(VIDEO: SCPR INTERVIEW OF CANDIDATES BILL SMUCKLER & RICHARD REGULA) SELECTING A CANDIDATE FOR STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONER, WILL THE FULL TIME/PART TIME ISSUE BE THE DIFFERENCE MAKER?

Though they run as Republicans and Democrats, political affiliation should be a non-factor as to whom someone votes for in an election for county commissioner.

Republican Richard Regula and Democrat Bill Smuckler sat down with the SCPR yesterday and fielded questions from The Report (see video at the end of this blog).

Yes, partisanship might not be a key ingredient in deciding whom to vote for, a somewhat philosophical partisan note might have been sounded by Regula as he talked about the county (the engineer's office) sourcing jobs out to the private sector; a  notion and concept he wholeheartedly supports.

A Republican game plan often includes privatization as some sort of panacea for whatever ails a given level of government.

Other than that, the SCPR heard very little that might smack of a particularly political tint.

Oh yes, Regula is wildly enthusiastic about Utica shale oil and gas exploration as a main and enduring factor in Stark County's economic factor.

The Report does believe that Republicans are more enamored with the oil and gas and the fracking industry than Democratic officeholders, but there are plenty of Democrats who are fully on board with fracking as an economic recovery cure-all.  Witness Democratic Canton mayor William J. Healy, II who has dubbed Canton as "The Utica Capital."

Regula insists however that he is attentive to fracking environmental concerns and points to his work done during a previous term as commissioner (January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2006) monitoring landfills which dot southern Stark County.

Regula's opponent, Democrat Bill Smuckler, was much more measured on the significance of fracking as an enduring and permanent basis upon which Stark County should build its economic future.  And he seems to The Report to have greater concerns about a negative impact that fracking might have on the environment.

It does come through that Richard Regula enjoyed being commissioner and wants to return so that he can pick up where he left off in 2006.

His political base is out in Stark's townships.  He has served as a Bethlehem trustee and a Navarre village councilman.

A driving force with him seems to be having grown up in Stark County farming country and his fascination with the 4-H movement.  He see 4-H as being an organization that the county should foster as a means toward developing wholesome adult Stark County citizens of the future.

Smuckler, on the other hand, is a city boy.

And this could work against his being elected county commissioner.  Sitting commissioner Tom Bernabei has much the same political/governmental background as Smuckler and was narrowly elected in 2010.  This time around, go figure, he is running unopposed.

Smuckler has been a long time fixture in Canton city politics and government.  He has served as councilman, council president and has run for mayor of Canton twice.

His passion has been for years,  getting everybody in Stark County officialdom to work together.

This former Canton city councilman is probably Stark County's most ardent advocate of intergovernmental collaboration, consolidation, merger and sharing of services.

He may be a city boy, but he aspires to bring all of Stark County together in working out agreements:

• on a centralized and reformed countywide 9-1-1 operation in which police, fire and ambulances are sent efficiently and effectively to the scene of an emergency
• on building department operations
• on health department functions, and
• on any other efficiencies that can be realized.

In fact, his campaign motto is:  "Building bridges, not walls."

He wants to devote energies to pick up on the work of current Stark County Commissioner Pete Ferguson  who has made collaboration, consolidation, merger and "shared services" a focal point of his time as commissioner.

Regula and Smuckler are running for Ferguson's seat inasmuch as he has decided not to seek re-election.

Smuckler has been criticized as being "all talk and very little action" on bringing Stark County's political subdivisions together on various efficiency projects.

But he has powerful evidence to the contrary.  He points to himself as being a key in the collaboration between Canton and Jackson Township in August, 2010 when the city and the township worked out a Comprehensive Economic Development Agreement (CEDA).

Regula and Smuckler differ in the approach on solving chronic flooding problems that have afflicted Stark County's villages, cities, and townships in recent years.

Smuckler thinks that each community owes its citizens to step-up-to-the-plate with "real" money to contribute to localized projects to deal with specific community problems.

Regula has a more global approach (i.e. federal funding, Muskingum Watershed funding, et cetera) and also emphasizes educating residents adjacent to ditches such as the well known Stark County Zimber Ditch to not contribute to the problems by dumping refuse into the ditches.

The foregoing narrative does point out differences between these two candidates.

For its part, the SCPR believes that this is another race (e.g. Dordea versus McDonald in the sheriff's race) where the voters really can't go wrong.

But The Report is fascinated with the possibilities that Smuckler offers with his history of working for county/city/village/township collaborations.

It appears that the Kasich administration is pushing localities into mergers, consolidations and shared services arrangements.

It could be that the timing could not be better for Smuckler, if he is elected commissioner, to be in a position to make his many years of pushing for governmental efficiencies pay off.

An interesting aspect of the Smuckler/Regula face-off is whether or not the candidate plans on being a "full time or part time" county commissioner.

Smuckler, who owns a business with two siblings, says they will run their restaurant supply business whereas Regula says that he plans to stay on with his full time position with Mercy Medical Center.

The SCPR has been getting some negative feedback on Regula's "part time" plans.

Perhaps, the outcome of the election will turn on that issue.

The SCPR sat down with the two candidates yesterday and spent over an hour with them going over factors that Stark Countians ought to be considering in determining whom to vote for.

