WILL LAKE'S TRUSTEES PUT SHERIFF SWANSON'S TOWNSHIP WIDE POLICE COVERAGE PLAN UNDER A MAGNIFYING GLASS IN A PUBLIC SESSION?

It could be that the Lake Township trustees have dug such a deep hole for themselves on the issue of expanding police services township wide that a levy for doing so has no chance whatsoever of passing.

Because of sloppy work by township legal counsel, the Stark County prosecutor's office and the Stark County Board of Elections, a hard earned victory for those of us who have been in favor of such an expansion for years (in some cases) may have been frittered away by the ineptness of several elements of local officialdom.

So as not to retread the if, buts and the like, here are a couple of links to prior blogs of the SCPR for readers to get up to speed/refresh on the saga of the goof ups that led up to the Ohio Supreme Court invalidating the electoral success of the pro-township-wide forces on May 16th of this year.

• First background blog LINK
• Second background blog LINK
• Third background blog LINK
• Fourth background blog LINK

The SCPR would not be surprised that the trustees, in their individual capacities, have come to the conclusion that the glare of publicity surrounding the bumbling of framing the levy issue in proper language form may well have cast enough of a negative tone on the whole process that it is hard to see how a majority of Lake voters would approve a new effort to go township wide.

The Report suspects that a primary reason why at least one of the trustees has not called for Sheriff Swanson (or his deputy McDonald) to come to Lake for a public session in which the Sheriff's Proposal gets thoroughly dissected and vetted, is that none of the three thinks that township wide is in the cards in the immediate future anyway so why bother.

For if one of them thinks that there remains a viable opportunity to convince Lake voters to once again approve an expansion, then it goes without saying that before trustees vote on the matter they must lay both the Uniontown Police Department expansion plan (UPD Plan) and the Sheriff's Proposal (CLICK HERE FOR INTERNET LINK) in full public view and do an "apples to apples" comparison and then go with the one which would provide Lake taxpayers with "the biggest bang for the buck!"

Yours truly, for one, though always in the nearly 40 years of residence in the township a supporter of township wide policing, would not support an expansion that does not authentically weigh the UPD Plan versus the Sheriff's Proposal and provide specific, objective and sustainable reasons why one approach was favored over the other.

At one meeting of township officials after the Ohio Supreme Court overturn of the November, 2011 vote on Lake Issue #6, township legal counsel Charles Hall, III came up with a line of blarney in saying that it was a good thing that the language got goofed up because the screw up drew a legal challenge and therefore Lake Township benefited all of Ohio's political subdivisions because now they know that ballot language errors will cause an issue that otherwise won to fail.

Hall may be right that the legal upset of the electoral victory is a good thing.

But not for the reason he gave.

What the judicial reversal does for those of us who voted for the expansion the first time around (without requiring the trustees to get a competitive bid) does is provide us (the Lake Township residents) with an opportunity to look much closer at the two approaches and make a much more informed decision the second time around, if there is a second time.

Many if not most of those of us who live in the Uniontown Police District have been largely pleased with policing services all these years, even if at a premium cost to us.

Very little changes for us either way.  If there is an expansion, we do save a little on our police levy assessment.  If not, our financial situation is unchanged and we go on with our high quality police protection.

In sitting back a watching this parade go by, the SCPR has this gnawing feeling that all is not as it appears to be.

The Report is beginning to consider the notion that the drive to make the UPD the township wide policing unit might be driven by influential "behind he scenes" de facto community leaders who want to keep their agenda hidden and that the trustees are willing to be the public face.

If that is the case, then it becomes very clear indeed why the Lake trustees might not want to have to face up with the Lake Township public with sheriff's department representative on hand to answer their questions.

To make things more meaningful, wouldn't it be great to have Plain Township Trustee Louis Giavasis on hand to answer the Lake Township residents' questions about Plain's actual experience in having the sheriff's office do the township's policing going back to 1992.

He tells The Report that he cannot for the life of him figure out why someone in Lake Township's position would want to take on all the complexity and difficulty (personnel management, et cetera) of administrating a police district when someone else will do it for $600,000 less per annum.

Giavasis says that Plain Trustees are able to maintain very tight control of township policing through its contract with the sheriff.  Any time there is any question, Plain officials are able to immediate responses and adjustments when and where needed.

As the SCPR sees it, the Swanson letter published at the beginning of this blog puts the Lake Township trustees on the spot.

He says you (the trustees) say our proposal is "incomplete?"

(Paraphrase)  "Let us [sheriff's representatives] come up to your place [Lake Twp Hall] and sit down with you in front of your public show the both of us [the sheriff and the Lake public] where our proposal is not an apples to apples comparison to what the Uniontown Police Department Plan is?"

And, of course, yours truly says:  Have Plain Trustee Louis Giavasis come, too.

As the SCPR sees it, the Lake Township trustees will likely do one of two things.

First, drop the matter of expansion altogether at least for the time being, or

Two, fully engage the Lake Township public and a thorough consideration of the two competing plans.

It would be a shock if they chose to totally ignore the Sheriff's Proposal and go once again with the UPD Plan in an uncompetitive fashion.

But if they do the latter, then they can look for a defeat in the ballot box that likely will be the equivalent of past failures.

MASSILLON'S COUNCILWOMAN NANCY HALTER UNDERSTANDS THAT "AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE," BUT APPARENTLY THE REST OF COUNCIL DOESN'T?

UPDATE:  9:50 AM

A huge move that is in its initial stages of development in the State of Ohio is spending millions upon millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars tearing down dilapidated residential buildings.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine has set aside $75 million from Ohio's $335 million share of a $25 billion national mortgage settlement with America's five largest mortgage companies in settlement of allegations of foreclosure abuse, fraud and improper practices.

DeWine bills his initiative as being the Moving Ohio Forward Demolition Grant Program.

Of the $75 million, Stark County is slated to get about $2.3 million due the efforts of the Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar.

It could be that by the fall of this year and certainly by early into next year Alliance, Canton, Massillon and other Stark County political subdivisions will be benefiting from Ohio's initiative.

And that is all well and good.  But the financial lament of having to have taxpayers tear down private market housing that has not been kept up over many years is such that we should label tear down necessity as a crying shame.

