(VIDEOS: ARNOLD, ERB, STOLL & BRITT) LAKE TRUSTEES COUNT NOSES AND DECIDE NOT TO PUT POLICE EXPANSION MEASURE ON NOV. BALLOT!

It is a rarity for public officials to see "the handwriting on the wall."  But the Lake trustees did last night at a regularly scheduled township meeting when they decided not to place a new ballot initiative on November's ballot.

Back in November, 2011 they had Issue 6 on the ballot in an effort to take the Uniontown Police District (UPD) township wide.

And they won.  Well, at least for a while.

But then it was discovered that there was a language error in describing the amount of millage to be assessed home owners in the expanded district and outside-the-UPD resident Jimmie Miller led an effort to get the vote invalidated.

In December, 2011, Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Haas did just that and was affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court on May 16, 2012.

Last night Trustees John Arnold (president of the board), Ellis Erb and Galen Stoll explained why the trustees were of a mind not to pursue expansion at this time, to wit:

• that the trustees put the expansion on the ballot in 2011 because they wanted to be pro-active in doing something good for the township,
• that they didn't put the measure on the ballot to ramrod it down anyone's throat,
• that even if they went the sheriff route which the trustees believe would have resulted in less service than an expanded UPD and still cost 3.5 mills as compared to the 4.5 mills for the UPD,
• that they believed when they put Issue 6 on in 2011 they (based on conversations with residents outside the UPD) that there would be a 50/50 split,
• that the reality was in terms of actual vote was 64% outside the UPD voted "no,"
• that to them the 64% "no" vote was convincing that residents outside the UPD do not want expansion at this time,
• that expansion may be revisited some time in the future,
• that in 2005 the "no" vote was 75% and with the "no" vote being 64% this time is indication that the trend is towards township wide, but not in the immediate future, and
• that they believed the UPD be an excellent policing unit,
• that as far as the sheriff is concerned that if there is consideration of an expansion there would be an "apples to apples" comparison with the UPD and the sheriff would have to convince them that there would not be logistical problems in having cars in Lake Township, and
• that markedly improved sheriff service in Lake Township over the last seven months was not just because he was trying to get a policing contract with Lake officials.

Here is a video which features all three trustees.



Yours truly, a Lake and UPD resident, has always supported policing township wide.  However, with the bungling that occurred with township legal counsel, the Stark County prosecutor's office, the Stark County Board of Elections on the ballot language, it would be futile for the trustees to place an expansion on the ballot in November.

Moreover, to pursue expansion at this time would be divisive.

The SCPR also talked with Jimmie Miller, a Greentown businessman who led the invalidation effort and got his reaction.  Here is the video of his response.



And finally, The Report spoke with Uniontown Police Department Harold Britt and here he is on videotape with his reaction.



All-in-all, the SCPR believes that the trustees did what the November election numbers (from the non-UPD areas of the township) dictated.

And the trustees deserve commendation for the way they handled the swirl of controversy that surrounded the goof-up on the ballot language and the manner in which they allowed township residents (on both sides of the issue) ample opportunity to heard on their respective points of view.

(VIDEO - HEALY) UTICA CAPITAL DOWN THE DRAIN? UPSTAGED BY BOCCIERI? FORCED TO CHANGE LEGISLATION? W/O 07/16/2012 - ONE TOUGH WEEK FOR MAYOR HEALY?

Until last week, things had been gone swimmingly for Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II.

Going back at least until his re-election in November, 2011, times have been good indeed for Hizzhonor.

But then on March 1, 2012 in his State of the City speech, the mayor probably set himself up for a fall which the SCPR thinks came home to roost this past week. In that speech Healy made the grandiose announcement that from that date forward Canton would be "the Utica Capital!"

Fast forward to July 16, 2012.

Blaring headlines announce that tiny little Louisville at been selected by Chesapeake Energy to be its headquarters in Stark County.

Of course, the mayor denies it as seen in this video, but the SCPR's take is that the reality is that Canton is going to be "second banana" in Stark County as far as tapping into the oil and gas industry and its fracking in the Utica and Marcellus shale deposits is concerned.  Maybe even "third banana" with the announcement months ago that Massillon is going to be the site of a huge beneficiary of oil and gas operations.

Here is Mayor Healy via video responding to the Louisville announcement.

In that video, Healy also expressed uncertainty about whether or not he could get his oil leasing of city lands proposal through Canton City Council.

The Report will come back to that, but for now let's focus on opening of the Canton Obama headquarters.

As far as the SCPR knows, Mayor Healy was supposed to be the headliner speaker at the grand opening of the Canton Obama headquarters on Tuesday, July 17th.  But that did not turn out to be the case.  In fact, he got upstaged (not intentionally) by former 16th District congressman John Boccieri (LINK).

