WILL HAGAN'S DRIVE ON "HEARTBEAT BILL" BE HER POLITICAL BANE OR PATHWAY TO POLITICAL STARDOM?

On August 13, 2013 Stark County's Christina Hagan (Republican - Ohio House District 50) of Marlboro Township introduced House Bill 248 which is known as "the Heartbeat Bill."

A co-sponsor was fellow Stark County Republican Kirk Schuring (Ohio House District 48) of Jackson Township.

It appears that unlike Arkansas and North Dakota which have passed similar legislation and which, predictably, are in the process of challenge in the federal court system, Hagan's bill in Ohio has about the same chance as the proverbial "snowball in Hell."

The bill would prevent medical doctors from aborting fetuses at about six weeks into a pregnancy which is the point about which a heartbeat can be detected.

While the life of a mother is an exception to the provision; pregnancy due to rape and incest is not.

But this legislative week has not been without some success for Hagan.

She did gain passage of her House Bill (HB) 10 with the support of all three of her fellow Stark County legislators.

HB 10 is legislation designed to prevent a repeat of the April, 2009 discovered theft of some $3 million from the Stark County treasury by former Chief Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci.  He is now serving time in federal prison for the theft.

While Hagan's work on HB 10 was significant for Stark Countians in light of the Frustaci matter, it did not get the near the notoriety that HB 248 got her.

As the SCPR sees it, Hagan's fixation on the heartbeat legislation could have either of two effects:

• it could doom any future political aspirations she has, or
• it could, especially in a federal office context, catapult in a limelight that might someday be the equivalent of:
•  Christine O'Donnell of Delaware fame for her extreme right wing Republican politics, or alternatively
• Michele Bachmann of Minnesota

That's how right-wing the SCPR thinks Hagan is.

For Hagan the key is whether or not she can avoid the tag of being "way out there somewhere" in the minds of more circumspect voters than the core right wingers who support her no matter what.

She did get a plurality for HB 248 in the Ohio House, but a majority is needed.

However, political observers who know Statehouse politics doubt she can get it through the Ohio Senate and, even if she does, through a gubernatorial veto.

Recently re-elected Governor John Kasich has presidential aspirations and he certainly does not want to be identified with the extreme right wing of the Republican Party.

A show of divisiveness even within the Ohio Republican Party is the fact that 11 of Hagan's fellow House Republican voted against her heartbeat bill.

Stark County's lone Democrat; namely, Stephen Slesnick of Canton, took the coward's way out and did not vote on the final voted upon version of the bill.

It will be interesting for Stark Countians to track Hagan's political future.

It could be that Stark County and Ohio's 50th House District could be in the national news, wanted or unwanted.

Stay tuned!

THE "AD" THAT CAUSED JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR'S LATEST FLIP-OUT?

UPDATED:  08:30 AM

WHAT?

FRANK CICCHINELLI MIGHT BE COMING BACK!

The Stark County Political Report thinks that:

• Massillon clerk of courts
• former Stark County Democratic Party chairman,
• Stark County-based political confidant to former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, and
• the "would be" king maker in Stark County politics, namely;

Johnnie A. Maier, Jr  (JAM) must have been flipping-out big time when this advertisement appeared recently in a Massillon publication focusing on selling services and products in the Massillon area.

The Report has talked with the business owner of this advertisement and he says that the ad has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not former 24 year Massillon mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. is going to run in the May, 2015 Democratic primary election against Massillon surrogate (i.e. the face of the JAM administration) mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

And, of course, you and The Report will take the man at his word.

But will Johnnie A. Maier, Jr?

The SCPR thinks not.

By the way, the copy of the advertisement was supplied to the SCPR by a person who The Report thinks is friendly with Johnnie if not an outright political ally.

A previous ad that Maier, Jr. apparently thought reflected negatively on him, The Report is told, resulted in his stopping by the business and having "a word or two" with the owner.

The owner says that putting up humorous ads is his thing and he is not getting political.

Hear that Johnnie?

The Report believes Maier is Stark County's foremost paranoid politician and likely has been flipping-out ever since the ad appeared.

It is nothing unusual for politicians - in general - to be paranoid about the security of their position and political power, but knowing him as well as the SCPR does; Maier, Jr. has to be the "King of 'Hill Political Paranoiac'" in Stark County.

The SCPR is being told by some who have access to Maier that he comes politically "unglued" on a regular basis with the publication of SCPR blogs dealing with his Massillon and Stark County political interests.

His sidekick R. Shane Jackson (see his credentials below) flipped-out on the SCPR with an email to a list of Stark County office holders months ago (LINK).

Even before that, way back in 2008, Jackson went ballistic with The Report at a Celeste DeHoff for State Representative political event in Canal Fulton (LINK).

It took SCPR "good friend" and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez to pull Jackson away from yours truly.

A belated thank you, Randy!

For some odd reason, the Maiers think (according to George T. Maier) that the SCPR singles them out for blogger attention.

All that is evidence of is that the politically-involved-Maiers ought to rethink being in politics at all.

Last time the SCPR checked: for "a responsible to the public media outlet," scrutiny of public officials and candidates for office is the order of the day, no?

What is the expression:  "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," no?

Moreover, anyone who reads The Stark County Political Report in a non-narcissistic way knows that this blog is - in the words of former Local 94 Plumbers and Pipefitters Business Agent Dan Fonte - "an equal opportunity critic."

In the SCPR's journalistic fantasy world, The Report gets a phone call from either Johnnie, Jr. and/or George, to wit:  "Okay, Martin let's set a date and a time for a "no holds barred interview."

As readers of this blog know, subjects get every opportunity to respond to SCPR critiques.

But behind the bravado of Johnnie and George, the SCPR thinks, is cowardice.

Neither of them have the "b*l*s"  (let's be nice now) "intestinal fortitude" to do such an interview which the SCPR is certainly game for.

But no other Stark County media outlet is.

For anyone who can go toe-to-toe with them and whom they have no leverage over, they slink away and become incommunicado.
 
A number of Stark County politicians have tried to bully the SCPR including Johnnie's "political 'friend for life'" and Massillon Municipal Court judge Edward J. Elum.

No surprise here.

Elum has been chastised by nobody less that the Ohio Supreme Court for pushing around folks who have dealt with or appeared before him.

And including Johnnie's brother and sheriff-elect George T. Maier.

And including a number of other Stark County elected officials who are beholden to the Maiers.

And some (e.g. Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero) who are not and are, in fact, thought to be bitter enemies of the Maier politicos.

Apparently, quite a few Stark County politicos fear the political power of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

And, no doubt, he, especially with the election of George is a mighty powerful man in our county.

These are folks who do not belong in the hurly-burly world of politics.

