To repeat the headline question: Any election excitement building for Stark County 2012 elections?
Answer: yes and no.
Obviously, first and foremost is the Republican presidential primary election which is a part of the overall March 6th Ohio primary elections.
A recent Quinnipiac University Ohio poll shows former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum leading former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney 36% to 29% with former Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich coming in at 20% and Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 9%.
However, the big factor two and one-half weeks out from Ohio's primary is the estimate that as many as 50% of those polled say that they are not fixed in their choice.
While Santorum is presently leading across the state, the SCPR believes that Romney is likely ahead in Stark County inasmuch as Santorum appeals to the most conservative part of the Republican Party and The Report does not see Stark Republicans as fitting that description.
The Romney campaign website claims that many prominent Ohio Republicans have endorsed him (e.g. U.S. Senator Rob Portman - January 19, 2012).
It will be interesting to see who, if any of the candidates, actually show up in Stark to campaign, and, more importantly, who shares the stage with the candidate - as a tip off - as to who the local Republican establishment is to support.
Stark County Commissioner Janet Creighton tells the SCPR (as of yesterday) that she is undecided.
Other than the Republican presidential race, there is not that much going on for Stark Countians in the primary.
There is a GOP nomination for U.S. Senator contest going on for the right to match up with Democratic United States Senator Sherrod Brown going on, but it looks as if Josh Mandel (Ohio treasurer) has it locked up which makes the race ho-hum.
Ditto for Brown. He has two "write in" opponents.
However, there are two "inside the Columbus beltway" intraparty fights with a Stark County aspect that is likely lost on most Stark County primary voters which could affect who is chairman of the Ohio Republican Party and the Ohio Democratic Party.
First, the Beth Williams versus Sarah Brown 29th District State Central Committee Woman race.
The SCPR is told by Jim Woods of the Medina County Tea Party that the Tea Party contemplates filing litigation against the Kevn DeWine as chairman of the Ohio Republican Party to invalidate a rule that DeWine forced through into the governing rules of the party that requires central committee persons to have voted in the Republican primary in the last two primary elections. If left to stand, Woods tells The Report, Williams would not be qualified to serve.
There is a fight going on within the Ohio Republican Party with Governor Kasich behind the dissidents to remove DeWine as chairman.
The SCPR's impression is that both Brown and Williams favor DeWine's removal.
It is hard to imagine Sarah Brown not winning a Stark County Republican Party intraparty contest.
Secondly, there is similar fight is going on within the Ohio Democratic Party (ODP) as to whether or not Chris Redfern is to remain as chairman of the ODP.
Redfern has recruited Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II to be his man from Stark County. Healy interesting enough is opposed by his successor 52nd District Ohio House state Representative Stephen Slesnick.
The SCPR believes that Healy is trying to position himself to take over control of the Stark County Democratic Party. This race will be an indicator of how much strength Healy has among rank and file Democrats.
If Healy wins this race and if Democrats take a bath in the newly formed Ohio House districts (i.e. the 48th - Schuring, and the 50th - Hagan) which the SCPR projects they will, then there might be renewed impetus to set current chairman Randy Gonzalez aside to be replaced by Healy or one of his political confederates with a mission to reinvigorate the Stark County Democratic Party which has fallen on hard times over the last several years.
The Dems could be looking at a loss of the prosecutor's office, the sheriff's department and, perhaps, even the coroner's office come the general election of 2012.
Stay tuned. The SCPR expects the general election of 2012 to be all excitement!
The fact that money is finding Stark County officials is no laughing matter at Stark County commissioners meetings these days.
Officials are well aware that some $2.4 million has more or less mysteriously appeared over the last several months as they grapple with putting together the Stark County General Fund Budget for 2012. But they also realize that "the money finding them" is going to raise the eyebrows among a certain part of the Stark County citizenry rank and file.