STARK CO. CLERK OF COURT CANDIDATES REINBOLD & HEIMBAUGH TUSSLE TO GET IN THE LAST WORD ON THE SCPR?

Back on October 12th, the SCPR did its last (LINK) of a succession of blogs on the Stark County clerk of courts race between Democrat and incumbent Nancy Reinbold and Republican challenger Jeff Heimbaugh.

Readers of this blog owe it to themselves to take a few minutes to click on the LINK and get up to speed on the back-and-forth between Heimbaugh and Reinbold  (and her emissaries) so as to appreciate the significance of this particular blog:  "Who Gets the Last Word?"

The October 12th blog was given life when The Report was contacted by Stark County Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) project manager Randy Gonzalez (who also is Stark County Democratic Party chairman) who invited yours truly to go to the Canton Municipal clerk of courts office (run by elected-Clerk Phil Giavasis [former Reinbold boss]) to see the "spit and polish" of CJIS "up close and personal."  (The Report's words, not Gonzalez's)

And, indeed, the CJIS operation is impressive.

Apparently, the invitation and the schooling on CJIS was supposed to put the "perfect squelch" on anything that Heimbaugh could possibly say as a rejoinder and would lead the SCPR to conclude that any additional Heimbaugh responses should be ignored.

Well, that is not quite how the SCPR operates.

Needless to say, over the nearly five years that the Stark County Political Report has been published, yours truly has received complaints/observations from time-to-time that "there is more to the story."

The Report's response?

Fine, send in an e-mail to tramols@att.net composed "in your own words" and the SCPR will publish it word-for-word.

Quite a few Stark County public officials and other subjects of SCPR blogs have taken advantage of The Report's open invitation.

Those who decline should be thought of as being whiners who are trying to put the SCPR on the defensive and perhaps affect the tone, the critique, of future blogs merely by virtue of having whined.

Kind of like the player or coach who complains to the referee not because he thinks the call will get reversed.  Rather he hopes the next call will go in his favor merely because he protested.  Protest is in and of itself is designed to make the referee see that he has somehow been unfair.

In the sporting event context, one suspects that whining works on occasion.

However, not with the SCPR.  But The Report has a fullproof way to deal with a complainer/observer.

The Report opens up the pages of the blog to let the "offended" person state his/her case.  The readers of the blog will then decide whether or not he/she has made his/her case.

Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero comes to mind as a local public official who consummately bellyaches about how unfair the SCPR is to him.

But not one time has he ever had the fortitude to come on the blog with his counter to the blogs he complains about.

Apparently, he thinks his performance in office is immune to scrutiny as evidenced by his bellyaching.

Justices of the United States Supreme Court get roundly criticized for their work on the bench, if not lambasted,  by not only media types and by members of the bar who make it clear that they are speaking as members of the profession.

Only last week, yours truly saw Justice Scalia on a CNN program defending and explaining himself.

Hmm?

Justice Scalia, who draws perhaps more scrutiny and criticism than any other jurist, takes the criticism in the spirit of public debate that better informs the public.

But John Ferrero, what does he do?  He sulks and seeks to silence his critics.

The Report does not look for it to happen, but it would be "sweet indeed" for Stark County if Stark County voters were to unseat Ferrero in favor of Republican Mike Grady on the 6th of next month.

Thankfully, Ferrero is an exception among Stark County politicians and elected office holders; not the rule.

Heimbaugh has been the latest in a long line of SCPR subjects to take up the continuing SCPR to respond to a blog "in his own words."

Today, The Report presents Randy Gonzalez's response to an SCPR inquiry and (partially) a Heimbaugh's e-mail of October 12th (published as an "update" to the blog of same date.

The Report's inquiry:

From: Martin Olson <tramols@att.net>Subject: CJIS budgetTo: "Randy Gonzalez" <randy.gonzalez@cantonohio.gov>Date: Thursday, October 11, 2012, 1:19 PM
Randy, 

I forgot to take the copy of the CJIS budget that you printed out for me yesterday. 

Would you please e-mail it to me (or fax it to 330 838 2342). 

As I indicated I would, II did check out the point we discussed as to whether or not was Heimbaugh was calling for "off-the-shelf" software to take care of CJIS and other court-related.  It appears to me that you and Phil are correct in your take on Heimbaugh's position. 

Heimbaugh does talk about a plan to upgrade the CJIS system to enable e-filing of court pleadings and that there might be a module with "of-the-self" [sic] software that could make it much cheaper to do than if CJIS were to be upgraded. 

Is there such a plan (i.e. upgrade CJIS to include e-filing)?  If so, when is it to be done? If so, what is the projected cost?  If so, would Yates be the person doing the programing for such an upgrade?  If so, is the work to be included in the $85,000 per year contract price? 

Thanks,
Martin/SCPR

Gonzalez's response:

Re: Fw: CJIS budgetTuesday, October 16, 2012 10:43 AM
From: "Randy Gonzalez" <randy.gonzalez@cantonohio.gov>View contact details
To: "Martin Olson" <tramols@att.net>

Martin, attached is the budget you requested. Also by all the Courts working together with CJIS it gives us the ability to shop pricing for products like ORACLE and drive the prices down for all by using they get all or no contracts from Stark County. Also the CJIS server can serve as an additional back up for all the courts and information request for all courts come from one place instead of 4 separate request. 