Stark County's only countywide newspaper and its sister publication in Massillon seemingly shy away from journalistically confronting either Maier, but not The Stark County Political Report.

Johnnie has to be riding high these days and probably is thinking like a lot of powerful politicians do; that is to say, to wit: he and his elected official followers are not accountable to the Stark County public.

But they are, and the SCPR will continue to focus on them as well as non-Maier beholdens who share the same grandiose mentality and resent anyone poking around to find out how they may be using political power for self-enhancement rather than for the public good.

Johnnie had an expert in the accumulation and use of political power teach him the fine art of power politics.  That was Vern Riffe, Jr. former long term speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, 1975 through 1995.

Johnnie served at Riffe's pleasure in a political capacity while he represented parts of Stark County in the Ohio General Assembly from 1990 through 1999 at which time he was forced to leave due to term limits (eight consecutive years).

In responsible hands, political power can be beneficial to people.

However, there are relatively few politicians who have the self-discipline to use political power responsibly.  And the SCPR does not count Maier, Jr. and many of elected officials and appointed officials followers of his as being among them.

The SCPR is particularly concerned about Johnnie's brother George being Stark County sheriff.

The Report has said in prior blogs that the SCPR thinks that it is only a matter of time until county officials will find themselves "in the soup" in trying to explain this or that official action by the sheriff-elect.

Hopefully, The Report is wrong because another county crisis could make it impossible for county officials to get a renewal, if not an enhancement, of the "to expire in 2019" 1/2 cent county sales tax.

If The Report proves to be correct in the expectation that George will somewhere along the line abuse his power of office, then those county officials who supported him in very his close election victory over Republican Larry Dordea will have some accounting to do with the Stark County public.

The SCPR in quite a number of blogs raised the specter of "unanswered questions" on allegations of Maier conduct (e.g. the Columbus Dispatch article on his #2 Ohio Department of Public Safety days, the Mike Stevens incident and the Altieri reserve deputy sheriff matter, among others).

However, the county's only countywide newspaper refused - as evidenced by its silence - to press Maier with obvious questions and, thereby, it too, better hope that Maier stays on "the straight and narrow" as sheriff.

For the SCPR will be there to hold "their feet to the fire," should Maier fail.

Of course, if he "turns over a 'new' leaf," The Report will be quick to recognize such.

Now that he has placed his brother in Stark County's most powerful policing office; Jr. will be focusing on maintaining himself as the de facto mayor of Massillon.

Anybody who thinks de jure mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry is the "real" mayor of Massillon clearly does not understand how anybody who is dependent on Maier, Jr. for political support and sponsorship cannot not be her or his own person.

Once the SCPR wrote a letter to the editor soon after Ted Strickland became governor that was critical of the way Strickland was handling education reform in Ohio.

Johnnie (then the Stark County Dems' chairman) was not a happy camper.

Consistent with "the control person he is," Johnnie tried that game on yours truly which, of course, fell on "deaf ears."

Up until the first incident, The Report had not seen much if any of that side of Maier, Jr.

Later on he tried to weigh-in on having yours truly vote in favor of validating his replacement of 13 year board member and Ironworker Billy Sherer as one of two Stark County Democrats who serve as Board of Elections members.

All that showed was that Johnnie is a slow learner.

The answer?

A straight to the point:  "No!"

Of course, Johnnie prevailed on the Sherer replacement.

But "the SCPR in the making" showed him - if he was looking and hearing - that there are those of us who can remain his/her own person when politically correct politics militates (in the interest of personal advancement) - for some - otherwise.

Interestingly enough, like when the curtain was pulled away from in front of the Wizard of Oz, there was nothing but a disappointed whimper from Maier at yours truly's refusal to vote Maier's way on the Sherer matter.

Ever since the direct confrontations did not work, it seems that Maier and friends work among the dark shadows of Stark County government and politics to get a handle on The Stark County Political Report.

Good Luck, Johnnie!

At one time, yours truly hoped that Maier would use his knack for acquiring political power for the public good.

But as the SCPR sees it, that is not what has happened.

The Report sees Maier as predominantly using his acquired political power for the benefit of himself and his group.  A group which by and large (but not exclusively) the SCPR thinks encompasses those pictured in the following graphic.

The SCPR thinks there is a 50/50 chance that Maier minion Kathy Catazaro-Perry will waltz uncontested into a second term as de jure, but not de facto mayor of Massillon.

The Report has written that it appears that former Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr will not challenge the Maier stand-in next May.

But Cicchinelli tells the SCPR that he has not decided and may well not decide until the filing deadline for the May, 2015 Democratic primary election.

He has sharpened his rhetorical attack on Mayor Catazaro-Perry calling her a "township-girl" and not a true Massillonian.  Her origin is Perry Township.

These are the SCPR's words not Cicchinelli's, but it appears to The Report in talking with the former mayor that a 2015 campaign would feature Frank Cicchinelli as "a political attack dog" going after the "political jugular" of Catzaro-Perry and her mentor/controller Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

If decides to run, he does have a Catazaro-Perry record to go after.  Something that was pretty much unavailable in 2011 when she had merely been one council person among ten.

Should Cichinelli not challenge Catazaro-Perry as the SCPR expects, then the next hurdle for the face of the de facto Maier, Jr administration is Councilman Ed Lewis, IV (Republican, Ward 6).

• Note:  The Maier Massillon Political Machine must have as early as the 2013 Massillon municipal election figured out that Lewis was a potential threat to Catazaro-Perry continuing as mayor.  They put lots of money and effort in trying to elect one of their own in Ward 6.

But maybe they have nothing to worry about.

Yesterday, a key Massillon Republican told the SCPR that it is appearing more and more as if Lewis will not challenge whomever the Democratic nominee is in the November, 2015 general election.

The Report thinks that should Cicchinelli and Lewis bow-out, it won't because be of a fear of the Maier Massillon Political Machine, but rather because Catazaro-Perry (err Maier [and Stark County Dems political director and Massillon chief deputy clerk of courts Shane Jackson]) have by their antagonistic relationship with most of the members of Massillon City Council made Massillon one huge financial mess.

The thinking has to be:

• Who wants to take on "cleaning the mess up?"
• Let Catazaro-Perry, Maier, Jr and Jackson field the irate input of Massillonans when the all but certain draconian cuts come as a consequence of two recent income tax increase failures, no?
• Note:  Catazaro-Perry outright did not support the first effort and was "lukewarm" at best on the November, 2014 effort.

And who can blame Cicchinelli, Lewis or anybody else from leaving it to the perpetrators of the mess to clean up and absorbing the political consequences for being the primary cause of it in the first place?