One such "eyebrows raised person" might be Republican Craig T. Conley who is running as a Republican to unseat sitting commissioner and Democrat Thomas Bernabei.
Conley is the leading Stark County political curmudgeon when it comes to believing what Stark County elected and non-elected officials say about their revenues and expenditures and managerial control of costs techniques.
A week ago or so, Stark County Auditor Alan Harold blessed the commissioners with the news that $1.1 million in "overpaid" personal property taxes and real property taxes had accumulated and although Stark County will forever and ever be obligated to repay the overpaying taxpayers should they some day file a claim, the chances of that happening get more and more remote by the day, and therefore Auditor Harold thinks there is no good reason not to certify that the $1.1 million is a resource that the commissioner can spend.
Last week Auditor Harold hinted that more blessings were to come. But he wouldn't say exactly from where and how much. However, county officials were praying for a cool $1 million or so. The question: would the $1 million rain down in the form of "pennies - 100 times a million - raining down from heaven?"
Lo and behold! Prayers have been answered!! At yesterday's work session of commissioners it was announced that Stark County Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold had found $1 million in what is called "title funds" and that County Chief Administrator Mike Hanke working with Stark's exceptional Benefits Administrator Carol Hayn had figured out that county general fund departments had "overpaid" (that word again) their share of the county's monthly health care self-insurance assessment collectively by $284,000 and that BINGO! there you have it: an answer to prayer - a cool $1.3 million (rounded off, of course, to the next higher number).
Consequently, the previously announced 20% cuts (on average) except for criminal justice and administration departments (10%) would dip just a little below those numbers.
Commissioner Janet Creighton is especially sensitive to the possibility that the twice repeated serendipitous raining down of money might be taken by skeptics such as Conley as being just a tad disingenuous, and took pains at yesterday's meeting to disclaim that such was the case given that she and Commissioner Bernabei have worked extremely hard since their ascension to commissionership status, to convince Stark Countians that the game playing days in Stark County government are over and that Stark voters should eschew the negativity of the Conley-esque types.
Here is a video of Creighton, her fellow commissioners, Chief Administrator Mike Hanke and Auditor Harold commenting on the "money finding county official" phenomenon.
Also, be sure to take in the following post-commissioners-meeting video tapped press conference in which yours truly and Rep reporter Kelli Young quiz Commissioner Bernabei and Chief Administrator Mike Hanke about various budget topics (money for ditching, 9-1-1, et cetera).
Included in this video is an exchange between yours truly and Commissioner Bernabei on whether or not he has any concerns about the balance of perspective of presenters at an upcoming (March 10th) Stark County Local Emergency Planning Committee (SCLEPC) on hazardous materials as same is related to fracking.
And there is more.
The SCPR shares with readers of this blog an exchange which took place between yours truly and Chief Administrator Mike Hanke on a "what if" question pertaining to "what if health care claims accelerate and there is not adequate money in the self-insured fund to cover claims - will moneys (already appropriated, implied) have to be taken from general fund departments to cover the unanticipated balloon in claims?
In the Good Book we know that "all things are possible." But as the SCPR understood Administrator Hanke's explanation that "it is not possible" that there has been a miscalculation in the next 12 months' needs for a cash reserve to cover health insurance claims thereby obviating the possibility that the county would have to retrieve "one month holiday" moneys credited to the various general fund departments of Stark County government.
On January 17th of this year at a meeting of the North Canton City Council, a controversy erupted that probably has its origin out of the larger Stark County community.
Chris Borello of the Concerned Citzens of Stark County (CCSC) has been in dialogue for some time via email with former Canton Health Director Bob Pattison about protecting the quality of drinking water in North Canton.
Why Bob Pattison? Because he (a North Canton resident) is the chairman of the North Canton Source Water Assessment & Protection Committee (SWAP).
Borello (a Plain Township resident and former Lake Township resident) has been concerned about the integrity of Stark County drinking water supplies since she first got active as a concerned citizen (about 1983) with the revelation that hazardous materials were dumped by area industrial companies in a quarry about a half mile south of the center of Uniontown during the time span 1966 through 1978.
The site is now known as the Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL - 1984) superfund site. Superfund is a designation of federal legislation designed to deal with hazardous material cleanups.
Borello and her supporters fears have been heightened of late because of the onset of hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") in Stark County and, in particular, concerns that fracking may be in the offing on lands in Plain Township near to a city of North Canton well field which they feared might jeopardize the safety of the well field as a source of drinking water for North Cantonians.
Former North Canton councilman Jeff Davies took an interest in the Borello et al fracking concerns in the last year or so of the end of his term in office. However, he dropped the effort for what he said in an email to Plain Township Trustee Lou Giavasis (a leading Stark County opponent of fracking) was pre-election pressure being applied to North Canton Council by the Stark Development Board:
With his defeat in the 2011 elections, one had to wonder who might pick up where Davies left off.
The answer seems to be two-fold: first, the Source Water Assessment & Protection Committee, and, secondly, Councilman Jeff Peters (Ward 2) to the extent that he is leading the effort to protect SWAP in its "drinking water protecting" function from an recent attempt to amend Ordinance 58-07 (originally passed on 06/25/2007) to give the Superintendent of the North Canton Water Treatment Plant the authority to set the agenda and determine when the committee should meet. See the 01/17/2012 MINUTES which elaborate on the intentions as explained by various council members in offering the amendment in the first place.
It seems that some on North Canton Council (prompted by concerns expressed by council's legal counsel that SWAP fracking and street sweepings considerations may compromise city legal positions) were not all that thrilled that SWAP had gone off recently into a consideration of the fracking process and its byproducts and street sweepings as they might affect the quality of North Canton's drinking water.
One area media outlet ascribed a "censor" motive to Council President Jon Snyder. But last night he told the SCPR his position was mischaracterized and that he is not in favor of changing the role/function of SWAP, to wit:
It appears to the SCPR that Councilman Peters has been effective to stop the move to "censor?" the scope of SWAP's functioning. And, by the way, he told The Report that he had not been approached by the oil and gas industry and pressured not to consider anti-fracking legislation pre-the-2011-council-elections.
While on the surface, council is waiting for SWAP chairman Bob Pattison to return from vacation in Florida in April to move forward on the amendment, Councilman Peters tells The Report that he is confident that he has the votes to defeat the attempt to amend 58-07 should its sponsor(s) persist, to wit:
Also speaking to the issue was Councilman-at-large Mark Cerreta (apparently, as chairman of the Water, Sewer and Rubbish Committee) who appears to be the prime driving force on council pushing for the amendment, to wit.
If Peters is correct in his assessment, it appears that SWAP will maintain its original function and role and will be free to consider whatever issues surface that the committee thinks could affect the potability of North Canton's water.
So in the end, the whole thing about refashioning SWAP may well prove to have been a "tempest in the teapot!"
The Stark County Political Report (SCPR - The Report) has been tracking the retire/rehire controversy in Stark County since April 6, 2008.
The Report began publication on March 12, 2008 and so regular readers of this blog have to be well informed as to who among Stark County officials, past and present, have advantaged themselves with the so called "double-dipping" whereby they retire from public employment only to be rehired for the very same job at the very same salary to collect in addition to their retirement benefit.
Here are links for blogs done by the SCPR going back to April 6, 2008 related in one fashion or another on the retire/rehire question.
With respect to elected officials, the SCPR sees retire/rehire just a little bit different than those instances like the city of Canton is undergoing with respect to certain "unelected" public officials who retired and rehired without the taxpayers/voters having a say.
ON ELECTED OFFICIALS
To concentrate on a few examples:
Stark Countians could have rejected the re-election bid of 5th District Court of Appeals Judge William Hoffman (a colleague of Judges Gwin and Wise) on "a no hire/retiree" basis, but they did not.
