WILL THE FEAR FACTOR CARRY ISSUE 29 - THE SALES TAX - (STARK COUNTY) ISSUE 6 - TWP WIDE POLICE LEVY (LAKE TOWNSHIP) TO BALLOT VICTORY TODAY?

THE COUNTY

It appears to the SCPR that in reality Stark County officials have put their money on "fear" as the main factor to bring Issue 29 to victory today as the final (as contrasted to absentee/early voting) phase of voting is get completed as of 7:30 p.m. tonight.

Though nary one public official has owned up to relying on fear to get the Stark County commissioner proposed sales tax passed, the campaign clearly has been saturated (talk, flyers and whatever) with predictions of Stark County streets abounding with those accused of serious crimes as well as convicted felons (except those accused of murder, rape and the like) tracking through Stark's neighborhoods.

While he is not a public official, "Yes for Safety - Issue 29" co-chair (with retired ironworker Billy Sherer) Dan McMasters is not so shy about playing the fear card.   He lets it all hang out on what a scary place Stark County will be to live in if the tax goes down.

LAKE TOWNSHIP

At last week's meeting of the Lake Township trustees meeting, Lake resident Brenda Heisroth showed up to speak to trustees about the trustees use of the fear factor in order to gain passage of a 4.25 mill levy so that the Uniontown Police Department (which covers only nine square miles of Lake currentll) can cover the entire township.

Heisroth tells the SCPR that she has not decided one way or the other whether she will vote for or against the township's Issue 6.  Her point was not, last Monday, on the merits/demerits of a township wide police department.
Her objection was the use of the "fear factor."

Fear comes in the discussion on Lake Issue 6 for that part of the township that is not covered by either the Uniontown Police Department (UPD) or the Hartville Police Department which amounts to most of the township.

That part of the township is covered by the Stark County sheriff and should Issue 29 fail, then Sheriff Swanson says he will have to lay off about 70 county law enforcement officers which would likely leave nobody to patrol areas like Lake Township.

Yours truly lives in Lake and recalls that a township wide (except 1998, which was merely a proposed incremental expansion into the Greentown area) police levy has been on the ballot three times before and failed by huge numbers in 1988 or thereabouts, in 1998 as but noted above and in 2005.

The Report was able to retrieve the 2005 and 1998 Stark County Board of Elections records, to wit:

A Greentown are business man, Jimmy Miller, told The Report that there are several reasons why he and others outside the district oppose Issue 6.  They include:

• the use of the "fear factor" by township trustees in the sense they play of the possibility that the sales tax will fail and the outlying area of the township will not have any police service at al,
• the failure of the township trustees (which is Miller's personal prime reason for opposing Issue 6) to hold meeting to discuss whether or not taking the UPD township wide was the best way (in terms of the economics/finances) to handle police coverage in the township and specifically the trustees refusal to consider the Stark County sheriff option (which they call option 2), to wit:
•  

• creating another layer of government in Lake Township in the sense that going township wide would entail increasing the size of local government and put the trustees in the position of managing a police department which they are not equipped to do.

Miller at his own expense and in his own name (no campaign committee involved) had 100 signs printed up and they are now spread out over the non-UPD unincorporated area of Stark County.  He was astonished at the interest that his effort generated and also is encouraged by the steady stream of supporters that stopped to see him about getting a sign.

He is just hoping for a win and is not focusing on achieving the overwhelming no votes of the late 80s, 1998 and 2005.

LIKELY OUTCOMES

STARK COUNTY

The SCPR believes the sales tax will pass.

If Miller is any barometer of those who are outside of government, he is a good omen for the issue's passage.

While he thinks the county mishandled the presentation of Issue 29 in putting up the billboards and mailing out flyers with the two represented as criminals as displayed above, he said that he supports the tax's passage.

He says a sales tax is the fairest tax.

A local barber tells The Report he has not heard much on Issue 29 but from what he does hear he thinks the issue is likely to pass.

The Report is getting the growing impression from other person-to-person contacts that the "Yes for Safety - Issue 29" committee has made the case for the county's need for additional revenue - though done distastefully as far as many taxpayers are concerned.

And the reason?

Stark Countians are afraid of the consequences of not passing the tax; especially in terms of the police protection thing and the prospect of wholesale numbers of criminals running coursing through Stark's suburban areas.

LAKE TOWNSHIP

Miller seems to have done a terrific job marshaling the "no" vote despite the huge "yes" vote effort in terms of campaign finance.

Citizens for Lake Township Police raised $11,500 as of the filing deadline (October 19th) from four contributors:

• Trustee Galen Stoll - $1,000,
• Ellis Erb, Inc, $1,000 (Ellis Erb is a Lake Twp trustee),
• Arnold Funeral Homes, $1,000 (John Arnold, trustee),
• Protech Water Systems, Inc, $1,000,
• HRM Enterprises, Inc, $7,500.

Interesting, no?  Four companies (two owned by sitting trustees) and one individual trustee constitute the Citizens for Lake Township Police.

With $11,500 in hand the Citizens for Lake Township Police have been able to mount one big campaign.

Miller said he believes that the huge splash of a campaign may backfire on the pro township wide police advocates.

Despite the heavy odds financial wise, the SCPR would not sell Miller et al short on prevailing.

He may get some support from existing residents of the Uniontown Police District.

The Report is hearing that some residents want to keep the district as it is (i.e. compact) believing that they have superior police protection that they "fear" might be lost in an expansion township wide.

The SCPR believes that  "anti's" could well win.

If Issue 6 fails and if Issue 29 fails, then the Lake trustees will have to eat crow and find a way via the sheriff's department to get police protection for the township.

However, there is one catch.  The Report understands that there cannot by Ohio law be more than one district (non-village, non-city types) in a township.

Having the sheriff's department police the entire unincorporated part of Lake Township would preclude the existence the Uniontown Police Department which covers an unincorporated area.

Could it be that those who want to enlarge the Uniontown Police District might end up eliminating UPD altogether in the event that both Issue 6 and Issue 29 fail?

Now that could be frightening to a whole lot of folks in Lake Township!

REINBOLD & CONLEY "SQUARE OFF" ON COUNTY SALES TAX (ISSUE 29) AT BENDER'S TAVERN IN DOWNTOWN CANTON?

Local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley tells the SCPR that, while neither distinguished himself, he and fellow local attorney Richard Reinbold sort of - at least, verbally -  "squared off" at Bender's Tavern in downtown Canton (across from Canton City Hall) last Friday evening.

As Conley tells it, Reinbold (husband of Stark County Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold and formerly a judge [Canton Municipal Court 1991-1996 and Stark County Common Pleas 1997-2008]) engaged him in small talk.

All went well until Reinbold began to question Conley about his opposition to the Stark County commissioners proposed county sales tax of 0.5% coming up for a vote next Tuesday.

QUESTION

Why did Reinbold single Conley out?

THE BACKGROUND

Likely from recent media reports (including the pages of the SCPR) and on the basis of Conley having led an effort (November, 2009) to repeal a commissioner (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) "imposed" 1/2% sales tax one-half for a countywide 9-1-1 fix and one-half for the county general fund (December, 2008).

County officials were so impressed with Conley's clout with voters that they (in 2010) established a Citizen Review Committee (CRC) and got Conley to agree to serve on the committee.

At the time, the SCPR blogged that Conley's (as well as sidekick Charlie Snyder of Bethlehem Township) inclusion was an attempt to "co-opt" the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee" (the name Conley et al took on) into supporting a new effort either to renew (at 1/4%) or replace the defeated Issue 5.

And The Report still believes that was the reason for Conley's inclusion.  However, Conley had very little actual involvement and pretty much faded out on the CRC's activities.

Fast forward to August, 2011.

Faced with an impending filing deadline, after holding a statutorily required two meetings, the commissioners decided to put what is now Issue 29 on the ballot for a 0.5% sales tax increase for a period of eight years.

At first Conley was vague about whether or not he would oppose the new issue.

But as time wore on, his viewpoint crystalized into outright opposition largely on the basis that the county had not done enough in cutting Sheriff Swanson's expenses in terms of the cost of benefits for sheriff's deputies.

Conley's basic premise on public employee benefits is that they are far too generous when compared to what private sector employees get and that it is not sustainable for public sector employees to receive remuneration (wages, salary and benefits) that outstrips that generally received by the taxpaying private sector.

As the SCPR understands Conley's explanation, county departments of government (with the sheriff's department being the most egregious) has not done enough to rein in their employee costs and that therefore Stark Countians should force the issue by refusing to pay any new taxes.

BACK TO THE REINBOLD/CONLEY TIFF

Undoubtedly, all of the public discussion about Conley this and Conley that got to Reinbold and hence the outburst.

The small talk, on Friday last, migrated to a sudden change to:  "Why are you opposed to the sales tax issue?"

Conley says that he tried to explain his position to Reinbold, but Reinbold immediately turned to invective and personal attack.

According to Conley, Reinbold subjected him to a barrage of the like of:

• "You don't your f****** know what you are talking about."
• "You can't really f****** believe what you are saying."
• "You don't f****** want to do the Deputies' dirty job at the jail."
• "You are a f****** coward!"

Conley admits to having engaged a "tit-for-tat" and regrets having done so.

WHAT IS THE IMPORT OF THIS EXCHANGE?

It shows The Report that tensions are running high with county officials and those close to them about the prospects of Issue 29 passing.

THE PROSPECTS FOR PASSAGE

The Report's sense of the situation is that Issue 29 will pass, but one cannot be sure.

The reason for the unsureness is that there is a large body of Stark County voters who are busy getting from day-to-day and, perhaps, are not seeing the demonstrated need for additional revenues and connection to (in terms of dramatically reduced county criminal justice services) the consequences to turning down the levy.

Also a part of the uncertainty is that there is a political history (and, maybe even, pride) going back as far as 30 years of Stark Countians rejecting local sales tax additions piggybacked onto the state sales tax which now stands at 5.5%.

THE CONLEY EFFECT

Agree or disagree with Craig T. Conley, there is no doubt his public opposition has stoked the fires of anxiety among those who favor passage of Issue 29.

DID MARY CIRELLI MISS HER OPPORTUNITY TO BE MAYOR OF CANTON? ALSO, WHY IT APPEARS THAT CIRELLI WILL VOTE NOT TO SUPPORT A COUNCIL SALES TAX "INFORMAL" RESOLUTION AT TONIGHT'S MEETING

The SCPR was told by a Stark County official last week that several Canton officials were either wavering on whether or not to support the Stark County sales tax issue of a 1/2% increase (Issue 29) or in some cases had definitely decided to vote no when the matter comes up for a vote at tonight's council meeting.

Issue 29 committee members Belden (a Canton Municipal Court judge), Bernabei (a Stark County commissioner), Sherer, Sr. (a former ironworker and Stark union insider) and Swanson (sitting Stark County sheriff) will be there in full force to convince "all" members to support the informal resolution of support.

One name mentioned was that of Councilwoman-at-Large Mary Cirelli.  Also named as possibly not being supportive was Councilman Thomas West (Ward 2) who The Report is told will not be at council meeting tonight because of a death in the extended family, and 8th Ward Councilman Mark Butterworth who is in his second consecutive political fight of his life against Democrat Edmond Mack.

He barely eked out Democrat Karl "Butch" Kraus, Jr. two years ago.

Cirelli is one of Canton's most popular politicians.  In fact, these days there is evidence that she may be more popular than Mayor William J. Healy, II.  (See "On Cirelli's Missed?  Opportunity to be Mayor" below).

Mayor Healy is reported to be saying that "he will have to think about it" as to whether or not he will support Issue 29.  Of course, he has trouble supporting anything that might benefit arch political enemies and Stark County commissioners Janet Creighton and Tom Bernabei.  More than that, he is always angling for political positions which he thinks benefits his personal political objectives.

When The Report brought up the Yes for Stark Issue 29 claim that Canton stands to lose $400,000 in income tax revenues should the issue fail due to the layoff of county employees who pay the Canton income tax, Cirelli questioned the validity of the claim.

On questioning Councilwoman Cirelli about whether or not she was going to vote for a resolution that Majority Leader David Dougherty was putting together supporting Issue 29 for tonight's meeting, she replied that she was only considering voting for the measure if certain conditions were met.

Conditions?

What are her conditions?

Here they are (as the SCPR understands them):

• that Healy, all city employees, department heads, vendors selling to Canton government and non-profits getting funding from the city sign on (apparently, verbally support) any such resolution,
• that she have some assurance that the turf fights within Stark County over consolidating/merging such government services as building permits, public health services, information technology services and 9-1-1 operations be ended, and
• that Stark County get back to providing services in a highly efficient manner.

Hmm?

It appears that Cirelli - if she sticks to her conditions - has set them up so that it will be hard for her to say they have been met thereby freeing her not to vote for tonight's expected resolution.

ON CIRELLI'S MISSED? OPPORTUNITY TO BE MAYOR

What evidence is there that Mary could have been on her way to being mayor of Canton.  Mary's political history in Canton and even parts of Stark County outside of Canton proper is rich indeed, to wit:

In the course of conversation with Mary on Saturday, Mary told The Report that Councilman Bill Smuckler, who actually ran against Mayor Healy in the May 4th Democratic Primary, pointed out to her that she ran ahead of Healy in her Democratic Party re-nomination for council-at-large quest.

Cirelli received 3,137 voters compared to Healy's 3,031.  So Cirelli bested HIZZHONER by 106 votes.  Impressive, no?

But then again Jimmy Babcock also beat Healy's number. The Report does not think Babcock could defeat Healy, but could Cirelli given her long line of electoral successes?

Cirelli said that she had considered a run against Healy.

As anyone who follows political races knows, each and every race has its own dynamics.  In fact, one of her few electoral defeats came at the hand of Mayor Healy when he committed a political unpardonable sin in running against and defeating Cirelli as an incumbent Democratic state representative in 2004.

The near 2,500 vote Healy victory in the state representative race contraindicates that Cirelli could have defeated Healy in May.  However, a significant part of the vote in the 52nd House District comes from outside Canton proper.

Given Cirelli's longtime Canton-based political success and Healy's strong 2004 win over her, a straight up race within the political bounds of Canton between two would have been a political sight to behold!

(VIDEO: COMMISSIONER CREIGHTON) CREIGHTON SAYS CAMPAIGN FOR THE 1/2% SALES TAX INCREASE: "EDUCATE THE PUBLIC?" WELL, THAT'S FINE, BUT COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO CONVINCE STARK COUNTIANS THAT THEY ARE TRUSTWORTHY TO BE STEWARDS OF $22 MILLION A YEAR FOR EIGHT YEARS

From what the SCPR is hearing from various Stark Countians, the proposed 1/2% sales tax increase (Issue #29) faces an uphill battle.

But Commissioner Janet Creighton is optimistic that proponents of the increase can "educate" enough Stark Countians as to the critical need to achieve an election day victory.  Here is a video of Creighton speaking to group of county employees this past Tuesday at a commissioner work session.

A 1/2% sales tax increase a victory?

Well, that is if "survival" is victory.

If the 1/2% passes, Stark County will limp along.  But it will not be in a position to aggressively do the thing that the county needs and that is to put together an organized, sophisticated effort of economic development.

The Report recognizes that, as Commissioner Creighton alludes to, too many past commissioners have not served Stark County well.  And trust of local government may be at the lowest level that it has ever been at in the county.

So the public attitude seems to be:  why would you want to put money into a government structure you do not trust? 

Yours truly would one-up Commissioner Creighton and say that a number of other (i.e. other than commissioners) Stark County elected officials have not served the county well in that they appear to be and have been more interested in advancing their personal political agenda and taking care of their political friends and allies as opposed to the well being of the citizens of Stark County. 

These folks have done enormous damage to public confidence in Stark's local government and now "the chickens are coming home to roost."  Also, there has been a number of elected officials who have operated to the advantage of the Stark County public but who have stood by and not uttered a word of protest as some of their colleagues have played the political card at taxpayer expense in bringing people into Stark County government whose main virtue seems to be that they are politically connected. 

Local government jobs are to be accessible to all citizens and not set aside for some elected or appointed official's relative or political loyalist.

Those officials who do not do such in operating their offices, need to step forward and identify those who do.  Otherwise, they are part of the problem in that they do no evil while they turn their heads aside making sure that they not see or hear any evil.  There has to be collegial accountability in Stark County as a part of restoring trust to Stark County government.

It could be that until the 2012 election has come and gone and Stark Countians have had an opportunity to remove the remaining "its all about me" types who remain in office, that Stark County officials can truly rebuild trust between the citizenry and those that govern.

The current board of commissioners is an improvement of what Stark has had in some time.  However, the 1/2% will not allow them to show what they can do with sufficient resources.  In the judgment of The Report, the 1/2% will only work if the commissioners have a follow-up plan to further educate county voters, in an environment of vastly improved trust, that more revenue is merited and that it will be put to use to make Stark County an economic powerhouse which lure jobs and highly skilled workers to our county.

More revenue does not mean that commissioners and other elected county officials do not have an obligation to continue to pare down and pressure the elimination of wasteful structures of government (multiple building departments, health departments and information services departments), unmerited programs (Stark County Fair Board subsidy) and build greater accountability in terms of requiring specific return on the county dollar investment reports from the likes of the Port Authority and the Stark Development Board.

As local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley keeps hammering away at, the commissioners need to take the lead in pressuring the likes of the sheriff's department to get its benefits package in line with what is being done in the private sector.

One of the dangers of what the commissioners are now saying about their intent to take much of money to be raised by a 1/2% increase and restore the sheriff to his 2011 level of funding is that he will feel no need to address the issue that Conley raises.

Should the commissioners allow that to happen, then they will no longer be able to point the finger at previous boards of commissioners as not showing "due diligence" with county taxpayer money.

They then will be thought to be "more of the same" and thereby become part of the increasing  disenchantment of everyday citizens with those who govern us.