IT IS NOW UP TO PLAIN "AFFECTED AREA" VOTERS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO CREATE STARK COUNTY'S "NEW" CITY?

The Stark County commissioners approved sending the "Steering Committee City of Plain" petition to the Stark County Board of Elections for placement on the May 4, 2010 ballot for voters in the affected area of Plain Township (about 58% of the township according to SCPR calculations) to determine whether to separate from the township or remain there.

Committee chair Roy Barr expects some opposition.

What the SCPR will be watching is whether or not the current Plain Township trustees get into the issue one way or another.

The Report believes it is very unlikely that any of the trustees will be openly for the citification of part the township. 

The real question:  Will there be trustee background noise that will be hard for the Steering Committee to cope with?

Here is a video of Monday's commissioner meeting session which includes a post-passage of the resolution impromptu press conference with members of local media (including yours truly) asking Barr questions:

HMM? ARE WE IN CANTON, OHIO OR CANTON, CHINA? HEALY/HERMAN MOVE TO CENSOR CITY ACCESS TO STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT?

 

 UPDATE:  12/24/2009 - 6:00 AM

The SCPR has received an email form Healy administration Adam Herman denying the accuracy of the source email claiming the SCPR blog had been blocked by the administration denying Canton city employees access to The Report

When Americans look on from the outside, we often wonder how tyrants are made.

Well, we who live in Stark County, Ohio are getting an "up close and personal look!"

"Woe is us."  We Stark Countians are witnessing a "political control freak" in action.  Who might that be?

Canton mayor William J. Healy, II, that's who!!!

His latest effort, apparently, is contained in the email the SCPR received yesterday, to repeat the graphic above in the interest of readability, to wit:

In case you haven't heard already, your blog is no longer accessable from city computers. I guess you really touched a nerve with either the Mayor or his Communications Director/ head of IT. Thank you for getting the truth out from all sides.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

The more "political" - in the sense of style"  (than the SCPR) Repository Editorial Board has taken to calling him "Sir William."

In the view of the SCPR, calling him "Sir William" in a mocking way is their being extremely euphemistic and polite beyond politeness.

Fortunately for Ohioans and perhaps the nation, due - in large part - to the efforts of the SCPR; Healy's last "elected" political stop is likely to be Canton; unless, of course, he sees the error of his ways and becomes the small letter "d" democrat we demand of our politicians.

Ohio?  Well, he was a state representative with one eye focused on rising to the leadership level.  Only trouble for him was that he was swimming with "political carps" with sharper teeth than his own.

The nation?  He once told yours truly (when he was still gracing me with access) that the Democratic National Congressional Caucus offered to put $1 million into a campaign for him to succeed Ralph Regula as congressman.  But this SCPR never believed this from Healy; it clearly smacks of grandiose Healy spin.

If he does change, it will take years of work to convince voters he has changed.

Don't look for Healy to change; after all, why would a "fount of all knowledge" change?

Healy has sent several emissaries to the SCPR asking that The Report water down his political analysis of the conduct of the Healy administration.  

The carrot presented?

Then Mayor Healy might talk to you.

Whoopie dee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like the SCPR is frothing at the mouth to talk to Healy.

The fact of the matter is that public officials are not entitled to deny citizens and the press the opportunity to ask questions.

But what if they won't?

Then the voting public will factor their uncommunicativeness in the calculus of whether or not to vote for them.  And, of course, the SCPR will make sure that the Stark County public knows who these officials are.

Meanwhile, the SCPR does have many sources and will get the Healy story without the mayor and his ventriloquist Adam Herman weighing-in. In fact, the SCPR is likely better off not talking to Healy because the Healy/Herman axis is "Spin City Central!"  Who wants to have to sift the fact from fiction when there is very little fact and almost all fiction?

As unrealistic as his quest is, Healy really does think he can stifle public discussion of the critical issues that Cantonians face.

But "tyrants-in-the-making" are never realistic as they create and live in a world of their own creation.

The only question that remains for Cantonians is this:  As William J. Healy, II self-destructs, how deep into the abyss will he take Canton?

Healy says he consummately cares about Canton.

