VIDEO (PARKS & REC BD BYLAW CHANGE APPROVAL) NOW WE KNOW THE REASON WHY KEITH MOSER IS NO LONGER POLICE CHIEF IN MASSILLON?

UPDATED:  09:30 AM TO INCLUDE VIDEO OF BOARD APPROVAL OF BYLAW CHANGES

The Stark County Political Report is being told that the reason that short term Massillon Chief of Police Keith Moser was let go suddenly on June 4, 2013 and replaced by Bill Peel was that the Catazaro-Perry administration did not agree with his internal discipline of two Massillon police officers.

Look at what Massillon's top officials were saying about Moser on June 7, 2012 (the date he was selected to be police chief):

“We’re very excited for him. We believe that he is going to do a super job.”   (Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry)

“This is a great opportunity for the Massillon Police Department to bring about some effective change.   I’ve worked with him over the last five months and he seems to be very anxious to address some issues ... I think he’s going to do a great job.” (The-then safety director George T. Maier)

But that was then.

On June 4, 2013:   “He’s still a valued member of our force, but did not successfully complete the one-year probationary period."  (Mayor Catazaro-Perry)

The Report is told that the administration accolades ceased and Moser was put on the block for firing when it became apparent to administration officials that Moser was going to be his own man and not take to administration micromanaging.

Since Catazaro-Perry took office on January 1, 2012 a number of terms have surfaced as descriptors of her management style.

The first was that she is not transparent as she promised she would be as mayor and that therefore she could not be trusted to keep her word made in the context of governing Massillon.

Now this.

It is said that a pattern is emerging that she is a micromanager who will not let her department heads make their own calls on matters that the mayor and her handlers (Clerk of Courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and his chief deputy Shane Jackson) deem important.

The Report is being told that promotions/demotions and the like are such that folks in the Massillon Police Department (MPD) do not know whether or not they are coming or going these days.  And, the parade of chiefs during the Catazaro-Perry administration (four in number, now) constitute evidence that life in the MPD is topsy-turvy these days.

"Unsettled" might be a good word to use in describing nearly all aspects of Massillon city government these days.

Councilman-at-Large Paul Manson complained at last Monday's work session about the number of "interim" department heads staffing Massillon administration these days.

It appears that the mayor herself is unsure of what step to take next and consequently the path from her office to the Clerk of Courts office is taking on a well-worn path these days.

Last night the SCPR went to the regular monthly meeting of the Massillon Parks and Recreation Board (Board).

What of note appeared to be going on?

The Catazaro-Perry administration ("interim" Safety Director Jim Johnson) trying to convince the five member board what criteria the Board should use in determining whether or not a person qualifies to be a Board member.

Here is the video of the exchange that went between Board members among themselves and between them and Johnson:



As seen on the video, the Board by a 3 (Del Rio-Keller, Rickett and Hicks) to 2 (Wolfe and Bryant) voted to disqualify from future Board composition anyone who has a  financial connection with either Massillon city government or the Massillon Board of Education.

However, any non-qualifying present Board member is "grandfathered in."

Apparently, according to a SCPR source, one of the members who would not be eligible under the new criteria for continued membership when her current term expires would be member Esther Bryant.

Bryant is director of the nonprofit agency Lighthouse Visions which is said to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from the city of Massillon.

A person familiar with the voting patterns of Board members says that Bryant is a dependable administration position supporter on votes that come up with the body.

Member Wolfe, who only recently was appointed to the Board, is said to be a close friend of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. and therefore can be depended upon to be an administration supporter for whatever position the administration takes on key issues.

An interesting change that seems to have taken place is the transition of Board member (the president) Michelle Del Rio-Keller (who likely will take an at-large Massillon City Council position on January 1, 2014) from being an administration support into being her own person.

Accordingly, she was, of course, the key last night for making the change in Parks and Recreation Board bylaws last evening.

Any one familiar with the goings on between the Catazaro-Perry administration and the Board know that there is a tussle underway as to who is going to have authority to appoint a new Parks and Recreation Department director.

It appears to the SCPR that Massillon City Council is likely to decide the question in favor of the Board.

Well, if that happens, then the administration's apparent pattern of micromanaging in the bowels of Massillon city government will suffer a telling blow.

And, if that happens and the new director can maintain the support of the Board, then the question becomes:

"Will the Parks and Recreation Department become the envy of all of Massillon government?"

"Free at last, thank God Almighty, free at last" from the Catazaro-Perry administration micro-managing?"

MARY CIRELLI: SHE MAY HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY BLOODIED, BUT SHE IS NOT BOWED!

Come January 1, 2014 there will be Mary Cirelli (to borrow the Richard M. Nixon phrase) "to kick around."

Her last great political fight may have been to keep Kim Perez from becoming Canton city treasurer.

Cirelli told the Stark County Political Report that she has known all along that she could have easily retained her seat as councilwoman-at-large in the Hall of Fame City.

However, she simply could not sit by and let Kim Perez waltz in to the treasurer's office without having a stiff fight.

Apparently, she did not consider Kelly Zachary to be capable of putting up a fight on her own to keep Perez on the political sidelines having been put there by Republican Alan Harold in the November, 2010 election.

As it turned out, Cirelli surprised us all who do political analysis (and from her perspective, not in a good way) in coming in third in the three person race.

While Cantonians may see Cirelli as a councilperson (one among a number), it seems that they do not see her as "the" person, as an executive, to be in charge of a government office.

That public perception of Cirelli is likely the primary reason  she came in third.

Her zeal to provide opposition to Perez was very costly to her.  She says she put some $13,000 of her own money into the race and, of course, she  necessarily lost her council seat by virtue of her treasury run.

Though only 41% of Cantonians wanted Perez to be Canton's treasurer, it appears that perhaps Zachary was the better bet to have prevented Perez's restoration to public office.