A good part of the reason why residential housing has deteriorated to the point that the only remedy is a tear down is that villages, city's and townships have allowed property owners to milk a property for everything they get out of it and then merely abandon it and walk away from it leaving it to the taxpayers to deal with it.

And that is what DeWine's program and the local application of the recently Stark County commissioner authorized creation of the Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation (a quasi-government, non-profit corporation - headed by Zumbar) is about, at least, in it initial stages.

For someone like Councilwoman Nancy Halter of Massillon (R - Ward 2) to get out in front of the problem and try "to prevent" dilapidation from occurring in the first place is laudable inasmuch as her effort is in the order of being a real, neighborhood saving cure designed to maintain serviceable residences in place.

The DeWine/LRC solution is to leave a vacant lot.

Halter's problem in getting the legislation through Massillon City Council (now on her fourth try) is that her fellow councilpersons seem determined to kill it by virtue of "a death by a thousand cuts" routine.

How convenient?  A thousand cuts and thereby how is one to be held politically accountable for having administered the fatal cut that killed an ordinance that has the potential to save Massillon neighborhoods of the future from the wrecking ball.

The SCPR is encouraged to read in Massillon Independent reporter Matt Rink's piece Halter vows to continue fight to register landlords (July 9, 2012) this quote:

“I’m going to keep this up until we pass this.  I’m just warning you. If it takes another year then so be it.”

A Stark County Political Report "tip of the hat" to Councilwoman Halter!

Conversely, her fellows on council should abandon what appears to be a "thousand cuts" campaign and take a proactive stance and help Halter find a way to make Massillon a city that gets ahead of its problems and does not sit back and wait for bad things to happen it.

"An ounce of prevention is, indeed, worth a pound of cure!"

(VIDEOS OF DORDEA & MCDONALD - STARK SHERIFF'S RACE) CHALK ONE UP FOR DORDEA IN LAKE TOWNSHIP ON DEALING WITH LAKE POLICING ISSUE? IS THERE A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE UPD CAN WORK WITH A SHERIFF MCDONALD?

On May 29th of this year, right on the heels of the Ohio Supreme Court (May 16th) decision upholding Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Haas' decision that flawed ballot language on Lake Township's Issue #6 was fatal to the issue and that an "apparent"  election ballot victory for those in Lake who wanted the Uniontown Police Department (9 square miles in northwest Lake Township) to expand township wide was therefore invalidated, Stark County Chief Deputy Sheriff Mike McDonald (Jail Division) appeared before the Lake Township trustees at their regular meeting touting a plan for the Stark County sheriff to step in and provide the coverage for all of Lake Township except for Hartville.

It is the SCPR's perception that McDonald got a "cool," but respectful hearing from Trustees John Arnold, Ellis Erb and Galen Stoll.

Here is a video of McDonald's presentation.



The Report's take is that McDonald (who is the Democratic candidate for Stark County sheriff) couldn't have made a bigger political blunder in Lake insofar as township officials are concerned than to have appeared so soon after the Supreme Court decision at a time that trustees were obviously smarting from the loss and were grappling for ways to react.

Moreover, The Report has been told (confirmed to McDonald) that Uniontown Police Chief Harold Britt had a testy exchange with McDonald at the rear of the meeting hall regarding the appropriateness of McDonald's appearance with a contract proposal.

Yours truly was out of the country (in England) at the last Lake trustees meeting of June 25th.  But a Repository report of the meeting has several interesting points:

• "He (Trustee John Arnold) noted the possibility of accepting a proposal from the Stark County Sheriff's Office for township wide policing is clouded by the uncertainty of who will be elected sheriff in November," and
• "The proposal also previously has been termed incomplete by trustees compared to the ballot issue that expanded the Uniontown Police Department which was overturned by the courts."
  

"Of who will be elected sheriff in November."  

 Really?  What does that have to do with anything?

"The proposal also previously has been termed incomplete by trustees compared to the ballot issue that expanded the Uniontown Police Department."

Okay.  Don't the trustees owe it to Lake Township taxpayers to go to the sheriff and say:  "give us an apples to apples proposal?" 

Don't they have an obligation to Lake taxpayers, if Lake is to have township wide police services, to get "the best bang for the buck?"

And to all the foregoing add the following:

This past Monday night (at a regular meeting of the Lake trustees), yours truly was a party to a conversation post meeting among township fire and police officials in which the topic as to the amenability of the officials to having either McDonald or his Republican opponent Larry Dordea as sheriff of Stark County.

Somewhat alarming to The Report in yours truly's take was the willingness of a police official to express his enthusiasm for working as a Lake-based police official with Dordea as sheriff but apparently unwilling to accord the same ardor with McDonald as sheriff.

And yours truly said so in the context of that assembly.

It is not a matter of whether or not a police official has a personal preference. As a matter of police professionalism and as a matter of public safety and the expectation is that police officials work together cooperatively and collaboratively for the public safety.

It could be that the police official simply misspoke?

Hopefully, Chief Britt will and as will Trustee Erb (who was present during the conversation), in the light of the foregoing, reassure the Lake Township public that the vigor of collaborative law enforcement (whether it is the Uniontown Police Department or the Lake Township Police Department) in Lake Township has nothing whatsoever to do with who is elected sheriff in November.

The sheriff's office interacting with Lake officials on the matter of the sheriff providing Lake with police services via McDonald's presentation was not a first time event.

The sheriff has a contract with Plain Township and Trustee Louis Giavasis tells the SCPR that Plain residents are well satisfied with those services.

Several years ago Lake trustees were seriously considering a proposal to Lake voters that they support a ballot initiative to have the sheriff provide similar township wide coverage.

For reasons that remain a mystery (i.e. no one from the township side will say what they were and Sheriff Swanson tells The Report he does not know why), the matter got dropped as quickly as they had appeared.  The Report's recollection is that Trustee Ellis Erb was the trustee most actively involved in considering the sheriff option.

Next thing township residents know (yours truly is a Lake Township and Uniontown Police District (UPD) resident who has always supported expansion either by the UPD or the sheriff and, for the record, is in favor of another effort), up pops the notion of going township wide using the Uniontown Police District as the springboard to expansion.

