SCPR "BOTTOM 10" REVISITED: ON A PERIODIC BASIS

CANTON CITY SCHOOLS BOE MEMBER

ERIC RESNICK

With this blog, the SCPR revives one of the most popular series with readers that being Stark County's "Bottom 10 List" of  Political Subdivision Elected Officials.

Rather than have updates to this list and "The Top 10 List" be on a regularly scheduled quarterly calendar basis, The Report will update these list periodically going forward.

Until a current place holder on the lists is replaced or re-situated, readers are to take the last listed person as still occupying the slot.

For example, on August 25, 2105 named Canton councilman Jimmy Babcock as being #6 (LINK) on "The Bottom 10 List."  As of this periodical update, the #6 slot will not be re-published.  Accordingly, Councilman Babcock can rest of assured that he still occupies the #6 slot. 

In this update, Jackson Township trustee James N. Walters loses the #10 slot (LINK) to newly elected Canton City Schools Board of Education (BOE) member Eric Resnick.

But Walters should not be jumping for joy.  For The Report has plans to elevate him to worse ranking on "The Bottom 10 List"  in his individual capacity as trustee in Jackson Township and as representative of the board in light of the revelation in yesterday's blog that U.S. Equal Opportunity as determined that there is "probable cause" to believe that the Jackson Township Police Department has discriminated against six female employees.

Who knows, he might even replace former and now "unelected" Canton mayor William J. Healy, II listed at #5 last fall?

 Now turning The Report's attention to Mister Resnick as the SCPR's latest addition to "The Bottom 10 List!

Congratulations, Eric.  Resnick is a former CCS BOE member having been elected in 2009 to fill the unexpired term of John Rinaldi (how ironic is that) who abruptly resigned earlier in the year.

Canton City Schools have had quite a lot of negative publicity over the past year and a good part of the negativity came from Resnick as he seems to the SCPR as having been the lead in opposition to the successful effort by school officials with BOE approval of the merger of Resnick's alma mater Timken High School with McKinley with the McKinley name surviving the consolidation.

If Superintendent Adrian Allison thinks having Resnick as an "outside-the-beltway" opponent was a bad trip; having him working his Machiavellian politics from the inside will likely the outright nightmare for the Super.

The SCPR is prone to be supportive of folks like Resnick because of their willingness "to shake the trees" of establishment political and government circles.

But yours truly finds it hard to abide him for his utter arrogance and vitrolic ways. Undoubtedly, does some good in a Devils' advocate role.  But in the end, The Report thinks he does more harm than good in an official capacity.

He seems to like to present himself as the paragon of righteousness in his functioning as a public official.  But The Report for one questions whether or not he adequately protected Canton Joint Recreation Board (CJRB) taxpayers during his stint on its board and in particular as the board's president.

The Report has done some blog work re:  Resnick when he was a member of the CJRD, the legitimacy of which was brought into question by some when he continued on in that capacity as an appointee of the Canton BOE even after he lost his place on the BOE, but is not done with that matter just yet.

It had to be a huge disappointment to the likes of John Rinaldi (current vice president of the Canton BOE) and the highly regarded Richard Milligan and perhaps relatively new member Will Grimsley (a fellow union member with Rinaldi) to see the results of election night November 3, 2015.

It has been tough enough for the Board in Resnick's absence from BOE officialdom over the past four years, for example (in part):

• Convincing CCS constituents of the viability of implementing the system's Brighter Tomorrow program
• The merger of Timken and McKinley High School (which Resnick opposed in his capacity as a citizen and alumni of Timken),
• Financial uncertainty,
• Substandard (as compared to other Stark County school districts) academic performance,
• The controversy between the CCS treasurer and the Stark County Educational Service Center (of which yours truly is a member) over reimbursement to the SCESC of payments made by the Center to Alison's wife working at the CCS as a SCESC employee, and
• The resignation of board president Ryan Brahler over some controversial remarks directed towards game officials he made at a McKinley girls basketball game,

November 5th was not tough to exiting board members from the standpoint of the election of Corey Minor Smith.  Optimism abounds that she will be a productive board member.

Resnick's narrow victory in light of his past board member performance had to be troubling going forward.

A mere 27 votes separated Canton having a totally productive board to one in which The Report thinks that there will be acrimony generated by mostly by highly emotional Resnick.

Two years ago, Rinaldi handily defeated Resnick in a knock-down, drag-out political fight (LINK) in which Resnick in the opinion of The Report placed himself in the political gutter.

What a reprieve for the Canton City Schools, no?

Resnick originally as indicated above was elected to the CCS BOE in 2009 but could not get his gathering petition signatures act together in order to qualify for a place on the ballot in 2011.

Resnick, who the SCPR thinks fancies himself as being smarter than everybody else in the room failed to get the required 150 signatures to qualify for the ballot in his quest to be re-elected in the November, 2011 general election.

He submitted 197 signatures, but 50 did not qualify as registered voters.

Amazing, truly amazing!  Of his submitted signatures, 26% of them didn't qualify as valid signatures.

A guy who once ran for the United States Congress.  Wow!

The SCPR can say for sure from direct experience that getting nearly all if not all of one's signatures to be signed by validly registered voters is a very, very, very simple and an on-the-spot (called "walking-lists") verifiable process.

And he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room?  Running for the Board of Education?

In any event, the CCS were spared having him on its board.

The only significant productive thing the SCPR thinks Resnick has done on the CCS BOE is to push for a sorely needed tax issue on the 2011 ballot.  And to his credit, he took the pro-levy stance in his campaign to be elected to the board in 2009.

It passed and was critical to CCS staying financially solvent.

Other than that, the SCPR sees Resnick as nothing but trouble and look for him to get ugly with any on the board as presently constituted who have the audacity to differ with him on a controversial matter.

Allison and his fellow board members have to be bracing themselves for what they suspect is about to come.