Zacharay only lost (in the sense of:  "unexpectedly" to most of us) to Perez by about 8% points which means that of the 26.51% of the total vote pulled by Cirelli, Zachary would have had to have gotten about 66% of Cirelli's 26.51% to have kept Perez from winning.

It seems to the SCPR that a good part of the respective Zachary/Cirelli vote was a ABKP (Anybody But Kim Perez) vote.  Perhaps enough to have swung the election against Perez, had the election been a two person race.

The SCPR thinks that Zachary had a better opportunity to have gotten enough of what The Report terms as the ABKP vote given her eight (8%) percentage point loss in the three way contest.

Mary Cirelli with her nearly 15% margin of loss to Perez had a much more difficult hill to climb in terms of getting the lion's share of Zachary's part of the ABKP.   She would have had to have gotten about 75% of it.

While the SCPR calls it the ABKP vote, in a two person race he likely would have ended up with a distinct minority of the vote (notwithstanding it largely being ABKP) simply because some of those voters could not stomach either Cirelli or Zachary no matter which of the two would match up against him in a two person race.

Of course, the above discourse is the stuff of political analysts.

The bottom line is that both Zachary and Cirelli are out and Perez is in.

 For Zachary life goes on as it did before as she only has served briefly as an elected official.

Cirelli is a different story.

She has almost been an institution in Canton.

She has been Ward 3 councilperson (in which she polled rather poorly, by the way, in the treasurer's race), councilwoman-at-large, state representative, and county commissioner.

Moreover, her bio shows an impressive record of overall community service:

The question becomes what is to come of Mary Cirelli come January 1, 2014?

Her answer?

(The SCPR's interpretation.)

People remaining in Canton government will wish she was still an insider rather than an outsider.

For if people thought she was an annoying, chronic questioner and generally an out-and-out pest as a government official; they have not seen nothing yet.

As a public official, she says she restrained herself somewhat in the interest of reciprocal respectful relationships.

But as a private citizen, it appears, she is going to be less beholden to decorum.

The SCPR does not expect her to go beyond the bounds of propriety.  However, Cirelli is likely to be heavily involved in Canton government as Citizen Cirelli and perhaps "a looser cannon."

She may be gone from council but she is not going to let her former fellows nor the administration forget her.

She says that if her health holds out (she is in her 70s), she can definitely see herself running for council-at-large in 2015.

Would it surprise anyone for Mary Cirelli to be Councilwoman-at-Large Cirelli come January 1, 2016?

As the title to this blog says:  Mary Cirelli may be politically bloodied, she is by no means bowed.

Mary Cirelli: "not done yet; not by far!"

CONGRESSMAN BOB GIBBS WORRIES ABOUT 30 MILLION WHO WILL REMAIN "UNCOVERED" BY HEALTH CARE AFTER "OBAMA CARE IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED IN 2016?

On January 19, 2011, Republican congressman Bob Gibbs voted for the very first time against "Obamacare" (officially named the Affordable Care Act).

The vote came fresh off the heels of his having defeated Democratic incumbent congressman Zack Space in the 18th District (before the 2010 generated redistricting).

Like Republican Jim Renacci in the "old" 16th District did to Democratic incumbent John Boccieri (voted "no" on November 7, 2009, but "yes" on March 21, 2010), he hammered away at the-then Congressman Space vote "yes" on Obamacare in the 2009 session of the 111th Congress before polling "no" on March 21, 2010 as the 2010 election neared.

It was rather silly of Space to vote "no" in 2010 after having voted "yes" in 2009.  After the 2009 vote, the die was cast and the turnabout in March of 2010 was not going to erase his original support of the measure for campaign purposes.

Voters were smart enough to figure out that he was really for Obamacare as evidenced by the 2009 vote and figured he could confuse, fool them by flip-flopping in 2010.

And, of course, Gibbs exploited Space's political opportunism big-time.

While all the politicking was going on leading up to the 2010 election, slightly more than half of all Americans disfavored Obamacare.

With redistricting in 2011 taking place, Gibbs became the congressman for most of Stark County in the guise of the 7th congressional district.

Now that the act has begun to be implemented, it is not clear what the political ramifications are to be in terms of supporting or not supporting the law now that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling has made it "the law of the land."

Republicans are now beginning to show signs of waffling a bit.

The SCPR believes that the 37 GOP sponsored/led votes were designed to put Democrats on the spot with their "yes" for Obamacare votes in order to make political hay at election time.

While the SCPR has not examined each and every vote that Gibbs has cast on the 37 tries, given his latest histrionics on voting "no" on the 37th vote; it is axiomatic to believe he must have voted "no" on each of the ad nauseam votes.

Witness Gibbs "tweet" on his latest vote:

If #ObamaCare is fully implemented, 30 million people will still be without health insurance. j.mp/106Jv35 #TrainWreck
— Rep. Bob Gibbs (@RepBobGibbs) May 17, 2013

The laughable and disingenuous thing about the "tweet" is that the clear implication that he cares about the 30 million or so Americans who will remain without health care at the end of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

For the only way for him to be convincing in a purported desire to cover every single American is for him to come out for a Single Payer System.  Who believes that a Republican would ever, ever support Canadian, European style government provided health care?

So while he is trying to make it appear that he has a big heart, the political truth of the matter is that he is gaming the health care issue for continued political advantage and is seeking to continue to bash Democrats for the Party's embrace of keeping Obamacare pretty much intact.

His "repeal and replace" stance with the implication that the "replace" includes finding a way to cover the remaining 30 million or so uncovered Americans.

But Stark Countians should not believe the implication of his words.

Democrats for their part think the tide may be turning on the part of the electorate in favor of Obamacare and that the 37 "no" GOP engineered congressional votes may in time turn out to be a political albatross around Republican candidates.

With John Boccieri having removed himself from the mix of possible candidates to take on Gibbs, the lot could once again fall to Joyce Healy-Abrams who Gibbs handily defeated in November, 2012.

Whichever Democrat is the Gibbs opposition in 2014, it will be interesting to see how the campaign evolves around the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) issue.