Undoubtedly, in his heart of hearts the mayor didn't like being upstaged, but he and Boccieri are close politically and Boccieri will be an enormous asset as Healy's sister Joyce Healy-Abrams is trying to pull off a political upset of sitting Republican Congressman Bob Gibbs in a new congressional district (the 7th) and so the mayor is demonstrating that he can - when there is a clear benefit in doing so - and will swallow his pride.

Back to the oil drilling lease.

There is news today in area media that Mayor Healy is having to revise his oil and gas leasing proposal to have a realistic chance of getting passage in next week's (July 30th) council session.

Although (in the video) the mayor discounted the effect of the throng of anti-frackers who showed up at council on July 16th and two weeks before that to protest Canton considering drilling on city land whether in the city or outside the city, it appears that these folks were having a impact on council members, and it became apparent to the master nose counter that he had better change the proposal to provide greater specificity and to give council actual approval rights before drilling takes place, if he was not to get slammed next Monday night when the legislation comes up again.

 So for Healy the week of July 16 through 22 was "one tough week!

DECISION DATE IS UPON THE LAKE TWP TRUSTEES: ANOTHER BALLOT INITIATIVE TO EXPAND THE UNIONTOWN POLICE DISTRICT? ALSO, BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE, LAKE HAS BECOME BATTLEGROUND OF DORDEA V. MCDONALD FOR SHERIFF?

Will the Lake Township trustees try to get township voters to approve expansion of the Uniontown Police Department once again?

THE BACKGROUND

Because of sloppy work by township legal counsel, the Stark County prosecutor's office and the Stark County Board of Elections, a hard earned victory for those of us who have been in favor of such an expansion for years (in some cases) may have been frittered away by the ineptness of several elements of local officialdom.

So as not to retread the if, buts and the like, here are a couple of links to prior blogs of the SCPR for readers to get up to speed/refresh on the saga of the goof ups that led up to the Ohio Supreme Court invalidating the electoral success of the pro-township-wide forces on May 16th of this year.

• First background blog LINK
• Second background blog LINK
• Third background blog LINK
• Fourth background blog LINK
• Fifth background blog LINK

BACK TO THE QUESTION

Will the Lake Township trustees try to get township voters to approve expansion of the Uniontown Police Department once again this November?

SCPR ANSWER

Probably not, more likely to try next May at the primary election.

REASONING

There are two alternatives for expansion.  Either expanding the Uniontown Police District (9 square miles in the northwest part of the township) township wide or contract with the Stark County sheriff to provide services a la the arrangement between Plain Township and the sheriff.

In a conversation with Trustee John Arnold yesterday (Arnold is president of the Lake Township Board of Trustees), while not saying so in a direct fashion, it was clear to the SCPR that trustees will not be putting a proposal on the ballot to contract with the sheriff's department.

Arnold told The Report that whether or not the trustees would entertain the idea of working out an arrangement with the sheriff depended on who the sheriff is.

Hmm?

Translated:  if Republican sheriff candidate Larry Dordea is sheriff, then the trustees might be interested.

Which, if you think about it, rules out putting such an issue on the ballot this November.

And there is more information that The Report believes is relevant to this discussion.

A couple days ago yours truly got a telephone call from a Stark County-based official more or less complaining about certain advantages Larry Dordea has in his run against Democrat and current Chief Deputy Sheriff Mike McDonald (Jail Division).

The caller observed that Dordea is using being chief of the Hartville Police Department and a councilman-at-large in Alliance and being a previous chief of police in Alliance as his political base for running as a candidate for sheriff.

Of course, yours truly was thinking:  so?

In running for office, one always uses his/her inherent advantages.

Then came the "real" complaint as interpreted by The Report.

The Lake trustees will not consider contracting with the sheriff as presently constituted because the office is controlled by Democrats (all the Lake trustees are Republicans) and moreover Chief Deputy Rick Perez (who was Sheriff Swanson's first choice to run to succeed him) is especially loathed by public officials which only adds icing to the Republican dominated out-in-the-political-subdivisions determination to do everything they can to undermine Democrat McDonald's effort to succeed Swanson.

So the question came to mind as to why officials out in the 'burbs would have such a heightened dislike of Rick Perez.

Bingo!

The Report believes that Republican dislike of Perez goes all the way back to January, 2012 (LINK) when Perez was the investigator of allegations made by a Marlboro trustee (perhaps, even a second trustee) that Marlboro Chief of Police Ron Devies (a Republican) had done something wrong in working with his son Kyle when Kyle was disengaging from maintaining the township's office computer complex at the order of a majority of the trustees (which did not include Trustee Wayne Schilig).

The key point of upset among his critics is that Perez wore a wire without telling fellow policeman Devies that he was wearing a wire.

Eventually Devies and his son were acquitted in the sense that Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Lee V. Sinclair dismissed all charges after the prosecution had finished with its case.  In other words, the prosecutor's office had not even established a prima facie case that the Devies' had done anything wrong.

Nevertheless, the SCPR believes that many Stark County political subdivision law enforcement types and maybe even some of their brothers and sisters in the fire fighting community (especially, if they are Republicans to boot) may still harbor resentment against Perez and his boss Tim Swanson over the manner in which the investigation was handled.

The Report did ask Swanson in an email yesterday about the specifics of how Perez came to the decision to wear a wire (i.e. at his own initiative, at Swanson's direction or on the advice/counsel of the Stark County prosecutor's office), but he ignored that part of the email in his response.

So over three years later we may be witnessing political comeuppance (in the context of the Lake Township expansion initiative, revisited because of the Supreme Court) that might evidence an effort to advantage Republican Dordea in his second try to become sheriff of Stark County.

If the theory of an underlying political factor being at play in the Lake trustees refusal to consider Mike McDonald's proposal (May 29, 2012 at a regular Lake Township trustees' meeting) for the current sheriff to provide policing to Lake Township has any credibility, it is not likely to get public verification from township officials.

The Report posed the question to Trustee Arnold yesterday.  Arnold responded that he had not heard the "animosity towards Perez" premise before and that as far as he is concerned such is not a factor in the trustees failure so far to sit down with Swanson and/or McDonald and go over their proposal which the trustees have heretofore said was not an "apples to apples" proposal.  Earlier this week Swanson wrote a letter specifically requesting such a meeting.

To The Report, Arnold's denial is weak in view of his follow up to yours truly that it was reasonable for the SCPR to conclude that his "it depends on who the sheriff is" statement clearly indicates that the November election will have to come and go to see whether Dordea or McDonald is elected.

Obviously, the Lake trustees have a problem with someone in the current staff make up of the Stark County sheriff's department.

Sheriff Swanson has told yours truly (reference:  the email cited above) that he (Swanson) must be the problem because Perez has been an exemplary chief deputy. 

This is the exact way Swanson put it:

If we all left petty differences and personalities govern the way we do business, things would really be in a sad state of affairs.

I don’t buy that is the reason, if anything I would think it’s their dislike of me.

Let me assure you right now, if any of them were the victim of a crime, they would cherish the thought of having Chief Perez investigate their incident, he’s the best there is and doesn’t leave any rock unturned. Not much different than an excellent doctor with less than desirable bedside manners, I’m not interested in bedside manners when it comes to taking care of the problem, are YOU?

 He added:

You know when you get elected to serve, that’s exactly what you should do is serve.

You shouldn’t allow anything to influence your doing the RIGHT thing.

I have told my people from the time I became Sheriff, we will always do the RIGHT thing, the fair, honest and prudent thing to do.

Most of the elected Official are always worried about the next election and do things to insure they get elected again. I NEVER did that, my instructions were, we will do what’s RIGHT in spite of political pressure and will triumph in the end and be able to live with our decisions and sleep at night.  

I’ve always told my fellow employees to do what is right and fair and not take short cuts or bow to pressure. Their job wasn’t to get me to elected again, that was my job. If they were honest, conscientious, professional  and followed policy and procedure they would always come out on top. I asked them to remember that most of the people we respond to for service have never had to call us before and the impression we leave them with is everlasting. 

CONCLUSION

So where does the SCPR end up on this flap?

Yours truly is a loss to understand why the Lake trustees will not deal with the sheriff's office as presently constituted.

If Perez's presence is their problem, the SCPR does not believe that a Sheriff McDonald would be keeping him on.

If Swanson is the problem (as he suggests himself), he definitely will be gone after December 31, 2012.

And nobody (even Dordea himself) has ever suggested to the SCPR that Mike McDonald should become sheriff is not a quality law enforcement office.

Obviously, Dordea thinks he is the better choice, but again he has not reflected adversely on McDonald's competence to be sheriff.  Nor has McDonald reflected adversely on Dordea's competence to be sheriff.

The Report tends to believe that there is a political comeuppance factor or at least a politically based disaffection with some Stark County law enforcement officers (including at least two in the Uniontown Police Department) and seemingly on the part of the Lake trustees.

Yours truly was quite shocked to hear a Uniontown Police Department officer say that he would have a problem working with a Sheriff McDonald.  Don't know what the man's political preference is, but he needs to read and reread Sheriff Swanson's points along that line.  And there was the little tiff that occurred between McDonald and Uniontown Chief of Police Harold Britt when McDonald made his May 29th proposal. Why would Britt do that?

Of course, candidate Dordea could put the matter to rest by telling the Lake trustees that if they have any interest whatsoever in considering a sheriff's department policing arrangement, they should consider it now.  For if he is elected, he will be the person implementing the agreement anyway.

But don't expect that to happen. It could be taken as being akin "to biting the hand that feeds you" to show up the trustees in this fashion, if in fact political favoritism is in play.

While everyone tells The Report that the Lake deliberations do not have a political factor to them, yours truly is both highly skeptical of that claim and disappointed that the trustees are handling the matter as they are (i.e. "the sheriff's proposal is not 'apples to apples,' but we won't talk to them about it" and "it depends on who the sheriff is").

First the trustees had to endure the humiliation of having their first "apparently" successful effort go down in flames in the Supreme Court decision of May 16th because of the failure of people they relied on to get the ballot language correct.

So now are they preparing themselves for a second (at the ballot box) humiliation in injecting political considerations into whether or not they get the best possible deal for township residents for expanded police services if and when such a measure in once again presented to Lake voters?

For now, it appears to the SCPR that the Lake trustees will not consider the sheriff's plan nor is it likely they will put a replacement for the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated Issue 6 November, 2011 short-lived victory.

To repeat, if anything in terms of expansion of Lake policing is in the cards, it does not appear that an initiative will not occur until May of 2013 (next year's primary election date) at the very earliest.

But we should know for sure on Monday night next.

In the meantime, Stark County will elect a new sheriff in November and the SCPR believes that either way Stark Countians choose, the county will be well served. 

Dordea versus McDonald is not a matter of competence as Zumbar versus Koher for Stark County treasurer in November, 2012 was not about competence.

(VIDEO - DAN SCUIRY ON REDISTRICTING) DEMOCRAT & REPUBLICAN PARTY PROS HAVE FORGOTTEN LESSONS LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN: "PLAY FAIR."

UPDATE:  08:00 AM

The Associated Press is reporting that the Ohio secretary of state's office says that Voters First is 130,000 short of reaching the require 385,000 signatures.

The SCPR understands that the petitioners have 10 days to obtain the required additional signatures.

ORIGINAL BLOG

Right up there at the top of the list in Rober Fulghum's All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten is "Play Fair!"

We are all familiar with the idiom "all is fair in love and war," which is a root expression for the extended version bandied about by politicians:  "all is fair in love, war and politics."

So from the innocence of childhood to the supposed sophistication of adulthood "fair" gets warped from "play fair" to "all is fair in ... politics."

Says a lot about adult political pros and their allies, no?

But that is exactly how the professional politicians like Bob Bennett (Ohio Republican Party chairman), Christopher Redfern (Ohio Democratic chairman) and the local likes of Jeff Matthews (Stark County Republican Party chairman) and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (former Stark County Democratic Party chairman) have progressed from Kindergarten to their grand glory of cynical adulthood.  In the view of the SCPR they are personifications of "all is fair in ... politics" people who are looking out for themselves and their political parties over the interests of everyday citizens.

When it comes to obtaining political advantage, "playing fair" is laughable and naive to these jaded political pros.

Given the opportunity, the likes of all of the above seize the opportunity to support the legislative political warping and contortion process known as gerrymandering:  that is constructing legislative districts so that it is next to impossible (absent a political castastrophe like Coingate-2005 during the Republican Taft administration) to change control of the legislature.

However, they are not alone.  Scores of our elected officials (especially legislators; hence the description of above of "the political pros and their allies") by their deeds ridicule the kindergarten lesson on "playing fair."

About 17% of Americans think well of congress persons currently.  But it has been as low as 9%.  No wonder.   Most of them are from "safe, non-competitive" districts which makes them likely to be arrogant and unaccountable to the American public.  Obviously, many of them support district gerrymandering as a way to perpetuate themselves in office.

And the same thing happens at the state legislative level.  Stark County might have one competitive legislative district.  That would be the 29th Ohio Senate district.

Countywide (which the 29th pretty much is, excluding only the western fringe), either a Democrat or Republican can win.  Statistically and as proven in actual political races either Republicans (e.g. Creighton as commissioner, Zumbar as treasurer and Harold as auditor) or Democrats (e.g. Swanson as treasurer, Ferrero as prosecutor, Campbell as recorder, Bennett as engineer, Reinbold as clerk of common pleas court, and Murthy as county coroner) can and do win.

Only the ineptness of the Stark County organized Democratic Party's leadership (over the chairmanships of Gonzalez, Maier and Ferrero) in terms of grooming quality, attractive candidates for the Ohio Senate keeps Republicans Scott Oelslager and Kirk Schuring trading the 29th back and forth in a version of musical chairs in which each gets a seat in the Ohio General Assembly, just a different seat and keeping the seat from switching over to the Democrats.  For their clearly is a path for Democrats to make this seat competitive and win it.

Democrat for many years now have had to sit and watch as Oelslager and Schuring have developed this musical game of the 29th in tandem with what used to be 51st House District (now pretty much the 48th - indexed Republican - likely to be held by Schuring this November) so that they can overcome term limits, a measure they both supported when it came up for a vote in the 1990s.

Democrat Stephen Slesnick has sat in a heavily Democrat indexed 52nd House District which is to be, in the upcoming election, the 49th House District.

If Republican leaders in Columbus cared about small letter "d" democracy, they easily could take Slesnick's district and reconfigure it in relation to the 48th and 50th to make it anybody's guess as who would political party would win in any one of the three Stark County districts.

But, of course, their number one priority is the the vigor and quality of America's democracy, it is the interests of the Republican Party and their candidates.

And yes, before anyone objects "but the Democrats do it too," such would undoubtedly be the case.

That rejoiner is always posited as some sort of justification of the unfair and undemocratic gerrymandering.

But it doesn't fly.
What the rejoiner "really" says is that both political parties are about their own interests more than those of everyday citizens.

Republican Christina Hagan (a lady who cheered the carving up of Stark County into three congressional districts [and, of course, she voted for it]) as she smugly sits ensconced in the 56% indexed 50th House District.

Hagan is a person who lost when she had to compete for office within the Republican Party.  Now she has wheeled and dealed with her father's help to gain a legislative appointment and is following his footsteps in having a rigged political district to run in.

 But help may be on the way.

The Ohio League of Women Voters is leading the way with a coalition of organizations that has turned in on July 3rd 430,000 or so signatures to the Ohio secretary of state for validation as to proper voter registration on the effort of a non-partisan group called Voters First.

Some 385,000 valid signatures are needed.

If they are obtained, then on the November ballot there will appear an initiative called the:  Ohio Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission Amendment.

Here is a summary of the proposed amendment:

Voters First’s proposal will create an Independent Citizens Commission.  Politicians, lobbyists and political insiders are prohibited from serving on the commission. The Commission’s work will be open and it will be accountable to the public.  The Commission will empower voters to choose their politicians instead of politicians picking their voters.

• Citizens, Not Politicians. Instead of the current procedures (in which politicians draw district boundaries that unfairly favor their own party and/or protect incumbents), a 12-member Citizens Commission will create the districts. Any member of the public can submit a plan for consideration.
• Openness and Transparency. All meetings, records, communications and draft plans of the Commission must be open to the public. No more backroom deals.
• Balance and Impartiality. The Citizens Commission will include equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents, and the approval of at least seven of the twelve members of the commission will be required for the adoption of any plan. This will ensure that the final plan fairly represents all Ohioans, not just those currently in power.
• Community Representation. Districts will be created that are geographically compact, and which minimize the division of counties, townships, municipalities and wards between different districts.
• Accountability & Competitive Districts. Politically balanced districts will be created, rather than “safe districts” which make it difficult or impossible for voters to hold elected officials accountable.
• Fairness. To the greatest extent possible, the share of districts leaning toward a party will reflect the political preferences of the voters of Ohio. 

Recently, the SCPR ran into Dan Scuiry, president of the Hall of Fame AFL-CIO who is a leading Stark County figure in collecting signatures for the Voters First effort.

Scuiry is an interesting public figure.

Yours truly has known him since the mid-1970s.  No doubt he is the consummate Democrat and moreover he is Mister Organized Labor in Stark County.

While there is no doubt that Scuiry carries heavy biases for Democrats and union workers, The Report finds that beneath all his prejudices, he is committed to fair play.

And in his quest to get fairness for those he advocates for he will take on any and everybody no matter who they are.

He has taken on Stark County Educational Services Center Board Superintendent Larry Morgan (what used to be the county board of education - of which yours truly's spouse is president).

He has fought with former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and until very recently had a more or less "blood feud" going on with current chairman Randy Gonzalez.

And the list goes on and on. 

While the secretary of state in busy validating the signatures turned in, Voters First workers are still collecting signatures and will be for the next two to three weeks in case the initial submission falls short of the 385,000 valid signatures needed.

Dennis Willard (former Repository and Akron Beacon Journal reporter), who now is the publicist for  Voters First puts the effort this way:

You may read or see news over the next few days about Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's letter to Voters First regarding the status of petition collection efforts, so I want to keep you up to date on the Fair Districts movement.

Voters First is on track and very confident that we are going to have the signatures to let voters make history this November by putting citizens in charge of drawing Fair Districts. Husted's letter is a normal part of the petition process, and it's not unexpected.

We never stopped collecting signatures even after filing our first round of petitions on July 3rd. And we’re going to continue to collect even more signatures for the next 10 days because we will leave no stone unturned in fixing this broken political system that currently rewards self-serving politicians and their lobbyist buddies.

The SCPR applauds the effort of the League of Women Voters/Voters First and Dan Scuiry.

Here is very interesting video of the SCPR's interview with Scuiry in which he speaks to the local effort to collect signatures.

VIDEOS - BOCCIERI (2) WILL BOCCIERI BE DIFFERENCE MAKER IN 7TH & 16TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT RACE OUTCOMES? A SURPRISE "STAR ATTRACTION" AT OPENING OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CANTON HEADQUARTERS!

UPDATE  07192012 AT 06:00 AM

Great coverage of last nights affair at President Obama's headquarters, Martin. The SCPR did an excellent job on coverage of the night. You certainly upstaged Mr. Wang and the Repository's very shallow coverage of a very important night.

Loved your take on John Boccieri's upstaging Mayor Healy, which he certainly did. Not intentionally, but it was Boccieri's night to shine, and shine he did. The crowd loved him, and he responded with a very moving and invigorating campaign speech for re-electing the President. I'm sure Mr. Obama would have been proud. Boccieri got the crowd fired up, and ready to go. I don't think Mayor Healy minded at all.

I thought the turnout was great, and everyone did a fantastic job. Kudos to Barb Lewis, who always works her butt off, and to the many field workers, many of whom returned from 08, and were just as eager to help re-elect the President as they were to get him elected in the first place. It was great to hear how these young workers are dedicated to this cause. They have not lost their enthusiasm for, or their faith in, their President. I haven't either.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!

ORIGINAL BLOG

It appears to the SCPR that the featured speaker at the Stark Democrats' opening the Canton office of the Barack Obama reelection campaign was Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II.

But when former 16th District Congressman John Boccieri appeared at the fringe of the crowd, one could sense the attention of people pivoting away from Healy and fixing on perhaps the most popular Democrat in all of Stark County.

Healy did his best to maintain the attention on himself.  But it seemed to The Report that the effort was futile and those assembled were antsy to hear from the former congressman.

Normally, one would think Healy would be incensed about being upstaged.  But not in this instance.  Because one of the beneficiaries of Boccieri's popularity among Democrats and many independents in Stark County could be Healy's sister Joyce Healy-Abrams who is running for Congress in the newly formed (required by decentenial redistricting) 7th congressional district.

When Boccieri was acknowledged and approached center stage, he did so to a wildly cheering (many standing and giving him a "standing ovation") crowd.  He immediately began a chant picked up on by the Obama loyalists of "Four More Years."

In his fiery speech, Boccieri reminded those gathered:

• of the 2008 victory which put Barack Obama in office and also made Democrat Boccieri congressman in the 16th congressional district, about 60 years had passed since a Democrat had represented the Canton area,
• that the president stands with the people whereas Republican Mitt Romney stands for persons who are corporations,
• that the Republicans left Obama with the debt (from a Clinton administration surplus) from two unfunded wars, two huge tax cuts, a Medicare prescription plan that was not paid for and that the president put the breaks on that kind of spending,
• that the president saved the American automotive industry which was a victory for working class people,
• that Republican Romney won't release extended years of tax returns and wanted to know:  "What is he hiding?"
• of Romney's using foreign financial institutions to invest his money in,
• that they needed to support the president by electing Democrats Sherrod Brown (U.S. Senate), Healy-Abrams and Betty Sutton (the 16th) to the Congress, and
• closed in telling a story of why he supported the Affordable Care Act.

Here is the video of Boccieri's speech.



After the speech the Stark County Political Report did a one-on-one interview with Boccieri in which he outlined what he planned to do in terms of campaigning in the Stark County area for President Obama (he identified himself as an Obama surrogate) and area Democrats running for Congress.

He appears to be genuinely optimistic that the Democrats can pull a surprise and replace incumbent Republican Congressman Bob Gibbs defeat the man who bested him in 2010 in the 16th; namely, Jim Renacci.

If so, the prospect could become a nightmare for state Rep. Christina Hagan (Republican - Marlboro) and Stark County Republican Party Chairman Jeff Matthews (whose wife works for Renacci).

Why?

Both thought it was wonderful that Stark County got split up into three congressional districts by their gerrymandering Republican friends in Columbus last fall.

Well, if the area ends up getting represented by three Democrats, how will they like it then?

And, of course, Heidi Matthews will be out of a job again as she was when Ralph Regula retired and the-then state Senator Kirk Schuring could not hold the seat for the GOP in 2008.

Here is the video of the Boccieri interview.

(VIDEO OF HEALY REACTION) CANTON MAYOR HEALY DENIES THAT LOUISVILLE HAS REPLACED CANTON AS THE "UTICA CAPITAL." LEASING OF CITY LANDS FOR OIL/GAS DRILLING WILL BE A TEST WHETHER OR NOT HEALY CLAIM IS CREDIBLE?

A mere four and one half months after Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II declared Canton as the "Utica Capital" and now he gets challenged on two fronts.

1. In yesterday's Repository was a headline which had to be a jolt to Hizzhoner, "Utica HQ in Louisville," and
2. A battle rages on between Healy's administration and Canton/Stark County anti-frackers to win "the hearts and minds" of Canton's city council members over whether or not Canton will offer up the possibility of having city owned property up for lease for oil and gas drilling to deep under the earth deposits in the Utica shale formation via a process known as fracking in which a chemical and sand mix are injected high pressure into a deep well to fracture shale in order to release oil/gas products to the surface.

Before yesterday's meeting, the SCPR spoke with Mayor Healy.

His reaction to the Louisville headline:

• Canton remains the "Utica Capital" much like it is the "Pro Football Hall of Fame" capital. While there are focal points of oil/gas drilling outside of Canton proper, Canton is the center of it all.  Louisville, has been in the making for months and it was simply a matter of Canton not having a suitable (acreage wise) site for Chesapeake and anyway, the Louisville site is just one mile outside Canton city limits.

His take on the battle going on in city council and the significance of the anti-frackers who have been besieging council both last night and two weeks ago:

• Interesting enough, the mayor does not know which way council is going to go on its vote as to whether or not to approve the ordinance to "authorize Service Director Warren Price to advertise for, receive and enter into a lease agreement(s) for mineral rights on selected city owned properties."
• That it does not appear that huge numbers of jobs are coming the Canton/Stark County area as a consequence of Canton being the "Utica Capital," and
• So far council has only heard from the anti-frackers.  Now that the administration gets the opportunity to put on its case, he appears confident that his administration can make a convincing case for council to at least put out requests for bids.  He points out that if the bids are not to liking of the council and administration, the process stops there and goes no further.

Here is the video of the SCPR interview of Healy.



The SCPR's take on the debate going on in council is that it is productive in that council members appear to listening carefully to both sides of the argument.

The Report is impressed with Council President Allen Schulman and his handling of the many, many presenters at council meeting on the issue.

In contrast to how Majority Leader David Dougherty handled the "trap-neuter-return" debate of a few months ago (Schulman was absent for that meeting), Schulman operates in a fashion that everyone feels welcome and appreciated and the debate is a study in orderliness and mutual respect.

As to the political significance of the debate the SCPR sees to points.

First, this lease issue could be a test of how much sway that Mayor Healy has sway has with council.  There is little doubt to The Report that councilpersons Babcock, Cole, Dougherty, Griffin, Smith and West will side with the mayor.  Moreover, there is little doubt that councilpersons Cirelli, Fisher and Hawk will vote "no" on the lease.  The battle ground is with Mack, Mariol, and Morris.

In order to have any hope of defeating the administration's proposal, the anti-frackers will have to convince Mack, Mariol and Morris to join with Cirelli, Fisher and Hawk and then get Council President Allen Schulman to side with them in his tie-breaking role.

Second, if the anti-frackers prevail, Canton's refusal to consider leasing will be trumpeted across America as one more win for the anti-fracking forces in the ongoing war between them and the oil and gas industry.

But, of course, the key is for the anti-frackers to get to seven votes.

Can they do it?

ANOTHER STARK COUNTY DOG POUND ADVISORY BOARD (SCDPAB) MEMBER CRITICIZES COMMISSIONERS' OVERSIGHT OF STARK COUNTY DOG POUND OPERATIONS. WILL THIS BE "THE STRAW WHICH BREAKS THE CAMEL'S BACK" AND CAUSE THE COMMISSIONERS TO DISBAND THE SCDPAB? OR, IS THIS A OCCASION TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE "A CUT ABOVE?"

One of the things that yours truly has said repeatedly about the current Stark County Board of Commissioners (with the election of Thomas Bernabei and Janet Creighton) is that they are much more open, accessible, communicative, responsive, attentive, accountable, transparent and politically mature than any board of commissioners going back quite a few years.

And the Stark County voters recognized the change in November, 2011 in providing the commissioners with a solid victory in approving a 0.5% sales tax issue as a signal that the commissioners have been successful in restoring voter trust in their stewardship of county government.

However, it could be that the current board's enthusiasm for a different way of being and operating is ebbing.  They have been through a lot of trying times in the one year and a half that this board has been in place.  Perhaps they are growing wary of the day-to-day of this problem, then that problem and here comes another problem syndrome.

