CANTON POLICE SETTLEMENT FALLING APART?

UPDATE:  10/23/2009 at 10:30 AM

Yesterday Attorney Craig Conley, who represents Canton Police Chief Dean McKimm, said that his client will not be signing any of the the drafted statements that have been floated by McKimm so far by Canton's Healy administration in the Administration's quest to conclude the  Canton Police Patrolman's Association (CPPA) federal lawsuit against the Canton Police Department (CPD) at the hand of then union boss John Miller, Jr.

Chief McKimm is not named individually as a defendant in the CPPA generated lawsuit.

Conley said that Dean McKimm has been the leading factor in the CPD to eliminate any trace of racism in the department.

But Conley did stop short of saying that McKimm would not sign any statement whatsoever.   

Conley's point was that McKimm will not sign any statement that has any chance at all to being taken to the effect that McKimm has been a part of or  has condonned racism in the department.

It appears to the SCPR that there is very little chance that the CPPA lawsuit is going to be settled, if the CPPA sticks to its guns (no pun intended) on what the union so far is insisting upon - in terms of language - that McKimm sign on to.

ORIGINAL POST

Recently, the SCPR received an e-mail from a source, which - in part reads:

That is their [The Rep's] reporting of a "settlement" in the John Miller/Steven Fowler, police officers, lawsuit. I have heard from very reliable sources that there was NO settlement. According to this most reliable of sources, Chief McKimm is being pressured by the Canton law department to sign a letter of "apology" that has him asserting that he is, in effect, a racist.

Here is The Rep's headline on the matter:

What is the truth of the matter?

To find out, the SCPR talked with McKimm and Canton City Law Director Joe Martuccio.

McKimm:  "As far as I am concerned there is no settlement.  I have never discriminated, I am not now discriminating nor will I ever discriminate."

Martuccio made several points to The Report:

•    There have been multiple findings that McKimm the city has not been disriminatory.
•    That the Canton police union case has never been about discrimination, but rather an alleged infringement of former union chief John Millers first amendment free speech rights.
•    That the Canton Police Department under the hand of Safety Director Tom Ream would make a statement in the name of the Canton Police Department (CPD) (not McKimm personally, who is not individually a defendant in the Canton Police Patrolman Association lawsuit) that there has never been nor is there any intention to discriminate by the Canton Department of Public Safety.
•    That such does not appear to be acceptable to the CPPA and therefore it seems as if the purported "settlement" is in jeopardy as the deadline of 30 days to get back to federal judge John Adams approaches.

The SCPR conclusion

 If the CPPA hangs tough on its insistence that McKimm individually signs any statement which in any way, shape or form allows a reader to infer that he is a discriminator, then the settlement is off and the case will go forward.

In the opinion of the SCPR, this is exactly what should happen.  This case should go to trial.  The SCPR believes the CPPA will come out of a trial with egg on its face.

The supposed settlement is a "face savings" for the CPPA and if they want to save face the union had better accept Ream's statement and take the "attorney fees" money.

In the end, these kinds of machinations are a total turn-off to citizens.

So what does the CPPA care about: the egos of John Miller, Jr. and Steve Fowler or the well-being of Canton.

Canton already suffers bigtime from the gigantic failure of William J. Healy's leadership and here we have the CPPA piling on.  Over what?  Huge egos?

 Current CPPA president Bill Adams should put a stop to this nonsense.

But can he?

Probably not.  A source tells the SCPR that Adams is union president because of the efforts of John L. Miller, Jr.

Political relationships like these are typical of  the mishmash that is driving Canton into economic oblivion.

What company in its right mind would want to come to a city steeped in political morass?

CAN DEAN MCKIM SURVIVE AS CANTON POLICE CHIEF IN LIGHT OF OFFICER DANIEL HARLESS JUNE 11TH VIDEOTAPED INCIDENT? HOW ABOUT SAFETY DIRECTOR THOMAS REAM?

Pictured above is Canton Chief of Police as he appeared before the media on June 23, 2007 (the day that Canton Police Officer Bobby Cutts, Jr. was arrested for two counts of murder) to reassure the Canton/Stark County public that the Canton Police Department (CPD)  would deal with one of its own in the light of the facts that evolved in the investigation of the allegation against Cutts.

In the Cutts case, McKimm, of course, responded immediately.  The Cutts case was easy for the chief to deal with.  Cutts was in jail and he was convicted on February 15, 2008 and sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for 57 years. but with an officer who was incarcerated.

But should Cutts have been a Canton policeman in the first place?

According to a report by Edd Pritchard of The Repository dated June 19, 2007, Sheriff, FBI agents search Cutts' home:

In 1998, before he joined the Canton Police Department, Cutts was found guilty of aggravated criminal trespass for breaking into [Nikki] Giavasis' [the mother of his child] apartment in Jackson Township. He pleaded no contest, was found guilty and placed on three years probation. He was hired to the Canton force in 2000.

...

In February 2003, Cutts was fired from the police department after an investigation into how his cousin ended up with Cutts' service weapon. Cutts claimed the weapon was stolen. Police administrators believed Cutts gave the weapon to his cousin. But an arbitrator determined the incident wasn't a good enough reason to dismiss Cutts and he was reinstated.

On June 8, 2011 another case of "dealing with one of our own" for McKimm to deal with, in terms of allegations of a Canton policeman wrong doing, was birthed.

For readers who have not seen the video, CLICK HERE for the link.

This time McKimm has a much more difficult task on his hand.

And the question is not so much how Harless will be dealt with, but how long McKimm and his boss Safety Director Thomas Ream have known about the incident before placing the officer on administrative leave sometime in June.

A paramount question that McKimm and Ream have to answer is why they did not get out in front on this matter?

They needed to bring it to the public's attention before it hit the media and present a convincing case to the public that the attitude demonstrated in the video is atypical because the Canton Police Department has mechanisms in place to filter out officers who have attitude issues before incidents like what occurred on June 8th transpire.

If a plausible explanation is not forthcoming, then it is incumbent on Mayor Healy to step in and ensure to the public's satisfaction that remedial policies and procedures are put in place and perhaps including disciplinary action against McKimm and Ream.

The SCPR has talked with a prominent Stark County police official who shared the following observations/comments:

• questions whether or not McKimm historically has effectively handled allegations of Canton police misconduct.
• questions the quality of training of police officers in Canton.  
• the SCPR's source was incredulous that the other officer on the scene did not intervene to settle Harless down.
• could not believe that the car was being searched without taking everybody out of it first.
• the officer's refusal to listen to the subject about having a permit to carrying the gun.
• Canton needs to significantly improve the quality of background investigations, internal affairs investigations and disciplinary processes.
• worried that the culture of the CPD is such that it encourages police wrongdoing,
• a key to watch, the source says, is the union's reaction.  Does it circle the wagons or does it stand up and distance the working officers of the department from what the video shows.

• believes that McKimm in the sense that he appears to have failed to have systematic and escalating processes in place to prevent what happened on June 8th should be accountable in terms of "the buck stops here."  The source would be surprised to learn that there were no other incidents involving Harless.  It all goes back - The Report's source says - to McKimm and what he believes to have been ineffective police corp control and that McKimm bears responsibility for the development of what appears to be a culture of tolerance if not encouragement of cop on the beat arrogance.

 In light of the police source's criticism of the Canton police administration, it may be a good idea for Cantonians to attend the Canton Police Academy.  While there, they may want to inquire into background check procedures, the operation of internal affairs and the CPD disciplinary processes.

Another source in a position to know tells the SCPR that McKimm rules the department in a military fashion, but does not have the respect of the Canton police force.  McKimm, the source says, is a technocrat who does not get out and around his troops connecting with them on a day-to-day basis and therefore not in a position to have the pulse of the department within his grasp.

If the source is correct in assessing McKimm, it appears that one side of McKimm does take with some of the CPD officers is a dictatorial manner that seems to be more appropriate in a military context than in a city police department where the clientele is citizen based and not focused on dealing with enemies.

MAYOR HEALY WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT OUTGOING SAFETY DIRECTOR NESBITT HAD ISSUES WITH CHIEF MCKIMM; MAYBE HE DID, BUT HEALY IS BEHIND THE CURTAIN

The Wizard of Oz (err - Canton) is at it again.

Yes, Mayor William J. Healy, even when he is out-of-town, leaves this mark on Canton. As reported in The Repository (Canton police chief reprimanded, July 15), Safety Director got the jump on Canton Chief of Police Dean L. McKimm and cited him with three reprimands on Wednesday.

But the SCPR does not buy that this is primary a Nesbitt/McKimm tete-a-tete despite being categorized as such (actually much stronger - harassment) by McKimm's attorney Craig Conley.

The McKimm disciplinary actions has Wizard (in his own mind) Healy written all over it.

Healy's modus operandi is to lurk in the background and have others do his dirty work for him. A person who works for Healy needs to wear a "back protector" not a "chest protector!"

The machinations:

1. Nesbitt cites McKimm for insubordinate activities.
2. Nesbitt schedules hearing on citations.
3. McKimm ask for a public hearing.
4. Nesbitt denies McKimm public hearing.
5. McKimm goes to court to get public hearing.
6. Nesbitt cancels hearing altogether and issues reprimands.

The last thing in the world that the Healy administration can abide is "the light of day."

McKimm through his attorney called the administration's bluff in terms of the administration trying to do its dirt "behind closed doors."

The Healy administration pre-emptive promulgation of reprimands were a face saving way out of an embarrassing situation for the Healyites (aka "the loyalists").

Now we have a situation where the chief deputy (Ream) is now going to be monitoring the chief when he assumes the safety directorship. On that count alone, the appointment was a dumb move.

But Healy, for all his chest-thumping about his own brilliance, keeps doing dumb thing after dumb thing after dumb thing.

No matter who he acts through (Price, Nesbitt [Ream] or whomever), when the curtain is pulled back "the light of day" reveals none other than the Wizard of Canton - Mayor William J. Healy, II.

HEALY: ANOTHER UNWISE DECISION?

Healy in a recent press release says: “I can think of no better person for the job," referring to Canton safety director designee Thomas Ream (August 4, 2009).

Really?

Well, when Healy selected Tom Nesbitt (a guy with effrontery to disagree publicly with Mayor Healy), Ream was among the applicants. In a turnabout from "I found a better person" (Nesbitt - early 2008) to - now that Nesbitt is "persona non-grata" for not being enough of a TeamHealy player to: there's "no better person" (Ream) because who else would take this job?

Recently, the SCPR did a piece on Ream (CLICK HERE) which outlines reasons why Ream does not appear (in the opinion of The Report) to be a good choice to succeed Thomas Nesbitt as Canton safety director.

Additional reasons have surfaced which indicate that, perhaps, Mayor William J. Healy, II (a man of extraordinary ability - in his own mind) should not be his own personnel chief.

Reasons why the Ream appointment is likely to come back to haunt Healy include:

1. Ream has been the deputy to Chief Dean McKimm and sources tell the SCPR that the two have had a tenuous relationship at best. So how is that the underling is going to deal with his former superior - a man that Mayor Healy has been trying to get fired for some time now? Did Healy exact a promise from Ream that he would push hard to get McKimm out?
   
2. Though the SCPR believes that Healy is intent on ridding Canton of McKimm, yours truly has learned that Ream has his own agenda on McKimm. A source tells The Report that several years ago Ream decided that it was time for McKimm to go. So the source says he initiated a petition directed to the Creighton administration to be signed by the four leadership captains of the Canton Police Department (CPD) asking that McKimm be removed as chief. But, the source continues, one captain (Myers) would not sign and so the CPD major (the then equivalent to deputy chief) refused to sign because he would only do so if all the captains signed on. With Ream being dead set against McKimm, is there any question that Ream/McKimm warfare with besiege the Healy administration. It seems as if Healy in a perverse sort of way enjoys dissonance and disharmony. Is there any better way to distract from his failure to bring positive change and redirection to Canton? In the opinion of the SCPR, It is kind of a cover for Healy's failure to move Canton forward.
   
3. Ream seems as if he may have exercised several poor judgments - from a public perception point-of-view - to wit:

• meeting a Repository reporter soon after three persons were murdered outside the White Crown Cafe (having gone there in the first place for the stated purpose of presenting a police presence in the neighborhood [as fleeting as it was] with the Repository reporter reportedly buying him at least one beer at Ream's request. A source tells the SCPR that Ream was not in uniform and that he drank four beers while there "to soothe the concerns of neighborhood citizens."
  

• Refusing to take a "lie detector" exam when he reached the "finals" when Perry Township trustees were selecting a replacement for their retiring police chief. Why? Ream, the SCPR understands, says it is the principle of the matter. As a senior police official he should be "above" taking a polygraph. The SCPR does not buy this pontification. The Healy administration has a huge credibility problem beginning with the mayor and there are enough questions about Reams dealings as an officer in the CPD (e.g. how does one work at Stark State teaching at the police academy during hours he is to be on the job at the CPD?) that compel questions being put to him that may generate some interesting readings from the results. Now that Healy has determined there will be no polygraph, "hizzonner" has to bear the full weight of any revelations that might come out down the road about his new safety director. Healy has not properly and fully vetted Ream and he now owns the full consequences of the possibility (probability in the opinion of the SCPR) that the "chickens will come home to roost!"
  

• Becoming personally involved during the Creighton administration to steer business to Motorola amidst allegations that he had an "inappropriate" relationship with a Motorola sales person. As the story goes, Canton was in the process of evaluating "in car video equipment" to be installed in CPD police cars. Motorola and Coban Technologies were among the equipment manufacturers being considered. Motorola's equipment was the highest priced and the least reliable according to the SCPR source, yet Ream was intent on Motorola being the selected vendor. Get this. The source says Motorola is "out of the business" of selling this equipment which, if true, means that Ream's insistence on Motorola would have put the CPD in a bad way. The key here is that this selection process puts Ream's judgment in doubt on another basis which cannot be good for a man who is Canton's safety director. Fortunately for Canton and the CPD, the Creighton administration sniffed this one out and went a different direction than Ream wanted.
  
• As articulated above, the SCPR believes that Healy has not thoroughly vetted Ream. But when you know the man will be a "team player" why go further? Here is Healy of TeamHealy fame drooling - in a press release excerpt - over Ream and the likelihood he will be a team player:
  

Healy also highlighted Ream’s team-based leadership philosophy as a “good fit” with the rest of his Cabinet members and department heads, and said that this will allow his administration to more effectively serve city residents in the future.

The SCPR is skeptical of the "good fit."

Time will tell who is right: the SCPR or Hizzonner William J. Healy, II?

For the sake of Cantonians, let us all hope that that the "Whiz Kid" from the New York University Stern School of Business is correct in his evaluation and selection of Thomas Ream as the new safety director of Canton.

DISCUSSION: WHAT GIVES AT THE REP? SCPR SOURCE CONFIRMS HEALY ATTEMPT TO FIRE MCKIMM!

Executive editor Jeff Gauger in his blog - sort of - dealt with the alleged (not doable) attempted firing of Canton Police Chief Dean McKimm.

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has a triple take on the Gauger blog.

First, he tries to discredit that the event ever took place because it is "chatter" on the blogs including his own.

Second, Gauger tries to discredit that the event ever took place by taking the position that everybody who is aware of the history of Canton politics know about former Mayor Janet Creigton's attempt to discipline Chief McKimm for not following her directive.

Third, Gauger cites the following responses:

Trouble is, we haven’t found proof to support the rumor suggesting that the mayor tried to fire the police chief. Rep Reporter Ed Balint has talked to the people involved — or, more accurately, to those who would have been involved. They deny it.

Here’s McKimm: No one talked to me about firing me. Not the mayor. Not Tom Nesbitt, the mayor’s public safety director and, on paper, the chief’s boss. Not anyone speaking for the mayor.

Here’s Nesbitt, and I quote him directly: “Absolutely nonsense” and “total malarkey.” Nesbitt even told us that after hearing the rumor himself he called McKimm to assure the chief that there was no plan to try to fire him. “I wanted to make (McKimm) comfortable,” Nesbitt said.

Here’s Joe Martuccio, the independent city law director: Neither Healy nor anyone speaking for the mayor sought my advice this week about firing McKimm.

And here’s City Councilman Bill Smuckler, a former candidate for mayor and a frequent, out-spoken critic of our current hizzoner: the chatter is a bunch of bunk.

Because of the foregoing The Report went back to the source of the story in the first place. The question. "Are you sure that Healy tried to fire McKimm,"

Answer: "Yes." Then the source went on to detail (in a persuasive fashion to The Report) the basis of the certainty.

So this is a very interesting stand off.

On one side: An impressive list of people who say an attempted firing (remembering, of course, the mayor cannot, only the Canton Civil Service Commission after due process of law) never occurred.

On the other: The Report's source. The Report will be quick to retract its story should it become apparent that the source was in error.

As of now, The Report has no reason to doubt the source notwithstanding the denials (including Law Director Joe Martuccio - whom The Report has the highest respect for).

Public official denials are nothing new to sophisticated observers of political processes. These folks are known to parse the dotting of the "i" and crossing of the "t" in the quest to construct a plausible or nuanced denial.

HAS THE HEALY ADMINISTRATION MADE CANTON SAFER THAN IT WAS UNDER THE CREIGHTON & WATKINS ADMINISTRATIONS?

William J. Healy, II has not had much to crow about since becoming mayor of Canton on January 01, 2007.

But crowing he is these days.

Crowing about what?

Careful to share credit with Canton's safety force unions, Healy appeared on Q92's "DeLuca in the Morning" show with Dean L. McKimm (Canton's police chief) this past Monday morning, Healy provided Pat with an "exclusive" first hearing of the new Canton crime data.

The SCPR thanks DeLuca for providing a tape of the interview for The Report's examination.

In the opinion of the SCPR, the tape reveals that Healy has not changed.  He is spin, spin and yet more spin.

The SCPR believes that the main reason for the decrease is a federal grant of $299,000 that Canton received from from the Northeast Ohio Violent Crime Consortium (NOVCC).  Because of the grant  "police [were able to conduct] gang surveillance, drug enforcement raids, illegal gun busts, highway interdictions, arrest warrant sweeps, and patrols of vacant homes" (quoted material excerpted from a city of Canton press release).

It is interesting to note that Healy did not mention that the grant ran out in September or October, 2009 (according to Healy spokesman Adam Herman) to DeLuca on air (unless yours truly missed something).

As The Report sees it, the federal money is critical to maintaining increased police action in Canton and though Herman says that the Healy administration thinks it can keep crime going down anyway because crime continued to go down - according to the Healy communications director - in the last quarter of 2009.  Here are Herman's words of optimism:

[W]e are optimistic that the targeted enforcement efforts will continue having their intended effect even if no additional funds are immediately available.

The SCPR's read of the DeLuca tapes is that Healy was determined to be positive and optimistic notwithstanding that chronic crime is still occurring daily in Canton.  He cited a couple of anecdotal tales which he claims is proof that Canton is turning dramatically safer.  Police Chief McKimm supported Healy on his contention that Canton is much, much more safe than it has been in some time.

And the SCPR hopes that Healy, et al  are correct in his expectation that crime is going to continue to slide dramatically.   However, yours truly is skeptical.

DeLuca hit on an important point in the interview.  "What is the [public] perception of Canton," he asked.

Chief McKimm said he does not subscribe to the notion that "perception is reality."  But then he went on to talk about how much safer it is to be in Canton at night than he has been in modern times.  What's that kind of talk but a try to frame perception?

The Chief says he only deals with reality.

Okay.

In the world of reality there still were 6,866 serious offenses in Canton in 2009 (including a marked increase in homicides and a slight increase in rapes).  Where did the crimes occur?  Out in the 8th and 9th wards?  Probably not.  Most likely, inner or core city, no?

Undoubtedly, the McKimm was playing to the Healy effort to put a rosy face on the safety factor of downtown Canton.  Kind of interesting in light of a move by the Healy administration to undermine Chief McKimm when Tom Nesbitt was safety director.

How about the 600 to 900 gang members frequenting the streets of Canton that McKimm mentioned to DeLuca.  Bet most Cantonians did not know about that number.

For the SCPR, 6,866 crimes brought to police attention constitute unsafe conditions anyway you want to spin that number.

It is good that crime is going down, but nearly 7,000 crimes still occuring is hardly something to be cheering about.

And things are better than in the Creighton and Watkins administrations.

However, the campaign ballyhoo of zero tolerance hardly connotes accepting thousands of crimes a year as a harsh reality that one learns to live with.

Not at all.

Zero tolerance suggests that crime will be much lower than 500 plus a month on average or to put it in another context:  about 20 per day.  And those are just the reported crimes.  Think there might not be a significant "unreported" crimes factor?

Healy was so ebullient on the DeLuca program about the statistical decrease that he generated a remembering of President Bush's Mission Accomplished  to The Report.

As we all know, the celebration was foolhardy and adversely affected the credibility of the Bush administration because much remained to be done.

Correspondingly, there is much to be done in Canton.  In making too much of the decrease in Canton's crime numbers, the SCPR believes all Mayor William J. Healy, II achieved with the pomp and circumstance was to set himself up to have his already damaged credibility take yet another hit!

HEALY HOT ON TRAIL OF CANTON POLICE CHIEF MCKIMM?

The Stark County Political Report (SCPR/The Report) has learned that Canton Police Chief Dean McKimm is being brought up on disciplinary hearing by outgoing Safety Director Tom Nesbitt. The Report understands that this hearing will be held within a matter of days and will be adjudicated by Service Director Warren Price.

Whatever decision Price makes is subject to review by the Canton Civil Service Commission.

McKimm has been the target not only of the Healy administration but also by the preceding Creighton administration.

That SCPR did a records request several months ago with the city of Canton and the documents obtained verify numerous admonitions being communicated by Director Nesbitt to McKimm. Apparently, the acrimony has not abated over time; hence the new action and a hearing.

The Report has opinioned previously that one of the reasons Nesbitt is departing the Healy administration is Healy's dissatisfaction with Nesbitt's inability to deal with McKimm in accordance with Healy's objectives.

Tom Nesbitt is another Canton official that professionals, who work with him, have a high opinion of, but nonetheless has fallen into disfavor with Healy.

The SCPR has also learned that Deputy Police Chief (Captain) Thomas Ream is a leading candidate to succeed Director Nesbitt.

An area law enforcement official has told the SCPR that his view is that Ream is too much of a "shiny new badge" to be Safety Director and that it would also be troublesome if McKimm remains chief to have to account to his former subordinate.

Meanwhile, the beat goes on in Canton. Distractions galore emanating from Mayor Healy appear to debilitating the city from moving forward in revitalizing itself for the good of its citizens.

DISCUSSION: CANTON SAFETY DIRECTOR NESBITT - A VERY ANGRY MAN ABOUT NOT BEING SELECTED AS 9-1-1 PROJECT MANAGER?

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has learned that Canton Safety Director Tom Nesbitt (coming to Canton from Nebraska a little over a year ago) after being informed that the interviewers of the Governance Committee of the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) would not be recommending that SCOG as a whole name him as 9-1-1 Project Manager went to City Hall to vent on Mayor Healy.

Reportedly, Nesbitt complained to the Mayor, "Randy Gonzales promised me this job" (paraphrase). Moreover, Nesbitt is reported to have slammed at least one door as an expression of anger at not being selected.

The Report has further learned that the interviewing committee reached a consensus that former Creighton administration Safety Director and Chief of Staff Joseph Concatto (most recently retired) would be the the recommendation to the full SCOG.

When the interviewing crew left the Stark County 9-1-1 Center (located at the Stark County Jail), Concatto was their man.

After the Nesbitt tirade and presumably a call being made to Gonzalez, it appears that Gonzales is determined to resume his push for Nesbitt before the full SCOG at an special meeting to be called for the near future.

The Report believes that the push by Gonzales for Nesbitt is the result of an intense lobbying effort by Healy to get Nesbitt out of his adminstration.

The Report has obtained documents from the Healy administration pursuant to a records request under Ohio's Sunshine Law which show The Report that Nesbitt has an acerbic relationship with Canton Police Chief Dean L. McKimm. Presumably, the Canton police force at large supports the Chief and therefore it seems reasonable to suppose that Safety Director (and derivatively Mayor Healy) does not have command of Canton's forces. Rather, McKimm appears, from The Report's reading of the obtained documents, to routinely "thumb his nose" at the Healyites.

So what is Healy to do?

Find Nesbitt a new job so he can get someone in place who can control McKimm or successfully dump him by negotiating through the Canton Civil Service maze.

The Report has learned from a source that Stark County Democratic chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. has gotten in on the act.

Why?

Because he reportedly does not want Joseph Concatto.

But he does want Nesbiitt?

The Report is trying to make sense of this. Well, what's the problem? As far as The Report can determine both Concatto and Nesbitt are Republicans. Why would Maier care?

One possible explanation, if The Report's source on Maier's involvement is accurate is as follows: Maier is for Nesbitt because Gonzales (who The Report deems to be the de facto head of the Stark County Democratic Party) is and has been for Nesbitt.

Another possibility. It is thought by a number of Stark County political analysts (including yours truly) that Healy is bent on getting rid of Police Chief McKimm. Healy's expectation has very likely been that Nesbitt should get this done. But it hasn't happened. Healy may see his political survival and, indeed, his political future tied to whipping the Canton PD into a more effective policing unit and Healy probably sees McKimm as a barrier to this goal and therefore he needs a safety director who can handle the McKimm problem.

So where does Maier come in?

In previous blogs by The Report mention was made that Governor Strickland very much wanted to see Healy elected mayor of Canton. According to Jack DeSario (D&R Consulting), Governor Strickland prevailed on him to run the Healy campaign.

We all know that Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. is Governor Strickland's man in Stark County on the sentimental basis that Johnnie was the very first county chairman to endorse Strickland when Strickland had still political opposition within the Democratic party in his drive to be the party's nominee to be governor.

If it is important for Strickland that Healy be a successful mayor of Canton, then Maier is going to do everything within his power to help Healy weather the current political turmoil that is afflicting Canton City Hall. If Healy sees moving Nesbitt on to another job as being the solution to his problems, wouldn't Maier want to help him and thereby prove his continuing worth to Strickland in Stark County politics?

WHAT DOES CANTON HAVE TO HIDE? WITH HEALY AS MAYOR, EVERYTHING!

William J. Healy, II is probably Canton's most secretive and controlling mayor ever.

He has been out to nail Canton police chief Dean L. McKimm pretty much from day one of his administration.

From material that the SCPR received from the city of Canton pursuant to a public records request, it is clear to yours truly that outgoing safety director Tom Nesbitt has been under pressure from Healy to get rid of McKimm.

Plaudits are in order to McKimm and his attorney Craig Conley for asking for an "open to the public" hearing. This is a crazy world indeed. The prosecutor (the city of Canton administration) is spending money Canton doesn't have to "behind closed doors" to put McKimm on the outside looking.

There is an strong irony here. Canton is insisting on a - closed to the public hearing - while McKimm has gone to court to force the hearing open. (Safety director postpones hearing on Canton police chief, The Rep, July 6, 2009)

The SCPR is reminded of the prosecution of Marlboro police chief Ron Devies. The Marlboro trustees (Wise and Wolf), Prosecutor John Ferrero and Sheriff Tim Swanson were all "closed mouth" (cowardly) about the unwarranted and unfair prosecution of the highly respected Devies, while Devies was very open and would talk to anyone with questions.

Quite simply Devies had nothing to hide. And Judge Sinclair saw it his way. The prosecution's top gun (Dennis Barr) couldn't force the defense to put on its case. That's how bad the trustees, the prosecution and the sheriff served Stark County justice. But they have never apologized. They just sleeked into the night.

Healy is also cowardly type who works other people to do his dirt. Like when a celebrity fundraiser function he was trying to get Stark County commissioner Todd Bosley to sic the sheriff on his political enemy Greg Hawk. Healy was bogus on this as he is on most things.

Meanwhile Canton sinks deeper and deeper into an economic morass while Healy games his opponents for the sake of his own ego!

NESBITT CHASTISES THE MAN WHO NEEDED CHASTENING; PRAISES THE MEN AND WOMEN OF CANTON CITY GOVERNMENT WHO DESERVE ACCOLADES

Former Canton safety director Tom Nesbitt must have a strong stomach.

He worked for one of the most egotistic men in all of Stark County for 19 months. Canton's safety forces are the better for having had the direction of Nesbitt.

The SCPR does question his buying the Healy line on Police Chief McKimm and working to do the mayor's bidding on Healy. McKimm has a lot of history going back into the Creighton administration and has created some "political" enemies over that time.

McKimm like any other public official certainly needs to be made accountable and responsive, but he should be allowed to be a man who speaks his mind to his superiors as Nesbitt himself is.