How will each candidate approach getting the full healthcare coverage of each and every American going forward beyond 2016 which is the year of maximum implementation of Obamacare?

Right now, it appears that Gibbs is merely engaging political rhetoric and posturing.

In the 2014 campaign, he will have to provide a real program for achieving full coverage, will he not?

If not, he risks coming across of not only "not having a big heart" and more like being "heartless."

Are the Democrats correct?

Could the lack of full coverage of health for all Americans become a campaign wedge issue that will make the 37 Republican engendered congressional "no" votes a political liability rather than a political plus?

(VIDEOS) MASSILLON ON THE BRINK OF DECIDING WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO APPOINT NEW RECREATION & PARKS DIRECTOR?

UPDATED AT 1:26 P.M. TO INCLUDE COPY OF FERRERO LETTER TO STERGIOS

VIDEOS

MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL

WORK SESSION

06/10/2013

************************************

COUNCILMAN LARRY SLAGLE

ON

"SOLUTIONS"

TO 

DIRECTORSHIP HIRING AUTHORITY

ISSUE

*************************************

COUNCILMAN PAUL MANSION

"A THIRD WAY"

REGARDING

HIRING AUTHORITY

**************************************

COUNCILWOMAN NANCY HALTER

ON

PARKS AND RECREATION ISSUE

*************************************

AUDITOR JAYNE FERRERO

ON

LAW DIRECTOR PERRY STERGIOS

OVERRUN ON 2013 BUDGET

A point that Councilman Paul Manson (Democrat at-large) made at last night's Massillon City Council (Council) work session meeting is that Massillonians are getting wary of all the "interim" leadership that seems to be in place in Massillon city government these days.

One "interim" problem may be on the road to a solution.

Councilman Larry Slagle (Democrat at-large and chairman of the Parks & Recreation Committee) promised fellow council members last night that he would have an "either/or" solution on the table for them by Council's next regular meeting slated for June 17th at 7:00 p.m. in council chambers.

Here is a SCPR video that captured the entire discussion at last night's meeting.



It appears that the solution likely to be imposed legislatively by Council will be from among two alternatives:

Either

• the mayor (Kathy Catazaro-Perry - "Mayor") will be empowered to make the choice, which she says is currently the way Massillon's existing ordinance reads (a position supported by current Massillon law director Perry Stergios), OR
• the Parks and Recreation Board will be unequivocally named in a rework of the existing ordinance as having the power and authority to name a new permanent director (a position supported by current Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero when he was Massillon law director)

Councilman Manson did offer "a third way."  But it very, very unlikely that the rest of Council will see it his way.

His third way?

To have Council appoint a new permanent (more or less) director of the Parks and Recreation operations.

Here is Manson elaborating on his proposal:

And here is Councilwoman Nancy Halter weighing-in on the Parks and Recreation matter:

If Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry had cultivated over her 18 months in office a "trust" relationship with Council, the SCPR thinks that there would be a pretty good chance that Council would clarify the vague ordinance to make it clear that she has the authority to appoint a new director.

But she hasn't.

So now she shall reap what she has sown.

Look for Council (unless the Park and Recreation Board at Thursday's meeting makes it clear that it does not want the authority) to opt that way.

In a sort of way, there is an ongoing thinly below the surface simmering war going on between the Mayor and Council.

And it is catching other Massillon elected officials in the spider web of political intrigue.

The Report hears that Auditor Jayne Ferrero (sister-in-law to John Ferrero) is not on speaking terms with Mayor Kathy these days.

Really?  Why?

When the Mayor recently went to the State of Ohio Auditor (SOA) with her request that the SOA audit Massillon books (presumably in process), it turns out that Catazaro-Perry had not consulted with Ferrero first.

Add to that the controversy injected into last night's meeting about the failure of Law Director Perry Stergios to keep his office expenditures in line with his total annual budget amount.

Ferrero says she is projecting a $70,000/$80,000 law department deficit (come September) if he does not make cut backs to compensate for a recent surge in his expenditures.

Trying to decipher the conversation from the work session, the SCPR's understanding is that Stergios hired a new assistant prosecutor recently to replace one who departed but that the department has lost a grant which paid for the position and hence the need to pay the salary from the department budget.

Here is a copy of the letter sent on May 10, 2013 to Director Stergios:

Here is the city auditor bringing up the topic and explaining her frustration with Law Director Stergios.

While the Parks and Recreation "hot button issue" may be going away soon, many others remain.  Among them are:

• the projected $2.7 million (perhaps lessening to $2.6 or $2.5 million according to Auditor Ferrero) Massillon budget deficit for 2013,
• how to raise revenues for the city that is acceptable to the taxpayers,
• dealing with a sudden surge in street lighting costs (at the tune of $16,000 per month, if not more) reportedly inadvertently caused by former Safety Director George T. Maier (now Stark County sheriff) in negotiating last year with AEP to replace First Energy as the electric supplier,
• the mushrooming of city departments being run by "interim" directors which some think causes instability in the operations of city functions,
• the sale/settlement of the Hampton Inn drain on the city budget,
• the failure of some departments of Massillon government (i.e. the law department) to live within budget numbers,
• the sale/settlement of the apartment complex at 59 Duncan Place at a less than owed (about $941,000), and
• the depletion of Park and Recreation funds by virtue of the funds being used to pay on the outstanding indebtedness on The Legends golf course complex

While it is good to see the likelihood that Council will act soon to resolve the authority problem on Parks and Recreation hiring, it is near certain that the Mayor and Council will continue their quibbling and competitive problem solving will remain "the order of the day."

As the SCPR sees it, the Mayor with a change of attitude could go a long way in resolving the standing "hot button issues" in a "let's work together" vein rather than her "I'll one up you" current posture.

If the "hot button issues" are to be effectively resolved, it will take the Mayor and Council working together!