In addition to court management systems CJIS also includes: 

Population control for the jail package
Prosecutors package
Probation Package
Pre Trial Release Package
Compliant maker for law enforcement package
Line-ups for law enforcement
Online Payments
Complete Warrant data base for all courts and law enforcement.
Jail Photos
Reports all 4 court centrally to State agencies. (Supreme Court, BMV, BCI and so on)
Coming soon will be paperless uniform traffic tickets. 

Again there is no charge to any agency for CJIS not the jail, law enforcement or any other user. It is paid for by user based fees established statutorily that created the Clerks of Court automation fund. 

In answer to your question attached; Judge Heath went to a judicial seminar and became involved in pursuing e filing. She and Nancy started a committee which included the main users (attorneys). Yes they are not looking to reinvent the wheel and are familiar with a couple different successful system currently being used in Franklin and Montgomery Counties. The attorneys are also used to those systems.  

CJIS will be the portal to the E filing system and yes Chris Yates will develop the interface with the vendor chosen at no additional charge, it is part of his job. Implementing E filing through CJIS, will include all 4 courts and again will keep the cost down by each not going off on their own while adding continuity of all users. 1 contract not 4! 

Hope this answers your questions, although as I stated yesterday I believe Nancy has answered these questions and at our meeting Phil and I have also went over all of this. I trully [sic] appreciate your thoroughness so I hope this does it. 

During The Report's one-on-two (with Gonzalez and Giavasis), Gonzalez made a point of saying that the above-budget is funded by a $10 per filing fee (to fund a court technology fund) attached to each and every new case filing with the respective listed courts. And, consequently, taxpayers do not pay for CJIS.

The implication, The Report believes, is that CJIS is free to Stark County taxpayers.

Hmm?

The SCPR begs to differ with Gonzalez, if that was his point.

The vast majority of those who file cases in Stark County courts are Stark County citizens who happen also to be Stark County taxpayers at various levels of local government.

Gonzalez's position is somewhat analogous to former Governor Ted Strickland raising fees for certain State of Ohio fees by $36 million across a number of state agencies several years ago.  His spinmeisters maintained that the $36 was not a tax increase.

Hmm?

A final point.

It could be that this blog is "the last word" on the Reinbold/Heimbaugh race.

That is, if both sides cease weighing in on the toplic.

For like no other Stark County media, the SCPR is committed to allowing subjects to get their full point-of-view before the Stark County public.

However, the issues raised in the Reinbold/Heimbaum series of blogs go beyond the campaign itself.

The SCPR will be pushing the Stark County commissioners to fully vet whether or not it is in the best interest of Stark Countians to continue to contract with an out-of-county host/maintainer of CJIS when it comes up again next year.

THERE IS GOING TO BE A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN COME JANUARY 1, 2013. SCPR ANALYZES THE CANDIDATES ON KEY ISSUES

Last week Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez said that he is confident that Chief Deputy Sheriff Mike McDonald (Jail Division) will be Stark County's next sheriff.

Undoubtedly, Republican Jeff Matthews is saying the same thing about Larry Dordea.

Whomever it is among the two, the winner on November 6th will be joining a long line of men who have served Stark County as sheriff.

The SCPR believes the race is too close to call.

No doubt, most partisans will be lining up as Democrats for McDonald and Republicans for Dordea.

But then there are a whole lot of us Stark Countians who do not vote that way.

We look at the candidates in the context of their experience and differences between them on the issues and perhaps an intangible or two in deciding whom to vote for.

EXPERIENCE

The SCPR says that on experience there is pretty much a tie.

Yes, Mike McDonald has been with the sheriff's department since 1977 but he has never had the overall responsibility of directing the entire operation.

Larry Dordea, on the other hand, has been the chief of relatively small police departments:  Alliance for some 20 years and Hartville for the last four or so.

It is difficult to comparatively evaluate supervision experience based on one candidate being in charge of a jailing operation (McDonald) and the other a police chief.

Both have served with distinction and therefore The Report believes both have "the right stuff" to be "the leader" of the sheriff's department of Stark County government.

ISSUES

Picking up on The Rep's Kelli Young's article (October 7th - For the first time in 13 years, Stark County will have a new top cop in January,) as a framework for the SCPR's analysis of the strengths/weaknesses of the candidates, here is the SCPR's take.

Note:  While The Report has cited Young's piece, yours truly has had numerous Q&As with both candidates on these very issues.

ROAD PATROLS

Sitting Sheriff Tim Swanson has never (in the memory of the SCPR) had an effective road patrol in terms of covering Stark County.

The Report is acutely aware of Swanson's deficiency (which he says is due to lack of financial resources) inasmuch as yours truly is situated in Lake Township where the the sheriff is responsible for the bulk of township policing because only the village of Hartville and unincorporated Uniontown have police forces (nine square miles).

But the problem is not limited to Lake.  Other than Stark's villages and municipalities and a few townships, most of the land mass of Stark County is dependent on Stark County sheriff patrol services.  And they are virtually non-existent.

McDonald's solution?

Jockey personnel from other aspects of the the sheriff's overall operations to road patrol to increase road patrols.

Dordea's solution?

Draw upon the department's reserve officer corp to produce an elasticity that would allow for the freeing up of sheriff's department personnel to increase its presence out in the unpoliced townships.

Who's idea is better?

Dordea's.

If he can overcome work rule issues and convince the reserve officers that the should "voluntarily" acquiesce to Dordea's mandate to retain certification, Dordea's plan could result in a substantially increased road patrol presence in the county and also cut down significantly on response times when an emergency call is made to the sheriff.

The Report believes McDonald's plan is not a real plan to fix the deficient sheriff patrol operation.  It appears to be based on "a hope and a prayer" that he can manipulate the workforce to scratch out a few more road patrol personnel.

Stark Countians should be interested in concrete plans not speculative ones.

Again, in the opinion of the SCPR, Dordea has the better idea.

DETECTIVE BUREAU

As strange as it seems, the Stark County sheriff's department (due to historical financial troubles) a Stark County Sheriff Detective Bureau as such does not exist.

Now that Stark County has passed and is collecting on a criminal justice and administration sales tax (0.5% for eight years in November, 2011), it is time to get a "formal" bureau up and running.

Dordea's plan?

He says he will re-establish a centralized detective bureau but will go one better.  He envisions a detective operation in which he deputizes detectives that currently function in that capacity (in township, village and city police departments) as an additional investigative capacity for the sheriff to tap into.

While he does not call it a regionalization of policing in Stark County, the SCPR believes that is what it amounts to and thinks that these kinds of "sharing of services" (as Stark County Commissioner Pete Ferguson likes to term cooperative agreements) are the way to go.

Such a structure would be:

• more efficient than solely having a centralized unit, and
• would likely increase detective services across the county and result in more law violators being brought to justice.

McDonald's plan:

Appears to be re-establishing a centralized detective bureau to work more closely with village, city and township policing units.

Of the two, the SCPR is more impressed with Dordea's plan.

SWAT TEAM

Another casualty of the financial hit to the sheriff's department has taken over recent times, it is imperative that Stark County have a complete ability to respond to violent incidents which surface from time-to-time.

Of course, everybody hopes that Stark County will never be faced with an Aurora, Colorado event, but something similar could happen and the county needs to be prepared.

Canton has an excellent SWAT operation, but it is designed to deal with incorporated city of Canton events.  Obviously, if something happened out in the county, mutual policing would kick in and Canton would assist.

But it could be that Canton will have its own problem as the same time there is one occurring out in the county.

So, Stark County must have its own capacity or alternatively a binding agreement (something stronger than mutual aid) that ensure that should simultaneous incidents occur in Canton and out in the county, that the county has earmarked capability to respond.

McDonald's plan?

Not reinvent the wheel.  

McDonald wants take county resources and equipment and  team up with Canton to provide SWAT services for all of Stark County including all of its cities, villages and townships.

A laudable goal, McDonald's plan is.  But is it workable?

The SCPR believes that it is difficult to work any cooperative agreement with the city of Canton these days with William J. Healy, II serving as its mayor.

Understandably, Healy takes the position that his first obligation is to the citizens of Canton.  But he goes beyond that.  He as mayor of Canton wants to control any effort to consolidate citizen services.

Accordingly, The Report is skeptical that the sheriff's department can work out a plan with Canton that would ensure that those living outside the city of Canton would have SWAT services available should a simultaneous event occur in the city and out in the county.

Dordea's plan?

Reconstruct a county SWAT team.

Who's idea is better?

The SCPR's heart is with McDonald's because it has the potential to be more efficient and effective because of bringing resources together.

However, it could also be unrealistic given who is mayor of Canton.

It could be that Dordea's plan is the realistic one.

INTANGIBLES

A major advantage for Dordea is the "fresh ideas" factor.

In presenting his positions on various aspects of increasing the efficiencies and effectiveness of sheriff department operations, Dordea show that he is willing to entertain novel ideas.

A major advantage for McDonald is his long term tenure at the sheriff's department.  He has been there for nearly 35 years.  While most of his experience has been with the jailing operation, undoubtedly he has learned valuable lessons of "sheriffing" from the likes of Papadopulos, Stern, Umpleby and Swanson.

CONCLUSION

The SCPR is of the opinion that no matter whom from among Dordea and McDonald is elected sheriff on November 6th, the county will have a first-rate sheriff.

Whom to vote for?

That is a decision that each and every voter has to make.

And it is a difficult one for the non-partisan, "I want the best man" type of voter.

Difficult though it may be, it is the civic responsibility of each and every Stark Countian to make a thoughtful decision and not a "knee-jerk" partisan one!

SCPR HALF-AGREES WITH PLAIN TWP TRUSTEE SCOTT HAWS. HE HAS AN APOLOGY COMING! - AND, WHAT'S MORE - ONE SHOULD BE WARY ABOUT DRIVING THROUGH NORTH CANTON, NO?

A North Canton Police Department (NCPD) officer pulled over Plain Township trustee Scott Haws at 12:05 a.m. early Saturday morning of September 8th.

According to an NCPD press release Haws was spotted by one of the department's officers making lane violations near the intersection of Market Avenue, North and East Maple Street.

Moreover, the officer is said to have suspected that Haws was driving while impaired.

To his credit, Haws agreed to take a breathalyser test (according to his attorney) and provide a urine sample (according to media reports).

How often have Stark Countians read about other public officials who have been stopped for similar reasons who have refused to cooperate with a police investigation in terms of submitting to sobriety tests?   Some of them have been members of a unit of Stark County law enforcement.

Hmm?

But Haws was a police officer's dream.

Again, he fully cooperated!

And what did it get him for for his good dead?

What all too many times happens to anyone who does good deeds?  (Ever hear the adage:  "No good deed goes unpunished.")

He got charged (on the 8th) with:

• a misdemeanor offense of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OVI charge) based on subjective observation rather than the results of an objective test
• before the results of the "objective" tests were in

As far as the SCPR is concerned, making an "on-the-spot" charge of a lane violation was completely understandable and reasonable.  The officer saw what the officer saw.  And Haws ultimately pleaded "no contest" to this particular charge.

So for the lane violation part of the incident, the NCPD certainly does not owe Haws an apology.

However, the "driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs" charge, in the opinion of the SCPR, is quite a different thing.

It now appears that the OVI charge on the 8th was a case of a "rush to judgment."

What was the hurry?

Haws isn't going anywhere.  From the NCPD press release published below:  His record indicates that he is a respected and devoted public official.

Get the tests evaluated and if they meet the statutory threshold,  Haws is going to be accessible and amenable to the additional charge.

We now know that there was no credible objective alcohol/drug test basis for Haws:

• to have been detained until 1:22 a.m. 
• and arrangements were made for his car to be towed, and
• released to the custody of a friend.

And, of course, we know "the rest of the story:" - eventually the charge was dismissed.

Apparently, the only basis for the OVI charge was solely on the subjective judgment of the officer who made the stop.

And human beings do make mistakes.  We all do.

But no apology by North Canton for its mistake?

Here is the complete NCPD press release on Haws' demand that the department apologize to him for the OVI charge:

The City of North Canton is pleased that Haws was vindicated of the OVI charge. [SCPR:  Who believes this?] His record indicates that he is a respected and devoted public official. However, given the circumstances surrounding the reason for the traffic stop, and his behavior during the stop, the officer had probable cause to believe that he was impaired.

The officer treated Haws as he would any other citizen. Upon exhibiting signs of impairment — for his safety, and the safety of others — he was placed into custody, issued a summons and was released to a responsible person, all within about an hour.

The North Canton police officer followed standard protocol in this matter. Its officers will continue this practice. It will not apologize for doing so.

What the press release seems to ignore is that the officer made a mistake of subjective judgment.

And the SCPR believes that in glossing over a mistake which had highly embarrassing and unwarranted publicity consequences for Trustee Haws and compounding the mistake in refusing to apologize, the NCPD brought on itself an erosion in the public confidence of its policing procedures.

In taking this tack, the NCPD is following a practice of all too many public officials and agencies of government from the highest federal level down to boards of education.

Numerous examples abound where a public official has made a human mistake but then individually or through a department of government memo (sometimes both) adopts the attitude that "the king (i.e. the government) does no wrong."

Most of the time an innocent citizen has no recourse.

For departments of government are well known for their skill at engaging CYA operations.

But then the SCPR, for one, does not want to hear those same officials and their departments of government complain about a diminution of public respect.

They bring it on themselves!

PART III - A SCPR CRITIQUE OF THE JEFFERSON ACTION RENACCI/SUTTON CITIZENS FORUM

Jefferson Action (a 501c4 non-profit civic education organization) provided citizens of the 16th congressional district a splendid public service in selecting the district to be a focal point of a citizen inquiry into candidates Jim Renacci's (R - Wadsworth) and Betty Sutton's (D - Copley) view on various economic issues at play in their match up against one another to see which of the two will remain in Congress.

Renacci and Sutton (both currently in Congress [Renacci - the 16th], [Sutton - the 13th]) were forced to run against one another because U.S. Constitution required decennial redistricting required a reallocation of congressional seats across America with population losing states [Ohio was one of them, losing two seats due to population loss] ceding seats to states gaining population.

The Jefferson Action process (a seven day one spread out over three months:  July, September & October) involved:

• In July,  getting a 24 member randomly chosen 16th District citizen group (which actually ended up being 23 number) and identifying the boilerplate issues, to wit:
• Weak Economic growth,
• Unemployment, and
• the Federal Deficit and Debt
• In September, preparing the citizens group to acquire a depth of information about the issues with which to frame specific questions of each Renacci and Sutton bounded by the generalized issues of weak economic growth, unemployment and the federal deficit and debt,
• In October, (the SCPR was present and videotaped both candidate interviews) meeting each of the candidates face-to-face (The Report being one of the media present), but separate from each other, for about 75 minutes of a back and forth on pre-framed question with spontaneous follow up.

While The Report applauds the project having been put together and implemented, it is important to the integrity of the process that Jefferson Action, the citizen-participants and the candidates performance be reviewed and critiqued.

Such is the focus of this blog.

Prior blogs have honed in:

• on the organization of the project with an SCPR evaluation on whether or not Jefferson Action put together a "sustainable" model for other civic involvement organizations to follow (LINK),
• on the preparation of the citizens group in terms of whether or not the members were adequately prepared to frame meaningful questions, both prepared and spontaneous follow up, to pose to the question and designed to compel the candidates to be responsive to the questions asked (LINK to a prior blog which dealt somewhat with the preparation phase.  

As previously stated, this blog is an analysis of how effectively Jefferson Action, the citizen group members, and the candidates themselves responded to the challenge.

A wealth of materials covering the entire seven days is available at Jefferson Action's website (LINK).

In hindsight, looking at what appears to be a consistently "skewed" citizen evaluation in Renacci's favor, the SCPR believes that the "random" selection process was not thoroughly thought out and resulted in a group composition predisposed to the congressman's viewpoint.

In reviewing the citizen-group's "votes" on the candidates' responses to the questions presented to them on weak economic growth, unemployment and the federal debt, the SCPR's take is that the result was not as much as thoughtful analysis of the candidate responses as Jefferson Action would undoubtedly preferred, but appears to have been laced with underlying political preference.

Moreover, it appears (again, in hindsight, seeing the groups' findings - LINK) that the stronger personalities within the group were Republican "right-of-center" types (one person, in particular, stood out) who prevailed in terms of getting their views accepted by the more neutral members of the group.

A solution?

Jefferson Action should have put more effort in ensuring that the group participants were eight solid Republicans, eight solid Democrats, and eight solid independents. 

It is very easy to check historical voting records in primaries.  Determining who has voted consistently and which political party ballot they have taken or that they have taken no party ballot at all is a walk in the park.

Also, pre-selection interviews from a pool of potential selectees should resulted in the ferreting out of overpowering personalities.

It was obvious to The Report that one personality in particular was driving the engine of JA selected group and possibly was a key factor in slanting the vote of the group as a whole towards Renacci.

The SCPR's take on the Renacci/Sutton answers was that the quality of  their answers was pretty much of a draw. 

It seems to yours truly that the citizen-participant follow ups were not strong/persistent enough to have any hope of driving the candidates off their talking points.

And consequently seasoned political observers would be hard pressed to say that one candidate was more effectively responsive that the other.

Here is an example.

One of Renacci's bromides at the forum, which is a well-known universal talking point among many Republican candidates, is the insistence that lower taxes produce jobs.

Well, there is another point-of-view.

Democrats (and, of course Congresswoman Sutton) rightly or wrongly, are fond of saying "we have tried that and where did it lead us?"

Democrats in Congress (including Sutton) and President Obama favor massive infrastructure investment a la President Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal."

But the follow up questions, failed:

• to draw out distinct clarity on the differences between the candidates,  and
• to press for evidence that one answer was more right for the country than the other.

The citizens could easily have asked Renacci to provide data that the tax cut approach has worked.

And anticipating what clearly was going to be a main tenet of what Sutton was going to say, why wouldn't "inquiring minds" want to ask him what part a "spending for infrastructure" might play in job recovery and economic recovery.

Sutton should have been asked for economic studies that are evidence that the tax cut scenario does not pan out.

And Sutton should have been pressed on her infrastructure argument.  For beginners: what was good for the 1930s and 1940s might will work in 2012, no?  The candidates should have been pressed to provide evidence for his/her point-of-view.

To be fair to the citizens, the SCPR believes the structure of the separate interviews was inadequate to the task at hand and greatly hampered the type of vetting of the candidates that might have been more enlightening as to which view offered solutions to what ails the country on the economic front.

A more beneficial format would have been for it to have been a townhall-esque setting like the one that Romney and Obama will be having Tuesday night.

Jefferson Action's 16th congressional district citizens forum project was a noble enterprise.

But it could have been so much more!

CJIS (CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM) "A POLITICAL FOOTBALL" IN THE STARK COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS RACE? REPUBLICAN JEFF HEIMBAUGH CHALLENGES INCUMBENT CLERK NANCY REINBOLD. BUT IS SHE THE PROPER TARGET?

UPDATE:  10/12/2012 AT 03:10 PM

A response from Jeff Heimbaugh to today's blog:

... there are a few facts and additional comments that your readers should know.

1) $114,000 to run the system. Through an open records request I requested the names and salaries of the programmers etc in the clerk’s office. She provided the names of the two employees whose total salary is $100,000. With benefits Ms Reinbold stated the total cost is approx. $143,000. Add the $80,000 for the Utah employee and the cost of the system is closer to $225,000. That’s just for the clerk’s office.

2) From there patrol cars... The information that police can obtain is on a statewide basis is through the Supreme Courts “Ohio Courts Network”. A statewide information exchange system to enable courts and justice system partners to share the information necessary to make critical decisions. Stark County plugs into this system and shares its information with other agencies across the state. This system is available to all counties and agencies and is not unique to Stark

3) Ms Reinbold nor I can state that one system is superior to the other. Neither can we definitevly say there would be savings or additional costs if we switch to commercial software. I am making three points; A)  If developing your own system is the way to go than why is Stark County only one of two court systems (general division) in the entire state operating their own system. (see attached)  B) Common sense informs us the one department of County government is to small to be in the software business. C) Why we don’t look at the two systems and determine once and for all which is better for Stark County. What are they afraid of?