But don't you believe it.

William J. Healy, II only cares about William J. Healy,II!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ROSARIO CARCIONE - PRESIDENT OF CANTON PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASS'N - SPEAKS OUT ON HEALY'S IMPASSE WITH FIREFIGHTERS. SEE/HEAR HEALY PRESENT HIS SIDE TOMORROW

Yesterday was a turbulent day for both Rosario Carcione (president, Canton Professional Firefighters Ass'n - Local 249) as it was for Canton mayor William J. Healy, II.

Each took turns blaming the other for the failure of the union and the city to come to a "meeting of the minds" on a way to get 28 laid-off firefighters back on the job protecting the safety of Cantonians.

Today, the SCPR presents two statements by Carcione.  The first was made outside Canton City Hall in early afternoon yesterday as he stood with his rank-and-file fellow unionists as the walked Cleveland Avenue and 2nd St SW alongside and in front of City Hall in an "informational" picketing effort to rally public support to their cause.  The second was made before the regular meeting of Canton City Council meeting of December 21, 2009.

Tomorrow, the SCPR will present a compilation of Mayor Healy's response to the questions of City Council members on the failed negotiations.  Of particular interest to readers of the SCPR should be what the SCPR interprets to have been an acrimonious exhange between Council president Allen Schulman and Healy on what role City Council played in creating conditions (i.e. approving the original agreement city/union contract which the city now finds unsustainable in terms of requiring the layoff of 28 firefighters this past Saturday).

Here is President Rosario S. Carcione:

IS CANTON CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN SCHULMAN "SCAPEGOATING" COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR ADAM HERMAN?

A significant part of last night Canton City Council meeting was Council president Allen Schulman's grilling of Mayor Healy on his need for a communications director.

Here is Schulman grilling on video.

As yours truly was leaving the meeting last night, I heard "Martin" uttered from the distance.  Turning to see who had called for me, lo and behold it was Adam Herman, Mayor William J. Healy, II's communications director.

It soon became obvious that Director Herman was not happy with Schulman singling him out.

"You know," he said "there are other departments with employees that are similar in significance to me.  Why is Schulman's focus on me?"

To which, yours truly retorted:  "You have a good point and I am the guy to make good points to."

The Healy top-level administration thinks that the SCPR is dead set against the mayor.  Actually, the opposite is true.  The analyzing and critiquing is designed to prod the administration into doing better.  Healy is the mayor of Canton, like it or not, and everyone should be pushing him to become a better mayor.

If Healy can control his arrogance and demonstrate that he can work with others and take hard questions, governmental and political, and be responsive, and, above all, demonstrate that he has good, workable ideas to bring the city of Canton out of its funk, then The Report is open to revising his take on Healy et al.

Healy has been two years in creating a negative impression; it is likely to take that amount of time - perhaps longer - to reverse the impression.  Should Healy be of a mind to change himself, there is hope.  But he better get cracking because in a little over a year the 2011 Democratic primary will be upon us and Healy will have to had done enough by then to have any chance at all of surviving the primary.

Back to Adam Herman and the communications director job.

Herman does have a good point.  He appears to have been made the "poster child" of everything that Schulman and others do not like about Healy and his close-in staff and cabinet. 

Is it fair for Schulman and other critics to tie Herman's job to the $4.5 million projected city deficit for 2010?  Are there jobs in other departments that merit the same scrutiny that the communications director job has gotten?

Perhaps, Canton does need to eliminate the communications director job, but it should not be just that job.  There have to be others spread out over Canton's 35 departments of government.  If there were 15 such jobs (at a total cost of about $70,000 per), you would have $1 million in savings.

There was much talk about shared sacrifice at last night's Council meeting.  The SCPR gets the idea that there is an Animal Farm-esque (remember:  "more than equal") quality about the cuts that are going on.

There is some evidence that the firefighters are among the "less equals" with the Healy administration.  Healy never really answered Schulman's question on whether or not the director of communications job is essential.  Of course, everyone knows that firefighting and police jobs are essential.

