ARE ANY OF STARK COUNTY'S POLITICAL ENTITIES/OFFICIALS TRYING TO STOP THE EFFORT BY "CITY OF PLAIN" PROPONENTS FROM GETTING THEIR PROPOSAL TO THE BALLOT?

Last Wednesday, Debbie Dawson of the Stark County prosecutor's office (civil division) was on hand at the regular Stark County commissioners weekly meeting.  She was there to advise commissioners as to whether or not they should approve sending a proposal to incorporate about 58% of the land area of Plain Township to the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) for placement on the May, 2010 ballot.

At the December 16th meeting, Dawson did not recommend that the commissioners send the proposal on to the BOE.

She said there were three problems with the petition process as put together by the Steering Committee for the City of Plain.

First, she said, there appeared to be a problem with the map (required by Ohio statutory law:  ORC sections 707.29 and 707.30).  The law, she said, requires showing a parcel that is to be incorporated not include any noncontiguous property.  Moreover, Dawson pointed out that the law requires that the required map be accurate in every other respect.  She said that it appears that the map included a parcel that had been annexed by Canton recently and therefore needs to be removed.  Dawson's analysis of the map was based on information provided to her by the Stark County engineering office.

Second, she said the legal description of the land to be incorporated, (according to the  engineer's office) was not done in accordance with Ohio law.

And, third, Dawson said that the Stark County commissioners' records, as she understood the commissioners' administrators to be saying, did not show receipt of a certification by a newspaper of general circulation (The Repository, in this instance) of the publication of notice of the petition required by Ohio law.

Roy Barr, chairman of the Steering Committee, said at the meeting that if there were any errors in the map it was the fault of the local government engineer who drew the map up.  Barr said that the Committee gave specific instruction that any "noncontiguous" area not appear on the map and that the Committee had informed the map drawer of the annexation of a former Plain Township property into the city of Canton and had instructed the engineer to reflect the annexation in the map.

Moreover, Barr said that publication had been done and required by and certification of same had been submitted to the commissioners.

Will the the City of Plain question appear on the May, 2010 ballot?

The question will be answered on Monday, December 21st at 2:00 p.m. at a special meeting of the Stark commissioners to consider the question.

The SCPR asked Barr why he was having so much trouble.  Were there forces at work to stop the initiative?

Barr would not answer the questions directly.

He did say that the Board of Elections gave the Committee an "unwarranted" problem on validating petition signatures, and that while the Plain trustees have officially taken a noncommittal stance, he suspects that "in reality" they oppose the effort.  And there is the city of Canton and North Canton which Barr claims are looking to annex additional portions of Plain Township.

People who read the SCPR on a regular basis know how tough The Report is on Sam Sliman, the annexation director of Canton.  Yours truly repetitively tabs him as being Sam "Darth Vader to the Townships" Sliman.

Why?

One, because that is exactly has he described himself to Stark County commissioners in a session regarding the annexation battle involving Canton, Jackson Township and North Canton.

Two, because of anecdotal validations that come to the SCPR that Sliman is not merely rhetorical; he is out trolling areas like Plain Township seeking land area he might devour into Canton.

Barr confirmed to The Report that Sliman put him on notice that he was going to aggressively pursue annexation in Plain Township.

Sliman is a perfect fit for the arrogant, but dysfunctional Canton city government.  And, its not just Healy, the mayor who favors using annexation as an economic development tool.  Bill Smuckler (the defacto leader of Council) is probably more enthusiastic about Sliman's plan of annexing Canton out of its economic nightmare than Healy is.

The Sliman/Smuckler plan is a house of cards that will soon collapse and make Canton's economy even worse than it already is.

Barr and the Steering Committee is right to try to protect Plain from the likes of Sliman.  If the Committee is successful with the incorporation, the efforts will have the effect of protecting Canton citizens from the likes of Smuckler and Sliman and their ill-conceived plan.


Back to the incorporation petition.

Barr believes that the Committee has complied with the law and that he expects commissioners to approve sending the petitions onto the Board of Elections.

Monday's meeting could prove to be  interesting indeed!

Here is the video of Dawson's appearance before the Stark County commissioners last Wednesday:

STARK CHIEFS OF POLICE SPAR OVER FERRERO "TEMPER TANTRUM?"

Apparently, Prosecutor John Ferrero has his supporters and his detractors among Stark County's police chiefs.

As reported by the SCPR in October, Ferrero got "very" angry and stomped out of the "Amish Door Restaurant" (inadvertenly, not paying his check) when there was some dissent among the chiefs as to whether or not their association was going to support the Stark County commissioner "imposed" sales/use tax that was up on referendum in the November-just passed election.

The chiefs decided not to take a position.

Why was Ferrero so angry?

For two reasons:

First, a whopping 70% of the general fund side of the revenues to be raised by the 0.50 of a percent tax was to go to law enforcement.

Second, Ferrero's campaign committee had made a sizeable contribution ($750) to the "Vote Yes to Retain the Tax" forces.

If the tax issue was to go down, Ferrero would be a double loser:  he might have to make cuts in staff at the prosecutor's office and he's out $750 to spend on his next election to remain Stark County's prosecutor.

Yours truly has learned that the normal agenda for the Stark County Police Chiefs Association's November meeting was scrapped so that the chiefs could scold SCPR sources for letting the Ferrero temper tantrum get out into the public.

There appears to be a definite division of opinion among Stark County law enforcement types as to whether or not John Ferrero is an effective prosecutor.  All think well of "most" of Ferrero's staff (with, perhaps, chief criminal prosecutor Dennis Barr being the exception in the assessment of some).

Moreover, many Stark County police officials have very little confidence in the administration of  justice capabilities of Sheriff Tim "poop on them [the general Stark County public] Swanson.  The Report has written frequently about the disaffections which center on Swanson and chief deputies Rick Perez and Mike McDonald.

The SCPR has never been much of a fan of John Ferrero.

Why?

Because The Report believes he has been too deeply tied to partisan politics to inspire public confidence in his ability to (in the police, prosecutor and court triad)  impartially administer justice from his aspect of the triad.

He is a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman who got his initial appointment when now deceased prosecutor Bob Horowitz decided to run (and ran successfully) for the vacant Stark County Probate Court judgeship on the untimely passing of Judge Reuben Z. Wise.

The SCPR believes that Ferrero's political connections and past may have been present in the indictment that was brought against Marlboro Township police chief Ron Devies.  Ferrero's out is this:  that the "grand jury" indicted Devies and his son on 5th degree felonies and that he (Ferrero) did not authorize the prosecutions in his prosecutorial discretion.  However, even the general public understands the adage that "any prosecutor could have a grand jury indict a ham sandwich."

Because of the potential political dynamics lurking in the background of the Devies matter, it would have been far better for Ferrero to have brought in a prosecutor from outside Stark County to deal with it.  Someone who was not acquainted with any of the principals. 

The Report is not buying Prosecutor Ferrero's implication by his "grand jury" approach; nor should Stark Countians, that he was not a deciding factor in the decision to prosecute the Devies family members.

The voting public should have long memories and toss Ferrero from office when he comes up for re-election in 2012.  The SCPR lamented that the anemic Stark County Republican Party could not find a candidate to run against Ferrero in 2008, well before the Devies matter surfaced in January, 2009.

So, the SCPR has had misgivings about Ferrero as prosecutor for some years now.

The Devies matter was, in the opinion of The Report, an administration of justice disaster waiting to happen.

From the get-go the prosecutor's office was handing out advice to the Marlboro trustee who brought, what the SCPR thinks was nothing more than an internal to the Marlboro Township office communications problem, to Ferrero.   The miscommunication should have been quickly identified as such by Ferrero's office and Swanson's department.

Or better yet, as pointed out above, brought someone in from outside Stark County to evaluate.

But it wasn't and he didn't and the Devies family (and there but for the "grace of God" we could all end up), got put through the police/prosecutorial wringer.

Just think of the time and expense involved in this matter from both sides.

Unbelieveable to the SCPR!

The SCPR predicted from the very beginning that the Devies prosecution was going nowhere.  And what happened, Judge Lee Sinclair did dispense justice and directed out the prosecution's case (prosecuted by chief prosecutor Dennis Barr - highly unusual for a 5th degree felony).

Ferrero must have realized the "dead-ender" this case was as it progressed towards trial.  He was trying to get the Devies father and son to plead to misdemeanors.

This was nothing but a face-savings, unmitigated gall maneuver by Ferreo et al.

There was never any chance that the Devies would accept the offer.

Neither Ferrero nor Barr apologized to the Devies family nor to the general Stark County public what the SCPR believes was a gross miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, the SCPR will not allow the Stark County public to forget John Ferrero's egregious failure in his public duties.  Such is obviously what Ferrero is banking on come the election of 2012. 

The only question is:  Will the Stark County Republican Party under deficient chairman Jeff Matthews give Ferrero another pass?

Ferrero may think that all he has to do is throw a fit and everyone will scatter n fright.  But not yours truly, Mr. Prosecutor. 

The Report was talking with former Stark County commissioner Tom Harmon during a break in the commissioners' meeting and the topic of the race for prosecutor when the highly respected Jim Unger moved on to become a Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge in the early 1980s.

The conversation centered on the attorney-community and public perception that both Horowitz and Kettler were highly qualified and either would make an outstanding Stark County prosecutor.

Horowitz won a very tight race and, did, indeed go on to be a very high caliber prosecutor.

Kettler went on to become a distinguished jurist (Massilon Municipal Court); only retiring very recently.

In the opinion of the SCPR John Ferrero (who, ironically, is from Massiilon) would do well to emulate either Horowitz or Kettler.

One other point.

The Stark County judges have apparently decided to make Ferrero the front guy on trying to bring diverse Stark County political factors together on the best way (in terms of what the public will support) to get additional revenues for the Stark County general fund.  The SCPR agrees with the judges that if a way is not found, then Stark County will be in desperate financial straits come 2011.

But The Report respectfully disagrees with the judges that Ferrero is the correct person for the job.

A better choice would be Canton law director Joe Martuccio.  He does have the public's confidence.  He is level-headed.

The SCPR believes he would be much more effective than John Ferrero!

CONFRONT & CONQUER: "SIR WILLIAM J. HEALY" ON THE HUNT AGAIN?

UPDATE:  12/18 /2009 (1:00 PM) - CITIZEN RESPONDS ON CANTON FIREFIGHTER  BLOG

 ORIGINAL POST

If anyone in Canton opposes Mayor William J. Healy, "the second," he goes "gunning" for them.

Sir William (as dubbed by The Repository Editorial Board, 12/15/2009) has accumulated a number of trophies for the "game" he has bagged in his "brook no opposition" city administration style.

Canton has lost two outstanding public servants (Tom Bernabei - former chief of staff and services chief and Tom Nesbitt - former safety director) because they dared speak up to the mayor.

Healy must be aware that there has been talk among the firefighters to attempt a recall effort on him. 

Of course, Healy knows that federal labor law protects union workers from any outright attempt to break a union, but sometimes a "perfect storm" comes along.  Canton and its severe financial crisis may be that "perfect storm."

Wouldn't this need to cut costs big time and in a hurry be a perfect cover for Healy to get back at the Canton Professional Firefighters Association (CPFFA) for their "alleged" recall talk?

Although they don't give a reason for why they think Healy is "gunning" for them, to break them; the CPFFA are now openly saying that "union busting" is what the Healy administration appears to be pursuing, to wit:

Although a compelling case of financial distress appears to be the "real" reason that the Healy administration is cutting firefighters; given Healy's tendency to go gunning for those who oppose his ideas on city administration, one has to wonder if vengeance is not a factor.

The well known Latin expression veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I conquered) may be in play with Sir William Healy at the helm, at least in part, on the tug-of-war between the city administration and the CPFFA.

The question is this?

Has Mayor Healy's ego gotten out-of-line so much that he is willing to jeopardize the public safety in redeeming his honor?

The SCPR doesn't think so.

But, then again,  Healy is a special case of "ego-out-of-control!"

QUESTION THE SCPR HAS FOR FORMER STARK COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIRMAN JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR: MAY "THE REPORT" CRITICIZE THE GOVERNOR?

While yours truly was an active Democrat (now a political independnt), the, then, Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (who is now clerk of courts for the Massillon Municipal Court), said something to the effect:  "You know, Martin, the letter to the editor you wrote to The Repository might be deemed to be critical of the governor."

Heavens forbid!

A letter critical of the governor!!!

Well, if Maier thought that letter "might be deemed to be critical," he hasn't seen anything yet.

The SCPR believes that Governor Strickland has been too quick to listen to the politicos like Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and has been so politically cautionary that he blew a major opportunity to fix the funding of public education.