Some readers might think it is unfair to place Resnick on "The Bottom 10 List" on his having just begun his term.

But this guy in no novice to politics and government.

The Report thinks that enough is known about Resnick from how he has handled himself in the public arena (including his abbreviated two year plus on the board previously) that justifies his #10 ranking coming out of the gate.

Had he been successful in running for the board in 2011 and/or 2013, The Report thinks he would have made a place for himself higher up on the list when it first got rolling and before the November, 2015 election.

For The Stark County Political Report blog, having Resnick in an elected position in a Stark County Political Subdivision is a godsend.

Hopefully, for the sake of the well being of the CCS, he proves The Report wrong in having highly negative expectations for him as a board member going forward.

Regrettably, the SCPR thinks such is not going to be the case.

The person who makes #1 on the list in this periodic update ought to be looking over his/her shoulder because it could be that Eric Resnick will some how manage to challenge for being the SCPR's Stark County absolutely worst elected official sooner than one might think, no?

U.S. EEOC DETERMINES THAT JACKSON POLICE DEPT MANAGEMENT "PROBABLY" DISCRIMINATED ON ITS FEMALE EMPLOYEES!

UPDATED/REVISED, TODAY - MONDAY - JANUARY  18

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR BIRTHDAY 

JANUARY 15, 1929

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

WHAT WOULD MLK, JR. THINK 

OF 

JACKSON TOWNSHIP GOV'T

TREATMENT OF IT FEMALES LET ALONE AFRICAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES

 MATERIAL ADDED ON MONDAY

COMMENT ON BLOG:

Thank you for your outstanding report on getting the truth out there!   ...

Of the six complainants, 3 of [were]  police officers ... and the other three are clerical.

...

Hopefully with your reporting,  DOJ and EEOC being involved, their illegal and disgusting violations will stop.

[SCPR  Note:  EEO says there is "probable cause" to believe that a violation of law occurred]

Thank you so very much for your investigative reporting and outstanding contributions to this county.

ORIGINAL BLOG (published Sunday)

On Monday, America celebrates the life of Martin Luther King because his devoted his life even to the point of an all too early death for the realization of the equal protection of a law not only for African Americans but for all of us.

Accordingly it is fitting and proper (to use the renown phrase coined in in The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator) that Chai R. Feldblum, a commissioner of the United States of America Equal Opportunity Commission, (LINK) has this to say about King:

"Engraved on a hallway at EEOC is this quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' 

How true. I am proud that the people of the EEOC carry out the spirit of the great Martin Luther King every day, by investigating and remedying employment injustice wherever it arises."

All too many Stark Countians likely think that denial of equal opportunity happens elsewhere American but certainly not in Stark County, Ohio.

But the fact of the matter is that the EEOC has determined that in the case of six female police department connected employees - serving the Jackson Township public and the officer part of the contingent of six,  perhaps, possibly one day at the cost of their lives - probably have been unlawfully discriminated against by the management (in place at the time of the complained of discrimination) of the Jackson Police Department and by extension to the ultimate authority in the township; namely, the Jackson Township trustees, who, of course, are elected by a majority of the voters in the respective candidacies for office.

The SCPR began writing on the Jackson Police Department situation and allegations of denial of equal employment opportunity in January, 2013.

Readers of this blog would serve themselves well in understanding the December, 2015 determination by the EEOC that there is probable cause supporting the allegations of six female that township officials discriminated against them on the basis of gender factors by reading the following SCPR blogs:

• January, 2013 blog LINK,

• June, 2013 blog LINK,

• September, 2014 blog LINK

 In view of the foregoing material (recited in the "linked" blogs, it should be no surprise to anybody to see the follow summary of the finding a hearing officer for the EEOC made almost one month ago to the day:  December 17, 2015.

So, what is the next step?

According to EEOC material provided on its website:

• If EEOC determines there is reasonable cause to believe discrimination has occurred, both parties will be issued a Letter of Determination stating that there is reason to believe that discrimination occurred and inviting the parties to join the agency in seeking to resolve the charge through an informal process known as conciliation.

• When conciliation does not succeed in resolving the charge, EEOC has the authority to enforce violations of its statutes by filing a lawsuit in federal court. If the EEOC decides not to litigate, the charging party will receive a Notice of Right to Sue and may file a lawsuit in federal court within 90 days.
  

The SCPR tried to contact Director Mabry-Thomas, Trustee John Pizzino and the township's legal counsel to learn of the progress if any in the "informal process known as conciliation."

Look for updates on this blog.  In the event that the SCPR can get a read from either township officials or the EEOC on the progress or lack thereof on conciliation, The Report will make the information available to this blog's readers.

Readers will recall that the SCPR did a study of the inequity of pay ratios by various departments of Stark County government back in 2014.  (See "links" below)

Here is a listing of linkage to blogs which reveal what the SCPR gender equity analyses showed:

• Volume 1, April 21, 2014
• Volume 2, April 28, 2014
• Volume 3, May 5, 2014
• Volume 4, May 12, 2014
• Volume 5, May 19, 2014
• Volume 6, May 27, 2014
• Volume 7, June 2, 2014
• Volume 8, June 9, 2014
• Volume 9, June 16, 2014
• Volume 10, August 20, 2014
• Volume 11,  August 25, 2014
• Volume 12, September 15, 2014 (Jackson Township)

Of specific interest to the EEOC in its determination of:

• whether or not pay differential of men over women and opportunity,
• promotion opportunities, and
• the numbers of women

among the nations' police forces rise to the level of being legally impermissible discrimination and therefore subject to remediation either through:

• voluntary conciliation, or 
• forced through litigation

Right now, Stark County's Jackson Township level of government is being dealt with in the conciliation process.