It is obvious that there is a lot of political infighting going on among Canton city employees over who gets cut or the size of pay cuts or the number of furlough days.  And, the elected officials are doing a lot of demagoguing the "cuts" issue.

Schulman is, in the opinion of the SCPR, the brightest of all of Canton's Council.  Accordingly, he has to fully understand that he was grandstanding - on Herman - as a play to the Canton firefighters assembled at last night's meeting. He did seek to tamp down the raucous response of the safety forces, but he had achieved the desired reaction.  Kind of like asking the "inadmissible question," getting a response, and then having the judge to tell the jury to disregard, no?

Having said the "demagoguing" thing, the SCPR will say that Schulman has, over the years, been highly attentive to the voice of organized labor, while Mayor Healy has not.

So what is the SCPR position the director of communications job?

If the effort is to embarrass Healy and single out Herman, then the matter should be dropped.  All a move like this would accomplish would be to fan the fires of mutual animosity that now engulf City Council and Mayor Healy.  Yes, there would be some savings to be applied to saving a firefighter job or two; however, the "intangible" cost in terms of damaged relationships may not be a good trade off.

If Herman's fate is meted out to similarly situated employees (i.e. useful, but not essential) in other departments and the city can save a half-millon, a million or more, then by all means make the cuts.

Above all, scapegoating Adam Herman in his capacity of being the communications director will not help Canton through this financial crisis!

STEVE MEEKS (NEWLY APPOINTED STARK CO COMMISSIONER): STOOD BY AND WATCHED AS KEY HAMMONTREE OFFICIAL BECOMES STARK COUNTY ENGINEER? DOES MEEKS HAVE A SHORT MEMORY OR IS SOMETHING ELSE AT PLAY?

Since the SCPR first published the blog questioning whether or not appointing a Hammontree official (i.e. Keith Bennett, president and managing partner) as Stark County engineer, SCPR's sources have been sending yours truly information that confirms to The Report that not nearly enough questions were asked of Bennett before Stark County Democratic Party leaders tapped Bennett to be the new Stark County engineer.

One such souce referred the SCPR to a Repository report done by Robert Wang (Emerald estate flooding being addressed) on May 7, 2002 wherein he refers to a Hammontree assessment made by, then, Jackson Township trustee Steven M. Meeks.

Meeks is reported to have had this reaction to the flooding problem:

Trustee Steven Meeks said. Therefore, the township will have to pay at least part of the costs.   Meeks said that construction in the Emerald Estates development has made an existing flooding problem worse. It didn't help, he said, that the county approved a flawed and inadequate drainage plan drafted by Hammontree & Associates Ltd. 

So, the SCPR asks, when Meeks says that Hammontree put together "a flawed and inadequate drainage plan" at Emerald Estates, and then not have misgivings about one of Hammontree's top people becoming the Stark County engineer:  what gives Steve?

Why didn't Meeks caution his "joined-at-the-hip" friend, confidant and fellow (before Meeks became Governor Strickland's Region 9 director) Jackson Township official Randy Gonzalez (now chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party) about appointing Bennett?

If you can take Meeks' assessment of the Hammontree work as being accurate, shouldn't this have sent alarm bells ringing loudly to Meeks when he learned that Bennett of Hammontree was to be appointed Stark County engineer?

Should not Meeks have been saying to himself:  "Gee, there may be other Hammontree generated problems out there in the county, if Bennett (who is permitted to continue his financial ties to Hammontree - according to Gonzalez) is the engineer, how does Stark County get redress of its legal grievances without conflicts-in-interests problems surfacing."

According to Meeks,  Emerald Estates Hammontree "flawed" work contributed to flooding at Portage/High Mill and would cost Jackson Township taxpayers.

So, again, the SCPR asks; how can Meeks not see potential conflicts-in-interest problems with a former Hammontree man in charge at the engineer's office?

Did Stark County get nailed twice when the Gonzalez directed effort on behalf of Meeks and Bennett resulted in these two getting the party appointment for county commissioner and county engineer, respectively?

Once in pushing for an engineer who may be too close to a major player in Stark County political subdivision engineering and surveying projects to fully and adequate protect the public interest?