POLITICAL PARTY FACTOR IN SELECTION OF JUDGES DAMAGES PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF INTEGRITY OF OHIO JUDICIARY, NO?

SUBTOPICS

THE O'CONNOR INITIATIVE

THE "O'DONNELL" APPOINTMENT
IN
FRANKLIN COUNTY 

STARK COUNTY CONNECTION

- MORE OR LESS -

BENEFITING 

FROM

POLITICAL I.D. 

IN

BECOMING

JUDGE?

Farmer

Hall

REPLACING JUDGE LEE SINCLAIR

WAITING IN THE WINGS?
COREY-MINOR SMITH

THE O'CONNOR INITIATIVE

Few have ridden the coattails of political partisanship to personal public office holding success than Ohio Supreme Court chief justice Maureen O'Connor.

As a Republican, she began her rise to be lieutenant governor of Ohio and ultimately being chief justice gaining an appointment from now retired Republican Summit County probate judge Willard F. Spicer in 1985 as a court magistrate.

An interesting political phenomenon in American history is how various public figures who have benefited from partisan or ideological ties/positions, have become advocates for considerations of factors based on merit or "realpolitik" once they reach the pinnacle of their personal partisan-politically based achievement.

No better example of this marvel of political flip-flopping exists than the Richard M. Nixon (as congressman) turnaround from being virulent witch-hunting anti-communist of the 1950s into the Richard M. Nixon (as president) who in 1972 opened U.S. doors to the Peoples Republic of [Communist] China.  (LINK)

Generally, Americans accept these "Road to Damacus" conversions even if skeptically.

And the SCPR advocates that Ohioans (necessarily including, of course, Stark Countians) should do the same thing for Chief Justice O'Connor's embrace of less politics and more merit in the selection of Ohio's as articulated by her in a speech at the May, 2013 Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA) convention (LINK) held recently in Cleveland.

O'Connor posed her proposal for changes in a question format, to wit:  (LINK)

• Ohio Courts 2013:  A Plan for Strengthening Judicial Elections:

1. Should Ohio Change the Law So Judicial Races Are No Longer Listed at the End of the Ballot?
2. Should All Judicial Elections be Held in Odd-Numbered Years?
3. Should Ohio Centralize & Expand the Civic Education Programming and Institute a Judicial Voter Guide?
4. Should Ohio Eliminate Party Affiliation on the Ballot in Judicial Primaries?
5. Should Ohio Join the Other States that Have a Formal, Non-Partisan System for Recommending Nominees to the Governor to Fill Judicial Vacancies?
6. Should Appointments to the Ohio Supreme Court Require the Advice and Consent of the Ohio Senate?
7. Should Ohio Increase the Basic Qualifications for Serving as a Judge?
8. Should Ohio increase the Length of Judges' Terms? (emphasis added)

However, O'Connor - apparently - as indicated in the case of fellow Justice Terrence O'Donnell (see below) and - clearly - in the instance of Justice William O'Neill (see below) has work to do in convincing her fellows on the high court that her proposal has merit.

THE O'DONNELL APPOINTMENT

Word came down on May 9 of this year (LINK) that Republican Governor John Kasich had appointed Republican Colleen O'Donnell (daughter of Ohio Supreme Court Associate Justice Terrence O'Donnell) to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

To the SCPR, this obviously was a "political connections-based appointment."

Colleen O'Donnell's qualifications for the appointment are very unconvincing to yours truly.  Just take a look at this Columbus Dispatch piece that details her legal career history (e.g. she has just barely over the minimum 5 years as a lawyer to be eligible for a judgeship in the first place) and by implication her political connections (LINK).

While undoubtedly her father uttered not a word to the governor that he ought to appoint daughter Colleen to the bench of Ohio's second largest county, it is obvious to those of us who populate the hoi polloi that he did not have to.

Kasich and his advisers were surely well aware of who Colleen is and notwithstanding any denials that the governor may make to the significance of her political and legal pedigree in her gaining the appointment, such denials fall in the category of "who in the whole wide world would believe them?"

For example, locally, Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez denies that he had anything to do with son Kody being appointed Rick Campbell's chief deputy recorder in 2007.

To which the SCPR responds:

That may be and probably is the case.  However, like in the O'Donnell situation, direct advocacy is not needed.  Those in a position to appoint are all to aware of whom they are appointing and the SCPR believes that it is fair to question that motivation to appoint reeks of being politically based and not on the basis of merit.  In the Gonzalez case, Recorder Campbell insists to yours truly that the Gonzalez political overlay had nothing whatsoever to do with the appointment.  Nonetheless, the SCPR simply is not buying the denial.

The Report believes that when such appointments take place, the appointing authority creates a public perception that merit was not the primary criterion in making the appointment.

Over time and repeated as often as politically inspired appointments are done across the American governmental landscape, drip-by-drip public officials undermine their own credibility and inch-by-inch make it more difficult for themselves and their appointees to govern.

Inevitably, the politically connected who get public jobs primarily because of their political connectedness find occasion to comment on and lament upon how unruly the American public is becoming in terms of wielding the authority of their offices and having it respected by the governed.

The SCPR for one does not want to hear their bellyaching.

They do it to themselves and just plain have to live with the consequences of having participated successfully in a sort of political sweepstakes.

The SCPR senses an undertone among the American electorate which is growing increasingly alienated from the governing class and manifests itself in subtle resistances.

So it is helpful for the health of our democratic-republic for a figure such as Maureen O'Connor to step forward and in effect to say "enough is enough."

Indeed, the Ohio Supreme Court should be the catalyst for implementing something like the "Courts 2013 Plan and in the process Centralize & Expand the Civic Education Programming and Institute a Judicial Voter Guide.

Moreover, voters should focus on those who appear to have obtained public positions through political influence and make that a prime factor in determining whether or not to vote for that person at the next succeeding election as well has the person doing the appointing.

