AN INTERESTING LOOK AT WHO IS FINANCING ISSUE 29 - THE 0.5% STARK COUNTY SALES TAX

The "Yes! for Safety - Issue 29" (YFSI29) campaign has done a superlative job raising money for it campaign.

Since Watergate days, Americans have been fine-tuned to "follow the money" in determining who is behind a given candidate, operation or issue.  Many times the money trail is hard to follow.  And it takes a herculean investigative journalism to uncover the trail.

But there is nothing secretive about the YFSI29 contributions.

The SCPR has obtained a copy of the group's statutorily mandated 2011 pre-general campaign finance report and presents the following analysis:

-

As readers can see in the above graphic, through October 19th of this year YFSI29 raised $65,809.18 (NOTE:  The cover sheet above shows only $55,939.18 which does not include a $9,470.00 [specifically for billboard contribution] by the Stark County Deputies Ass'n coupled with $200 each from the Alliance FOP and the Canton CPPA.

Breaking down the contributions by "interest? groups," here is The Report's analysis:

First on the list is the business community:   The Timken Company ($15,000) and the Aultman Health Foundation ($15,000) head up the list which the SCPR computes to be a total of $37,525 or 57% of the pre-general election contributions.

What voters should be asking themselves is what, if anything, do these contributors have to gain - other than just "old fashion civic pride" at helping Stark County - by making these contributions?

Second is the Stark County Deputies Association (SCDA) and the police community, in general.

SCDA financing comes in at $11,470.00 or 17.4% of total pre-general-election contributions.

(NOTE:  The only other than SCDA police connected contributions [except, perhaps, for individual policemen that the SCPR cannot identify on the report] were from Alliance's Fraternal Order of Police ($200) and the Canton Policemen Patrolman's Association ($200) which pushes the total percent of police associated contributions to 18%.

Of course, we know that the deputies have to gain:  their jobs, their very livelihood.

Third is the prosecutor's staff.

Most of the contribution from this office, understandably, came from the assistant prosecuting attorneys (listed below).

The office contributed "about" $4,000 which is 6% of the total YFSI29 receipts.  (note:  it is probably a little bit higher however the SCPR does not know the names of most of the supporting staff so as to identify them and thereby arrive at a precise figure)

If you believe Prosecutor Ferrero, a sales tax levy loss means that most of the assistant prosecutors will be looking for private sector work come December.

Interestingly enough, Ferrero is not the largest contributor from his office as listed in the campaign finance report.  He is second.  Ferrero was bested by Katie Chawla who is a criminal trial attorney for the office.

Records show she contributed $300 whereas Ferrero appears to have contributed $250.

Hmm?

Maybe when he sees this blog (oh, I forgot, he tells yours truly that he does not read the SCPR); okay, then when someone from his office tells him about his being second, it will be interesting to whether he correct this "who would have thunk it, phenomenon."  We shall see when the post-general campaign finance report comes out.

Fourth is the elected officials group.

It appears that the word went out that an appropriate donation for county elected officials was $250.  It seems as if most made the $250, but not all.  In all they collected $5,300 or 8%.

Are Randy Gonzalez (Jackson Township fiscal officer) and Joe Martuccio (Canton law director) the only non-county elected officials to make a contribution?

How interesting, no?

No Mayor Healy,  no "likely to be" Massillon mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry, no Alan Andreani nor Steve Okey (vying for the Alliance mayoralty), and no North Canton Mayor David Held (likely to be re-elected)!

Can you believe it!

If this levy goes down and the post-election analysis is that the YFSI29 needed to have had more financial resources, are these folks going to look awfully bad to their constituents when reality sets in and their cities have no place to take their prisoners.

Another interesting tidbit.

Sheriff Tim Swanson was the leading public official contributor.  He contributed $500 rather that "the expected?" $250.  Hats off! to Sheriff Swanson!

And yet another point.  Yours truly was surprised to see no contribution listed in the individual name of Dick Reinbold. The same Dick Reinbold who went after anti-sales-taxer Craig Conley.  (The Report hears they have patched things up since their "fuss" last Friday at Bender's Tavern)

With the passion he has for the sales tax, one would figure on him at least doubling down on his spouse and Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold's contribution, no?

It was surprising to see no contribution in the name of Alex Zumbar.  The Report knows he is wholeheartedly in favor of the tax.  He probably got distracted with all the replacing Gary Zeigler turmoil?

In summation, the private sector (mainly Timken and Aultman) together with law enforcement types contributed some 80% of the total contributions to the levy effort.

 "Following the money"  certainly reveals a picture of who the  stakeholders are in seeing to it that the sales tax gets passed.  As usual, it boils down to those who have the most to gain.

For the average citizen, the best we can expect is county government limping along even with the tax passing as the proponents could not see that it was politically doable to propose as tax (1%) that would have really fixed the county's financial woes.