A second time in pushing for a person as commissioner who appears to be more politician than public servant?

Focusing on Meeks:

Did Meeks forget about the flooding problem that he says Hammontree factored into and the concomitant cost to Jackson taxpayers or, is this an instance of  his "going along to get along" with Chairman Gonzalez and the leadership of the Stark County Democratic Party?

The Report suspects that most readers of the SCPR will think Meeks' actions indicate the latter rather than the former; as does yours truly.

Meeks seems to the SCPR to be "of politics, by politics and for politics."   Who does Meeks say he is going to rely on as a model for being commissioner?  Tom Harmon and Gayle Jackson, that's who.  If there are two more politically atuned and astute people in all of Stark County, The Report would like to know who they are.  Neither Harmon nor Jackson achieved much, if anything, of substance for Stark Countians while commissioner. But they were accomplished politicians.

If the SCPR analysis of Meeks is anywhere close to being on the mark, then Stark Countians need to assess his every move as commissioner -  looking for the political angle.

Sometimes highly political people surprise you and become public servants above all else.

Stark Countians should be holding prayer vigils beseeching the Almighty to effect a transformation in Commissioner Steven M. Meeks.

R.A. MALLONN - CANTON CITY AUDITOR - TAX LIENS ON MALLONN'S BUSINESS "MALLONN'S, INC" R.A. SAYS HE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE LIENS, HOW CAN THAT BE?

Sources of the SCPR have e-mailed yours truly directing my attention to Court of Common Pleas records (on file with Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold) showing Workers' Compensation and Withholding tax liens filed on Canton City auditor (since 2004) R.A. Mallonn's business Mallonn's, Inc.

Here is a link to the city auditor's website (CLICK HERE) where Mallonn explains his duties as auditor.

A check with the clerk's office on Wednesday, December 16, 2009,  shows that the liens have not nullified (as of last Wednesday) by a subsequent filing showing they have been paid.

R.A. (who is well known to The Report), runs a restaurant (grill and bar ) located on Tuscarawas in Canton.  Mallonn is a Democrat and his restaurant serves as a "watering hole" for many Canton and Stark County Democrat officeholders.

Being the public official Mallonn is, the liens warranted being checked out.

Previously, the SCPR has done a blog on Stark County commissioner Pete Ferguson regarding a foreclosure and a tax lien situation.

Why?

Because these kinds of matter raise in the public mind whether or not the public official, having trouble with personal/business matters, is up to doing the public's business.

The Report called Mallonn to discuss the liens.  At least one source had concerns about Mallonn being the city auditor and having tax liens to deal with on his business and what, if any, affect this combination had on his performance as auditor in light of the city of Canton's financial woes.

The Report found Mallonn to be totally open to answer any and all questions about the liens.

R.A. told The Report that he did not know about the existence of the liens.  He talked about the transition from the "old" Mallonn's to the "new" Mallonn's and, some communication problems and the like.  Moreover, he said he would have his attorney (Sam Ferruccio, Jr.) gather the information from the clerk's office and see to it that the liens got paid pronto.

Undoubtedly, some SCPR readers will be skeptical that Mallonn did not know about the liens.

The Report checked with the Ohio attorney general's office to learn whether or not it was possible that Mallonn did not know.  Here is the attorney general's office response:

So it is possible.

The SCPR believes him.  It is certainly arguable that he should have known.  But as the SCPR understands that he does not personally handle the books for the business.  Nevertheless, he told The Report that the "buck stops with him" and that he accepts full responsibility.

No one has come forth with any concrete information to The Report that suggests that the lien situation has any connection whatsoever with Mallonn's public office performance in terms of city finances.

One other thing came up in the interview.

It concerned a lawsuit filed against Freeway Tavern, Inc d/b/a Mallonn's Grill and Bar.

Here is a TMZ internet headline on the suit:

In legal parlance, the federal lawsuit (filed in the Northern District of Ohio) is over alleged Mallonn's Grill and Bar use of copyrighted music.

Mallonn says that his attorney is negotiating with the copyright owners to settle the lawsuit.