• SCPR Note:  Financial mess to get worse? 
• Recently, an article appeared in Crain's Cleveland Business which suggests that the vaunted Baker Hughes facility in Massillon (a key factor if Massillon is to get out of financial trouble) continued Massillon existence may be in jeopardy.
•  
  

Isn't it interesting that the mayor did not respond to Crain's Cleveland Business phone calls.

Did Maier, Jr. instruct her not to?

Johnnie, Jr. may have some skill at playing political "hardball" and, some think, "gutter" politics; but a citywide administrator for multiple departments of Massillon government - he is not!

Even The Report's take on Maier, Jr's political prowess is mixed.

Starting with the recent election.

Not nearly as impressive as Chryssa Hartnett's victory over Republican incumbent-appointed judge Curtis Werren, but you have to chalk it up to Maier, Jr's consummate effort for having gotten his brother elected sheriff.

But the SCPR thinks he had Republican help.

Had Stark County Republican commissioner Janet Creighton gotten off her duff and come all-out-for-Dordea, he would have won.

So the question is this.

Did someone from the Maier political operation get to her and persuade her to "sit this one out?"

Moreover, where were all those other Republican stalwarts (e.g. Stark County auditor Alan Harold) in being involved in the Dordea campaign?

Harold, in particular is troubling, because he ran as a more or less reform candidate against former Stark County auditor and stanch Democrat Kim Perez back in 2010, making some pretty serious charges on Perez about his political relationship with former Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler.

Harold's alleged that the relationship caused Perez to be less than diligent in protecting the Stark County public interest in county financial operations.

To The Report, Larry Dordea has unquestioned character and is a highly competent policeman and police administrator.

What more could the Republicans want in a "Republican" election year?

Something does not smell right about how the Stark County GOP leadership seemingly - highlighted by Creighton's "refusal to endorse" - mostly sat the Maier/Dordea race out in an election that Republican governor John Kasich bested his Democratic opponent by over 37,000 votes.

The big political thorn in Johnnie A. Maier's side is that his cheerleader-esque mayor has to work for the most part (Note: the SCPR thinks it her and the Maier group "in-your-face-political style") with a hostile Massillon City Council.

While in 2011 Maier, Jr. and his Massillon political operatives were busy helping the insubstantial (in terms of government leadership ability) Catazaro-Perry take out Cicchinelli; they let control of council slip into the hands of Massillon's Republicans.

The Report is convinced that the Republicans were prepared to work with the public-relations-esque mayor, but she was having none of it.

Catazaro-Perry certainly understood that when one is beholden to Maier, Jr. and his ilk; one gets marching orders from "the power behind the throne."

And that is where political paranoia comes in.

The SCPR thinks, Maier's political paranoia undermines his ability to effectively function in the face of those who are willing to "stand front and center" with:

• questions, 
• criticism, and, 
• OMG! - the unthinkable - outright opposition.

It would be one thing if only Maier, Jr. and his political friends suffer because he cannot get a grip on his suspicious attitude in relation to anyone who differs with him.

But the SCPR thinks that much of the financial mess that the city of Massillon and its everyday citizens face today is the doing of the "wariness of everybody who questions me" attitude emanating from the Maier Massillon Political Club which, of course, is the culture imparted by the group's leader.

And, who in the end will suffer?

It certainly will not be the Maier and his loyalist friends.

One way or another they will be taken care of, even if they lose an election here and there.

However, it would be catastrophic should they lose "the big Kahuna:  the mayoralty of Massillon."

For it certainly would mean a long unemployment line for the Catazaro-Perry/Maier loyalists on the Massillon government payroll who some think have been placed on the job for their political loyalty and not necessarily for their up to doing the job for Massillon taxpayers.

In the main however sufferers from the current Massillon financial mess, which the SCPR thinks is now entirely owned by the Catazaro-Perry administration, is and will continue to be everyday Massillonians.

And as the complaints to Massillon City Hall kick-in, the question has to be - as in the Nixon presidency - will political paranoia click-in and ordinary Massillon end up on a Maier/Catazaro-Perry/Massillon Political Machine "enemies list?"

Catazaro-Perry has already let it be known that the SCPR is not welcome at the Massillon mayor's office.  As if executive office of Massillon's seat of government is her private domain.  But she is typical of how those who cannot handle media scrutiny react.

They try to ban, they select which media they will talk to and on and on goes the list of methods they used to punish those who persist with telling questions.

That's exactly where political paranoia can lead.

Currently, the SCPR is reading a book entitled "The Fifties" by David Halberstam.

One of the things that Halberstam glomed onto in his political analysis of the early 1950s was the beginning of Nixon's political paranoia.

Only one year into his presidency (1969), some think Nixon had already began to fill out his "enemies list."

And we know all too well what end that brought Nixon to.

Nixon got what he deserved.

But not the people of the United States of America.

Because of Nixon's early-on unchecked paranoia and his acting on it; political cynicism took a giant leap forward and has been added to by succeeding paranoiac politicians over ensuing years so that in 2014 very few Americans trust political party leadership.

Once public officials and political leader lose the public trust, "Katy bar the door," no?

Hopefully, somebody, anybody will step up in Massillon and prevent a Nixon-esque problem from developing in Tigerland, and, indeed, in Stark County as a whole.

To the SCPR, in Massillon it is looking more and more that it is not going to be Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr or Ed Lewis, IV.

And another surprise might be in the offing.

With the elections 2015, Mayor Kathy may actually get a council that will knuckle under to her will which, if it happens, could be an out-and-out disaster for Massillonians.

The Report hears that Republicans are having difficulty in getting leading Stark County Republicans (the likes of party chair Matthews, Creighton and others) interested in helping Massillon Republicans maintain the substantial gains the have made on council (i.e. Cunningham-Hedderly, Halter, Lewis and Chovan).

Whether or not that happens or Maier surrogate Catazaro-Perry stays in office, Massillonians can depend on the SCPR to keep the scrutiny going.

And Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. can just keep on flipping out!

American democracy is not the province of personal political interests.

American democracy is about our government officials and institutions providing for "the general welfare."

NORTH CANTON GOVERNMENT: "THE KILLING FIELDS OF DEMOCRACY?"

UPDATED:  08:45 AM

VIDEO

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF NORTH CANTON

ON

• JUDGE HAAS DECISION
• COMPLAINTS ABOUT COUNCIL
• COST OF COUNCIL TO  TAXPAYERS
• WE'RE NOT GOING AWAY  

APPENDIX

THE HAAS OPINION 

(without footnotes)

============

FULL COMMENTS

OF 

OSBORNE'S

ATTORNEY

================

COLLECTION

OF

OSBORNE QUOTES

Last Tuesday's decision by Judge John Haas, Stark County Court of Common Pleas (Court) as interpreted by the SCPR clearly indicates that leading North Canton civic activist Chuck Osborne (a burr in the posterior of North Canton City Council and Mayor David Held) may have gotten "the cart before the horse in submitting his initiative petition denying part-time council members taxpayer paid health care insurance benefits for  voter consideration in the November, 2012 general election.

• SCPR Note:  Judge Haas was as trial judge a key figure in the Ohio Supreme Court finding that Lake Township officials in the election of November, 2011 on the advice of legal counsel Charles Hall had not properly framed the issue whereby Lake Township was seeking to convert Lake's police department into a township-wide department.

Perhaps Osborne should have submitted - first - an initiative petition to amend North Canton's charter changing that part of (Section 4.04) North Canton's charter, although the editors at The Repository apparently think that he did not have that option.

In a recent editorial, probably "the worst editorial board" for a city newspaper the size of Canton (so the SCPR thinks) erroneously says that it will be 2017 before amendments can be done to North Canton's Charter.

Well, just take a look at this language from the Charter itself:

Section 6.04.  Charter Review.

     In January, 1967, and in January of each tenth year thereafter, the Council shall appoint a commission of fifteen (15) electors of the municipality who hold no other municipal elective or appointive office, except on advisory bodies of the municipality, as members of a Charter Review Commission.  Such commission shall review the Municipal Charter, and within five (5) calendar months after such appointment, recommend to Council such alterations, revisions, and amendments, if any, to this Charter, as in the judgment of the Charter Review Commission are desirable.  The Council shall cause the recommendations of the Charter Review Commission to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the municipality on two successive weeks, and Council shall hold a public hearing on such recommendations within one week after the second publication thereof.  Meetings of the Charter Review Commission shall be public meetings

 And.

Section 6.05.  Amendments.

This Charter may be amended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. 

To be sure, every ten years North Canton is mandated by the Charter to review its provisions via a body of review commissioners which council appoints.

Let's see if these editors have the journalistic maturity to publicly correct their error.

On second thought, maybe North Canton government should have Judge Haas issue a declaratory judgment on The Rep's interpretation of the Charter on when it can be amended.

Who knows?  He may find a basis to side with the editors.

Could we be looking at:  

This Charter may be amended [only in seven year intervals beginning from 1967] in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.
.  .  .  .

The editors are mighty powerful people; at least in their own eyes, no?

Though Osborne's initiative passed by an overwhelming margin, Haas "got cutesy" in his opinion adopting the position of North Canton Law Director Tim Fox that the measure was invalid for running afoul of North Canton's Charter.

Currently, the Charter read thusly on the matter of compensation included "fringe" benefits (e.g. health care insurance):

The Council shall have the power to fix the compensation of its members and that of the Mayor, the Director of Administration, the Director of Finance, the Director of Law, officers of the municipality, of each job classification, and the members of any board of commission of the municipality, wither elected, appointed, or chosenl

Haas got all hung up (for months of seemingly interminable deliberation) on the fact that in the cited Section 4.04 language whether or not the omission of the word exclusive from the phrase (where the SCPR puts three dots) had legal significance:  The Council shall have the . . .  power to fix the compensation . . .

In a strange piece of reasoning that the SCPR cannot follow, he says that in omitting "exclusive" from the phrase (reference the .... above) the framers of the Charter in legal effect made Council the exclusive authority to deal with matters of North Canton government compensation.

Wrap your heads around that one!

It could be that Haas is wrong (in 'legal' error) and will get reversed on appeal either by the Fifth District Court of Appeals and/or the Ohio Supreme Court.

Osborne says the he is going to appeal.

But do not count on a reversal!

Percentage wise, relatively few trial courts get reversed, even if they made some mistakes in getting to a decision.

The Report has word that the longstanding antagonistic battle between Citizen Osborne (a former councilman, probably going back pre-year-2000 days) and more recently the Concerned Citizens of North Canton (CCNC) will likely include not only Osborne's appeal but an amendment initiative (not necessarily by Osborne) on the matter of power of the electorate to deal with compensation of North Canton government employees (including, of course part-time council persons).

The amendment initiative could come as soon as 2015 and perhaps in a special election.

But only if the initiators get permission from The Repository Editorial Board.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Only kidding editors.  Journalism has to have humor to it, doesn't it?

Should the electorate approve the North Canton Charter being amended, then any North Canton elector can once again go to North Canton voters to ensure as a matter of the fundamental law of North Canton (subject only to superseding and Ohio and federal constitutional limitations) that the electorate (i.e. "the people" of North Canton) has the right to "ultimately" decide what the compensation for city officials will be.

While the SCPR thinks that Haas could have just have easily interpreted (and, found legal precedent justification) the Section 4.04 language of the North Canton Charter language on compensation to allow the people's decision of November, 2012 to stand; it appears that he is more a of philosophical "republican" (leadership by the few) than a "democrat" (participation of the many) when it comes to the fundaments of American government and therefore his decision was predictable.

It is surreal that in a democracy a vote of the people gets overturned on the flimsy basis of Haas' ruling.

The Supreme Court case Haas cites as legal justification for his North Canton decision dealt with a situation that NEVER MADE IT TO THE BALLOT.

Decisions like these should be - going forward -  a strong factor as to whether or not to vote for John Haas or those of his seeming philosophical persuasion in future elections.

And decisions like this should give Ohioans "pause for thought" on Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor's desire for Ohio judges to be appointed rather than elected.

No, thank you!

Elected officials like Haas should be held accountable at the polls for overturning a vote of the people on what largely boils down to his difference of opinion with Osborne's attorneys over whether or not Section 4.04 requires that he in effect "judicially" insert the word "exclusive."

Does Haas' action sound just a tad like a case of judicial activism (i.e. legislating from the bench)?

This decision the SCPR thinks undermines democracy and gives aid and comfort to imperial types in government (e.g. North Canton law director Tim Fox?) to interpret against the peoples' right to participate or to know (public records) in the peoples' government.

It is getting nearly impossible to get day-in, day-out citizens to be involved in government at any level (even vote) and the SCPR thinks government officials like Haas and Fox are to blame.

The Report does not ever want to hear from the lips of either lamentations regarding ordinary people disdaining government.

Here the people have clearly spoken, but their choice is wiped out by the stroke of Judge Haas' pen.

It would be nice for a judge to err on the judge of democracy rather than as a thwart to democracy.

It appears to the SCPR that Haas is implying in referring to the "mirror" legislation to the passed citizen initiative ordinance amounts to "no harm, no foul."

Maybe he's not suggesting such.  But if he isn't, why is that fact in his decision?
 
In promising to file an appeal, Osborne certainly is not assuaged by the reference.

Lamentations are not likely, especially from Fox.