Stark Countians could have rejected the re-election bid of Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson on "a no hire a retiree" basis, but they did not.
Of course, there was no organized effort to focus public attention on the retire/rehire dimension of the Hoffman and Swanson campaigns nor on the re-election/election of retired public officials who ran for other offices.
But for Judges Gwin (a Democrat, presiding judge of the 5th and a son of a former judge) and Wise (a Republican, administrative judge of the 5th and a son of a former judge) this may be about to change.
On Saturday, the SCPR received a call from a well known local attorney who wanted to talk about the Gwin/Wise plans to put themselves in the $250,000 (more or less) per annum income bracket and $200,000 (more or less) per annum income bracket UNOPPOSED.
"Unopposed," - a key word.
At least Swanson had an opponent in 2008 (Larry Dordea, himself a retiree as Alliance police chief who now is building up additional retirement benefits as Hartville police chief).
With both candidates on retirement, what choice the the voters have?
Gwin and Wise; NO OPPOSITION? Should not be!
The SCPR trusts that the effort to find "independent" candidates (who are not retired) to put up against Gwin and Wise will bear fruit and that a well-funded, organized, staff (by unpaid volunteers) and articulate campaign will be put before the Stark County electorate to determine whether or not the Gwin and Wise plan for themselves is acceptable to the voting public.
If a well-informed electorate thinks it okay for the likes of Gwin and Wise to hang on until the bitter end (both at age 60 will have the opportunity to two more times under current law and thereby could possibly serve until they are 72 or so) while fattening their incomes with a combo of n annual salary of $132,000 plus a healthy retirement income, who is to complain?
However, we all need to be clear as to what "the will of the people" is in a context of actual election contests which focus the vote on the retire/rehire aspect of what Gwin and Wise wish to do on the condition that the candidates in opposition meet the threshold of being "qualified" candidates as assessed by the local bar associations which comprise the 5th.
Back in November Stark County and Ohio voters overwhelming voted to reject extending the age to which judges can run for office (proposed to be age 75 - State Issue #1), to wit:
Has the Ohio Legislature misread what people think on the retire/rehire issue?
If the effort to produce independent opponents to Gwin and Wise, Stark County could lead the way in providing a ballot box answer.
The SCPR's preference is that once public officials decide to retire, they should retire - pure and simple. No gaming the system. Ohio should enact legislation to make such the law of the state.
As things stand now, the judges are acting within their rights. Of course, the voters in the 5th Court of Appeals District can trump their try.
ON UNELECTED OFFICIALS
Unelected public officials/employees (school superintendents, teachers, police, fire, health workers et cetera) should only be allowed to retire/rehire on the condition that they take a 40% reduction in wages and work without any fringe benefits in the non-retirement work context.
And that only on the certification by designated officials (e.g. the mayor of a city or village, on the unanimous vote of a board of education) that the retiree/rehiree is an essential person to the effective functioning of the certifying government.
While we know very little what is going on in Canton with the 30 (more or less) employees (some quite well known public figures - some of who The Report understands are sitting elected officials) who "quietly" retired and were rehired in their public jobs without missing a beat, it appears that city officials going back sometime (apparently at least through the Creighton and Watkins administrations) have been allowing if not encouraging this very practice at a significant cost to the taxpayers of Canton: a city running million dollar plus deficits in recent years.
Here is a video of Leroy Lynch of Canton addressing Canton City Council last Monday night on the issue.
In the case of elected officials, Stark Countians have the opportunity to vote no on retire/rehire.
But in the case of unelected officials/employees, the public has no say in the matter.
Take the category of superintendents of schools. For the most part superintendents cultivate "sweetheart" relationships with their respective boards of education and there is no "arms length" negotiating that takes place to protect the public's financial interest.
Such is the reason why the Ohio legislature needs to impose a structure on those public officials and bodies that are doing the retire/rehire thing.
DOES RETIRE/REHIRE PHENOMENON HAVE AN EROSIVE EFFECT ON PUBLIC VIEW ON INTEGRITY OF GOVERNMENT?
As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly believes that there is a steady erosion of public support for institutions of government at all levels and the culprit is not limited to a Vince Furstaci theft in office type of event.
Violations of the "sunshine law," arbitrary denials of "public records" to the requesting public, overuse of "executive sessions" by public officials and a myriad of other government official abuses of the taxpaying/voting public including, perhaps, the retire/rehire phenomenon, belong as part of the "culprit" list.
It could be that the general public feels gamed, abused and "played the sucker" by the way retire/rehire has evolved as sanctioned by the Ohio General Assembly (OGA).
It is about time that a mechanism be provided to citizens-at-large to gauge how the voting public feels about retire/rehire.
And the Gwin/Wise re-election pursuits of November, 2012 may turn out to be a 15 county (the jurisdiction of the 5th District Court of Appeals - Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas counties) referendum on the issue.
After all, our government is to be one of the people, for the people and by the people, isn't it Abraham Lincoln?
A lingering question is whether or not the theft by former Deputy Chief Treasurer Vince Frustaci of an admitted $2.46 million (2003 through 2009) of Stark County taxpayer money and questions of attendant hiring criteria by elected officials (in filling staff positions) has changed the basis upon which Stark's organized Republicans and Democrats select/encourage/support candidates to run for seek to be appointed to office?
The SCPR has doubts that it has.
It appears that running for office in Stark from a political party standpoint has, in bygone days, been factored more on whether or not a prospective candidate is in favor with the ruling circles of both the Stark County Republican Party and the Stark County Democratic Party; not on the capability of a candidate to properly manage the office he/she is running for or is in line to be appointed to.
Both parties proved in 2010 - if motivated by an aroused electorate - that they can recruit and get behind very able and qualified candidates as evidenced in the selection of Alex Zumbar (Republican) and Ken Koher (Democrat) to replace Gary Zeigler when he was unconstitutionally removed (via ORC 321.38) as Stark County treasurer by the then commissioners Bosley, Meeks and Ferguson in August, 2010.
The original (August, 2010) "replace Zeigler phenomenon" was an anomaly and Stark Countians should not expect either the Chairman Randy Gonzalez-led Democrats nor the Chairman Jeff Matthews-led Republicans to reach those heights again anytime soon.
The SCPR's position is that BUT FOR the Frustaci matter for a variety of reasons Alex Zumbar would not today be Stark County treasurer, nor Alan Harold (Republican) Stark County auditor, nor Janet Creighton (Republican) Stark County commissioner and nor Thomas Bernabei (Democrat) Stark County commissioner.
Canton Councilman Jimmy Babcock (Democrat, at-large), who worked for former Stark County Auditor Kim Perez until Perez was defeated by Harold in November, 2010, in a SCPR conversation with him this past Monday seemed to lamenting the turn of events (i.e. the Frustaci matter) which he said resulted in his old boss losing his job.
Rightly or wrongly; Perez has been perceived by the Stark County general public as being part of a Stark County Democratic Party "good ole boys" network which is thought to go back at least into the 1990s and to have also included Zeigler, Ferrero (Stark County prosecutor and Stark Dems chairman when Zeigler was selected to replace Mark Roach [forced from office because of a failure to meet continuing education requirements]) and Sheriff Tim Swanson and a number of other presently publicly employed persons.
Swanson (whom, The Report believes, could not have been re-elected because of his "good ole boy" political ties) is not running for re-election and it remains to be seen as to whether or not Ferrero can weather the political storm which has enveloped a certain segment of Stark County Democrat officeholders post-Frustaci.
By all accounts, Democrat Mike McDonald (current Chief Deputy - the Jail Division) of the Stark County sheriff's department is generally thought not to be a part of any Stark Dems "good ole boys" network. He could be the odds-on-favorite to defeat the equally well thought of Republican Larry Dordea (former Alliance police chief and currently the Hartville chief).
However, McDonald was not Swanson's first choice to succeed him. Swanson had all but elected his other chief deputy - Rick Perez - (Kim's brother) as evidenced by his telling a visiting group (to the jail) of Rick's Leadership Stark County classmates that Perez would be his successor. But again, a perception of Perez being part of the Stark Dems "good ole boys network" squelched Swanson's effort to have him as his successor.
Jeff Matthews should not be credited with the emergence of Zumbar, Harold and Creighton as quality candidates and officeholders.
Matthews just happened to be Stark GOP chairman when the Frustaci matter broke.
As of January 1, 2009 (Republican Jane Vignos having retired as commissioner as of December 31st, 2008), Stark County Republicans held exactly - 0 - countywide offices. So rather than orchestrating a Stark County Republican resurgence, Matthews got extremely lucky.
The Report sees him as an opportunist who worries more about his personal place/stake in local politics and government (soon to be director of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE); now deputy director) than the public interest.
Recently, it appears he brought former Stark County GOP Executive Director Travis Secrest into employment at the BOE. Moreover, in 2010 worked to get Wadsworth car dealer Jim Renacci nominated/elected as 16th district congressman. Guess who works for Congressman Renacci post-election? Jeff's wife Heidi. She formerly worked on the staff of former Congressman Ralph Regula. In 2008, Alliance Democrat John Boccieri wrestled the seat from the Republicans.
Who knows how many such trails might lead to the chairman's office located at 2727 Fulton NW, Canton, Ohio?
Stark Dems Chairman Randy Gonzalez has not had an answer to the political catastrophe that the Frustaci matter visited upon a certain type of Stark elected official Democrat, at least from a public perception standpoint.
Tom Bernabei is the long time Canton law director, former Canton city councilman and chief-of-staff/service director to Mayor William J. Healy, II. He is thought to be his own person and not beholden to any political party machine nor, as Mayor Healy can tell one and all, to any single politician.
While he gets along with the party establishment types, he thinks for himself.
The SCPR read on Gonzalez is that, as a staunch ally of former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (who appears to have the city of Massillon under his political domination), former Stark County commissioner Gayle Jackson and their likes, he is the titular personification of a political wheeler dealerism which seems to look out for primarily for political insiders and only secondarily/incidentally for the Stark County or political subdivision public interest.
Gonzalez appeared to do something magnanimous for the public good on October 31, 2011 when he steered the Stark County Democratic Central Committee into endorsing Republican Zumbar to fill out Zeigler's terms.
But as a practical political matter he had no choice. No Democrat (including Koher who lost to Zumbar in 2010) was stepping forward to assume the office on what surely would have for a temporary period of time.
A while back, yours truly had a back and forth with Gonzalez about his contention that the Gonzalez family prolific involvement in local politics and/or government is a matter of public service going back years.
The Report listens but is unconvinced that such is the case. Yours truly takes such a claim to be insulting to the intellect of everyday people.
Assuming arguendo that those who work for Stark County government or a political subdivision do good work, they do get paid and in the mind of non-government folks, rather well - when one includes the benefits.
But doing what one gets paid for is NOT public service.
What is public service is the thousands of hours (cumulatively) that volunteers (the unpaid) for the political parties and their candidates dish out. The Report believes that they do so in the hope that the general public will benefit from having public officials elected who have the public interest as their first priority.
To the degree that political party chairmen and their consorts slice off part of the public action for political party and individual benefit, they profane the notion of public service.
And in brooking the same, the political leadership is NOT highly effective for the public benefit.
It is a sad, sad day in American politics from the White House to the courthouse that it takes a political crisis like the Frustaci matter to get out of the rut of self-serving "politics as usual."
