(VIDEO) STARK'S OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS VOTED TO GIVE STATE OF OHIO EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES "SAFE" FRACKING. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO LOCAL CONTROL?

One of the mantras that politicians frequently mouth when they run for public office is how much they are for local government being empowered to do most of government.  For local government is the most accessible to everyday people and the place that their voices are most likely to be heard.

An example of a citizen plea for local government authority and action took place last night (see video immediately below this paragraph) at a Plain Township regular meeting of trustees.  This was the meeting that was supposed to be a forum on fracking at which fracking experts and Ohio Department of Natural Resources were to be present to answer citizens' questions.  However, due to some political maneuverings (in the opinion of the SCPR), the forum part of last night's meeting was canceled, but the 35 or so in attendance were given space under the "citizen concerns" section of the meeting agenda to speak out on fracking.

Here is the video (Greg Coleridge - the speaker - is director of the Economic Justice and Empowerment Program at the Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee):



As we all know, one cannot generally take politicians at their word.  A specific example is action taken by local members of the Ohio General Assembly (OGA) which surely is at odds with their word.  Undoubtedly, they would all say they are about empowering local government.  But do their legislative actions match their political word?

If one measures performance by their support of authority for local government (township, villages and cities) to have some say in how oil and natural gas are mined in Stark County, then all of Stark's reps (Snitchler, Oleslager, Schiavoni [not pictured above] Slesnick, Okey and Schuring) get an "F" for failure.

Let's start with the most recent bill which is Senate Bill 165.  This is legislation that supplement House Bill 278, which was passed in 2004, which adds to the authority (thereby cementing it) of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to "exclusively" control oil and natural gas drilling operations.

What was the vote of area legislators on this bill?

Here it is.

 As mentioned above, SB 165 was on top of HB 278 passed in 2004.  It was HB 278 which took away the then existing authority for localities to have some say in how oil and natural gas drilling was carried out.

Here is part of a Legislative Service Commission analysis of the impact of HB 278:

Under former law, the Division of Mineral Resources Management in the Department of Natural Resources had a certain amount of concurrent jurisdiction with municipal corporations, counties, and townships to regulate the exploration and operation of oil and gas wells.  An applicant for a state permit to drill a new oil and gas well was required to include in the application to the Division a sworn statement that the applicant would comply with all local requirements related to the drilling or operation of an oil or gas well until the abandonment of the well (sec. 1509.06(I)). (emphasis added).

Now, who - of area OGA members - voted for HB 278 (the original bill which took away a local "say-so" on oil and natural gas drilling)?

What is the point of this blog?

Check the voting record of a legislator before taking his/her "glittering generalities" as the gospel!

More times than not, the rhetoric does not match the conduct.  Go figure.

No wonder the public's confidence (about 20% at all levels) in politicians and government is at an all time low.

3RD ANNUAL SCPR "LUMP OF COAL" AWARD - STARK COUNTY OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY DELEGATION: OELSLAGER, OKEY, SCHIAVONI, SCHURING, SLESNICK & SNITCHLER

Here it is Christmas season 2010 with the likes of Trustee Louis Giavasis (Plain Township) and Councilwoman Mary Cirelli (Canton) working hard to make Stark County safe and secure in its fresh water drinking supply only to be undermined by the Stark County Ohio General Assembly delegation. Messers Oelslager, Okey, Schuring, Schiavoni, Slesnick and Snitchler (three Republicans; three Democrats) voting either for Senate Bill 165 (2010) and/or House Bill 278 (2004).

Bills 165 and 278 cumulatively took away what little say that townships, villages and cities across Ohio (including, of course, Stark County) had on the exploration of and extraction of oil and natural gas from beneath our homes and farms.

Republican officeholders in particular deify local government and local control.

Congressman-elect Jim Renacci (Republican, the 16th Congressional District) even said that civil rights should be a matter for local governance during his successful campaign against Democrat John Boccieri this past November. While the SCPR profoundly disagrees with Renacci, The Report is all for a local say in when, where and how oil and gas companies explore for and extract oil and natural gas.

Over the coming months Stark County will be a battleground between pro oil and gas company forces and their endeavor to bring hydraulic horizontal fracking drilling operations and those (including Giavasis and Cirelli) who, while not anti-oil and gas, insist on having a say in making sure that any fracking be done in such a way to protect Stark Countians and our water supply.

The coming week Trustee Giavasis will - at a regular session of the Plain Township Board of Trustees - be offering a resolution that he says is intended to safeguard Plain Township fresh water drinking supply from pollution that some say come from the fracking process.

On January 20th (for pro and anti-fracking forces) and January 27th  (for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources) informational meetings will be held at Oakwood Middle School in Plain Township on the safety of the fracking issue.  The meetings will be hosted by WHBC1480's Ron Ponder of Points to Ponder (10:00 a.m. through Noon, Monday through Friday).

Members of Stark's delegation to the Ohio General Assembly should plan to be present at the meetings to hear what Stark Countians have to say about the votes for Bills 165 and 278.

For the SCPR's part, today's blog bestows the dubious honor of Oelslager, Okey, Schuring, Schiavoni, Slesnick and Snitchler receiving the 3rd Annual SCPR "Lump of Coal" Award for their collective efforts in undermining local government.

WILL THE 2012 ELECTION BE ACCOUNTABILITY TIME FOR THE SCHURING & SLESNICK VOTES AGAINST LOCAL CONTROL (FRACKING); FUNDING LOCAL GOV'T?

One of the reasons that Stark County gets poor representation in Columbus has been the historical unwillingness of Stark County voters to "send a message" by rejecting the return of various and sundry representatives to the Statehouse.

An example is the long-term thumbing of the noses by area legislators (a combination of current and former) in following the order of the Ohio Supreme Court in the DeRolfe line of cases (four in number) mandating the fixing of the funding of public education in a constitutional manner.

It never happened largely because there were no political consequences visited by voters across Ohio (including, of course, Stark County) on transgressing legislators.

For all their huffing and puffing, the Ohio Education Association and its local unions and local school officials across the state of Ohio (including the Stark's 17 school districts) proved to be a lot of hot air that legislators could easily ignore.

2012 presents a new opportunity for area voters.

Two huge issues have surfaced since they were last elected (2010) on which voters might do Stark well by sending Republican Kirk Schuring (the 51st [to be the 48th] and Democrat Stephen Slesnick (the 52nd [to be the 49th] packing.

In two years,  Republican state Senator Scott Oelslager should be considered for the same honor.

One issue is the failure of state government to adequately fund local government at historical levels so that local governments can provide basic services without asking local taxpayers to add add taxes a the local level.

A second one is the passage of legislation beginning in 2004 whereby the Ohio General Assembly took away what little say local governments have to say as to whether or not drilling for oil and gas by a process known as fracking will be allowed in Stark County at large as well as in the cities, villages and townships of the county.

It has always been the position of the SCPR that unless and until Stark County voters are willing to play "musical chairs" with whom gets a chair in the Stark County delegation to the Ohio Legislature, nothing will change in terms of quality (i.e. responsiveness to the needs of Stark County) of representation that members of the current delegation render.

Schuring is guilty on both counts; Slesnick on some local control of the oil and gas extraction process.

Schuring has voted for a state budget which makes draconian cuts in the Local Government Fund and also voted to terminate beginning in 2013 the Ohio Estate tax.  The cuts team up to either a reduction in local government services or, if local governments have the fortitude to ask, a possible increase of taxes for what has been paid for once at the state level.

Schuring (HB 278 [2004], SB 165 [2010]) and Slesnick voted for SB 165 and thereby took away what little say local governments has about oil and gas extraction processes (including fracking operations).

Proponents of oil and gas extraction processes rightly say, in the opinion of the SCPR, that management should primarily be at the state level to ensure uniformity.  But to take away "all" local government say is an overreach and that is exactly what the combo of HB 278 and SB 165 did.

When the Stark County commissioners decided that they needed to ask Stark Countians to consider an increase in the county sales tax by 0.5%, Commissioner Creighton expressed her frustration at the apathy level of Stark Countians.

While she and her fellow county officials via a vigorous campaign shook Stark's voters out of their slumber enough to get their attention about the need to increase the sales tax, The Report believes that it is likely that county voters will promptly go back to sleep unless, of course, somebody presses a matter with them.

One hears the likes of county officials, city officials, village officials and township officials and unelected public officials moan and groan about state cuts in local government funding that will seriously curtail the delivery of service to their respective constituents or require them to ask for more local taxes.

One hears the likes of Chris Borello (Concerned Citizens of Stark County) and her anti-fracking friends (including some local public officials such as Plain Township Louis Giavasis) gripe and complain about the effect of the passage of HB 278 and SB 165 to deprive local governments of any say in oil and gas extraction processes.

But what are they going to do about it?

(VIDEOS) CANTON COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN SCHULMAN DOES "EFFECTIVE POLITICS 101" NUMBER ON STARK COUNTY ANTI-FRACKERS?

For some time now, Canton Service Director Warren Price has been trying to solve Canton's water reclamation sludge generation disposition problem.

But he appears to be getting nowhere fast.

Price, who the SCPR sees as "a pretty cool customer," is obviously getting frustrated with the opposition the city is getting to the proposal.  And as The Report believes the video below shows, he appears to be losing patience with the drawn out process.

The problem?

Stark County's anti-fracking community.

Under the label Concerned Citizens of Stark County (CCSC) and headed by Concerned Citizens of Lake Township (CCLT re:  the Industrial Excess Landfill located about one mile south of Uniontown on the east side of Cleveland Avenue) president Chris Borello who lives in Plain Township, the anti-frackers are causing quite a headache (in the form of lobbying council to vote no on a proposed solution) for Price in terms of disposing of wet sludge to be buried at American Landfill at $17.00 per ton in exchange for accepting up to 100,000 gallons of leachate from the landfill via a 12 mile long pipe into Canton's water treatment facilities.

Price says that the deal will save Canton about $500,000 annually.

It is well known that Canton is in a financial bind.  Mayor Healy told The Report he has to find a way to make up a projected $2.1 million shortfall for 2014.  Well, $500,000 in savings is a start, no?

On Monday, Canton City Council put off a vote, for a second time, on the ordinance, to wit:

POSTPONED UNTIL1/14/13         6. AUTHORIZE SERV DIR TO ENTER INTO LONG-TERM AGMT WITH AMERICAN LANDFILL, INC. FOR LEACHATE & SLUDGE DISPOSAL; EMERGENCY

Because the leachate contains elements of runoff from fracking waste materials deposited at American Landfill, Borello et al are frantic to stop the city's proposed agreement to accept leachate from American Landfill.

And they have some important allies on council, perhaps enough to stop the agreement from being authorized.

At the end of council's work session and prior to council members going into executive session to discuss contract amendments to Canton's collective bargaining agreement with its policemen, the SCPR asked Ward 5 Councilman Kevin Fisher whether or not the American Landfill agreement was still a "hot" issue.

He said that for him it is, but as far as he knew there was going to be an up or down vote on the issue and that no one had told him that the vote was going to be postponed.

Well, it was put off which is strong evidence to yours truly that it is questionable as to whether or not it could pass council.

Such is a standard Healy administration technique when the votes are not in place.

During public speaks, several speakers, according to Director Price, were just flat out wrong on their arguments.

So the SCPR has compiled a series of videos of speakers on the topic.

First there are those who oppose the agreement and the points they made in opposition (Osborne, Bogue and Lincoln).



Then, The Report has put together videos of responses by Alan Schulman (council president), Service Director Price and Law Director Joe Martuccio.



What is the city to do?

As Allen Schulman says, there are no good choices.

And the CCSC friends and allies present no alternative but for (by implication) to reject the exchange between American Landfill and Canton and to pass the increased cost of $500,000 onto the users of Canton's water treatment plant.

Earlier in the day (Monday), Schulman sent Borello an e-mail, to wit:

Chris

Thanks for your response. 

My frustration is that the same anti-environmental state office holders keep being re-elected by those who are being harmed due  to lax enforcement and weak regulations. 

As a result, we in city government ... whose hands are tied by the Ohio legislature, are berated by a public that apparently refuses to acknowledge that our powers have been completely displaced. 

While I share your deep and well founded views, it is very aggravating when we are essentially powerless to respond or act.  I simply wish you and your organizations would be more politically active on the STATE level as you are locally. 

And that means supporting candidates for state office who share your beliefs. 

The Ohio House is on the verge of becoming a "  super majority " since so few Democratic office holders remain. See you tonight. 

Allen

Among Stark County's legislative delegation, there has been universal support for HB 278 (2004) and SB 165 (2010)  (LINK to prior SCPR blog) which stripped local government officials of most if not all authority to deal with issues having to do with fracking.

And yet what has Borello and friends done to bring political consequences to the steps of the offending legislators?

One of Borello's allies who works at an environmentalist group out of Columbus said that her organization does not get into the politics of opposing legislators who do things like vote in favor of HB 278 and SB 165.

Isn't that interesting?

But then these organizations do weigh-in on local government officials who have been undermined by the state legislature in their ability to heed the concerns of local citizens.

A strategy that cannot possibly work.

Strange indeed!

It is all well and good for Borello and friends to do what they can with local government officials.  The SCPR has no problem with that at all.  In fact, the SCPR has been at the forefront of Stark County journalism promoting citizen involvement in their local government.  But are they ever going to get it that there is very little to be gained on the fracking issue by hassling local government types?

The bottom line is:  do they want to be effective or do they just want to raise a ruckus with those who have very little, if any, authority to deal with the matter of their concern?

If they want to be effective they must show the likes of Republicans Christina Hagan (did not vote on bills but HB 278 was supported by predecessor Snitchler and her father voted yes on SB 165), Scott Oelslager, Kirk Schuring and Democrat Stephen Slesnick that their future as legislators could be at stake in the face of their support for and/or votes for the bills and other legislation that compel locals to follow certain state mandates.

Oh, yes the anti-frackers can continue the course they are on.

If they do, the SCPR believes that they are demonstrating that they are "their own worst enemies" and seemingly do not have a clue as how to be politically effective.

Defeating an incumbent legislature specifically on the issue of taking away local control of the issue of fracking and fracking related matters would certainly send a loud and powerful message to the Ohio General Assembly.

The SCPR doesn't recall that the CCSC was in any way, shape or form involved - in an organized way - against Hagan, Oelslager, Schuring or Slesnick in the election recently concluded.

Isn't that interesting?

OLESLAGER "DEEP SIXES" ANTI-FRACKERS. BETTER HOPE THERE ARE NO FRACKING ACCIDENTS AFFECTING THE "DRINKABILITY" OF STARK CO. UNDERGROUND WATER SUPPLIES, NO?

 UPDATED AT 10:15 AM

Stark County has been in the economic dumper for a long time.

About the only exciting thing happening that suggests a local economic resurgence is the God-given blessing that Stark sits on top of what is called Utica shale deposits.

To get at the deposits in the most efficient, effective and productive way, the oil and gas industry came up with a new and improved method of what is called "fracking" back in 1998.

When Republican John Kasich took office in January, 2011 after having narrowly defeated Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland in the November, 2010 election, he jumped all over the potential economic benefits to Ohio to be gained from a dramatic increase in oil/gas exploration with the revelation that Ohio was within the  Marcellus and Utica oil and gas ladened shale deposits.

Stark County's elected officials were slower to jump on board.  But they have.  The SCPR (a top 10 list) ranks Stark's politicians in the following order in terms of their enthusiasm for fracking:

1. Democrat William J. Healy, II, mayor of Canton,
2. Republican Pat Fallot, mayor of Louisville,
3. Republican candidate for Stark County commissioner, Richard Regula (son of former 16th district congressman Ralph Regula),
4. Republican state Rep. Christina Hagan (the 50th), who as a 24 year old unelected (appointed) legislator has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry),
5. Republican state Senator Scott Oelslager (the 29th),
6. Republican state Rep. J. Kirk Schuring (the 51st, soon to be the 48th),
7. Democratic state Rep. Stephen Slesnick (the 52nd, soon to be the 49th).
8. Former Democratic mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr of Massillon,
9. Current Democratic Massillon Democratic mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry, and
10. Democratic commissioner candidate Bill Smuckler.

 Moreover, the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce is "bananas" and "frothing at the mouth" about the prospects that fracking will solve everything economic that ails Stark County.

Notice the word "acquifer" in the graphic above.  Acquifer equals our drinking water. 

Well, that word is all one needs to focus upon to figure out that fracking was going to be a highly controversial procedure.

While being for fracking might well have good political spin-off for those who have lined up in support of the process, they had better pray each and every night that there is "no" fracking associated accident that pollutes Stark County's drinking water.

For  being on the Stark County Political Report's pro-fracking Top 10 List, in the event of a drinking water contamination, will not be a pretty sight to behold in terms of the political retribution that will take place.

The very first politician/governmental official to speak out against fracking was Plain Township trustee Louis Giavasis (here is a LINK to the SCPR's very first blog on fracking on 12/04/2010) who sponsored a two-part symposium emceed by Ron Ponder (Points to Ponder) of WHBC 1480 located in downtown Canton.

Giavasis stands in stark contrast (no pun intended) to his Plain Township cohort trustee Scott Haws, who, the SCPR perceives to be an ardent pro-fracker.

Giavasis has been joined by one of Stark's foremost opponent to fracking; namely,  Chris Borello who lives in Plain Township.

Chris is a long time civic activist in Stark County, having cut her teeth in civic involvement with her work to get a Superfund clean up of the Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill located in Uniontown going back to the early 1980s.

In Giavasis' and Borello's work to curb (i.e. regulate) if not stop fracking, due to their multiple concerns that they and the group Stark County Concerned Citizens have about fracking, to wit:

• contamination of ground water (i.e. our drinking water),
• a degradation of air quality,
• gases and fracking chemicals finding their way to the surface through fracturing of the shale (also by triggering earthquakes),
• pollution of the under ground by the disposal of chemical wastes/by products in what are called "injection" wells, and
• surface contamination from spills from extracted oil products.

she has established allies across Ohio and, indeed, over the nation.

A major blow to the ability of the likes of Borello and Giavasis to put a damper on "the rush to frack" began back in 2004.

The Ohio General Assembly passed HB 278 (2004) and SB 165 (2010) which for all intents and purposes took local control of oil and gas regulation away from Ohio's counties, cities, villages, townships and boards of education.

For a comprehensive picture on the votes of members of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly on HB 278 and SB 165 go to an October 7, 2011 SCPR blog (LINK).

Apparently, for some reason Borello and her allies thought state Senator Scott Oelslager would be open to their entreaty to work to strengthen regulation of fracking both at the state and local level.

The SCPR has learned that Borello (Stark County Concerned Citizens) ally Alison Auciello of the Columbus-based Food and Water Watch organization obtained a meeting with Oelslager on October 1st at his North Canton condominium.

She had with her four Oelslager constituents:  a film maker, a Vietnam veteran, a retired teacher and a MIT educated engineer.

Summing up her take on the hour long session, Auciello says:

".... throughout Sen. Oelslager was not open to hearing or lending any legitimacy to what we all see as valid concerns about the impact of fracking in his district" and "[my]y overall impression of him is that, at least at this point, he is not movable. He has fully ingested the oil-aid and has his mind closed to any other perspective."

 Hmm?

"[H]e is not movable," and "his mind [is] closed," and "he has fully ingested the oil aid."

Interesting, no?

More specifically, Auciello made the following points on Oelslager:

• Oelslager believes that we are entrenched in a fossil fuel economy and wouldn't hear that investment in fracking is standing directly in the way of a transition to renewable,
• He assumed we all knew that renewable energy would be inadequate anyway. He believes that fracking will be an economic windfall for Ohio and refused to hear that it would only be for the lucky few and the rest of us would be left with the cleanup bill,
• He was throwing out key phrases like "energy independence" and "investment in infrastructure" (which he somehow thinks will still be useful when the gas runs out).  
• He's also under the impression that Kasich solved the earthquake problem.  
• We made it clear to him that we'd like to see his support of moratorium legislation in the beginning and he tried to lay a "ground rule" that there will be no moratorium. He wanted us to give suggestions on improvements to regulations.
• We pointed out that regulations haven't been effectively enforced, and they can't make the process safe to begin with, but all he was doing the whole time was waiting to pounce on any point he had the counterpoint to go along with.
• One thing that I thought was really telling about his position is his reaction to the local control issue. He said that if it were up to local municipalities, we'd have no "progress", so what he is essentially saying is that he knows local communities don't want fracking, and that's why the state needs to decide- so we can do it anyway.

Chris Borello may be even tougher on Oelslager, to wit:

• Love Scotty's response on "local control'....Wow.  Incredible...   More blatant hypocrisy. on supposed "core beliefs, eh? 
• We can never forget how Ralph Regula indeed, deferred to "local control" - the Lake Twp. Trustees, on IEL's Plutonium issue!
•  Regula indeed, deferred to "local control" - the Lake Twp. Trustees, on IEL's Plutonium issue!  We have the letter he sent to CCLT [Concerned Citizens of Lake Township] to prove it.
• We believe Scott Oelslager, Kirk Schuring and other reps. agreed with the Congressman's position on this...I think Sen. Voinovich's staffer told us it was called being  "Federalist".  ... .
• Frankly, I am quite sure there are still many residents in our area who would like to ask Scott, Kirk Schuring, Christina Hagan, and especially our former Congressman, Ralph Regula,  about this extremely serious double standard regarding local control, the Plutonium and IEL, and now, fracking..... .
• The newspapers have a copy of that letter from Regula to CCLT re.  how local officials are the most appropriate officials to make such determinations.... We gave it to papers two years ago, when we first learned about HB. 278 stripping our rights away! 

It appears to the SCPR that the die is cast on fracking in Stark County.

There is no doubt that it has the enthusiastic support of most Stark County's elected officials, led by the SCPR's Top Ten List.

Stark County's everdays are much more circumspect about the issue of fracking than are many of if not most of Stark's elected officials.

Let us "hope and pray" that these officials have made the right call.

For if they have not and the drinking water supply gets contaminated, we all will regret that fracking was ever engaged.

And, we will be likely looking at a long list of ex-Stark County elected officials!

STARK COUNTY LEGISLATORS: THE HANDMAIDENS OF THE OIL & GAS INDUSTRY? DAMNED BE LOCAL CONTROL!

Former state Rep. Todd Snitchler (R - Lake), John Hagan (R - Marlboro) and current representatives Kirk Schuring (R - Jackson), Stephen Slesnick (D - Canton) and state Sen. Scott Oelslager should never ever talk about the virtues of local government/local control in Stark County.

And if they have the brass to do so, they should be called out on it by whomever hears it.

For in various combinations of votes on Senate Bill 165 (2004) and House Bill 278 (2009/2010), they helped gut the ability of Ohio local governments to control what the oil and gas industry does in terms of drilling for natural gas by a process call hydraulic fracking.

A very well written letter on the topic was printed in the Akron Beacon Journal recently.  The writer, Dan Lincoln of the Northeast Ohio Gas Accountability Project (NEOGAP), submitted the letter to the SCPR for an encore publication.

With John Hagan, Schuring, Oelslager and Slesnick voting to strip Stark County's townships, villages and cities of their ability to fully protect "the health, welfare and safety of their residents, it is hard to see how how they can look the residents of Marlboro (Hagan), Canton (Slesnick), Jackson (Oelslager and Schuring) and, indeed, all of Stark County (Oelslager and Schuring) in the eye when they appear in public.

Undoubtedly, they say to their constituents that they are working hard as legislators.

But the SCPR adopts the words of one Michael Mouse (a community activist and council-at-large candidate in Canal Fulton), " I know know you are working hard, but who are you working hard for?"

In the case of HB 278 (2004) and SB 165 (2010), it is obvious that Messers Hagan, Oelslager, Slesnick and Schuring worked hard for the oil and gas industry interests; not for the authority of local government to fend for the health, welfare and safety interests of Stark Countians.

Here are their votes.

(VIDEOS: HEALY, SCHULMAN & CITIZEN VAUGHN) ANTI-FRACKERS FORCE CANTON'S MAYOR HEALY TO WITHDRAW OIL/GAS LEASE DRILLING PROPOSAL? COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN SCHULMAN HAS ADVICE FOR ANTI-FRACKERS: GO AFTER THE GOVERNOR & YOUR LEGISLATORS!

Canton Mayor William Healy, II denies that such is the case, but the SCPR believes that persistent civic action by Stark County's anti-fracking community (e.g. Public Speaks presentations galore going back to when the ordinance first appeared on Canton City Council's agenda) forced the mayor to withdraw an ordinance which was up for its third and final reading last night at Canton City Council meeting.

Several councilpersons told The Report that had the measure actually been voted upon by council, it would have failed.

Council's main objection was that the ordinance as presented seemed to give the Healy administration carte blanche on negotiating leases.  Healy, being the highly skilled politician he is, seized the opening to avoid an embarrassing defeat on an up or down vote by saying in effect:  "Okay, I will not insist on council preapproval.  Let's do it this way.  My administration will do all of the prep work and seek oil and gas companies to negotiate with and if everything is right (i.e. financially remunerative to the city and does not jeopardize Canton's water fields), we will then come back to council where we expect approval."

Here is a video of Healy's reaction when questioned by area media about his action of withdrawing the lease drilling proposal.



And here is the videotaped reaction of anti-fracker Kristine Vaughn in which she acknowledges that she believed that the withdrawal of the ordinance by the Healy administration was a victory of sorts though she rather would like to have seen the ordinance stay on the ballot so that it could be defeated and have it over and done with.



Another interesting aspect of the meeting was council President Allen Schulman lecture of the anti-frackers in attendance to the effect that their quarrel is not with Canton City Council.  But rather it is with Governor Kasich and the Ohio Legislature.

It was the Ohio General Assembly (including Stark County's legislative delegation) who in 2004 (HB 278) and in 2010 (SB 165) voted to take away local control of oil and gas drilling. (LINK to previous SCPR blog that deals with the legislation in more detail)

Here is Schulman admonishing the anti-frackers.



And here again is Kristine Vaughn on videotape answering Schulman.



The SCPR believes that Ms. Vaughn's unease and unhappiness about the withdrawal of the proposed ordinance was when she realized that the withdrawal in realpolitik was not a good thing for the anti-fracking movement. 

Healy's tactical move is somewhat analogous to a baseball hitter having two strikes on him who gets a pitch that is unhitable in terms of getting good wood on the ball and getting a base hit.

So what does a good hitter do?

He goes all out to foul off the pitch in hopes that the next pitch is one that he can hit out of the park or at the very least get a single.

Folks, that's exactly what Mayor Healy did last night.  He knew that the ordinance was going down to defeat and he did what any skilled politician would do:  Salvage the situation.

And Healy did.

Whether or not Canton will eventually agree to lease its lands for oil/gas fracking is far from a dead issue with the man who on March 1, 2012 tabbed Canton, Ohio as being "the Utica Capital" of Ohio!

NORTH CANTON COUNCIL FRACKING MORATORIUM RESOLUTION "SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED - BUT TO WHAT EFFECT?"

 

It is what Chris Borello and her fellows working in the Concerned Citizens of Stark County would have preferred, but the North Canton City Council (Council) has (except for Councilman Pat DeOrio who says he has a conflict-in-interest on and therefore recused himself) signed off on a resolution forwarded to various statewide officials asking that "fracking" (horizontal fracturing) be placed in moratorium status until more is known about the risks to water purity posed by the process.

In doing so North Canton joins Canton and Plain Township in calling for a moratorium.  It could be that Alliance, Louisville and Hartville will join the effort in coming months as discussions have been going on among councilpersons in those Stark County political subdivisions.

North Canton's concern (see a previous blog) comes from information that land (actually in Plain Township) adjacent to its East Maple water well field have been leased to an oil and gas drilling interest with the idea that the company contemplates commencing a fracking operation to recover natural gas from the Marcellus Shale thought to underlie the leased property.

Horizontal hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking) for natural gas in a formation known as the Marcellus shale is a process by which a vertical hole is drilled to about 8,000 feet below the surface and then turned horizontal for a distance (limited by the size of the lease) and then injected with a high pressure mix of sand and chemicals (some of which are hazardous) and, of course, water to fracture rock which encases natural gas thereby release the gas for collection.

The Stark County Political Report is skeptical that any Stark County units of government will go the route of governments in others states (e.g. New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) and ban fracking.

In 2010 and a few years earlier the Ohio General Assembly in the combo of Senate Bill 165 (2010) and House Bill 278 effectively took away local government jurisdiction to deal with drilling issues within their geographical areas.  Local legislators (of both political parties, past and present) such as Scott Oelslager, Stephen Slesnick, Todd Snitchler, Kirk Schuring, John Hagan and William J. Healy, II supported the state power grab over drilling issues from Stark's localities.

Accordingly, local legal officials feel and are advising their jurisdictions that localities have no power to regulate and if they do so they could be incurring legal liability to property owners affected as well as to drilling companies.

The SCPR provides the following copy of the actual North Canton resolution for readers of The Report to read:

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

Canton municipal government is desperate for revenues these days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a difference financial need can make, no?

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

Maybe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of sense does that make?

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

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

ANTI-FRACKERS LACK POLITICAL SOPHISTICATION & DETERMINATION? IS GOP STATE REP. CHRISTINA HAGAN'S SUPPORT FOR FRACKING BOUGHT & PAID FOR BY OIL & GAS LOBBY IN THE FORM OF CAMPAIGN FUND CONTRIBUTIONS?

UPDATE:  4:00 PM

The Report has learned that the Buckeye Forest Council is working with state Rep. Robert Hagan (D - Youngstown) to introduce a bill to reverse the shifting of local control of oil and gas exploration to the state of Ohio.

ORIGINAL BLOG

Plain Township Trustee Giavasis had an opportunity to take on Republican Party (50th House District) appointee Christina Hagan (March 2, 2011) come the November, 2012 election.

Hagan was appointed by the House Republican Caucus to replace Todd Snitchler (Republican Lake - now chairman of the PUCO)

But he said no to the Ohio Democratic House Caucus.

So?

Well, Giavasis has been one of the few Stark County elected officials to take as stance against proceeding with fracking (the process to force natural gas and oil out of Utica shale depositions underlying much of Stark County) without assurance that the process is safe.

Safe?

Yes,  in terms of the water we drink, the air we breath, the roads we drive on, just name a few among from long list of fracking consequences concerns held by folks like the Plain Township trustee.

News surfaced today (updated) in a Cleveland Plain Dealer report by reporter Aaron Marshall (Ohio's oil and gas industry emerging as a big player in the political process) showing that Christina Hagan, who is on record as being very supportive of going "full speed ahead" with fracking, has been rewarded with campaign funding by one of the biggest players (Chesapeake Energy) in extracting oil and gas from subterranean Stark County.

From the Marshall article:

While the added lobbying muscle of Ohio's oil and gas industry is still emerging, campaign finance reports show five of the major oil and gas industry PACs poured nearly $600,000 into politician coffers since 2010, including nearly $100,000 since last March to state lawmakers from Chesapeake Energy.

Hagan is high on the list.  She is third from the top of the list of 19 Ohio House members who received from Chesapeake (or its lobbyists) for the period March, 2011 (when she was appointed) through January of this year.  

This is to a woman who has never been elected to anything and has only been in in the Ohio House of Representatives as a political appointee for a little more than one year.

It is interesting to note that the leader on the list (David Hall) along with state Rep Ron Amstutz of nearby Wooster (received $1,000) was in Stark County (Louisville) last May as mentor/minder figures for Hagan when she did a town hall meeting.

It appears that Hagan is getting expert and effective advice on how to raise campaign cash which is "the mother's milk of politics."

As it turns out, had Giavasis taken on the challenge; when asked, Stark County would be witnessing a head-to-head confrontation between Hagan, an oil and gas industry apologist, and Stark County's leading critic on the "rush to frack" on the part of the oil and gas industry.

Beyond the fracking issue,  there are other issues to be exploited against Hagan.

She supported the anti-teacher, fire fighter and policemen (and other public employees) Senate Bill 5 which was soundly rejected by Ohio/Stark County voters (as State Issue 2) in November, 2011.

Moreover, it is hard to see how she shows her face at local government meetings inasmuch as she supported massive Ohio budget cuts in local government funding including the termination (effective January 1, 2013) of the Ohio Estate Tax which provided funds for unbudgeted local government projects.

However, with Giavasis having opted out of taking her on, it seems to the SCPR that she will be elected.

The Report believes that Giavasis is the only talked about potential candidate that posed a serious threat to Hagan's continuance in office.

He has run many tough campaigns as a candidate for Plain trustee and has proved to be a political survivor.

Indications are that he would have been an formidable candidate.

Actual Democratic nominee Sue Ryan (a councilwoman-at-large in Alliance) seems to be no threat whatsoever.  Could we be in for a surprise?

All of which goes to a point that the SCPR has made repeatedly to the likes of Chris Borello (Stark County Concerned Citizens), to wit:

She and those who agree with her (i.e. Giavasis) appear to lack the political sophistication and savvy needed to be effective against the likes of Chesapeake Energy and their political handmaidens such as Hagan.

Giavasis has been Plain Township trustee for about 20 years which takes one back to about 1992.

One would think as a quintessential local government leader he would have been keeping his "ear to the ground" on matters such as legislative efforts to gut local control over oil and gas drilling.

So where were he and prime supporters Borello et al (who got started in the early 1980s trying to get a clean up of the hazardous materials in the Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill) when it came to legislation being passed in Ohio in 2004 and 2010 that effectively took away any ability of local communities to control fracking?

From a January 16, 2012 SCPR blog (Will the 2012 election be accountability time for the Schuring & Slesnick against local control [fracking])?

Schuring [and Oelslager] (HB 278 [2004], SB 165 [2010]) and Slesnick voted for SB 165 and thereby took away what little say local governments has about oil and gas extraction processes (including fracking operations).

Why weren't Giavasis and friends making the local control case against local legislators running for re-election in 2004 and thereafter?

Now they complain?

Maybe they should take a page out of the playbook of Tuscarawas Township residents who were outraged when former Massillon Mayor Francis Cicchinelli, Jr. tried to annex the Tuslaw High School complex.

The Tuscarawas folks marshaled their forces and put together an effective and focused door-to-door campaign in Massillon which some political observers believe to have been the difference maker in Cicchinelli's loss.

Could a Giavasis for state representative versus Hagan campaign have motivated anti-frackers to support him with purse and on-the-ground campaign worker power?

The Report thinks such might well have been the case.

But since he chose not to run in that his heart was not in it, all one can say is that he missed an opportunity to make a real difference. 

Giavasis could have been, if elected, another voice in addition to that of Youngstown area state Rep. Bob Hagan (Democrat) and a few others in the Ohio General Assembly to bring caution to the "rush to frack" and to retrieve some local control over fracking.

Chesapeake and friends are politically sophisticated, farsighted, organized and focused.  By virtue of these attributes, they are winning the local control of fracking argument.

The anti-frackers, by contrast, appear to be politically discombobulated.

If these folks want to reverse their fortunes, they going to have to develop political techniques, strategies and determination and candidates for office that can match up against Chesapeake et al.

But the leadership element within the anti-fracking movement is so lacking that their getting their political act together does not appear to be in the offing.

Consequently, in November, 2012 it appears that there will be no political accountability for legislative candidates Hagan (R-Marlboro), Schuring (R-Jackson) and Slesnick (D-Canton)!

WHO IS MORE DETERMINED? CHRIS BORELLO OF "CONCERNED CITIZENS OF STARK COUNTY" OR RON PONDER OF "POINTS TO PONDER?"

 

Christine "Chris" Borello of Plain Township is Stark County's most determined civic activist, bar none! She doesn't always prevail, but she seemingly never quits.

If you are  skeptical of yours truly's assessment of Borello, just ask present or former public officials:  U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown,  Congressman John Boccieri (former),  Congressman Ralph Regula (former),  Commissioner Todd Bosley (former), North Canton Council president and Regula chief of staff (former) Daryl Revoldt,  director (former) of the Canton Health Department Bob Pattison or Plain Township trustee Louis Giavasis.  And this is the short list.

As president of the Concerned Citizens of Lake Township (CCLT), she fought tirelessly for the citizens of Uniontown and western and southern Lake Township (she formerly resided in Lake) since the early 1980s to get a cleanup of the Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) as a superfund site.  IEL is an abandoned quarry that was used by the Akron-based rubber companies, among others, to dump toxic industrial wastes into.

It has been a roller-coaster ride for Borello with quite a number of highs and lows.  But she has been steadfast and faithful to the cause.  While the SCPR hasn't always agreed with her take on the IEL related issues or her processes, there is no doubt that she is a committed and, in the sense of her determination, a highly admirable person.  Even public officials for whom she has been "a royal pain in the __ __ __ to," admit that her persistence is impressive.

If more of Stark County citizens took their citizenship and the obligation to contribute the the good of the whole as seriously as Borello, we would see far more effective government at the national, state and local level than we do. 

Borello's most immediate issue seems to have shifted from a focus on the IEL to a pursuit of the natural gas hydraulic fracturing issue.  Of late, the oil and gas industry has been filing hundreds upon hundreds of leases at the Stark County recorder's office (as well as over a good deal of Ohio) and many locals think that sooner or later the likes of the Chesapeake Energy Company (out of Oklahoma) will be moving into Stark County to begin drilling for rock encased natural gas located several thousand feet below the surface.

Borello is convinced that hydraulic fracturing (see the graphic below) represents a danger to Stark County's fresh water supply because of the use of various toxic chemicals in the fracturing being high pressured into the rock together with sand and, of course, water.  Accordingly, she has joined forces with local government officials Louis Giavasis (Plain Township trustee) and Mary Cirelli (Canton councilwoman) in their efforts to ban hydraulic fracturing in Plaint and Canton, respectively.

Giavasis has encountered strong opposition in Plain.  From whom?  The SCPR believes - at the hand of fellow trustee Scott Haws - who is  working in concert with Representative Kirk Schuring.  While each deny to The Report that they are biased in favor of allowing the fracturing, The Report is highly skeptical.  The Republican Party in general is well known to be favor of, remember - "drill, baby, drill" - and neither Haws nor Schuring has set themselves apart from the general party position.

And, that they moved to derail the original meeting (December 14th) set up by Giavasis to have an "inform the public" session (inviting Stark's Ohio General Assembly delegation, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), oil and gas industry representatives and anti-fracturing activists), further fuels The Report's skepticism about their insistence that they are open minded on the issue.

This is where WHBC1480's Ron Ponder (Points to Ponder, M-F from 10:00 a.m to Noon) enters the picture.

Without getting into whom contacted whom, suffice it to say as one of Stark County's most accomplished interviewers and framers of local issues, it is no surprise that Ponder surfaced as a neutral mediator/moderator for the Giavasis planned public forum with the added wrinkle (by Ponder) of having two meetings (now set for January 20th and 27th at Oakwood Middle School - 7:00 p.m.); one for ODNR (on the 27th) and the other on the 20th for other stakeholders.

By the way, the SCPR applauds Ponder for his interest and involvement.

However, Chris Borello is not all that pleased with the two meeting setup and in a series of e-mails between herself and Ponder (copied to many third parties, including yours truly) has insisted that Ponder revert to the one meeting format envisioned by Giavasis.

