ALL CLEAR ON CANTON/PERRY WATER BY SEPTEMBER 8TH?

VIDEOS  

RE:  THE ROVER PIPELINE CONTAMINATED SPILL

Service Director William Bartos

***

Water Superintendent Tyler Converse

***

Ward 7 Council John Mariol

***

Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio

***

Canton Council President Allen Schulman

(also, Chair/Canton Water Commission)

Back in April when news broke that the Rover natural gas pipeline project being installed across parts of southern Stark County experienced a spill of drilling mud which contained diesel fuel, little did about 100 Perry Township families know that the spill would eventually impact their perception of the safety of their household water supply.

The spill threatened and still may be found to threaten the safety of Canton's nearby (within a few hundred yards) Sugarcreek wellfield (located in Bethlehem Township) which is the normal source of the water supplied to Perry.  Out of a sense of precaution, Canton water officials decided to reduce the pumping from Sugarcreek and to access the city's Northwest wellfield to supply some of Canton's users of its approximate 24 million gallon daily output to Cantonians and other Stark Countians.



According to area media reports, those 100 families (living in the vicinity of Central Catholic High School) woke up one morning to discover discolored (iron) and generally described users as being "nasty" water.

Nonetheless, the Northwest water IS SAFE WATER, so Canton Water Department told The Stark County Political Report at last night's regular Canton City Council meeting.

Notwithstanding the scare to the Perry users, it appears that there was never a safety issue with their drinking water.

While it is understandable that there was a sense of uneasiness with the Perry users, they and, indeed, all water users as informed/responsible citizens ought to advantage themselves in knowing about water.

An important lesson out of the Rover spill for all Stark Countians who receive water from municipal/private company supplies is to pay close attention and to be completely informed when incidents like the Rover spill hit the headlines even though it may appear that my water has nothing to do with Canton provided water.

According to Converse, Perry users could be back on Sugarcreek water by the end of next week.

Two sources to link up with:

• Canton Water Department Website, and
• an article on "the importance of water,

An interesting observation on the latter link, to wit:

The only organism that doesn’t understand the importance of water is humans, especially in industrialized countries. Children in those societies turn on the water in a sink and never think about the trouble someone has gone for that "miracle" to occur.

There were a couple of "water" quality (in the monitoring sense of the phrase on last night's council's agenda last night) which prompted Superintendent Converse to provide amplification of and clarification of the status of Canton dealing with the Rover pipeline spill.

From the language of the foregoing resolutions passed by Canton City Council last night, it appears that the Rover spill matter could end up costing Canton water users better tens of thousands of dollars unless, of course, Canton government is successful in getting reimbursed by culpable parties for the spill.

In all, Converse spent some ten minutes updating council on the history, consequences and the path going forward on the Canton Water Department's dealing with the Rover Spill.

First, Canton service director William Bartos on the work of Linda Aller and team (Williams and Bennett) in monitoring/implementing Canton's Water Protection Plan in the wake of the Rover pipeline spill:

Second, Superintendent Converse explains/describes to council:

• the drilling mud diesel fuel contaminated removal and testing process,
• that early test results are back to Rover but that Canton has not seen those results,
• that Linda Aller of Bennett and Williams is right on top of monitoring the remediation process,
• that he understands that Canton's water is a high valuable city resource and accordingly is taking a high level approach to protecting it from the likes of a nearby spill to the Sugarcreek wellfield industrial spill, and 
• reassures council that by Ohio law testing is to continue for three years,

Third, Ward 7 councilman (chairman of Canton Council's finance committee) asks:

• Converse about Canton being made financially whole by Rover on account of expenses/damages sustained by Canton in protecting its most valuable resource, and
• Law Director Joe Martuccio about the work of the Canton Water Commission to refine its Water Protection Plan and when that product will be ready to present to council,

Finally, Canton council president Allen Schulman who has long served as the chairman of the Canton Water Commission:

• weighs-in on the refinement underway of Canton's water protection law, and
• lauds Converse for his sterling work in working through the Rover pipeline spill problem

WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR THE TAXPAYERS ON THE "RETIRE - REHIRE" ISSUE?

Updated at 8:24 a.m.