At the end of the day, it seems as if the only thing we can hope for is for a "silver lining" peaking out from a dark political cloud of political crisis.
Highly effective politics/government of the people, for the people and by the people appears to be a mere pipe dream given the leadership model of the likes of Jeff Matthews and Randy Gonzalez.
One expects Ohio's Democratic Minority Leader Armond Budish to say: "He (Republican Governor John Kasich) asks us to put aside partisanship and yet he rams through the most extreme radical agenda in quite a long time."
One does not expect a Republican lawmaker to say: “... the proof will be in the pudding. The next 12 months will he be reaching out to try to bridge that gap? There were gaps the first year of the session. There was no question about that. ... we’ll just wait to see and give him the benefit of the doubt.” (Stark area legislators react to State of State address, Robert Wang, The Repository, February 7, 2012).
That is unless the lawmaker is not a consummate Republican politician.
Although state Senator Scott W. Oelslager (the 29th - Stark County) certainly qualifies as a loyal Republican, he has proved periodically over his more than 20 years in the Ohio legislature that he will take on "over-the-top" partisan political positions.
Oelslager did exactly that when he voted no on the Kasich administration overreach in presenting Senate Bill No. 5 (SB 5) as its marque piece of legislation designed to gut Ohio's police, fire, educator and other public worker unions in order to weaken the unions' ability to support Democratic candidates.
Kasich et al tried to convince the Ohio public that SB 5 was for the public good. But the Ohio electorate wasn't buying.
Ohioans saw that the real underlying motivation of Kasich was partisan politics and was having none of it.
Ditto for Scott Oelslager.
While his Stark County delegation Republican colleagues were voting for SB 5, Oelslager was voting no.
It is apparently dawning on Governor Kasich that there is no way he and the Republican dominated state government is going to be able to pull Ohio out of the economic dumping grounds of America without all out "across-the-political-isle" support.
UPDATE: 02/08/2012 at 09:45 AM - Having realized that a post-Canton-City-Council meeting mini-press conference (involving the SCPR and a WHBC reporter) was inadvertently omitted from the original video featuring Councilman Barton (at the end of the blog), The Report is supplementing via this update a video of the post-meeting interview.
ORIGINAL BLOG
For the past two weeks what Canton is going to do in terms of animal control within the city has been a "hot button" with Canton City Council (Council).
And it hasn't helped any to defuse the controversy that Canton's animal control officer, Phil Sedlacko, submitted his resignation to Safety Director Thomas Ream last Thursday in an apparent move to force the hand of Council to renew his contract for an extended period of time.
The SCPR's take is that most if not all of her fellows do not agree with Councilwoman Mary Cirelli; nevertheless she expressed her view that the Sedlacko action was a ploy tantamount to putting a gun to the head of Council.
Her description caused a sharp reaction from Majority Leader David Dougherty. Here is a video of that part of last night's meeting.
Understanding time considerations (about 18 people on the list to speak) Dougherty himself last night was in the view of the SCPR unnecessarily brusque and caustic with citizens appearing before Council (not just on the feral animal issue) who spoke more than the 3 minutes allowed by Council rules. Dougherty was sitting on the timer as if he was timing the finish of a highly competitive 100 yard dash. Hmm?
The Report has been at a number of Council meetings in recent years and is well taken with how Council President Allen Schulman handles the exact same situation with diplomacy and classy treatment of offenders.
Dougherty would do well to take lessons from Schulman or defer to another councilmember (when Schulman is absent) who has better skills in interacting with citizens addressing Council.
It seems to the SCPR that Canton will in time solve the controversy over the treatment of feral animals running the streets of the city.
Everybody appears to be united on whether or not Canton needs to continue to have an animal control officer and the consensus seems to be: absolutely, Canton will continue to have an animal control officer.
So what is the question?
