THE FORD GARAGE PURCHASE: WHY THE NORTHWEST SCHOOL DISTRICT LEVY DID NOT PASS ON MAY 5, 2009?

It is not difficult to surmise that the main reason why Stark County's Northwest Local School District levy did not pass was because of action of a prior board of education to purchase the former Progressive (nee Fulton) Ford building located at 2309 Locust.

Current school board members were hearing about it during the campaign for the 12.9 mill levy that was defeated this past May 5th.

The levy lost by 351 votes. The SCPR believes that it is likely that at least 176 voters voted no rather than yes because of the former board's decision to purchase/lease the building at $1.32 million at 4.6% interest over 15 years (reference: Repository report on 8/7/2007).

Credit one board member from that board (Thomas Mayberry) for opposing the recommendation of then superintendent Dennis Lambes that the purchase/lease be made. If Mayberry was correct in his computation, Northwest could have saved about $900,000 by building its own bus facility.

What should be particularly galling to Northwest voters is that Northwest has higher priorities in providing for, maintaining and repairing other school district facilities.

The SCPR believes that the school bus purchase/lease has a "bailout" smell to it. One current board member has been heard to say that the former Ford garage would still be there sitting vacant if the Northwest schools had not made the transaction.

The moral of this story is that it does matter very much who sits on local boards of education.

Just ask the parents and students in Stark County's Northwest Local School District.

And, by the way, all five Northwest school board positions are up for election in November.

Get out the magnifying glass Northwest voters!

PROOF THAT THE REP WILL NOT SEPARATE COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIPS FROM THE NEWS?

A SCPR reader a little while ago alerted the SCPR to the fact The Repository is not allowing comments on the story Canton quarterly magazine produced in partnership with GateHouse Ohio.

Yours truly had not noticed.

But is The Rep's "denial to comment" a surprise?

Absolutely not!

To the SCPR, this denial of opportunity to comment is evidence that the news operation at The Rep/CantonRep.com is not independent of its commercial operations contrary to Rep publisher Kevin Kampman's assertion in the story itself.

The powers that be at The Rep have treated Mayor Healy and his administration with "kid gloves" from the beginning of the Mayor's downhill slide going back to November/December 2008.

The SCPR has suspected for some time now that there was a reason why The Repository has been so accommodating to Mayor Healy and so "soft" on its reporting about the numerous questionable things going on with his administration of City Hall.

The SCPR reported the impending Repository/GateHouse/Healy Administration commercial relationship on March 17th. CLICK HERE to see the original SCPR story.

It wasn't until two days ago that The Repository reported on the story.

Publisher Kampman and Executive Editor Jeff Gauger (who, in the opinon of the SCPR grossly mismanages the Comments section) know full well that they are not going to get congratulations from Rep/CantonRep.com readers on GateHouse's blurring of the commercial operations with hard news operations.

So the solution?

Don't allow comments!

What unmitigated hypocrites Kampman, Gauger and The Repository/GateHouse Media Ohio are!!!

With regularity their editors pontificate about openness, accessibility and transparency.

With Kampman et al those qualities are for others; not themselves.

Shame on Kevin Kampman!

ARE OHIO STATEHOUSE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS CONSPIRING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES?

Are Ohioans (and, of course, Stark Countians) going to be paying more taxes soon?

For sure!

At least $236 million in state services fee hikes that the Democrat Strickland Administration has already gotten the go ahead from Ohio General Assembly Democrats and Republicans to count on them to vote for the fee increase.

Politicians love to raise fees as alternative to the t-word (taxes).

But you and I are not as stupid as they think we are.

Fee increases are tax increases but the they are tax increases in sets of Ohio citizens; not all Ohioans.

To give you an example of who the fee/tax increase falls upon, take the follow description of the $236 million fee increases published on the Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants (Ohio CPAs) website:

Gov. Strickland’s 2010–11 state budget proposes to increase fees ... .

The include 120 fee increases include tipping fees for construction projects, a new hospital franchise fee, a doubling of the nursing home bed tax and an increase in the cigarette wholesale and retail licensing fee.

To see whether or not you will have to pay any of the fee/tax increases, CLICK HERE.

Hold on there is more on tax increases.

Yesterday, the SCPR's favorite Ohio Statehouse reporter Dennis Willard of the Akron Beacon Journal (remember Stark County's only countywide newspaper - The Repository - got rid Paul Kostyu, its Statehouse analyst), wrote a compelling piece that indicates to yours truly that Republicans and Democrats are working to set up a tax increase masked so that no one has to bear potential political consequences.

Willard paints a likely picture of how Ohioans' taxes get increased.

He shows that at the end of the legislative session (mind you, the pressure is on because the biennial budget must get passed and signed by the governor not later than June, 30, 2009) with a $8 billion structural budget looming during the course of the budget implementation; the politicians may well devise a scheme to raise taxes.

Because there will be three different budget bills (one each from the Ohio House, the Ohio Senate and Governor Strickland), the Ohio House and Senate will have to appoint conference committees to iron out their legislative differences. The final component is that the Governor, at least with a "wink and a nod," will have to signal he agrees with the reconciliation because of his veto power.

Here is Willard on the possible structure of how a tax increase gets included:

Typically, the conference committee is comprised of the chairmen, vice chairmen and ranking minority members of the Senate and House finance committees, but legislative leaders might decide to pack the panel with lawmakers who are term-limited or from safe districts.

The conference committee's work on the budget goes back to the House and Senate for a concurrence vote only — meaning up or down without amendments.

Lawmakers could blame the conferees for any controversial ideas like a tax increase or casinos by maintaining that they could only vote to accept or reject the budget. (emphasis added)

Plausible deniability isn't the best excuse, but it might be the only course for lawmakers to pursue on the road to re-election in 2010.

What to do?

Contact Representatives Slesnick, Snitchler, Oelslager, Schuring, Shiavone and Okey now.

What is the point of the contact?

Not necessarily to object to a tax increase. But to insist that they do an up or down vote on any tax increase.

GAUGER OF THE REP SAYS THAT "PAY FOR ONLINE CONTENT IS COMING;" WILL YOU PAY FOR IT? VOTE!

Listen to Repository Executive Editor Jeff Gauger (on a excerpted clip from a WKSU audio news report by former Repository editor M.L. Schultze) as he tells a meeting of the Akron Press Club (very recently) that his company GateHouse Media Ohio is "seriously" considering charging readers for content on CantonRep.com.

Once you listen, take the poll below the audio link and send a message to The Rep as to whether or not you are willing to pay for content.

DO YOU NEED A POLITICAL SCIENCE DEGREE TO FIGURE OUT WHY THE MRDD LEVY PASSED OVERWHELMINGLY - THIS TIME AROUND?

Is there any mystery why the 1.4 mill MRDD levy passed in a landslide in the recent election (May 5, 2009)?

Not at all.

Area media went out and contacted folks who bill themselves as political analysis experts to get some insight as to why a nearly 3 times higher levy narrowly failed in March, 2008 (3.9 mills - $28 million per annum) got passed when it appeared in May, 2009 in reincarnated form (1.4 mills - $10 million per annum).

One of the experts went on and on with reasons why the levy passed this May. Apparently, you are not an "expert" unless you can make the answer very, very complicated. Who was this expert? Stark County Democratic Party Political Director Shane Jackson.

Actually, if readers will look at the graphic above, anyone (no expertise required) can readily figure out why the reincarnated levy passed so handily.

The real question should have been this. If MRDD says it needed $28 million in 2008, how come MRDD could do with $10 million in 2009?

The SCPR says that Superintendent/CEO Michael Miller has a whole lot of explaining to do!

Apparently, Michael Miller is another "expert" that has to re-calibrate his calculus, no?

REP PUBLISHER KAMPMAN THINKS STARK COUNTIANS ARE STUPID AND NAIVE?

Don't you just love these paternalistic types such as Repository publisher Kevin Kampman?

In essence, Kampman is telling Repository readers to "trust us."

In 2009, this guy, in light of all the corporate abuses in terms of undermining the public trust Americans have witnessed of late, tells the consuming public "trust us."

He has to be kidding!

For The Repository, as a matter of business operational structure, to put itself in question about how its finances factor into its hard news coverage, makes yours truly suspect that The Rep is, like nearly every newspaper in the land, desperate to make a few pieces of loose change wherever it can be found.

Readers of The Repository (Stark County's ONLY countywide newspaper) should not have to wrestle with the question of whether or not coverage in affected by a financial relationship. Kampman can make contrary assertions until he is blue in the face, but he can't stop readers from wondering.

Readers of the SCPR know that yours truly thinks that Mayor William J. Healy, II is one the most committed and masterful political manipulators that Stark County has ever seen. As a part of his routine, he calls the powers-to-be at The Rep (when his political maneuvering get dicey for him) and asks for an audience to "explain his position."

Why does he do this? Could it be because he thinks he can outwit The Rep's editorial group? And The Report believes it works for him.

Will this commercial relationship between Canton and The Rep embolden Healy's effort to manage, massage and spin the news coming out of City Hall? The SCPR thinks so.

The SCRP has been questioning the dependability of The Rep's coverage of the Healy Administration ever since a source tipped The Report off about the impending deal between the city of Canton and the newspaper. Moreover, The Rep has always had a coverage and editorial romance going with Ohio legislators Oelslager and Schuring.

Recently, Repository reporter Ed Balint did a piece entitled Healy: Best of times, worst of times (May 1, 2009). Look at the following except from that piece:

Healy distributed a city progress report that listed 346 jobs ... . However, Healy acknowledged the Canton area has been hit hard by unemployment, like much of the nation. Overall, "our job numbers are down," said Robert Torres, the city's development director. (emphasis added)

The first thought that yours truly had when this piece was published was "Aha, here you go, Healy et al spinning the jobs picture in Canton."

Notice, there is no mention of the exact number of "job numbers ... down." But there is a mention of in the "city progress report that listed 346 jobs."

Was this simply the failure of a reporter not asking the obvious follow up question? "Well, Director Torres how much are Canton's job numbers down?" Could be.

Another point.

What is Ed Balint doing covering a story (i.e. Canton's quarterly magazine produced in partnership with GateHouse Ohio) Repository management actions anyway. Does an employee feel free to ask the boss (Kampman, publisher of The Rep and president of GateHouse Ohio) tough questions?

Why didn't Kampman ask someone from outside The Rep's (GateHouse Media Ohio) staff who is known to have penetrating, hard hitting style to do this story? What is he afraid of?

"What's good for the goose is not good for the gander" as far as Kampman is concerned. The SCPR picked up this bit demonstrating Kampman's questioning skill from a 1999 story, to wit:

As Martin flips through the pages of a Daily Progress, Kampman peppers Speck with questions. Who are the advertisers? Who is the advertising director? Is he strong? Where do the ad takers sit? Who gets the overflow calls? What are the volume numbers? When are they going to a 100 percent commission system? (scource: The Selling of Small-town America, American Journalism Review, May, 1999)

Isn't Kampman a hypocrite of the first journalistic order?

The SCPR hasn't paid enough attention to the quality of Balint's work over all in terms of his ability to bore in with the tough questions on any given story. But his work on the Canton Connection magazine piece appears to the SCPR to somewhat akin to paid advertisement work that - without careful scrutiny - seems to be a real story.

It was a disservice to the reading public and unfair to Balint for Kampman et al to have a Rep reporter (anyone on staff, not just Balint) report the The Repository/Canton commercial relationship.

Yes, Kampman can make his assertion of independence, but he cannot control the minds of The Rep's readers.

Over time, we the readers will make an ever continuing work-in-progress assessment as to whether or not the Kampman mere assertion of independence has demonstrated substance.

Recently Executive Editor Jeff Gauger appeared before the Akron Press Club to talk about The Rep's future on the internet.

Gauger predicts that within the foreseeable future The Rep will be charging for online content.

The SCPR's reaction?

Will it be content worth paying for?

DENCZAK-HENDERHAN: (CLOSET REPUBLICAN?) TAKES ON SCHULMAN FOR PRESIDENT OF CANTON CITY COUNCIL

A SCPR search of the voting records of the Stark County Board of Elections list Pam Denczak-Henderhan as being a Democrat.

But is she?

A detailed search shows Denczak-Henderhan voted in the Republican primaries in May, 2006 and March, 2004.

Why is her party identification a point of inquiry?

Because she is running as a non-partisan candidate for Canton City Council president against incumbent Democrat candidate Allen Schulman.

There is one more interesting fact about Denczak-Henderhan.

What is that?

She is the daughter of long time Democrat and president (33 years) of Canton City Council Ray Denczak who died in 2006. Ray was recently described by Canton Rep writer Jim Hillibish as being: "an expert in back-room governance, preferably with cigars."

Other than her spotty Democrat/Republican primary voting record, the SCPR recently was in a discussion with a leading Stark County Republican who brought Denczak-Henderhan's name up as an example of how Republicans will try to win office in overwhelmingly Democratic Canton in future elections.

What is the strategy?

Run as non-partisan.

As the SCPR has been writing for some time now, the Stark County Republican Party is in such shambles these days, Republican candidates themselves are apparently looking more and more to run as non-partisans.

With a mere 21% of Stark County voters calling themselves Republicans these days, look for this phenomenon to surface in countywide elections, too.