ALL BUT CERTAIN? MASSILLON IN OFFING FOR 15% "ACROSS-THE-BOARD" CUTS COME APRIL?

LAST UPDATE:  8:00 P.M.

VIDEOS

COUNCILMAN PAUL MANSON

SCPR INTERVIEW

ON

FINANCIAL RESTORATION PLAN

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

SEGMENT 1

COUNCIL CONSIDERS

FINANCIAL RESTORATION PLAN

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

SEGMENT 2

COUNCIL CONSIDERS

FINANCIAL RESTORATION PLAN
 =====================

SEGMENT 3

COUNCIL CONSIDERS

FINANCIAL RESTORATION PLAN
  =====================

SEGMENT 4

COUNCIL CONSIDERS

FINANCIAL RESTORATION PLAN
====================

SEGMENT 5

COUNCIL CONSIDERS

FINANCIAL RESTORATION PLAN
====================
COUNCILWOMAN
SARITA CUNNINGHAM-HEDDERLY
VOWS HER OPPOSITION TO
CATAZARO-PERRY PROPOSED
1.5 MILL REAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE

Since December 19th, 2014 a new Massillon Financial Restoration Plan (Plan) has been in the works for the city.

On December 19th, the development of the Plan has been with the administration of Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

On March 9th, the mayor released the Plan to Massillon City Council for its approval or rejection.

On March 19th, council will have had to have acted affirmatively or in rejection of the Plan or provided alternative thereto in order for the Massillon Financial Planning Supervision Commission (Commission) to confirm a Plan at its next regularly scheduled meeting of March 24, 2015 at 1:30 p.m.

From what the SCPR saw at last night's council work session, The Report thinks there is no way council can see it way clear to adopt Catazaro-Perry's proposal.

SCPR Note: Councilwomen Andrea Scassa (Ward 3) and Councilwoman-at-Large Michelle Del Rio-Keller were absent from last night's meeting.

And in sort of way, a council rejection would in a fashion be a case of serving "poetic justice" to the administration.

For in two prior revenue raising efforts by council to get voters to pass an increase in income taxes,

• the mayor has either refused to support the effort (the first attempt, in May, 2013, before Massillon was put in fiscal emergency by the State of Ohio as the mayor's initiative), or 
• she pretty much "sat on her duff" as in the case of the November, 2014 tax levy to the voters proposal,
• both of which were soundly defeated!

Now apparently it is council's turn to play the role of the spoiler which in an ironical sense is likely to benefit the mayor in her 2015 campaign fore reelection in providing fodder to blame Massillon City Council for all the financial woes the city has been experiencing in recent years.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the failure to resolve Massillon's financial dilemma is all on the mayor's plate and the public should not be buying her  "buck-passing-responsibility-avoidance" that is likely to unfold in her political war for survival against fellow Democrat and opponent for the mayor; namely, J.D. Ress.

Normally, an incumbent mayor should not have a worry in the world at being challenged by a political novice but the word is that the mayor is much more worried about being defeated by the Massillon born, bred and well-known journalist Ress than the the off-in-the-distance challenge that the Democratic primary winner has from Republican Lee Brunckhart in November.

While the SCPR is highly skeptical that Ress can pull it off, Stark County may be about to experience the largest political upset in the history of Stark County politics.

But the analysis of that race for future blogs between now and May 5th.

Now back to Massillon City Council's work session last night.

The structure of today's blog is to go through the video of last night's session in viewable segments (in terms of the length of a given video) and at the end provide the entire video for those SCPR readers who want to take in the session in its unbroken totality.

First, we start off today with a video interview with Councilman-at-Large Paul Manson which is a "summarize tonight's session and where the process now is and what are the potential consequences" interview.