It is a policy of the SCPR to do blogs on public officials who appear in official Stark County or other governmental records as having this or that legal situation to deal with.

One of the points made in the Ferguson matter was that the candidate should have disclosed to the voting public that he was having the financial difficulties indicated by the foreclosure/lien filings, the reason therefor, and the remedial steps he was taking.

Once informed, then voters can make a determination as to how much of a factor the difficulties deserve in voting for or against a candidate.

Ferguson has refused to discuss these matters with the SCPR, which phenomenon (the refusal to discuss) The Report believes should be factored in by voters when Ferguson comes up for re-election in 2012.  The SCPR believes that public officials have a responsibility to give the public explanations on matters which bear on their ability to serve.

One has to wonder why Ferguson's opponent John Hagan did not flush Ferguson's legal difficulties out into the public.  Then again, knowing John Hagan, and his "unenergetic" (to put it nicely) way of campaigning because he was used to having a "safe seat," his failure is totally understandable.

One other thing about Ferguson.

He needs to take a page out of  the Mallonn book.  When the SCPR called Mallonn there was no avoiding, no stonewalling; he was willing to take all questions.

R.A. Mallonn was re-elected on November 6, 2007, well before the dates indicated on the legal proceedings which are the subject matter of this blog.  However, when R.A. runs again in 2011 he will have to account to voters for his legal difficulties so they are in a position to determine whether or not they are relevant to re-electing R.A.

To his credit, Mallonn revealed to the SCPR (a filing that The Report did not know about) that there was a lien filed against Mallonn's, Inc. in the Stark County recorder's office that had been recently satisfied (see graphic below:  Note - Mallonn says that he has not yet gotten around to filing the release, set forth below),

The SCPR thanks those sources who provided information on the Ferguson and Mallonn situations and encourages The Report readership to pass on information about other public officials of like kind to yours truly.

You can depend on the SCPR to dig in on the information provided.

WAS HAMMONTREE'S KEITH BENNETT A WISE CHOICE FOR STARK COUNTY AS COUNTY ENGINEER? THE SCPR THINKS NOT!

On December 15, 2009, the Stark County Democratic Central Committee appointed Keith Bennett as the replacement engineer for Mike Rehfus who, sadly, passed away on November 10th of this year.

Today, the SCPR takes a look at Keith Bennett in more detail.

The Canton Repository has been remiss in reporting very much information about Bennett to the Stark County public.

It cannot be because "the powers that be" at The Rep do not know Bennett, if for no other reason that he is married to Barbara Hammontree Bennett of Hammontree & Associates, Ltd  of Stark County "engineering" fame.

Moreover, Barbara served as the 2009 Hall of Fame festival general chairman.

Hammontree (on its website) proudly displays a picture of the Hall of Fame bridge which takes traffic from Whipple (west) over Dressler (where it does a sharp south turn) down into the Belden Village area.

So undoubtedly Jeff Gauger et al  know the Bennett/Hammontrees combo very well indeed.  Stark County's only countywide newspaper should be digging deep into its files and resources to inform Stark Countians about the Bennett/Hammontree connection.

Why?

Because of the crucial importance of the post of Stark County engineer to which Bennett has been appointed to.

The Stark County engineer is one of the most powerful political and economic figures in the county.  He controls a large number of employees and he is involved in the process of the state of Ohio and the federal government parceling out of and monitoring of numerous, in the multi-millions of dollars (including "local match" monies),  road, bridge and various infrastructure projects throughout Stark County.

Over a space of time (beginning with today's post), the SCPR will do what The Repository has failed and likely will continue to fail Stark Countians on; finding out what Hammontree & Associates, Ltd  have interests in  - in toto -  with regard to specific existing Hammontree Stark County projects as well as Stark County political subdivision contracts and projects; which are not - per se - county-based and informing the Stark County public of the signifcance, if any, of these interests and the fact that one of Hammontree's own is now county engineer.

Why is wife Barbara (sister of current Hammontree & Associates CEO Charles F. Hammontree), part of the SCPR examination; after all she is not a county official?

