The SCPR has learned that Judge Michael McNulty has found "no" probable cause that Judge Francis G. Forchone committed a "theft-in-office" in his handling of the $5,000 Sandy Hook School Support matter growing out of the Scott D. Studer case. (LINK to prior SCPR blog for background).
A complaining affidavit was filed with the Canton Municipal Court on February 28, 2013 by one Louis W. Demis now of Columbus, Ohio but formerly of Navarre (Stark County) Ohio.
Local media failed to inform the Stark County public about the filing of the affidavit when it was filed even though there is indication that they had access to the filing early on.
...
The SCPR published a blog on the matter forthwith on first learning about the existence of the filed affidavit.
...
Demis' attorney, Craig T. Conley, told yours truly that depending on his analysis of the articulated basis of Judge McNulty's decision, he may look into whether or not there is an appeal to be made.
On the following day The Report in analyzing McNulty's decision, in part wrote:
It takes less than 10 minutes. Morgan's [Akron Chief Assistant Prosecutor Craig Morgan] presentation sealed the deal. There would be no finding of probable cause.
What judge in all of America would find probable cause in the face of a prosecutor saying "I can't prosecute" and intimating "I will not prosecute?"
Notwithstanding, Judge McNulty's "no probable cause" decision, local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has agreed to carry on behalf of Columbus resident (however, a former Navarre resident) Louis Demis with the case.
On the 15th of this month (last Wednesday), immediately on flying out of the country on a planned vacation (the SCPR was only joking in terming it "high-tailing" in this blog's headliner) Conley caused a Notice of Appeal to be filed.
So far Judge Frank Forchione (Stark County Court of Common Pleas) has to be "'feelin' good" about his prospects in the ultimate outcome of this case.
While it is common for those who lose in a trial court (or, in this case, a municipal court deciding on probable cause) to march out to the court house steps and declare that there will be an appeal.
The reality of appealing is that relatively few cases are overturned on appeal.
And, one has to believe that Conley and his client are not likely to succeed on appeal.
However, Conley tells the SCPR he feels very strongly that Demis v. Forchione is the exception rather than the rule; hence, the appeal.
If yours truly understands Conley's analysis, it appears that in his view is that McNulty's language:
"Further it is doubtful that the $5,000 in question was ever the property of Stark County."
provides an opportunity beyond the points of law already argued by him in the probable cause hearing itself.
Notwithstanding the well known reality among attorneys who appeal cases as a matter of course that chances on appeal are pretty slim, one has to be struck by the Demis/Conley persistence.
In, reportedly, former Hall of Fame New York Yankee catcher Yogi Berra lanquage: "It ain't over til its over."
While Judge Forchione appears to be "sitting pretty" in terms of his legal position, one would think that there has to be some unease that the case is being carried on.
For we all are fully aware of another well known colloquialism: "Its not over until the fat lady sings."
Only and only if the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals (sitting principally in Canton) confirms Judge McNulty, will Judge Frank Forchione finally have his rulings and actions in State of Ohio versus Studer fully behind him?
Normally, one does not like to be thought of as being a guinea pig.
But such might not be all that bad for Stark County officials charged with providing:
emergency medical services,
fire and
police services
to Stark County's residents.
Back in 2007/2008 the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) commissioned a study on the condition on the county's emergency call receiving and dispatching services and the verdict was not good.
For more background on the continuing effort (Jackson fiscal officer Randy Gonzalez has been working on fixing Stark's 9-1-1 system for the better part of 20 years or more), here is a LINK to a prior SCPR blog.
It had to be music to Gonzalez's ears to hear recently that there might be an opportunity for Stark County to become the first in Ohio to join the State of Ohio (MARCS - "Multi-Agency Radio Communications System" Computer Aided Dispatch [CAD] system.
The reason that the news might be "music to the ears" is that joining the state system might mean more dollars remaining of the $2.35 million (from revenues collected for 9-1-1 rebuild purposes from the Bosley, Harmon and Vignos December, 2008 imposed 0.5% sales tax [repealed overwhelming by Stark County taxpayers in November, 2009]) that the Stark County commissioners are holding to be used for upgrading the radios being used by Stark's EMS, fire and police forces to state-of-the-art 800 mhz, platform 7X, P25 radios.
Here is a video in which the possibility of Stark County (the very first non-state agency) is presented by Joe Concatto (a Republican and a former safety director for the Janet Creighton administration) at a SCOG Executive Committee meeting held at Canton City Hall this past Tuesday.
The SCPR likes hearing about what is being worked upon by Concatto, Gonzalez (Jackson Township fiscal officer, and also the manager of Stark County's CJIS) and others in terms of integrating Stark County emergency forces into the bigger picture of statewide communication capability.
Along with the CAD, there is the need for the county to keep pace with state-of-the-art technology in its radio communications system in and of itself.
Stark County emergency forces are working with radios, for the most part, that will become outdated in 2017 and it is estimated replacing them could cost as much as $10 million to $15 million.
Accordingly, in addition to studying the possibility of joining the MARCS CAD system, Stark County is very interested in looking at joining the State of Ohio MARCS Radio system.
Right now, it appears the latter is more likely than the former. However, if the numbers can be worked out as being beneficial to Stark County, then Stark may well become the very first county (i.e "the guinea pig" experiment works) in all of Ohio to become part of the MARCS CAD.
It is commendable that county officials are interested in being "on the leading edge" of working out partnerships with other government entities.
Stark County at the urging of Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar (R-Alliance) is at the forefront of counties in Ohio who are in the process of putting together a "land bank" (officially, the Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation - SCLRC [a non-profit]) designed to remove abandoned houses, which are a huge blight on community aesthetics and serve as havens for crime, from Stark County neighborhoods.
A powerful motivating force for Stark County's first responders to come together within the county to reform and restructure emergency services is the draconian cutback in state funding of local government instituted by the Republican Kasich administration which is currently in charge in Columbus.
It is clear to the SCPR that whereas all state of Ohio funding of local government in its heyday cost some $600 million or so and the state currently is at about $2 billion or so in budget surplus, the real reason for the local government funding cutback is no longer - if it ever was - to be justified on a reported deficit in state finances.
The Report believes that the governor is using the purported financial crisis at the time he took office (January, 2011) to force elimination of duplicative local government services and nudge local governments into regional alliances and collaboration with state agencies in order to make government more efficient and effective.
While the dollars involved are important and taxpayers expect government at all levels to get the most bang for the taxpaying public's bucks, what we are seeing from Columbus is the implementation of Republican ideology of cutting government wherever possible and, to the extent that government cannot be cut, to make it as lean and mean financially as possible.
Out of this philosophy of government, or non-government, if you will, is born the Ohio Local Government Innovation Fund initiative and the like.
Sometimes rank and file citizens do not understand how political ideology affects their day-in, day-out lives. Well, the SCPR is here to say that the Kasich administration is in the process of branding all of Ohio with its signature ideological stamp. And it is apparent to yours truly that brand is making its mark in Stark County.
A quintessential part of the Kasich administration's unarticulated "government reduction and consolidation political philosophy at all levels of government plan" are pilot projects (i.e. let's use Stark County as a guinea pig) like the proposed integration of Stark into the MARCS CAD system.
And key Stark County elected officials, like local government officials across the state, are feeling the financial pressure and are wittingly or unwittingly responding with streamlining/consolidating moves which are consonant with the Kasich administration "Republican philosophy of government" objectives.
SCOG executive committee chairman Tom Bernabei (a Democrat) seems to be an effective coordinating force lead player in providing a structure in the context of the Stark County commissioners' meeting work sessions to prod the development of key information so that the commissioners are in a position to make a decision soon (probably within the next 60 days) as to which direction the county is going to go with its $2.35 million.
And the underlying impetus is the need to be efficient and effective.
While $2.35 million may seem to be a lot of money, it really is not in terms of all that needs to be accomplished in bringing Stark County emergency forces to state-of-the-art status.
Here is a video of a discussion that took place as the SCOG meeting that focused the Radio side of Stark getting its 9-1-1 dispatch system in order:
An interesting question that came up for discussion was whether or not Stark County signing up with the MARC Radio system is inevitable?
While the answer is clearly "no," it seems to be the thinking of many Stark County EMS, fire and police officials that there is a trend in that direction.
Trend?
The SCPR believes it is more than a trend. As argued above, The Report thinks that the political forces resident in Columbus largely constitutes the so called trend.
Local Democrats such as Canton's Mayor Healy, Canton Council president Allen Schulman, Jackson Township fiscal officer Randy Gonzalez (also Stark County Democratic Party chairman) have fired back at the governor and his austerity moves, but it appears that like them or not, they are more and more falling into line.
The termination of the Ohio Estate tax has, for instance, denied Jackson Township on average $1 million a year with which to operate and maintain its park system. Only after the second try (the May, 2013 election) did Jackson voters approve a parks levy. In the meantime, Jacksonians had to put up with a curtailed use and availability of their parks and also risked a deterioration of the capital facilities of the parks due the lack to financial resources with which to maintain the facilities.
Locally, Republican controlled North Canton government is already a part of MARCS system as an efficiency and effectiveness measure and Democratic controlled Summit County government is looking at whether or not MARCS will be efficient and effective for Summit Countians.
Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II (Democrat - Canton), Chairman Bernabei, and Sheriff George Maier (a Democrat) weighed in on the Stark County discussion at Tuesday's SCOG meeting, to wit:
It is apparent that Ohio's MARCS' managers are working hard with Stark County officials to make Stark County integration into the MARCS CAD and Radio systems a reality.
If integration happens, it will be a testament to the likes of Concatto, Gonzalez, Bernabei, and a core of other Stark County officials that they never lost their vision of putting together the very best of emergency force systems to the benefit of everyday Stark Countians.
Near the end of his presentation at Tuesday's session, Concatto once again reaffirms his belief (see video at the end of this blog) that Stark County can achieve a "one dispatch center" operation.
Undoubtedly, he and Randy Gonzalez have some tales to tell and some huge frustrations to share to any who are interested in hearing about the many peaks and valleys they have gone over and through in their quest to make Stark County one of the state's if not the nation's very best emergency response local government.
This is work that most Stark Countians do not witness.
But the product of their work especially if coupled with a Stark County integration into a statewide MARCS CAD and Radio system (even if, as a state/county "guinea pig" operation) will prove to be life saving to many Stark Countians.
Here is Concatto on video expressing his belief that a Stark County "one dispatch center" is, perhaps, once again on the county's horizon:
Well, let's put it this way. Ever hear the expression: "He stepped in _ _ _ _, but came out smelling like a rose?"
As readers of the SCPR know, a repetitive theme in this blog re: Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II is that he is the envy of a cat with nine lives because he can get into scrape after scrape after scrape and seemingly come out unscathed way beyond the proverbial nine lives.
It appears that he not only comes out unscathed from having prompted the redefinition and reclassification the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab (CSCCL, Crime Lab, Lab) director position so that he could appoint political pal and former Stark County Chief Deputy Rick Perez as director, but comes out as sort of a heroic figure in bringing to the surface in the process a realization that the Lab needs a major rework.
On Tuesday, the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) executive committee met in the mayor's conference room located on the eighth floor in the mayor's suite of offices atop Canton City Hall and a major fallout from the meeting was the revelation that the Stark County Police Chiefs Association (made up of the police departments of Stark County's cities, villages and townships) has decided not to have "new" DNA evidence processed through the Lab because of a 400 day processing time.
Until recent times, the CSCCL has been a treasured asset of Stark County government. Now that Mayor Healy has opened the proverbial "can of worms" with his tinkering with the leadership of the Lab; it may be that its life is near an end, or, at least, scaled back just to doing firearms and chemistry work.
For those readers who are not up-to-speed on the particulars of Healy's messing with the Crime Lab through his then-safety director Tom Ream and then throwing Ream "under-the-bus" when "all Hell broke loose," here are several links to prior SCPR blogs to help get you current.
Here is a video (from Wednesday's SCPR one-on-one interview) in which Stark County Commissioner and SCOG executive committee chairman Tom Bernabei discusses the "scaling back" possibility.
And here is a video of some of the discussion which occurred at Tuesday's meeting including:
Canton Safety Director Warren Price on the need to have stable funding of the Crime Lab and Chairman Tom Bernabei on the loss off nearly half of the State of Ohio local government funding revenues (from about $15 million to $8.5 million over three years) resulting in a drop off of Crime Lab funding from $1.3 million annually to $755,000,
Chairman Bernabei on the history of the revelation of problems at the CSCCL:
Perry Township Chief of Police Michael T. Pomesky (president of the Stark County Police Chiefs Association - SCPCA) talks about the Association's actions on the the Lab problems:
Michele Foster, interim Crime Lab Director, on what are the causes of up to 400 days delay in DNA analysis at the CSCCL:
Warren Price on oversight and governance of the Crime Lab:
SCOG Executive Committee member Marty Chapman (from Minerva) on the history, governance and finances of the Crime Lab:
Chief Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer Fitzsimmons on the critical importance of the CSCCL to successful prosecution of criminal cases:
Chief Pomesky on reasons why the Stark County Police Chiefs' Association is recommending that "new" DNA tests be sent to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI):
Crime Lab Interim Director Foster takes questions from:
Perry Township trustee Craig Chessler
on grant that Foster assigned to Mansfield's crime processing unit,
on the extent of the CSCCL backlog,
Member Chapman
on the grant in relation to the CSCCL budget,
Canton Safety Director Price
on who is in charge at the Crime Lab:
Stark County Sheriff George T. Maier weighs in:
on the need to have timely crime lab processing so that Stark's policemen can "look citizens in the eye" and keep them informed on the progress of prosecutions,
on doing due diligence with BCI to ensure that their turnaround times stay timely and that they continue to take direct contact from Stark's police agencies, and
expecting that BCI will get the job done for Stark's policing and prosecutors:
Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II spoke to the matter of using BCI as an on-going backup to the CSCCL when backlogs occur:
Prosecutor John Ferrero advised the committee that his Law Enforcement subcommittee would be coming forth with a plan for reforming crime lab governance in a future meeting:
Jackson Fiscal Officer Randy Gonzalez was emphatic about the need for SCOG to come out of the crime lab funding and governance crisis unity:
In the final analysis, it does seem that Cantonians do owe Mayor Healy a debt of gratitude for having messed with the operation of the Crime Lab.
For if he had not, a case can be made that the burgeoning backlog problems at the Lab might have gone on for quite a while before being detected.
While he may get some perverse credit for helping identify the problem, like other episodes in his storied fumbling and bumbling at Canton City Hall, he leaves it to others to clean up.
So in the end, is it "thanks, but 'no' thanks, Your Honor?"
Especially if your name is Warren Price and your job titles include:
chief-of-staff,
service director,
safety director, and
annexation director
Wouldn't you say?
For anyone who doubts the unmitigated gall of William J. Healy, II
the man who precipitated the surfacing of internal Crime Lab problems (which, by the way, his administration failed to catch early and nip in the bud) with his move to water down the director's qualifications so that he could hire Rick Perez.
Take a look at this video in which he scolds the SCOG's executive committee for having discussed what Healy defines (of course, we all know that in his own mind there is nothing that he is not an authority on) having been an inappropriate delving into personnel matters at the Lab.
Yesterday, a day after the big SCOG confab at Canton City Hall, the SCPR sat down with Commissioner Bernabei to harvest his view of where the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab is heading in terms of its continued viability.
With the dropoff of some $6 million in State of Ohio furnished local government funding over the past three years or so, it seems likely at the very least that eventually DNA testing will be dropped from the list of services provided by the Lab.
Back on January 11, 2013, the-then Massillon safety director George T. Maier said to an area media person: “I guarantee I’ll be qualified for the position [Stark County sheriff] or I won’t apply for it.”
He did apply and was (as the SCPR predicted) selected by the Stark County Democratic Party (on Feburary 5th) with the help of his brother and powerful Stark County Democrat (a former chairman and currently executive vice president).
Democrat Mike McDonald (now deceased) was forced to step aside (for health reasons) from taking office on January 7th after having defeated Republican Larry Dordea (currently Hartville police chief) in the November 7, 2013 election.
By Ohio law, the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee was empowered to select McDonald's successor.
Well, here we are at what appears to be on the threshold of the Ohio Supreme Court making a decision on whether or not the Dems selection should be ratified and the SCPR ventures to say that Maier's qualification is far from being guaranteed.
Former Sheriff Tim Swanson filed a Quo Warranto lawsuit against Maier on February 12th asking the high court to set aside Maier's appointment for the reason that the Dems' selectee was not qualified by the requirements of Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01 (specifically 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (9)(a) or (b).
The SCPR believes that the evidence and the briefs indicate Maier has not been able to deliver on his guaranty and would be surprised to see the Supreme Court leave him in office.
And if such happens, it will be very unfortunate for Stark County which has been subjected to a number of political/governmental trauma: to wit:
an "imposed" sales tax and its repeal (2008/2009
the theft of nearly $3 million from the Stark County treasury (2009), and
the loss of huge amounts of local government funds from the State of Ohio which could result (in the opinion of the SCPR) the closure of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab and a consequent impairment of the ability of local prosecutors to put charged felons behind bars,
There is no doubt to yours truly, that if the Supreme Court turns George T. Maier out-of-office, Stark County is in for another trauma.
As it was when that august body returned Gary Zeigler as Stark County treasurer and in doing so removed Alex Zumbar.
If Maier loses, it is hard to see how Randy Gonzalez remains as chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.
From the SCPR's perspective, the prospect of Maier being turned out of office was avoidable.
It is now obvious to The Report (from looking at the evidence tendered to the Supreme Court and the arguments made) that Maier had to have known from the get-go that he has problems qualifying to be sheriff.
It is stunning to The Report that he and the supposedly expert political operative in the family (i.e. brother Johnnie) would not have anticipated that George would one day be a prime candidate to be Stark County sheriff.
Rule one for anybody is to prepare oneself for opportunities that may come along.
That George put his qualifications to be sheriff questioned is unbelievable.
From the time he left the Ohio Department of Public Safety (January 11, 2011) through January 7, 2013, he had ample opportunity and time to cure any lack he may have in qualifying under ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (B)(9)(a) or (b).
That he didn't do so is, to say the least, a head scratcher and may suggest that he lacks the ability to look down the road and prepare (in case he remains sheriff) his office for what suddenly appears on the horizon.
While he appears amply qualified to be sheriff by virtue of his police work (i.e. de facto policing experience) going back many, many years to the days he served in the Hartville and Tuscarawas Township police departments and continuing through his years as a state highway patrolman, there is the question of his temperament that the SCPR has raised in prior blogs (LINK).
Hopefully, if the Supreme Court rules in his favor, he has learned that it is very important for someone as powerful as a county sheriff that he develop the ability to control his temper; if, in fact, he has a problem in this regard.
The SCPR believes that Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez (in addition to brother Johnnie) has not served George's interests well and have not served the interests of Stark Countians well.
Particularly telling on him, in the opinion of The Report, was his use of attorney opinion (whoop-de-doo!) to slide by ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (B)(9)(a) or (b). Also, disconcerting was the use of "you must sign your ballot, to have it counted" ruling.
It was amazing to the SCPR that 84 brave souls risked incurring the ire of the Maiers and the party chairman (who lobbied hard with the Central Committee members on behalf of Maier) in voting for Lou Darrow.
The Report believes that the Maiers, Gonzalez and others supporting Maier fully understood the qualification problem but proceeded anyway in the belief that the likes of Tim Swanson would not challenge George's selection in Ohio's court system.
Their approach reminds the SCPR of the legal adage that "possession is 9/10ths of the law." Analogizing, yours truly figures that the Maier camp calculations was that once George is selected, the opposition will fade and the question of qualification will become irrelevant.
To The Report, using such machinations and calculations is not the way for one to become county sheriff.
The sheriff is a county's chief law enforcement officer and it is extremely important that there be no question whatsoever that he be qualified "as a matter of the rule of law."
Attorney opinions are "a dime a dozen" and have no place in being determinative on questions such George T. Maier's qualification to be Stark County sheriff.
The better course for Stark Dems to have taken would have been to have selected Lou Darrow as McDonald's successor. There is no question about his qualifications under ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (B)(9)(a) or (b) or any other part of ORC 311.01.
In the meantime, George gets his qualification act together and runs for sheriff in the 2014 Democratic primary.
Yours truly does not know much about Darrow, but it could be that he has the political magnetism requisite to become sheriff. Some have suggested that he does not.
The Report has seen George T. Maier enough to attest that this guy is very polished, very professional, and has a way with people that makes him a highly attractive political candidate.
Accordingly, it appears that Maier would handily win a political face-off with Darrow.
Then, of course, there would likely be another match up between the Democratic nominee (presumably Maier) and Republican Larry Dordea.
Maier versus Dordea would likely be highly competitive.
And both like McDonald and Dordea (in the 2012 election) would be prepared to be Stark County sheriff.
Let the people choose; not the party bosses.
Such was the concern of the SCPR when news of Mike McDonald's health concerns first arose.
While the Stark County Democratic Party hierarchy emphatically denies that they knew during the run-up to the November, 2012 election that it was likely Mike McDonald would never take office as Stark County sheriff, yours truly remains skeptical.
It may be that the Ohio Supreme Court will be convinced by the largely "equivalency arguments" of Maier's legal counsel and keep him in office.
In terms of whether or not such a decision would heal any misgivings about Maier's legal qualifications depends on the court's legal analysis and, of course, the vote of the justices.
If the justices vote 7 - 0 in Maier's favor, then and only then can he say:
“I guarantee I’ll be qualified for the position [Stark County sheriff] or I [would not have applied] for it."
While the final vote last night at a special session of Massillon City Council went 6 to 3 against the Catazaro-Perry administration negotiated deal with the Hampton Inn located in downtown Massillon whereby the city would cancel its second mortgage ($2.25 million) and liens in exchange for a payment of $1.2 million, the SCPR believes that the dynamics of getting to that final vote was a lot more fluid and "touch and go" than the final number indicates.
The Report had the 6th sense that if the mayor had the requisite persuasion skills one must have to be an effective government executive especially in relation to legislative body, she could have won the vote - perhaps even reversing the 6 to 3 vote to being in favor of the ordinance.
Democratic Councilwoman Andrea Scassa (Ward 3 - the mayor's old ward), said she did not make up her mind until the last moment.
Last week, before the regular city council meeting, Republican Ward 2 Councilwoman Nancy Halter was telling The Report that she did not know how she would vote on the measure. But by last night, she definitely had decided.
It could be that in the end, her historical opposition to the deal in the first place (back in 1999) was a critical factor. As show in the video above, she also articulated a council fear that were it to agree to the deal and the hotel was subsequently sold for a handsome profit that council would look - in hindsight - like it had been duped.
And Ed Lewis, IV (Republican - Ward 6) said at the special session that he had been leaning towards voting for Ordinance 35. Here he explains why he decided to vote "no."
In the end, the mayor and her administration was not persuasive with him and a majority of the Massillon City Council.
One has to wonder whether or not the administration's failure to get the hotel to agree to $10,000 a year downtown Massillon beautification as opposed to $5,000 was a key to the Lewis vote?
Last night's vote against her seems to be a confirmation that the mayor has very little, if any, sway with council members.
It could be that she is having an effect on Councilwoman Quenessa Hampton (Democratic Party appointee - Ward 4) who was one of the three yes votes along with Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr. (Republican - Ward 5) and Democratic Councilman Paul Manson (at -large).
Peters was the most dire in his prediction of the long term consequences to Massillon.
Paul Manson, while he voted "yes" was obviously tentative about that vote.
He was more measured and reflective of the consequences of the "no" vote than Peters, and, interesting enough, he suggests that the mayor may bring negative reaction from some members of council upon herself.
Most intriguing of all is his suggestion that the issue may still be alive. He did note that the hotel has been doing relatively well of late which could explain why he thinks that there could be ongoing discussions with the hotel's developer (John Helline) to coming to a solution more palatable to a majority of council.
Apparently, the mayor sees herself as a persuasive person.
She shared last night how she was able to convince five Ward 4 residents, brought to her attention by Councilwoman Hampton, of the wisdom of her hotel financing mitigation effort.
Implicit in the mayor's recital is that Councilwoman Hampton was soft on the hotel finance deal, if not adverse to it, prior to the administrations' successful turnaround of some of her constituents.
So why is Mayor Kathy apparently ineffective with many other, if not most, members of council?
There are several possible reasons to ruminate upon:
One being that a number of the councilpersons feel she has not been transparent with them as promised when she first took office.
A second could be a feeling that she is only a figurehead mayor and that folks calling the shots in the executive suites of Massillon City Hall are named Maier and Jackson from their clerk of courts perch.
Thirdly, how about a perceived obstinance?
Witness her go-around with council on her adamant insistence that Massillon raise sorely needed revenues via reducing the tax credit that Massillonians get on out-of-town income taxes they pay coupled with things like having residents pay street lighting fees.
The Report is told that she is meeting on a more or less a weekly basis with fellow Democratic Mayor William J. Healy, II.
There is no doubt about him. He clearly is a "my way or the highway" type guy.
Question: Is he rubbing off on Catazaro-Perry?
The mayor, Catazaro-Perry, appears to turn heads and get things going her way out in the Massillon and Stark County social circles. However, such does not seem to be the case in Massillon's internal political milieu.
In short and in summation, for whatever reason it appears to the SCPR that Mayor Kathy does not have the trust and confidence of much of Masillion's legislative body.
And the prospects of that changing with 2014 - 2015 council to be elected in November are virtually non-existent.
Perhaps it would be helpful to the mayor were she to reconsider her ways (attitude) with council.
If she were to do so, could it be that she might win some of the controversial votes that come before council?
Here is the SCPR video on the entire Ordinance 35 debate.
Recently, Canton Repository columnist Jim Hillibish wrote a piece North Canton: A city that works (May 10, 2013).
Well, Hillibish couldn't have consulted with North Canton civic activist and former Councilman Chuck Osborne prior to penning his North Canton Chamber of Commerce-esque glossy brochure material.
Moreover, he could not have visited Osborne's website. (LINK)
If one takes a cue from Osborne, one would think nearly "nothing works in North Canton."
Just take a look at a list of complaints he has logged with the Stark County Political Report (via emails) going back no further than January of this year.
And here is a LINK to a prior Stark County Political Report blog which, in turn links to blogs which detail other examples (i.e. street sweepings, the Maples Street Commerce project, and the Bitzer Park Veterans' Memorial) of Osborne's chronic vexation of North Canton City Council.
So which is it? "A city that works?" or "A city that does NOT work?"
How about something in between?
There are some things with which to be impressed with North Canton about AND there are things to be unimpressed with about The Dogwood City.
All of which brings yours truly to this question: Is activist Osborne a help or a hindrance to being "a city that works?"
Or, put another way:
Is his motivation to help the city:
or
Is his motivation primarily to self promote and/or work out political comeuppance?
As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly nearly always applauds those Stark County citizens (i.e. civic activists) who are willing to stick their necks out in endeavors designed to be a check and balance on the excesses and deficiencies of government.
And Osborne has been a recipient of some of those accolades over the five plus years of The Report's existence.
However, with his latest effort to reform(?) North Canton government; it is becoming more and more apparent to yours truly that he is more interested in keeping his name in the headlines and, perhaps, work out political vendettas than in working with the city's political/governmental leadership to make North Canton "a city that works;" not in the sense of a journalistic puff piece, but as a matter of - day-in, day-out, reality.
The SCPR's take on North Canton is that as municipalities go these days, with the huge financial problems brought on by the State of Ohio ripping away massive amounts of state funding of local government, North Canton is demonstrating that it can and is adjusting and endeavors to be "a city that works."
City leaders like to point to the Maple Street Commerce project (the city's Hoover industrial complex rehab and economic development effort) as a huge success.
Yes, there is some success in that it may have (depending whose numbers one believes) perhaps, upwards of 1,000 jobs or so. However, that number, whatever it truly is; is a long way from the 3,000 jobs that one key North Canton insider tells the SCPR the project should have produced by now.
So the telling barometer of whether or not North Canton "is a city that works" largely has to do with getting the city back on track in having, maintaining and producing jobs as in the Hoover heyday period.
Even it he makes a point or two here and there, many of Osborne's offerings to make North Canton "a city that works" are of a nit picking, insubstantial variety.
Osborne's latest project: making the mayor's office a full time position, is not (in the opinion of the SCPR) about making North Canton government more efficient and responsive to the "real" needs" its citizenry.
