no clue about what happens in the actual kennel area?

If you get the chance to talk to Ms. Creighton again, please ask her these questions for us ( since she no longer communicates with the Advisory Board)

Has the $70,000 - $80,000 been approved for the ventilation system yet or is this just another promise?

Have the commissioners advertised for bids for the project yet?

Could the commissioners evaluate the warden's performance ON SITE at the pound ( and not by the  very infrequent pre-planned visits which usually turn into a smiley "everything's great here!" photo-op.)

Rose Hayne

By the end of this month commissioners have four new appointments to make and such could be an occasion for disbanding the SCDPAB altogether.

The Report has the impression that the commissioners are exasperated with the current SCDPAB makeup and might be at the point ridding themselves of their problem.

But yours truly would be surprised and disappointed to see that happen.

The Report's take on the commissioners has been that they are a resilient lot who have, so far, demonstrated political maturity a step or two above a number of other county officials (e.g. Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero and Stark County Recorder Rick Campbell).

Were they to disband the advisory board in toto, such would in the view of the SCPR be an occasion for Stark Countians to be concerned about whether or not they are taking on a jadedness that so often plagues government types which may be increasingly be manifested as everyday citizens seek the ear of county government.

Governing often is uncomfortable and perhaps even frustrating to the point of being at one's wits end in trying to satisfy everyone among the governed.

But such is the lot of office holders, especially in modern-day America.

It has to be tempting to the commissioners to try to banish their problems.

But as Ms. Hayne says: 

I am sure we are a thorn in their side with our pleas to improve the horrible conditions at the pound; however eliminating the board is not going to stop us or private citizens from demanding some action ...  (emphasis added)

Whichever way the Stark County Board of Commissioners decide to go on "the disbanding the board issue," they will be sending a message and an indication to the Stark County public about the political character of the individual members of the board that The Report believes will serve as an insight into what Stark Countians can expect in terms of receptivity and response as future complaints and problems are brought to the commissioners attention.

In a specific context the question is:  Can the Stark County commissioners abide a difference of opinion from folks they appointed and, moreover, can they accept being challenged to reflect candidly with themselves on whether or not they have the correct read on conditions/operations at the Pound?

We do have in Stark County an elected public official who banishes those with whom he disagrees.  He makes no attempt to consider that maybe his take on a given situation is wrong and that he would be well advised to mull over their advice.  Rather than eliminate these folks, he should keep them around.  For all too many around him are careful to tell him what they think he wants to hear, as a matter of self-preservation.

One wouldn't think that the Stark County commissioners (who know this official all too well), would want to follow his example.

Before them is an occasion to demonstrate by deed which way they will go.

Either they have the political chutzpah that the SCPR and many Stark County citizens expect of them to deal effectively and maturely with the problems they encounter or they will take a step back by cutting and running in the face of a difficult situation,

By July 31st, Stark Countians should get an additional read on what our Stark County commissioners are "really" made of?

(VIDEOS OF COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING) GOING FORWARD: WHAT TO EXPECT OF THE STARK COMMISSIONERS NOW THAT THE SALES TAX HAS PASSED?

Before the elections of November, 2010 and the victories of Democrat Tom Bernabei (replacing Democrat Todd Bosley, who did not run again) and Republican Janet Creighton (who ousted the appointed Democrat Steve Meeks), Stark Countians likely had very little in the way of expectations of the county commissioners.

However, with the passage of the 0.5 sales tax (by an remarkable margin, given initial predictions of "gloom and doom"), Stark County may be perking up a bit.  "Perking up a bit?"  Okay, let's say such is the case.  A more profound point is whether or not county officials can sustain the obvious gain (as evidenced by the tax victory) over time?

The debate rages on as to whether the tax passed as result of "scare them to death campaign foreboding criminals running the streets of Stark County" or because Commissioners Creighton and Bernabei instituted commissioner ways of being which caught the eye of Stark Countians as being "a turning of the page" wherein commissioners are truly responsive and attentive to everyday Stark Countians.

Looking at the pattern at where the issue clearly passed (in order of margin of victory):

• Meyers Lake
• North Canton
• Louisville
• Plain Township
• Canton City
• Massillon
• Nimishillen Township
• Jackson Township
• Perry Township
• Canton Township
• Canal Fulton
• Alliance
• Navarre
• Washington Township
• Minerva, and
• Pike Township

as opposed to those areas in which it clearly failed (in order least amount to greatest amount of loss):

• Bethlehem Township
• Osnaburg Township
• Lexington Township
• Lake Township
• Hartville
• Sandy Township
• East Canton
• Marlboro Township
• Lawrence Township
• Sugar Creek Township
• Brewster
• Beach City
• Wilmot

the SCPR's analysis is that the power (the "reality fear" factor)  of the Yes for Safety Issue 29 campaign was embraced by the "influencers" of Stark County elections in the most populous (except for Lake) urban/suburban areas and that is why the issue passed with a rather comfortable margin.