Matt Rink of The Repository wrote a well-rounded article on the retire/rehire debacle in Canton city government yesterday (Ex-Canton workers want job back).

However, one matter Rink did not touch upon is:  Who is looking out for the Canton/Stark County taxpayers' interests on retire/rehire transactions?

It is clear to the Stark County Political Report in interpreting the article:

• that the Canton government leadership has been and continues to do a CYA operation on implementation of the retire/rehire, and
• that many of the fired workers believe that they were bamboozled by that leadership and feel that is only fair that they gets their jobs back

What is equally clear to The Report is that in the legal squabbles, historical and current, that nobody has been specifically designated to look out for the Canton/Stark County taxpayers.

In a divorce case, one of the classic ways that alienated spouses utilize to continue their personal war against one another is to fight over who gets custody of the children.

It is apparent to onlookers that in many, if not most, instances mom and dad care little about the interests of the kids.  Rather the fight is about her/his ego in terms of who is one up on the other.

Some decades ago it dawned on family court officials that in the jousting between spouses, the childrens' interests oft times were going unprovided for.   In response, the  courts have developed a highly successful guardian-ad-litem program to specifically look after their particular interests.

In an analogous way, government management and the employees look after their own respective interests and the public be hanged.

The SCPR thinks it is high time that a mechanism (i.e. guardian-vox-populi - "guardian for the voice of the people") which is the equivalent of the guardian-ad-litem program should be devised and implemented any time a retire/rehire is in the works with "appointed" employees be they city workers, school district superintendents or county sheriff chief deputies.

For the SCPR has seen that all too many times that boards of education, city/village/township administrations and their like sell out the taxpayers' interests for the interests of hiring authorities coalesced with retires/rehires in a win-win for the employer/employee at the expense of the taxpaying public.

The Report thinks that management and/or board members frequently, over the long term of employment,  get into sweetheart relationships with key employees which sets up a situation that "taxpayers in mind bargaining" does not take place in rehiring a retiring employee.

For instance Tyler Converse, the head of the Canton Water Department is quoted as saying:   “We were losing close friends and coworkers who brought a lot of experience.”

And in the Canton situation many of the rehires were union workers who as a matter of contract were entitled to a certain wage.

How does one bargain in the taxpayer interest in such a labor/management context?

In future contracts, doesn't language need to be added to provide for wage re-opener negotiations on the possibility that a retire/rehire class employee will retained on a lesser wage/benefit package?  Shouldn't a vox populi guardian be part of the base-level contract negotiations to ensure the re-opener?  Or, alternatively, shouldn't the State of Ohio mandate such language be in all contracts going forward?

As implied by Converse in his remarks, The Report believes that in some instances it is in the interest of the taxpayers' that certain employees (i.e. irreplaceably experienced) who have retired be rehired.  But at a significantly lesser scale/rate than is being currently utilized and not without substantial salary/wage concessions on the part of the rehire.

But the exception should be used sparingly.

Room for new employees needs to be a top priority.  

In the Canton situation, the sins against the taxpaying public were, as Rink put it, that:

Employees had begun collecting their pensions, effectively retiring, without the consent of their appointing authority. They had not had a break in service, were still being paid the same wage and were receiving the same level of vacation and other benefits. (emphasis added)

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the only Canton retire/rehire that had any semblance of what the process should be in terms of paying heed to taxpayers' interests had to do with the retirement/rehire of Canton law department employee Craig Chessler.  Again, from Rink:

Another employee, Craig Chessler, an assistant city law director and long-time Perry Township trustee, was rehired by Martuccio last year, but took a 20 percent pay cut. Chessler is not a civil service employee and did not have to be rehired the same way.  (emphasis added)

Even that was way too good of a deal for Chessler in the opinion of yours truly.

The standard for retire/rehire properly done and incorporating, perhaps, the public taxpaying interests would be no less than a 40% pay cut, no additional pension contributions and no benefits but perhaps the very lowest level of vacation and sick pay benefits.

Only in a situation where the employee is a "critical need employee," as established by documented evidence should a retiree/rehiree be retained at the same salary and benefits as in place at the pre-retirement level.

