ANGELA ALEXANDER'S BIGGEST HURDLE: BEING AN "OUTSIDER," AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN OR A COMBO OF THE TWO?

(Maps from Google Maps)

VIDEOS

FROM 
SCPR CONTRIBUTION TO 
"YouTube"
MARIOL ENDORSES ALEXANDER
=====================
FROM
THE GENERAL POPULATION OF
"YouTube"
Trials to Triumph
A Tribute to Judge Ira G. Turpin

includes Ralph Regula interview
when he was still a congressman

Everyone that The Stark County Political Report has talked to say that "There is no doubt about it," both Angela Alexander and Kristen Guardado are highly qualified to be Canton's newest municipal court judge.

The opening came about when Stephen Belden stepped down (resigned/retired as of December 1, 2014) in a swirl of controversy about how he handled certain cases during his time as a Canton Municipal Court judge.

On or about January 9, 2015, Governor Kasich appointed Republican Curtis Werren to replace Belden.

This is Werren's "second bite at the apple" inasmuch as he was appointed Kasich to replace a retired judge on the Stark County Court of Common Pleas in June, 2013.  However, he failed to hold the office as he was defeated by Democrat Chryssa Hartnett in a very close November, 2014 election.

Though a SCPR analysis of the vote in the Hartnett/Werren race showed that Werren bested her by about 1,000 votes in the Canton Municipal Court district, The Report thinks that Werren is vulnerable notwithstanding his impressive showing as cited above.

Werren has a very large stake in who wins the Democratic primary as between Guardado and Alexander.

His chance to retain his appointed seat is for Alexander to come out on top in the Democratic primary.

However, the SCPR doubts that an Alexander win is in the offing.

A Guardado win likely makes Werren "a two-time-loser" in being unable to retain for Republicans an appointed judgeship.

Alexander will make Guardado work hard to win the Democratic primary.  And that will benefit her in what will be a "political life or death" struggle in this fall's general election inasmuch this election has to be "the end of the 'political' road" for Werren, if he loses.

With the bulk of Alexander's stellar (LINK to prior blog detailing her Summit County work) professional legal work having been done in Summit County; whereas Guardado's has been done with the Canton Law Department, such is likely prove to be an Alexander fatal political flaw that provides Guardado a comfortable margin of victory come May 5, 2015.

Both Guardado and Alexander live in Plain Township.

But other than the Summit/Stark thing, there is another significant political difference.

Guadado has been on the Plain Local Board of Education for more than a decade, and, in the course of things, has been on the ballot for three elections achieving "top vote getter" status in two of the three elections.  Such only adds to the SCPR's belief that at the end of the day Guardado will prevail against both Alexander and Werren.

Alexander is making a valiant effort as evidenced by her impressive website.

The most interesting and significant thing about Alexander's website is the listing of some high profile Canton City Council members endorsing her for judge, to wit:

Surprising, no?

The SCPR surmises from a conversation with one of Alexander's endorsers is that her being African-American is a key component difference maker for some of them in choosing between the two well qualified candidates.

Of course, Chris Smith (Ward 4) and Thomas West (Ward 2) are themselves African-Americans.

The Report's source thinks Alexander is a "win-win" for Democrats if she were to get the nod to go up against Republican Werren in November.

The SCPR's source thinks that Alexander can win such a match up because of her far superior to Werren's legal profession credentials as compared to Werren's being president of the Stark County Red Cross for several years before Kasich first-appointed by to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas bench.

Moreover, it is thought by the source-person that being a minority will be a positive in that voters will see the need for an African-American to be on the bench inasmuch as Canton has a Black population of 24%.

The source said he believes that the Canton Municipal Court has never had an African-American judge and Stark County only one.  That being Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge Ira G. Turpin.

However, a Stark County Political Report research reveals that in 1962 Ohio's 60th governor and Democrat Michael V. DiSalle appointed African-American Clay Hunter (1895 - 1976) as a Canton Municipal Court judge.  Hunter is referred to in a reverential vein in the video below of Stark County' only ever Stark County Court of Common Pleas and 5th District Court of Appeals (the only Black at the Court of Appeals in all of Ohio, at the time); namely, Judge Ira G. Turpin.

It appears that Hunter was unsuccessful in his effort to get elected in his own right in that The Report's next research shows that Hunter is listed as a magistrate in Stark County's family court in a 1975 The Evening Independent article.

There is no doubt about it.  Canton and Stark County seems to always been a tough venue for Blacks.

Here is a snippet from a publication of yore (2005) which provides anecdotal evidence that such has been the case.

The SCPR always endeavors for each and every blog to thoroughly search on the Internet for material germane to a given blog.

In yesterday's search for this blog, yours truly found "a gold nugget:"  A video entitled "Trials to Triumph - A Tribute to Judge Ira G. Turpin."

Turpin's interviewer is former Timken executive Stephen Perry.  Perry's daughter, Andrea, is Canton's safety director.

The SCPR implores The Report's readers to take about 22 minutes and view this YouTube video.  It is awesomely inspiring!

While Angela Alexander suffers the same fate as Turpin when he in 1969 failed to win election as a Canton Municipal Court judge, there is no doubt that she is a high quality lawyer and, in time, if she persists become a member of the Stark County bench at some level.

Were Alexander to be the Dems' nominee, it seems to the SCPR that Werren has a huge advantage in Plain Township (22% of the vote in the November, 2014 election) inasmuch he bested Hartnett by 668 votes which was nearly 67% of the 913 votes that he won by this past November election; only calculating the votes in the Canton Municipal Court district.

The Report thinks that if the Dems are to capture this judgeship, their political strength lies with Guardado as pointed out above.

But there is more.

On March 3rd of this year, Kristen Guardado held a fundraiser at Skyland Pines.

This event perhaps more than other advantages that she holds in the mind of the SCPR is indicative of the political strength of Kristen Guardado.

The Report talked with Guardado last week about the event.  She was humbled as about 300 people showed up at her fundraising event.

Included in the assembly were former Canton law directors:

• Harry E. Klide, (1970s; went on to become a judge a various levels),
• W. Scott Gwin (1985 - 1988; now a 5th District Court of Appeals judge) and
• Thomas Bernabei (1988 through 2000; now a Stark County commissioner), serves as Guardado's campaign treasurer,
• Joseph Martuccio,  current law director (appointed by Stark Dems Central Committee members to replace Bernabei who retired mid-term; elected in his own right in November, 2001) 
• Note:  Kristen Guardado works for Martuccio

Republican Canton Municipal Court Judge Richard Kubilus was also in attendance.

The SCPR did attempt to contact Alexander to learn more about her level of support (beyond the four councilpersons identified above), but she as not returned The Report's call as of the writing of this blog.

But The Report has on yours truly's initiative been in touch with three of the five listed Canton City Councilpersons listed on Alexander's website as being endorsers/supporters.

First, Councilman John Mariol.



Second, Councilman Frank Morris, III (council vice president and majority leader).   Morris had this to say:

Frank Morris
Mar 10 at 3:10 PM

To: tramols@att.net

I feel that Angela Alexander is an outstanding individual with an impressive background as an attorney. 

After meeting with her just once I knew she was the candidate I would be endorsing in the primary election. 

Her go against the grain, aggressive attitude and strong work ethic is exactly what we need in our court system.

Thirdly, Canton City Council president Allen Schulman.

Schulman made the point that both Alexander and Guardado are clearly and highly qualified to be Belden's replacement.

Without making it sound like he was in favor of some sort of quota for Black aspiring officeholders, Schulman said that it is high time for a richly qualified African-America to attain a judgeship in Stark County.

Since Ira Turpin retired from the bench on January 31, 1982; no Stark County Black aspirant above the Ward level has gotten very close to achieving elective office.

And who can quarrel with Schulman that electing an eminently qualified African-American such as Alexander is long overdue.

Having said that, the SCPR thinks that the political dynamics (i.e. her having a Summit County legal work base and Guardado firmly entrenched in Stark County politics and legal community) are such that were Alexander to defeat Guardado in some 50 days; her success would be billed by most political analysts as being a stunning upset.

To repeat, if the SCPR is correct and election on May 5th is not in the cards for Alexander; she needs to try and try again.  She is clearly first-rate.

Like it or not, Alexander needs to square up with the political realities of her being an "outsider" at least as perceived by many leading Stark County-based elected Democrats and work after the election to establish herself with the core leadership of the Stark County "organized" Democratic Party.

In 2015, one likes to think that Alexander being an African-American is not a barrier in Stark County. For in 2008 and 2012 Barrack Obama carried Stark County.

Nevertheless, there are those who think that it is virtually impossible for a Black to get elected above the Ward level in Stark.

The SCPR disagrees.  However, it will take hard work and persistence like that demonstrated by Ira G. Turpin.  Angela Alexander appears to have Turpin-esque qualities in her make up.

This time around, it is apparent to the SCPR that Stark County "political insider" Kristen Guardado is the odds on favorite to become the Democratic nominee to challenge Republican appointee Curtis Werren.

While she may lose on May 5th, the SCPR encourages her to cement her professional ties to Stark County and thereby overcome the "outsider" label in future tries for public office.

Who knows what the future brings.

A vacancy can develop in a heartbeat (e.g. Belden's sudden resignation) in the Canton Municipal Court or the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

Should Alexander lose in the Democratic primary to Guardado, hopefully Alexander will have by the time another judicial vacancy occurs be in a position to become Stark County's "only ever" Black female judge.

List of elected officials who attended Guardado March 3, 2015 fundraiser:

(VIDEOS) WARD 8'S EDMOND MACK PUSHES FOR "CHARTER GOVERNMENT!"

 ALL VIDEOS UPDATE 09:00 AM

Canton is the "only" major Ohio city that is allowing Columbus (i.e. the Ohio General Assembly) to dictate how it city government manages itself.

Canton City Council president Allen Schulman said it best at yesterday's council work session (in the context of a meeting of council as "Committee of the Whole"):



And Ward 8 Councilman Edmond Mack (now in his third year as a councilman) agrees:



However, it has been a "no-go" for charter government in Canton.

Recently, (June 20, 2014) Canton Law Director (elected) sat down and a review of the history at attempts for Canton to make itself a charter government city, to wit:

In 1913, over 60% of Canton's resident voters rejected the first proposed charter, which suggested that its local government be operated by five non-partisan commissioners.

In 1921, nearly 70% of Canton's voters rejected a charter that proposed a city manager form of government with a seven member council.

In 1962, 71% of Canton's voters rejected a proposed charter that would have had all members of council elected at large, among other changes. The proposed 9 member council would have been quite a change from the existing 15 member council, including 12 from wards, and 3 at large. Many of the proposed changes have come to pass, e.g. more simplified publication in the reading and summarizing of ordinances, a Mayor and Law Director to be elected for four year terms separately, professional qualifications for some members of the Board of Health, and other less significant changes.

In 1984, City Council indefinitely tabled a resolution to submit the issue of forming a charter government to the Canton City voters.

In 1987, City Council's affirmative 8 to 3 vote was one shy of the necessary two-thirds to submit the charter question for a ballot election by the voters. The primary reason reported was that Council was not allowed to determine the exact structure of the charter commission pursuant to state law.

In 2006, an ordinance providing for the submission of the charter issue to the city's voters was defeated by a vote of 8 to 4, failing to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote.

 Discussions were revived in 2010 and 2013.
 (A SCPR Note:  color added to emphasize different years)

The 2010 discussion was the subject of a June 14, 2010 SCPR blog. 

The 2010 charter government initiative was doomed to failure because it was perceived by council members as being politically motivated because the effort was being pushed by a former Stark County Republican Party executive director and the-then Republican councilman (interesting enough, Edmond Mack's predecessor) Mark Butterworth.

Butterworth was a timid soul who had very little if any political courage and therefore had no chance whatsoever to get council to consider his proposal to go charter.

Ward 2 Councilman Tom West (a Democrat) was then chairman of council's judiciary committee and he was not about to allow Butterworth's proposal to get out of committee.

On August 19, 2013, Councilman West debated the issue in a special session of the judiciary committee:



As sort of a "coming out" on the charter government issue, Ward 8 Councilman Edmond Mack stepped boldly forward in support of charter government for Canton:



Mack's presentation was a fine argument for Canton to go charter but it lacked specificity in terms of "concrete advantages" for Canton.

Last night in the  Committee of the Whole he supplied those specifics.



After the meeting, the SCPR spoke further with Mack:



To the SCPR, the main thing about those councilpersons opposing charter government is "fear about what may happen to their individual political careers.

One such councilman, the SCPR believes, is Councilman Jim Griffin (Democrat - Ward 3).



One has to read between the lines spoken by Griffin, but The Report thinks his opposition is a worry about what happens to Jim Griffin in a newly structured Canton City Council.

Another unspoken concern about reworking Canton government on the part of a few on council, the SCPR thinks, is a suspicion that a proposal will emerge that allows Republicans to get a toehold into a future Canton city council.

On the latter point, who really believes that Republicans in a 9 to 1 registered Democrat supermajority voter base can under any conceivable restructuring could achieve much more than one seat on council.

Butterworth (mostly, the SCPR thinks because of timidity) lasted only one term as a councilman (2010 - 2011).

Richard Hart (a former Republican, now an independent) who was formerly on council as a Republican likely now is on council because Democratic at large candidate Roland K. Burns, III shot himself in "the political foot."

On the former point, Griffin and other council fearfuls (Ohio law does not allow council members to be on the commission) fail to realize is that it is highly unlikely that there will be any change whatsoever in the structure of Canton city government as a consequence of a proposal being written by a 15 member charter commission whose work will have to pass a vote of the people.

The best chance for voter approval is to be able to tell the Canton voting public is for a commission to leave the structure of Canton government unchanged and to make the argument that Allen Schulman and others make:  "Better that Canton run its own ship to the extent allowed by Ohio law rather than being dictated to by the State of Ohio."

Another factor that might be the catalyst that Canton needs to get "over the hump" in going charter is the bold, courageous leadership of Edmond Mack.

The SCPR sees Mack:

• as a very bright guy,
• who can think his way through the issues inherent in a discussion of Canton going charter,
• gain the ear of those who are skittish about change, and
• provide solid, convincing reasons why Cantonians should give charter a chance

Moreover, he is no "shrinking violet" as Butterworth was.

He more than held his own against the much more experienced (ten years) as a councilman Thomas West back on August 19, 2013 as they more or less debated the issue.

Mack certainly understands that Canton's history on the going charter consideration does not bode well for his current effort.

But he is unbowed.

He knows he has five votes.

The question is whether or not Edmond Mack can find three more between now and Canton council's next meeting of July 14th.

The SCPR believes he will.

And if he does not, The Report does not think he will "tuck tail" and run away from the measure.

Edmond Mack is not a quitter.

Sooner or later he will get Cantonians the opportunity to vote on whether Canton will have the greatest measure possible of local control or they prefer to be dictated to by the State of Ohio.

Presented to the voters as Canton versus Columbus, how can the issue fail?

For those councilpersons who are posed to vote "no" on Mack's legislation, the question is why would they get in the way of democracy in action?

SCPR ANNEXED PUBLICATION

Here is a Law Director Martuccio's entire "LOCAL GOVERNMENT - TO CHARTER OR NOT TO CHARTER (without original formatting)

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT - TO CHARTER OR NOT TO CHARTER? (A primer by Law Director Joe Martuccio)

HISTORY

The State of Ohio has approximately 250 cities. Over 180 of them have charters, or localized constitutions. The City of Canton is one of the largest cities in Ohio without a charter. It operates subject to laws prescribed by the Ohio General Assembly in Title VII of the Ohio Revised Code. Canton is called a statutory city because it operates according to State statutes under what is commonly known as the General statutory form of government. Pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, from which all local governmental power is derived, political subdivisions have the right to protect the public health, safety and welfare as provided by state law.
In 1912, the Ohio Constitution was amended by the adoption of Article XVIII which is known as the "Home Rule Amendment." Home Rule powers are self executing and do not necessarily require a statute or adoption of a charter to implement them. However, a charter may afford a municipality some flexibility in matters that are of unique local concern as opposed to general statewide concern. Most of Ohio's largest cities voted for charters prior to 1920.

CANTON'S CHARTER ATTEMPTS

In 1913, over 60% of Canton's resident voters rejected the first proposed charter, which suggested that its local government be operated by five non-partisan commissioners.

In 1921, nearly 70% of Canton's voters rejected a charter that proposed a city manager form of government with a seven member council.

In 1962, 71% of Canton's voters rejected a proposed charter that would have had all members of council elected at large, among other changes. The proposed 9 member council would have been quite a change from the existing 15 member council, including 12 from wards, and 3 at large. Many of the proposed changes have come to pass, e.g. more simplified publication in the reading and summarizing of ordinances, a Mayor and Law Director to be elected for four year terms separately, professional qualifications for some members of the Board of Health, and other less significant changes.

In 1984, City Council indefinitely tabled a resolution to submit the issue of forming a charter government to the Canton City voters.

In 1987, City Council's affirmative 8 to 3 vote was one shy of the necessary two-thirds to submit the charter question for a ballot election by the voters. The primary reason reported was that Council was not allowed to determine the exact structure of the charter commission pursuant to state law.

In 2006, an ordinance providing for the submission of the charter issue to the city's voters was defeated by a vote of 8 to 4, failing to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote. Discussions were revived in 2010 and 2013.

GETTING STARTED

Adopting a charter involves two steps. First, either a two-thirds vote (8) on a council ordinance or the councilmanic submission of a petition of 10% of the electors is necessary to place the issue on the ballot. The question of whether or not a commission shall be elected to propose and frame a charter must be placed on a ballot for the voters of the entire city. The ballot is non-partisan. It would present the voters with two issues. The first is whether or not a charter commission is to be chosen to frame a charter and second, the voters would be asked to elect 15 members from the city at large to comprise the charter commission. If a majority of the voters vote for forming a charter commission, then the same votes are tallied to determined who the commission consists of. Selection could occur during a general, special or primary election, and its timing depends on the passage of the ordinance.

The 15 member commission would be charged with assembling a proposed charter, mailing it to all electors and scheduling a vote during a primary, general or special election within one year of the election of the charter commission. According to the Ohio attorney general, a member of city council may not serve as a member of a municipal charter commission.

The charter would describe the form of government, e.g. strong mayor, weak mayor, city manager or some other form of government. The charter should provide for formal periodic charter review. The charter may also seek to frame an identical form of government, which is subject to periodic, incremental changes.

CHOICES

Having a charter does not appear to be a "magic bullet", as many cities with charters also experience financial difficulties, and litigation over the extent of their home rule powers. However, proponents of charter government believe it can operate more efficiently. Careful thought, analysis and discussion is necessary on the major decision of whether to proceed with the pursuit of a charter.

PROs                                   CONs
Flexibility                              No increase in Constitutional
Structure, choices                 power when state laws conflict
Combining positions            Potential loss of individual
                                             accountability
Council composition            Initial costs
   - terms                              Possibly fewer checks and
                                             balances
   - primaries              
Civil service modifications
Citizen vote Charter review

JM/tk/2000Memos&Letters/Charter
Revised 8/4/2010,6/2014

(VIDEOS) HAS MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY, II OVERSTATED "THE STATE OF THE CITY OF CANTON?"

LAST UPDATED:  FINAL (12:11 PM)

VIDEOS

BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION
STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS

BY

CANTON MAYOR WILLIMA J. HEALY, II
(PUBLISHED)

==================================

-PILLAR OF A STRONG COMMUNITY
"ECONOMY"
MAYOR HEALY
(PUBLISHED)

==================================

-PILLAR OF A STRONG COMMUNITY
"EDUCATION"
MAYOR HEALY
(PUBLISHED)

==================================

-PILLAR OF A STRONG COMMUNITY
"COMMUNITY"
(FORMERELYY "NEIGHBORHOODS")
MAYOR HEALY
(PUBLISHED)

==================================

-PILLAR OF A STRONG COMMUNITY
"SAFETY"
MAYOR HEALY
(PUBLISHED)

==================================

ASSESSMENT

BY

COUNCILMAN-AT-LARGE RICHARD HART
 (PUBLISHED)

==================================

ASSESSMENT

BY

WARD 2 COUNCILMAN THOMAS WEST
(PUBLISHED)

==================================

COMMENTS 
CHIEF OF STAFF
FONDA WILLIAMS
(PUBLISHED)

=================================

SWEARING-IN OF NEW HIRES

NEW FIRE DEPT OFFICERS

NEW POLICE DEPT OFFICERS
(PUBLISHED)

Canton mayor William J. Healy, II never does anything "half-baked."  At least, he doesn't think so.

And he was a roll last night as he presented his seventh annual State of the City addresses everyone of which the Stark County Political Report has attended.

For the most part they have been sparsely attended.  But not last night.  As can be seen from the video included in this blog, there were hundreds and hundreds of interested persons in attendance if not over a thousand.

Healy's theme last night?

 

Those who read the SCPR regularly know that The Report is not prone to to be all that complimentary of the mayor.

As can seen from the SCPR's interview of Councilman-at-Large Richard Hart (independent; formerly a Republican), as published later on his this blog,  there certainly are questions to be asked about the specifics of the mayor's presentation.

The Report's overall take is that while the presentation highly polished, showy (note in the interviews that the SCPR did, I use the term "rosy" over and over) and somewhat impressive, only time will tell whether or not the mayor's case for "let the good times roll" in Canton is well founded or a case of "putting lispstick on a pig."

Time is likely to reveal that a little bit of both are at play.

Healy made "a really big deal" out of the quality of his management team (a la TeamHealy; his campaign approach).  Undoubtedly, he has some very good administrators, but they are not folks who are going to do much, if any, questioning of Hizzhoner's ideas, policies, practices and programs.

Being uncritical does not make a person ineffective.  But The Report thinks it is "unhealthy" for a leader like Healy to abide having nobody in his inner circle (in the manner of former administration officials Tom Bernabei, Tom Nesbitt and Warren Price) who takes vigorous exception to him.  

It is not good for the mayor.  But his personal political well-being is not a concern of the SCPR.  The Report does care about the people of Canton being lead down the proverbial primrose path on some "half-baked" idea, policy, practice or policy that damages the city as a whole and particular citizens because nobody who can open his/her mouth in protest to the mayor is tolerated by him.

Healy was "higher than a high flying kite" (see slide 5 of 50 slides) in touting in his slickly put together Powerpoint presentation:

And did he throw out the big numbers?  Indeed!

"City of Canton 2014 Operations:  2014 Total Operations $206 Million, 2014 General Fund Operations $54.6 Million."

Words not enough to impress you?  Okay, the SCRP helps Healy show off.  Here's his Powerpoint.

Its at this point in Healy's address that one gets the impression that the mayor is indeed "a miracle worker."

Or, maybe someone who can manipulate the numbers to make it "appear" he is "a miracle worker?"

Look at the next series of Healy-presented Powerpoints.

For the period 2007 (Healy took office on January 1, 2008) through 2007 through 2014 (projected, of course):

• $3,438,997 less General Fund Revenue
• but $612,816 more in carry over
• spending $3,888,064 less
• however income tax collections increase $1,097,123
• while the State of Ohio cut local government funding $6,125,921

 Wow!!!

The SCPR has this gnawing feeling that the numbers are being played with.  Maybe it just because The Report knows this mayor all to well?

The mayor is so confident in his numbers that he his administration has initiated efforts with New York's bond raters to reconsider Canton's bond rating.

If they buy into his numbers, then, indeed, Stark Countians should start believing that Healy is "a turnaround artist" in the face of great adversity.

Here is a video of the opening round of Healy's State of the City message.



Next up for Mayor Healy was an update on his "four pillars of a strong community" which he has been using for a number of years now in identifying those functions of government which he thinks constitute the correct priorities for making Canton a strong community.

The "community pillar" translates into "the neighborhoods."

 Key points on "the four pillars" made by Canton's chief executive officer include:

• Economy
• unemployment down some 7 percentage points (January, 2012 through December, 2013),
• working with leading Canton-based companies,
• VXI to add 650 jobs,
• SCPR Note:  low paying jobs?
• oil and gas companies,
• SCPR Note:  no mention of loss of Chesapeake Headquarters to Louisville; no mention of the number of jobs the industry has brought to Canton; no specific numerical elaboration of what his naming Canton as being "the Utica capital" as having benefited Canton's economy
• developing regional alliances,
• coordinating with the Greater Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce,

VIDEO:  HEALY MAKES HIS CASE ON CANTON'S ECONOMY

• Education
• increasing high school graduation rates,
• Canton City Schools Brighter Tomorrow program,
• Mayor's Scholarship Program,
• Stark State College downtown campus dedicated to preparing students to work in the energy industry,

VIDEO:  HEALY MAKES HIS CASE ON CANTON'S EDUCATION  

• Community (formerly, "the neighborhoods")

• SCPR Note:   no mention of achievement or lack of achievements of  Mayor's Neighborhood Commission,

 VIDEO:  HEALY MAKES HIS CASE ON CANTON'S NEIGHBORHOODS

• Safety
• relies on FBI statistics that crime is reduced in Canton
• SCPR Note:  anyone who attends Canton City Council meetings has to be real skeptical of the FBI numbers which seem to indicate Canton is getting safer.  Frequently, citizens take to the Public Speaks lectern to complain anecdotally about the severity and widespread nature of crime in their respective neighborhoods,
• SCPR Note:  Mayor needs to explain FBI numbers in light of information on MOVO.COM which says that Canton is the second most dangerous small cities in America,
• a signigficant part of last night's event was devoted to touting of new hires (fire and police [see video below] including a very nicely done swearing in ceremony,
• SCPR Note:  Mayor has resisted making these new hires over the first six years of his administration and failed to give credit to Bruce Nordman (Group 175 leader - out of Councilman Frank Morris's (council majority leader) 9th ward for putting the heat on him to get the police force to 175 members (about where it was when he took office),
• SCPR Note:  Healy failed to note the controversy surrounding the staffing of various fire stations and the lack of the availability of ambulance units because of what some believe to be punitive political action on his part and because of a fuss over overtime and other employment issue factors,
• SCPR Note:  Healy failed to note his refusal to implement hiring of fire and police in the past even though financially provided for by council,

VIDEO:  HEALY MAKES HIS CASE ON CANTON'S SAFETY

To sum up, the SCPR wants to believe that Canton "really is" on the uptick for, as The Report as often written, Canton is the hub of Stark County and The Hall of Fame City is an overall indicator of how well the county is doing.

However, the mayor ebullience inclines the SCPR towards suspicion that Hizzhonor was feeding the crowd another round of spin that makes him look good but in reality is like Canton walking in place if not loosing ground.

Councilman Richard Hart as evidenced in the following video did not get caught up in what the SCPR suspects to be Healy Hype not borne out by nearly the substance that the mayor would have you and I believe.




A more believing assessment was offered by Councilman Thomas West, to wit.



One of the SCPR's favorite Healy administrators is Chief of Staff Fonda Williams.

Here is what he had to say.



All-in-all, the SCPR urges readers to cut the mayor some slack and to suspend skepticism for the time being and see whether or not Mayor Healy actually has Moody and Standard and Poor come to Canton and thoroughly and critically examine the numbers he presented.

If they do and they confirm that his numbers are real and are willing to put their reputations on the line by raising Canton's bond rating, then we might all start believe that the mayor has turned the corner on believability and maybe the State of the City of Canton and by extension all of Stark Community is headed towards "the sky is the limit" territory.  We shall see.

Nobody can fail to be impressed by the end of last night's meeting whereby Mayor William J. Healy, II swears-in Canton's new fire and police officers.  With the additions, the Canton Fire Department now stands at 155 in force; the Canton Police Department 165 in force.

Here is the swearing-in video.

(VIDEOS) DID "NEW" CITY COUNCILMAN RICHARD HART PUT CITY OF CANTON COUNCIL IN "GRIDLOCK?"

UPDATED:  08:15 AM

VIDEOS

CANTON COUNCIL

DEBATES

LEGALITY OF RULES COMMITTEE MEETING

=======================================

 LAW DIRECTOR

JOSEPH MARTUCCIO

EXPRESSES CONCERNS

ON

MAJORITY LEADER SELECTION

=======================================

COUNCILMAN THOMAS WEST

REQUESTS

ELIGIBLE FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS

TO

MAKE

MOTION TO RECONSIDER 

MAJORITY LEADER SELECTION
(IMPUT MARTUCCIO & SCHULMAN)

=======================================

CANTONIANS

SPEAKING UP

ON

"PUBLIC SPEAKS"

=======================================

COUNCILMAN THOMAS WEST

EXPLAINS HIS POSITION

ON MAJORITY LEADER SELECTION PROCESS

While some if not a good part of Canton City Council may have breathed a "sigh of relief" when former Republican councilman Richard Hart was elected councilman-at-large on November 5, 2013; it could turn out to be a disaster for the Hall of Fame City in terms of having a functioning city council, the SCPR thinks.

Everybody assumed that Democrat Roland K. Burns, III would be elected.  But he wasn't and the likely reason The Report thinks is the last minute buzzsaw that Burns ran into days before the election in the publication of a series of articles in the local mainstream media detailing complaints that city of Canton officials had with regard to the maintenance and upkeep of a number of properties his company is owner of in the city.

Had Burns been elected, as expected, he - believed to allied, more or less, with the six councilpersons who were in favor of Frank Morris (D-Ward 5) being the replacement vice president and hence majority leader for David Dougherty (D-Ward 7) likely would have voted for Frank Morris thereby providing 7 votes for Morris and making him the undisputed choice of a majority of council.

Dougherty, the SCPR believes, fell out of favor with the six because of his acerbic manner in dealing with his fellow councilmembers during the last term of council.

Had Dougherty maintained "passable" relations with a majority of council, Frank Morris is unlikely to have emerged as a challenger.

Anyhow, enter Richard Hart.

Nobody knows nor are they ever likely to know the "real" reason Hart decided to abstain last Thursday night from the vote to elect a vice president (majority leader) of Canton's council.

Had he voted for West as it is thought was his original intention, then there would have been a six to six tie.  In his situation, there is a division of thinking as to whether or not council president Allen Schulman could break a tie.  If he can, then Morris wins and council moves on his having attained 7 of 13 votes.

If Schulman is not entitled to break the tie (Councilman Thomas West's position), then a gridlock develops and only "wheelin and dealin" over who knows what period of time will be need to break the deadlock.

Such situation would be like the one that is currently in place (perhaps, worse) in that there are not 7 votes for Morris, which causes Canton law director concerns as to whether or not council decisions made with the participation of a questionable vice president (majority leader) would be challengeable.

Martuccio is worried that a person or entity affected by legislation passed in the foregoing context might result in the challenged ordinance (or even all such ordinance) be successfully challenged as never having had any validity because of the context of the legislation being passed.

Witness this debate last night among council members as to whether or not it was legal for apparent Majority Leader Morris to have what he was calling a committee meeting on rules changes.

(Note:  As shown on the video, Clerk of Council Cynthia Timberlake indicated to council members and placed on the agenda for last night's meeting [done on Saturday] at Law Director Martuccio's direction that the meeting which, in fact, was held had been canceled)

Some think that somehow Mayor Healy got to Hart and persuaded him that it would be good idea to throw "a monkey wrench" into the organization of council by voting to abstain in the vote for council leadership thereby throwing the whole process into turmoil and possibly to litigation.

Why would Healy want to get involved?

The thinking is that if he does not have a majority on council on "key" issues to him like he pretty much had enjoyed in his first term and so far in his second term, then the more division on council the better.  For if he finds a need to veto legislation, then - with a deeply divided council - it is unlikely that a veto would be overridden.

If litigation ultimately becomes the tack taken in the contest between Councilman Tom West (D-4) and Frank Morris (D-9), it risks a similar fate to that experienced in the contest between interim Stark County sheriff Tim Swanson and the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee selected (Febuary 5, 2013) George T. Maier as its appointee to succeed Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald when he could not take office due to what turned out to be a terminal illness.

The Supreme Court ousted Maier from office on November 6, 2013 saying that he was not qualified under Ohio statutory law to be appointed.

All of which is to say - in the view of many - that the Democrats have put Stark County into a state of  uncertainty and thereby seem to put themselves in negative stead with Stark County voters.

So in an analogous sort of way the question becomes, would some court declare that Morris does not properly hold office?

As far as Democrats jeopardizing their hold on Canton government, such is not a likelihood given their 9 to 1 registration majority.  However,  Cantonians certainly have to have a negative view of what is going on and the chaotic proceedings have to affect their confidence in Canton City Council governance.

The reason for Hart's abstaining is now unimportant.   For the fact of the matter, it appears that a consequence of his having done so has put council in a state of gridlock.

Perhaps, Canton council's fight might be worse the gridlock in Washington.

Worse than?

It could be.  Because Canton is a fight among 11 Democrats presumably with similar political points of view and objectives whereas Washington is about a fight between Republicans and Democrats and their varying viewpoints and objectives.

The addition of the "independent" Hart allowing himself to be put in the position of mucking things up by injecting himself in what is really a fight among Democrats makes no sense at all.

As the SCPR sees it, Hart's injecting himself into the intra-Democratic-Party-fight makes him the key factor in prospect that an "in the courts" fight may materialize among the two factions of Democrats that are now squared off against one another over the majority leader selection process.

Last evening, Canton City Council met to have "a committee meeting" (some preferred to have it called a "work session," to determine whether or not to change council rules for the 2014-15 term of office.

As seen in the first video in this blog, almost "right-off-the-bat," majority leader challenger Councilman Thomas West "challenged" the apparent majority leader Frank Morris.

In the same video, Law Director Joe Martuccio put it best:  "the tension among council members [assembled for the 5:30 p.m. meeting] is palpable," he said.

Martuccio, after the conclusion of the meeting, explained to the SCPR exactly what his concerns are, what he might do, and the timetable for his acting.



As Martuccio said, the tension last night was obvious.

What's more is that the unease permeated the regular council meeting which convened at 7:30 p.m.

In the following video, Councilman West in the "miscellaneous business" portion of the regular meeting, is seen opening up the festering sore of his dissatisfaction of Thursday's meeting with his request that one of the six voting for Morris (or the abstaining member Hart) as nominated by council rules move for reconsideration of Thursday's decision.

(Note:  No one responded to West's request.  Accordingly, the opportunity - again, by the rules of council - is lost.  Also, Law Director Martuccio and council president Allen Schulman are seen weighing in on West's request)



Interestingly enough, he could not get the one vote he needed for a reconsideration of Thursday night's council action of selecting Morris by a 6 to 5 vote with Hart abstaining.

After the meeting, West went into greater detail with SCPR as to what his thinking is on the entire majority leader selection process is.



One would have thought that Hart would have "at least" provided West with the motion he needed.  And there is no doubt that West ally Chris Smith (elected by a 12 - 0 vote on Thursday to become Canton's first African-American "female" leadership person) would have seconded the motion.

But no! Hart could not bring himself to do it.

The Report is told that the six who voted for Morris will change a single vote only "when Hell freezes over."

It appears to the SCPR that a thorough going discussion of the process might satisfy West and Canton may thereby be able to "move on" as West keeps saying he wants to do.

But, while West says that it's the process that is his hang up, one has to wonder whether or not his cure has any gain whatsoever of getting Canton council meeting again.

For if the council members were to accede to West and "reconsider" their vote, then they are left with political wrangling like occurred in the history of American political party conventions in which scores if not more than 100 votes (see "History" at this LINK) had to be taken in order for the delegates to settle on a nominee.

What a spectacle that would be, no?

A really "credibility building" exercise (sarcasm), Council West!

So that is why the SCPR is skeptical that West wants to move on.

It could be that Law Director Martuccio will make a decision that he is firm on his Thursday night opinion that for a majority leader (vice president of council) to be elected, it takes 7 votes of the 12 to do so.

Absent those 7 votes, he says, he may require that each and every piece of legislation to be signed off on by at least 7 affirmative voting members.

He has not made a final determination, but that is where the SCPR thinks he is heading.

And if that's where he ends up, it is hard to see how this whole mess does not end up in the courts and ultimately, if not to start, in the Ohio Supreme Court.

Isn't that great.

• Stark County was in the Ohio Supreme Court (2011) over what turned out to be the-then Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler's illegal removal from by Stark County commissioners over the commissioners (Bosely, Meeks and Ferguson) [interesting enough, all Democrats]),
• Of course, the ongoing Swanson v. Maier saga currently under way, and
• now, West versus Fisher, Hawk, Mack, Mariol, Morris, Smuckler and Schulman?

No wonder Americans are disgusted with the politicians in government at all levels.

Several Cantonians took to the lectern in the Public Speaks portion of last night's council meeting (Bruce Nordman, Stephanie Sweeney, Leon Cote and Peter DeGiacomo) and had their say.



Organized Republicans and Democrats are really doing splendidly these days from Washington, D.C. all the way down to Canton, Ohio, no?

And meanwhile the peoples' business is not getting done.

There is no doubt to the SCPR that Councilman West is dug in and that he feels besieged by his fellow Democrats on council and the result seems likely to be that nothing gets done in Canton City Council while the intra-party fight goes on.

Swell, really swell!!!

(VIDEOS) MAJORITY LEADER CHALLENGER THOMAS WEST (WARD 2) SAYS "IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON," BUT DOES HE MEAN IT?

UPDATE:  NOON

The SCPR just received a communication from Councilman West, and in the conversation he raised three (3) main points:

• That contrary to The Report's conjecture (which is based on information provided by others on council) that Mayor William J. Healy, II may be involved in devising the political tactics and strategies in the fight over who shall be Canton City Council majority is unfounded,
• That he is the subject of "being ganged up on" (the SCPR's words; not West's) by Councilpersons Morris, Mack, Mariol, Fisher, Smuckler,  Hawk and President Allen Schulman and the resources of Schulman's law firm and the law firm that Mack is associated with, and
• That he was "surprised" (West's term) when President Schulman made his ruling and did not allow space and time for debate on his ruling. 

The Report's impression is that had West not been "surprised" by the swiftness of Schulman's move onto other business, it was his plan to "appeal" the ruling and thereby prompt a debate among the council members as to whether or not Schulman's ruling was to be abided.

As is the policy of the SCPR anyone who has difference with The Report, or wants to add their points of view to a blog is given ample opportunity to do so.

The Report thanks Councilman West for his imput both after the meeting (last Thursday) and in today's telephone conversation.

It seems to the SCPR that should West get his thorough going discussion of the Schulman ruling, he is then prepared to move on as he told The Report he wanted to do at the conclusion of Thursday's meeting.

 VIDEOS 

==================

Schulman's Decision

 ========================

West's Argument for Selection

======================== 

Morris' Argument for Selection

=========================

 The Vote

=========================

 Martuccio's Opinion

=========================

 West Post-Meeting SCPR Interview

=========================

Morris Post-Meeting SCPR Interview

==========================

Encore

Dougherty 12/17/2013 

Executive Session Motion

 ==========================

Schulman Post-Meeting Interview

(On West's Planned Parenthood Point)

==========================

 Schulman Post-Meeting Interview

(On "Ease of Reaching Decision")

==========================

 Citizen Interview

Curtis A. Perry

(Includes Public Speaks)

Perry

&

Chet Werren

========================= 

Chris Smith Post-Meeting Interview

========================= 

Last Thursday night's "organizational" meeting of Canton City Council proved to be anything but humdrum.

The "key" moment in the proceeding was Allen Schulan's ruling (in his capacity as Canton City Council president) on the issue of whether the 2014-2015 majority leader had to be elected by a majority of 12 votes or a plurality of 11 votes, one member having abstained.

Here is Schulman with his decision:



Before Schulman made his decision, the contenders (Thomas West, D-Ward 2 and Framk Morris, D-Ward 9) for the majority leader post "put their best feet forward" in advocating as to why council should choose one over the other as majority leader (officially, "Vice President"):

First, West:



Next, Morris:



 And next, the actual vote:



After the vote, President Schulman turned to Law Director Joe Martuccio for his take on the significance of the vote while carefully reminding all that, though he treasured Martuccio's opinion, he would not necessarily adopt the opinion in making a ruling.



As readers now know on viewing the video above, he did not.

The SCPR video-captured the reaction of West and Morris on the outcome of the vote.

WEST



MORRIS



Thursday's meeting (in terms of the outcome) was pretty much of a repeat of the December 17th meeting of council (including members-elect Bill Smuckler [a Democrat] and Richard Hart [an independent] but minus Mary Cirelli and Joe Cole who after December 31st were no longer council members EXCEPT that the December 17th meeting was held in executive session on the motion of the-then majority leader David Dougherty (Democrat - Ward 7).



The Report is told that nothing was said in the executive session that had not already been said in public.

After the meeting, President Schulman elaborated on his determination that Council Frank Morris was "duly" elected having achieved a 6 to 5 plurality (see video below).

That the December 17th meeting included an executive session is distressing to the SCPR because the quintessential political liberal of Stark County government circles; namely, Allen Schulman, in his role as president of council, cast the deciding vote (as seen in the above-video) to break a five to five tie vote which resulted in Dougherty's executive session motion prevailing.

While Schulman has not completely escaped The Report's critical assessment, but as public officials go, he ranks very high as being one of those public officials who bends over backwards to enhance the public's right to know and to be heard and generally is highly supportive of small letter "d" democracy.

Clearly, December 17th was not a good night for President Schulman by SCPR standards.

Many think well of Dougherty as a councilman.

However, as a government official, he, in the opinion of The Report, leaves a lot to be desired in terms of his facilitating public expression.  The Report has written a blog or two of how Dougherty as majority leader (subbing for Schulman) seemed to discourage citizens who availed themselves of the "public speaks" forum of Canton City Council.

So The Report is glad to see that he will not be serving in a leadership position in this term of council.   He seems to the SCPR to not be all that friendly to public accountability, accessibility and transparency.

But it was not for a lack of trying that Dougherty is out as leader.

In the political jockeying that took place post-November, 2013 election, the SCPR is told that it became apparent early on that Dougherty had "burned too many bridges" among his fellow council members to get over the top with a majority of the twelve council votes.  One councilperson calls Dougherty a "a hot head."

While Dougherty might have been able to pull off a tie, President Schulman let it be known that he was leaning towards Frank Morris (Democrat - Ward 9).  Schulman supported Morris in the challenge by the-then Councilman-at-large Joe Cole in November's election.

Tom West (Democrat - Ward 2) was waiting in the wings to see whether or not Dougherty could get that one vote he needed from among Hawk (D-Ward 1) or Smuckler (D, at-large).  It certainly was not going to come from among "the four young turks" (Kevin Fisher (D-Ward 5), John Mario (D-Ward 7), Edmond Mack (D-Ward 8) and, of course, no-way from Frank Morris (D-Ward 9).

Dougherty's failure explains Tom West's emergence on Thursday night.

And further back in the wings, it appears to the SCPR, is Mayor William J. Healy, II.

Now why would Healy want to foment division on council?

How about getting council so divided and at one another's throats that even if legislation is passed that he does not like, he can veto it and there would be very little chance of get 8 voters to override it?

Some think that Healy was the person behind the political scheming and strategizing to make West majority leader.

Knowing that if there was a tie (six to six) vote among the 12 members of council and that President Schulman was going to break the tie in Morris' favor, The Report is told that someone (thought to be Healy himself) prevailed upon newly elected Councilman-at-:Large Richard Hart (a political independent, formerly a Republican) to abstain from the vote as between West and Morris so as to make it impossible for Morris (unless he could get to a 7 to 4 vote from the 11 non-abstaining members of council) to achieve a majority vote of the total of "the present and voting one way or the other" members of council.

Hart, by the way, is seen by a number of councilpersons of allowing himself to be used as "the tool of political shenanigans."  Hardly, a good start for the new councilman, no?

West went the additional step of pulling out (undoubtedly, aided by Healy) a vote on an "informal" resolution on a Planned Parenthood issue, the "non-lawyer" he is, as legal ammunition, to wit:

The SCPR, in the post-meeting interview, asked President Schulman (who is one of Stark County's premier lawyers)  specifically about the Planned Parenthood matter.



Moreover, here is the rest of the video in which he talks about his decision that the six to five vote was a valid vote to elect Frank Morris as majority leader.



West apparently proved to be a very unskilled politician in effectuating what appears to be "the Healy Plan."

He was supposed to appeal the ruling of the chair (Schulman) to throw the matter into further council debate and consideration as set forth in Canton City Council Rule 42, to wit:

Rule #42 APPEALING DECISION OF THE CHAIR

A. An appeal may be made from any decision of the Presiding Officer (except when another appeal is pending), but it must be made only immediately after the ruling that is being appealed.

B. If this appeal is seconded, the Presiding Officer shall state clearly the question at issue, and he or she may state his/her reasons for his/her decision, and then state the question as follows:

"The question is, shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" This question is then voted upon to determine whether the decision of the Chair shall be sustained. A majority vote of those present is required to sustain the Chair. The President of Council may vote to break a tie vote.

But he did not do so. The Report is told that a number of his supporters were unhappy afterwards that he failed to fully execute the plan.

Here is Allen Schulman's take on West's failure to appeal:

Had West appealed, he would certainly had lost even if Councilman Hart voted to overturn Schulman because, undoubtedly, the chairman on a six to six vote would certainly have broken the tie to sustain his initial ruling.

After the meeting, The Report interviewed West supporter and well known Stark County businessman Curtis Perry.  Watch the video very carefully to perhaps pick up on a tip-off that maybe Tom West would not be "moving on," but rather carrying on his fight to become majority leader.

(Note:  The video includes the SCPR interview of Mr. Perry post-meeting as well as a video of his "Public Speaks" video as well as that of Mr. Chet Werren)



The SCPR's clear take, as seen by the follow up questions, was that Curtis Perry was considering advising his close confidant West to take up a legal challenge to Schulman's decision.

The Report immediately went to West who was standing nearby for a reaction.

West would no go on camera with his response, but he did say that he wanted "to move on" and was not thinking of a legal challenge.

Well, apparently, he thought otherwise overnight (likely on hearing the dissatisfaction of his supporters) and fired off a letter to Canton law director Joseph Martuccio sometime on Friday (January 10th).

WEST LETTER TO MARTUCCIO, JANUARY 10, 2014



REQUEST FOR "FORMAL" LEGAL OPINION

Hmm?

A "formal legal opinion."

Isn't that interesting?

So the "on the record of council proceedings" (duly recorded) opinion by Martuccio that seven votes are required is not good enough?

That one should be easy for Martuccio, for in this blog the SCPR published (see it above) the video of Martuccio issuing his opinion.  All he has to do is reduce the video to print form.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION & SUSPENSION OF MORRIS A MAJORITY LEADER

 WEST'S OPINION

For whatever it is worth.  And the SCPR thinks:  not much!

WEST SUMMARY OF "WHAT HE WANTS" 

All the SCPR can say to Councilman West is "lot of luck!"

If West expects Martuccio to take on a power that he does not have and declare President Schulman's decision "null and void," he can forget that one.  For "it ain't gonna happen!"

The Report thinks he is going absolutely nowhere on his inartistic and poorly executed "politiking" and apparent legal maneuvering, even if Mayor Healy is the supposed tactics/strategy genius behind the effort.

Implicit in West's letter when coupled with Mr. Perry's comments is a suggestion that he may take the issue into the courts.

So we shall know soon whether or not West's word to the SCPR that its "time to move on" was mere words that he undermines with contrary actions.

There is no doubt with the SCPR but that Dougherty was Healy's point-man on council.  When it became apparent that Dougherty was not going to make it, The Report thinks that there were only two viable councilpersons to step-in unless one thinks Jimmy Babcock is leadership material.

And they were West and Chris Smith (D-Ward 4).

It has been suggested to the SCPR that though they appear to be "joined at the hip," there is a sort of competition between Smith and West.

It seems that that coming from the 2012 organizing of council when Smith nearly became assistant majority leader when she challenged Jim Griffin (D-Ward 3).  The Report is told that she had 5 votes of the 7 needed to oust Griffin.

Had she won, she would have surpassed the longer serving West and as can be seen from the following West video from Thursday night, he thinks "seniority" should count for something.

What's more, The Report is told that West, Smith and Ward One Councilman Greg Hawk are pointing to two years hence when 49th District Ohio House representative Stephen Slesnick is term-limited out of the Oho General Assembly as a possible replacement.

It appears that Smith is more popular with and esteemed by fellow council members than West is.

Her nomination and election as First Vice President (assistant majority leader) Thursday night was a "slam dunk-esque" process, witness the 12 to 0 vote.

And that West in his letter to Martuccio suggests that Smith be elevated to serve as de facto majority leader on the presumption that that Schulman will be of a mind to reconsider this ruling suggests that knowing that Smith's election was to be uncontested suggests that it was a Healy/West pre-plan to offer her up as a stop-gap to the requirement that a majority leader be selected by Friday, January 10th in the case that they could successfully stop Morris has having been the victor in council's plan.

Here is Smith's reaction to having been selected as assistant majority leader:



It has been pointed out that some councilpersons view West dimly because of his propensity to "spring surprises" on council like his grandstanding-esque proposal that council adopt and adapaton of the National Football League (NFL) "Rooney Rule" whereby "persons-of-color" are required to be interviewed in the filling of any leadership vacancies in the NFL.

Moreover, it didn't set well with a number of members of council that West refused to have the Judiciary Committee (of which he was chair in 2012-2013) take up the proposal to possibly submit to Cantonians the question of whether or not Canton should have a charter of its own and not continue to have its powers defined exclusively by the state of Ohio via its statutes.

Because of the charter government issue and one held up, a council person tells the SCPR, by Councilman Greg Hawk for two years (the pool issue in Smith's Ward 4) when he was finance chairman in the 2011-2012 term of council; there is agitation to change the rules of council to lessen  the power of committee chairpersons.

Moreover, because of what some council members believe to be the "high-handed" manner of handling the prerogatives of majority leaders; there is sentiment to curb the powers of the majority leader.

So tonight's meeting (the 5:30 p.m.; which immediately precedes the regular 7:30 p.m. meeting) might be more than a tad interesting.

One huge issue is whether or not Greg Hawk is to be finance chair, once again.

The Report is told that Councilwoman Smith is saying "anybody but Hawk!"

The SCPR believes that comes straight out of the Healy penthouse on the 8th floor of Canton City Hall.

Had David Dougherty handled himself differently in his relations with the rest of council, it appears to the SCPR that none of what has been written about in this blog would have occurred.

For he would have been the choice to once again to be elected majority leader.

The "chickens do come home to roost," no?

Moreover, Cantonians should be holding Councilman West to his word, no?

It is time to move on, isn't it?

That's the sentiment expressed by veteran councilman Bill Smuckler to the SCPR.  He who returned this term as a councilman-at-large after taking a two year break.

Will Tom West get the message that "moving on" is exactly what the everyday citizens of Canton want?

Words are one thing, action is quite another!