If there ever is a person who - in the opinion of the SCPR - ill suited (by temperament and his apparent "anti-citizen" attitude) to be a public official, it is North Canton Law Director Tim Fox.

Reports of his applying for a Republican Party (i.e. Republican governor John Kasich) appointment to replace Stephen Belden (who resigned effective November 30th) as a Canton Municipal Court judge is just a tad scary to the SCPR.

Stark County already has enough of power mongering judges, for example:

• Dixie Park, Stark County Probate Court,
• Frank Forchione, Stark County Court of Common Pleas, and
• Eddie Elum, Massillon Municipal Court,

we certainly do not need another.

Stephen Belden was egregious enough in that regard.

For him to be replaced by the autocratic Tim Fox would be more of the same if not worse, the SCPR thinks.

Most local politicos that the SCPR talks to think that that a Fox appointment is not going to happen.

If it does, by chance, happen, there is general consensus that nearly any of the Democrats considering the race would be odds on favorites to defeat him in November, 2015.

And maybe, on second thought, that is a win-win for everybody?

Of course, in enabling North Canton's imperial acting law director, his supporters on North Canton Council share responsibility (to name names) for citizens opting out in increasing numbers (e.g. percentage of citizens registering and actually voting going down) of our democratic-republican processes.

No doubt about it!

North Canton government is broken when it comes to most of the councilpersons and the mayor being citizen-participation-friendly.

However, over time it could be that a group of hardy citizens (Concerned Citizens of North Canton) will prevail in fixing what ails North Canton government.

The SCPR sat down with two representatives of the CCNC yesterday and videotaped these reactions to the Haas decision, the group's overall mission vis-a-vis council and its durability.

REACTION TO THE HAAS DECISION


ARTICULATION OF CCNC EFFORT TO REIN-IN COUNCIL & SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT COUNCIL


IF NORTH CANTON COUNCIL MEMBERS RESUME COVERAGE, THE COST TO NORTH CANTON TAXPAYERS



"WE'RE NOT GOING AWAY"



And, to repeat, Baughman and McCleaster tell the SCPR that CCNC's message to North Canton City Council and Law Director Tim Fox is:  "We are not going away!"

Look for council as a whole and the mayor to do everything they can to stymie the CCNC effort.

North Canton City Council is the only hostile council in all of Stark County in relationship to any Dogwood City citizen that dares to question or disagree with a majority of them.

Only a replacement next November of four of the seven (pick any four) will change the culture of North Canton City Council.

APPENDIX

THE HAAS DECISION

This matter came on for consideration upon separate motion.

This action involves the validity of the Initiative Healthcare Ordinance passed by the voters of the City of North Canton in the General Election held on November 6, 2012. On March 28, 2014, North Canton initiated this action with the filing of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment seeking a declaration that the Initiative Healthcare Ordinance is invalid.

The parties have filed stipulations leaving one disputed legal issue for the Court's consideration: whether the Defendants' initiative action is contrary to North Canton's Charter or whether the initiative ordinance is a valid and enforceable ordinance in the City of North Canton.

North Canton asserts that because the Defendants initiative action seeks to reduce or deny North Canton's elected officials' health care benefits, it conflicts with its Charter requirement that City Council shall set those compensation levels, which levels include health care benefits. Defendants, on the other hand, maintain that the Initiative Healthcare Ordinance is valid and enforceable municipal legislation.

It should be noted that, even though North Canton believes that the Charter conflict rendered the initiative action void, because it reflected the will of the electorate, North Canton enacted a mirror ordinance to repeal the initiative and enacted a mirror ordinance in its place. The parties have stipulated that North Canton's elected officials have not just reduced their health care benefits to comply with the mirror ordinance, all eight of them have completely waived North Canton-paid health care benefits for themselves and their families.

Declaratory Judgment

In order to obtain a declaratory judgment, a moving party must show the following essential elements: 1) a real controversy exists between the parties; 2) the controversy is justiciable in character; and 3) speedy relief is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties.

Given the facts as admitted in the pleadings and Joint Stipulations, the Court finds that all three elements have been met.

Initiative Healthcare Ordinance is Void

North Canton has been a charter municipality since November 8, 1960. The Charter specifically adopts and incorporates the provisions of the Constitution and laws
of Ohio regarding initiative petitions and setting compensation for council. The initiative provision contained in the Charter provides as follows,

(1) INITIATIVE. The electors of the municipality shall have the power to propose ordinances and other measures by initiative petition in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and laws of Ohio now
or hereafter in effect. Article V, Section 5.07(1).

The initiative power is, without doubt, an important component of a democratic government. However, the power is not without limitation. It is a well-settled principle that that a municipal ordinance in conflict with its charter is void.  This is true whether passed by the legislative body or initiated by the electorate. North Canton's Charter provides as follows:

The Council shall have the power to fix the compensation of its members and that of the Mayor, the Director of Administration, the Director of Finance, the Director of Law, officers of the municipality, of each job classification, and the members of any board of commission of the municipality, wither elected, appointed, or chosen. Article IV, Section 4.04.

Defendants contend that because Section 4.04 does not say that Council shall have exclusive power, the power of both city council and the people to legislate compensation runs concurrent. The Court is not persuaded by this argument. North Canton's charter does not conflict with Ohio's statutes regarding City Council setting compensation levels and with initiative actions.  Additionally, "[m]unicipal charters must be construed to give effect to all separate provisions and to harmonize them with statutory provisions whenever possible.  In applying these principles, the Court finds that no ambiguity exists, and, even if there is an ambiguity, in harmonizing all provisions, it is clear that only council, as the legislative body, may set compensation for its members.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has spoken to the issues before this Court. In State ex rel. Werner v. Koontz, the Supreme Court examined an initiative petition for a proposed ordinance that five men filed with the City of Columbus Clerk of Council.  The initiative petition contained provisions fixing a minimum number of officers, members, and employees of the fire and police departments and fixing their minimum salaries. After examining the initiative petition with respect to the Columbus Charter, the Court found that the charter provided that the city council shall fix the salary or compensation of council members, the mayor, and all other officers and employees. The Court found that "(I]t is perfectly plain that the designated proposed ordinance if adopted would be directly contra to the charter's compensation provision."

The Court held that the initiative was actually a proposed charter amendment, cloaked "under the guise of initiating and adopting and ordinance."  The Court went on to say that any amendment to the charter could be effected only in the manner prescribed by the charter. Likewise, if the North Canton electorate wishes to amend the Charter, it may, but the proper procedure must be followed.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the Initiative Healthcare Ordinance is invalid because it conflicts with the North Canton Charter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants' Initiative Healthcare Ordinance is void, ab initio. Because Defendants' remaining claims are contingent upon the validity of the ordinance, those claims are hereby DISMISSED.