Some of us wanted the governor to "come out-of-the-box" on being elected, capitalizing on his 60% to 40% massive victory over Republican Ken Blackwell and take bold initiatives to fix this long-festering problem as played out over many years in the contest of the DeRelfe cases decided by the Ohio Supreme Court (four in number).

But no, Strickland listened to the professional political advisers like Maier, and decided, as he told one Stark County elected education official at a Stark County located appearance, "to keep his powder dry."

Well, Governor Strickland,  the powder is drier than dry.

Stark Countians and all Ohioans should know that Ohio is now on the brink of having Strickland's "keeping my powder dry chickens, coming home to roost!"

Stark County's main Ohio senator (in terms of geography and population represented) Kirk Schuring is of 21 Republican senators playing a game of "political chicken" with the governor on gubernatorial politics being played out in the Ohio Senate.

This is the same Kirk Schuring, as a "grandstand" political move, who wanted to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2008 to supposedly fix the funding of public education problem.  The SCPR analysis at the time was that it would do no such thing, but that it was okay for as far as it went.

Schuring had to know that his initiative was going nowhere.  He was running against one of  Strickland's best friends for Congress (16th):  John Boccieri.  No way was the governor going to allow Schuring to pull off this political scheme.

Schuring appears innocent enough, but the SCPR believes he is as political as anyone else.

But Schuring's disingenousness is in no way excuses the governor for having blown it in the first place.

The SCPR is told by Stark County's other Ohio senator (Joe Schiavoni - who represents the Alliance area) that Republicans in the Ohio Senate are being besieged by educators from all over Ohio, including Stark County, to solve the budget impasse with the governor and save Ohio's schools from devastating funding cuts in next year's local school district budgets.

The SCPR asked Schuring what he was going to do on the impasse.

What does Schuring do?

Ignores the question.

Schuring, apparently, is adopting the ways of former 50th House District representative John Hagan (about to resume a more suited position as Marlboro Township trustee), ignore people and questions you do not want to entertain.

The SCPR has long held that Schuring is an illusion as a state representative (House or Senate side).  He and his running/exchange musical chairs mate Scott Oelslager (serving in a majority/supermajority context for most of their tenue) have achieved very little for Ohio and Stark County in their over 40 years in the Ohio General Assembly.

But again, the SCPR blames the governor more than Schuring and Oelslager and, indeed, the entire Ohio General Assembly.

Strickland has failed in his self-proclaimed role as being "the education governor."

Now Ohioans including Stark Countians, of course,  are left to decide next year whom among Strickland and Republican Kasich "is the lesser of two 'political' evils."

Oops, here yours truly is at the end of this blog and remembers something.

Disclaimer:  "The SCPR did not get the approval of former Stark County Democratic Political Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr prior to publshing this blog critical, in part, of Governor Ted Strickland."

GOVERNOR TO DECIDE WHEN "STARK COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY" NEWLY APPOINTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN M. MEEKS TO TAKE OFFICE? SEE MEEKS ADDRESS COMMISSIONERS BOSLEY AND FERGUSON IN ACCOMPANYING VIDEO

On Tuesday night former Jackson trustee and current Region 9 director for Governor Strickland ("the eyes and ears" of the governor in northeast Ohio) achieved a "smashing" victory over his rivals as the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee voted on a replacement for recently resigned commissioner Tom Harmon (12/01/2009).

On Wednesday he was at the regular weekly meeting of the commissioners, but he was sitting in the audience alongside his mentor, former commissioner Harmon.

The SCPR has been told that Meeks had the approval of Strickland and Strickland's chief-of-staff John Haseley to seek the Stark commissioners position, but that - to use a favorite expression of Strickland "keeping his powder dry."  In other words, in an unlikely scenario in which Meeks (a Stark County Democratic Party powerhouse based on his storied political connections), failed in his bid, then Meeks still had a job.

So now Meeks must iron out the details with Strickland and Haseley as to when Meeks relinquishes his Region 9 directorship.

Meeks could be in the commissioners chair as soon as today or it could be January 1st before he assumes his appointed position.

Commissioners Bosley and Ferguson did have the "yet to be sworn-in" Meeks sit in on a couple of "executive sessions" held in the midst of yesterday's meetng.

There was a funny aside.  In announcing the beginning of one of the sessions, Commissioner Bosley asked the attendees to clear the room except for "Martin."  Bosley was quick to add:  "only kidding, Martin."

County administrator Mike Hanke then said to yours truly, "Martin, we may look stupid, but we are not that stupid!"

Gee, what does a guy have to do to get respect?

As an additional sidenote, The Report had a disucssion with a Democratic Party official in a position to know about the possibility that Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II will be replacing Meeks as previously reported and analyzed in the SCPR.

The official told yours truly that about the time that the SCPR reported that discussions were underway with Healy on his replacing Meeks, Mike McElfresh, president of the local trades union board, called Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez with the idea of engineering a Healy for Meeks swap.

The official also confirmed that the mere public discussion of a Healy move out of the mayor's office might mature into actuality. Most interesting was the official's observation that Healy has virtually no support at City Hall among staff below the cabinet level.

The SCPR is on record as being highly skeptical of a deal being worked to transition Healy to Meeks' job.  In the opinion of The Report, Healy has far too much ego to work for anyone other than himself and yours truly believes that John Hasely is far too savvy to saddle the governor with a problem, which Healy certainly would be.

But stranger things have happened.

What follows is a video of Meeks addressing those who attended yesterday's commissioner meeting.

COUNCILMAN JEFF DAVIES OF NORTH CANTON THE SUBJECT OF THREE COMPLAINING LETTERS GENERATED INSIDE NORTH CANTON CITY GOVERNMENT. WHAT ARE THE ALLEGATIONS?

In yesterday's blog on North Canton's city government, the SCPR wrote in part:

A recent biggie that has city officials in a dither is a letter or letters that Mayor David Held has generated fingering a sitting council member as engaging in harassing and discriminatory conduct.  A source close to the councilman says that the Held accusations are bogus and are a total overreaction to innocent conduct.

Today, the SCPR expands on this prior post.

The councilman who is the subject of three letters obtained by the SCPR, is Councilman Jeffrey Davies.


THE LETTERS:


Letter #1 generated by Mayor David Held.

In this letter penned by Mayor Held on December 7th, Held complains to Council president Daryl Revoldt:

• That after a November North Canton City Council meeting, in a conversation between Held and Davies, Davies made an offensive comment to Held regarding Held's wife,
• That after the December 1, 2009 North Canton City Council meeting, Held arranged for group photo during the taking of which, Held alleges, made an offensive comment towards Councilwoman Marcia Kiesling,
• That Davies has a history of making offensive comments to "[city] employees and others" which Held had already communicated to Revoldt.

 Held concludes as follows:

Letter #2 written by Superintendent of Utilities and Recreation Thomas Chupar on December 10, 2009 and directed to Mayor David Held.

In this letter, Chupar writes, in part, as follows:

Letter #3, was written by a subordinate level city employee which the SCPR is withholding the name of:

 

Davies friend and community activist Chuck Osborne says that all of these allegations are unfounded and to the degree they show anything, it  is that Davies is a well know jokester and nothing more.

Osborne also suggested that, in his opinion, Held doesn't like Jeff Davies and that Held is leading an effort to force Davies off counsel.

And so "the beat goes on at North Canton City Hall."

It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out.

Is Osborne correct that this is a Held grudge on Davies exercise.

Or, as he has told the SCPR, is Held doing what he thinks the law requires of him and other city officials in terms of Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities law?

Stay tuned!

GIVE STEVE MEEKS A CHANCE? THE BLUEBLOOD OF THE STARK COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY NEEDS A CHANCE?

As predicted by the SCPR, former Jackson Township trustee Steven M. Meeks powered through his opposition for the Stark County Central Committee appointment to succeed Tom Harmon as Stark County commissioner.

Now to assess Meeks and how he will perform as commissioner.

One commenter in The Repository (commenting on Meeks selection) put it this way:  "Give this man a chance and lets see what he can do to lead Stark County before he is lumped in and bashed. For those that think he is just one of the good old boys ... ."

Fair enough.

Give the man a chance, agreed.  And, the SCPR will.  But his "fair chance" will be short lived.

But, make no mistake about it, Steve Meeks is one of the Stark County Democratic Party "good old boys."