It is obvious that, as things now stand in Ohio government employment,  hiring authorities cannot be trusted to protect the taxpayers' interests.

Accordingly, state Senator Scott Oelslager; state Representatives Hagan, Schuring, and Slesnick need to get together an push legislation providing for an institution such as Ohio's regional County Educational Service Centers to have attached to them an Office of Guardian Vox Populi to represent taxpayer interests in retire/rehire matters at the local (i.e. political subdivision) government level.

A corollary mechanism should be created for retires/rehires at the state level.

It is simply unbelievable and unacceptable that those who foot the bill for retire/rehire do not have a seat at the negotiating table, no?

(A "DO NOT MISS" VIDEO) CANTON SERVICE DIRECTOR "TO MAKE A POINT" DRINKS RUST COLORED DRINKING WATER THAT CAME OUT OF A 41ST STREET CANTON HOME SPIGOT!

For the nearly five years that yours truly has published the Stark County Political Report, the "unexpected" has become the "expected."

Back on September, 2010, the SCPR camera captured Minerva Councilman Phil Davison going bananas for the Republican Party in his presentation to the Stark GOP executive committee in his quest to become the party's nominee to replace the-then former Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler (whom the Ohio Supreme Court found later to have been unconstitutionally removed from office by the sitting Stark County commissioners).

As we all know, that video when "viral" on the Internet.

Being the "committed to a free press" organization it is, the Stark GOP (through sending an emissary to the SCPR, yours truly believes) tried to get the Davison video suppressed (fat chance of that happening) and then later "banned" the SCPR from bring the SCPR camera to local party "public" events.

But here the question is:  whether or not the SCPR captured another video worthy of going viral?

Perhaps.

Last night at Canton City Council, Councilwoman Mary Cirelli brought to the attention of Canton Service Director and Chief of Staff Warren Price a incident in which she experienced what many of us would think to be at least in a cosmetic sense "undrinkable water."

Here is a video of Cirelli's description of how she came on her "undrinkable water" find:



Inasmuch as Canton Water Department Superintendent Tyler Converse was not present at the meeting, Councilwoman Cirelli (who brought a bottle of the discolored water with her to the council meeting) asked Price to bring the issue of Canton's water quality to Converse's attention and, to boot, to pass on the bottle of water to him.

Not only did Price promise to do so, he one-upped what Cirelli requested and to everyone's astonishment took a swig of the unappetizing water.

Here is that "do not miss" video:



To his credit, Price in addition to engaging in some "tasteful" humor in dealing with Cirelli's concern went beyond the fact of the "discolored water" to explain in a thumbnail fashion Canton's relatively long history of having been plagued by discolored but drinkable water and what he plans to do in remediating the problem with a "real" fix.

As Price explains in "the rest of the story" included this blog at the end, this problem has been around decades in Canton in various pockets of the city.

What would be done in the past (this is a classic example of how governments do not "really" fix problems, they apply band-aids), is for city workers to flush lines periodically which, of course, would clear up the water for temporary periods of time.

Well, this "band-aid approach" to fixing problems is costly and in the winter time was not doable because the flushed water would freeze and present safety hazards to those driving through affected neighborhoods.

For the SCPR's part, Warren Price may be the most conscientious and thorough (in terms of finding real solutions) of all of Canton's appointed city officials.

It is a guy like Price and a few others in the Healy administration that enables Canton to get by.

He is not the consummate politician that his boss is.

While he may not have the charisma that Healy has, Price strikes the SCPR as a "blue-collar" sort of guy who does not try to mesmerize one with "splash-and-dash" style that Mr. Cosmopolitan Mayor Healy embraces but who merely gets the job done and done in a competent, realistic, and thorough manner.

On thinking about it, Price should have been on the SCPR's Thanksgiving Day list of local officials to be thankful for, a status that Price seems deserving of.

And, Mayor Healy, should daily thank Price and the few others in his administration for a job well done and thereby keep Hizzonher's head above - can I say it? - water.

Oh! that a guy like Warren Price were mayor of Canton rather than William J. Healy, II.

For those readers who care about a public official owning up to a problem and going about fashioning a realistic remedy, here is the "rest of the story" on Canton's discolored water problem: