MAYOR HEALY WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT OUTGOING SAFETY DIRECTOR NESBITT HAD ISSUES WITH CHIEF MCKIMM; MAYBE HE DID, BUT HEALY IS BEHIND THE CURTAIN

The Wizard of Oz (err - Canton) is at it again.

Yes, Mayor William J. Healy, even when he is out-of-town, leaves this mark on Canton. As reported in The Repository (Canton police chief reprimanded, July 15), Safety Director got the jump on Canton Chief of Police Dean L. McKimm and cited him with three reprimands on Wednesday.

But the SCPR does not buy that this is primary a Nesbitt/McKimm tete-a-tete despite being categorized as such (actually much stronger - harassment) by McKimm's attorney Craig Conley.

The McKimm disciplinary actions has Wizard (in his own mind) Healy written all over it.

Healy's modus operandi is to lurk in the background and have others do his dirty work for him. A person who works for Healy needs to wear a "back protector" not a "chest protector!"

The machinations:

1. Nesbitt cites McKimm for insubordinate activities.
2. Nesbitt schedules hearing on citations.
3. McKimm ask for a public hearing.
4. Nesbitt denies McKimm public hearing.
5. McKimm goes to court to get public hearing.
6. Nesbitt cancels hearing altogether and issues reprimands.

The last thing in the world that the Healy administration can abide is "the light of day."

McKimm through his attorney called the administration's bluff in terms of the administration trying to do its dirt "behind closed doors."

The Healy administration pre-emptive promulgation of reprimands were a face saving way out of an embarrassing situation for the Healyites (aka "the loyalists").

Now we have a situation where the chief deputy (Ream) is now going to be monitoring the chief when he assumes the safety directorship. On that count alone, the appointment was a dumb move.

But Healy, for all his chest-thumping about his own brilliance, keeps doing dumb thing after dumb thing after dumb thing.

No matter who he acts through (Price, Nesbitt [Ream] or whomever), when the curtain is pulled back "the light of day" reveals none other than the Wizard of Canton - Mayor William J. Healy, II.

HOW INCONSISTENT ON THE RIGHT TO VOTE CAN YOU GET? COMMISSIONERS HARMON & FERGUSON "ANTI-CONSUMER" ON PROPOSED STARK COUNTY ELECTRIC AGGREGATION ?

It was December 30, 2008 when the Stark County Board of Commissioners voted to "impose" a 0.50 sales/use tax on Stark Countians. So you and I are "involuntarily" paying more taxes since April 1, 2009.

In July, 2009 they are in a more "democratic" mood. Now all Stark Countians get to vote on whether or not some Stark Countians will save money on their monthly electric bills. But we must wait until November to vote.

Note: According to a Repository report (Commissioners: Let voters decide about about electric aggregation, July 15) about 100,000 who have Ohie Edison/First Energy - OE/FE) are likely to save money.

However, the way the commissioners plan to set up the plan if voters approve county aggregation, the SCPR believes that "uninformed" Stark Countians could end up paying more.

Who might they be?

Folks who are American Electric Power (AEP) customers, that's who.

Because AEP is significantly cheaper than OE/FE, AEP customers may not save money under an aggregation plan but under the commissioners' plan will be automatically included and must "opt out" to not be included.

If it turns out that AEP customers will not be benefited, think a few might not know they need to opt out or forget to opt out?

Why would the commissioners make the gas aggregation plan an "opt-in" and the electric aggregation "opt-out?"

Is the county going to be put to extra expense in postage and administration costs notifying Stark Countians who turn out not to benefit that they need to opt-out?

Yours truly is not a part of the the county gas aggregation plan because cheaper rates are available under the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) "Apples to Apples" program.

Apparently, most Stark Countians are AEP customers. Let's say in the run up to the vote that the AEP customers take the position that they will not benefit and therefore vote down a county electric aggregation plan. Is that fair to the 100,000 or so who very likely will benefit?

In the final analysis it seem as if the commissioners are all turned around on what Stark's citizens ought to be able to vote on and what the commissioners should simply - err, not impose; let's say implement.

Voters in Stark County should have the right to vote on the sales/use tax.

The Commissioners should vote to "implement" an electric aggregation plan NOW and rethink the opt-out part of the plan. Opt-out (a mainstay of the credit card industry as a way for companies to use consumer information for indirect purposes unless the customer "opt-out") in an anti-consumer approach in that it is laced with consumer burdens and therefore needs to be scrapped.

According to The Massillon Independent's account (Stark County resident to vote on opt-out electric aggregation program, Rinker, July 15), Commissioners Harmon and Ferguson favored the opt-out plan whereas Commissioner Bosley was for the opt-in plan. Obviously, Harmon and Ferguson are doing the bidding of Mark Burns of Independent Energy Consultants, Inc. Why?

Bosley has it right with the opt-in, and, as usual, Harmon and Ferguson are on the anti-everyday person side of the issue and bending over backwards to accommodate the Mark Burns and his corporation. Again, why?

While the commissioners are rethinking the electric aggregation plan, they may also order up some "IronY Out" treatment in order to get the irony out of Stark County government.

TALK IS CHEAP? SCHURING - ONCE AGAIN - PROVES TO BE A "COOKIE CUTTER" REPUBLICAN

Yours truly has spoken with state Senator Kirk Schuring quite a few times over the last few years.

One of the frequently uttered lines by Schuring over this space of time has been: "I know, Martin. You think I am a "cookie cutter Republican."

Now is the time to make a definite attribution. State Senator J. Kirk Schuring is a "cookie cutter Republican."

Schuring had the perfect opportunity yesterday and break ranks with the run-of-the-mill senate Republican (the leadership voted for the bill, giving it the margin it needed to pass) by voting for the next biennium Ohio budget bill or alternatively taking the lead in the Ohio Senate and offer a alternative to the Strickland/Ohio General Assembly compromise being voted upon.



The SCPR believes that this is one more reason to be added to the list of reasons that his candidacy for Congress against Democrat John Boccieri failed last year. Schuring loss was truly astounding. Particulary the margin he lost by in Stark County.

Apparently, the votes he got in Stark were from the Republican base with very few coming from Democrats and independents. The moral of the political story for Schuring is that - if the Democrats run a strong candidate - he loses countywide in Stark.

Accordingly, look for Schuring to run once again in the seat that Oelslager is vacating (the 51st) in their game of musical chairs (thereby defeating the spirit of Republican initiated term limits legislation) where the registration number favor Republicans.

The Stark County Republican Party is on life support. Even though many Democrat officeholders are trying to self-destruct (Healy, Swanson and Zeigler for sure); Republicans won't let them.

Under Jeff Matthews feeble leadership (aided by Republican operative Jason Wise), there are no strong Republican candidates in sight to take on Democrat Stark County auditor Kim Perez and Stark County commissioner Todd Bosley in 2010.

Schuring has suggested to the SCPR that one of the options that he was looking at for 2010 was running countywide.

Yours truly now believes that would be foolhardy. In view of his staggering loss to Boccieri (2008) and his hewing the Republican Party line, how can he win against strong Democrats such as Perez and Bosley in a Democratic leaning county?

If Schuring were to run against either and lose, he would be finished politically in Stark County, except in Republican dominated areas of the county.

CAN THE DEMOCRATS RECAPTURE THE 50TH HOUSE DISTRICT? LAKE'S JEFF URY ANNOUNCES AS CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION

In the memory of the SCPR, the 50th (formerly the 56th) Ohio House District has never had a representative that put the people over partisan politics. Moreover, they all have been journeymen - at best - in the sense of getting helpful and significant legislation passed to benefit Ohioans and citizens of the 56th/50th.

Republican Red Ash from Canton Township is the first that yours truly remembers. He was the long time successful basketball coach at Canton South who rode his notoriety into the Ohio House where he was deemed to be a fixture until he ran into personal and family difficulties.

In those days, the district was the 56th and was registration-wise a Democratic district because it included Canton Township, all of Perry Township and the heavily Democratic Massillon.

If memory serves correctly, Maier first ran against Ash in 1988 and lost. Then with Ash's troubles Maier triumphed in 1990 and served through 1999 quitting early in his 5th term to give Lawrence Township trustee Mike Stevens a job start.

But by the the time Stevens ran the 50th was totally different. Massillon was gone, the most Democratic part of Perry was gone as was Canton Township.

The Republicans had gained control of the Ohio Apportionment Board and "gerrymandered" the old Democratic safe 56th into a safe Republican seat. Even with that Stevens nearly retained the seat, losing by a mere 1000 votes.

Republican John Hagan (Marlboro Township trustee) defeated Stevens and retained the seat for 8 years.

In 2008, the Democrats thought they had a real shot at this seat. But they were wrong. Despite putting about a quarter of a million dollars in the race, Democrat Celeste DeHoff (Tuscarawas Township trustee and Maier protege) lost by a margin similar to previous candidates from 2002 through 2006.

DeHoff lost to Republican Todd Snitchler of Lake Township who currently holds the seat.

The SCPR had a difficult time with the 2008 DeHoff/Snitchler race. Neither candidate seemed to have the ability to break out of the thrall of others. With DeHoff, it was the Maier machine of the Stark Democratic Party. With Snitchler, the chamber of commerce crowds and "apparently" right wing Republicans.

Snitchler seems to be the most able of all the people who have held the office. However, being a Republican he is a minority member. And his attachment to the chamber of commerce types and right wing types, makes it unlikely that he will accomplish anything to benefit the "blue collerish" 50th.

A few days ago, the SCPR caught a new name running in the 50th. He is Jeff Ury, who, like Snitchler is from Lake Township. Ury lives in Lake's 6th precinct on Middlebranch Road.

Ury's background is definitely working class. His dad was a Teamster and Jeff started out as a carpenter.

He has worked his way up through the home building industry and is listed on online LINKED-IN as being president of Winsome Builders and he has obtained a real estate license and is listed as working with the DeHoff Agency. He has a associated degree in drafting from the University of Akron (1990-94).

Now in his early 40s with a wife (Tiffany) and four children, Jeff is in his first try for political office.

The following in an except from Jeff's bio which provides information for voters to consider:

As a small business owner, Jeff understands the need to enact health care initiatives that are affordable for both employees and employers. It is our duty to see that all Ohioans have access to the care that they need. Jeff also believes that funding our state school system is possible without overburdening property owners, or sacrificing the quality of our children’s education. Jeff believes that the future of Stark County relies upon a firm commitment to the continual growth of our local economy and workforce.

Twenty-five years in the homebuilding industry has allowed Jeff to witness first-hand the importance homeownership plays in revitalizing our economy, neighborhoods, schools, and even families. Jeff has advocated at both the state and national levels to: keep residential construction costs low; advance quality and safety standards; invest in “green building” initiatives; and develop high school and college construction-related programs. He is also actively involved with the Stark County Building Industry Association, which supports the growth of the building industry in Stark County while keeping housing costs affordable. Jeff served as their President in 2007. He believes strengthening the building industry will create jobs and play a leading role in Ohio’s economic recovery.

Jeff serves his community through several local organizations. He currently volunteers for Wishes Can Happen, Relay for Life, and holds the office of Vice-President of Hammer and Nails, an ecumenical Christian ministry that helps disadvantaged area homeowners with needed home repairs. Jeff has enjoyed coaching his children in Lake Youth baseball and softball for almost 15 years. Jeff will also be a participant in the 23rd Signature Class of Leadership Stark County.

One thing that is impressive about Ury is that apparently understands that one must announce and get out and running at least a year in advance to have any chance at all to beat an incumbent. He has his first fundraiser in August.

With DeHoff spending about $250,000 in 2008 and having all the "big guns" (Strickland and his wife, John Glenn, Sherrod Brown and Richard Cordry coming to the 50th for DeHoff) and still losing big time to Snitchler, the lesson should be abundantly clear to Ury.

His quest to defeat Snitchler is more than a uphill battle and it doesn't help that there will be no Strickland coattails this time around.

The SCPR takes the position that Todd Snitchler will win re-election in Ohio's 50th barring some earth shattering event occurring - whether Ury is the Democratic candidate or the nod goes to another Democrat.

That's how lopsided the 50th is for Republicans.

Will the Democratic nominee prove the SCPR wrong?

ARE STARK STATE STUDENTS FACING A TUITION INCREASE? HOW ABOUT STARK'S STUDENTS ATTENDING OTHER STATE UNIVERSITIIES IN OHIO?

UPDATE: 07/15/2009

STARK LEGISLATORS WERE UNABLE TO PROTECT STARK STUDENTS FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED TUITION FEES - KENT STATE HAS ALREADY DECIDED TO HIKE TUITION 3.5%

WILL THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON AND STARK STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY FOLLOW?

ORIGINAL STORY

The Stark County legislative delegation is a feeble bunch who are not major players in Columbus and therefore Stark County consistently comes out on the short end of the stick in Columbus largess.

Stark State College of Technolgy students and parents should be just a little bit nervous as the Ohio General Assembly works toward fashioning a permanent budget within the next week or so which includes closing a $3.2 billion gap. Currently, the legislators are working on a second temporary budget.

An interesting piece appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal (ABJ) today, Budgeting befuddles universities, by staff writer Carol Biliczky.

In it she talks about the University of Akron and Kent State University concerns about whether or not they face state cuts which, of course, are concerns to Stark Countians because many of our high school graduates attend either Akron or Kent.

Moreover, the worries are much closer to home: Stark State College of Technology located in North Canton, Ohio.

Here is a quote from the ABJ piece on Stark State:

Stark State College has blazoned across its Web page that tuition would be frozen for a third year in a row. But spokeswoman Irene Lewis Mott declined to say whether the college would increase tuition if the state subsidy is short.

So why is it we haven't heard reassuring words from the likes of Oelslager, Schurng, Okey, Slesnick, Snitchler and Schiavone?

How about it guys? Do Stark's students have anything to fear about tuition increases this upcoming school year?

DO SOME GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TAKE THEMSELVES TOO SERIOUSLY?

Last week a story broke about now resigned/retired Perry Township Police Chief Tim Escola being caught on camera kissing subordinate officer Janine England during a return trip from Cincinnati transporting a prisoner back to Perry Township.

Early on, The Canton Repository published a story suggesting that Escola/England may have been setup.

A highly reliable source of the SCPR contacted yours truly with information to the effect that the talk was rampant among local government/law enforcement types that if there was a set up, Perry trustee Anna Capaldi was believed to be somehow involved.

Another very good source contacted the SCPR and refined the information from that source's perspective that "yes, he believed based on information he was getting that Calpaldi was a factor in outing the video episode but not in a set up."

What was believed to have happened, according to this source, was that under a regular monthly review by Perry Township police officers (on June 20th) of cruiser videos, the "kissing scene" between Escola and England was discovered.

Moreover, the source continued, the discovering officer(s) believed that Capaldi had enough of a personal interest in the subjects/subject matter of the video to be counted on to bring the matter to an accounting.

When the SCPR first broke with this story on July 3, yours truly received a call from Trustee Capaldi.

One of the points made by Capaldi, which the SCPR now picks up on, is her protestation that she always tells the truth. The clear implication of her self-serving attestation was that all the SCPR needed to do was call her and she would have told all, but that in this case there was nothing to tell.

Yours truly has been doing this blog long enough to know that the implied Capaldi message is utter nonsense from her or any other public official/figure under scrutiny.

The SCPR has been working with one of the sources for this story since March, 2008 which was the beginning of the Stark County Political Report. To date, the source has not been wrong on the essence of the information passed on. Moreover, the second source has been essentially correct on inside information he has passed on.

The SCPR is not generally in the business of calling Capaldi or any other public official or public figure a liar. And yours truly is not about to start with Capaldi.

Amazingly, Trustee Capaldi put the matter of her own veracity in question as virtually the first thing out of her mouth on contacting the SCPR. Yours truly's life experience tells him that when anyone (not just Capaldi) initiates imperative, categorical statements (i.e. I do not lie), then one should think about doubling down and look for provable instances to debunk the self-serving absolutism.

Most human beings understand (regrettably) that all people lie here and there over the course of a life. The SCPR certainly understands this, but tries not to engage is a "gotcha-esque" blogging.

It is never a question of whether or not a person lies sometime in his/her life. The proper question is whether or not a person is generally credible.

What Ms. Capaldi needs to learn is that people do have different perspectives on the same conversations heard and conduct observed. Accordingly, one person's lie is another person's "it's not what you think it is."

As soon as Trustee Capaldi called, yours truly updated the original statement with the core of her response and, indeed, offered her access to the SCPR to make a response "in her own words." But no response.

Clearly, whether or not Trustee Capaldi had a role in the Escola/England episode is a matter of opinion.

In America, citizens are entitled to take information they have, to ruminate on it and form an opinion and to express that opinion.

Public officials/figures are not fond of the public's right, but the exercise of that right is a cornerstone of accountability in our democracy.

The general public, then, can decide whom to believe.

ALLIANCE CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE SARAH BROWN WINS THE COVETED "MICHAEL JACKSON - WE ARE THE WORLD" LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEADER AWARD?

From the Alliance City Council minutes of its July 6, 2009:

Sarah Brown of 1200 Fernwood Blvd. Alliance, Ohio discussed the opposition to Cap and Trade legislation in Congress and requested Council formally oppose it.

Brown is wife of Judge Charles Brown, Stark County Court of Common Pleas, member Republican State Central Committee (33rd district), and Republican candidate for Alliance City Council.

In the light of her interest in "global warming," it is likely that one of Ms. Brown's favorite books is The REPUBLICAN WAR on SCIENCE pictured to the left.

Apparently, Carnation city residents are in for a rocking good time if Brown is elected to Council in November. The SCPR takes Sarah Brown to be Stark's version of Sarah Palin. But when it comes to national and international politics, Brown is at a disadvantage to Palin. She cannot look out her picture window and see Russia.

But it should be comforting to Stark Countians that we have a local who realizes that we live in a world is larger than Alliance or even Stark County.

So in due recognition of her interest in global issues from the "grassroots" up, the SCPR supports Alliance's Sarah Brown (when she becomes an Alliance council - err person? woman?) for the "Michael Jackson - We are the World - Local Government Leader Award."