Manson:

• expresses his/council's unhappiness that council has only been given some 10 days to consider the plan which in its essence is a property tax issue of 1.5 mills the proceeds of which are to be dedicated to streets repair and streets department equipment purchasing
• highlights a fundamental disagreement between most council members as the structure of proposed new taxes with the latter favoring an income tax (into the general fund) approach,
• predicts that council will not approve the mayor's plan "as presented,"
• addresses SCPR questions as to whom is responsible for council only getting 10 days to consider a plan in the making over four months,
• discusses the viability of Ward 4 Councilman Shaddrick Stinson's suggestion (last night) of an entertainment tax alternative,
• focuses on the reality that the Catazaro-Perry tax plan has Massillon real property owners paying taxes to support a Massillon government staff of which a significant number are not themselves Massillon property tax payers,
• commented on the absence of Mayor Catazaro-Perry from last night's session (represented by Budget Director and Income Tax Administrator Ken Koher) in that the mayor's presence might have b
• helpful, or
• resulted in a verbal brawl

As an aid to readers of the SCPR to evaluate whether or not it is reasonable for Mayor Catazaro-Perry to desire to raise property taxes in Massillon, The Report has obtained data from the Stark County's auditor's office which shows that Massillon ranks 14th among Stark County's some 100 political subdivision taxing entities in terms of its "effective" tax rate, to wit:

The very first person to say "flat-out" she would not she would not support the Catazaro-Perry proposed 1.5 mill real property tax increase was Ward 1 Councilwoman Sarita Cunningham-Hedderly.

Here is a SCPR video of Cunningham-Hedderly reiterating her opposition.



Winding our way through last night's one hour session (in ten minute video segments), we begin with the open of the session:

SEGMENT 1

• Manson talks about his attempt to get council more time to consider the Plan,
• Informs council he will not be in Massillon past next Monday night,
• That he will make his opinion known on the Plan before leaving,
• Sets out timeline for the Commission's next meeting and the mayor having submitted a council approved Plan to the Commission by March 19th,
• Gets concurrence from council to meet next Monday (March 16th) at 6:00 p.m. for further deliberations on the Plan,
• Discusses the imminence of 15% across the board cuts should council fail to approve the Plan as is or in alternative form,
• Stinson:  timeline for council consideration is unfair,
• Stinson:  Commission really wouldn't implement 15% across the board cuts in that council has done everything asked of it before?
• Stinson:  "As far as I am concerned, if we don't make the 19th we don't make the 19th, we don't make it.
• Lewis: Asks Koher about who put the Plan together and how long it took with the question being the basis of his objection to the dearth of time that council has to consider a somewhat complex plan a long time in the making in a 10 day, more or less, time span,
• Koher: Provides some details on why the delay in discussing a process in which the administration asked Massillon Law Director Perry Stergios his opinion on whether or not Massillon could combine a streets property tax levy with one for police and fire,
• Stergios' opinion was asked for on March 2, 2015,
• Lewis: Administration should have presented a preliminary plan to council so that council had a longer block of time to mull over the Plan.
• Lewis: As things now stand, he doubts he can be prepared on 9 days notice to vote to approve the Plan as submitted by the mayor

SEGMENT 2

• Continuing on with the video of last night's council work session, the conversation picks up with:
• Paul Manson moderating the discussion:
• Cunningham-Hedderly (referring to the compressed timeline - "we are are not Superman,"
• Lewis:  Where are the numbers for this plan which were provided with the "old" plan.  The lack of numbers, Lewis says, is another reason why council cannot deal with the current plan in terms of approving it,
• Koher:  "We'll have those number before Tuesday (which would be March 17th, the day before council's deadline for approving/disapproving of the plan),
• Lewis:  We cannot possibly continue on with this consideration, this plan "is just words, until I see the numbers,"
• Manson:  "I agree.  There is no way I can get on board right now,"
• Chovan:  Clearly gets it in saying that with council not having time enough to thoroughly digest the plan will then be the fall guy for causing Massillon departments of government to be cut 15% across the board,
• Stinson:  "I already have talked to several neighborhood associations in my ward and they already saying no to the property tax,"
• Halter:  She has had anti-property-tax-increase calls,
• Cunningham-Hedderly:  Also cites receiving anti-property-tax calls and reiterates her published comments that she will not support the proposed 1.5 mill levy,
• Starrett:  Asks why is the levy being proposed for the ballot in February, 2016.  She says she is not of a mind to support that timeline IF she were to support a property tax levy ballot initiative,