Of course, the rest is history.

Township officials including the township's law director Charles Hall, III, the Stark County Board of Elections and the Stark County prosecutor's office all had a hand in not figuring out that the ballot language was errant.

Only the Ohio secretary of state's office figured out the error on a timely basis and communicated same to the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) on July 13, 2011.

The BOE claimed that one of its employees telephoned information about the error to officials at Lake Township Hall.  However, Lake officials deny that such was the case.

So that is how Lake got to the place the township is now in that it is in the process of determining whether or not expansion of police services are still on the table and if so, will it be by expanding the Uniontown Police Department or will the township pursue working out a contract with the sheriff's department.

And this is where Larry Dordea (Hartville Police Chief, former Alliance Police Chief and presently an Alliance city councilman-at-large) in the judgment of the SCPR made a politically swift move.

Dordea made an appearance on Monday night last to clarify what he said was perhaps a misunderstanding as to what his attitude would be as sheriff towards the Lake policing situation.

In essence, he says whatever direction Lake residents decide to do, he will fully supportive and work in a fully collaborative manner with Lake officials.

There was even a hint in his presentation (see below), at least in the SCPR's take, that should trustees forego an expansion at this time, a Dordea run sheriff's department would to better in providing patrol services of the outside of Hartville and Uniontown police district areas of the township.

To yours truly, Dordea's interface was a much more wise "politician-running-for-office"  course of action in substance, timing and manner than was demonstrated by Mike McDonald back on May 29th.

Here is the video of Dordea's presentation.



As far as the SCPR is concerned (as indicated above), Lake ought to have township wide services, however, if the trustees put an initiative (whether UPD expansion or contracting with the sheriff) on the ballot and Lake voters decide against it, so be it.

Such is our democratic process.

It appears to the SCPR that McDonald and Dordea are equally qualified to be Stark County sheriff. 

However, The Report will be examining the public positions taken by both over the next four months to determine whether or not either surfaces as an obvious choice.

Stark Countians need to be very careful that Stark County's top cop be the very best.

To summarize:

As far as Lake offcials are concerned, the SCPR likes to believe that:

• the trustees will in discharging their duty of trust in protecting Lake taxpayer interests; should they decide to propose policing township wide again, obtain an apples to apples proposal from Sheriff Swanson before deciding what specific proposal, if any, should be on the ballot,
• that whichever route they decide to go, or if they decide to leave the policing as it currently is, that it will be made clear that Chief Britt and the department is committed to working in a fully cooperative and collaborative manner with whomever is elected sheriff, and
• that the decision will not be made without a full and complete public meeting giving Lake citizens a thoroughgoing opportunity to weigh in on the decision.

SMUCKLER HAS BEGUN TO CAMPAIGN IN ERNEST AND IT IS ONLY JULY 10TH? WATCH OUT RICHARD REGULA?

When yours truly picked up the mail yesterday, the content included one huge surprise.

Indeed!

This campaign flyer was in the mail.

Whew!  It's only July 9th with the November election still 118 days (nearly 4 months) away and former Democratic Canton city councilman Bill Smuckler is off and running with the campaign mailers.

Traditionally, mailing of flyers is heavily tilted to the last 4 to 6 weeks of the campaign and, as an indicator of how well the fundraising went, a burst at the very end much like a fireworks finale many of us witnessed the past July 4th.

The early mailer ought to catch the attention of Republican and former Stark County commissioner Richard Regula.

Regula, despite his impressive political pedigree (his father, Ralph, was 16th District U.S Congressman for 36 years), has not been able to become an enduring Stark County political figure - at least in the elected - in his own right.

He has had modest success with one term as Stark County commissioner and time as a Bethlehem Township trustee before that.

But beyond that, he has not been able to parlay the Regula name into electoral success.  In fact, he has sustained a number of embarrassing setbacks.

His most recent humiliation was losing out to woman-child Christina Hagan, at least in the political sense of the expression, as the replacement for 50th district representative in March of 2011.   As he tells it, the queen-makers (since they ended up selecting Hagan) in the Republican House Caucus, rejected him as to choice to replace Todd Snitchler (who bolted from the 50th to be Governor Kasich's man as chair of the Ohio PUCO) because he Regula was much more of a person of his own mind than any other candidate.

And there are two other demoralizing loses in his political biography.

First, there was the loss to Gary Zeigler in the county treasurer's race in 2000.  Hmm?  Stark County voters probably would like to have that one back, no?

Zeigler had seemingly run against everybody else in Stark County to win some office, any office, (having run for office quite a few times and lost) many think, as the candidate of the "good ole boys" (Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero was chairman then) who ran the Stark County Democratic Party back in those days (the late 90s, early 2000s).

When Stark County Treasurer Mark Roach (whose father had been treasurer for many years) couldn't keep up with his Ohio mandated continuing education requirements and needed to be replace, the Dems chose Zeigler.

Mind you, one of the candidates for the party nod at that time was the highly qualified (but a political rube) Massillon Budget Director Ken Koher who went on to become Stark County Treasurer for a time in the in (appointed 1999), out (unconstitutionally by the Stark County commissioners), in again (the Ohio Supreme Court and finally out (by resignation).  For more background on Zeigler's tenure as Stark County treasurer go to this LINK.

Hmm?  Think Ferrero et al wouldn't like to have Zeigler's 1999 appointment back?

Had the richly blessed golden political boy Richard Regula lived up to his political heritage, Stark County likely would have been spared all the turmoil of recent years.  But he didn't and "the rest is history."

Second on Regula's failures as an office seeker was against the-then Nimishillen trustee Todd Bosley in 2006.

Nobody in Stark County political circles thought Bosely (except, perhaps, former Stark County Commissioner Tom Harmon) could defeat the then-sitting Stark County commissioner Richard Regula.

But he did!

So, why is the SCPR recounting Richard Regula's document political weakness notwithstanding his purebred pedigree?

Because the man he is running against (Smuckler) is thought by a number of Stark County political observers (some of them Democrats) to one of the weakest Democrats that the Stark Dems could run countywide because of his hidden-away-ness in the safe Democratic stronghold of Canton.

He does fine in the 9 to 1 Dems to GOP registered voters ratio in the Democratic enclave of Canton as long as he doesn't have to run against a well known, established politician.