Finally, I find it odd that Ms Reinbold had to have Mr. Giavsis and Gonzalez with her to discuss her own operating system. Shouldn't she is able to defend her record herself. The court is currently looking at a $1,000,000 upgrade to the Clerk of Courts own system. The court rejected putting Ms Reinbold in charge. Wouldn't you think that the Clerks office who developed, maintains, and operates the system would be placed in charge? The Judges work with her every day so are they trying to tell us something? One doesn’t have to look far to see that Ms Reinbold isn’t capable of managing 

ORIGINAL BLOG

It was quite surprising to the SCPR to learn from the perspective of Republican challenger Jeff Heimbaugh to sitting Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold (a Democrat) in a September 19th interview that he believes that not all is well with CJIS (Criminal Justice Information System).

One of Heimbaugh's main arguments is that Reinbold is overpaying for CJIS and that Stark County (CJIS serves the Alliance, Canton, Massillon clerks of courts as well as the Stark County Courts of Common Pleas and the Stark County Sheriff) could do better with off-the-shelf software.

Moreover, Heimbaugh points to a contract entered into between Stark County (approved by the commissioners on August 3, 2011) and a former Stark County employee (Chris Yates, now residing in Utah) for $85,000 annually as an additional unjustified expenditure for Yates' hosting CJIS and maintaining it from Utah on a day-to-day basis.

The SCPR has learned that the entire 2012 budget for CJIS is about $114,000 of which the Yates contract represents some 75%.

Yates apparently left Stark County employment in July/August of 2009 as August is the first month in which Stark County auditor records show his first $7,083.33 monthly contract payment.

Accordingly, the initial contract would have had to have been approved by then Stark County commissioners Todd Bosley, Tom Harmon (a former Canton Municipal Court clerk who retired and was replaced by Phil Giavasis).

It appears Yates got a $20,000 raise by transitioning from county employment to becoming an private sector independent contractor.  Of course, with his leaving county employment, the county was relieved of future benefit payments to him.

For more depth on Heimbaugh points (LINK) and Clerk Reinbold response (LINK), before to sure to read the SCPR's first report on the Heimbaugh/Reinbold race (LINK).

Well, to say the least, Heimbaugh's point-of-view is not shared by those with key roles in the implementation and maintenance of CJIS; namely, Canton Clerk of Courts Phil Giavasis (also director of CJIS) and Randy Gonzalez (a Giavasis employee and CJIS project manager).

The SCPR sat down with Reinbold (who refuses to go on camera) political proxies Gonzalez (who doubles as Stark County Democratic Party chairman) and Giavasis (who was Reinbold's first employer and from whom Reinbold inherited the county clerk position via being the Stark County Democratic Party appointee when Giavasis replaced Tom Harmon as Canton Municipal Court clerk) to get a look at CJIS.

Indeed, CJIS is an impressive operation.

CJIS was Giavasis' brainchild some ten years ago or so.  And Gonzalez has taken hold of the project and made it into the superlative system it is today.

Readers of the SCPR know that yours truly has been a frequently critic of Giavasis and Gonzalez on various topics over the nearly five year existence of The Report.

But on this project, both deserve accolades for putting this information enhancing and Stark County citizen safety enhancing computer mechanism together.

From their patrol cars, Stark County law enforcement officers can access critical information from CJIS on subjects they are dealing with as they are involved in day-to-day policing activities.

And, at any given point-in-time, Stark's judges can access information as to whom they have incarcerated as the Stark County jail, the gravity of an alleged offense as well as their criminal justice history.

This is to mention just a few of the impressive qualities of the computerized system.

As yours truly told Gonzalez and Giavasis, the SCPR has never doubted the value and quality of the CJIS system.

However, how the system is configured in terms of its staffing configuration is fair game for scrutiny and critique.

And this is exactly what clerk of courts candidate Heimbaugh is doing.

The baseline questions as raised by Heimbaugh are:

• whether or not the courts could have the same quality at a lower cost?
• why is it that the host/maintainer is a person who resides in Utah?

Gonzalez and Giavasis made a number of points to The Report in response to Heimbaugh's criticism and recommended fixes:

• CJIS is not the sole creature of the Stark County clerk of courts.  Rather, they say, it is a joint effort of the Stark County clerk (for the Courts of Common Pleas), the Alliance Municipal Court clerk of courts and the Massillon Municipal Court clerk of courts.
• That it would be "to reinvent the wheel" (the SCPR's words not Gonzalez and Giavasis) to go to "off-the-shelf" software and that the result would not compare in quality to CJIS and, moreover, they believed at a much greater cost than Heimbaugh projects.
• The decision to keep Yates on after he left Stark County for Utah was a joint decision of all Stark's clerk of courts on the basis that they felt Yates had acquired unique programming skills (having been schooled in criminal justice system particularities) and losing him would be felt within CJIS.
• While CJIS can and will function effectively/efficiently without Yates (there are five CJIS programmers spread over the various clerks of court offices), Stark County has invested many hours of training in Yates and therefore has a vested interest in keeping him on.
• Gonzalez went so far in one conversation to describe Yates as being at a genius level in his CJIS programming/maintaining skills.
• Yates started his career with Stark County under Janet Creighton when she was Stark County auditor.  When contacted by The Report, Creighton said that while her recollection of him is somewhat vague, she does remember him as a quiet person and being very bright.

So what does the Stark County Report make of "the back and forth" between Heimbaugh over and against Reinbold, Gonazlez and Giavasis?

