SCPR "COUNTDOWN TO PRIMARY" (VOL 7) WHY IS MIKE GIBBONS HELPING RENACCI WIN THE REPUBLICAN U.S. SENATE PRIMARY?

UPDATED:  MARCH 12, 2018 2:05 PM

MARCH 12, 2018

10TH ANNIVERSARY OF SCPR
(3344 BLOGS POSTED)

AS OF 12/31/2017 FEC REPORT

NOT ONE SINGLE STARK COUNTIAN

HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE

GIBBONS CAMPAIGN

Before getting into today's blog, here is my wife and my "farewell to Hawaii" photo as we will be departing for "frigid" northeast Ohio tomorrow evening after having been in Hawaii for two months.

Readers will note the "jackets," it was a little cool this morning at 71 degrees on a spot near Waikiki Beach.  With temperatures at 40 degrees in Uniontown as this blog is being written, no doubt we will be putting the parkas on once we disembark the plane.

TODAY'S BLOG

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike Gibbons of Cleveland tipped his hand last week that he himself thinks he is on the losing side of his challenge of U.S. Representative James Renacci for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate (currently held by Democrat Sherrod Brown) when he jumped all over some "cherry picked" remarks that Renacci made to a group of Northeast Hamilton County Republicans recently.

(Standard YouTube License) (LINK)

There has to be more to this story.  Of course the Gibbons campaign does not provide the full context of Renacci's remarks.  He sarcastically attributes "telling the truth" to Renacci while apparently trafficking in a "partial" truth himself.

The SCPR thinks it is a good thing that Renacci is ranked 46th in his current congressional history of having some ability to work with other Republicans and some Democrats in crafting/sponsoring legislation.

Much of the general public disgust with congresspersons is that way too many of them including Ohio 7th district (which includes most of Stark County) are way, way, way too partisan.  Reflect a moment on Republican Bob Gibbs ranking.  Absolutely disgraceful, no?

The Report takes Gibbons' "cherry picking" on Renacci to be a de facto admission by Gibbons that he knows he is way behind in this race and the "Renacci is a Democrat" line is a political Hail Mary inasmuch as we are now inside 60 days until the primary election and less than that until "early" voting begins.

If anyone doubts that Renacci has earned credentials as card carrying Republican, take a look at this graphic.

Looking at Renacci's placement in the congressional Republican grouping, he is smack dab in the middle and a top tier (probably second tier) Republican congressional leader.

From what The Stark County Political Report reads about Gibbons' political positions, if her were in Congress he would be on the right wing fringes ideology-wise and like bringing up the bottom on the "leadership" factor.

So why would Republicans cotton to him in the primary on May 8th?

Answer: They won't.  It will be Renacci versus Brown.  Brown has no Democratic Party primary opposition.

On a wealthy relative scale of the richest to the poorest (still not poor by average person standards), as already state Renacci is  one of Congress' richest whereas Brown is one of the Senate's poorest.

Originally in this election cycle, Renacci of Wadsworth decided not to run for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives (the 16th district which includes north/northwest Stark county where he has been serving since January, 2011) to run for governor.

Well, that was a non-starter.  There was no way he was going to be a viable statewide candidate against the likes of Attorney General Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Jon Husted and Lieutenant Governor Mary Taylor.

As luck would have it, the far and away Republican shoe-in to run against Brown for a second time was Ohio treasurer Josh Mandel shocked the political world in dropping out of the Senate race on January 5th of this year.

That left Clevelander Mike Gibbons as the heir-apparent (announced in May, 2017) to the GOP Senate nomination.

Not so quick.

Knowing he was not going to be the GOP nominee for governor, Congressman Renacci jumped all over the Mandel withdrawal and by January 11th was "all-in" for the GOP Senate nomination.

Gibbons big problem is that though a big time Republican donor, he has never run for office and therefore nobody knows him.

Renacci is not exactly a household name across all of Ohio but he has better name ID than Gibbons and he is very, very, very wealthy.  Reportedly, he is among THE RICHEST congresspersons in all of Congress.

Gibbons has a few bucks of his own but is not in Renacci's league.

To the SCPR's way of thinking, that Gibbons is trying to match or exceed Renacci in being pro-Trump is a battle Gibbons cannot win.

Much like his foolish, politically ridiculous "Renacci 'at heart' is a Democrat" ploy.

With the prospect of a "Blue Wave" kicking in for the general election, the "who is more like Trump" positioning by Gibbons and Renacci is likely to backfire hugely.

Who is providing campaign advice to this guy?

So the Republican primary battle is not about who connects with everyday people.

Both Republicans have more money than they know what to do with and are up somewhere in the elitist-rich stratosphere.

Most of us struggle to get from day to day.

The November general election will about connectivity to day-in day-out Ohioans which should be ADVANTAGE incumbent Sherrod Brown.

Adequate campaign funds does not seem to be a problem for either of the Republicans and certainly not for Senator Brown.

Stark County could be a "swing district" battleground between Republicans Renacci and Gibbons.

Who are the Stark Countians "individually" contributing to Renacci?

Who are the Stark Countians "individually" contributing to Gibbons?

Would you believe ZERO?

Believe it or not, nary one Stark Countian is recorded as having contributed to the Gibbons campaign.

Ohio's eight largest county and NO contributors meaning perhaps NO Gibbons organization in Stark County.

Now that'a a campaign to win statewide in Ohio, no?

GENERAL ELECTION SERIES (VOL 1) AUGUST 4, 2014: THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR "AUDITOR" ALAN HAROLD?

THE SETH PETERSON SAGA

It could be that the "hottest" race in Stark County in this year's general election could be between incumbent Republican Alan Harold and Democratic challenger and Massillon Ward 6 councilwoman Linda Litman.

As depicted above, Harold might well be in a precarious position in retaining his post as the elected Stark County editor.

Since 2003 when now Stark County commissioner Janet Creighton resigned the office she had held for years (1991—2003) to take over as mayor of Canton, the auditor's office has been a political war zone between Stark County's "organized" Democrats and Republicans.

Current Stark County Brant Luther was appointed by the Republicans to replace Creighton.  But he was unable to hold the office losing to then Canton auditor Kim Perez in 2004.  Luther was Creighton's "right-hand-man" for part of her stint as county auditor.

As expanded upon below, Perez got caught in a political buzzsaw which local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley labeled as being "Zeiglergate" which provided current auditor Alan Harold (a Republican) an opportunity that he took full advantage of to reclaim the seat for the Republicans

It might be that a series of recent goof-ups by Harold (which will be the focus of this series) will provide Democrats a way back into controlling the office at the hand of Massillon councilwoman Linda Litman whose resume includes extensive experience in the financial world (e.g. First Merit Bank, now Huntington Bank).

Later on in this series, the SCPR will be sharing with readers the outrage that has been expressed by some leading Stark County Democratic officials who perceive Harold as "not playing fair" with the Democratic candidate trying to unseat him.

It is a growing Stark County Political Report perception that Alan Harold as county auditor has been his own worst enemy in doing a number of things as auditor that has brought The Report to downgrade him from his long held perch as one of this blogger's top tier Stark County elected officials.

The Report has not updated an evaluation of Stark County elected officials lately, but readers can be certain that Harold has fallen of the list which he once attained a #2 ranking, to wit:

Today's volume deals with (as a "first" example of his being "his own worst enemy") his hire of college pal Seth Peterson as his chief of information technology.

Harold, elected initially in 2010 in an environment in which Democrat incumbent Kim Perez (now Canton city treasurer) was, among other things (see below) apparently thought by Stark Countians to have been too politically close to Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler when on April 1, 2009 news broke that Zeigler's chief deputy treasurer Vince Frustaci was suspected of having stolen Stark County taxpayer money and, rightly or wrongly, Zeigler and Perez were seemingly perceived by the Stark County voting public:

• (in Zeigler's case) of not having done enough in having secured the county treasury physical facilities/policy/practice-wise to have prevented the eventual Frustaci pleaded guilty to theft, and
• (in Perez's case) of not having acted on irregularities in data/information coming from the treasury from Frustaci so as to have alerted officials so that the theft might possibly have been ended earlier in the 2003—2008 ($2.46 million).

Zeigler reached an agreement with Stark County commissioners amid many "legal" twists and turns in October, 2011 to retire/resign.

Perez was defeated by an Alan Harold who was politically in the right place at the right time.

Harold was re-elected in November, 2014 when opposed by Canton City Schools treasurer Jeff Gruber who, as the SCPR recollects, did not actively campaign.

On August 4, 2014 Stark County auditor Alan Harold hired as his chief information technology officer one Seth Peterson at some $122,000, more or less,

Okay.

So?

Well, Peterson, a personal friend of Harold's dating back to their days as students at then Mount Union College.  Witness these e-mail exchange between The Stark County Political Report and Harold a couple of days ago:

SCPR:  Moreover, I am told (which surprised me because you didn't volunteer it when I asked you why the hire of Peterson?) that you were a roommate of Peterson's at Mount Union. 

Is this allegation true or untrue?

Note:  The Report is incorrect in Harold not having provided his history with Peterson in prior conversations (see this LINK)

Harold:  Untrue.

SCPR:  As a follow up, if you were not a roommate of Peterson's at Mount Union, did you have any connection with him at Mount Union or post-Mount Union whatsoever before his hiring by the Stark County auditor's office?

Harold:  Yes

SCPR:  If so, please detail that/those connection(s).

Harold:  I met Seth at Mount Union and considered him a friend.  

We lost touch through the years after college and reconnected when he had called me in +/-2012 to inquire about a job posting in another unit of local government. 

One conversation led to another, several on-site interviews were held with various staff that led to a job offer, though he declined to work for the county due to his commitment to his job at the time. 

 When that specific project ended, we re-engaged and he joined our staff.  He was well-qualified for the job and certainly had the requisite experience.  

I remain disappointed by the events surrounding his departure and believe reasonable employers would have reached the same conclusions that I did. (emphasis added)

Hiring one's personal friends or political pals has a long human history as being a move that is fraught with perils especially when the hiring puts that friend/pal in a public service position.

The Report thinks Harold made a monumental mistake (as said so at the time) in not promoting Anita Henderson to the top spot.

Everybody the SCPR talks to about Henderson gives her rave reviews.  And, this blogger has covered quite a few Stark County commissioner meetings in which it was apparent that Henderson knew her stuff.

One tends not to properly vet a friend/pal as one would if contemplating hiring a total stranger.

Henderson's cmployment date:  June 14, 1987.  Over 30 years.  Wow!

Talk about a sure thing in terms of reliability to do the job as it should be done in all aspects of doing the job of being the top information/technology person Anita Henderson appears to be about a good as it gets in knowing what you're getting in an employee, no?

Disappointed in Peterson?

This from a Repository report of June 2, 2016:

[A female technology sector employee] had received a warning letter in March, which among other things, said she was spending too much time away from her desk and in the office of a male information technology employee.

Multiple SCPR sources say that the "male information technology employee" was Seth Peterson.

Both Peterson and the female employee departed employment with the auditor's office on or about May 4, 2016.

It appears that Harold did what he should have done in asking Peterson and the female employee to resign their employment with the auditor's office.

And he did the appropriate thing in not offering Peterson any severance pay.

The troubling thing about the resignations is that Harold did pay the female employee $9,142 in settlement money.

Settlement for what?

That is a question that Auditor Harold so far has refused to answer.

He did provide the SCPR with a copy (at his initiative) of her filing a claim for unemployment compensation showing that she had been denied.

If anything, the unemployment compensation denial buttresses the SCPR's position that paying the employee $9,142 was unwarranted unless Harold provides compelling justification for having done so.

He is not entitled to pay out in his official capacity taxpayer money without a forthcoming explanation as to why.

Here is a guy who refused to allow Gary Zeigler

• when he was restored to the position of Stark County treasurer in 2010 by the Ohio Supreme Court 
• because the-then Stark County commissioners did not afford Zeigler "due process of law" in terminating him as treasurer 

to use Stark County government facilities when he returned to the treasurer's office on being restored by the court BECAUSE Zeigler could not get a bond issued him.

So why is it now okay for Harold (according to The Rep's Tim Botos' June 2nd report) to pay out $9,142 together with an approximate $40,000 more to other dismissed/resigned employees without chapter and verse explanation?

So far, Harold, who usually answers the SCPR's questions, is mum on this one.

To boot, Harold had agreements written (undoubtedly, he would say "on advice of counsel") which included these clauses:

The SCPR thinks that the above-clauses are not so much designed to protect Stark County government but rather to protect Harold's perception of his personal interests.

SCPR "COUNTDOWN TO PRIMARY" SERIES (VOL 6): "A DARK HORSE CANDIDATE" (FOR GENERAL ELECTION PURPOSES) EMERGES FROM DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY

TO SERIOUSLY CHALLENGE REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT BOB GIBBS

7TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - WHICH INCLUDES MOST OF STARK CO

There is absolutely no doubt that Kenneth Harbaugh will be the Democratic nominee to take on Republican Bob Gibbs in the November 6, 2018 general election.

It is a mere formality that May 8, 2018 come and go for Harbaugh to emerge and the nominee.

Take a look at the Democratic candidates campaign finance reports through December 31, 2017:

$433,000,00, more or less, that Harbaugh is harboring and thereby "keeping his 'political resources' powder dry" as he gears up to take on Bob Gibbs in a very, very, very tough district for Democratic candidates at any level.

Incumbent Gibbs has $1.3 millon, more or less, in cash but he has some huge political liabilities that might enable Harbaugh to put the results in doubt come November 6, 2018 and the general election.

Gibbs main liability is President Donald J. Trump.

FiveThirtyEight tracks the voting records of congress-persons.

Since January 5, 2017, Gibbs has voted the Trump position on congressional issues 57 out of some 60 times.

Only on three votes, did he buck Trump.

Of course the more than two to one cash advantage Gibbs over Harbaugh is no small matter.  But its is beginning the look like having Trump hung around your neck could be a "political kiss of death" as evidenced by recent elections in which Trump/sympathetic/allied candidates lost in districts that Trump won handily in 2026 as in Ohio's 7th congressional district which includes the vast majority of  Stark County.

Moreover, in polling in a generic Democrat/generic Republican context, a Daily Kos graphic shows Democratic candidate earning a 15 point margin.

Like Democrat Harbaugh, Gibbs has no real opposition on May 8th.

In looking over Harbaugh's Stark County contributors for the year ended on December 31, 2018, he is doing very poorly in the largest county within the district.  Only four different contributors for a total of $1,848.74.

It appears that Harbaugh is relying on out-of-district/out-of state contributions so far.  This could be a factor that will backfire on him in a general election, to wit;

In elections in other states, it does not appear that "out-of-district/out-of-state" money affected the vote all that much.

For it seems that U.S. House/Senate races for sure and to some degree state house/senate races are becoming a referendum on Donald J. Trump.

If that proves to be the case in Ohio come November, Stark County could find itself hearkening back to the day of 2008 when Democrat transplant from Youngstown John Boccieri defeated home grown Kirk Schuring for a seat in the U.S. House (then, the 16th congressional district which in 2006 included "all' of Stark County) on the heels of the district having been represented by Republicans for many, many consecutive years.

The general election is eight months away.

For the May primary, neither Democrat Ken Harbaugh or Republican Bob Gibbs have anything to worry about.

But Gibbs may have plenty to worry about come November!

15TH IN "SCPR" HOF-VP SERIES: HOW DID PROJECT GO FROM 480 MILLION TO 1 BILLION RIGHT UNDER THE NOSES OF THE HOF BD OF TRUSTEES?

UPDATED, MONDAY,  2:30 PM

NEW YORK TIMES INTERESTED IN HOF-VP FINANCIAL WOES?

DOCUMENTED
C. DAVID BAKER MAKES AT LEAST $615,000 ANNUALLY
(Puts Him in Top 1% of U.S. Income)  LINK

HOF BD OF TRUSTEES
SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED
OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
OHIO LAW ON DUTIES OF TRUSTEES

At a Stark County Port Authority (SPA) meeting several weeks ago one member is reported to have said: (paraphrase)

"How could the Professional Football Hall of Fame Village Project "stadium phase" reconstruction BALLOON from $24 million to $150 million right under our noses?

Growing numbers of Stark Countians officials representing taxpayer interests are asking the same question question directed not only to Port Authority officials but also to the National Pro Football Hall of Fame Museum, Inc (HOF, HOF-V) Board of Trustees.

HOF CEO/president C. David Baker (Dave, to his close-in pals) who has bragged to Canton McKinley (a student body rife with academic problems) that they have the "best damn high school football stadium in the US of A.  If he had the Donald J. Trump penchant for grandiosity, he could have done better and said "in the world" and, unlike Trump with many of his over-the-top braggadocios, be right on the mark.

Not only is the estimated stadium cost way over what was originally, there is a humongous, corollary  BALLOONING cost of the entire project from $480 million to $1 billion, if not more; should? the project reach completion, which The Stark County Political Report believes it will not!

In terms of generating income to recover the capital cost of the stadium in the lifetimes of Stark County's 2018 newborns, at cost of $150/170 million, more or less, IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

As suggested by the graphic that headlines this Stark County Political Report blog; those with whom The Report is in conversation are increasingly looking at the non-profit Pro Football Hall of Fame Board of Trustees for accountability.

Increasingly, these folks are saying that an apparently Board of Trustees "unchecked" C. David Baker and his HOF-VP administrative team "aided and abetted" by cheerleaders (i.e. The Repository "the official newspaper of the Hall of Fame and the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce) are out to make the expansion a "gilded in gold" project.

A source tells the SCPR that Repository publisher James Porter meets with Baker weekly.

Hmm?

If the HOF expansion was wholly and completely a "private" project, then, of course, there is absolutely nothing on which the general taxpaying public should be weighing-on.

In America's economic system, it is perfectly okay for private entrepreneurs to put private sector money at risk.  Were that the case with the HOF-VP, the Stark County public would not be hearing a word of critiquing on the part of the SCPR.

But as The Report knows, SCPR readers know and, indeed, everybody knows the HOF-VP is  "knee-deep" into Ohio's/Stark County taxpayers' pockets.

The fact of the matter is that millions of dollars of taxpayer money has been and continues to be poured into the project seemingly without any check whatsoever on Baker et al which factor is compounded by the HOF-VP folks hiding from the tax paying public any meaningful accounting of how it planned (from the beginning) to raise the then $480 million and now that things have gotten out-of-hand $1 billion plus.

Earlier this week, the state of Ohio put out information to the effect that the projected 2019-2020 capital budget includes $1 million for a sketched out Center for Excellence.  The SCPR intentionally used the phrase "sketched-out" because it is predictable that the $30 million project cost (which under David Baker probably means $60 million, $90 million maybe more) will never be built.

To repeat, "putting private sector money down a rat hole" is perfectly okay in a wholly "private sector" project.

But not so with public sector (taxpayer) money.

Of course it is a duty of local elected public officials to ensure that investments of taxpayer dollars have a near certain chance of over a reasonable period of time to have a beneficial effect and financial return in "for the public welfare" prospects.

The SCPR thinks that one of the bulwarks for due diligence emanating from the public sector on whether or not public money/administrative assistance be extended to the HOF-VP have been the Stark County commissioners.

The commissioners effort appears to be in marked contrast to the one being discharged by the Pro Football Hall of Fame Board of Trustees (HOF-BOT).

Reports that the SCPR is getting about HOF-BOT meetings is that only local-based trustee Barbara Bennett is asking meaningful/probative questions of President Baker and his administrative staff.

By and large, the reports indicate that the HOF-BOT has been a incurious/rubber stamp operation for Baker who is reported to have told Bennett at a meeting (paraphrase):  "Now, don't you worry about the cost overruns and the financing to cover them, I have everything under control."

A good source for getting some idea of the internal financials of a non-profit such as the National Football Museum, Inc (dba Pro Football Hall of Fame) is to look at its IRS Form 990.

The SCPR has gained access to HOF's going back three (3) years, to wit:

According to the National Football Museum, Inc's (the HOF's "official name") 2015 IRS Form 990 (non-profit's annual reporting form), the HOF paid Baker  $615,995 a year, has the HOF-BOT eating out of his hand much like some but not all elected Stark County political subdivision officials.

NOTE:  The "latest available to the public" IRS Form 990 is 2015.
SEE A COMPLETE COPY OF THE 2015 FORM 990 IN THE APPENDIX

When he was hired in (January, 2014 [a number still being reported by The Repository as far as the SCPR knows] his total pay factor was $367,450.

Local well thought of Stephen Perry who served as an appointee in the President George W. Bush administration (LINK)  made a mere $279,886 in 2013 in his last year in heading the HOF.

So in addition to the 67.6% increase Baker got from 2014 to 2015, he received almost 25% over Perry's 2013 income.

So how much is Baker making in 2018?

In the range of $1,000,000, more or less?

Perhaps, the "official newspaper of the Professional Football Hall of Fame" and its "special" relationship with Baker et al can find out?

Maybe just maybe our local officials who have a role in providing tax revenues to the HOF-VP will ask the HOF for and provide to the Stark County public via public records requests a copy of the 2016 National Football Museum, Inc.  As far as the SCPR knows, the 2016 return though likely filed has not been released to the public.

Won't that return be interesting when it comes out?

To say nothing of the 2017 return in another year or so?

Now doesn't all the remuneration numbers on Baker sound like responsible HOF Board of Trustee boardmanship?  (SCPR sarcasm, of course)

In addition to his big-time remuneration and pay increase as noted above, which, undoubtedly, is why he is hyped up to get all Stark Countians behind his vision, perhaps, to local government's (i.e. taxpayers) detriment; he has, among the trustee membership, the full support of the likes of Roger Goodell (commissioner of the NFL) and Jerry Jones (owner of the Dallas Cowboys), whom, likely are pushing Baker to produce big for professional football (hence the HOF-VP) which more and more appears to be losing favor with the American sporting public.

The downside for the NFL involvement (e.g. Goodell/Jones and the number of former players and other well known "national" public figures who staff 14 HOF-BOT positions on the 25 member board) is that their involvement amidst reports of financial trouble (e.g. the filing of mechanic liens by various contractor interests) is reportedly gotten the attention of the New York Times who is said to have contacted Baker about the financial hubbub going on presently as apparent from the goings on at the Stark County Port Authority meetings and Saturday's Canton City Schools meeting.

As expanded upon later on in this blog, board of trustees members by Ohio law have obligation that transcend blind loyalty to the likes of C. David Baker.

And, it makes no difference whether they are paid or not.  They still are accountable to comport with Ohio law.

According to the 2015 IRS 990 form, three members of the executive team of the board of trustees receive compensation, to wit:

Here is a list of the Pro Football Hall of Fame board of trustees membership:

(Highlighting Added by SCPR)

The SCPR has highlighted the list (obtained from by the SCPR from the HOF website) on yellow to show the "locals" (meaning Stark County connected community leaders) who are part of the 25 member board of trustees.

The Report lays a higher responsibility on the "locals" to get Baker under control and to get the project on a "sustainable" scale which with some $150/170 million in the football stadium alone in already past.  As explained above, there is no way that there will be a capital cost pay back even if the Canton Schools/HOF were able to schedule "sold out houses" 365 days of the year, which, of course, is not possible even within the fantasy world that C. David Baker apparent lives.

Baker is absolutely the best charmer who has set foot in Stark County and, in the assessment of a number of more discerning Stark Countians which the SCPR is conversant with, seems to them to be Stark's very own version of The Music Man.

The "locals" on the HOF Board of Trustees number 11 of 25.  Also, among the executive officer corps, there are 3 of 5 who are Stark County connected.

As observed in Thursday's blog, Chairman Hunt appears to be a lead "local" factor in trying to maximize taxpayer involvement in the "private sector" HOF-VP.

One has to wonder whether or not Hunt has a conflict in interest in being legal counsel for the HOF Village, LLC and being chairman of the HOF Board of Trustees) in that Ohio's charitable entities law applies legal standards of conduct to?

One half of HOF Village, LLC is master developer Stu Lichter's private sector "for a profit" Industrial Realty Group entity.

So how is it that Chairman Hunt, pray tell, can guide the HOF-BOT in compliance with Ohio's charitable organization legal duties (see standards below) while advocating for, at least partially, for a profit making enterprise?

Are there other locals on the board of trustees who have conflicts in interest by virtue of holding a public position?

Local officials (including state Representative Kirk Schuring and Scott Oelslager) should have been all along and now need to be pressing the Board Trustees to release minutes/recordings of past trustee meetings to show what, if anything, the trustees have done, are doing to ensure that every escalation of the HOF-VP has been justified with "financing or commitment thereof is in place" on the part of the HOF Baker administration before $1 of public money has been and continues to be and prospectively is likely to be put into the project.

To the degree that public money has been placed in what appears to be a "highly speculative" venture without proper financial due diligence having been done, should be brought to bear politically on those very same public officials should the project fall short of the phenomenal promises made by Baker et al.

That the HOF is working out details on what its officials are calling a "bridge loan" of "up to $100,000 million, is evidentiary indication that folks (member of the Board of Trustees) who are supposed to know better in being "captains of commerce/entertainment/healthcare/industry" may not be fulfilling the duties under Ohio law as set forth above.

Don't want to hear the "this is a 'private sector' therefore not accountable to the public" remonstrance on the part of the trustees or the Baker administration.

Way to much public money and supportive services being placed at the disposal of the project for such an argument to have any credibility.

If local elected officials who have collaborated with the HOF-VP on financing in varying degrees do not press for a HOF-VP public accounting, then the SCPR thinks they are culpable as being participants in the masking of information that ought to be available to the tax paying public and should be held accountable at the next election cycle.

There are standards that boards of trustees are legally held to, to wit:



And this from the attorney general's Q&A on filing complaints on non-profit operations:

Misuse of charitable funds by nonprofits that fail to properly govern themselves: Nonprofit board members have several legal responsibilities, including the duties of care, loyalty, compliance and the duty to maintain accounts. Failure of board members to adequately get engaged in the activities of the organization can result in the squandering of charitable assets. Additionally, problems can result when there are significant conflicts of interest affecting staff and board members. Charitable assets and objectives may suffer when personal enrichment results from inattention and fraud, and these issues are routinely investigated by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.

For more information about the duties and responsibilities of charity board members, a separate publication, titled Guide for Charity Board Members, can be found 

at www.OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov/GuideforCharityBoardMembers or obtained through the Ohio Attorney General’s Help Center at (800) 282-0515.

(Capitalization Added by SCPR for Emphasis Purposes)

Accordingly, a possible avenue for Stark County elected officials who by virtue having a "protect the taxpayers" obligation for those units of Ohio/Stark County units of government which "have skin in the game" in having approved public monies being placed in the private sector HOF-VP, is to ask the attorney general to investigate the HOF Board of Trustees to determine whether or not the board has complied with Ohio law with respect their legal duties and ethical obligations.

If an elected official will not ask the attorney general to investigate the functioning of the HOF Board of Trustees operation, then, perhaps, one of Stark County's taxpaying citizen-activist will?

The SCPR is not optimistic that an elected Stark County official (of an entity of government which has money "invested" in the HOF-VP) would ask Republican attorney general and gubernatorial candidate Mike DeWine to look into the functioning of the HOF Board of Trustees.

DeWine makes a big deal as attorney general about investigating this and that matter.

But does DeWine have the "political fortitude" to investigate the functioning of the Pro FootBall Hall of Fame entity Board of Trustees according the standards set forth above in light of what obviously appears to have been an Pro Football Hall of Fame expansion project (HOF-VP) soliciting partial public money financing without having had funding or commitments for funding in place?

After all elected public officials are "politically attuned" and the HOF Board of Trustees is staffed with some powerful, powerful, powerful folks even at the "local" level to say nothing of the big-time names of national public figures such as NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Dallas Cowboy owners Jerry Jones.

It is very unlikely that "I want to be governor' Mike DeWine will act on his own initiative (though the SCPR thinks he has the legal authority to do so) and it is equally unlikely that any local public official, elected or not. will initiate a complaint which is another way to prompt the attorney general to take a look see.

But Stark County does have some committed activist citizens.

Is there any Stark County citizen who will step forward and ask the attorney general's office to take a look see at the operations of the HOF Board of Trustees functioning?

Who believes that gubernatorial candidate Mike DeWine will do it on his own?

Let's hope that he surprises us all and delves into the matter on his own.

Or, that there is a citizen who will file a complaint and make him decide whether to investigate or not and not let him simply ignore what seems to be a situation that begs for looking into!

APPENDIX

Links to prior SCPR blogs on the HOF-VP

• March 1, 2018,
• February 12, 2018,
• February 4, 2018,
• January 10, 2018 (Strengthening Stark) (Volume 2)
• January 9, 2018 (Strengthening Stark) (Volume 1)
• January 6, 2018
• December 18, 2017
• December 13, 2017
• November 27, 2017
• October 18, 2017,
• April 11, 2016,
• April 7, 2016,
• April 6, 2016,
• December 22, 2015,
• May 22, 2015,

The full 2015 National Museum, Inc (dba Pro Football HOF) 990

AN "IMPRESSIVE" THOMAS WEST AS STATE REPRESENTATIVE, SO FAR

OPPOSED IN NOVEMBER, BY REPUBLICAN JAMES HAAVISTO

Was reading an article from The New York Times on a practice by some corporate "pharmacy benefit managers" in contracts with pharmacists to insist on including what are called "gag clauses."

According to the article a number of states have moved to correct the muzzling of pharmacists.

So the thought occurred to The Stark County Political Report:  What about the state of Ohio?

As The Report is apt to do and share with the readers of this blog, a Google® search was launched to determine the status of the law of Ohio.

And, lo and behold! what a pleasant surprise!!!

This popped up.



Canton's/Stark County's very own Thomas West as a Democratic (a party dwarfed by super majority Republicans) state representative flexing his muscle on behalf of everyday Cantonians and Stark Countians.

Impressed?

The SCPR wants to be.  But time will tell.

His predecessor Stephen Slesnick and fellow Democrat spent eight years in the Ohio House and never, ever got anywhere close to this HB 479 significance.

Slesnick's excuse for not achieving was his being part of a decided minority in the Ohio House.

Hmm?

Doesn't seem to stop West from having an impact!

Representative West has social skills (a long time social worker) and political skills (a long term Democratic councilman in Canton) that Slesnick could only dream about.

Slesnick only claim to fame was coming from a well known Canton/Stark County business family of which he was (in running to become the Democratic Party nominee over eight years ago) a vice president of.

Finally, finally, finally Cantonians and Stark Countians have a productive Democrat in the Ohio General Assembly?

William J. Healy, William J. Healy, II and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. never were.  And Healy the father and Maier actually served in Democratic majorities.

The Republicans think they have a chance to defeat West in the upcoming 2018 general election and the SCPR thinks they have a pretty good candidate in James Haavisto as they did with Dan McMasters in 2016 when West was running for the first time.

But given:

• the overwhelming registered Democrats and "independent" leaning Democratic voters in the 49th, and
• West being legislatively active (teaming up with Republican Kirk Schuring [the 48th] on trying to help Massillon fend off the abrupt closing of Affinity Medical Center) and likely in the case of HB 479 productive,

it is hard to imagine Haavisto being successful in his quest to unseat West.

Especially so because of the seeming bipartisan stance that West embraces.  With West playing nice with Republican legislators when he can and not offend his fellow Democratic caucus, he does.

Of the Republicans in the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly, Kirk Schuring (the 48th) and Scott Oelslager (Senate, the 29th) have demonstrated some willingness to work with Democrats whereas Christina Hagan (the 50th) has not.

When one is in a huge minority as West is, then one must be operationally smart as West is demonstrating he is on this specific piece of legislation.

The SCPR applauds Stark's "organized" Republicans (Jeff Matthews, chairman) for offering the quality of a Jim Haavisto to the voters of the 49th.

Last evening Haavisto had a fundraiser.  Apparently he is determined to make a fight of it.

Every candidate in Stark County on the November ballot ought to have significant opposition.

And that includes Thomas West.

For the moment, the SCPR commends West for his work in the Legislature.  But, clearly, being an elected politician is a "what have you done lately."

Can he keep it up?  We shall see.  And James Haavisto will be quick to give reasons why he thinks the West we have seen in his 1-1/3 years in office is a "mirage."

Here is a video of West (at the 1:49 mark of a 3:22 video clip posted on YouTube by LesicCamper on February 2nd)  appearing with his Republican co-sponsor and a pharmaceutical industry representative talking about the prospects for HB 479.

Source:

14TH IN A SERIES: IF HALL OF FAME DOES NOT PAY HILSCHER-CLARKE OFF THIS WEEK, "IT IS NOT GOING TO BE PRETTY?"

UPDATED: THURSDAY 10:42 AM

"CANTON CITY SCHOOLS BD OF EDUCATION" TO CONSIDER "CERTIFICATE OF ESTOPPEL ON SATURDAY MORNING

Note:  (Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.) The "real" reason that mechanics lien filing contractors have not been fully paid by the HOF/IRG combo limited liability (not the "phoney" reason pushed out by HOF CEO/president C. David Baker that it is the Stark County commissioners fault)

• behind the surface reason that the HOF-VP have no money except of course to pay for a gigantic banner to promote the 2018 HOF selected player induction event this summer,

is that HOF/IRG cannot get a $100 million infusion of cash without first satisfying the "lender-in-waiting" insistence that "certificates of estoppel" (LINK for explanation) from the Stark County Port Authority and the Canton City Schools ("CCS," the owner of the Tom Benson Stadium).

It might be that the CCS will on Saturday morning provide its certificate.  The quarrel between CCS and the HOF/Stu Lichter has been primarily over how many dates each gets to schedule events for the stadium.

Here is a copy of the notice of the meeting that the CCS sent out recently. 

ORIGINAL BLOG (published 02/27/20180

LINKS to prior blogs in this series: (your source for information on the HOF-VP,  much of which, The Repository refuses to print)

• February 12, 2018,
• February 4, 2018,
• January 10, 2018 (Strengthening Stark) (Volume 2)
• January 9, 2018 (Strengthening Stark) (Volume 1)
• January 6, 2018
• December 18, 2017
• December 13, 2017
• November 27, 2017
• October 18, 2017,
• April 11, 2016,
• April 7, 2016,
• April 6, 2016,
• December 22, 2015,
• May 22, 2015,

If you or I did what the Pro Football Hall of Fame (HOF-VP) has done through its visionary-in-chief C. David Baker has done, The Repository would likely be publishing stories about how unrealistic we were in proposing such a phantasmagoric project without any idea about how we were going to finance it.

Of course, the average person doesn't have a "special" relationship with the folks running the Hall of Fame Village "expansion" project, to wit:

Now it is beginning to appear that The Repository cannot even ask or publish answers to (which of the two, it is impossible to determine) questions that literally beg to be asked.

The latest failure to ask (or, it might have be asked, but the answer not published) occurred at last Thursday's Stark County Port Authority.

Had The Stark County Political Report  (SCPR, The Report) been present, readers could bet their "bottom dollar" that the questions would have been asked and the answer (or refusal to answer) would have been published in full.

But yours truly has been in Hawaii for six weeks with another two weeks to go.

The question?

In response to the reported statement by Hilscher-Clarke president Scott Goodspeed.

If the loan doesn’t come through in the next week, Goodspeed said, “it’s not going to be pretty.”  (emphasis added)

And, a follow up statement:

Sam Simmerman, legal counsel for the port authority, said Thursday there is no set date for when the loan might close, but it won’t happen this week. (emphasis added)

Does the SCPR have to cite to readers the obvious follow up question to be answered or not?

Probably not, but here it is anyway?

"President Goodspeed, exactly what do you mean by "it's is not going to be pretty."

A question that likely would have been the opener to a series of questions which might reveal something that Goodspeed knows about the HOF-VP project that the taxpaying Stark County general public does not know.

It could be that Goodspeed is a lot of hot air.  It wasn't that long ago that Hischer-Clarke's attorney let it be known that a lawsuit was imminent:

Apparently, "its not going to be pretty" is a veiled repeat of the threat to file a lawsuit made several weeks ago by Hilscher-Clarke's attorney.

Although the SCRP is sympathetic with the likes of Hischer-Clarke, these folks (the lienholders) are supposed to be astute business persons.

Really?

You sit there and let the "unpaid" charges pile up to the tune of a couple of million dollars?

Think Hilscher-Clarke would allow you and I to roll up a proportionally  massive debt like that on our "in the end it will pay off" promise?

While The Repository is at it, maybe just maybe the ought to send somebody other than sports buff Todd Porter out to interview Baker.  Not long ago Porter did a  Baker "softball" piece that should embarrass any self respecting journalist to have his name attached to.

And he ought to take his "hardball" reporting mode (if he has one, which the The Report doubts he does) with him and ask Baker to produce evidence that the county commissioners (an allegation the SCPR hears Baker is making) are the reason that Beaver Constructors, et al, have not been fully paid.

To the SCPR, that Baker would do such of thing ("its the commissioners fault") when he ought to know and the The Report firmly believes he knows that such a attribution is untrue.

Porter and his bosses at The Rep certainly have to know that the Baker line is false and that the "real" reason is that the Stark County Port Authority and the Canton City Schools will not (until definite HOF/Lichter combination conditions are met) issue certificates of estoppel so that the ostensibly "waiting in the wings" $100 million bridge loan entity will approve the loan.

For the schools' part, the SCPR has learned, according to an agreement between the HOF-VP folks and the schools, the schools have a set aside of dates that the schools can and apparently have scheduled the use of the stadium for in such a number that the would be lender in waiting is not liking.

Also there is the matter of the schools' football operations facility being demolished an not replaced.

A snag in this aspect of the HOF solicited schools certificate of estoppel appears to be the schools getting an ironclad commitment to the replacing the demolished facility.

The truth of the matter is that the Stark County commissioners are fully into protecting taxpayer dollars in insisting that HOF/Lichter meet the commissioners "due diligence" standards as, apparently are the Port Authority and the Canton City Schools.

The HOF-VP private sector folks are already into partial public financing of the project but of course is very sparing in releasing "private financing" information and to the degree that anybody gets it (other than the bigs at The Repository), it is leaked out via people who have had dealings with the project in one way or another and who are not in the employment of the HOF-VP.

In a sarcastically amusing and tragic (from a journalistic standpoint) turn of events, the SCPR has learned The Repository "powers that be" are accusing the commissioners' office being "too public" in sharing what the commissioners know about the financing or suspected lack of funding for the HOV-VP.

The HOF-VP have been working with the commissioners to get an allocation of  $500,000, more or less, of Stark County's bed (hotel) tax having been encouraged to do so by state Representative Kirk Schuring.

The SCPR has put out public records requests of Representative Schuring, the Stark County commissioners and the city of Canton.

Some of the material gathered from the commissioners has already been shared.  And there will be more in future blogs.

Today though the focus is on material gathered from Representative Schuring (Republican Jackson) in the form of "extracts" of an e-mail generated/sent by Attorney Randall Hunt on behalf of HOF Village, LLC (a collaborative effort of the Professional Football Hall of Fame and IRG [Stu Lichter]) to Allyson Bussey, president of the Stark County Convention and Visitors' Bureau and to Stark County chief administrator Brant Luther.

The purpose in providing this extract is to outline a statement in the document of the areas of financial involvement as authorized by Ohio law by county government.  An interesting side note is a reference in the document of an meeting between Schuring and Baker set for September 21st.

The extracted part of the document (with HOF credentials of Randall Hunt)

Moreover, the Stark County Port Authority has become a player in the financing of the HOF-VP in being a conduit for the purchase of materials and supplies (subject to Ohio's sales tax so that Ohio and Stark County taxpayers stand to redirect thousands of money that would be used for the benefit of all citizens to the private sector Professional Pro Football Hall of Fame.

The SCPR is working to get a specific number of what Stark Countians and Ohioans by way of not getting sales tax revenue of equipment and supplies used in HOF-VP work.

Accordingly,  the financial viability of the project as part and parcel of public accountability certainly ought to be known to Stark County taxpayers through our public officials.

In other words, a business that is supposed to be digging out information that is being hidden by public authorities, The Repository leaders is "apparently" encouraging government to be secretive.

Hmm?

This is a organization which annually celebrates "Sunshine Week?"  More than "kind of hypocritical, no?"

Publisher Jim Porter and executive editor Jim Porter (a relative of Todd Porter) ought to hang the heads in shame1

Front organizations (Strengthening Stark, Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce and The Repository) for the HOF-VP part of Stark County economic development are pushing for a countywide sales tax in the guise of being for countywide economic development.

The SCPR says the answer should be "no way!" given the lack of information, partial information, perhaps, even disinformation dished out by HOF-VP officialdom.

Such a tax should be a full "go" if the HOF-VP is guaranteed to the voters not to get one dollar of the proceeds.

What is being openly discussed at Stark County Port Authority meetings these days was reported by the SCPR before it came out in Port Authority meetings.  But, when asked about the information before being blogged about, Pete Fierle (the HOF communications person) ascribed the information as being rumors.

The SCPR thinks that the project will never, ever be completed as currently envisioned.

The project started out at $480 million but now is at $1 billion (which, by the way, is a number the SCPR has been using way before any other media).

And the stadium:  it start out at $24 million only to escalate to probably about $170 million.

It is interesting that the "would be lender" is said to be quibbling over the number of dates that the HOF gets to schedule the stadium for.

Let's see.  A $170 million stadium as collateral.  How many events over how many lifetimes would it take for the stadium produced revenue stream to be a viable collateral?

What would Stark County taxpayers put one dollar more of public money into a project that seems so irresponsibly run?

Below is a updated mechanics lien filing list from the first filing:

Note:  Not listed is some $350,000 that the HOF-VP are said to owe the city of Canton for extra security provided for the 2017 HOF induction ceremonies week which Canton City County seems to have no immediate interest in collection.  Strange for a city asking for an income tax increase, no?