He did defeat now-Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II in the 2003 Democratic primary, but Healy was barely back in town from having gone to New York City to get his training and education as a business cognoscente who, once he developed political acumen, was destined wrestle the mayoralty from Republican Janet Creighton in 2007.

Creighton defeated Smuckler by about 300 votes in the 2003 general election.

After losing to Healy in a rematch in the 2011 Democratic primary, Smuckler decided not to run for reelection to Canton City Council where he could have stayed for the rest of his life if he so chose.

When incumbent Commissioner Pete Ferguson decided not to run for reelection, Smuckler jumped at the opportunity to run. 

Regula kind of played a little political game.  He feigned as if he might possibly run against incumbent Commissioner Tom Bernabei (like Smuckler a Canton political figure as a councilman and law director) in the other commissioner seat up for election this time around as he took out petitions for both seats.

It was a game of silliness as far as The Report is concerned.  Regula against Bernabei.  Although he had a narrow escape in 2010 when he ran against Republican Jackson trustee James Walters (who, the SCPR believes, would have won had an independent (of the political right) not been on the ballot), Bernabei has had the better part of two years to establish himself in his new political venue.

There was no way Regula was ever going to run against Bernabei.  The likelihood is that he was waiting to see if Bernabei was not going to run and who the Democratic candidate would then be.

Get it?  The SCPR thinks that Regula was looking for the most vulnerable seat to go after.

Smuckler versus Regula for Stark County commissioner (incumbent Commissioner Ferguson electing not to run for reelection) would seem to be a "Stark County political match of the century for the politically weak."   Only kidding, how about the last 20 years?

Actually, Smuckler seems to be fired up and out doing the right things to put himself in a position to win countywide.

He has gone out and hired some political pros to run his campaign.

The main players in the Smuckler campaign are the same cast of characters as who let Healy to victory over Smuckler last spring.  Hmm?  Does this mean that Mayor Healy is supporting Smuckler for commissioner?  When asked, Smuckler said "you'll have to ask the mayor?"

As described by The Repository's Ed Balint and republished on Mayor Healy's campaign website, they are:  (extract, not a complete rendition of the Balint piece; also with SCPR parenthetical insertions).

... Melissa Barnhart, [who runs a political consulting firm and who has be linked in area media reports with Canton area 52nd District state Rep. Stephen Slesnick] ... has been involved with multiple campaigns for Richard Cordray, the former Democratic Ohio attorney general.  Barnhart lives in the Columbus area.

Also ... Andy Padrutt, a "seasoned campaign operative," with experience in campaign management and strategic consulting, ... .

Padrutt, of Summit County, is a former at-large Green City councilman and the former executive director of the Summit County Democratic Party.  He also is the former Barberton clerk of court.

Padrutt also worked on Cordray's campaign in 2010.  ...

Amanda Trump, [Democratic candidate against Republican Kirk Schuring in the "new" 48th Ohio House district], a former intern at the Ohio House of Representatives, is another volunteer.  The Canton native has worked on campaigns in the Columbus area as well as on Cordray's re-election bid.

Could it be that Smuckler is developing political muscle countywide?

Whereas Regula has run countywide three times (winning once), this is Smuckler's first try.

Seemingly, Regula would have the advantage.  Especially with the political heritage thing.

The Report has seen Smuckler out and about in several venues campaigning.  He tells yours truly that each and every day he is out campaigning either or his own, or with Amanda Trump or with Sue Ryan (running against Republican Christina Hagan - the 50th House District) and other local Democrats.

Regula only one.  About a month ago in North Canton when Congressman Renacci showed up to hear North Canton citizens at a community meeting put on the Stark County commissioners complain about flooding problems in the nearby Zimber Ditch.

Smuckler was there, too.  And he appeared to yours truly to be more overtly politically active than Regula even in Republican North Canton.

And sending flyers out on July 9th? 

An additional impressive thing about Smuckler to the SCPR is that he seems to actually have a plan he wants to work with his fellow commissioners on if he is elected.

Most of it is grounded in collaboration with all of Stark County's political subdivisions.

He has not given up on completing the rehab of countywide 9-1-1 call receiving and dispatch.

He believes he can replicate the Canton/Jackson Township economic development partnership across Stark County.

Smuckler has been, as a matter of advocacy, Stark County's most ardent proponent of collaboration/consolidation and merger of local government operations for the better part of two decades.

In the past, his efforts have largely fallen on deaf ears.

But could it be that now with the severe cutbacks in federal and State of Ohio funding of local government funding that the time is ripe for the likes of a Bill Smuckler?

Is a "perfect political storm" brewing for this "lost in Canton" politician?

We shall see.

And we will also see whether or not the son of the renowned Ralph  Regula and finally, finally take advantage of his political pedigree.

Has he learned that it takes more than being the son of a venerable congressman to be a successful candidate?

It takes a dawn to dusk campaign commitment.  It takes having a substantive plan for voters to consider.  To the credit of Stark Countians it takes being the son, plus.

It could be he is active as Smuckler and the SCPR just doesn't know about.  Kind of doubtful.  If something is happening in Stark County politics, it is rare indeed for The Report to not be in the know.

And perhaps he has a plan. If he has one, what kind of dissemination is he giving it? 

Regula versus Smuckler could be a very interesting race over the next four months.

For one of the two, a loss in race will likely mean the end of the line for electioneering.

Whom among the two will have adapted the most?

16TH DISTRICT CONGRESSIONAL RACE: WHY WOULDN'T BETTY SUTTON WANT TO DEBATE JIM RENACCI? WHAT IS SHE AFRAID OF? POLL SHOWS SHE LEADS RENACCI BY 3%.

 UPDATED:  10:15 AM

Right after the United States Supreme Court upheld most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA - referred to by Republican politicians as being Obamacare), 16th District Congressman Jim Renacci (Republican - Wadsworth) issued a challenge to 13th District Congresswoman Betty Sutton (Democrat - Copley) to agree to a debate in Strongsville to a debate of the merits of the legislation.

The two, though both are incumbent congresspersons, are running against each other for the right to continue in Congress as the 16th district representative.  That's because Ohio lost two seats due to a loss of population as established by the 2010 decentenial census as required by the U.S. Constitution.