STARK COUNTY CONNECTIONS TO THE QUESTION OF JUDICIAL REFORM

THE KRISTIN FARMER (BAIR) APPOINTMENT

Stark County has its own history of judges who appear to have obtained gubernatorial appointments to the Stark County bench through primarily political factors and not so much on the merit of their qualifications.

In the opinion of the SCPR, the prime appointee who fills that category is Kristin G. Farmer (Bair) who is the daughter of Fifth District Court of Appeals Judge Sheila Farmer.

Last year Judge Charles Brown announced his retirement from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas bench.

Farmer (Bair) does have more legal career seasoning than does O'Donnell, but it is far from impressive.

In his appointment of December 21, 2012 (she was sworn-in on January 18, 2013), Kasich cited that as a matter of legal experience she:

• served as a magistrate (Judge Sinclair/Sara Lioi) and law clerk in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas

And that's it!

Actually, she does have a bit more in her resume.  But not much.

Area media reports cite her serving as assistant prosecutor for the first two years out of law school for Alliance law director and Republican Andrew Zumbar who is the brother of Stark County treasurer and Republican Alex Zumbar.

So two years out of law school she is a Common Pleas Court magistrate (a job that some lawyers wait years to obtain) on her way to becoming a judge herself.

Of course, it does not hurt that your mother is a former assistant prosecutor in Canton and Cleveland and is a judge in the Massillon Municipal Court and the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

The politically skeptical likely think that family political connects played into her becoming an Alliance prosecutor and then a Common Pleas magistrate.

The person who should have been appointed in the assessment of the SCPR - if legal experience (not political connectedness) is the primary criterion -  is Democrat and Stark County Assistant Prosecutor Chryssa Hartnett.

To her credit notwithstanding that she as a Democrat was beseeching a Republican governor, Hartnett did (LINK) apply with the Stark County GOP for a recommendation that Governor Kasich appoint her to replace Brown.  But politics being what they are, the Jeff Matthews-led Stark Republicans did not give her a smell.

These are the same folks that asked Democrats to put partisanship aside and appoint Republican Alex Zumbar (October 31, 2011) to replace Democrat Gary Zeigler when he resigned (October 19, 2011).

Very obviously the Stark County Republican Party Executive Committee does not care one whit about putting Stark's most qualified before the governor when it is their turn to be part of the public official replacement process.

But again, one does not want to hear them complain about the reality that more and more Americans are finding neither of the major political parties to be credible instruments of putting America's most capable and most professionally qualified citizens in public positions.

Both organized political parties are increasingly discredited entities in the eyes of many Americans which makes it more and more difficult for the parties to get everyday citizens involved in their activities.

Sure the parties are hurting more and more in terms of getting everydays involved.

Increasingly, Americans are eschewing party labels in voter registration roles.  And such is definitely the case in Stark County and across Ohio.  In most if not all Ohio voting precincts, non-party aligned voters outnumber registered Rs and Ds (often, even if combined).

And, one might say, who cares about the fortunes of political parties?

Unfortunately, the demise of the parties as being trusted agents of government in putting forth the very best that America has to offer in public service is highly damaging to the legitimacy of our most important institutions of government.

One remaining avenue to correct the parties' strong propensity to consider political connectedness and qualifications (e.g. "the name Farmer in Stark County) in obtaining and retaining office is the good old fashioned American election process.

Hopefully, Stark's Democrats will put up a worthy opponent (how about Chryssa Hartnett?) against Farmer (Bair) in November, 2014.

Note that though she is married to Sergeant David W. Bair of the Alliance Police Department.

But being entitled to a political/legal name like Farmer, no way she is running as Kristin Bair.

Kind of cements the political factor perhaps as having been prime, no?

THE ROSEMARIE HALL APPOINTMENT

Rosemarie Hall does much better on the credentials and experience side of things (LINK) than either O'Donnell or Farmer (Bair).

Appointed by Kasich in August, 2011, she boasts of having being a Stark County Family Court magistrate since 2004.  Moreover, she did have significant experience as a private practitioner of law in her husband's law firm on family law issues prior to becoming a magistrate.

She has gained recognition by her peers as being a jurist who thinks through the complexities of family life as she encounters troubled Stark County families who process through her court.  Two scholarly efforts grace her resume.

Hall clearly was the best qualified of all the candidates on the list submitted by the Stark GOP to Governor Kasich for consideration.

Other candidates (Kristin Farmer [Bair], Lori Flowers (who was serving as Judge Brown's magistrate at the time) and Brant Luther (who ran the Family Court's guardianship program).

The SCPR was certainly glad to see that Flowers did not get the appointment.

Why?

Her comment when vying with Hall, Farmer (Bair) and Luther:

(From a prior SCPR blog LINK)   

"She also said she has been a loyal Republican her entire adult life and is up for the challenge of keeping the seat, if selected."

What should being "a loyal Republican" have to do with being a judge in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas?

Hall has been validated by Stark County voters as having superior Family Court credentials.  In November, 2012 she bested Canton Law Department assistant prosecutor credible candidate Kristen Bates Aylward.

But kudos go out to Bates-Ayward for having tested Hall at the polls.  Maybe she will consider running against the expected "loyal Republican" Sinclair replacement to come soon from the desk of John Kasich?

THE SINCLAIR REPLACEMENT

Any day now, the Kasich administration will be handing down its decision on with who to replace the retiring Common Pleas Court judge V. Lee Sinclair.

It is upwards of five months since the local Republicans sent their list of three to Columbus.

If he follows merit over all else, Governor Kasich should select Jean Madden to be Sinclair's replacement from about the Stark GOP recommended list of candidates.

As stated above, second listee Lori Flowers sees herself as the most politically viable candidate in terming herself "a loyal Republican" which raises a red flag insofar as the SCPR is concerned.

It is hard to see how being CEO of the Stark Chapter of the American Red Cross Curt Werren (the third of three candidates) qualifies him as a top candidate for the judgeship.

Is he just another case of a candidate having a politically connected parent in his corner?

Madden, on the other hand, is an ideal candidate.

She has labored hard and effectively as a Stark County Public Defender.  Moreover, she is an Alliance Municipal Court magistrate.

Being a public defender, she does not quite fit the stereotypical Republican legal pedigrees.

And she has run countywide having taken on Frank Forchione in November, 2008.  The SCPR thinks that she did reasonably well against Forchione who for some reason unknown to The Report appears to be "the darling" of the Stark County legal establishment.

Yours truly has had enough contact with the two to assess that Madden would have been the better judge.

IN THE WINGS:  COREY-MINOR SMITH?

Democrat and former Healy administration employee Corey Minor-Smith is taking on Republican Canton Municipal Court judge Richard Kubilus.

The Report is told that a number of Democratic attorneys are upset that Minor-Smith is making the challenge.

The SCPR does not agree with them.

Yours truly agrees with Chief Justice O'Connor who told the Plain Dealer (Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor says party labels have no place in judicial elections, Tom Feran, May 9, 2013):

We should elect our judges"  ...  "Voters have reaffirmed by large margins that they want judges to be accountable in competitive elections.

Though The Report likes Kubilus and thinks he stands "head over shoulders" above Minor-Smith in terms of experience and judicial attributes, every candidate for office - judges included - need to go through competitive elections in the context of a vigorous vetting process to help voters figure out who has real qualifications and who is primarily a political phenom.

The most disturbing thing that yours truly hears about Minor-Smith is that she is thought by some to be running at the urging of Mayor William J. Healy, II of Canton (she served as his Director of Compliance [January, 2008 - July, 2011]) not so much because he thinks she can knock off Kubilus, but rather that she put herself in position to get a Democratic gubernatorial appointment should the Democrat candidate in the November, 2014 election win.

Knowing William J. Healy, II as the SCPR does, it is quite believable that the Minor-Smith candidacy is his brainchild.

This is more of the same that the current system of governor appointments bring as we see in the O'Donnell and Farmer (Bair) appointments.

Judge O'Connor is right to suggest that Ohio needs a "[f]ormal, Non-Partisan System for Recommending Nominees to the Governor to Fill Judicial Vacancies."

The SCPR would go one step further.  And it might take an Ohio constitutional amendment (due to separation of powers concerns).   We (the people of Ohio) should REQUIRE whomever the governor is to appoint be from something like a "non-partisan system for recommending" list.

Stark Countians should be embarrassed to read what one of the Stark GOP nominees (Canton Municipal Court judge Stephen F. Belden) is quoted as saying what happened when he interviewed with the governor's people for opportunity to replace Judge Charles Brown, to wit:

Recounting his interview in Columbus for that position, Belden told the executive committee [as he was withdrawing his name for consideration for the Sinclair vacancy]  that he “crashed and burned.” 

He said one of the primary issues was the controversy that resulted from him ordering that the mouth of an argumentative defendant be muzzled with duct tape in 2009. The order was captured on the courtroom’s audio and video system. 

“Being the realist I’m supposed to be, I’m never going to get appointed,” Belden said. “And it would be selfish of me and unfair (to the other candidates) ... to send me (to Columbus.)”  (LINK)

Credit Belden at least for a moment of reflective honesty.

However, for him to say "I'm never going to get appointed" in our current system of putting names before the governor in the opinion of the SCPR is not necessarily so.

Undoubtedly, Judge Belden is a well-intentioned guy.

But from many reports that the SCPR gets from a number of attorneys, he should not be on the Canton Municipal Court bench.

In one assessment by a highly prominent Stark County attorney to the SCPR (in an effort to be kind), termed Judge Belden as being quirky.

Hmm?

Under our current system, The Report believes that there are all too many judges across Ohio who have no business being on the bench.

And, yes, Judge O'Connor, Ohio should " ... Centralize & Expand the Civic Education Programming and Institute a Judicial Voter Guide.

Ohioans need a reliable source to go to in order to determine "on the merits" (not political connectedness) who to vote for in judicial races.

The current system of local bar associations having its membership rate candidates for judge is wholly inadequate.

Take the impending Minor-Smith/Kubilus match up.

The Stark County Bar Association has released the results of its evaluation of the two, to wit:

"Fifty-five percent (55%) or greater of the total membership of the [Judiciary] committee present shall receive a 'recommended' rating."

Hmm?

Who thinks this kind of a rating system tells voters anything?

The SCPR could pose a thousand questions to the committee members to probe exactly what "recommended" or "highly recommended" actually means in terms of the likelihood that a given candidate will turn out to be a distinguished jurist.

But this is a system that the partisan political folks (i.e. Chris Redfern, chair of the Ohio Democratic Party and and the leadership of the Ohio GOP think adequately serves the voters?

What it serves is those political party types who want to insinuate into our system of justice partisan, biased people; presumably well-intended, who are ambitious to achieve the prestige of being a judge primarily to achieve personal satisfaction.

And it appears that the Redferns of the world primarily want to continue the system of political patronage in appoint judges.

Supreme Court Associate Justice and Democrat William O'Neill can criticize the O'Connor "Ohio Courts 2013:  A Plan for Strengthening Judicial Elections" plan all he wants, to wit:

Any serious proposal to change the elections must address the money issue.  Money and judges don't mix. The perception among voters is overwhelmingly that money buys influence in the judiciary in Ohio.

One who knows the political history of O'Neill has to think that his criticism in-and-of-itself may be an R & D thing rather than a well thought out opposition with a suggestion for improvement.

One would think that a sitting Ohio Supreme Court judge being specially situated would think he has an obligation to offer up improvements/additions to the plan.

If O'Neill has something to offer to solve the "[money and judges don't mix" problem (which the SCPR agrees is a problem), then what is his solution?

It has always mystified yours truly how sitting judges and candidates for judge can accept financial contributions from lawyers who have, do or who will be appearing before them.

In meantime, Ohio needs to take a cue from Judge O'Connor and get to work in reforming the way we select judges!

