EMPTY WORDS. THE REPOSITORY EDITORIAL BOARD?

When one lacks the knowledge or courage to get specific and directed in writing or speech, the alternative is to tail off with the vague generality "blah, blah, blah ... ."

When it comes to getting pointed with members of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly (OGA) over "chapter and verse" legislative deficiencies on their part, such is what Stark Countians generally experience at the hand of the county's only countywide newspaper editorial board and to a certain extent, the executive-editor-directed focus of the reporter staff.

That is the thought that came to mind as the SCPR's took in The Rep's recent editorial (Bureaucracy 1, common sense 0, 06/27/2013) about how Plain Township taxpayers will have to spend a totally unjustifiable $100,000 because of a defect in Ohio's building code law.

The lead line under Reason No. 1 in the editorial:  "Someone should have known ... ."

Someone? The equivalent of:  "blah, blah, blah ...," no?

Maybe just maybe - in a specific accountability mode - :  the editors' should have named state Senator Scott Oelslager (R-the 29th-Plain), state Reps Christina Hagan (R-the 50th-Marlboro), Kirk Schuring, (R-48th-Jackson) and Stephen Slesnick (D-49th-Canton)?

These are folks who, when they sponsor a bill to name a section of a highway that runs through Stark County or to authorize the issuance of license plates to recognize the Massillon Tigers and the like, send out their press releases and which The Rep pretty much prints word-for-word.

This is the kind of stuff that a newspaper like The Hartville News dutifully prints and makes it very clear that such is what it is doing.

For The Rep, these press releases often come off having been the work product of a vigorous news gathering organization.

But generally it is not.

What it is amounts to is:  a "feet up on the desk; this is like falling off a wet log journalism" type of newspaper operation that anyone with journalistic experience could do with ease.

Canton's only newspaper can't even seem to get all over the likes of Scott Oelslager who inserted in the Ohio's budget bill (HB 59) a provision curtailing Ohioans (and, of course, Stark Countians) knowing what local governments are up to with taxpayer dollars in negotiating economic development packages.

Such is telling inasmuch as ensuring "openness in government" is supposed to be a prime mission of newspapers.

The editors did ask the governor to line-item-veto the measure.

Guess what he did?

He left it in!

The Rep and the Ohio Newspaper Association has so little clout these days that Kasich felt he could politically afford to blow them off without a second thought.

When The Rep brought in a new executive editor (Therese Hayt, October 2012), one could only hope that she would begin to turn our only local broadly based newspaper around to a state of more effectiveness.

Here is what Brad Dennison (GateHouse Media vice president of publishing, who oversees The Repository and  said of Hayt (on the occasion of her appointment as Rep executive editor:

[She] is one of the best newspaper editors out there.
“We are fortunate to have her as executive editor of The Repository and GateHouse Ohio, and our readers are in for a treat, ... I think you can expect to see more enterprising project journalism with Teri at the helm, and I have no doubt our watchdog status will be kicked up another notch — that’s a real strength of hers.”  (emphasis added)

Hmm?

"[N]o doubt our watchdog status will be kicked up another notch - that's a real strength of hers."

Really?

When are Stark Countians going to see it.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the Bureaucracy 1, common sense 0 editorial is a current indication that nothing has changed at The Rep since the days of Jeff Gauger.

So it appears to The Report that under Hayt, Stark's only countywide newspaper will continue to be respecters of persons and fearful of offending day-in, day-out news sources (i.e. public officials), and keep its editorializing and reporting at a banal, safe level.

Apparently, the beat is to continue a la:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ... ad infinitum?

NORTH CANTON'S DISPOSITON OF ARROWHEAD COUNTRY CLUB SURFACES - ONCE AGAIN - AS A HUGE ISSUE IN THE DOGWOOD CITY. DID COUNCIL PRESIDENT JON SNYDER "UNWITTINGLY" MAKE IT THE "HOT POTATO" OF CITY POLITICS?

UPDATE:  09/01/2011 AT 1:00 PM - AMPLIFICATION OF LEASE TERMS

UPDATE:  10:45 AM - CLARIFICATION ON THE $10,000 STUDY

Since the publication of the original blog, the SCPR has spoken with Hillary Mueller.  She says that the $10,000 figure, more or less, was her estimate of what the city was planning to spend on drainage issue analysis. 

Councilman Snyder tells The Report that he has not discussed a proposed North Canton study with the Muellers and that they would have any such discussions with Mayor Held or one his administration official.  Moreover, he says that he never moved to scrap the study and that it is still on the table and should be forthcoming about the end of September.

ORIGINAL BLOG

Fourth Ward (North Canton) Councilman and, in fact, Council President Jon Snyder may have unintentionally put the city owned Arrowhead Country Club back into headlines this week.  Headlines that may not be all that good (politically, that is) for the 14-year North Canton councilman.