The 16th District includes Jackson Township, Lawrence Township, parts of Lake Township, North Canton and dips down into Canton's 5th Ward (represented in Canton City Council by Democrat Kevin Fisher) to include The Timken Company headquarters (a rich source of campaign contributions for Congressman Renacci).

Sutton's response:  The Supreme Court has made its decision, it is time to move on to other issues.

Could Sutton be making a huge political mistake in not taking Renacci on in a debate?

The SCPR thinks she might be.  But undoubtedly if she is, she has her "politically motivated" reasons.

Could it be that she has not schooled herself in the deficiencies of the current in place broken system of health care insurance and the fixes thereto in order to stand toe-to-toe with Renacci as he spills out the spin provided him by the National Republican Party?

The SCPR believes that in spin against spin the Republicans win the battle to control the minds and hearts of ordinary Americans.  The polls all show this.

The Democrats have developed there own spin which is "tit-for-tat" and they do not go where they ought to in order in terms of truly understanding the health care insurance problem to be able to square up against the Republicans.

Renacci must sense this about Sutton intuitively and therefore with a great deal of bravado puts her on the defensive.

Touche for him in a political gamesmanship perspective.  But Americans are not served well by this kind of political posturing on both sides.

The SCPR's take own the "true" feeling about the Affordable Care Act is more mixed than its bad, bad, bad or great, great, great.

There are features like coverage of children until they are 26 under a parents policy and the ban on disqualifying applicants for insurance on the basis of preexisting condition that are not going away even if the Republicans are able to repeal Obamacare.

The Republicans will include in any repeal effort savings clauses for those two provisions at a very minimum.  However, in the spin game that politicians always play, they would nonetheless claim total repeal.

It appears to The Report and other political observers across the nation that the more American learn of the ACA free of the political spin, the more they find to like about it.

Who knows?  Over time it could come to:  why did we oppose this law in the first place?

Renacci showed how utterly dishonest he is with himself and of course with his constituents in putting out this blurb in a recent release, to wit:

Out of the 248 responses to last week’s survey asking if the health care law should be repealed despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, 78% believe it should be repealed, 21% believe it should not and 1% were not sure.

The congressman knows full well that national polls exist that show the American public to be much more balanced than his self-serving poll numbers indicate. 

And, of course, who put out the poll he now quotes?  How about the "Re-elect Renacci Your Congressman Campaign Committee?

Who might self-select to bolster a pre-announced Congressman Renacci advocacy of repeal?  Of course, those who have long shared the congressman's position.  The more surprising point is that 21% would buck the Renacci-led tide and vote no notwithstanding the futility of thereby influencing the congressman.

Whether one supports Renacci or not in his overall qualities as a representative, all should be disappointed that the man resorts to what the SCPR thinks is a dishonest manipulation of his constituents to make it look like he is in the mainstream of his constituents take on the Affordable Care Act.

Shame on Congressman Renacci!  To try and palm his self-serving poll off on the reading public is a direct insult to and contemptuous of the intelligence of the public.

Sutton can go a long ways in forcing Renacci off his talking points by educating herself (and co-incidentally the 16th District's voting public) not with Democratic National Committee talking points, but with actual studied knowledge of the problems and their fixes.

She could call him on his bluff on his proposed debate!

For great deal of insight without getting too technical for them (for political minds glaze over quickly), is to an interview between the National Public Radio and Uwe Reinhardt.  (LINK)

And if Sutton is particularly industrious and curious about getting to the heart of the matter, she might even engage him in a probing conversation.

But will she?

Not likely.  It is easier for her to run and hide with the lame "we have other issues to discuss."

Yours truly being a constituent of the 16th thinks that Renacci's idea is terrific.  It is sad that Sutton only thinks of it in terms of not being worth the effort of airing the issue out because she sees a political benefit to taking her Supreme Court victory and leaving it at that.

But that's what we citizens come to expect of our politicians:  Republican or Democrat.

The official position of Republicans is to "repeal and replace Obamacare."

There is no doubt that Republicans will repeal the ACA if they capture the Senate, maintain control of the House of Representatives and Mitt Romney is elected president of the United States.

In a bit of political grandstanding, the Republican controlled House has scheduled a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  The U.S. Senate is controlled by Democrats and therefore will not be on the Senate's agenda.  So the matter is just what the SCPR has termed it to be in the first sentence of this paragraph:  political grandstanding.

Exactly what most Americans like to see out of their politicians, no?

According to a report from the United States Census Bureau on the basis of the 2010 census, 49.9 million Americans have no health insurance. (LINK)

So is there any doubt that if Republicans were to successfully repeal the ACA that they have to come up with some alternative?

The Report believes that most Americans think so.  Right now, it is not a question of whether or it is desirable for your friends, neighbors and relatives and, indeed, everyone to have basic medical coverage; it is a question of putting together the "best plan" in terms of getting the most bang for the federal bucks spent on health care coverage.

This is where the SCPR thinks Renacci and the Republicans could be vulnerable in a debate were Sutton to reverse course and take him on.

Instructive on the Republican plan on the "replacement" aspect of "repeal and replace," is an exchange that took place between Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) in a recent interview with FoxNews' Chris Wallace as shared by Ezra Klein (of the Washington Post) as a substitute host on the Madow Show. (LINK)

Wallace to McConnell:  "In your replacement, how would you provide universal coverage?"

All McConnell was willing to do with Wallace was to say that the Republican plan is a step-by-step-by-step plan.  No specifics.

"Step-by-step-by-step, or whatever, there is a Republican plan.  It is contained in a amendment to HB 3962 offered by in the House in 2009.

According to this plan, the Republicsns would:

• enact tort reform in order to cut down on the malpractice suits against medical providers and thereby lowering costs on the provision of medical service which would presumably make health insurance cheaper,
• allow insurers to sell across state lines and thereby give the uninsured more insurer choices and presumably lower prices because of more competition,
• improve high risk pools so that the uninsured are able (though afflicted with a "pre-existing medical condition) would have improved opportunities to obtain insurance which outside of Obamacare would not be available.
• provide grants to states so that they can research and develop  better "Medicaid" coverage alternatives.