18 MONTHS IN AS MAYOR OF MASSILLON, QUESTION TO CATZARO-PERRY: WOULDN'T YOU RATHER BE QUEEN OF ENGLAND?

Yesterday, yours truly was discussing with a prominent Massillon political figure the administration of Mayor Kathy Catzaro-Perry.

Politician:  "Kathy wants to be a ceremonial mayor; she doesn't like the rough and tumble world of power politics."

SCPR:  Well, maybe she would like to be the Queen of England?"

Unfortunately, the queenship is not vacant and there is no parallel position in the United States of America.

As we all know, far from the days of George the Third and the days encompassing the American Revolution, the monarchy of Great Britain no longer wields any political power.

Queen Elizabeth II has lived a rather placid life since being coronated as queen in 1953.

Among her duties:  (Source:  Wikipedia article [LINK])

• performs ceremonies for governments (she is head of some 20 governments that currently make up the British Commonwealth),
• gives out honors, and
• visits charities

Doing such certainly puts her as being the "Dame of Britain's high society, no?

While she cannot achieve Queen of England-esque status, the SCPR believes that Catazaro-Perry has made her mark in what exists of Stark County High Society.

Area newspapers are replete with this activity and that event that Herhonor (as mayor and even, pre-mayoralty days) has participated in or presided over a considerable number of years.  She has done many good works for children with special needs and has spearheaded community efforts to improve their plight in life.

And undoubtedly she has savored every precious moment of the ceremonial duties and honorific tasks that have fallen her way by virtue of being mayor of Massillion.  Moreover, she has to be pleased to have been productive in convincing her poobah Stark Countian friends to rally around her special needs children cause.

But there is a downside to being Massillon Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

It is called "hardball" politics.

She and her political consorts and sponsors (Massillon Clerk of Courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr [also a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman]) and his chief deputy Shane Jackson [the political director of the Stark County Democratic Party) thrust her into "hardball" politics when she decided to take on 24 year Massillon Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr in the May, 2011 Democratic Primary.

Maier and Jackson are masters of "take no prisoners" power politics and in a very impressive showing bounced the native Massillonian (Catazaro-Perry originated from adjacent to Massillon Perry Township) from office.

Catazaro-Perry had served eight years as Massillon Ward 3's councilwoman.  So she was fully versed in all the issues of Massillon city government and presumably had a plan to govern with.

Or, did she?

It is now appearing more and more that she had no plan and that she has adopted a "govern by the seat of the pants" approach with Maier and Jackson "filling in the blanks" as questions of city governance come to the fore.

The SCPR takes no joy is saying so, but yours truly predicted well before the election results came in that, if elected, that while Catazaro-Perry would be the de jure mayor; she would not be the de facto mayor.  That, The Report has said numerous times, would fall to Maier, Jackson and persons they approve of as trusted advisers and confidantes of the newly elected mayor.

We are now some 18 months down the road in the reign of Herhonor.

And what do those months show?

Kathy Catzaro-Perry is like "a fish out of water" in having been thrown into the tank of political skulduggery.

She is especially hard pressed to come up with answers now that initial safety director George T. Maier is off to 4500 Atlantic Boulevard being (as least for the time being) sheriff of Stark County.

Mayor Catazaro appears so unsure of herself when put in dock at Massillon City Council (Council) meetings (with George Maier readily at hand to provide answers) that she often, The Report is told, resorts to deferring on answering the councilpersons questions until she can check on information that "is back at the office."

Word is that things has gotten so untenable for the mayor that many expect her to quit attending Council meetings.

Catazaro-Perry could make the case that she is being ganged up upon by a majority (some times almost a unanimity) by Council to make governing the city impossible.

She has not been able for example to get Council support for:

• raising sorely needed revenue for the city by reducing the income tax credit that Massillonians that work in other taxing jurisdictions can claim on their Massillon tax returns,
• selling Massillon's interest in the Hampton Hotel in order to avoid paying a nearly $1 million lump sum payment due in just a few years, and
• allowing her to name a new director of the Massillon Parks and Recreation system,
• acceding that she has the authority to appoint a news parks and recreation director

And there are other issues that she and Council are at loggerheads on.

While she could make the case of being ganged upon, the SCPR does not think she could make a persuasive case.

Members of Council are saying that they - by and large - do not trust the mayor.

They say that she came into office promising openness, transparency, communication and accessibility, but that she has not produced.

And this is not a Republican/Democrat thing.  Amazingly enough this Democrat-heavy registration city has its Council control by Republicans:  5 to 4.

What makes this not a partisan thing is that Democrats join with the Republicans in opposing key Catazaro-Perry administration's programs and policies.  To boot, Republican Donnie Peters, Jr. (a close friend of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.) is know to break ranks with his fellow Republicans and vote the mayor's position on any given issue.

Look for more political hardball as the November Council elections approach.

Maier-faction-Democrats are seeking to seat pro Catazaro-Perry candidates in the 2nd and 6th wards.

Why the 2nd and the 6th wards?

The SCPR thinks it is because in Councilwoman Nancy Halter and Councilman Ed Lewis, IV you have the heart and soul of the Republican leadership on Council and if they get taken out, the new makeup of Council make it more likely that the mayor will get needed Council support.

The Report thinks that Maier et al will fail in the 2nd and the 6th and that with Cicchinelli man and Democrat Mike Loudiana the likely winner in Ward 1 joined by Republican Triner in Ward 4 (as unbelievable as it seems) and John Ferrero-aligned Megan Starrett in Ward 5 becoming new councilpersons (along with former Catazaro-Perry ally and at-large council-at-large candidate Michelle Del Rio-Keller) that Catazaro-Perry will likely be worse off in Council relationships than she has now.

Indeed, it is hardball politics in Massillon.

The mayor appears to making all the wrong moves under the counsel of Maier and Jackson proving that while they "may?" be adept politicians; citywide administrators they are not.

Under her rule, Catazaro-Perry is the city's chief executive officer.  During her 18 months

• the city has had its bond rating lowered,
• the city has asked that the Ohio auditor's office audit the books of the city to determine whether or not Massillon qualifies for "fiscal watch" or even worse "fiscal emergency,
• Note:  As mayor-elect, Catazaro tried to get Ohio to audit the city's books only to be told that a perusal of Massillon finances on their face indicated that Massillon under outgoing mayor Frank Cicchinelli did not qualify for an audit,
• she has not been able to maintain revenues needed to keep Council from making cuts to the mayor's portion of the city budget, and
• she apparently cannot find a police chief to her liking.
• Note:  Yesterday, the mayor dismissed Keith Moser (appointed June 7, 2012), probably a victim of having disagreed with the mayor in public, before his one year probationary period ran.  A source tells that the SCPR that shortly prior the dismissal Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. emerged from the mayor's office and speculates that he was there to consult with Catazaro-Perry on the matter,
• Bill Peel is the new at least "for the probationary period" chief,
• Moser followed Joe Herrick who succeeded Cicchinelli appointee holdover Robert Williams (retired January, 2012),
• she is reduced to running three of the city's departments with "interim" department heads

Political hardball has to be taking it toll on Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

How refreshing it had to be for her to get a break from the fastballs and line drives and to do a little T-Ball-esque and ceremonial job of?

Swearing in the new police chief!

It ain't high society but it beats the alternative, no?

WHO WOULD HAVE EVER THUNK IT? A KOOL-AID DRINKING SCOTT OELSLAGER!

The Stark County Political Report has been tracking state Senator Scott Oelslager (Republican - Plain Twp - 29th Ohio Senate District) for the better part of a week now on his stepping back from openness and transparency in government.

It all started with a blog last Friday (LINK) which revealed that he, Kirk Schuring (Republican - Jackson Township - 48th Ohio House District) and Christina Hagan (Republican - Marlboro Township - 50th Ohio House District) voted with a majority (all Republicans) in accord to the Republican Kasich administration desire to insulate JobsOhio (a "private" enterprise corporation running economic development for the "people" of Ohio) from the audits of State of Ohio Auditor (SOA) Republican David Yost notwithstanding that about $100 million of the people's money is under the control of JobsOhio.

No surprise at all here in the Schuring and Hagan votes.  Both have pretty much have been Kool-Aid drinking imbibers with whatever the Kasich folks have wanted from day one of the administration beginning on January 1, 2011.

Moreover, neither has anywhere near the historical strong record supporting democratic enhancements to Ohio local government as does Oelslager with his going back years involvement with improving openness and transparency in government over the course of 25 years as a member (varying between the Senate and the House) in the General Assembly.

While there was no vote by Stark's legislative delegation on the matter, it became conclusively apparent that the Kasich administration is identifying itself more and more as a matter of a pattern as being "anti-democratic" in allowing Kasich appointee and director James Zehringer of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)  to, through Stark Countian (Lake Township) Richard J. Simmers (Chief, Division of Oil and Natural Gas) to basically shutdown the right of Ohio's to redress their grievances at what in reality is a "public meeting" context.  Moreover, the attending public was prohibited from videotaping or audiotaping the event in seeming contravention to, at least "the spirit of ," the Oelslager shepherded Open Meetings Law.  LINK to prior SCPR blog for details.

The noteworthy thing about supposedly "open meetings" enhancer Oelslager is that he has not uttered "a peep of protest" about the ODNR anti-Open-Meeting-Law stance.

To complete "the hat trick," Oelslager announced this past Tuesday that as the Senate Finance Committee chairman he was supporting a direct attack on the Open Meetings Law.

As put by  Chrissy Thompson of the Cincinnati Enquirer (Bill would expand secrecy on economic development deals, June 4, 2013 LINK):

Local governments could discuss economic development in secret under a change to the Ohio Senate’s latest version of the 2013-2015 budget.

The amendment, unveiled Tuesday in the Senate Finance Committee, would create an exception to the Open Meetings Law: Governing bodies could call closed sessions to discuss businesses’ requests for tax breaks.

Committee Chair Scott Oelslager, R-North Canton, said those discussions include businesses’ “proprietary information.” Requests to keep that information secret should be honored because it relates to job creation, Oelslager said.  (emphasis added)

Consequently, the SCPR no longer counts Oelslager as among the champions of citizen oversight of government operations.

The Report never again wants to hear Oelslager to tout his historical embrace of citizen rights to be seen, heard and accounted to by their state and local government.

His actions over the past week have obliterated any claim he might have had as being a man "by, for and of the people."

So why this change?

To the SCPR, it is pure political ambition.

Only recently (probably co-incidently with the election of Kasich) has Oelslager reclaimed the attention of Statehouse Republicans as being a viable candidate for leadership in the Legislature.

With the takeover of the General Assembly in recent years by the Tea Party wing of the Ohio Republican Party a few years ago, Oelslager (generally thought to be one of the few remaining vestiges of "moderate" Republicanism) was left on the outside of the legislative process looking in as the right wingers commandeered key committee posts to do as they willed with the substance and processes of Ohio government.

Somewhere along the line Oelslager has signaled to the right wing GOPers that he is willing to play ball with them.

Okay, the question is still on the table:  why?

The SCPR thinks because he likely does not have all that many years left in the Legislature, Oelslager realizes that time is running out for him to either become president of the Senate (or because he may be term limited out of the Senate before that can happen) or Speaker of the House.

Hence, he had better get in line with the political make up of the Republican side of the Ohio General Assembly.

Alternatively, he could be looking at a cabinet position with the Kasich administration.

But anyway one cuts it, Oelslager's abrupt change from being a key supporter of building up our democratic-republic to a destroyer, must be wrapped up in a cloak of political ambition.

For the sake of personal political achievement, Scott Oelslagers appears to have become a Kool-Aid drinking partner with Republican Governor John Kasich.