Below is the entire list of contributors (except for the billboard contributions of the Stark Co Deputies Ass'n [$9,470], the Alliance FOP [$200] and the Canton CPPA [$200]):

(VIDEO OF CO-CHAIRS OF "YES FOR SAFETY ISSUE 29")STARK COUNTY'S MAYORS MISSING FROM EFFORT TO PASS 0.5% SALES TAX INCREASE? FOR CANTON: HEALY HATRED OF ALL THINGS CREIGHTON & BERNABEI THE CHIEF REASON? CANTON STANDS TO LOSE $400,000 IN CITY INCOME TAX DUE TO LAID OFF COUNTY EMPLOYEES WORKING IN CANTON?

Should Issue #29 fail, Stark County commissioners and other elected officials say they will have to lay off Canton-sited county employees.  And co-chairman of the Yes for Safety: Issue #29 Dan McMasters said in remarks yesterday (see video below) that the city of Canton stands to lose $400,000 in sales tax revenue as a consequence of the laid off employees.



Stark's elected officials and county employees gathered yesterday at the Stark County District Library (Canton branch) in a public political campaign meeting (public because two or more Stark County commissioners were present) to finalize plans for gaining passage of the tax.

If it still existed, the short-lived Stark County Mayors Association (the brainchild of Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II) could be a handy organization to help Stark County pass its sorely needed 0.5% sales tax on November 8th.

But it doesn't.  Because of Mayor Healy's insistence on being "the man in charge," the organization, announced as being formed on December 29th, 2008, quickly fell apart and was officially pronounced dead by the SCPR on May 15, 2009; less than six months after its formation.

One key campaign official intoned to The Report (paraphrase):  "Why is Mayor Healy among the missing and silent as this campaign get underway?"

Short answer:  If Healy is not running an activity from top to bottom, forget him being a part of anything.

That's why his promising idea of a Stark County Mayors Association fell apart quickly.

Longer answer:  Mayor Healy REALLY DOES NOT LIKE Stark Commissioners Tom Bernabei and Janet Creighton and is not real fond of the commissioner that everybody else in Stark County officialdom absolutely loves (Pete Ferguson).

Democrat Healy ran against and defeated Republican Creighton in November, 2007 in a bitterly fought campaign.  After the election, Healy trashed Creighton has having left him a mess to clean up.

To clean up the mess, Healy brought in fellow Democrat and for Canton Law Director Tom Bernabei into the  TeamHealy administration as one of his very top officials.  But lo and behold, Healy found out that Bernabei has a mind of his own and was not reluctant to criticize Healy's fanciful ideas of how to fix what Healy termed as being the Creighton train wreck that he says the former mayor left behind.

Ferguson?  Well, he had this idea that it might be a "good idea" for Stark County's villages, cities and townships to merger whatever functions they could (building departments, health departments, informational technology departments, et cetera).  However, the "fatal flaw" in Ferguson's approach was that Canton would not be in charge of the newly merged functions.  Result:  Healy telephoned Ferguson and read him the riot act on putting together mergers and

The campaign official went on to ask:  "Where is the mayor of Massillon, the mayor of Louisville, mayor of Alliance?"  He should have included township officials, too.

While these political subdivisions do not stand to lose much, if any, tax revenue as a consequence of an Issue 29 failure, they will lose the ability to take people at all hours of the day and night to be booked at the Stark County Sheriff's department and, moreover, even when they are booked they will be put out on the streets pronto because the Stark County Jail will be cut down to 122 beds.  And these beds will be set aside for murders, rapists and the like and not the day-in, day-out type of offenses that most village, city and township police departments arrest for.

None of Stark's political facilities have jail facilities of their own to house the folks they arrest.

An obvious campaign strategy of the Yes for Safety Issue 29 campaigners is to wake up the sleeping giant of political subdivision officials and employees who are scattered across every nook and cranny of Stark County.

Former Commissioner Todd Bosley's idea, when he joined the then Commissioners Tom Harmon and Jane Vignos is "imposing" a 1/2% sales tax (December, 2008) for rehabbing Stark's broken 9-1-1 emergency service system and for additional county general fund revenues, was to give Stark's political subdivisions a stake in the revenues generated by promising "free" 9-1-1 call receiving and dispatching services.

It was a grand plan that Bosley hatched, but he was never able to get village, city and township officials on board in a unified way.  Consequently, a committee of ordinary citizens (Vote No Increased Taxes) mounted a drive that resulted in the imposed tax being overturned in an overwhelming fahion in November, 2009.

In an ironical sense, 9-1-1's rehab is still not completely done despite the fact that over $2 million sits in the county budget set aside for the project.

Why is 9-1-1 not yet complete?

The SCPR believes "the failure to complete" is owing to Mayor Healy and his insistence that Canton be in charge at the end of the day when a revamped 9-1-1 is up and running.

When the general public sees the self-serving shenanigans of the likes of Healy, they develop a jaded attitude towards government in general and efforts like Yes for Public Safety Issue 29 get caught up in the public's dismay.

The question of success or failure for Yes for Safety Issue 29 may well be whether or not they can mobilize their natural allies fanned out across Stark County?

A key question:  Will the mayoral likes of Healy (Canton), Cicchinelli (Massillon), Held (North Canton) and Middleton (Alliance) be sitting this one out? If they do and the issue fails, what are they going to tell their constituents when they see that those charged with serious crimes are walking the streets of their respective communities?