July 19, 2011, the day of the rainfall deluge and manifold flooding in North Canton, may have an additional consequence of being a turning point in possible political leadership changes occurring in North Canton come the November election.

THE BACKGROUND 

In a storm of controversy which involved the then Councilman Chuck Osborne (not currently a councilman, but who is running this time around for councilman-at-large), North Canton in April, 2003 purchased the 105 acre Arrowhead complex for $4.2 million.

Osborne was so opposed to the acquisition that not being content in simply voting "no" as the lone dissenter to the buy, he started a petition drive to put the question to North Canton voters via a referendum initiative.

As Osborne tells it, Councilman Snyder and the then Mayor Rice were the leading proponents of the transaction.

In researching the matter, the SCPR was surprised to see The Repository editorial board entered into the fray "hot and heavy" in coming down hard on Osborne, to wit: the following excerpts:

"Ordinarily, we would not so quickly oppose a referendum that gives people a chance to become directly involved in the decisions of governance.

Wow!

A newspaper that participates in "Sunshine Week" every spring of the year selectively chooses when citizens should have the right to weigh in on government decisions?

And brings the full weight of being the only newspaper in a "one newspaper town" and Stark County's "only countywide newspaper" down on a citizen activist?

THE PRESENT

As a consequence of being flooded out because of runoff from the North Canton owned Arrowhead Country Club, Daniel and Hillary Mueller contacted their councilman, who happens to be Jon Snyder, seeking a resolution of the runoff problem.

In the course of conversation, Councilman Snyder is said to have let it out that North Canton had been planning to spend $10,000 to do a study on ways to fix the problem.

What happened next is in dispute:

The Report is told that Snyder then indicated that funding the study would not be a wise course of action since North Canton was in negotiations to sell the property.

Here is where reports of the Mueller/Snyder exchange get dicey.

Daniel Mueller (from his email response to SCPR questions):

Jon Snyder did mention the sale of Fairways golf course and the loss the city would have [been] in excess of 1M.  He denied officially when confronted at the  meeting last night during new business session, and unofficially acknowledged the lease [North Canton leases Arrowhead out for $150,000 per year, but pays the property tax except for newly added taxes which amounts to about $53,000 per year] was ending Dec 31st [lessee does has option to renew for two three year terms] and the sale of the property could occur at that time.

Jon Snyder (in a telephone conversation) made the following points to the SCPR:

• Arrowhead Country Club generated draining problems (existent since 1946/1947) will only get fixed if and when the complex is sold because a new owner would have to comply with city enforced subdivision regulations,
• North Canton cannot fix the problems because the property is under lease and therefore the city cannot impose a drainage solution,
• That the Mueller take on the property being up for sale was due, perhaps, to a misunderstanding.  He says he was talking about the city being approached to renegotiate lease terms and conditions; not about negotiations concerning an imminent sale.  "At this particular time there is nothing on the table [concerning a sale]," he said.
• On the Mueller flooding problem he said that he thinks he has been attentive to them, the discussions have been firm and not hostile and that Hillary Mueller said to him:  "Not addressing her flooding problem is not acceptable."

On the heels of this controversy as to who said what with respect to the sale/lease of Arrowhead, word came down from the Stark County Board of Elections that Hillary Mueller has filed as a write-in candidate to oppose Snyder on November 8th.

Snyder speculates that she has filed because of what he terms "her moral claim," presumably not having the flooding problem fixed which Snyder says is beyond his power to deliver.

The SCPR is in the process of setting up an interview with Hillary Mueller and plans on doing a follow-up blog (or an update of this blog) on the reasons she gives (as opposed to Snyder's conjecture) as to why she is running for the 4th Ward seat.

While it is clearly an uphill if not a virtually impossible task to win on a write-in basis, for Snyder (who came out "unopposed" for "on the ballot" candidates which had an August 10th filing deadline) the mere possibility that Mueller could parlay his and the city's failure to solve long standing flooding problems has to be somewhat discomforting.

In any event, no matter who one believes as to whether or not Snyder spoke to the Muellers about an imminent sale, it is clear that the fate of Arrowhead Country Club has emerged (because of Snyder bringing up Arrowhead's status) as "one hot - political potato" for the North Canton City Council and the Held administration and 4th Ward Councilman Jon Snyder, in particular.

VIDEO: SEE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESPOND TO REPOSITORY EDITORIAL THAT BLAMES COMMISSIONERS FOR ALLOWING OHIO AUDITOR TO HIDE "LETTER OF ARRANGEMENT" WITH STARK TREASURER. A SHAMEFUL PIECE OF EDITORIAL WRITING!

Anyone who has read the SCPR knows that The Report has a very low opinion of the work of the editorial writers at The Repository.

The editorial written on April 20th (State auditor's letter should be public) did nothing to rehabilitate the editorialists in The Report's eyes.  If anything, the April 20th opinion was a reaffirmation of yours truly's view that these folks have to be among the worst editorial writers in America.

They completely missed the "real" issue on the hidden "letter of arrangement" initiated on June 16, 2009 by the Ohio auditor with the Stark County treasurer as amended on December 8, 2009.

The real issue is who is ultimately responsible for the letter being hidden from public view.

Answer:  Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor, CPA, that's who.

The Rep editors demonstrated warped, twisted thinking in turning the blame on the Stark County commissioners.

They really went out-of-bounds in suggesting that somehow "all" the commissioners - being Democrats - was the reason they failed to exercise the necessary level of due diligence to dig out the secret letters.  (emphasis added).

One expects this kind of "loosey-goosey" thinking from wildly partisan types who want to demonize for purely partisan purposes.  But an editorial board?  Wow!

The nub of the weak-minded editorial is clearly evident in this language from the editorial, to wit:

We’d bet that if even one of the commissioners belonged to a different political party from the treasurer (all are Democrats), he would have been using his bully pulpit to protest this arrangement — this loophole in the public records law — that keeps commissioners and the public in the dark.

 And, also:

Neither has the willingness of county commissioners to pay the bills for the investigation without knowing just what services they’re buying.

First, the "loophole in the public records law."

Well, apparently nobody (except for the Ohio auditor and Stark treasury attorney Lem Green and Treasurer Zeigler himself), including The Repository (April 12th?) knew about the existence of the letter until this past week.  Moreover, nobody, including government "Sunshine Law" guardian for Stark County (sarcasm folks) "The Repository" knew about the legal loophole.

So the "loosey-goosey" thinking Rep editorial writers want to hold the "out-of-the-loop" (as a matter of law as interpreted by the Ohio auditor's office) commissioners' feet to the fire to know about secretly held documents that are secret not because they contain confidential information in and of themselves but because they are associated with a confidential investigation in progress.

Hmm?

A logical Ohio auditor's official would think thusly:  "Gee, I am doing an investigation.  I want to be paid for the investigating work.  Maybe, just maybe, I need to get a copy to of the letters outlining the expense of the investigation to the bill payer."

It is ludicrous for anyone to think (like the Ohio auditor's office apparently does) that a document which contains no confidential information in and of itself would itself be confidential.  Moreover, how is the paying authority to know what to expect to have to pay.

As far as the SCPR is concerned the bogeymen in all of this reside in the Ohio auditor's office.

First, for suggesting to Zeigler's office in a leading way of how to avoid the document being a public document.

Lem Green, legal counsel for the Stark treasury told the SCPR yesterday that if he had it to do all over again he would advise Treasurer Zeigler not to take the suggestion of the Ohio auditor not to keep a copy of the document.

Second, for providing defective rationale for the document being a part of the investigation process and therefore confidential when the document does not contain any confidential information in and of itself.

The Rep editors do make one plausible point. If yours truly were a commissioner I would be more than a little uncomfortable paying bills in a year 2002 agreement.  I would be pressing Taylor's office for something more current.

Question is, would such a discussion have prompted a revelation of the "letters of arrangement?"

The SCPR thinks not.

So the only resource of the commissioners would have been to press the point by refusing to pay until they had a more current document than the year 2002 "letter of arrangement."

Obviously, the commissioners felt comfortable with the 2002 document and therefore felt there was no need to press for something more recent. The SCPR does not think that they should have felt comfortable.

There is one more point to be discussed.

When did Kelli Young of The Rep find out about the existence of the June 16, 2009 and December 8, 2009 "letters of arrangement?"

The SCPR has reason to believe she found out on or about April 12, 2010.

Which, if substantiated, makes a hypocrite out of The Repository.

How so?

The Repository bills itself as an expert on Ohio's Sunshine Law.  Do they mean to say that they did not know about the "loophole" until April 12, 2010?  Not much of an expert, huh?

The hypocrisy?

We (The Rep) didn't know about the loophole until April, 2010, but you, Mr. Commissioners, should have known the first time you paid an Ohio auditor's invoice (presumably sometime in 2009) for the ongoing forensic audit of the Stark treasury notwithstanding your year 2002 "letter of arrangement."

For thinking people, The Rep's editorial tells you more about these editors' flawed thinking qualities than anything else.

Until the SCPR arrived on the scene Stark Countians had no choice - in a one newspaper town - but to abide the opinionating of these deficient thinkers.

Now the bar is raised.

And The Rep's writers had better sharpen up or sooner rather than later virtually no one will be reading the editorial pieces appearing in The Repository.

Here is the video of yesterday's commissioner meeting in which Commissioners Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks defend themselves.