SEGMENT 3

• Continuing on with the video of last night's council work session, the conversation pickS up with:
• Paul Manson moderating the discussion:
• Manson and others:  talk about a possible conflict with a school levy which, according to Manson was soundly defeated the last time it was on the ballot,
• Cunningham-Hedderly: "Can Massillon do a Sales Tax?"  [Stergios from the audience:  "no,"
• Stinson: "How about a Sin [i.e. entertainment] tax?"
• Stinson:  Brings up whether or not Massillon will receive FEMA grant ($192,000 or so) for safety forces which led to an extended council discussion on that significance of such a factor,

SEGMENT 4

• Continuing on with the video of last night's council work session, the conversation picks up with:
• Paul Manson moderating the discussion:
• Manson:  Initiates discussion of the 1.5 mills as to the duration thereof and the proposal to put the measure on the ballot in February, 2016 and finally whether or not council might not want to abate the street lighting assessment recently imposed,
• Lewis:  Notes that the 1.5 mills is dedicated streets and street department vehicles and initiates a discussion how the plan deals with the need to eliminate a projected $1 million general fund deficit within 5 years,
• Chovan:  Opens up a discussion about staff efficiencies including job combinations, consolidations and outsourcing,
• Lewis:  Queries Koher again on administration measures designed to close general fund projected deficits plans,

SEGMENT 5

• Continuing on with the video of last night's council work session, the conversation picks up with:
• Paul Manson moderating the discussion:
• Chovan:  Asks Koher about selling or leasing of non-essential city assets,
• Manson:  Queries Koher about the fuel usage efficiencies line item in Plan,
• Manson:  Says he has "a hard time supporting this thing" and that council should push for about a month's extension,
• Lewis:  If council members think they are going to reject the administration's plan to come prepared at next meeting (Monday, the 16th at 6:00 p.m.) prepared to discuss alternatives,
• Manson:  Says his alternative is going back to an income tax increase and remove street lighting assessment,
• Starett:  Agrees with Manson on income tax approach and doing something with the street lighting assessment,
• Council members in general:  Discussed the numbers and dynamics of going to an income tax alternative,
• Halter:  Recommended that if council develops an alternative to go with an income tax that the campaign be run by professionals and not by council,
• Lewis:  Talks about the citizens having spoken twice in rejecting an income tax increase and that consequently he is going to have a hard time getting behind a third try of any kind for a tax increase,
• Halter:  Pointed out to her fellows that all city employees have to pay the city income tax but that relatively few pay Massillon real property taxes because many of them live outside the city, and "that," she says "is a hard pill to swallow by the citizens,"
• Manson (and Lewis):  Pose questions to Koher on the actual numbers implied by Halter's observation,
• Starrett:  Raises the topic of if Massillon does the 1.5 mill property tax levy where does that put the city in Stark County political subdivision rankings of the amount of effective millage that residents pay,

At the end of the day, the SCPR agrees with the general sentiment impliedly expressed last night by council members that for council to approve the Plan with only some 10 days to mull it over would be irresponsible.

The entire Plan development process shows how utterly incommuncative that Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry is with council and therefore the likelihood that council will reject the plan as presented looms large.

The mayor only has herself to blame, no?

Here is the full - unsegmented - video of last night's council consideration of the Catazaro-Perry Massillon Financial Restoration Plan.

MASSILLON COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER "GAVELS DOWN" MAYOR CATZARO-PERRY. SLAGLE SAVES THE MAYOR FROM THIRD DEFEAT ON INCOME TAX CREDIT ISSUE FOR THE TIME BEING?

It was interesting to hear Mayor Kathy Catzazro-Perry accuse Massillon City Council (at least her opponents on the issue of reducing Massillon income tax credit for Massillonians who pay taxes to other communities) of playing politics with the issue.

Well, as the SCPR sees it, the administration and councilmatic ally Larry Slagle (on the tax credit reduction issue) played a little game of their own last night.

At first it did not fit in The Report's thinking that Slagle voted "no" on a motion to suspend the rules on three readings so that the mayor could have an up or down vote for the third time.

NOTE:  Third time?

In a technical sense of an "up or down vote," there has only been one up or down vote [March, 2012; 8 against, 1 for].

The first time (late last year with the outgoing council) was not an actual vote on the merits of the question, but rather a refusal to put it on the agenda.  And, of course, last night was not an actual vote on the merits of the question, but merely a vote on whether or not to allow a vote at last night's proceedings.

But on reflection, it appears to The Report that what Slagle (the only councilperson to vote for the reduction back in March), was really doing was "saving the mayor's bacon."  For if an up or down vote had taken place last night, it was obvious that the issue was going down to defeat at least by a 5 to 3 margin with Chovan, Halter, Lewis, Manson and Peters voting (Cunningham - thought to be another no vote - was absent because she had been in a traffic accident earlier in the day).

Catazaro-Perry was fortunate to have the opportunity to avoid yet another humiliation.  Had Cunningham be able to attend, Slagle's move would have been unavailing as she undoubtedly wold have voted to suspend the rules and her vote would have provided the necessary seventh vote  to carry the day on the matter.

Here's a video of the actual vote.



If the mayor has made any headway since the March vote, it will in be in possibly picking up the votes of Scassa and Townsend to add to the Slagle vote.

If there ever is going to be a chance that Catazaro-Perry could convince council to vote in favor of the reduced income tax credit, she may have blown it last night as she came out with guns blazing (figuratively speaking, of course) in a Johnnie A. Maier, Jr-esque power move which appeared to be an effort to intimidate council into doing the will of the mayor.

In an earlier blog this year, the SCPR wrote about the mayor's propensity to keep digging a deeper hole for herself in her endeavor to solve Massillon's financial problems.

Apparently, she wants to keep digging.

Here is a video of a sharp exchange between the mayor, Councilman Manson and council president Glenn Gamber on her being out of order during the discussion on the tax reduction issue.



Auditor Jayne Ferrero (perceived by some not to be a big fan of the mayor) lined up with Catazaro-Perry in pleading with council to pass the ordinance.

Here is a video of her plea.



If the administration's assessment of a failure on the tax issue (or, alternatively, other adequate revenue raising measures) is correct, then Massillonians (according to Finance Director Ken Koher) can expect Ohio's auditor to declare Massillon to be in a fiscal emergency and send in a team of auditors to go over Massillon's budget with a fine toothed comb and start making cuts.

The meeting was jam-packed with dramatic moments.

• Councilman Slagle's question of Finance Director about Massillon's failure to collect all that is due it (about $350,000 as drawn out in questioning by Councilman Chovan) in delinquent and collectible income taxes,
• Councilman Townsend asking whether not council's approving the reduced tax credit would result in the re-hiring of the laid off safety forces (answer:  no, but may prevent future layoffs),
• Catazaro-Perry's assertion that there is no more room to cut Massillon's expenses be it street lighting or further layoffs,
• The vote last night was the most important vote of the year for council,
• Councilman Manson pitching his longstanding position that council place an increase in the city income tax rate from 1.8% to 2.0%,
• Councilman Manson in a back and forth with Finance Director Koher and Safety Director George Maier on the credibility of the numbers on the sufficiency of revenues (estimated to be $751,000) to solve Massillon's immediate financial quagmire,
• Councilman Lewis drawing out of the mayor her administration's plan to convince the Stark County auditor to allow Massillon to borrow against the projected revenues that an income tax credit would bring in so as to make the money available this year,
• The gaveling down of Catazaro-Perry and Manson (during Lewis's questioning) as a consequence of an argument ensuing as the mayor accused Councilman Manson of "not being serious" about his income tax hike proposal,
• Catazaro-Perry outline activities of the administration to increase Massillon's income tax base,
• Councilman Slagle:  "Madame Mayor what is your position on an income tax increase?" and the mayor shifting the subject to the reduced income tax credit (ultimately refusing to answer the question) despite Slagle's objection,
• Councilman Manson referring to Catazaro-Perry's bad decisions of the past (presumably referring to when she served on council herself for 8 years),

The Report has compiled a video of the highlights of the drama.

A HOUSE CLEANING UNDERWAY IN MASSILLON: "DAVID MALEY" FORMER STARK CO. AUDITOR KIM PEREZ EMPLOYEE & PAL OF JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR TO BECOME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR?

As current Safety-Service Director Mike Loudiana tells it, the incoming Catazaro-Perry and his successor-designate George Maier (brother of Massillon Clerk of Courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. who the SCPR sees as "the power behind the throne") were not interested in taking him up on an offer to sit down with them work out a smooth transition from the Cicchinelli administration to Catazaro-Perry's.

The SCPR finds the Loudiana reported brush off interesting in light of Saturday's editorial in The Massillon Independent which seems to blame the abrasive relationship between Cicchinelli and Catazaro-Perry totally on the mayor, to wit:

However, the mayor’s refusal to make the administrative transition to the mayor-elect as smooth as possible, and his implication that there are deep, dark secrets surrounding her team only  will serve to sully his legacy in the city to which he has devoted his professional life for more than three decades.  (emphasis added)

Unless The Inde's words:

[c]oincidentally, or possibly not, Mayor Frank Cicchinelli complemented an Inde reporter at city hall Friday for “beginning to connect the dots,” clearly referring to the story about George Maier.   

can somehow be tortured into "the mayor's refusal to make the administrative transition to the mayor-elect as smooth as possible,"  it is unclear from the four corners of the editorial how the editor(s) can make the leap they do in the editorial.

There is no doubt that Mayor Cicchinelli is smarting from the Catazaro-Perry defeat.

From what the SCPR can see, on the Catazaro-Perry side of things, her supporters seem to be rubbing it in.

Take George Maier's statement given to Inde reporter Matt Rink:

Kathy’s got one shot here.  She won the election almost by a landslide, 65 percent. That was a message from the voters to fix things, change things, take our city back.

 Hmm?

Again, the language:  "... [B]y a landslide, 65 percent. ... "  "take our city back."
Reeks of arrogance, no?  Suggests, a housecleaning, no?  

So the truth of the matter likely is that neither side has any use for the other and will be holding their respective noses  when anywhere near the other.

Work together "to make a transition as smooth as possible?"  You've got to be kidding! 

Meanwhile, Cantazaro-Perry continues on in a housecleaning vein.

The SCPR hears that David Maley (husband of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr employee Tammy Maley) is set to replace Aane Aaby as Community Development Director.
Maley is the one-time chief operative of Kim Perez when Perez was Stark County auditor who was swept out of office by Republican Alan Harold in the wake of a Stark County voter reaction to what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley termed as "Zeiglergate." (click on this LINK for background material)

No surprise here, The Report expects quite a number of Maier political comrades to surface in a Catazaro-Perry administration.

Reportedly Ken Koher (a former Stark County treasurer in the stream of successions of Gary Zeigler as county treasurer) will become Catazaro-Perry's part-time budget director not finance director as reported in area media.  The Report understands that elected Massillon Auditor Jayne Ferrero handles Massillon's finance duties.


It appears that no Cicchinelli administration leadership types will make it into the Catazaro-Perry administration.  


Of course that is the mayor-elect's right.  But is it a wise thing to do in order to effect a smooth transition for the benefit of the citizens of Massillon?

In another interesting development at last night's Massillon City Council meeting it appears that Catazaro-Perry (as a councilperson) attempted to ramrod (in the view of some) an income tax credit through council.  (City council nixes tax-credit proposal, Matt Rink, The Independent, 11/21/2011).

Catzaro-Perry denies that there was any attempt to ramrod the credit through council but when you have your to be chief administrator George Maier chortling about a 65% win and "tak[ing] our city back," it is not much of a stretch to believe ramrodding was in fact what Catazaro-Perry along with her allies Anderson and Townsend were up to.

Knowing the likes of Catazaro-Perry's chief supporters (i.e. Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and Shane Jackson) as the SCPR does, Monday night's move had to be the work product of this pair getting into the ear of the mayor-elect.

Massillonians should get used to loyalist and power politics as standard fare as such appears to be what the powers/political operatives behind Kathy Catazaro-Perry are all about.

IF YOU ARE KEN KOHER, IS IT GOOD GOING INTO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION TO HAVE FORMER DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIR JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR AS A PRIME SUPPORTER?

As readers can see from the graphic above, the SCPR has obtained a copy of an e-mail that former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. sent out to a list of Central Committee members he apparently thinks look to him for direction on party matters.

It was surprising to the The Report on Tuesday last when Ken Koher walked away with the nomination by a whopping 72 to 31 vote margin (E.E. Wise, Jr. [popularly known as EJ] with the 31).

Seeing the e-mail, after the fact, Koher's political slam on Wise now all makes sense.  The well-connected to the Stark County Democratic Party Wise family must have been shocked at the shellacking that EJ took. 

They shouldn't nor should the SCPR have been.  Had we been privy to the e-mail before the selection, it would have been clear.  Right before the vote The Report did speak with a quintessential Democratic insider who did tell yours truly that the choice would boil down to Koher versus Wise.

If he is anything, The Report sees Maier as one the foremost political opportunists in Stark County and, perhaps, in all of Ohio.  In Stark County it is neck-and-neck between him and Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II as to whom among the two of them is the greater opportunist.

Maier astutely read the tea leaves on the public outcry against the now former Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler, and obviously determined that Stark Democrats would have to latch onto a "fresh face," if they are to retain the office in the light of the public's deep dissatisfaction with Zeigler not having adequate checks and balances in place to keep his former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci from making off with $2.96 (as determined by Judge John Adams - U.S. District Court - Northern Ohio).

Because of his failure, Stark County commissioners removed Zeigler from office on August 23rd.  Hence the Democrats and Republicans selected candidates to run for the office in November.

In traditional political environments, a Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. would not in the slightest be interested in a Kenneth Koher because he, as a candidate, is too politically objective on a relative scale compared to Maier.

But one has to do what one has to do to preserve political dominance.  That's why the SCPR believes Maier is out to capitalize on Koher's reputation for not being that political.

So the question becomes this.  Now that we know that the political pro Johnnie A. Maier has latched onto Ken Koher, is he truly a "fresh face" who will be unaffected by the political counsel and advice of the likes of Maier when it comes to running the treasurer's office?

During a press conference after being the selected as the Democrats nominee, Kohler flinched when asked by the SCPR whether or not he would be looking at the party registration of treasury job applicants.  He did say he would not be looking at the registration.

But isn't it a little bit troublesome that he paused for a instant to think about political considerations in light of the Maier endorsement (i.e. "I haven't talked to others in the party about my activities ... .")?

SEE VIDEOS OF KOHER VERSUS WISE, KOHER'S "PRESS CONFERENCE" & GONZALEZ ON THE POLITICS OF RUNNING FOR COUNTY TREASURER. VOTE: KOHER 72 - WISE 31; DO YOU AGREE?

Yesterday, the SCPR editorialized that what Stark County needs more than anything else is to have a Stark County treasurer to replace recently commissioner removed Gary D. Zeigler (Democrat) who is view by the public as being trustworthy.

The Report believes that the Democrat met the challenge in last evening's meeting of the Stark County Democratic Central Committee to select an interim treasurer and also a candidate to run for the unexpired portion of Zeigler's term which ends in September, 2013.

The two leading candidates in terms of the vote (Koher 72 votes; Wise 31 votes) are presented below in a video for readers to view and judge whether or not the Democrats made a trustworthy choice.

Also presented is a video interview (press conference style) in which Bob Bishop of WHBC1480 AM, the Akron Beacon Journal's Nancy Molnar and the SCPR.

The final video is a SCPR interview of Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez who addresses the political side of Koher becoming the elected treasurer of Stark County.

Readers will not that Wise emphasized his having run for office before whereas Koher focused on fixing the broken Stark County treasurer's office.

Being politically unsophisticated is a real plus these days in Stark County and hence you get a 72 to 31 vote in favor of the politically inexperienced Ken Koher.

The Report believes that North Canton Finance Director and Republican Alex Zumbar (who has a strong political base in Alliance under the mentoring of former Stark County Republican chairman Charles Brown - now a Court of Common Pleas judge) is the odds on favorite to win tonight as the Republican Executive Committee meets at Malone University to select the Republican candidate for treasurer.

It be will be interesting to see whether or not the Democrat's selection of a political novice will weigh in favor of interim Treasurer Jamie Allbritain getting the Republican nod tonight.  The Report's view is that she is every bit as politically unsavvy as Koher. 

If Zumbar prevails, then in a ironic sense it will be the Democrats who offer a fresh face to political office whereas the Republicans will certainly be viewed by the electorate as making the more pragmatic choice.

A Zumbar Koher match up would clearly put the Stark County voters to the test.

Which is more important competence coupled with political innocence (as The Report sees Koher) compared to competence coupled with political acumen? The Videos: