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

LAST UPDATE:  8:00 P.M.

VIDEOS

COUNCILMAN PAUL MANSON

SCPR INTERVIEW

ON

FINANCIAL RESTORATION PLAN

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

SEGMENT 1

COUNCIL CONSIDERS

FINANCIAL RESTORATION PLAN

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

SEGMENT 2

COUNCIL CONSIDERS

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

SEGMENT 3

COUNCIL CONSIDERS

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

SEGMENT 4

COUNCIL CONSIDERS

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

SEGMENT 5

COUNCIL CONSIDERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manson:

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

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

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

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



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

SEGMENT 1

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

SEGMENT 2

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

SEGMENT 3

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

SEGMENT 4

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

SEGMENT 5

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

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

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

The mayor only has herself to blame, no?

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

HEALY PREVIEWS " STATE OF CITY" MESSAGE FOR SCPR

REVISED & UPDATED
10:00 AM

NEXT WEDNESDAY
 - PRO FOOTBALL HOF - 
6:00 P.M. 

VIDEOS

MAYOR HEALY
"TEASE"
ON
NEXT WEDNESDAY'S
STATE OF CITY ADDRESS
=================
CITIZEN BRUCE NORDMAN

CITIZEN'S PERSPECTIVE
ON CANTON'S PROGRESS

Canton mayor William J. Healy, II expects a SRO "Standing Room Only" if not a "show up late and get turned away" crowd at Canton's Pro Football Hall of Fame next Wednesday.

Some 400 or so persons are expected to show up next Wednesday to hear Healy speak.

The SCPR has attended each and every William J. Healy, II presentations since his first presentation in 2008.

Some of which have had a handful of attendees.

But not these days.

Healy, who has been "a survivor" as mayor notwithstanding that he has been the topic of many, many of a controversy most of which have been self-inflicted.

Hizzhonor now stands at the pinnacle of his political power.

Less than two years ago, the SCPR who has been a frequent critic of the mayor wrote this (LINK) stinging blog (one of many over the past seven years) on Healy.

But he just plows on.  Seemingly unperturbed, he puts controversies behind him and moves on.  And such appears to be a successful formula for seeing outrage dissipate and soon to be forgotten except, of course, with the SCPR.

The Report tabs Mayor Healy as being the envy of the proverbial "cat with 9 lives."  For he has survived crisis, after crisis, after crisis to be where he is today which is again to say "at the pinnacle of his political power."

And to hear Healy's survey what is yet to come: "Ya ain't seen nothing yet."

Healy expects the groundwork his administration has and continues to lay in terms of economic development, beefing up Canton's policing, major roadway development (e.g. the 12th Street corridor, the Mahoning Road corridor and the upcoming Fulton Road NW project), clearing away Canton neighborhood blight) to bear fruit over the next three, four or so years the likes of which Canton has not seen in many, many of a year.

It was a touch ironic that at Monday night's council meeting Group 175 proponent Bruce Nordman appeared at "Public Speaks" and pretty much lauded the Healy administration for nearly getting the CPD strength up to the 175 figure that Nordman's group has been fighting for.  During the fight, Healy and Nordman have had some brusing one-on-one battles.

As with other controversies, guess who comes out of it not only unscathed but perhaps getting a large share of the credit for having met the challenge and triumphed?

You've got it!

None other that Canton mayor William J. Healy, II.



The realization and being on hand as mayor to reap the rewards might make it difficult for him to heed a call to run for statewide office as the SCPR suggested may be forthcoming in a recent blog.

With all that in mind, the The Report did a video interview with Mayor Healy Monday night asking him to give a "tease" of what he has to say at the Hall of Fame.

Here is that video.



Healy tells the SCPR that on April 8th he will be holding a fundraiser and he expects to be among his attendees none other than announced United States senatorial candidate Ted Strickland, recently elected Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Pepper and former Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher.

That Strickland et al are willing to attend a Healy fundraiser should tell readers that the SCPR's blog about Healy being a potential statewide candidate in 2016 is not all that far fetched.

The Report believes that the upcoming May 5th Democratic primary against Canton treasurer Kim Perez will prove to be "a walk in the park" for the mayor and tantamount to his reelection as mayor for a third term.

As for the presentation - Remember Healy's admonition: "show up at least by 5:30 p.m. if not thirty minutes earlier or risk being turned away.

A far cry from a State of the City address held at Malone University just a few years ago (2011) attended by a mere handful of Cantonians.

Such is the continuing story line of the oft beleaguered but undaunted mayor of Canton, Ohio!

FULTON ROAD PROJECT ONCE AGAIN DOMINATES COUNCIL WORK SESSION: WHAT IS REALLY AT PLAY ON THIS ISSUE?

Last week the SCPR missed the fireworks directed at Ward 7 Councilman John Mariol (chairman of Canton City Council's Public Property and Capital Improvements Committee) by Councilpersons David Dougherty (Ward 6) and Chris Smith (Ward 4).

However, the SCPR did have excellent sources who enabled The Report to write these two blog last week:

• Wednesday, March 4, 2015,
• Tuesday, March 3, 2015

The issue last night, once again, as clarified by Majority Leader/Vice President of Council Frank Morris (see video below - in response to Councilwoman Smith's comments [see her video below]) was not whether or not Fulton Road NW is going to be repaved with some $1.25 of federal/state grant money plus $314,000 in local match (an 80/20 ratio), but rather where the $314,000 mandatory local match funding is coming from is coming from.



Insofar as Dougherty is concerned, it is NOT to be taken out of a $400,000 budget set aside for paving projects within Wards 1 through 9.  Otherwise, he is fine with the project.

Although Councilwoman Smith did revisit the issue last night, her announced mission was "set the record straight" (the SCPR's expression) as to what her position was last week when she initiated - what turned out to be - the turbulent council discussion on where the funding was to come from on Canton's local share of the Fulton Rd NW project.



While Dougherty was not as vitriolic last night as last week, the sparks did fly in exchanges between Dougherty and Mariol and Mariol supporter Councilman Edmond Mack of Ward 8.



As shown in the video, Dougherty accused Chairman Mariol in presenting a plan for passage at next week's meeting is a case of one councilman making off with money for Fulton Rd at the expense of nine ward councilpersons.

Moreover, it is interesting to see Councilman Mack chide Dougherty over how when it comes to his ward primarily benefiting from macro-road improvement projects, then he is quite content to have other councilpersons whose wards do not directly benefit pitch in with support.

By the way, the SCPR has learned that the wards represented by Smith and Dougherty have in recent years been among the highest recipient wards in terms of paving dollars spent therein.

So it appears to the SCPR that the battle over the funding of Fulton Rd NW is really a fight over at least one "reactionary" (i.e. what's mine is mine and what's yours in mine) councilman (maybe two, depending on how one interprets Smith's stance as clarified) against the rest of council which in the context of this issue, the SCPR sees as being visionary, is to say they "see the whole picture."  Dougherty obviously does not.

Which councilpersons turn out to be reactionary and are visionary on this issue should become crystal clear next week when council votes up or down on legislation to fund the project.

However, you can bet that some face saving work will be done in the meantime to avoid putting Dougherty and perhaps Smith out-on-a-limb.

So on second thought, the vote may not turn out to be a stark contrast.

The SCPR sat down with Chairman Mariol after last night's meeting.

While Mariol does not use the terms reactionary/visionary that The Report does, he does divide council between those who focus on their respective wards as compared to those councilpersons who can shift off the ward focus on matters such as Fulton Road and see/support "the big picture."

BASKETBALL & BEING "CCS - BOE" PRESIDENT DON'T MIX WELL WITH RYAN BRAHLER!

NOW HE SHOULD WITHDRAW AS CANDIDATE 

FOR 

WARD 3 CANTON CITY COUNCIL SEAT!

UPDATE:  03/10/2015

At the conclusion of tonight's Canton City Council work session Councilman-at-Large Jimmy Babcock (Ryan Brahler's cousin) complained to the SCPR that The Report had it all wrong in citing "an inside council source" saying that Ryan Brahler is supporting Canton treasurer Kim Perez for mayor as opposed to sitting mayor William J. Healy, II.

• SCPR note:  The Report has the distinct impression that Councilman Babcock did not actually read the blog he is so upset about.  In his passionate complaining to yours truly, he referred to Councilman Edmond Mack as his source on his take as to what was written in the blog. 
• Anyone actually reading the blog would necessarily have to note that the assessment that Brahler is perceived to be a Perez supporter is not the SCPR's.  Rather it is the take of "an inside council source."  The Report, in fact, noted in the blog that in a historical context Brahler was known for his support of Healy.
• The SCPR was surprised to hear the source's take and was passing "the inside council source's" perspective for whatever it was worth.

As the SCPR always does when challenged on the content of a blog, yours truly went back to the original source and confirmed that the source has reason to believe that Brahler is supporting Perez for mayor.

Of course, the person who should be talking to the SCPR about whom he does or doesn't support is Ryan Brahler.

When Brahler took out petitions to run for council-at-large in 2013, the SCPR attempted to contact him.  Brahler did not return The Report's call about his having taken out a petition.  Accordingly, The Report felt that it would be futile to try to contact Brahler given his current situation.

The Report did ask Mayor Healy tonight who he thought Brahler was supporting in his face off with Perez.  The mayor said that the last he knew Brahler was supporting, but he ended in saying "But, who really knows."

Councilman John Mariol says that his take is that Brahler still supports Healy.

And here is a copy of an e-mail from Kim Perez, to wit:

Sunday, March 8, 2015 Blog Post

 [From] Kim Perez   Today at 9:55 PM

To: tramols@att.net

Dear Martin,

To clarify your March 8, 2015 blog post, Ryan Brahler is supporting and always has supported Healy for Mayor.  He has no involvement with the Perez for Mayor campaign.

Sincerely,
Kim Perez

Maybe Councilman Jimmy Babock needs to have read for himself what he complains of or, if, per chance, he did read it learn to read with understanding.

In a sort of ironical twist, the SCPR's position is that Babcock is the one who is wrong about attributing the "inside council source" perspective as being the SCPR's.

That Babcock didn't get things correctly in erroneously attributing the inside sources' perspective to the SCPR is no surprise to yours truly.

The SCPR does not see Babcock as the brightest bulb on council.

ORIGINAL BLOG

For Canton City Schools (CCS) Board of Education (BOE) president Ryan Brahler (elected in 2011), 2015 has to be the year right out of the pits of Hell.

It was announced over the weekend that Brahler will be resigning as president of the CCS BOE effective March 16, 2015.

Here is the full text of Brahler's resignation letter dated March 7th:

On Monday, I attended a High School basketball game between the Canton McKinley Lady Pups and Walsh Jesuit. During the course of this game, I lost my temper, and I responded inappropriately. I expect better of myself and I apologize to any and all that I offended.

I care deeply about the City of Canton and the Canton City School District. It is disappointing to me that my comments have become a distraction to the District during this critical time. As this was to be my final term on the Board of Education and I had already announced that I would not seek another term, I feel it is appropriate to step down from my seat as the South District Board Member, effective immediately. This, in my opinion, is in the best interest of the Board, the District and our students. It is also the best way I can demonstrate that I realize that my comments were inappropriate and that I am taking accountability for them. As Board President, it is of the utmost importance that I hold myself to the same standard that we set for our students and staff.

I would finally like to take a moment to thank my constituents, fellow Board Members, our Superintendent and, most importantly, our CCS students. They have made my time on the Board extremely rewarding.

Respectfully, 
Ryan Brahler

Quite a stunning turn of events!

And it has nothing to do with his decision to join his fellow four BOE members on February 25th in a unanimous vote to dissolve Canton Timken High School into McKinley High School in a restructuring of CCS school facilities as part of Superintendent Adrian Allison's Brighter Tomorrow Phase III recommendation.

Here is a video of Brahler's comments, a BOE president, at a special meeting on the Timken/McKinley controversy "special meeting" of February 9th.



Anything less on the part of the BOE, the SCPR thinks, would have been tantamount to a vote of "no confidence" by the board on Allison.

However, Brahler's vote could be troublesome for him in his upcoming Democratic Party primary battle with Scaglione for the Ward 3 nomination for Canton City Council.

That is, IF Brahler stays in the race?

IF?

Indeed.

Why so?

Because Brahler last Monday got himself in a whole lot more political trouble than the Timken/McKinley thing was ever going to be.

And, it appears, that the reason for his self-inflicted woes was due to his being "an over-the-top" McKinley basketball fan in giving the middle index finger to a Hoover High School basketball fan who it is alleged by Brahler made a racist remark directed at a McKinley girls assistant basketball coach as he was exiting the gym on being ejected by referees.

•  Link to a more detailed media account.

The only thing remaining is whether or not Brahler is going to stay on as a candidate for Canton's Ward 3 seat which is being vacated by current councilman Jim Griffin (not seeking reelection) who has been councilman for 10 years.

Councilman Griffin is said to be "quietly" supporting Brahler in taking him under his wing and introducing Brahler to Griffin supporters.

One has to wonder whether or not Griffin will now be distancing himself from Brahler?

While Brahler was elected to the CCS BOE in November, 2011 as an "unopposed" candidate for a seat representing the southern part of the CCS district, the SCPR thought at the time it was not what he would had rather done.

It seems to The Report that his primary desire has been to be a Canton city councilman.

In 2013, the SCPR's recollection is that he took out or entertained thoughts about taking out petitions to run for one of three Democratic nominations for councilman-at-large.

It is likely that he did not file because his cousin Jimmy Babcock was running.

When one of the three 2013 Democratic candidates turned to be political novice Roland K. Burns, III (said to be an anti-Healy candidate) Brahler (at the time; not now, a pro-Healyite) he must have thought "Gee, I can beat this guy, why not run as an independent?"

• The SCPR is told by "an inside council source" that Brahler is now lined up with Cousin Jimmy to support Canton treasurer Kim Perez in Perez's run against Democratic incumbent mayor William J. Healy, II; 
• that is, if Perez in light of the "basketball incident will still have him?

So he tries that political gambit, all of which indicates to the SCPR that Brahler is a political opportunist who just wants an elected position. 

In 2011 there was a CCS-BOE position for the taking, so why not?  Moreover, the SCPR's recollection is that Brahler took out petitions to run for the Stark County Educational Service Center (SCESC) but which he learned he could not file, if he was prone to go in that direction, because voters in city school districts are prohibited by Ohio law from running for ESC positions.

To re-iterate, in the SCPR's mind, Brahler is an out-and-out political opportunist.

Now we know that he was "in over-his-head" in terms of having a proper boardmanship factor about him.

Yours truly was amazed to hear that Brahler had been elected president of the CCS BOE for this year.

One of the things that politicians do (more typically when they are running for reelection for the office they hold) is - if they are on a board - ask fellow members to elect them president of the board the year of the election so as to get a maximum of what is called "earned" media (e.g. getting their names in the media as BOE president whatever the media article may be about).

Think maybe his fellow board members regret that decision?

Well, of course, Brahler got that in spades in the Timken/McKinley matter.  Which may or may not have been politically good for him, depending on how many Timken connected voters there are in Ward 3.

On "the middle-finger-caper; not so good, no?

Hence, the resignation.

And now the SCPR is thinking that Brahler should be withdrawing his candidacy for the Ward 3 candidacy.

Not only for the dishonor he brought last week to the office of the presidency of the CCS in the basketball game incident, but also because it appears that he is not in politics for the right reason which should be public service rather than a ego fulfilling "I am your councilman" factor.

To provide readers more insight into in 2013 political machinations that Brahler invoked as he connived to get on the November, 2013 general election ballot, the SCPR brings forward an extract from a February 22, 2013 blog which has all the details, to wit:

Interestingly and "ironically," enough, had Brahler made it onto the November, 2013 ballot, after serving only two years of a four year CCS BOE term, he had a good chance - the SCPR thinks - to have beaten out Roland K. Burns, III for the third council spot.

Burns self-destructed as a viable candidate when local media published stories that did not reflect positive on him on his management of various residential properties he owns in the city of Canton and former Republican (and now, qualifying as a political "independent") Richard Hart won that third position.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, much, much, much better Hart than Brahler.

And, in Ward 3, voters should be highly wary of Brahler should he remain in the race.

The SCPR thinks he could do himself and Cantonians a huge favor if he were to withdraw his Ward 3 candidacy!

MORE OF THE "SAVING THE SOUL OF CANTON" STORY.

After publishing yesterday's blog, yours truly received a lengthy letter from Ward 7 councilman John Mariol.

Mariol's explanation of the current and ongoing crisis in Canton city government on the issue of the planning, allocation and expenditures of the city's capital fund is so well done that it needs further media exposure.

Accordingly, the SCPR publishes as "Part 2" a second blog on The Battle to Save the Soul of Canton featuring Mariol's letter.

But first a little background on Mariol.

Yes, Mariol lost his election try in 2011 to incumbent councilman Patrick Barton.

However, Barton in 2012 went on to become Canton's Information Technology director and on May 12, 2012 John Mariol became his replacement on being selected by the Ward 7 Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee members.

He was elected in his own right in 2013.  But he is being challenged in the Democratic primary to be held on May 5th.

The SCPR is projecting that Mariol will win handily.

He is one of four "relatively new" councilpersons the SCPR has tabbed as being "the four young turks" with the disclaimer that Ward 9 Councilman Frank Morris "ain't so young."  (lol)

And on March 4, 2015 Councilmen Fisher, Mack, Mariol and Morris remain a major basis on which to think that Canton will dig itself out of its decades-in-the-making deep, deep hole.

On the veteran side of council, Bill Smuckler has been instrumental is schooling the four on being effective as council members and each is making a mark for himself in focusing on various aspects of Canton city government.

Mariol, it seems to the SCPR, is paying special attention to Canton's revitalization in the downtown part of the city (e.g. the Onesto Lofts, the Market Square project and the like).

Mariol as chairman of council's Public Property Capital Improvement Committee has drawn ire of a number of his fellow councilpersons (Smith - Ward 4, Dougherty Ward 6) for proposing that a lion's share of Canton's $400,000 set aside for Ward road maintenance projects be redirected to pay Canton's share of a mandatory "local match" in order to get a state and federal government grant of $1.25 million to repave Fulton Road Northwest which runs from West Tuscarawas Street out past the Pro Football Hall of Fame to the city limits.

Between Mariol's justification of his position and Ward 8 Councilman Edmond Mack's of yesterday, Cantonians now have the resources to be fully informed on the "deep, deep 'road maintenance' hole" that previous administrations and councils (including current mayor William J. Healy, II's, but going back through Republican Creighton and Watkins administrations, at the very least) have - through their neglect - brought to Canton.

It is clear to the SCPR that the conditions of roads and streets of Canton is now a political "elephant-in-the-room" that has grabbed the attention of all of council and over time is on the way to being remedied.

And the SCPR attributes much of the impetus to reordering priorities to bring neighhoods (i.e. the demolition of abandoned vacant properties), to bring street/road conditions out of backlog and to increased police and fire coverage to acceptable levels to the likes of Fisher, Mack, Mariol and Morris.

That is not to say that the remaining councilpersons are not part of the effort.  It is that the SCPR thinks that "the four" have doubled down and taken the lead to solve all of Canton's "overwhelming" problems undaunted by the gigantic scope of those problems.

Economic development and its corollary of creating city of Canton taxpayers is always going to be the top priority so that funds are available to do neighborhood blight removal, street and road repair/improvement and making the city secure.

However, a focus and emphasis on economic development will not work if the city is blighted, pothole filled and unsafe.

It takes energetic and imaginative leadership to "keep-all-those-balls-in-the-air" and the SCPR thinks that "the four" have those qualities in spades and thereby provide Cantonians with hope that the city is slowly but surely getting a grip on its decline and turning it around.

Here is the entire text of Councilman John Mariol's letter to the SCPR:

Martin,

Before I give my take on the debate at last nights Council meeting, I would like to touch on some figures regarding the Capital Budget. At the end of 2013, we passed a temporary budget that set aside 1 million dollars for road maintenance and paving. After we selected our Majority and Assistant Majority Leaders, we started working on our permanent budget for fiscal year 2014. Working with the Administration, we were able to increase the 1 million dollars of road maintenance to 1.75 million dollars. This year we set aside 1.9 million for paving and put $400,000 into councils' budget, with the intent of using it for paving.

Recently, we were able to identify another $200,000 that we will be moving into paving— bringing our projected total budgeted amount for paving to 2.35 million dollars. Even with these changes, we are still 10 million dollars behind in paving, and with the winter we had, I do not believe we will make up ground. We currently have the opportunity to secure 1.25 million dollars, in the form of a grant, to pave a road that is in deplorable condition (Fulton Rd). To secure this grant, we need to come up with around $351,000.

We have a few sources to look at for these funds. First is the unappropriated line of our Capital Fund. Currently, we have 1.1 million in unappropriated capital, and that money is historically used for engineering projects, equipment for our departments, and potentially, more paving. This year, we had 4.4 million dollars of requests from departments and engineering, yet we only have 1.1 million to allocate. Working with department heads, we have come up with a plan that reduces the 4.4 million requested amount down to around a $900,000 dollar allocation— and leaves about $147,000 in un-appropriated. If we take the money for the matching funds from the 1.1 million dollars, we will have to forgo purchasing items such as body armor for the police, turnout gear for the firefighters, computers for the law department, or multiple engineering projects— and in turn, lose out on other matching funds.

Secondly, we can take the matching funds for Fulton out of our paving budget. This would put us even further behind on paving, and in my opinion, would be damaging to our city.

Third, and finally, we could use the $400,000 we have in Councils' budget to fund Fulton Rd. Lets lay out some facts regarding the $400,000 in Councils' budget. During my time on Council, we have never had $400,000. $400,000 represents 40% of all the unappropriated funds in our Capital Account, and Council does not have the authority to spend the $400,000 on paving without first moving it elsewhere. In my opinion, the only logical place to look for the $351,000 for Fulton Rd is in Councils' budget.

Regarding the disagreements from last nights Council meeting, this was the first time I've experienced such opposition from a small minority of Council on funding a project with matching funds that will cover 80% of that project. I strongly supported these types of projects in the past, regardless of which ward they are in. It is no secret

that we have funding issues in the city due to the cuts in local government funding. Anytime we can leverage taxpayer money to secure grants— those votes become "no-brainers". It's also no secret that we are dealing with decades of neglect to our roads, which have resulted in roads that are barely drivable. If we are to fix this paving problem, we must be fully dedicated to allocating as much money as we possibly can. We need the discipline to delay our wants, so we can fund our needs. In the past, we did not do this— resulting in the road conditions we are dealing with today. The "kicking the can down the road" has to end.

Some members question the fairness in spending this amount of money on a road that is located in only two wards of our city. I find this confusing given that we regularly judge projects based on need, matching funds, and overall impact to the city— not what ward is "next in line". The Mahoning Road Corridor is an example of such. Although the projected cost to the city for the Mahoning Road Corridor project is around 5 million, it passed unanimously— because it is a 55 million dollar project. This equals a high return on investment.

I believe that when it comes to the upcoming vote to fund this project, it will pass unanimously. Although every ward in our city has needs that exceed the revenue available, we must place a high priority on funding street maintenance at a sustaining level. As Councilmen and Councilwomen, we have a duty to vigorously debate the issues, but at the end of the day, cooler heads will prevail. I am confident my colleagues will unanimously approve this ordinance.

THE BATTLE FOR "THE SOUL OF CANTON?"

A number of Canton councilpersons tell the SCPR that "all Hell broke loose" (The Report's interpretation) at last night's council meeting.

Chances are normally pretty good that the SCPR would have been there to video record the event "blow-by-blow."  However, yours truly underwent surgery on Thursday of last week and is not quite up to making it out to local government meetings.

But of course the SCPR has a rich base of "on the scene" resources upon which to write a blog.

One might ask, why the need to write a blog (an opinion supported by data/facts) on a matter that appears to be nothing more than a turf war: that is to say a "ward councilperson perspective" versus "Canton as a whole councilpersons?"

Answer:  The SCPR thinks this battle is one of a number that have been fought and will continue to surface as Canton's government sorts out "what really is important" for the Hall of Fame city to drag itself out of decades of decline.

The fight going on among Canton city council members appears to be the age old among humans "short-term" versus "long-term."

Last night the short-termers where Councilwoman (and assistant majority leader) Chris Smith, Ward 4 and Councilman David Dougherty, Ward 7 (former majority leader).

Interestingly enough, the SCPR thinks Dougherty was ousted as majority leader January, 2014 because he had run afoul of Canton City Council president Allen Schulman who clearly is foremost among council's long term thinking councilpersons.

And, the SCPR is told (which Schulman vehemently denies), that President Schulman has been working "behind the scenes" to replace Smith as assistant majority leader (1st vice president) because of her opposition to recent council initiatives including the Onesto Loft project and the $5 million that Canton has designated for the long term economic development project known as the Hall of Fame Village.

And, it could be that after last night's performance, Vice President and Majority Leader of council Frank Morris (in more or less siding with the visionaries) has extricated himself from Schulman's "hit list" inasmuch as he too in the last SCPR City of Canton government blog was said to be on "the wrong side of" President Schulman.

What prompted last night's fight?

Answer:  The repaving of Fulton Road Northwest from it terminus at Tuscarawas Street Northwest to out at the city limits which is at point beyond the Pro Football Hall of Fame complex.

The short-termers are furious that $400,000 set aside recently to be used for road maintenance projects "in the wards" is now being proposed to be tapped into in order for Canton to come up with "the local match" dollars needed for Canton to get $1.25 million in state of Ohio and federal grant monies with which to repave Fulton.

There is no doubt that one way or another Canton WILL come up with "the local match" to get the $1.25 million.

Can you imagine the political ruckus that foregoing $1.25 million would create in Canton?

The SCPR would daresay that such an occurrence would doom Dougherty and Smith in the November elections.

Though neither has a Democratic opponent in the May primary, should Dougherty and Smith convince five other councilpersons to join them in defeating the diversion of the $400,000 to the Fulton Road project (which the SCPR thinks is highly unlikely); does anybody doubt that an "independent" candidate will file before the May 4th filing deadline?

Such fate is not likely what Dougherty and Smith have to look out for.

What should be of concern to these short-termers is the "long-term" effect on their respective relationships with their fellow councilpersons.

It should be instructive to both that, though we live in a deliberative democratic-republic in which legislative debate is prized; if they are perceived "overall" to be on the wrong side of issues important to the power brokers, their devotion to their respective wards in council deliberations may be retributed upon by the "real" powers in Canton City Council.

The SCPR appreciates Dougherty and Smith "standing their ground" on last night's issue and encourages them in their short-term pursuits for the interests of their respective wards.

However, on this issue The Report agrees with the long-termers.

That we can disagree with one another in the United States of America without retribution is a quality that sets us apart from the rest of the world.

Of course the stakes were much higher.

But we saw in Russia this past weekend how some body politics handle their disputes.

To The Report, the blog of February 17th (though denied by Schulman), is this writer's contribution to the notion that we Americans can disagree in a deeply felt manner and life goes on as before.

And such should be the case on the Fulton Road repave issue.

Councilman Bill Smuckler (at-large; formerly a ward councilman) tells the SCPR is that he is working on a plan to satisfy both "the local match" problem and going ahead with the $400,000 neighborhood street repair plans.

He says that he is working with Canton's finance director to find those dollars in the nooks and crannies of Canton city finances and thereby satisfy both the short-termers and long-termers.

Another top-flight Canton councilman is Ward 8 councilman Edmond Mack.

The SCPR queried Mack and other councilpersons about their reaction to last night's session.

Here is what he has to say:

RE: Fulton Road Matter

        Edmond J. Mack
        Today at 10:31 AM

To: tramols@att.net

Thanks for the note, Martin.

The Fulton Road NW re-surfacing project is simply a no-brainer.  It is a major corridor in our City.  This road is not only a residential thoroughfare, but it connects our major tourist attraction, the Pro Football Hall of Fame, with our downtown and arts district.  And anyone who has driven on this road recently knows that it is in absolutely deplorable condition.  Though this road is not in my ward, the economics are clear – if we have the opportunity to accept a grant that pays 80% of this desperately needed project, we capitalize on the opportunity.  Regardless of the ward a particular councilperson may represent, the policy conclusion that should be drawn is obvious.  End of story.

Regrettably, last night’s council meeting devolved into a ward versus ward turf battle, with members criticizing the Fulton Road project as an expense to their ward’s self-interest.  This was very disappointing.  While each ward councilmember has an obligation to advocate for their respective ward, fighting for a member’s ward should not come at the expense of the City as a whole.  We have made much progress overcoming this old “ward versus ward” mindset, and it seems as if last night was a bit of a backslide.  The fact of the matter is that we all rise and fall together.

All of our wards – including my own – have been the recent beneficiary of critical infrastructure grants.  E.g., The 55th Street NE Improvement Project (Ward 8:  $1.1 Million); Sherrick Road SE Resurfacing (Ward 4:  $1.27 Million); 12th Street NE /Mahoning Road NE Corridor Project (Wards 2 and 6:  $53.55 million); Southeast Community Center Spray Park (Ward 4: $556,363).  These projects provide an undeniable ROI, often at rates in excess of 400%.  We should therefore encourage the utilization of these grants on projects that are needed, such as the Fulton Road NW project.  Not opposing them simply because they are not in our respective ward.

I do believe, however, that yesterday’s backslide was temporary.  It was simply a manifestation of the frustration all of us on Council feel regarding the extremely limited resources we have to manage our City’s roadways and infrastructure.  The funding cuts imposed upon us by the Columbus State Legislators are very real and very deep.  We are all human with human emotions, and our frustration will invariably express itself from time to time.  Nevertheless, we have a very good City Council, and I believe every one of us are serving for the right reasons.  I predict that the vote on the Fulton Road NW project will be unanimous, and our body will maintain its excellent work of collectively moving our City forward.

Sincerely,

Edmond J. Mack
Canton Council, Ward 8

In last night's meeting there was the offer by Councilman Morris to release some $120,000 of the $400,000 for projects in Ward 9 to help reach "the local match."

Also, Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher tells the SCPR that he is willing to join Morris in his offer by offering to forego some $57,000 of the $400,000 dedicated to his ward.

This folks is mature leadership and being responsible councilpersons.

The SCPR compliments Morris and Fisher for stepping forward with their offer.

Both short-term and long-term interest are legitimate in terms of dealing with city priorities.

The players (Canton's councilpersons and leadership) need to cultivate a climate of satisfying both in the give and take of council's proceedings.

It looks to the SCPR that the actions of Morris, Fisher and Smuckler are in the right direction.

In order for "the soul of Canton" to be saved consistent with the American structure of government, it is imperative that various ward and citywide interests be debated and resolved without there being a lingering ill feeling and possible retribution hanging in the air!

PART 7: JUDGE PARK SERIES: WILL JAKMIDES GET PARK REVERSED AGAIN?

On August 18, 2014, the Fifth District Court of Appeals:

• on the appeal of Alliance attorney Jeff Jakmides (filed on behalf of one Barbara Lockheart)
  
• that Judge Dixie Park of the Stark County Probate Court had violated the Constitutional (due process of law) rights of Lockheart which resulted in her spending some 10 harrowing days
• in the Stark County jail

It could be that Jakmides may once again be on a track to have the Fifth District find that Judge Park has violated the due process of law rights of yet another Stark Countian.

On February 26th, Jakmides filed an appeal with the court from Judge Park rulings in the case In re:  ... Frank K. Bolog:

As a matter of formal legal pleadings, the appeal asserts that Judge Park:

In layman's language, the pleading asserts that Judge Park:

1. Violated Ohio law in acting to appoint a guardian for putative ward Frank K. Bolog without having found that as a matter of law on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that Bolog is mentally impaired,
2. Violated Ohio law in appointing an guardian for Bolog's personal/property interest decision making authority of a person (John R. Frank, appointed February 4, 2014) who never made a required Ohio Supreme Court prescribed application, and consequently:
3. Bolog was denied his U.S. Constitutional rights of due process of law (notice and opportunity to be heard) rights.

If Jakmides is successful, Bolog will be the fourth in a string of cases within a year in which Park was either reversed on constitutional grounds (In re:  Finan and In re: Flohr) or remanded (by the Ohio Supreme Court) on the illegal issuance by a probate court judge of a search warrant.

The Report will not repeat the volumes that have already been written in this current series (who knows how long this is going to go on?), but here are links for those SCPR readers are not familiar with the details of what has gone on before:

• September 22, 2014, 
• September 23, 2014,
• September 25, 2014, 
• September 29, 2014,
• January 14, 2015,
• February 19, 2015

The question that the SCPR raises is this:  When is enough enough?

In several blogs of this series, The Report has said that Judge Park is obviously in over her head in terms of knowledge of the law or in judicial demeanor and should at her own initiative resign.

Of course, that is not going to happen.

The SCPR has learned that among Stark County judicial/legal establishment, Judge Park has very low regard in terms of her legal acumen.

However, elected official colleagues and lawyers who appear before her will talk "privately" with one another in derogation of her legal abilities, but none apparently have the courage to go face-to-face with Judge Park and join the SCPR in asking her to resign.

Currently, there is a trial going on in Cleveland involving Cleveland Municipal Court judge Angela Stokes (currently barred from hearing criminal cases) on whether or not Judge Stokes should lose her law license and therefore the ability to be an Ohio judge:

Excerpts from a February 26th Cleveland Plain Dealer piece on the trial:

The Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct appointed a three-member panel to hear the case, which is unfolding like a trial in a makeshift courtroom in the offices of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association.

Joseph Caligiuri, the lead lawyer for the disciplinary counsel, described Stokes' treatment of people appearing in her courtroom as "downright despicable" and said that she led a "reign of terror" that disrupted the entire court. He said people who enter her courtroom walk into a "different universe."

Among the allegations made by local lawyers and others against Judge Park in addition to the higher court reversals/remands as linked to above, include charges that she favors certain lawyers over others and has had a difficult relationship with court employees.

Local attorney Craig T. Conley has made "no bones about it," he wants Park gone and gone yesterday.

While ethical rules will not allow lawyers who have filed disciplinary complaints to make having done so public, the SCPR has reason to believe that complaints have been filed against Judge Park.

Should any of "thought-to-have-been-filed" complaints mature into charges being filed by Disciplinary Counsel against Park, the SCPR thinks Stark Countians can expect a similar scene that is going on in Cleveland to materialize in Stark County.

It hasn't been that long since there was a resolution of difficulties that came out of troubles that plagued the Stark County treasurer's office during the period April 1, 2009 through the end of October, 2011.

And, of course, there is the George T. Maier qualifying to be sheriff saga that dragged out from February 5, 2013 through the November election of 2014. 

Could it be that Stark County will once again be the focus of all Ohio as the Judge Dixie Park saga unfolds?