This is a final appealable order and there is no just cause for delay.

EXTENDED COMMENTS BY OSBORNE'S ATTORNEYS

“We are, of course, disappointed that the Court elected not to uphold the rights of all citizens to exercise their right to initiate legislation and actively engage in the legislative process.

The Ohio Constitution reserves to the people the inherent right of self-government, so when the concerned citizens of North Canton proposed and the voters overwhelmingly approved legislation to address fiscal irresponsibility by permanently restricting the benefits available to city employees, the peoplenaturally expected that their will would be done.

North Canton, like most governmental entities today, views itself as a superior legislative authority over and above the citizens they purport to represent.

The Court has again sided with the government to suppress the inherent power reserved to the people by the Ohio Constitution. We no longer live in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but rather a government of the politicians, by the politicians and, most importantly, for the politicians.

We are discussing with our client his appellate rights.”

A COLLECTION OF OSBORNE COMMENTS

The ruling by the court was rather pathetic, especially given the statewide importance of the question before the court, the constitutional issues that were at play here and the work invested by both sides in this case. Our arguments were not even addressed by the Court. Nine months and this is the best the courts can come up with. I intend to have my attorneys move ahead with an appeal.

I am stunned that a court would find it so easy to throw out an entire election.

SAD DAY IN NORTH CANTON FOR DEMOCRACY!

Attached is the Trial Court ruling released this morning on the validity of Health Care ordinance that was initiated by the citizens of North Canton and passed overwhelmingly 3 to 1 by the voters of North Canton in the November 2012 General Election. North Canton’s elected officials raised no objections during the initiative process and actually participated in placing the issue on the ballot. The ballot issue was known as Issue 5.

Fourteen months after the Stark County Board of Elections certified the vote and the Initiative became law, North Canton’s elected officials raised objections claiming citizens had no right to restrict health care benefits to part-time elected officials under the North Canton City Charter.

The proposed ballot language was filed with the City of North Canton on May 9, 2012. At that time, City Law Director Hans Nilges raised no objections. Long-time North Canton Law Director Roy Batista, appointed interim Law Director soon after petitions signatures were turned in to the City raised no such concerns.

On February 27, 2014, Mayor Held released the legal opinion of Law Director Tim Fox claiming the Initiative Health Care Ordinance violated North Canton’s City Charter.

Why did it take North Canton Elected Officials from May 9, 2012 until February 27, 2014 to makes these claims?

ONLINE COMMENTS

POSTED TO [REPOSITORY] DECEMBER 6, 2014, EDITORIAL TITLED: 

 "ITS BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD IN NORTH CANTON"

This editorial is factually incorrect just as, I believe, the court was in throwing out an entire election and ruling against the citizens of North Canton.

North Canton’s charter does NOT limit changes to its charter to 10-year intervals as stated in the editorial.

Did the Repository Editorial Board totally forget last year’s charter amendment to make the office of Mayor a full-time position? It was Issue 13 on the ballot. This paper did cover the story in numerous reports, and later urged voters to reject the proposed change!

I might add that there is nothing magical about “council appoint[ing] a 15-member charter commission that can recommend to voters changes it believes are appropriate.” The recommendations are actually made to Council.

It fact there is a major downside to that process. Council can introduce politics and refuse to place Charter Commission recommendations on the ballot.

This happened to the Charter Review Commission in 1977 when Council refused to place one of the four recommendations of the Charter Commission on the ballot. Citizens collected signatures on an Initiative, which were validated, forcing Council to place the fourth recommendation of the Charter Review Commission on the ballot.

Government exists to serve the people. Not the other way around. The right of Initiative is a protected right under the Ohio Constitution. It is too bad that the trial court had no interest in asserting rights of the people that are provided for in Ohio’s Constitution and instead chose to throw out an entire election.

The City’s charter does say, “The Council shall have the power to fix the compensation of its members and that of the Mayor” but that statement is not exclusionary. Two previous North Canton Law Directors had no problem with the ballot issue before the current City Law Director came along.

The trial court offers one opinion. And it will be reviewed by judges who hopefully realize the significance of the issues raised in this case.

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

CANTON MAYOR HEALY SPEAKING FOR THE LIKES OF STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONER JANET CREIGHTON & THOMAS BENABEI? WHEW!!! WHAT'S NEXT?

VIDEOS

(ENCORE PRESENTATION)

CANTON MAYOR

WILLIAM J. HEALY, II

SAYING

STARK COUNTY GOV'T

HAS AGREED TO PROVIDE

$5 MILLION TO 

HALL OF FAME VILLIAGE PROJECT

========================

SERIES OF VIDEOS

ON

COMMISSIONERS BERNABEI & CREIGHTON

RESPONDING TO HEALY'S ACCOUNT

========================

Readers of The Stark County Political Report know that The Report's - more or less - reporting station and political analysis base from nearly the beginning of the SCPR in March, 2008 has been the Stark County commissioners' weekly meeting.

A big SCPR "thank you" to former Commissioner Todd Bosley who promoted the weekly commissioners' meeting as the "base of operations" for The Report - for the idea.

Though virtually powerless over much of Stark "County" government and having very little clout over Stark County's villages, cities, and townships, much of local government and government's step-sister "politics" filters through - even if in a perfunctory manner - through the county commissioners.

Despite the commissioners' meeting being The Report's government and politics "watering hole," the SCPR does get out and about across Stark County and "heads turn" when yours truly shows up a village, city, township, board of education or other local government associated meeting.

As readers know the SCPR can take the most benign and boring of meeting happenings and turn such into a very interesting story which can on occasion shake the very fundaments of Stark County's local government complex.

As dealt with in Tuesday's blog, as he wont to do, Canton mayor William J. Healy, II (who, as a local government official, is a godsend to this blogger) dropped a little morsel of "inaccurate" (at least, for now) information which got an interesting reaction from his dear and close friends (Janet Creighton and Thomas Bernabei) who constitute 2/3rds of the Stark County Board of County Commissioners.

Healy said that of the 30 millions or so - so far - committed to the newly announced in financial support of the newly announced Pro Football Hall of Fame Village "concept" project (HOF), Stark County had pledged (the SCPR's word; not Healy's) $5 million.

See this Healy video to make your own determination of whether or not it is fair for The Report to take Healy as saying that the Stark County commissioners' $5 million in county taxpayer support of the HOF project is a done deal.



One of the really neat things that the commissioners do that no other Stark County unit of local government does, is, after the official weekly commissioners' meeting is concluded, is to open the meeting to questions on the part of the media and presumably anybody else in attendance at the meeting.

The SCRP usually criticizes local government officials for their seeming "let's runaway and hide" persona (e.g. North Canton Council and Law Director Tim Fox), but the commissioners since Creighton and Bernabei came into office with their election in November, 2010 have "far and away" put their local government colleagues to shame.

So thank you Stark County commissioners Creighton and Bernabei of being "a light and a beacon" of democratic-republican principles of operation as a shining example - in this respect - of what Stark's other political subdivision of the State of Ohio can be!

At yesterday's commissioners' meeting, the SCPR during the Q&A asked the commissioners about Healy's $5 million commitment to the HOF project county government.

• SCPR Note:  The question was posed to Bernabei and Creighton; Richard Regula was off to Washington, DC to help celebrate the 90th birthday of  father and former Congressman Ralph Regula,
• (in the days when Stark County had only one congressman rather than the three Stark now has)
• ["three is better" according to Stark GOP chairman Jeff Matthews and state Rep. Christina Hagan, Republican - Marlboro.

The question to Bernabei and Creighton was:

"Did the [SCPR] miss something of a past commissioners meeting for The Report learned from Mayor Healy that the commissioners had agreed to ante up $5 million of taxpayer money for the HOF project?

Answer:  (from Commissioner Bernabei):

The SCPR had not missed anything.   No official action has taken place to put Stark County government on record as providing $5 million or any other number of dollars to the HOF project.

VIDEO:  BERNABEI ON THE $5 MILLION QUESTION



Well, then it was "Katy, bar the door," Olson was off and running with a string of questions.

As he nearly always does, Commissioner Bernabei's responses offer a "fount of knowledge" and information as to the history and the current status of "outside-the-public-purview" discussion between the commissioners (i.e Bernabei; not a majority of the board), HOF officials and other local luminaries (public and private sectors) on the "behind-the-scenes" exploratory talks that have been going on at least a year and the SCPR has the impression:  "much longer than anybody will ever admit to."

VIDEO:  BERNABEI ON WHERE THE $5 MILLION OR "WHATEVER" WILL COME FROM



VIDEO:  WHOM APPROACHED WHOM & WHEN

• SCPR Note: also some humor:  Bernabei commits Creighton to donating $11 million a la New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson

VIDEO:  COMMISSIONERS COMMIT TO A "PUBLIC HEARING" PROCESS BEFORE ANY DECISION MADE



VIDEO:  BERNABEI ON SPECIFIC NUMBER - $5 MILLION OR WHATEVER - BEING CONSIDERED



COMMISSIONER BERNABEI'S "AS AN INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER" VIEW ON HOF FUNDING



VIDEO:  COMMISSIONER CREIGHTON "INDIVIDUAL VIEW AS A COMMISSIONER" VIEW
& 
THE BERNABEI TAKE ON WHETHER OR THE HOF PROJECT WILL "ULTIMATELY" BRING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO STARK COUNTY



Before going further, readers should take note of what the HOF folks themselves have to say about the conception of the project:

Hall’s Board approves HOF Village Concept

11/11/2014 

The Pro Football Hall of Fame Board of Trustees recently approved in concept a master plan to develop the current campus into a “Hall of Fame Village.”

At the center of the plan is the renovation of Pro Football Hall of Fame Field, the stadium adjacent to the Hall. Work on the stadium is expected to begin next fall.

The Hall of Fame will now proceed with securing partners to create a village that may include:

• a world-class hotel and conference center, 
• an Academy of Excellence that would service the corporate world, 
• a Center of Athletic Performance & Safety, 
• youth football fields, 
• retail, 
• thematic restaurants, and 
• mixed use residence for Hall of Famers and NFL Legends. 

The multi-phased project is also master planned to include other entertainment opportunities for fan engagement such as an interactive Fan Experience.
“The concept of Hall of Fame Village aligns with the Hall’s vision for the future,” stated Hall of Fame President David Baker. “The commitment by the Board of Trustees provides the staff the opportunity to begin the next steps recommended in recently completed feasibility studies.”

• SCPR Note:  HOF quote restructured to emphasize the many aspects that the project envisions.

Here is the SCPR exclusive video footage of the Bernabei/Creighton response to The Report series of questions.

It is somewhat of "an ironic twist" for Canton mayor William J. Healy, II to be speaking (or, at the very least "sharing information") for Creighton and Bernabei.

These folks have not exactly been "bosom buddies" going way back to November, 2007 when Healy defeated Janet Creighton in her quest to be re-elected (a Republican mind you, in a 9 to 1 Democratic registration majority city) mayor of Canton.

Healy defeated her and quite convincingly.

Before that defeat, Creighton was deemed by many of us political types as being invincible in Stark County elections.

And that is probably still the case outside-the-city-of-Canton.

But nonetheless, Creighton's defeat was quite a humiliation for her.

If Healy had just let things settle in and, for most of his first term as mayor, not bashed Creighton on how she administered Canton government, maybe, in time, Creighton would have gotten over her defeat by Healy.

But he could not resist the opportunity "to blame her" for all Canton's problems so as to put himself in the "savior mode" which, of course, everybody knows is still "a work in progress."

As for Bernabei, he became Healy's first service director and chief of staff.

What a mistake that was!

You talk about mixing "oil and water," what a classic case that the Bernabei/Healy hookup turned out to be.

Both are highly self-confident and Bernabei, being the veteran administrator as Canton's long time law director, he was used to giving orders; not taking them.

Healy as the newly elected mayor had to be like "a kid in a brand new 'sand box.'"

Wouldn't you liked to have been "a fly on the wall" as subordinate Bernabei started barking out orders to "Hizzhonor?"

It is amazing, but Bernabei lasted an entire year as Healy's top administrator.

But then Bernabei goes out-of-town in early 2009.

"When 'the cat' is away, the [mouse] will play," no?

That folks is "the rest of the story!"

While Bernabei was away, Healy summoned the courage to dump him.

Sorry for the diversion, but some SCPR readers might not know why The Report thinks it is just a tad ironic that Healy would dare to share information (which, is inaccurate as of December 4, 2014) much less speak for Commissioners Creighton and Bernabei.

As is evident from Bernabei's responses to the SCPR's questions yesterday, both commissioners are "bullish" for the HOF project concept and it is near certain they will find a way - one way or another (i.e. not getting into Stark County's general fund money and/or the Justice System Sales Tax [JSST] revenues) - to come up with Stark County taxpayer supported revenue stream to redirect to the HOF project.

In time, the SCPR thinks Healy will be right.

But just not now.

The SCPR has got to say that covering Stark County government and politics is "really exciting stuff."

What "a cast of characters" we Stark Countians have for village, city, township and board of education officials, no?

And you can depend on the SCPR to bleed every ounce of the intrigue out of Stark County government and politics goings on!

CANTON CITY COUNCIL, CANTON RESIDENTS CAUGHT BETWEEN A P0LITICIAN'S "PROMISES" AND ENGINEERING "REALITIES" ON CONDITION OF CANTON'S STREETS & ROADWAYS?

 

UPDATED:  4:45 PM

The following chart (modified for blog viewability) on Canton paving projects was provided by Engineer Dan Moeglin's office.

"Click" on projects graphic to enlarge.

VIDEOS

MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY

"I PROMISE ... "

======================

CANTON CITY COUNCIL

DISCUSSES

"REALITIES"

OF

CANTON'S ASPHALTING PROGRAM

======================

Of late, the condition of Canton's streets and roadways has become a "hot potato" political issue.

Canton residents have been weighing in on their respective councilpersons, who - in turn - have landed upon the mayor and indirectly on the city engineer:  Dan Moeglin.

The dissatisfaction with the quality of Canton's asphalt (for the most part) arteries surfaced Monday night at the regular weekly (mostly) meeting of Canton City Council, to wit:

And, of course, the only Stark County media source for "the complete story" presents council's discussion of the "withdrawn" resolution for Canton resident consumption.

Stark Countians at large have an interest in this issue inasmuch as Stark County outside-the-city residents frequent (i.e. use Canton's streets and roadways) Canton to do government business (federal, state and county [Stark County's county seat]).

Here is the video of council's discussion.



Interestingly, near the end of the discussion seven-year mayor William J. Healy, II chimed in to make a promise:



As you have now seen, his promise is to abide by the wishes of  Canton City Council members and only lay asphalt within date parameters of May 1st through October 1st of each and every calendar year.

The question that The Stark County Political Report has is whether or not putting a time stricture on the laying of asphalt is:

• practical, and
• wise

One of the best sources for determining the answer to the SCPR question posed is, of course, Canton City Engineer (for the last 9-1/2 years) Dan Moeglin.

The Report today (12/02/2014) had an approximately 30 minute telephone conversation with Engineer Moeglin which developed the following information that Cantonians and their councilpersons might want to mull over before hamstringing the mayor, the engineer and Streets Department superintendent Michael Rorar.

WHAT THE ASPHALT BUDGET SHOULD BE?

• Canton is about $9 million in arrears in its re-asphalting periodically the city's streets and roadways,
• Note:  the arrears as developed since the recession onset of 2007/2008,
• Note:  Moeglin says Canton needs to have an asphalting budget of about $2 million annually "to keep up, once it 'catches' up,"
• Canton's 2014 asphalting budget was $800,000,
• To get up-to-date over the next few years, Canton would need to have a $3.5 million to $4 million annual asphalting budget,

IS "TOO COLD" TO ASPHALT A CANTON PROBLEM?

• Not in the perception of Engineer Moeglin, to wit:
• Only once in the 9-1/2 years that Moeglin has been engineer does he recall the surfacing of any differences with a contractor (about 5 years ago) on whether or not the temperature was warm enough to effectively (i.e. to achieve a "normal" life span [e.g. 10 years]) asphalt,
• Note:  Moeglin says that Streets Department Head Rorar has come up with a sealing process that might extend the life of this type of asphalting some 3 to 4 years,
• It is in the interests of the city administration and city asphalt contractors to only lay asphalt according to Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) temperature standards of 35 degrees, 40 degrees or 60 to 70 degrees depending on whether the asphalting is:
• base, (35)
• surface,  (40) or 
• a highest standard surface asphalt, rubber mix (60/70),
• there could be days before October 1 that do not meet the ODOT standards, and
• there have been and continue to be many days after October 1st which meet or exceed the standards

DOES COUNCIL NEED TO BACK OFF ON THIS ISSUE?

No, according to Engineer Dan Moeglin.

Yes, so the SCPR thinks, with the proviso that it is productive for council to have had this discussion and exercise continuing oversight of the effectiveness of Canton's asphalting and road repair program.

But, council cannot have it both ways.

On the one hand, it appears to the SCPR that Canton City Council members want more asphalting but - on the other hand - have it done in a compressed period of time.

WHY CAN'T COUNCIL HAVE IT "EVERY WHICH WAY?"

• There are (according to Moeglin) various types of asphalting that the city takes on:
• there is the program in which every 10 years or so the city resurfaces city streets to take care of the ravage that nature imposes on city streets and roadways and there is no more patching that can be done to keep them in navigable condition,
• This part of Canton's asphalting program the SCPR thinks can be preplanned to occur only within a specified time range,
• there are those those which are part of an overall construction project (e.g. the 12 Street Corridor Project, the Mahoning Road Corridor Project and the 37th Street Project) on which the laying of asphalt is the last of many aspects (the date a given contract was entered into, relocating sewer lines, water lines, et cetera) to the project.
• This part of Canton's asphalting as far as the SCPR is concerned is not amenable to a restrictive time period

IS COUNCIL MAKING A POLITICAL FOOTBALL OUT OF THIS ISSUE?

Engineer Moeglin does not think so.

He tells the SCPR that:

• Though he was not present at Monday night's meeting, he thinks that the resolution was borne of frustration with Canton falling behind on keeping up with the condition of its streets and roadways generally and that he does not take personal offense at their expressing concerns,
• In short, Moeglin thinks that council as whole has the highest motivation and may not have a full appreciation of "the realities" of the asphalting processes and that he has worked with various councilmembers to better equip council to better understand the intricacies of asphalting,

While Mayor Healy did make a promise on Monday night to - with/without an informal resolution or ordinance - to comply with council's wishes, it might be a promise that council ought think about once, twice, and maybe even three times of holding his administration (i.e. the engineering and streets departments)accountable.

The interplay between the legislative and executive branches is a dynamic process of government balancing act.

It could be that with the proposed legislation will do more harm than good.

With Mayor Healy promising to respect council's wishes, such should be enough.

The SCPR is amazed to have to say this.

But it appears to The Report that council has made itself heard (reference:  Healy - "The message has been heard") and for now "council needs to 'trust' (i.e. "trust but verify) the Healy administration which is to say the mayor and his promise.

But the "reality" is that what council needs to do more than anything else is to pressure the administration to find ways and means to find that $3.5 to $4.0 million for Canton to catch up on it backlog.

Coming full cycle from yesterday's SCPR blog:

• While Mayor Healy makes a strong case for Canton putting $5 million in seed money into the Pro Football Hall of Fame Village Project,
• if it means that the city falls further behind in its asphalting backlog in terms of:
• making up for prior years shortfalls, and
• not getting up to the $2 million a year Canton needs to be doing annually to keep up once it catches up, 
• then maybe the administration needs to lean on others within the Stark County industrial/commercial community to pick up the city of Canton's commitment?