It should be disturbing to Stark Countians and Jackson Township residents that the United States Department of Justice Equal Opportunity Commission has found enough evidence in its investigation of six complaints filed by female JPD connected employees that the commission believes it is probable that Jackson Township government has discriminated against these women merely because they are women.

Over half the population of Stark County, Ohio and America at large is comprised of women.

So how is it these documented numbers exist?

At the federal level (which is to say analyzing 1,140 state and local governments across the nation circa 2013):

And in Jackson Township itself:

Not a very pretty picture, no?

Something Jackson officials should be ashamed of, no?

And to get even more specific:

Since this blog is framed on Martin Luther King, Jr and his fight for racial equality, the SCPR understands that Jackson Department has only one black officer and perhaps he is the only black employee in all of Jackson Township government.

Think maybe Jackson Township government has a problem with women and Afrian-Americans within its employment ranks.

As King is quoted above in saying "Injustice [unfairness] anywhere is a threat to justice [fairness] everywhere"

Looking at the numbers above coupled with the fresh (December 17th) ruling of probable gender discrimination within the halls of Jackson Township, Stark County government,  how can anybody think that Jackson Township officials going back at least to 1983 have upheld the rule of law and their Constitutional obligation (having taken to an oath to protect and defend the Constitution) to see to it that "fair play" is the standard by which Jackson Township government has been administrator.


Ohioans, Stark Countians and Jacksonians likely think that the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a work to be done elsewhere but not in our own backyard.

Think again, folks!

ARE NORTH CANTON GOV'T OFFICIALS JEOPARDIZING THE SAFETY OF NORTH CANTON CHILDREN IN ITS DISPENSING OF INFORMATION?

UPDATED:  3:40 PM

12 & 13 YEAR OLD
SENSITIVE PERSONAL INFO
ON
NORTH CANTON PD TRAFFIC CRASH REPORT
OCCURRED:  01/05/2016  (SEE BELOW)

TIM FOX IS NORTH CANTON'S GOVERNMENT?

UPDATE INFO

When this blog was published this morning, the SCPR did not have a copy of another NCPD Traffic Crash Report generated of a consequence of a traffic mishap wherein two children ages 12 and 13 were struck by a vehicle at the intersection of East Maple with the motorist turning south onto South Main Street.

North Canton citizen Melanie Roll took to the lectern at Monday evening's public speaks to ask the administration/council to consider remedial measures to cut down on the likelihood of future motor vehicle/pedestrian accidents in the future.

See her presentation at this video LINK at the 4:05 mark.

Here is an "extracted copy" (i.e. not all pages provided) the NCPD  generated which again, like the report published below in the original part of today's blog, provides sensitive personal information (redacted by the SCPR; not the NCPD) on a 12 and 13 year old.



ORIGINAL BLOG

Two time unsuccessful candidate for North Canton City Council (for an at-large position) Jamie McCleaster did what any due diligent parent would do this past Monday when he appeared at council's regular meeting to complain about the manner in which the city reports and makes available to the general public information regarding children (in this case ages ranging from 3 to 8) one of whom is McCleaster's daughter.

(See McCleaster at the 7:15 minute mark of a video taken of the meeting by Chuck Osborne: the LINK)

•  SCPR Note:  The Report references McCleaster's unsuccessful runs for council in order to "cut off at the pass" certain Held administration officials, Fox (a council appointed official) and others (e.g. perhaps Councilwoman Marcia Kiesling)  from trying to tarnish McCleaster's complaint as being politically motivated with an "Why didn't the SCPR make mention of McCleaster's political activities vis-a-vis council and the administration?
• Such is really irrelevant but The Report believes that those mentioned or alluded to above are wont to bring in the irrelevant as kind of a knee-jerk, hostile reaction to any citizen who do not come to the councils of government "to praise Caesar."

On December 11, 2015 a North Canton City Schools (NCCS) student transporting bus/automobile accident occurred in North Canton, to wit:

As required to do, the North Canton Police Department (NCPD) dispatched an officer to the scene to investigate.

Part of the investigation is to collect information about the accident in terms of the drivers of the vehicles, injuries sustained and statements/contact information from witnesses and other relevant information.

The collecting of information in this incident included the name, address, date of birth and phone numbers 30 students ranging from age 3 to 8.

Here is the SCPR "redacted" Traffic Crash Report:

McCleaster was understandably upset that sensitive personal information of the students (i.e. address, date of birth and telephone number) was collected and made available to the general public apparently without a second thought about the advisability doing so on the part of the police chief (Stephan Wilder, LINK to background as part of NCPD).

Tim Fox, North Canton's law director, who normally seems to have his fingerprints on everything North Canton government and particularly on things "public records" availability to the general public appears to have been and surprisingly and mysteriously left out-of-the-loop on the release of the above-record.

The SCPR's focus in this blog is on Wilder and Fox.

First,  their failure (in the opinion of yours truly) in advance of December 11 to have asked (Wilder) and to have found a supportable-in-law basis (Fox) to have redacted the personal information of the 3 to 8 year olds so as to protect them from being subject to unwanted contacts if not "unsafe for them" attempted contacts.

Second, Fox's attempt to stymie certain North Canton "elected" officials  (Mayor Held and council President Daniel "Jeff" Peters (Ward 2) in responding to points made by North Canton citizens in the public speaks segment of Monday's council meeting.

ON PUBLIC RECORDS

The Report thinks that Fox throughout his tenure (3-1/2 years now) as law director has demonstrated that it is like pulling teeth to get a public records request timely, transparently and responsively (that is to say, made available) responded to.

But let the SCPR make it perfectly clear.  The Report believes that the combination of Fox and his appointive employer North Canton City Council are "made for each other" in terms of the mutual disdain for anybody who questions the actions, programs and policies of North Canton government.

In short, Fox appears to be the public face of council antagonism towards those who would hold North Canton government accountable be the issue availability of North Canton government records or any other matter.