First, whether or not it will continue to be Phil Sedlacko? Councilwoman Chris Smith and Councilmen Greg Hawk and Tom West and spoke highly of him but he drew negatives from Councilwoman Cirelli and Councilman Frank Morris.
Here is a video of councilmembers talking about Sedlacko himself.
If Sedlacko's surprise resignation (which Ream, as of Monday night, was holding in abeyance) is an indication of a "my way or the highway" (which is typical of a number of Healy administration folks including the mayor himself), then he could be history at his own hand. For The Report's sense of the situation is that if he will abide with whatever policy Council settles on, he will be renewed for a longer term. Area media reported yesterday that Sedlacko has accepted the 90 day contract passed by Council on Monday for $6,782.25.
Because it seems to The Report that Council is of a mood to change its animal control policy to accommodate some of the concerns of the opponents to current Canton policy. However, the SCPR believes that Council will only do so provided that the opponents present Council with a viable, workable and realistic plan.
A simple "Trap, Neuter and Return" policy is not going to fly in Canton. As Councilman Hawk told yours truly is that he has to deal with ward residents who will not accept as an answer that a trapped cat is returning to the neighborhood to take up where it left off.
So abating the unacceptable wild animal behavior (cat or otherwise) seems to be the key. And if opponents to the euthanasia track that the city is currently on want to be effective, they must come up with a plan that empowers councilpeople to solve ward resident problems.
The SCPR did contact one of the opposition leaders for elaboration on this point and this is how he (Toby Franks, who appears on the video below) responded via e-mail, to wit:
...
We do work with people in the neighborhoods resolve their issues, and its actually rare that we find an area that cats simply cannot be returned to. Cat-haters & cat-lovers, we ALL want the same thing - less cats outdoors.
The issue is how do we do it humanely & effectively.
If it truly is a hostile environment & the cats lives would be in danger, there is the last resort option of relocation to a farm or other feral-friendly location. Relocations are rare & must be done carefully. Alley Cat Allies offers a guide to safe relocation of feral cats.
The removal of feral cats from an area creates a vacuum that is quickly filled by new cats. Survivors of the cull invariably breed back to capacity & new cats move in. It’s called the Vacuum Effect & it’s very well documented. Trap & Kill is expensive, ineffective & inhumane.
Thankfully, forward-thinking communities are moving away from it & adopting the TNR approach. Even our neighbor to the east, the Village of East Canton has a S/N program for feral cats.
...
With TNR the sterile, vaccinated cats are returned to their territory, so the breeding stops. The population is stabilized immediately & begins to decline naturally & gradually over time. And nuisance behaviors like scent marking, yowling, fighting stop as well.
So instead of a vacuum that is quickly filled by new cats, you have a stable population that creates a disease-free, kitten-free buffer zone & the population decreases over time.
... .
Canton City Council has the very best forum in Stark County (when Schulman is at the head) for citizens to express themselves at the Public Speaks part of Council's agenda. And The Report's take is that the speakers are genuinely welcome and councilmembers appear to listen to them very attentively. And, from time-to-time, it is apparent that citizens do affect councilmembers' thinking as they formulate policy.
Here is a video from the perspective of the citizens (in abbreviated format) that is a representative sampling of the feral animal Public Speaks debate which occurred Monday night.
Last but certainly not least is a video of Councilman Barton and his management of the issue.
Councilman Barton in his "on camera" response is especially impressive in the way he, as chairman of the Personnel Committee, is managing deliberations and the process of solving Canton's animal control problems.
B.A. - Political Science
J.D.
AN INDEPENDENT MINDED POLITICAL COMMENTATOR
Until 1976 I was a Republican. Since then I have considered myself a Democrat. So after long term stints of being a Republican, then a Democrat, I have come to the political position I feel most comfortable with - being an INDEPENDENT MINDED ANALYST who demands effectiveness of our politicians - Republican, Democrat or whatever.
I have changed my political affiliation to "non-partisan" by not voting in either political party primary election.