Or, it could be that operations at the Stark County Dog Pound (Pound - SCDP) is something that is an aberration from their up-to-this-point general "embracing the problems" and solving them approach to county government.

The SCPR has observed that from the very beginning of the current regime of commissioners that they have not been all that well taken with the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB).  In this aspect of their boardmanship, they are much like their predecessor boards.

Rightly or wrongly, it appears to yours truly that the commissioners have taken on an attitude of "there is nothing we can do to satisfy these (advisory board members) people.

On July 6th, The Report did a blog (LINK) on another in a long series of complaints that a SCDPAB member (Judith King) have of Pound operations.

Recently, another SCDPAB member has written the SCPR.  Here is that letter:

Hello Martin-

As a member of the Stark County Dog Warden Advisory Board, I am not surprised that the commissioners are thinking of disbanding the board.

They do not return phone calls nor attend any of our meetings.

I am sure we are a thorn in their side with our pleas to improve the horrible conditions at the pound; however eliminating the board is not going to stop us or private citizens from demanding some action be taken with regards to the "catch and kill" mentality of some of the employees at the pound and the lack of interest by  warden (sic) Tetrault of the pound's conditions.

I would love to see the commissioners' institute a forum with a "come and let us reason together " attitude., as you suggested. Unfortunately, I doubt very much that will ever happen .

Sure, the ventilation problem is a big concern during this extremely hot summer; however there are also many other problems that need to be addressed, many of which only require a look at some  ( not all, but some) of  the staff's inadequate performance.

Aren't the commissioners at all concerned about the warden who is rarely seen outside of her air-conditioned office and has no knowledge of the dogs in the pound, instead asking volunteers to do various jobs for her?  How can she be a leader when she has no clue about what happens in the actual kennel area?

If you get the chance to talk to Ms. Creighton again, please ask her these questions for us ( since she no longer communicates with the Advisory Board)

Has the $70,000 - $80,000 been approved for the ventilation system yet or is this just another promise?

Have the commissioners advertised for bids for the project yet?

Could the commissioners evaluate the warden's performance ON SITE at the pound ( and not by the  very infrequent pre-planned visits which usually turn into a smiley "everything's great here!" photo-op.)

Rose Hayne

By the end of this month commissioners have four new appointments to make and such could be an occasion for disbanding the SCDPAB altogether.

The Report has the impression that the commissioners are exasperated with the current SCDPAB makeup and might be at the point ridding themselves of their problem.

But yours truly would be surprised and disappointed to see that happen.

The Report's take on the commissioners has been that they are a resilient lot who have, so far, demonstrated political maturity a step or two above a number of other county officials (e.g. Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero and Stark County Recorder Rick Campbell).

Were they to disband the advisory board in toto, such would in the view of the SCPR be an occasion for Stark Countians to be concerned about whether or not they are taking on a jadedness that so often plagues government types which may be increasingly be manifested as everyday citizens seek the ear of county government.

Governing often is uncomfortable and perhaps even frustrating to the point of being at one's wits end in trying to satisfy everyone among the governed.

But such is the lot of office holders, especially in modern-day America.

It has to be tempting to the commissioners to try to banish their problems.

But as Ms. Hayne says: 

I am sure we are a thorn in their side with our pleas to improve the horrible conditions at the pound; however eliminating the board is not going to stop us or private citizens from demanding some action ...  (emphasis added)

Whichever way the Stark County Board of Commissioners decide to go on "the disbanding the board issue," they will be sending a message and an indication to the Stark County public about the political character of the individual members of the board that The Report believes will serve as an insight into what Stark Countians can expect in terms of receptivity and response as future complaints and problems are brought to the commissioners attention.

In a specific context the question is:  Can the Stark County commissioners abide a difference of opinion from folks they appointed and, moreover, can they accept being challenged to reflect candidly with themselves on whether or not they have the correct read on conditions/operations at the Pound?

We do have in Stark County an elected public official who banishes those with whom he disagrees.  He makes no attempt to consider that maybe his take on a given situation is wrong and that he would be well advised to mull over their advice.  Rather than eliminate these folks, he should keep them around.  For all too many around him are careful to tell him what they think he wants to hear, as a matter of self-preservation.

One wouldn't think that the Stark County commissioners (who know this official all too well), would want to follow his example.

Before them is an occasion to demonstrate by deed which way they will go.

Either they have the political chutzpah that the SCPR and many Stark County citizens expect of them to deal effectively and maturely with the problems they encounter or they will take a step back by cutting and running in the face of a difficult situation,

By July 31st, Stark Countians should get an additional read on what our Stark County commissioners are "really" made of?