His father is former Stark County Democratic Party chairman John M. Meeks.  So its not as if Steve Meeks has come out of nowhere.  He is probably the most connected Democrat in all of Stark County and, perhaps,  because of his family history, in all of Ohio.

One of the reasons Lawrence Township trustee Michael Stevens is reviled among some Stark County leadership Democrats is that Stevens got in Meeks' way in 2004 when Jayne Vignos was making her final run for county commissioner.

The Democrats knew that Vignos was highly vulnerable and that Meeks was the man, by virtue of his political pedigree, to take her out. 

Stevens lost to Vignos in a close race and the SCPR believes he lost because Meeks and his party allies sat on their collective hands.  Party officials believe that Stevens is too low key to be a successful politician countywide.

Back to the "fair chance" thing.

Because of his father, who served in the Dick Celeste administration (governor from 1983 - 1991), Steve Meeks is where he is in Stark Democratic Party politics today.  His father's connections are the primary reason Steve got appointed as a Strickland's "eyes and ears" man.

So has Steve Meeks had a "fair chance" so far in life?  Indeed, he has.

However, as the commenter says, "give this man a chance."

The SCPR says that Meeks' chance will be "short lived."

Why so?

Because of "to whom much is given, much is expected."

The SCPR was very impatient with Tom Harmon and hasn't been that generous with Commissioner Pete Ferguson for one simple reason.

Stark County is in terrible, terrible economic shape and everyday Stark Countians are suffering bigtime.

Tom Harmon was appointed, in the opinion of the SCPR, to hold the position for Meeks.  Meeks had just been appointed Strickland's Region 9 director when Gayle Jackson resigned as Stark County commissioner to take another Strickland political plum on the Ohio lottery commission.

So, the powers that be in Stark County politics could hardly have Meeks resign from his newly appointed position to become Stark County commissioner.

What to do? 

Find a placeholder.  Eureka!  But whom?  Tom Harmon, someone piped up.  Outstanding!  Harmon who had a political machine of his own which he parlayed into reelection after reelection as Canton Municipal Court clerk of courts would be perfect as a placeholder.

But what about the cititzens of Stark County?  Stark County (when Harmon was appointed) was already tottering and teetering as an economic unit and in its government finances, and Harmon, the adept politician he is, was no match for the job as commissioner.

Harmon was a "throw your legs up on the desk" and let the office run itself type elected office.  The many capable ministerial employees at the clerk's office really didn't need Harmon, but he got himself elected and so they had to abide him.

But as commissioner he was nonproductive.

So because of Stark County Democratic politics, Stark County has gotten further and further behind in its desperate need to reverse its fortunes.

Pete Ferguson, "a really nice guy," is not up to being commissioner either.  He is just now learning how difficult it is to deal with entrenched federal bureaucracies (reference:  his turn Doctors Hospital into a VA clinic project) and, for that matter, even local bureaucracies.

By the time that Ferguson "learns the ropes," Stark County will have lost even more time in its race to recover from hard economic and financial times.

Steve Meeks might be an improvement on Harmon and Ferguson, but the operative word is "might."

The SCPR is skeptical about Meeks because The Report's take on him is that he has had a "primrose path" prepared for him (remember Richard Regula, son of Republican Congressman Ralph Regula - also served as commissioner).

Usually those who have have the way paved for them in life, break up when they hit the rocks of reality.

Will Meeks be an exception?

The SCPR thinks not.

Why the pessimism?

Remember when he became Strickland's "eyes and ears?"  What was his first move?

He tried to perpetuate his political presence in Jackson Township by having his wife Patty run to replace him as Jackson trustee.  That he would try this political gambit is disturbing to the SCPR.

This move on his part, in and of itself, shows The Report more than anything else that Steve Meeks is more about politics and the preservation of personal political power than the well being of the community he serves.

But the SCPR is instructed by the likes of Stark County recorder Rick Campbell, Plain Township trustee and Stark County title bureau czar Louis Giavasis and former Stark County Democratic chairman Johnne A. Maier, Jr that even politically "connected" people deserve a fair chance.

So Meeks will get his fair chance.

Because of his connections and "experience" in office (after all he has worked two years plus for the governor), the SCPR expects him to come out of the chute fast.

Remember, "to whom much is given, much is expected."

The SCPR has high expectations for the consummately politically connected Steven M. Meeks.

Will he produce, or will he prove to be anther Richard Regula?