Because she does work advising local government units (e.g. Perry Township) on their engineering work as she is a P.E. and P.S. (secretary/treasurer and managing partner) with Hammontree & Associates, Ltd.  Moreover, she serves on the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Ohio Rail Development Commission.  And, of course, the Stark County engineer's office is intimately tied to ODOT.

The SCPR believes that the proper way to look at this whole picture is as if the picture is of a spider web which has many interrelated connections that might bear on the Stark County public interest.

A disturbing factor with Keith Bennett already is that the SCPR contacted him prior to his being appointed county engineer to discuss his imminent appointment, but he did not return the phone call.

Does Keith Bennett think he is unaccountable to the Stark County public?

What little reporting The Rep as done on Bennett has Stark County Party chairman saying that Bennett does not have to terminate his financial relationship with Hammontree.

Isn't that swell?

Would this knowledge prompt non-Hammontree firms to do business with Hammontree as an indirect way to ingratiate themselves to the county engineer?

The SCPR obtained a copy of an email sent by Hammontree & Associates, Ltd to its "customers and clients."

A number of things stand out about it.

It clearly connotes a "What's good for Hammontree & Associates, Ltd is good for Stark County" a la former General Motors CEO Charlie Wilson's famous 1956 dictum:  "What's good for General Motors is good for America."

A pretty cozy relationship for Hammontree, wouldn't you say?

This email does not sound like Hammontree and Bennett as engineer are going to be at an arm's length relations, to wit:

We expect Keith can fill the position and minimize the impact to our firm by careful coordination and budgeting of his time as allowed within the requirements and demands of this public office.

 "[M]inimize the impact to our firm by care coordination and budgeting of his time as allows within the requirements and demands of this public office."  Hmm?  The SCPR has lots of questions about this statement.

Another part of the email:

Not only do we see this as an opportunity to help our community in which we have so much invested but also an opportunity to strengthen our firm’s relationship with the public officials we work with so frequently. (emphasis added).

Hmm, again.  More questions.

We view this as a win-win-win-win situation for the Community of Stark County, Hammontree & Associates, Keith, and our treasured clients.

Hmm, a third time.  Even more questions.

Bennett seems to rule out any continuing "official connection" with Hammontree in quotes attributed to him by Nancy Molnar of the Akron Beacon Journal,  Democrats in Stark name new engineer, commissioner (12/16/2009), to wit:

Bennett said he will step down as president and chief financial officer of Hammontree & Associates. He works in the North Canton engineering firm with his wife, Barbara Hammontree Bennett, and her two brothers.

Although the firm may complete county projects in progress, Bennett said he understands the firm will not be able to take on any new work for the county.

"[T]he firm may complete county projects in progress."

But will he be able to?

What if there is a problem with Hammontree on existing contracts/projects?

What if there are problems with projects that Hammontree is working on now and into the future with Stark County's political subdivisions, will the Bennett as engineer be intervening?

Will Bennett be allowed to weigh-in?

Even if Bennett is to be a full timer, can he extricate himself from the Hammontree network to the satisfaction of the Stark County general public?

He is the brother-in-law to two company officials.

His wife is a partner and part of the Hammontree family.

Doesn't sound realistic to the SCPR.

The SCPR will be staying on this story and getting the answers for the reading public that, apparently, The Repository isn't interested in pursuing.

Here is the entire Hammontree email:

Doesn't this email prompt tons and tons of questions?

Indeed!

Bennett and Hammontree seem to be excellent professionals as engineers and surveyors.

But the SCPR goes on record as saying that Bennett being engineer with his de facto  if not de jure  inextricable (in the opinion of The Report) relationship with Hammontree is potentially problematical to the interests of  everyday Stark Countians.

The Bennett/Hammontree connections are simply too thick to be undone to the satisfaction of the general public.  The SCPR would be astounded if conflicts-in-interest did not materialize.

Accordingly, Bennett should consider not running to be retained in November, 2010.  The Stark County Democrats should be out looking for an alternative.  Moreover, Stark's Republicans should be working vigorously to offer political competition for this office.

The SCPR will be watching the Bennett/Hamontree relationship as it affects Stark County and its political subdivisions very, very closely.