DEMOCRATS HAVE "THE CANTON PROBLEM" (HEALY/SCHULMAN); REPUBLICANS HAVE THE "NORTH CANTON PROBLEM" (HELD/REVOLDT)?

Republican North Canton City Council president Daryl Revoldt likes to look down his nose as the mess going on in Democrat controlled Canton.

From what the SCPR is seeing of North Canton these days, perhaps Revoldt needs to clean up his act first as North Canton's legislative leader before judging Canton.  Though Held is not nearly as judgmental of Canton, it would not hurt for him to join Revoldt in putting "first things first."

AN OVERVIEW OF NORTH CANTON PROBLEMS

It appears these days that in North Canton citizens only speak at "Public Speaks" or hear news about North Canton government that is approved by North Canton City Councilman and president Daryl Revoldt and Mayor David Held.

Mayor Held goes on and on in telephone conversations with the SCPR about how transparent he is in his role as mayor of North Canton.

What's the expression yours truly is looking for?  "Talk is cheap!"

Yes, that's it.  And the expression appears to fit Held to a "t."

And you can add a dash of hypocrisy, too!!

Why is the SCPR being so tough on Revoldt and Held?

FIRST, THE REVOLDT STORY IN MORE DETAIL

The SCPR has taken Revoldt to task for denying citizen Chuck Osborne the right to use the North Canton's "Public Speaks"  (November, 2009) to bring to public attention the alleged illegal dumping of street sweepings at a city leased site on Freedom Avenue in Jackson Township.  Only about a month later did "Daryl the Great" relent and allow Osborne is First Amendment right of free speech.  CLICK HERE to see the details of Revoldt's free speech denial of Olsborne.

Revoldt's rationale for muzzling Osborne?

Protect Mayor David Held from himself and to put up a barrier to the Mayor answering Osborne's allegations with statements that Revoldt feared would subject North Canton to greater fines and other liabilities.

Yes, Revoldt - "paternalism personified!" 

North Cantonians used to affectionately call the owner of Hoover sweepers "Boss" Hoover.  In those days North Canton had plenty of jobs.  The capable Hoover leadership core filtered out into the North Canton community-at-large and provided much of North Canton's community and government leadership.  And, the jobs generated enough tax revenue that in some years North Canton government carried over from year-to-year a $9 million surplus.

Unfortunately for North Canton The Hoover Company is no more.

But, apparently, North Cantonians still have a boss around.  This boss is no "Boss" Hoover though.  Hoover was a benefactor.   The SCPR says that the new boss is not the communitarian that Hoover was.  Rather he is a censorous boss who is a discussion and news manager extraordinaire. 

Who is this new boss?

"Boss" Daryl Revoldt, that's who!!!

"Boss" Revoldt is out to remake the image of North Canton and apparently is not about to let the U.S. Constitution (the First Amendment) and democratic values (i.e. access to government records) get in the way.

Revoldt's line is that "you have to make North Canton attractive so that Hoover replacement business will want to come to "The Dogwood City."  And he doesn't take it kindly when folks disagree with him on his definition of what "attractive" means.

The SCPR has already described what The Report now tabs "The Osborne Caper" in which Revoldt denied Canton citizen Chuck Osborne his right to free speech during the Public Speaks forum at North Canton's regular Council meeting in November, 2009.

SECOND, THE REVOLDT PLUS HELD STORY IN MORE DETAIL

There is a new anti-democratic process going on in North Canton that the SCPR believes has Daryl Revoldt's fingerprints all over it.

What is that?

The hiding of the results of an North Canton law director investigation - which Mayor David Held insisted upon - into allegations made by Held and two others in the North Canton city administration about the alleged conduct of Councilman Jeff Davies.  Here is the link to that story (CLICK HERE).

The SCPR has learned that the investigation report has been out for some time now and that several media types including yours truly has asked for a copy.

The answer to the request?

No, it has been marked by North Canton's law director as not being for third party view and covered by the attorney/client privilege.

Attorney/client privilege, heh?

Well, it so happens that yours truly is an attorney with some insight into what the legal phenomenon is all about.

Is the privilege for the attorney or the client?

Answer:  the client.

Who is the client invoking the privilege?

Daryl Revoldt (Council president), most members of Council (except one who refuses to accept a copy of the law director's report and one who the SCPR is waiving the privilege in revealing at least a summary account of  Law Director's Hilges' report to a North Canton citizen), and the "transparent one," Mayor David Held.

Before Revoldt got to him, Held was telling the SCPR that he considered Hilges' report to be a public record. 

The SCPR believes that it is Daryl Revoldt who is primarily invoking the privilege, but once Held found out that the results of the investigation were unfavorable to his position on the Davies controversy Held generated, he fell in with Revoldt who has control of the rest of Council.

Held fell in with Revoldt?

Yes, in a conversation with Held on December 30th, Held professed to want the report released to the public.  By the end of the day of the 31st, according to North Canton's law director, Held had changed his mind and fallen in line with Revoldt et al.

And, Mister Mayor David "I believe in government transparency" Held then sent Hans Hilges to explain his (Held's) hypocrisy to yours truly.

The Stark County Political Report now believes that Held was dissembling The Report from the get-go (i.e. the Deember 30th conversation).  Held wants to appear to be - via the "talk is cheap" modality - a transparent mayor.  But the SCPR believes that in reality he is a typical multi-dealing politician who speaks with a "forked tongue." 

Why so?

Because a source who had access to a North Canton councilman who had read the report tells yours truly that the investigation in its essence concluded that Councilman Davies had done nothing for which the city could deal with him and that Held should go to Davies and work out their differences on a one-to-one basis.

And The Report thinks that Held knew this at the time of the December 30th conversation. 

Don't Revoldt, his fellow councilpersons and Held look silly in light of the talking councilperson?

Even worse, Held looks quintessentially duplicitous to the SCPR in this whole episode.

Here's why.

BACKGROUND OF WHAT THE SCPR TAKES TO BE DAVID HELD DUPLICITY

It appears Held made sure, through back channels, that the SCPR knew about the letters that he and other administration officials had generated on Councilman Davies.

After a Council meeting (in December) which the SCPR attended, yours truly asked Held for copies of the letters.  He said he would make them available the next day.  But during this post-Council meeting Held told yours truly that he had had it with Davies and that as a matter of principle he was going to see this matter through.

Well, to get to the short of it, the SCPR got copies of the letters, but not from David Held.  The Report now believes that Held wanted the SCPR to go with this story on his verbal as to what the letters contained.  He likely was as surprised as anyone when the SCPR got copies of the actual letters.

Next,  Held had to push and push and push to get an investigation done.  The Report is told that the law director was dismissive of the entire situation and was supported by Revoldt in this posture, but that Held would not be denied.

Next, the investigation report does not turn out the way Held had anticipated.  Knowing that he had made his pompous "this is a matter of principle to me" proclamation to yours truly, he feels he is in a box.

Again, through back channels, Held makes it known to the SCPR that the investigation report exists.  However, he already knew that the report has been marked to the effect "not for third party view - attorney/client privilege."

He tells yours truly, "I want the report out, but I want you to ask others (Revoldt) for it."

Undoubtedly, Held had to know that there was no way Revoldt would budge on the attorney/client thing (as a matter of precedent and, perhaps, in order to protect David Held from himself) and therefore he was protected from the revelation of a report that exonerated Councilman Davies.  Moreover,  Held comes off as being a man of principle.

In the mind of the SCPR, Mayor David Held is unbelievably duplicitous or stupid.

Neither scenario speaks well for Mayor David Held!

SCPR CONCLUSION

The SCPR does not believe the report qualifies as attorney/client material.  And yours truly repeatedly told the North Canton law director (Hans Hilges) such.  At the end of our final conversation last Thursday afternoon (the 31st) he asked, "You respect our position, don't you?"

The response:  "I disagree with your position."

North Canton city government is looking more and more like what is going on in Canton.   Spin, obfuscation, arrogance seem to be taking hold in The Dogwood City.

And they wonder why a 1 mill additional levy for street repairs failed?

If Held, Revoldt et al think that the voting, taxpaying public is going to support these apparent shenanigans, they had better think again.

Yes folks there are lots of problems in River City (err Dogwood City)!

The Osborne Caper and the Davies matters are just two of a number of  political vignettes playing out in the inner reaches of North Canton city government.

Examples of others:  "the street sweeping issues," "the McFarren release against Held's wishes," "Council's dissatisfaction with city administrator Wise;" to name a few.

The central players?

Daryl Revoldt and David Held.

Hmm?

Political infighting galore!!!

How is that for the city's image Council president Revoldt?

One more thing.

There is a chicken fight going on between legislator Revoldt and administrator Held.

A chicken fight?

Yes, Revoldt (according to Held)  is behind an impossible effort to legislate standards for keeping chickens within city confines.  Held says it is a foolish use of the city's time and resources.

Yes, Councilman Revoldt - "the chicken fight" - that does a lot for North Canton's image?

WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG TO DO THE FORENSIC AUDIT OF THE STARK COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE? THE REP DID NOT DIG DEEP ENOUGH?

UPDATE:  01/04/2010

Correction:  According to Ohio Revised Code 305.02(A):  If a vacancy in the office of  ... county treasurer ...  occurs more than forty days before the next general election for state and county officers, a successor shall be elected at such election for the unexpired term unless such term expires within one year immediately following the date of such general election.

The SCPR interprets this language to mean that if Treasurer Gary Zeigler were to resign on or before September 22, 2010, then his successor appointee (as made by the Stark County Democratic Central Committee) would have to stand for election at the next general election which is  November 2, 2010.  From September 23rd on, The Report interprets this statute to delay a retain the appointee election to be in November, 2012.

The SCPR thanks a reader of The Report for catching the error in the original blog and bringing it to the attention of yours truly.

ORIGINAL POST

Why is it taking so much time and so much money (anywhere from $210,000 to $368,644; depending on whose numbers you believe) to audit the Stark County treasurer's office.

The answer:   apparently, because  "the bookkeeping" at the Stark County treasury and the Stark County auditor's office "is a mess."

Officially, Republican Mary Taylor's representative:

Our fraud investigation in Stark County is immense. We are taking the time necessary to ensure that each and every tax dollar stolen or misspent at the county level is identified and returned. (Steven Faulkner according to Kelli Young's Repository report:  Stark County commissioners set aside more money for special audit, December 30, 2009)

However,  the SCPR has reason to believe (talking with a well placed Stark County Republican) that Taylor's office has let it be known to Stark County Republicans that the real reason is the chaotic condition of the bookkeeping at both Zeigler's office and Perez's office.

Does the SCPR believe that politics is at play in Republican Taylor' audit?  Yes and no.

First, the "no."

At a professional level, the Ohio auditor's office, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, do audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles.  So in this sense, the SCPR believes that Taylor is doing her work as a professional, unbiased auditor.

Second, the "yes."  Go back up in this blog to the large print "let it be known" language.  This is the way politics finds its way into the auditor's work - Republican or Democrat.

Kelli Young's piece was a fine work of reportorial journalism, but not being politically savvy, she missed digging into the political woodwork of the state auditor's office to find the political scuttlebutt that sppears to be passing from Columbus to the likes of Stark County Republican Party chairman Jeff Matthews.

Matthews is desperate these days.  The SCPR believes, despite Young Republican official denials), that the YRs are putting heavy pressure on Matthews to stop the bleeding of county level of Republican losses over recent years.

You have to believe that the likes of Mary Taylor, working with putative GOP gubernatorial nominee John Kasich, is looking for ways to enhance Republican vote totals come this November.  The Stark County treasurer's office trouble is "taylor" made to help Republicans this fall.

If the SCPR's calculation is correct, the time is pretty much run on giving Stark County Republicans a shot at the treasurer's office in 2010.

Hold on Olson,  Zeigler is not up for re-election until 2012!

True.  But what if the auditor's report was so damaging to Zeigler that he has to resign on the issuance of the state auditor's report?

If a Zeigler resignation is to come, it will have to happen soon indeed for it to give Republicans an opportunity to take this office in 2010.

The way The Report figures the calendar, Zeigler would have to resign not later than February 3rd which would require Stark's Democrats to appoint a successor  (by Ohio law) not later than February 17th which would leave February 18th until the Stark Board of Elections closes - which would be the cut off for filing petitions for running in November, 2010.

If Taylor files her report on February 3rd or before, she will be hit by a barrage of Democratic complaints that the timing was political.  However, Zeigler and the Democrats have an advantage.

Even if the Taylor report comes out before the 3rd and let's say it makes it untenable for Zeigler to remain as treasurer, surely he can hold out long enough to allow Democrats to make his replacement appointment good until December 31, 2012.

Such a scenario, of course, would leave the Democrats open to the charge of playing politics with the public trust.

So there you have it folks.

The political dynamics of the Stark County Treasurer's office saga!!!

A VERY SPECIAL "SCPR' HAPPY NEW YEAR TO PROSECUTOR FERRERO, COUNCIL PRESIDENT REVOLDT, MAYOR HEALY, TRUSTEE WALTERS, COMMISSIONER BOSLEY, MAYOR GROGAN, TREASURER ZEIGLER, MAYOR HELD, CONGRESSMAN BOCCIERI AND SENATOR SCHURING!!!,

  

 

 

 

 

WHERE'S THE 80% INCREASE CANTON HOMICIDES "PRESS RELEASE," MINISTER HERMAN?