But being the public face is not to absolve Fox as some sort of public relations person.

He, the SCPR thinks, is knee-deep in substantive city official determinations of:

• who gets requested records (it appears to The Report that he has targeted certain North Cantonians for denial of the requests for just who they are), and 
• what they get which The Report believes has more to do with political sensitivity of the records (e.g. his opinion on the legal efficacy of an overwhelming North Canton voters no vote on city paid for healthcare benefits for part-time employees)

It is astounding that Chief Wilder apparently did not consider consulting with Fox on the school bus/automobile accident report.

On more occasions than should be the case,  Fox seems to find a way in his interpretation of the law of Ohio to deny access to requested North Canton government information.

For example, there is a case somewhat relevant to the school bus/car accident report of December 11, 2015.

That case is in regard to obtaining as a public record the membership list of those using the North Canton government owned/maintained swimming pool for information about membership numbers.

Originally, the request, like the accident report, was broad enough that compliance seemed to entail providing sensitive personal information on the pool members.

Osborne has embarked on a project to analyze whether or not the membership data supports on a cost/benefit analysis basis the expense to North Canton taxpayers in the city continuing to own and maintain the pool.

 He has scaled back his request to seeking numbers only relevant to his analysis.

McCleaster used the pool public records denial by Fox as the cornerstone of his complaint that North Canton government has a double standard on what information that is obtainable in providing public records.

And the SCPR agrees with him.

The Report has no problem whatsoever with the sensitive personal information having been withheld from the public on North Canton's pool membership list.  Nor did McCleaster.

Application of a consistent standard should have resulted in the traffic accident report being redacted to eliminate the revelation of the 3 to 8 year olds' home address, telephone numbers and dates of birth.

Is Chief Wilder out-there-somewhere in not tuning into Fox's deny first North Canton government records when there is an plausible legal basis available?

Yours truly can think of a number of reasons why a financial ne'er-do-well or worse would want that information to try to team up with a social security number secured perhaps obtained from another source.

McCleaster mentioned on Monday that the family has already been the target of a law firm solicitation, to wit:

 Focus on the first three words of the letter:  "From police records ... ."

And, of course, unfortunately we have as an element of our population a number of folks who cannot properly channel their sexuality.  (LINK)

It appears to the SCPR that North Canton officials are trying the justify the outrageous dispensing of sensitive personal information of 3 to 8 year olds primarily on the lame excuse that Ohio's exceptions to the public records law does not allow for redacting the information of persons appearing on traffic accident reports.

To boot, another ridiculous line of North Canton officialdom is:   who is going to be scanning police reports for someone's personal information?

Acting as an investigative journalist (disclaimer:  yours truly is an "inactive" lawyer), The Report found the following, to wit:

149.43 Availability of public records for inspection and copying.

(A) As used in this section:

(1) "Public record" means records kept by any public office, including, but not limited to, state, county, city, village, township, and school district units, and records pertaining to the delivery of educational services by an alternative school in this state kept by the nonprofit or for-profit entity operating the alternative school pursuant to section 3313.533 of the Revised Code. "Public record" does not mean any of the following: (emphasis added)

(2) "Confidential law enforcement investigatory record" means any record that pertains to a law enforcement matter of a criminal, quasi-criminal, civil, or administrative nature, but only to the extent that the release of the record would create a high probability of disclosure of any of the following:

(d) Information that would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel, a crime victim, a witness, or a confidential information source.

(f)  The name, the residential address, the name of the employer, the address of the employer, the social security number, the residential telephone number, any bank account, debit card, charge card, or credit card number, or the emergency telephone number of the spouse, a former spouse, or any child of a peace officer, parole officer, probation officer, bailiff, prosecuting attorney, assistant prosecuting attorney, correctional employee, community-based correctional facility employee, youth services employee, firefighter, EMT, or investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation.

The children on the bus were witnesses, weren't they?

Entitled to have their safety protected, no?

Might that include having their birth dates, home addresses and telephone numbers redacted from the report?

Did the North Canton Police Department determine whether or not there were any children of the list of protected classes of employees?

The foregoing is only a cursory look at Ohio's statutes on what can and cannot be included in public records.

Anybody who knows anything about Tim Fox, knows that he goes absolutely bonkers when it comes to legal research.

Think he couldn't find an even firmer basis for redacting the sensitive personal information on 3 to 8 year olds?

What citizen thinks he or she could contact the North Canton City Schools' administration with a request for the sensitive personal information like that the North Canton Police Department made available to the public and have the request honored?

Moreover, does Chief Wilder and/or Law Director Fox really think that any court in Ohio, if North Canton was to be challenged for having  redacted the dates of birth, home address and telephone number, would hold that protecting the safety of children is not provided for somewhere in Ohio law?

There are many references in Ohio law directed towards the protection of information in minors, any information whatsoever, let alone sensitive personal information of 3 to 8 year olds.

One administration official had the temerity to lump the December 11th accident report into:  "Well, Martin we have a huge number of accident reports and imply therefore that it would not have been feasible for Chief Wilder to have checked with the law director before the fact of dissemination as to whether or not such information should be redacted in the case of minors."

Of course, the SCPR did his homework before talking with that official.

An area police chief told The Report that school bus accidents are so rare and exceptional that it is ridiculous to think that an occurrence would not raise a red flag about putting out reports with sensitive personal information of students.

So that argument does not work in population 17,000 more or less in North Canton, no?

The SCPR thinks that Chief Wilder blew it in not filtering out the December 11th report for Tim Fox assessment on the issue of redactability.

The Report is told that Fox's emphasis now - after the fact - is to build an argument that the pool denial of public records publication and the easily obtained accident report of 3 to 8 year olds sensitive information is justifiable as a matter of law.

The SCPR commends McCleaster for taking North Canton government to task.

One would think that the parents of the other 29 children would be all over the backs of North Canton officials, no?

McCleaster asked for a apology from North Canton government to him and the other 29 parents of children who may now be less safe than they were on December 10, 2015.

That will not likely happen.

But McCleaster is a difference maker and North Canton Council would be much improved had he been elected over either Griffith or Kiesling.

FOX'S ATTEMPT TO STYMIE

At least three times during Monday's meeting, Law Director Fox tried to stop the interaction between:

• Mayor David Held, council President Daniel "Jeff" Peters and others

and

•  North Canton citizens

Fox's intervention is best understood by looking at a video taken by Chuck Osborne and placed on YouTube:  (The video LINK)

This narrative will take SCPR to specific points within the first 30 minutes of the hour long video.

At the 10:15 mark:  (the LINK, once again) Mayor David Held on the public records issue raised by McCleaster addressing McCleaster and others.

At the 13:32 mark:  Fox turns to President Peters and complains about his allowing the back and forth between Held and others.

At the 20:10 mark:  Fox raises "a point of Order" in an obvious attempt to stop the dialogue between Held several council members (Peters, Ceretta and Griffith) and citizens Melanie Roll and Jamie McCleaster.

At the 21:21 mark:  Chuck Osborne explains his position on the pool public records request and manages to take a rhetorical shot at Law Director Fox at the 22:20 marks as to how Held and participating council members had been reprimanded (re:  point of Order matter) by council's employee, meaning, of course, Law Director Fox.

To their credit, neither Held, Peters nor any of the other public official participants were deterred Fox's admonitions.

At the 27:00 mark:  Fox once again takes Mayor Held to task for his back and forth with Osborne.

At the 27:20 mark:  Ironically, Fox starts talking to Held about what Osborne did or did not do with regard to his pool membership records request.

Hmm?

Didn't Fox just get done saying that there should be no sparing on matters raised in the public speaks part of the council meeting?

He must have meant everybody but Tim Fox.

Go figure, no?

AN INCREDIBLE DANIEL "JEFF" PETERS?

At the 29:00 mark:  Peters after ignoring Fox's admonitions, he backtracks and endorses the law director's attempt to stifle mayor/council/citizen interaction which of course substantiates the SCPR's assessment that Tim Fox is North Canton government.

Immediately afterwards, Peters beats the dead horse issue of whether or not council treats Osborne fairly.

There is no doubt that Osborne is a proverbial "pain in the butt" to nearly all of North Canton government.  Peters has never figured out that being uncomfortable with citizen scrutiny is part of the territory of being a public official.

Not only does the SCPR think Peters is disingenuous in his self-serving and North Canton government serving assertion that the city treats Osborne fairly.  He really gets absurd in declaring that North Canton is more than fair with Osborne.

No doubt about it.

Osborne's:

• lack of interactive finesse,
• his yelling out from the audience from time-to-time,
• his intemperate emotion-based attacks on various North Canton officials

which has gotten him removed from a number of North Canton council meetings is inappropriate behavior.

But who is going to believe that Peters, Fox, Held and most of the rest of North Canton government have demonstrated that they treat him like any other North Canton citizen?

Or, as Peters would have one believe:  better than any everyday citizen.

A more credible comment by Peters could have been something like:  "We, in light of your repeated ad hominem personal attacks, as officials in North Canton government, find it very difficult to treat you as if you were a day-in, day-out citizen, but we are trying."

It is obvious that a good part of this blog is reliant on Osborne having videotaped Monday night's meeting.

Notwithstanding the SCPR referring to certain part of the video he took, The Report has no qualms whatsoever in critiquing Osborne.
 
On a personal basis, yours truly gets along with Osborne.

However, unlike many in government, whether or not a subject of a SCPR blog is personally liked or disliked, yours truly rises above the personal sentiment either way and tells it like The Report sees it.

Subjects are provided with an unfettered opportunity to respond.

Not to blame them for Osborne's from time-to-time over-the-top conduct, but the SCPR thinks some of them, especially Fox, waive a red flag in Osborne's face.

Like them or not, politically sophisticated and articulate persons like Osborne are absolutely essential to our having accountable, responsive governments.

Undoubtedly, it gnaws at some of North Canton's governors that Osborne in much more knowledgeable in the last 15 year history of The Dogwood City and its procedural nuances than they are.

Peters is no Jon Snyder and he certainly is no Daryl Revoldt in terms of having the skills to deal with the likes of a Chuck Osborne.

To the SCPR, Jamie McCleaster is a model of citizen decorum in holding North Canton officials accountable.

Yet he gets worked over by various members of North Canton government on occasion.

Here the factor is not an abrasive personality.

It is that he has the temerity to complain about this or that aspect of North Canton government.

Too many leadership types in North Canton government lack the ability to gracefully entertain the notion that they can improve the quality of the respective performances starting with receptiveness to citizen critiques with Fox being the foremost example on this SCPR point.

Consequently, North Canton City Council will continue to be the laughing stock of political and government observers across Stark County.

And, perhaps, consequently unhelpful in protecting North Canton's children!

UNDOUBTEDLY, WELL-INTENTIONED! UNLESS YOUR NAME IS CHRIS SMITH? CLEARLY, POORLY THOUGHT OUT, NO?

The powers that be at The Canton Repository had to be slapping hands in high five fashion when somebody from among them came up with what they apparently thought was a "brilliant" model for evaluating Canton City Council.

But as my mother used to say:  "There is many a slip, between the cup and the lip."

And such is what yours truly thinks happened when the very first publication on the new model evidencing accountability in action was published on January 5, 2016 by The Repository, to wit:

While it is understandable that Ward 4 Councilwoman Chris Smith suspects that a tinge of racism by some unknown Repository employee was an operative factor in her and Councilman West's omission from the above published list,  the SCPR does not believe for a nanosecond that racism was at play.