The next question becomes, compared to what Obama's plan:  how many uninsureds would the Republican plan bring into a universal coverage mode?

Well, look at this chart published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):

If the CBO can be believed, the Republican plan brings in about 3 million of the uninsured by 2019 whereas Obama's plan brings in about 30 million.

Hmm?

So under the ACA, between the individual mandate that Americans who can afford to pay for insurance but choose not to (apparently, about 20 million) in fact purchase it or be "taxed?" or "penalized?" (choose your favorite way of describing the required payment) and the 30 million "unaffordables" who will be brought in via Medicaid, one arrives at a universal coverage status.

On the other hand, under the Republican plan, if implemented, 3 million of the 50 million uninsured would be covered leaving 47 million uncovered.

Hmm?

How is that a universal coverage plan?

Obviously, it is not.  But the lack of a thoroughgoing plan is consistent with a political party that is becoming to be known as "the party of NO" so that it can ride the difficulties of the party in power to political victory.

The party of NO?  Heh.  Quite a different political party that yours truly was a member of for some 35 years.

Some political observers believe that the reality is that national Republicans are foot dragging at the very best (e.g. McConnell's "step-by-step-by-step), or, in a pessimistic take, on what these observers say is an opposition to universal coverage as a matter of political party philosophy.  However, not wanting to appear to be casting some 47 million Americans to the winds on heath care, put forward a plan to make it seem they are moving in a universal care direction.  As the graphic above shows, 3 million more covered within 7 years is hardly a convincing case.

So, once again, why isn't Sutton interested in putting Renacci on the spot in a public debate that would undoubtedly be prominently and generously covered by media (perhaps even national media)?

Her "let's move on to other issues" stance makes no sense to the SCPR.

Does she really think that Renacci is going to let her off that easy?

So she is going to let him hammer away at her with rhetorical flourishes in campaign ads and carefully structured and safe town hall meetings (which will be covered by the media) about Obamacare being, according to Republican Party talking points directives, "a job killing bill" and the like?

Well, if she is, it could be the end of a promising opportunity to stay in Congress.

Currently, according to a Cleveland Plain Dealer piece (Poll shows Rep. Betty Sutton with slight lead over Rep. Jim Renacci, July 3, 2012, Sabrina Eaton LINK), she is in the lead in this race, to wit:

The poll conducted by pollsters Normington, Petts & Associates  shows Sutton ahead of Renacci by a 41 to 38 percent margin. Libertarian Jeff Blevins had 4 percent in the telephone survey of 400 likely general election voters. The poll conducted between June 26 and 28 had a 4.9 percent margin of error.

The SCPR thinks that Sutton owes it the constituents of the "new" 16th Congressional District to debate Renacci on the healthcare insurance issue for the public benefit.

She might be surprised, she may herself benefit by looking Renacci's debate challenge square in the eyes a saying:  "Okay pal, if that's what you want that is what you will get and I will be prepared."

Could it be that her reluctance to debate the issue is that she does not have debating skills which she thinks matches up well against Renacci?

While The Report has not seen her debate, yours truly has seen Renacci and he is nothing special!

Of course, there are other issues.  There should be a series of debates.  But one should be devoted to the viability of the Affordable Care Act.

What are you afraid of Betty?

UPDATE: COMMISSIONERS NOT ACTING QUICK ENOUGH? STARK COUNTY DOG POUND ANIMALS SUFFERING UNNECSSARILY FROM HEAT WAVE?

Stark Countian Judith King (a member of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board [SCDPAB - Pound]) is "hot on the trail" of Stark County commissioners about what she alleges to be unacceptable delay in placing a ventilation system at the Stark County Dog Pound facility on Mahoning Road so that the dogs housed there can get some circulating air to cool them on these hot, hot, hot "dog days of summer."

King, in a couple of emails over the past week, has endeavored to bring the plight of the dogs to the attention of area media including the SCPR.

Of course, The Report has a track record of being the most responsive media outlet monitoring the solving of long standing problems at the Pound which predate the current Stark County Board of Commissioners.

Ms. King in the emails makes the following allegations:

• The Stark County Dog Pound operation is a low priority with the Stark County commissioners,
• Three years ago former Stark County Dog Warden Evert Gibson in having the roof of the Pound repaired, did not maintain ventilation for the resident dogs, to wit:
• "Prior to that [the reroofing] both sides of that long room you walked through were open to the outside.  Now it is all enclosed rendering it dark,  dank, and suffocating"  (an exact quote from King, in bold type for emphasis),
• The Friends of the Stark Pound (FOSP) held a fundraiser in September, 2011 for the express purpose of getting money which was to be applied towards remedying the lack of ventilation at the Pound.  She claims that Commissioner Janet Creighton and Dog Warden Reagan Tetreault attended the event.
• The commissioners promised to have the ventilation fixed prior to the onset of summer, 2012,
• The only action taken as of the summer of 2012 is to have an engineering study done with the commissioners have elected to take money from Stark County's capital improvement fund,
• Meanwhile:
• "The dogs are beginning to suffer from kennel cough and heat stress due to the extreme temperatures."
• The Stark County Dog Pound "remain[s] firmly rooted in yesteryear" when compared to the Stark County Humane Society and the Summit County Dog Pound which, she says, have implemented "amazing changes" in "the philosophy and practice of kennel management"  in recent years.
• "The current commissioners have turned a deaf ear to the [advisory] board because we have reported to them that conditions at the pound are not improving and indeed Reagan Tetrault [the dog warden appointed a little over two years ago] is part of the problem."
• [In an aside to The Repository's Jim Hilibish, who did a piece on June 29th entitled: Keep your cool in this heat wave], King alleges that the wading pools he saw when he stopped by the Pound (apparently, an ad hoc way to cool the dogs down) to get information/response from Warden Tetrault co-incident to his article, were provided by a group of Stark County citizens who volunteer at the SCDP at their personal expense, and, finally, to quote King:
• "The volunteers are responsible for any aid and care the dogs receive at the pound.  The county provides storage space only.  The warden can not tell you what dogs are at the pound or anything about them.  She is in her air-conditioned office. She does not come to work dressed to handle dogs despite that fact that she does have a uniform she could wear.  Staff members send potential adopters to the volunteers for information about the dogs," and
• "I think there is agreement by everyone involved, including the pound employees, that [Warden] Reagan [Tetreault] has made a total disaster of the pound."

Quite a list of grievances by Ms. King, no?

Well, the SCPR forwarded a copy of King's email to Commissioner Creighton.

On Tuesday, Commissioner responded to yours truly with a telephone call.

In the ensuing discussion, she said:

• While she supports the FOSP and did buy a ticket to the September, 2011 fundraiser, she did not actually attend the event,
• She believes that Commissioners Bernabei and Ferguson also bought tickets to the fundraiser but did not attend,
• That the commissioners will be spending $70,000 to $80,000 [from the county capital improvement fund] to fix the Pound's heating, cooling and  ventilation problems and that the $8,000 raised by the FOSP will not be part of the expenditure,
• King's e-mail statement that $25,000 has been spent on engineering is erroneous and that the fact of the matter is that $12,500 (a contract with MDS & Associates:  consulting engineer) has been authorized,
• That she was not interested in going through King's entire list and "nitpick on everything,"
• That "things in government take time" and that government processes are not like a private individual calling up a contractor and ordering up a fix lickedly-split (the SCPR term, not Creighton's),
• That the commissioners are going to do the ventilation project properly and not in a quick-fix fashion which means that it will be the fall before the project is done,
• That the current board of commissioners has done much more to solve the problems at the SCDP than the previous three boards,
• That the board in taking $70,000 to $80,000 out of the county's permanent improvement fund is evidence that the commissioners are giving the Dog Pound needs some priority because the money is not available from moneys raised from dog license and other fees and which means that the $70,000 to $80,000 will not be available to other county capital improvement needs,
• The commissioners are doing the very best they can at the Pound but that "it is just not good enough for some people,"
• That this problem is going to be fixed but that the Stark County public should understand that this board of commissioners is dealing with the problem whereas prior boards did not.

So what does the SCPR make of this outbreak of criticism of the current Stark County Board of Commissioners?

As readers of The Report know, yours truly believes that the current board is vastly superior to boards going back at least to the early 1980s.

While Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (former Stark County Democratic Party chairman) can say it until he is blue in the face that former Stark County commissioner Gayle Jackson (1995 - 2007) has been the greatest Stark County commissioner of all time, the record indicates something else.

In the opinion of The Report, she bears a major portion of the responsibility for the slide of Stark County government into county financial crisis/economic development oblivion and infrastructure decay (e.g. the Zimber Ditch) inasmuch as she was commissioner for 12 years:  a time period which yours truly believes that the county began an accentuated decline.

Only with the election of Tom Bernabei and Janet Creighton in 2010 have matters began to turnaround.

However, such is not to say that the current board is doing everything right.

The Report believes that the commissioners made a major mistake in not asking the the Stark County public for a 1% sales tax rather than the 0.5% that voters approved in November, 2011.

The margin of victory on the 0.5% levy (I know, I know; using hindsight which, of course is 20/20), indicates that the current board had turned the public's confidence around sufficiently and coupled with the highly effective campaign effort they waged could have passed a 1% increase.

The Report believes that this missed opportunity will come back to haunt the commissioners.

While they will be able to stabilize current operations of county departments of government with the 0.5%, there is no room whatsoever to get aggressive with dealing with the virtual non-existence of an economic development long-term game plan and to get a grip on Stark County's falling apart or deficient infrastructure which includes more than the ditching problem.

As an example,  how about the stagnation on completely and fully bringing Stark County's 9-1-1 emergency call receiving/dispatch system to a "state-of-the-art" condition because of a lack of funding necessary to finalize the project?

The SCPR also thinks that the commissioners may not have raised dog license and other fees enough when they acted last year.

The Stark County Dog Pound is set up financially to be self-supporting enterprise fund type of operation.  The fact that commissioners are taking anywhere $70,000 to $80,000 from the county capital improvement fund in clear indication, among others, that they were too conservative in making sure that the enterprise fund-esque SCDP financing system has adequate revenues to meet annual needs including capital funding requirements.

There are other capital fund needs (e.g. development of a spay-and-neuter clinic and a walking path) at the Pound in addition to the ventilation system which commissioners have not dealt with.  Is the reason for inaction a lack of funding?

Nonetheless, the SCPR does think that progress is being made by the current commissioners on solving persisting Pound problems.

It is clear to The Report that there is a poor relationship between members of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board and Pound volunteers vis-a-vis the commissioners, employees at the Pound (who appear to be overzealous in protecting their employment turf from intrusion by the volunteers) and Warden Reagan Tetreault.

There is some thinking that the relationships are so bad that the commissioners will later this month disband the SCABDP in an attempt rid themselves, the warden and the personnel at the Pound of what it appears they believe to be an overstepping of a proper role on the part of the advisory board members and volunteers.

If the commissioners were to do so, the SCPR believes that such would be an admission that the commissioners and the management at the Pound do not have the necessarily leadership skills to deal with these volunteer and perhaps overzealous (in the sense of understanding who is in charge) Stark County citizens and to, over time, refashion the relationships into a complementary modality.

While it is not comfortable for those who have to deal with complaints without seeming end, it is important that the likes of Judith King and Stark County dog lovers to have a forum within which to bring Pound problems to the attention of the Stark County public through the commissioners.

King has made her points to the commissioners and to the Stark County media.  The commissioners have responded.  (see above)

The SCPR encourages the commissioners to stay the course on disbanding the SCDPAB, if they in fact are considering doing such, and instead use their collective leadership skills to initiate a "come and let us reason together" communication structure with their advisers in order to achieve a workable balance among all the parties involved.

If the commissioners do decide to disband the advisory board, won't they thereby be sending a message to the Stark County public they do not have the patience and political grace necessary to lead in the messy business of our American democracy?

VIDEOS OF "ANTI-FRACKERS" AT PUBLIC SPEAKS AT CANTON CITY COUNCIL MONDAY NIGHT. CAN THE ANTI-FRACKERS "PERSUADE" CANTON CITY COUNCIL TO FIND ANOTHER WAY TO GENERATE $500,000 RATHER THAN LEASE CITY OWNED PROPERTY FOR FRACKING?