Zero tolerance enforcement reduces Canton crime by 14%

Photo Credit: Staff Illustration

Double-digit decline brings crime rate below 2004 levels

By Adam Herman
Released/Published: Feb 23, 2009
CANTON, Ohio — Mayor William Healy released statistics this week that indicate the city saw a 14% reduction in crime during his first year in office as a result of his administration’s “zero tolerance” crime policies.  Healy said the statistics are an indication that the administration’s aggressive police efforts are having their intended effect.  ... . (emphasis added).

Local homicide rate hits 5-year high

By Malcolm Hall

CantonRep.com staff writer

Posted Dec 29, 2009 @ 12:15 AM

Last update Dec 29, 2009 @ 12:22 AM

---

Stark County’s homicide count is the highest it has been in five years. (emphasis added)

One Stark County Political Report reader terms Healy administration communications director Adam Herman as being the "Minister of Propaganda."

The SCPR's opinion of  Herman is not that brutal, but he certainly qualifies as a "spin artist."

Back in February Herman was trumpeting Healy's "tough guy - zero tolerance talk" as being the reason for a 14% crime drop.

On December 30, 2009 there is nary a word from Herman on a report by The Rep's Malcolm Hall showing a 100% increase in the homicide rate in Stark County

The Stark County coroner's office tells the SCPR that most of the increase came from the city of Canton:  eighty (80%) percent, mind you.

In an earlier blog on the "necessity" of Adam Herman as communications director to the Healy administration, the SCPR took the position that Herman should go as a part of a larger reduction in force in Canton city government for those slots which are "useful, but not essential."

The Report now makes a change of position.

The SCPR now believes that Herman is both "not useful and certainly not essential," and, perhaps - thirdly -  detrimental to the effective functioning (i.e. administration communications that citizens feel they can trust) of Canton government information services flowing from the 8th floor.  Moreover, The Report believes that Canton City Council president Allen Schulman has the right take on Herman, to wit:

"it is my informed view that Herman is a bully and a political hack for the Mayor. ... ."

Why would Canton taxpayers want to pay out over $70,000 for a person who appears to think it is his job to try to bully/spin journalists, government officials and, likely, members of the general public who ask Healy probing questions?

The Report believes that most Cantonians don't. 

However, will Healy hear them?

Not likely.

Cantonians are witnessing Mayor Healy orchestrating his own political demise.  Undoubtedly, he will keep Herman at his side to open and close the door as Healy walks out of City Hall for the final time!

BENNETT NOW A PUBLIC OFFICIAL: WILL HE ACT LIKE HE IS STILL AT HAMMONTREE AND BLOW OFF THE SCPR'S QUESTIONS?

The Stark County Political Report has learned that Keith Bennett was sworn in as the successor engineer to Mike Rehfus who tragically passed away on November 10th.

The Report has a lot of video on file of Rehfus answering any and all questions posed by yours truly about the operation of the Stark County engineer's office.  Mike was accessible to the SCPR via his cellphone.

Will Keith Bennett follow suit?

Doesn't seem like it.

When the SCPR learned that Bennett was to be appointed county engineer by the Stark County Democratic Party, yours truly called him to ask him questions about the transition from being president of Hammontree & Associates, Ltd to being the county engineer.

No response to the call made over two weeks ago.

Now that he is a public official, the SCPR will be pushing him to answer questions about potential conflict-in-interest problems he may have given Hammontree's integral role in providing engineering/surveying services to Stark County (for past projects) and to Stark's political subdivisions (villages, cities, township and boards of education).

The public should be playing close attention to Bennett.  How he responds to incisive questioning by the likes of the SCPR (do not expect such questioning from The Repository), should go a long way towards the Stark County voting public determining whether or not he is a worthy successor to Mike Rehfus.

So far, he is off to a bad start.

Hmm?

WILL STARK COUNTY EDUCATORS AND PARENTS OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN EVER GET IT ON SCHURING?

On December 17, 2009 state Senator Kirk Schuring voted to put the funding of 17 Stark County school districts in jeopardy.

 

House Bill 318 in its essential part delayed the effective date of a 4.2% state of Ohio income tax decrease so as to come up with about $850 million to balance Ohio's 2010's budget.

Had it not passed, Governor Strickland was set to do an "across the board" funding cut of about 10% for each and every school district in Ohio including, of course, Stark's 17.  The core of the 51st, which Schuring is running for in 2010, Jackson, GlenOak and Massillon schools would have suffered big time had Schuring's "no" side prevailed.

Who would think that Schuring would put Stark County education at risk?  Schuring, when he ran for Congress against John Boccieri, had a backdrop on his website of his visiting a school within the 16th Congressional District.

Before he began his campaign against Boccieri, Schuring did a political grandstand move in proposing that the Ohio General Assembly place a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot (November, 2008 - at the same time his race with Boccieri was to be decided) that Schuring said would solve Ohio's unconstitutional funding of public schools problem.

The fact of the matter is that it would not have and, being the astute politician that Schuring is, he had to know that the proposal had no chance to make it to the ballot.

The SCPR has long maintained that neither Schuring nor Oelslager are serious about solving Ohio's education funding problem but that they do play the obligatory "lip service" to the cause.

Stark County educators and parents of school age children could, if they would make it their cause, send a huge message to the Ohio General Assembly by defeating Schuring and Oelslager at the polls and make it clear that the defeat was inextricably tied to this Republican duo's failure to solve the problem over more than 40 years in the Legislature and much of it when Republicans were in the majority and supermajority.

Oelslager and Schuring play musical chairs in an "in your face" voters (on your having approved term limits) every 8 years move between Ohio's 51st House District and 29th Senate District.  Schuring now wants to move from the Ohio Senate to the Ohio House.

It will be interesting to see whether or not Schuring's announced opponent - Andrew Haines - will be able to hang Schuring's no vote on House Bill 318 and his chronic failure to achieve results solving the pubic education funding problem like a albatross around the good senator's neck?

WHAT WILL COMMISSIONER TODD BOSLEY DO?

Originally, Commissioner Todd Bosley told the SCPR that he would make a decision on whether to run for re-election as Stark County commissioner or Ohio state representative (the 50th) by Christmas.

Christmas has come and gone and guess what?  No decision!

Bosley tells The Report that he is torn on which is the right decision for him.

He says that he has always wanted to be commissioner (remembering when his father ran and lost years ago) and it would be difficult for him to relinquish being commissioner now that he has achieved the office.  Stark Countians will recall the stunning political upset Bosley engineered in defeating sitting Republican commissioner Richard Regula (son of former congressman Ralph Regula) in 2006.

Bosley had every intention of running again for commissioner notwithstanding the trouncing the commissioner "imposed" sales/use tax took this past November.  Bosley had joined retiring Republican commissioner Jayne Vignos and Commissioner Tom Harmon (recently resigned) in voting to impose a 0.50 of a percent sales/use tax to fund 9-1-1 being reworked into a true countywide system and to raise money for the county general fund.

With Harmon and Vignos moving on, Bosley would be the only remaining political target this coming November of those who want to vent on somebody for tax having been imposed.

Bosley says he is unafraid to face Stark County voters, if he decides to run for re-election as commissioner.  He maintains that  he has initiated a number of programs and policies that will bear fruit for Stark.  Bosley is confident that he can convince Stark Countians that he has Stark County headed in a positive direction and that the tax shoud not be determinative as to whether or not he continues as commissioner.

Ohio House Speaker shows up at Bosley's home.

Bosley was a surprised as anybody when Ohio House Speaker Armond Budish showed up on his Marlboro Township doorstep.

Why did Budish make this surprise call on Bosley?

Because Ohio House Democratic Caucus polling showed Bosley being the caucus' best chance to take a Republican seat.  Democrats now control the Ohio House 53 to 46.  However, a number of those seats are marginal, to say the least.  The SCPR believes the thinking of the House Dems is that an aggressive offensive effort will serve to preserve their majority.

Commissioner Bosley is flattered by the attention.  But he has a number of concerns about making the run for Ohio's 50th House District currently held by Todd Snitchler (Lake).

One of them is not defeating Snitchler.  Rather his concerns appear to the SCPR to center on being away from his family (Tuesday through Thursday during the legislative session; even longer if he gets into leadership) and his ability to be effective in a 99 member body.

It is far from a sure thing that Bosley will be part of a majority.  And one need look no further than Snitchler to see how ineffective a representative of a minority party is.  

Of course, Democrat Steve Slesnick (the 52nd - Canton), though a member of gthe majority, is not all that effective.  The SCPR  believes because he simply is not leadership material.

Even if Democrats are still in a majority after November, Bosley would be a rookie in the Legislature.  Knowing Bosley as the SCPR does, he would not be a rookie long in terms of moving up.  The Report believes, that if the Dems remain in the majority, Bosley will start off in leadership (he only has 8 years to make his mark because of term limits) and rise to the top levels quickly.

However, as commissioner, he is "top dog" now!

Even the newly appointed Steve Meeks, with experience as Governor Strickland's Region 9 director, a former Jackson Township trustee and one of Stark County's best connected Democrats, would likely defer to Bosley as the "senior" most commissioner.

So how will Bosley choose?

A terrific question!

One that Commissioner Todd Bosley likely doesn't know as of December 29, 2009.