The fact of the matter is (now matter what the reason for Issue 29's passage) that it is a "new" day in Stark County and with the tax being passed, the sole question that ought to be on the mind of Stark Countians is:  what now?

After the Wednesday regular weekly commissioner meeting (November 9th), the SCPR recorded an impromptu press conference with the commissioners.  SCPR readers can and should see the commissioners' responses to questions posed in order to gain a inkling of whether or not the commissioners have plan to sustain the county's gain.

In the first segment, commissioners speak of the first order of business being digging into the budgeting process for fiscal year 2012 immediately.

An important point made by Commissioner Creighton is that the will - as commissioners started last year - require department heads of government to present themselves at work sessions of the commissioners to have a back and forth on their budget numbers.

As pointed out by Commissioner Bernabei, collections on the newly approved amount will not begin until the second half of 2012.  This means that restoration to 2011 levels will not take place until fiscal year 2013.

Other topics included in this first video include the question of whether or not the commissioners will continue to go out into the larger Stark County community to meet with citizens.

Here is the first video.



A large part of the press conference discussion (part II) had to do with whether or not the sales tax passage indicates that Stark Countians are ready to "trust" county government (asked by Kelli Young of The Repository).

Other items included asking Commissioner Pete Ferguson about his plans for continuing efforts at consolidating county/municipal/township functions (health departments,  building departments, information technology departments) into consolidated county/political subdivision operations.

Also, there is the matter of "unfunded mandates" which cost local governments dearly and which the Ohio General Assembly could resolve if pressed by local government officials and citizens across the state of Ohio.

We see such a phenomenon in the General Assembly's passage of a bill to set up two primary elections next spring:  one for state offices in Marcy and another for federal offices in May/June at a cost of $15 million.

The passage of this bill should make it abundantly clear to Ohioans that members of the Ohio House and Senate are keenly aware of "who pays the bill."

The likes of the county commissioners, the judges and the elected department heads of Stark County government need to continue to put the heat on the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly to - over time - relieve local governments of unfunded mandates.

The SCPR sees this as a key issue in whether or not local government can be solvent and will be keeping the issue foremost in the minds of county officials.

Expectations - what are they for county officials given the passage of the 0.5% sales tax levy?

For the SCPR they are that the commissioners will not "backslide" from the terrific start that Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton brought to the county table with their election as commissioners.

But beyond that, there is no money but to muddle along.

In a year or so of more stewardship in which Stark Countians can assess whether or not the commissioners and county elected officials have kept the faith in responsible and connected governance and, on the hope that the public verdict will be affirmative, then the county commissioners need to take a look at creating an economic development fund (including the repair of infrastructure [e.g. the ditching problem] with an additional 0.5% sales tax earmarked for such an effort.

While their may not be "great" expectations given the financial realities that county officials face, there are expectations that they will continue to build trust by being consummately efficient in providing county services.

Here is the second part of the press conference video.

(VIDEO OF STARK COMMISSIONERS) - A MUST SEE! - ITS NOT PHIL DAVISON BUT IT IS A TREAT

 

As we (Stark Countians) well know by now, on June 23rd the Ohio Supreme Court ordered Gary D. Zeigler reinstated as Stark County treasurer.

The high court ruled that Stark commissioners (Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) illegally removed Zeigler from office on August 23, 2010 under Ohio Revised Code Sections 321.37 and 321.38 because 321.38 has no provision it it for "due process of law" and therefore is unconstitutional under Article II, Section 38 of the Ohio Constitution.

Commissioners had removed Zeigler under the permission of the combo of 321.37 and 321.38 for the mere fact that money ($2.96 million) came up missing during the period 2003 through 2009 during his tenure as county treasurer.

His chief deputy treasury (Vince Frustaci) admitted to stealing (June 25, 2010) $2.46 of the amount, however, many believe that he stole the entire missing amount.  Zeigler himself was found by county and federal prosecutors to have had no involvement in the theft.

The sticking point in Zeigler resuming office in other than a limited fashion has been the fact that his bond was canceled last October.

When the bond came up for renewal post-Frustaci theft, Zeigler was able to get a bond.  However, (as seen in the accompanying video in the account of Stark County Personnel Manager Marsha Cimadevilla - it took time).

With the Supreme Court reinstatement, Stark County (the commissioners office) is again trying to get Zeigler bonded.

Apparently, it is going to be some time before Zeigler gets bonded.