Here is an excerpt of what Smith had to say (LINK) in her January 8, 2016 published letter to the editor of The Rep:

I find it very strange that the two people omitted were the only two African-Americans who hold a Canton City Council seat. I was told that the article had been proofread, but no one has been able to tell me why this occurred. After the scorecard was given for Ward 1, the progression should have occurred naturally with Wards 2, 3, 4 and so on. I’m not sure what part of this equation isn’t understood. The Repository, on Monday, stated they would start evaluating council’s performance. It appears to me that they need to evaluate their own performance, beginning with their reporters, editors, printers, etc.

It’s sad when any community feels racial tensions, but to find that you have been thrown into the midst of it is very unsettling. This incident has not been justified and it cannot be solved with a mere “I’m sorry.” The damage has been done. Before this article was finalized and printed, there should have been some discussion. Who’s keeping a scorecard on the Repository?

There may have been and the SCPR suspects and thinks it is plausible that some pranksterism was going on as part of some tit for tat between newspaper management types and union members.

If such was the case, the non-union leadership part of Stark County's only countywide daily could ill-afford to give any inkling to the general public that any degree of management/labor strife exists at The Rep.

Of course, it is possible that it was a plain old stupid error that escaped every eye that saw the goof  "in plain sight" as it got inked and broadcast across Stark County.

But as Councilwoman Smith in effect clearly implied in her letter to the editor:  Who is going to believe that?

For the record, here is The Rep's official response:

Editor’s Note: The omission of West’s and Smith’s names occurred during production. This mistake did not occur during the reporting process. The complete attendance list and a correction ran in Thursday’s Repository. Editor Rich Desrosiers also addressed this issue in a column, “Reputations build slowly, fall quickly.”

If a get even prank it was on the part of some unhappy laborer(s), the omission - from management's reaction - really set the upper echelon of back on their collective heels as was evident in their bumbling, fumbling effort to explain how in the world something so obvious get by the paper's sharp eyed proofreaders.

As intriguing as to what was going on within the bowels of the edifice at 500 Market Avenue, South that was the genesis of the incomplete list; the real story as far as the SCPR is concerned is that though obviously well-intended, The Rep's Canton City Council Accountability Plan (Plan) was highly undeserving and unmerited in being accorded the self-congratulations that The Report speculates recently unfolded in the higher reaches of the venerable building on the south side of town.

The articulated criteria of evaluating/rating Canton's council seems to be twofold.

One, the attendance record of councilpersons.

Two, who productively/effectively contributes to Canton's legislative process and who is not.

Hmm?

On the attendance factor, the SCPR can say that going back over eight years that yours truly has covered council, attendance has at least been acceptable if not good.

In Stark County, only North Canton appears who at one time appeared to have an attendance problem (LINK).

And, as Majority Leader Frank Morris, II said at the January 4th council meeting, most of council's real work (not just Canton but every city/village council) is done outside of the regular meeting times.

So, if a councilperson has a 100% attendance record at regular Canton City Council meetings but does to answer constituents' telephone calls, work on solving neighborhood problems as they occur or do homework on legislative proposals so as to prepared to ask incisive questions of those city officials in favor of a given piece of legislation, he/she gets high marks?

On the contribution factor, the SCPR knows over above-referenced eight years The Report's coverage of council which council persons are generally productive as contrasted to those who are not.

SOME EXAMPLES:

ON THE PRODUCTIVE SIDE

While unsuccessful, Ward 8 Edmond Mack's work on trying to bring charter government to Canton stands out to the SCPR as having been a herculean effort that included a healthy legislative debate with Ward 2 councilman Thomas West.

Mack's work was rejected by he fellows on council but he persevered to get the matter on the ballot for Cantonians to consider this past November.  Had it not been for the selfish-interest work of Dave Kirven on behalf of the trade unions, Canton treasurer Kim Perez and Auditor R.A. Mallonn and a few others with self-serving agenda, The Report thinks the measure would have passed.

Was he bitter on being defeated?

Not at all!

West has had his own day in the sun with his unsuccessful work on bringing traffic cameras to Canton.  Agree or disagree with him as majority of council did, he did thorough work in presenting his side of the issue.

Mack was impressive in relating to the constituents of his ward in the face of overwhelming articulated opposition to having a park on St. Mark's Episcopal Church.

Councilman Mack stood tall at a public meeting in the ward as Ward 8 citizen after citizen shared their mostly opposed point of views in the finest tradition of our democratic-republican form of government.

Greg Hawk (Ward 1) endured being punished by the council friends of the former Healy administration in being stripped of his finance committee chairmanship (2013-2014 term) because of his vetting of and opposition to various administration financial proposals, plans and budget manipulation schemes.

Kevin Fisher (Ward 5) worked successfully several years ago to bring to fruition to a plan (LINK) to help stop deterioration in neighborhood housing.

John Mariol (Ward 7) recently led the way in getting things up and running to create a development for Market Square (3rd/4th St and Market Ave., North).

Frank Morris, III was willing to put himself up for a leadership post on council when it became apparent that the former leader was out-of-sync with a majority of council.

Morris of Ward 9 is a refreshing curmudgeonly type who leaves very little doubt on whatever controversial issue is before council.



While the impulse on the part of his fellow councilpersons to go along with former Mayor Healy's desire that council fund at $350,000 the development of a Canton Citywide Plan was visionary and therefore laudable, Morris appears to have had the foresight to know that it was likely going to be $350,000 (Canton is now dealing with about a $4.2 million deficit in 2016) that the city could ill afford to be spending because the price tag (estimated to be about $250 million) for implementation would be impossible to come up with.

Councilman-at-Large William Smuckler has worked hard to try to achieve cooperation between Canton and the rest of Stark County's political subdivision.  But his antagonist William J. Healy, II stood in the way at nearly every turn.  With a new mayor, look for Smuckler to enjoy success going forward. 