It is likely, in part, borne of a Osborne political vendetta against Mayor David Held.
Held and Osborne have been - in a political context - at one another's throats for years.
So much so that the basis of the acrimony often gets lost in the fight. These two appear not to like each other. And the "make the mayor full time" effort seems to be the latest in a series of back and forths between the two.
If his amendment passes - of forcing Held out of the mayor's office inasmuch as he is the executive director of the prestigious and well-paying Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District.
Having to make s choice, the SCPR thinks Held would opt out of the mayor's office.
Osborne undoubtedly understands this likely outcome.
Moreover, The Report sees Osborne's "amend the charter" effort as grandstanding pure and simple so that the name Chuck Osborne makes the headlines between now and November 6, 2013 and beyond.
In yours truly's discussion with Osborne on his justifications for pushing the petition, The Report's take is that the those reasons are tortured and forcibly cobbled together (e.g. a full time mayor can help Administrator Grimes with the day-to-day administrative tasks in the wake of the administrative director's post being left vacant) to make it "appear" that Osborne cares about helping Grimes get North Canton's administrative work done.
Osborne says that the bump up in the mayor's annual income (he suggests to $65,000) would come from the money previously paid to now vacant director of administration.
Such reasoning rings hollow.
If Grimes has a need for help, there are better ways to bring it on board than the full time mayor proposal.
In a historical context, we all know how Osborne is always harping on saving North Canton money. With his successful 2012 amendment, he convinced North Cantonians to end health care benefits for part-time elected officials.
Except, of course, when he was councilman he took health care benefits.
How is that different from what any other politician?
Osborne has had one office-seeking electoral success in North Canton.
After losing his reelection bid, he ran for mayor, for council several times and tried to get the third ward seat via appointment when Tim Fox resigned last year to become law director.
To the SCPR, Osborne's incessant drive to achieve elective office manifests a motivation to achieve political power for its own sake which is attendant to his seeming desire to always be in the limelight in constantly cooking up one thing or another to be unhappy with North Canton Council or the Held administration about.
His "make the mayor a full time position" is his third effort since 2005 to force his ideas on council.
As mentioned above, he won last year on the health care issue.
However, he was unable in 2005 to get a measure on the ballot to redirect North Canton's Community Improvement Corporation monies to the city's general fund.
So it appears to The Report that he is in a sense forcing his way onto council via the petition process.
Doing such is a proper and helpful exercise for citizens in general.
However, when it becomes a substitute for being unable to get elected/appointed as councilman in repetitive tries, then the SCPR thinks it is fair to conclude that the process is being used by him to circumvent the articulated will of the voters in rejecting his candidacies in 2003 and beyond.
Over the years of doing the SCPR, yours truly has been supportive of Osborne on occasion. But those blogs were done in the context of believing that he was primarily acting as a civic minded citizen working to make North Canton a better city.
The Report is saddened to pretty much come to a realization/belief that Osborne primarily aspires to be a political power broker for the ego enhancing fix it brings to him; not necessarily for the merit of a given proposal itself.
Such is not a formula which helps make North Canton "a city that works!"
Re: Edward Hampton filed petition, see ABJ article (LINK) on battle in Summit County as to whether or not a Republican affiliated candidate will be allowed to run for a clerk of courts position as a "non-party" candidate.
ORIGINAL BLOG
Late last week the SCPR got a tip that something unusual was going on in Massillon's Ward 4 in terms of the upcoming November Massillon City Council election.
The Report was told to check Stark County Board of Elections candidates' filing website for November.
Why November?
Because there was a filing for a candidacy for Massillon Ward 4 councilperson that might seem a bit odd, perhaps, even shocking.
Sure enough, on checking the records yours truly did get a jolt.
What is jolting about Edward F. Hampton filing with the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) to run as a "non-party" council candidate in Massillon's fourth ward?
How about this for an answer?
His wife, Quenessa Hampton, is the sitting Ward 4 Democratic councilwoman having been appointed on February 21st of this year to replace Tony Townsend when he was elevated to being council president by Massillon's Democratic Central Committee members on this past January 29th.
Really?
Indeed!
On February 1st she filed her petitions to run for Ward 4 councilperson with the BOE.
What is this - two Hamptons living at the same address filing to run for the same office all about?
Good question!
The SCPR tracked Quenessa down at Monday's (May 6th) council meeting and among other things asked her about the Edward Hampton filing.
She was so closed mouth about it that she would only say that if elected Edward would do a fine job for the residents of Ward 4.
She declined to tell the SCPR whether or not she and Edward are spouses.
That information (that he and Quenessa are married and live together at 123 Shriver Avenue) came in a telephone conversation between The Report and Edward on Wednesday.
Of course, the SCPR being the political sleuth that yours truly is, is not quite buying any notion that an apparent Hampton v. Hampton (husband versus wife) match-up is about political differences between the two.
Edward's explanation to The Report is that he will make a better councilperson than his wife is hardly the stuff of irreconcilable political differences that would promote him to run against her.
The SCPR sees Edward "waiting in the wings" as indicative of some political strategizing going on.
Quenessa did hint (the SCPR's inference) in our conversation that perhaps Edward's move might have something to do with the fact that she currently is a member of the National Guard. But she would not go into any detail.
Edward told yours truly that there was no strategizing going on and that his filing a petition of May 1st was not promoted by any dealing with or consultation with Stark County or Massillon Democratic Party officials.
When the SCPR first got wind of the seemingly competitive husband/wife filing, an email was sent to Stark Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez, to wit:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> wrote:
Randy,
Qu[e]nessa Hampton, as you undoubtedly know, will become the Democratic Party nominee for Massillon City Council's Ward 4 seat today inasmuch as she is running unopposed.
Yet on May 4th [actually, it was May 1] of this year an Edward F. Hampton listed at the same address as Quinessa filed a "non-party petition to run for the Ward 4 seat which Qunessa was appointed to fill a vacancy caused by Tony Townsend's selection as council president (a vacancy caused by Glenn Gamber's late 2012 resignation) by the four (4) members of the Massillon Ward 4 Democratic Central Committee precinct members at Stark County Democratic Party headquarters on Thursday, February 21st, under your supervision,
Why would Edward F. Hampton of 123 Shriver Ave SE, Massillon be filing as a non-party candidate against Quinessa N. Hampton of 123 Shriver Ave SE, Massillon and, of course, the Republican candidate (Triner) in November's general election?
It appears that perhaps the Stark County Democratic Party through presently unidentified to the SCPR persons (in terms of political advice being given) seemingly in coordination with Edward and Qu[e]nessa may be doing some "political" hedging with respect to the Ward 4 seat.
As party chairman, your response; your explanation?
Martin Olson
Stark County Political Report
Gonzalez's response:
Today was the first I heard of this I have no idea what the issue is/was. Ms. Hampton was duly elected by the precinct pe[r]sons of the 4th ward to fill the vacancy. Where it goes from there is up to the electors of the 4th ward in Massillon.
A well placed Massillon political figure has told the SCPR that he understands that there might be a problem with Quenessa being in the National Guard and being a political party connected officeholder as she presently is.
The Report's source further says that Quenessa may be permitted by the military to fill out her appointment (which runs through December 31, 2013) but not actually run for election in November.
Yours truly has turned to the Internet for information on what a member of the military may or may not do in terms of holding political office (LINK, LINK re: National Guard).
When circumstances warrant, the Secretary concerned or the Secretary's designee may permit a member covered by the prohibition against holding public office, above, to remain or become a nominee or a candidate for civil office. What that means is that if a Congressman, retired from the military were recalled to active duty for more than 270 days, the Secretary of the service could allow them to retain their public office (or, even become a candidate for re-election).
Could it be that the Hamptons are working with the military to get special permission for Quenessa to be allowed to stand for election in November?
If such is the case and permission materializes, then presumably Edward withdraws as a candidate.
If such is the case and permission does not materialize, then presumably Quenessa withdraws and then the "non-party" Edward advances to run against Republican Jim Triner in November.
But could there be a problem if Edward is pressed into service?
The SCPR has checked the latest BOE registration data from the Ohio secretary of state website and sees that Edward is listed as a Democrat.
So the question is whether or not someone will object to Edward running as a non-party candidate?
The SCPR has been told that a Board of Elections member is suggesting that anyone running as a non-party candidate who currently is listed in BOE voter registration records as being of one political party or the other may not be approved by the board to run in the November 5 election as a non-party candidate.
If it turns out that Quenessa cannot run, and there is a successful challenge to Edward running as a non-party candidate, does this mean that the Republicans gain a seat that one would expect to be a Democratic seat?
If such is a real question, wouldn't it stand to reason that someone in the Massillon Democratic political hierarchy is very much involved in helping to construct a scenario that the seat does not fall into the hands of the Republicans?
Does the unfolding of the Hampton situation - if it eventuates into a "nobody but Triner" running - suggest a change in the outlook for the post-November election Massillon City Council line up?
A Ward 4 race with only Triner running would be a political coup for the Massillon GOP.
By the SCPR Party Index Calculation (PIC), the Democrats are at 60% in Ward 4.
B.A. - Political Science
J.D.
AN INDEPENDENT MINDED POLITICAL COMMENTATOR
Until 1976 I was a Republican. Since then I have considered myself a Democrat. So after long term stints of being a Republican, then a Democrat, I have come to the political position I feel most comfortable with - being an INDEPENDENT MINDED ANALYST who demands effectiveness of our politicians - Republican, Democrat or whatever.
I have changed my political affiliation to "non-partisan" by not voting in either political party primary election.