In this blog, the SCPR presents a video discussion among the commissioners and Cimadevilla as to the timetable of getting the bond.

It is a must see video!!!

(VIDEOS: CREIGHTON, BERNABEI, FERGUSON & GREEN) COMMISSIONERS BERNABEI & FERGUSON (THE DEMS) BREAK RANKS WITH REPUBLICAN CREIGHTON ON PAY RAISE ISSUE. HMM?

The members of the current Stark County Board of County Commissioners like to say that their decisions have nothing whatsoever to do with politics/political philosophies.

But the fact of the matter is that Commissioner Janet Creighton is a Republican and widely advertises that she "is proud of it!"  Commissioners Pete Ferguson and Tom Bernabei are Democrats.

Ferguson - to the SCPR - comes pretty close to being non-political.  However, it would be a mistake to say that he does not have a political side to him. 

Bernabei - The Report says - is political to a point.  He certainly is a powerful force in Canton city politics having been elected councilman and law director (as a Democrat) over span of the last 20 years or so.  In order to be successful he had to have the blessing of local Democratic Party power brokers which includes organized labor.

But Bernabei has let it be known that he is his own man and it has become common wisdom that one (i.e. politically interested persons) do not want to press him too much to let political considerations enter into his deliberations on the likely prospect that  he has and will vent on an errant lobbyist (in a generic sense of the expression) big time.   Even local Republican Party operatives believe that Bernabei is a straight shooter.

Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II found out where politics kicks out with Bernabei.  He ended up firing Bernabei as his services director and chief of staff because he was a vocal critic of some of Healy's programs, policies and processes.

One of Bernabei's political philosophical sympathies is with organized labor.  While the SCPR does not believe that Bernabei consciously factors the politics of having a good relationship with unions into his decision making, it would be naive to think that philosophical empathy does not weigh-in at least in a latent sort of way.

On the other hand, The Report believes that Commissioner Janet Creighton - while not anti-organized-labor - certainly takes a harder look at unions than either Bernabei or Ferguson.

Here is a video of Creighton expounding on Mark Kvamme (Kasich economic development czar) and the frustrations that county commissioners are experiencing in their dealings with unions:



Last week Stark Countians witnessed Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson being in lock-step in chastising the Stark County Veteran Service Commission (VSC - Robert Toth, director [he is paid about $100,000 per year]) for granting 3.5% and 5% raises to the Stark County department of government's 12 employees.  It has been a couple of years since VSC employees have had a raise.

These employees are unorganized types.  Moreover, the VSC gets its "earmarked" (0.5 of a mill of the county property tax) money funneled through the Stark County general fund.  The VSC is entitled to spend $3.5 million per year, if its board so chooses.  However, for the current fiscal year the VSC has budgeted only about $1.4 million therefore benefits the Stark County general fund about $2.0 million a year.

Yesterday, county commissioners had an executive session in which to discuss with Stark County Board of Developmental Disability (DD) officials whether or not the commissioners would approve contracts (two of them) whereby teachers, professional trainers and support staff (union employees) get a 2% raise over three years.  None of DD's money comes from the county general fund.

After the executive session, Creighton voted "no" on the contracts (2); Ferguson and Bernabei voted "yes."  Bernabei says that up to three to four days ago he was leaning towards voting "no," but that DD officials were able to convince him to change his mind.

Here is a video of the vote.  Creighton explains her "no" vote; Bernabei - his "yes" vote.



Bernabei denied to the SCPR that any affinity for or pressure from organized labor played any role in his vote. 

After the commissioners' meeting, Commissioner Bernabei expanded on his reasons for supporting the DD negotiated contract and addressed SCPR questions regarding his vote (as compared to his VSC position) sending a mixed message.  Here is the video of the extended remarks:



Last night the commissioners were at Perry Township for one of the twenty-two community designed to explain county budgetary problems and therefore the reasons why Stark Countians should support a 0.5% sales tax increase in November.  During the meeting a Perry resident has if the commissioners would promise that there would be "no pay increases" to county employees if the 0.5% increase were to be approved.

Answer:  "we can't make that promise."  Reason:  the commissioners appropriate.  They do not have the power to dictate to department heads whether or not they can give raises.

True enough.  But there is more to the story.

The commissioners divide over the VSC and the DD raises itself shows, even the commissioners disagree with one another depending upon the circumstances.

As The Report sees it, Commission Creighton has the correct take - in terms of sending a consistent message - (really the only power the commissioners have over pay raises).

Bernabei and Ferguson, however they describe their motivations, are indeed sending a "mixed message."

The SCPR believes that should the one percent sales tax be approved in November, voters should not be surprised to see other county department heads apply some of their post-sales-tax-increase appropriations to employee pay raises.