Here goes:

• Heimbaugh is doing what candidates for public office ought to be doing.  He has examined the operations of the Stark County clerk of courts office and has spotted issues that he thinks need to be dealt with.
• Next summer, the Stark County commissioners will undoubtedly be looking at a new proposal to retain Yates for another contract term.
• As the SCPR recalls, there was no questioning on their part as to whether nor he should be awarded the $170,000 contract.
• The Report finds this a little bit odd inasmuch as yours truly has witnessed quite of number of inquiries (particularly from Commissioner Creighton) when bids are awarded to "out-of-Stark County" contractors, so the question becomes:
• Why not in this case?
• In any event, the "oversight" in 2011 should be rectified in 2013 and the commissioners should use a work session to delve deeply into the justifications of the proponents of retaining Yates (as contrasted to finding a Stark County person).
• Had Heimbaugh not raised the issue in this running against Reinbold, would 2013 be a repeat of 2011?
• Implicitly, Heimbaugh has raised the question of whether or not Stark County ought to be dependent on one person as a "go to" for the hosting and maintenance of CJIS?
• The SCPR thinks not and made that point repeatedly to Gonazlez and Giavasis in Wednesday's conversation.

Heimbaugh has distinguished himself as a political office candidate in asking probing questions.

In doing so, he casts a good model for others running for office.

There are all too many political contests in Stark County in which the non-incumbent candidates seemingly are just going through the motions of running for office.

To name a few names and races, for example:  Butterworth (R) versus Campbell (D) for Stark County recorder and Blaser (R) versus Murthy (D) for Stark County coroner.

The SCPR thinks the odds are heavily against Heimbaugh unseating Reinbold.

Even if he loses, he has made a valuable contribution to the Stark County political landscape.

From the SCPR's perspective there is no such thing as a "holy cow" in Stark County/local government that no one can question!

(VIDEO) COM'R FERGUSON GETS ASSIST IN "SHARED SERVICES" PUSH. CANTON TO GET 50 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR ON OHIO LOCAL GOV'T CUTS FROM CASINO REVENUES. REST OF STARK CO. GOV'TS TO GET ABOUT 25 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR.

Lame duck commissioner Pete Ferguson (his term ends December 31st in that he is not seeking re-election) is receiving an assist in his effort to get Stark County's political subdivisions (i.e. the county itself as well as Stark's villages, cities and townships) to share services.

His effort is to get a cooperative agreement among Alliance, Canal Fulton, Canton, Louisville, Massillon and North Canton on the sharing of services on matters related to implementation of and enforcement of building codes.

Stark County (through Ferguson's initiative) was recently awarded a $75,000 Kasich administration Local Government Innovation Fund grant to study the feasibility of collectivizing county/political subdivision services.

The SCPR has learned from a solid estimate published by Policy Matters Ohio (a centrist think tank) that the cure which local Ohio General Assembly members Hagan (R - Marlboro), Oelslager (R - Plain), Schuring (R - Jackson) and Slesnick (D - Canton) for the dramatic cuts in Ohio's Local Government Fund ("LGF" - to localities (50% over the 2012/13 fiscal year) in the form of casino profits will not begin to fill the financial void created by the LGF rollback.

Canton is the only Stark County entity that will recover 50% of its LGF loss.  The rest of Stark's cities, villages and townships will get about 25 cents on the LGF lost.

And you can be sure that the only way a de facto consolidation of services can occur in Stark County is to go euphemistic and come up with a phrase like "shared services" to describe what looks like and smells like merger and for local communities to be up against it financially.

Stark's political subdivisions zealously guard their independence to the point that the independence becomes "turfism" which in the end hurts the local government in terms of competence and efficiency and all of Stark County in terms of the quality of services provided to the taxpaying public.

At what turned out to be the last "out-in-the-county" community meetings by the Stark County commissioners (ended because of poor attendance) in Lake Township on September 18th, the SCPR captured Commissioner Ferguson explaining to the two or three gathered his initiative and his progress.



Yesterday the The Report spoke with Commissioner Ferguson about his continuing progress as he approaches his end as a county office holder in 81 days.

As an update, he tells The Report that he sent out letters to the mayors/service directors of the Stark targeted communities to ascertain whether or not they have any interest whatsoever in becoming more efficient on administering their building codes.

Next he will hold a face-to-face meeting with interested communities.  At the meetings he will be sharing with officials the savings they can expect to realize from "sharing services."

Beyond the meeting, the next step will be to do the study with the assistance of Stark County Regional Planning Director Robert Nau.

And finally, assuming that there will be a finding that the study will confirm that bringing multiple building departments will be determined to be efficient and cost saving, Stark County will ask Ohio to fund the actual implementation of shared services.

The SCPR reads Ferguson as being somewhat pessimistic that Canton and Alliance will be interested in his cost-saving initiative.

But he says, even if only one city from among Alliance, Canal Fulton, Canton, Louisville, Massillon and North Canton is willing to move forward with Stark County with the feasibility study that it likely will be a go from the State of Ohio.

The SCPR applauds Ferguson for his work and urges Alliance, Canal Fulton, Canton, Louisville, Massillon and North Canton to hear him out on his proposal and participate in the feasibility study.

In the end they can choose to continue to be turf-bound and thereby hurt their own taxpayers and citizens in terms of quality and convenience of services.

And if some choose to continue to stand off unto themselves, then cries of financial crisis or crunch have a rather empty ring to them, no?