Readers of the SCPR also need to be reminded that Giavasis claimed he was going to force a vote (at the Plain trustee meeting of December 28th) on his offered resolution to ban hydraulic fracturing in Plain.

Yours truly never believed that Giavasis had the political gumption to proceed.

So it was no surprise whatsoever to the SCPR that Giavasis capitulated to a letter written (but sent on an expedited basis via e-mail in the evening of the 27th) to the Plain trustees (Giavasis, Leno and Haws) by oil and gas attorney William G. Williams (himself a Plain Township resident) demanding that the trustees reject the Giavasis initiative.  Williams and a Chesapeake Energy Company representative showed up at Plain Township December 28th meeting to register opposition in person.

Back to Borello and Ponder.

What follows is an edited version of the exchanges between Borello and Ponder on what the format of the meeting or meetings (depending on who got her/his way) is going to be.  As readers can see, Ponder held his ground with Borello notwithstanding her coming back again, and again and again after her initial e-mail.

One cannot fault Borello from trying, but Ponder is no shrinking violet himself.  The back and forth e-mails transpired from 1:17 p.m. Sunday through 10:25 p.m.

Interesting exchanges, no?

From: crborello
Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 1:17 PM
To: Ron Ponder

...

 Residents have also expressed concern about there being two meetings, just a few days apart, on the 20th and 27th, and are asking why all parties, including the State Agency. ODNR, put in charge of drilling via SB 278 6 years ago,, can't be present in the same room at the same time at the first meeting? 

....

Therefore, we are requesting, as the designated meeting facilitator, that you please go back to Kirk Schuring and ask that ODNR be responsive to the public, by showing up at the first meeting.   If they still feel the need to still have a second one, that is their choice., but ODNR clearly needs to be present at the first one.

...

We therefore propose the following:

ODNR presentation to open up the meeting in first 15 minutes
Panel discussion an hour and then open up for
Audience comments/questions last hour, limited to 5 minutes each....with some flexibility to allow the meeting to run over a little past 9:00 , if there are folks who signed up that have not gotten a chance to speak yet. 

 ...

Also, Please clarify:  When you say "questions" will be allowed  - you certainly will permit people to express "comments" as well, correct?  You won't censor them, by saying only questions can be asked, will you?

Please respond as soon as possible via e-mail, so all interested parties can be informed and educated up front to what is agreed upon.   

From: Ron Ponder
To: crborello
Sent: Sun, Jan 2, 2011 4:17 pm

...

.i will allow comments, not just questions, but as you said, this will not devolve into a shouting match where nobody can hear nor understand what they need...i want facts, not political sound bites nor emotionally-wrought decisions....right now i feel that two hours is not nearly enough time for everyone to say their say nor hear the facts, so i am not inclined to change the format from two meetings...based on the original provisions that i agreed to, that is my decision and not sen schuring's nor anybody elses...i have not heard any convincing arguments yet to convince me to do otherwise.

...

From: crborello
Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 4:36 PM
To: Ron Ponder 

...

It is unreasonable to expect families with children, work schedules, baby sitter issues, elderly who don't like to go out on a winter night etc. to attend back to back meetings ...If the goal is to have a good airing of the issues, it is all the more important that all stakeholders are in the room at the same time, to hear the relevant discussions.

...  

From: Ron Ponder
To: crborello
Sent: Sun, Jan 2, 2011 4:40 pm

...  my intention is to provide a forum whereby information can be exchanged in a civil manner...by having odnr at another meeting does not negate nor diminish their responsibilities to tax payers  ... .

From: crborello
Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 7:26 PM
To: Ron Ponder

Your response earlier this afternoon today  - the part about having a "forum in a civil manner" and our request that the State agency, ODNR, be in attendance at the first meeting, really seems to be implying that you ( or others?) believe that ODNR's presence on the 20th would somehow mean the meeting could not be civil !? This is pretty incredible, if infact, this is what you are suggesting here.

...

So, we really need to know:  Are you telling us that ODNR has told you flat out that it is refusing to attend the first meeting? If so, please ask them why is our Stark community is being singled out, since  we have been informed that ODNR has in fact attended many public meetings where folks were emotional, such as in nearby Bainbridge, where a gas well reportedly caused problems with residents' wells, and we heard folks were plenty angry. ... Or, are you saying you just simply refuse to ask them?  Again, if so, please tell us specifically why, because our citizens and elected officials seriously deserve to hear the rationale behind this in either instance. 

From: Ron Ponder <RPonder@whbc.com>
To: crborello@aol.com

Sent: Sun, Jan 2, 2011 8:19 pm

... and one more time, this is my decision to continue to have two separate meetings, and if i should change my mind i will inform you and the public. also, i really don't care if some think odnr is being shielded. that is not my concern. my concern, one more time, is to provide an objective two meetings where citizens can be presented with information and whereby they can ask questions and get answers. ...

From: crborello
Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 9:30 PM
To: Ron Ponder   

But who said this "schedule"/ format,  is written in stone?

Citizens really do hope that you decide  to ask ODNR to be present on the 20th, because this should be a two way street, not simply ODNR "presenting"/ lecturing  people, but, rather, just perhaps, ODNR  might also be open to the idea of learning from our citizens as well ... - ie., government for and by the people, ya know?   If this agency is not present, than this exchange cannot occur.  By separating the meetings, the flow of information will be diluted/controlled, by making it harder for people to attend both dates, for reasons previously stated. ( And , we still have yet to  ascertain your rationale for not inviting ODNR to the meeting on the 20th in the first place,  after all these e-mails throughout today, which is truly perplexing...).

.

Sunday, January 2, 2011 10:25 PM

From:

"Ron Ponder"

crborello

... the meeting dates are set and i will waste no more time debating them. you, along with the public are welcome to attend. you are also welcome to not attend. the decision is yours.  ...

..