ON THE UNPRODUCTIVE SIDE

The political fight between Councilmen West and Morris as to whom was going to be majority leader in the 2014-2015 council term.

Ward 6 David Dougherty idea of Canton making a $25,000 investment (LINK) in selling Canton memorabilia/merchandise to a disinterested Canton public.

Even the blunt Frank Morris looks like a cheerleader in relating (as acting president in council president Allen Schulman's absence) vis-a-vis Canton citizens who address council and/or the administration at the public speaks segment of weekly council meetings.

Councilman-at-Large (always dressed to the nines) Jimmy Babcock seemingly only functions as council's wallflower.

In a rare instance for the two of them, it was unseemly and hence unproductive for Councilmen Fisher and Morris as principals to conspire to put poison pills in place for citizens who wanted to run for a place on the Councilman Mack led charter government initiative which included a 15 member charter commission.

Most of if not all of the foregoing were years in the making.

For the folks at The Rep to think that they can make a meeting to meeting meaning assessment as to who is contributing, who is being productive and who is being effective is foolhardy.

The SCPR does not question the good intentions of The Rep leaders as one perspective for holding Canton City Council accountable for the quality of government which emanates council's midst.

But The Report does question the superficial, short-term an insubstantial criteria conjured as a vehicle for implementation.

Former Repository executive editor David Kaminski (now with the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce) once bragged (a paraphrase) that The Rep was the equivalent of an 800 pound gorilla with tons of ink at its disposal.

The Repository was once the equivalent of being an 800 pound journalistic gorilla in its 200 year history.

But no more.

With council's reaction to the ill-considered Plan, it is time for The Rep's leadership to wake up and smell he coffee, no?

The Report is unsure of who is responsible for the debacle within the confines of The Repository.

But it smells of inexperience and therefore lack of institutional knowledge of this body of Stark County political subdivision government.

Over the eight years that The Stark County Political Report has been in existence, yours truly has seen some four or five in not more reporters come and go either on a continuing or sporadic basis covering the goings on at city halls throughout Stark County.

Having a foundation built on years of consistent coverage of specific government entities by as few media persons as is feasible is a key ingredient in order for a media outlet to be taken by the reading public as being credible as a judge of those entities be they councils, boards, judges or executive officers.

As the SCPR sees The Rep's last eight years, it is apparent that the foundation that once existed, no long does.

And that is not good for Stark County political subdivision accountability by the media going forward.

As Councilman Morris said last week at council meeting, the primary persons holding elected officials accountable are the voters in the official's electoral district.

However, going full cycle, solid media coverage of a given official's work is a critical factor on whether or not voters have resources with which to be informed voters.

For now The Repository's plan to hold Canton City Council is a failure.

The question is:  Do The Repository powers that be have the resources and persistence to as Donald Trump says "be great again?"

The editors needed to read a book entitled Black Box Thinking (LINK).

Failure can be a spur to greatness if handled properly.

BREAKING NEWS! TODAY - OSBORNE TO FILE COMPLAINT WITH STARK BOE ON WARD 3 NORTH CANTON COUNCILWOMAN WERREN

UPDATED:  2:55 PM (INCLUDING A  COPY OFACTUAL WERREN POST-GENERAL CFR)

WHERE WILL THE FILING LEAD TO?

On November 3, 2015, North Canton civic activist, former North Canton councilman and candidate Chuck Osborne lost another election in his continuing quest to be a North Canton government official.

So, of course, the question immediately becomes:  Is this a case of "sour grapes" on Osborne losing to Werren in last fall's North Canton Council elections?

To which The Stark County Political Report responds:  to number of North Canton voters, probably so.

However, there is undoubtedly a number of them who think not and applaud Osborne's effort to compel Werren to explain what appears on the face of her post-General 2015 election campaign finance report (CFR) to have filed what seems to be an implausible CFR.

Of course, the difference between the two groups likely is seen by the majority of November, 2015 participating North Canton voters as being "so much politics."

Isn't it a touch ironic that the current director of Leadership Stark County (a project of the Greater Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce) and formerly (as assistant director) ran the Chamber's Government Leadership Academy is being questioned on her making her CFR numbers jives.

After all, a recently published bio (LINK) shows she certainly is well educated, to wit:

A Canton native, Werren holds a Master of Business Administration degree from Malone College and a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science/international studies from Miami University.

Take a look at Osborne's letter of complaint to Deputy Director of the Stark County Board of Elections Jeanette Mullane:



Additionally, a copy of Werren's actual post-General CFR:



Finally, here is a copy of Osborne's research on his take as to why he thinks Werren's CFR data is suspect:

In focusing on Osborne's objective, let's recite his plea for a remedy, to wit:

I ask that the Stark County Board of Elections require a full and honest accounting of realistic, fair-market costs of campaign expenditures from Stephanie Werren. A good start in accomplishing this would be that Mrs. Werren submits the United States Postal Service Postal Statement, PS Form 3602-R1 for each of the three mailings of her PAC, as well as invoices from the vendor who printed her campaign flyers. 

I also would like an update from your office on how you intend to proceed in this matter.

The overriding question to the SCPR is whether or not Osborne can get:

• the likes of the Stark County Board of Elections, 
• the Ohio Elections Commission, the Stark County Prosecutor Offices and 
• whomever might have a role to play
• to take his complaint at face value, 
• investigate, and 
• determine as objectively as possible
• without reference to his history as community activist as being a "pain in the butt" to many North Canton officials including Werren
• in accordance with the law of Ohio
• as to whether or not Osborne presents a compelling case that cries out for remediation in the interest of showing that Ohio campaign finance law does have teeth?