Canton municipal government is desperate for revenues these days.

Mayor William J. Healy, II recently laid out a number of options for the city's lawmakers to consider in making moves to close a $4 million to $4.5 million gap between projected expenses expected revenues come 2013.

The options include the raising of about $500,000 from the leasing of city lands to frackers to extract natural gas deposits embedded in rock some 8,000 feet below the surface.

At his recent State of the City Address, Mayor Healy designated Canton as being "The Utica Capital" to stand along side of Canton being "The Pro Football Hall of Fame City" as Canton's claim to fame.

The idea of "The Utica Capital" is to send a message to the natural gas and oil industry that Canton has its arms wide open for the industry to come to Canton and Stark County with jobs.  

If they come, Canton stands to reduce its unemployment ranks even further than its present 7.4% and also gain valuable revenues from increased income tax collections.

On the Canton City Council agenda was the first reading of an ordinance authorizing city administration officials to negotiate a lease with companies that might be interested in fracking on city owned property.

When word got out that the council was considering the lease of lands for fracking, the word went out from the well-organized Stark County anti-fracking community to show up and object.

And they did.  By the SCPR's count, 11 of them.

One of the primary actions of previous council actions the objectors referred to was a January 3, 2011 "informal" resolution passed which asked for a moratorium on fracking, to wit:

The informal resolution was about all Canton City Council could do because of legislation (supported by the entire Stark County delegation at the time of voting in 2004 on Senate Bill 165 and 2010 House Bill 278 [i.e. Kirk Schuring, Scott Oelslager, John Hagan, William J. Healy, II, and Stephen Slesnick] which took away all effective means of local government to deal with the extraction of minerals.

Obviously, they (the anti-frackers) are taken aback by council's flirtation with doing business with an industry engaged in an extraction operation that the previous council felt needed more examination.

What a difference financial need can make, no?

And with the mayor cozying up with the oil and gas industry (remember:  "The Utica Capital"), does it do any good for dissenters to show up and object?

Maybe?

What does not work is for the speakers to be outsiders telling Canton government what it ought to be doing, so says Mayor Healy in a conversation with yours truly.

He cited the inability of trap, neuter and return advocates with respect to managing the feral cat population as an example of pleas falling on council deaf ears when it became apparent that nearly all the advocates were from outside the city.

Well, if his take is a valid assessment of what works and what does not work with Canton's legislators,  then it appears that council is likely to authorize the solicitation of bids to lease out city lands.

However, Mayor Healy does not discount the effect that citizens-united can have on what city council ultimately decides to do on any given issue.

He acknowledges that it is not unusual for him to get one read in talking to councilpersons individually only to be surprised to see a turnabout after public input has been made which sometimes results in a final decision different from what he anticipated.

The anti-frackers should be encouraged to hear from Healy that council, from his perspective, has its own mind and that the body sometimes does not follow (after public pressure is brought to bear) what he gathered as being council's pre-public-speaks position.

But they should be discouraged from the standpoint that too many of their number on Monday night were not voting residents of Canton.

To be effective, the anti-frackers need to find more voting Cantonians (if they exist, and, of course, are willing) to come to public speaks and identify themselves by ward as being against Canton leasing its lands for natural gas and oil exploration.

With Canton seeking ways to balance its budget, the prospect of a lump sum of $500,000 plus annual royalty payments for as long as a given well is a producing well has to be compelling to many members of council.

A few of the speakers on Monday said in effect:  Find the $500,000 elsewhere.

Okay.

They can put the burden on council members to find alternatives, it is council's job.  However, do the anti-frackers want to be effective?

Maybe their case would be strengthened if they were to present viable alternatives to the members of council as how to make up the $500,000 plus to be lost in not doing leases.

The SCPR believes that there are at least three council persons who will not vote for the lease ordinance.  However, the anti-frackers have to move the number up to at least six on the presumption that the tie-breaking vote of Council President Allen Schulman would fall their way.

So to summarize, the anti-frackers, if they are to succeed, must as a practical matter:

• populate their public speaks presenters with actual Canton voters, and
• suggest workable and viable alternative sources for council to come up with the forgone $500,000

While it is true that human beings cannot drink money, and if Canton goes ahead and leases and a problem develops affecting the potability of its drinking water supply and the consequences of the problem(s) will be that heads will roll and there will be wholesale changes in the make up of Canton City Council; nobody (including the legislative deciders) wants the citizenry to go through such a trauma.

And such a possibility is clearly the "elephant in the room" that in and of itself that may motivate council to reject the lease ordinance.

But the SCPR believes that this scenario is not direct and forceful enough in a political action sense, for the anti-frackers to realize their objective.

Right now Canton (the deficit not dealt with) faces the loss of some 80 to 100 safety forces.

Certainly the potability of water is extremely important.  But so is the safety of Canton's citizens.

If council decides to go ahead with leases, they will have satisfied themselves that they have taken prudent measures to prevent the corruption of public drinking water supplies.  The SCPR is unwilling to believe that council will decide to lease without having assured themselves that they are doing the responsible thing.

But they still can be wrong as the anti-frackers most certainly would believe if they are not successful in convincing council not to go down the lease-for-fracking road.

The SCPR is impressed with the commitment and vigor of the anti-frackers.

But to say it one more time:  to be useful to the general public in their zeal to protect water supplies, fracking dissenters must convince a majority of Canton's legislators:

• that there would be specific adverse political consequences to non-supportive councilpersons if they vote to authorize leases by presenting numbers of voting Cantonians that suggest that their continued service on council could be in jeopardy, and
• that councilpersons should select from a number of specific possible alternatives to find revenues than to lease Canton lands anywhere near the aquifers that serve Cantonians.

One speaker from the collection of videos below said that it was up to council to develop an alternative.

Okay, fracking objectors.   Have it your way.  Provide no guidance or suggestions and lose on the final vote on the issue.

What kind of sense does that make?

In short, the anti-frackers need to become political realists!  The SCPR has never questioned the anti-frackers zeal, but The Report does question their ability to put forth effective political action.

What follows in a series of videos of anti-frackers/anti-lease presenters at Monday's "Public Speaks" segment of the Canton City Council meeting.