Such is a consequence of sending mixed messages!

Mixed messages or not, it appears that commissioners will be getting the enthusiastic support of the folks at Developmental Disabilities.  In the video which follows Superintendent and CEO Bill Green expresses his gratitude at the commissioners' approval action and gives his endorsement for the expected 0.5% sales tax levy that commissioners are expected to put on the November ballot.

STARK COMMISSIONERS ARE REALLY GETTING CONCERNED? COUNTY TO BE OUT OF MONEY FOR NON-CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IN ABOUT 6 MONTHS?

By the Stark County Political Report's calculation the Stark Commissioners have been out campaigning  since February 9th of this year (Plain Township community meeting).

And well they should be!

For two reasons:

1. They have an URGENT need to restore trust on the part of Stark Countians in county government, and
2. If they can convince Stark Countians to trust them, then they need to convince those who vote to increase the sales tax by 0.5%.

ON THE TRUST ISSUE

One sees this all the time from government officials.  When there is no self-serving need to be in touch with the electorate; they aren't.

Meanwhile, something like the Vince Frustaci scandal (re:  former Stark County chief deputy treasurer who stole Stark County taxpayer money) surfaces.

All of a sudden public confidence and trust in that branch of government (and in all accretive sense - all of government) nose dives.

Consequence?  Publicly perceived (rightly or wrongly) government officials that the public thinks could have or should have done such and such to prevent the problem cannot get elected dog catcher and requests for additional revenues (taxes) are non-starters.

A number of Stark County officials probably lost in 2010 (at least in part) because of the public perception of  "could have/should have" came out of the Frustaci scandal with.

On finances:  the Stark County commissioners have a herculean task to restore enough trust and confidence vis-a-vis the Stark County public as a consequence of  the Frustaci scandal.

Beginning in February, commissioners launched a "meet with the public" series designed to account to the public on county finances.  By the time they have concluded on June 30th in Marlboro Township, they will have conducted 22 meetings.

To what effect?

Highly questionable!

Why so?

Because very few Stark Countians have been attending these meetings.

Jackson Township produced the best turn out and the city of Canton (believe it or not) - the worst.  Maybe 25 or 30 attended Jackson.

How many in Canton?  ZERO!!!

One of the alarming this about the commissioners' series of community meetings (all of which were held in township halls or council chambers and the like), relatively few of local government officials attended.  And, it appears, absolutely none went out and encouraged their citizenry to attend.

Of course, if the 0.5% sales tax that the commissioners are certainly going to be putting on the November ballot goes down and county services for non-criminal justice matters are reduced to a skeletal level, who will all of a sudden get activated?

You've got it.  All those township, village, city and board of education public officials who could not get off their collective duffs and help the county commissioners in their endeavor to connect to and educate the public.

Commissioner Creighton sounds the alarm bells at commissioner meetings in suggesting that the finances of the county (if the 0.5% sales tax fails) could go so low that the treasurer's office may not have the personnel to collect/process property tax and other revenues that are due the county.  Moreover, the auditor's office - she suggests - may not have the personnel to do such things has process requests for advances (made commonly by boards of education) and payments to local governments.

Is this hype on Creighton's part?

The SCPR thinks so.  But maybe not!

At Monday's (this week) work session, Creighton initiated a request of Commissioners Bernabei and Ferguson that they join her in scheduling a meeting of virtually all of Stark County's public officials (including boards of educations, school treasurers and the like) so as to specifically confront them with the looming 2012 county fiscal crisis that she says will impact each and every one of them whether they are a village, city, county, township or board of education official.

No date has been set and on checking with Commissioner Creighton this morning there is some question as to whether or not such a meeting will actually be set up.

The Report thinks it should occur and local government officials made to face up to what is in the offing for them and their collective constituencies across Stark County.

The first of two hearings that are required by Ohio law for commissioners to hold is set for 1:30 p.m. Room 318 of the Stark County Office Building on June 21st (next Tuesday).

The Report expects a number of opponents to the tax increase to be present.  The exchange should be interesting and yours truly encourages Stark Countians to show up in great numbers.

Community activist and local attorney Craig T. Conley (a participant in the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee" that successfully opposed retention - November, 2009 - of the commissioner [Bosley, Harmon and Vignos] imposed 0.5% increase of December, 2008) has told The Report that he opposes a 0.5% increase and is insistent that the county has not done enough to rein-in benefit costs at the Stark County Sheriff's department.

ON THE NUMBERS WHICH COMMISSIONERS SAY JUSTIFY A TAX INCREASE

The SCPR presents below a series of documents produced by the Stark County commissioners which give their version of how the finances of the county will shake out should Stark Countians.