As readers of the SCPR of know, yours truly has a rather dim view of North Canton government (NCG) in terms of (for example, and not as a comprehensive list of what the SCPR thinks constitutes NCG shortcomings:

• council as a whole not respecting citizens who question council's actions,
• appearing to allow Law Director Tim Fox to discharge the function of North Canton government's legal officer to assume the role of a virtual one-man-rule phenomenon,
• only reluctantly respecting the right of North Canton voters to determine the compensation that elected officials receive (i.e. the health care imbroglio), and
• seeming to endorse "a hard way to go" approach in citizens getting public records through public records requests,

The SCPR is skeptical that other players (i.e. other than North Canton government officials themselves) can lift themselves above the smear job that it appears various North Canton officials have over some 15 years or so have built and perpetuated in order to make Osborne into a "not to be taken seriously" citizen activist.

To be circumspect, The Report sees Osborne as having played into the hands of his detractors in:

• being a chronic elective office seeker notwithstanding that North Canton voters have since his two year stint as a councilman have by convincing margin,
• getting hyper-technical in holding various North Canton officials accountable for their official actions, and
• demonstrating personal belligerence vis-a-vis non-cooperative/facilitating North Canton officials

If Osborne were just a little more consistently convivial with those with whom he deals in his community activist work without, of course, abandoning his cause; the SCP sees him as being much more effective.

But that horse likely has been out of the barn for some time now.

Nonetheless, outside-of-North Canton government officialdom should ignore the acrimony that has marked the long term interplay between Osborne and his antagonists.

What Stark Countians should be watching these outside-of-North Canton officials and their ability to administer the rule of law.

Can they do it?

Can Osborne expect a fully vetted, no-respecter-of-persons response to his question, to wit:

I also would like an update from your office on how you intend to proceed in this matter.

CLEVELAND PAID OVER $1 MILLION TO DEFEND JUDGE STOKES ETHICS COMPLAINTS

UPDATED:  3:23 PM

BUT 

MASSILLON MUNICIPAL COURT DISTRICT TAXPAYERS 

WILL NOT HAVE THE SAME FATE

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

BUT
IS 
JUDGE ELUM 
GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD 
THE "JUDGES LIABILITY POLICY"
 PREMIUM INCREASES?

This recent Cleveland Plain Dealer headline caught the SCPR's eye:

Even more eye catching was the following excerpt from the editorial board's opinion:

Those allegations (LINK to article those SCPR readers interested in the underlying material) led to a 2015 trial before the Board of Professional Conduct, a special panel of the Ohio Supreme Court, but Stokes fought the case tooth and nail, frequently changing lawyers. That also prolonged the matter -- and added to the city of Cleveland's costs. Cleveland wound up shelling out more than $1 million for Stokes' legal defense  ...  (emphasis added)

Of course, Canton (Belden) and Massillon (Elum, twice) have been Stark County's contribution to judge's (Belden [alleged]) having ethical problems.

And it could be, the SCPR has learned, that another Stark County judge from the Court of Common Pleas may, when the time is ripe [i.e. a certain timing milestone has to have passed], be in for the same experience that Belden and Elum have experienced.

One of the concerns to Stark County-based taxpayers has to be whether or not we will be asked to pick up the tab when judges or any other public official is under official scrutiny and has to expend funds to pay for his/her defense.

Beginning on December 17th, The Stark County Political Report has been writing about the latest ethical allegations made against Massillon Municipal Court judge Edward J. Elum (LINK).

In addition to the original blog on Elum's latest has also written the following blogs:

• December 21, 2015,
• December 25, 2015, and the following SCPR "suggested" New Year Resolution:

Putting two and two together and coming up with with seemingly four as an answer in light of the Stokes editorial, the SCPR thought it would be appropriate to inquire with Massillon fiscal officials as to whether or not Massillon and/or Stark County political subdivisions within the Massillon Court District (everything west of Whipple Avenue) have experienced (re:  the December 18, 2012 decision on Elum) and would experience anew the Cleveland "paying to defend" a public official phenomenon.

But unlike Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and his obviously unthought 40% of the vote equals an ass kicking knee-jerk assertion on the outcome of the Massillon mayoralty race, The Report did think and consequently asked the question.

The question went to Massillon auditor Jayne Ferrero.

Ferrero did not have an answer to the SCPR's question and so forwarded The Report's inquiry to Judge Elum himself.

Thank you, Auditor Ferrero.

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly thinks that Judge Elum owes The Report an apology for getting "personally" ugly when yours truly wrote a political analysis blog (re:  Freedom of Press, United States Constitution), to wit:

So when The Report in reviewing newly received e-mails this morning and seeing an e-mail purportedly from Judge Elum, it was "with baited breath" that yours truly raced to open the e-mail.

A long awaited apology?

Well, here is the the string of e-mails that prompted the SCPR hearing from Elum:



Aw Shucks!

No apology.

But there was a silver lining for Massillon Municipal Court District taxpayers.

These taxpayers did not pay for the 2012 decided disciplinary case (six month suspension from practice of law, suspended on condition of no further offenses during the six month term) and will not be paying for current underway disciplinary complaint.

Massillon Municipal Court District taxpayers should be thankful that Judge Elum's e-mail to The Report had this good news (silver lining) for them.

The SCPR is resigned to the apparent reality in thinking that Judge Elum does not have it within him character wise to do the right thing in respecting the United States Constitution he is sworn to uphold by apologizing to a media outlet up close and personal that he slammed for having the audacity to think that a political blogger has the right to cover his involving himself in the politics of Massillon  (LINK).

Yours truly suspects that there is a certain municipal court clerk and chief deputy who had a role in Elum doing what he did with the over-the-top e-mail, the cowards the SCPR thinks they are.

Hiding behind the robe of a judge?

It would be interesting to know whether or not Elum sent a similar e-mail to Matt Rink now of The Repository (a reporter with The Independent) questioning his personal integrity in the wake of his covering the same story (LINK), no?