Otherwise, Nesbitt performed the way he should have in relation to the mayor. Former services director and chief-of-staff Tom Bernabei also performed the way he should have in relation to Healy. But, as we now know, any one who has the temerity to face off with Healy is history if Healy has any authority over that person.

So Nesbitt and Bernabei are history and Canton is headed for the worse because of their departure.And God bless Tom Nesbitt in his new ventures.

Shame on Mayor William J. Healy, II for what he is doing to Canton.

Nesbitt did the right thing in e-mailing the Canton city employees as he departed praising them for their quality work. Here is a copy of that e-mail:

MAYOR HEALY & SHERIFF SWANSON IN "EXTENDED" CONVERSATION - ABOUT WHAT? COULD IT BE ABOUT A CERTAIN CANTON POLICE CHIEF?

Sheriff Swanson's office recently investigated allegations that Mayor Healy had an inappropriate relationship with a 16 year old. The investigation resulted in "no charges" being filed.

The last person the Swanson should want to be seen huddled up with is Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II.

Why?

Well, to hear Mayor Healy tell it, he has all these political enemies out there who are trying to keep him from being a successful mayor of Canton. Healy implied, in various media appearances, that the allegations on the 16 year old came from among his political enemies.

If Healy is correct, might not these same political enemies bide their time until one or more of them come up with more allegations?

Of course!

Well, who is to investigate?

Sheriff Swanson?

Most likely.

So if Swanson is perceived in the general Stark County public to be buddy-buddy with Healy, will Swanson have to do another Gary Zeigler/Stark County treasurer's office investigation maneuver: fade into the background?

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) has written recently how Healy and Swanson were seen huddled up at a recently celebrity event talking for about an hour.

The point of the previous SCPR piece was that while Healy had leaned on others to pass on possible law enforcement rumors to Sheriff Swanson touching on a Canton City Councilman; Healy didn't breathe a word of it to Swanson in the one hour huddle up.

What did Healy and Swanson talk about?

The word to The Report is that Healy was seeking advice on how to deal with Canton Police Chief Dean McKimm.

The Report has frequently written about Healy's dissatisfaction with McKimm (civil service protected) which spread to Safety Director Tom Nesbitt (who continues to look for work elsewhere) when Nesbitt could not find a basis to fire McKimm which would pass muster with the Canton Civil Service Commission.

The Report has also written frequently how smart Mayor Healy is. At least in his own eyes.

Well, the celebrity event conversation was not too smart for Healy nor Sheriff Swanson.

How in the world could Healy ever make a credible presentation to the civil service folks after all his "cloak and dagger" machinations? Moreover, how could Sheriff Swanson's office possibly be the investigating agency if Healy's political enemies were to make additional future allegations?

Clearly, the Healy/Swanson duo has a constitutional right of "freedom of association" like every other American.

But then when it comes to the Sheriff doing his public job doesn't this consideration, in the light of close encounters of the type described in this blog, militate - from a public perception point-of-view - that if the Mayor should become a subject in an investigation in the future that Swanson step aside?

Isn't "being to close to the subject matter of the investigation" exactly the same kind of thing that prompted Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor to push Swanson to the sidelines in the Stark County treasury investigation?

Will Swanson ever learn to be civil and courteous but ever mindful of the need keep an appropriate distance from local politicians and public figures?

ZERO TOLERANCE? POLITICAL GIMMERICKY IN CANTON UNLESS YOU ARE A SPEEDER?

Only in Canton, Ohio, no?

As most Stark Countians know, Canton police have apparently been directed by the administration of Mayor William J. Healy, II to crack down on speeding on Interstate 77 within city limits in order to help balance the city's budget err... to make the city safer.

Moreover, since Auditor Gary Young of the Canton auditing department is suggesting that he cannot say for sure (e.g. an unplanned shutdown of Interstate 77) that the crackdown for safety will provide the necessary money to balance Canton's budget, The Report is told by a Canton officials that Healy has directed Safety Director Thomas Ream and Police Chief Dean McKimm to crackdown for speed safety in Canton's neighborhoods which will make it much more likely that Canton will generate enough money to balance the 2010 budget with monies actually realized.

Obviously. the crackdown for increased revenues err ... speed safety. means that Canton's police have a lesser ability to deal with actual alleged criminal activity in the city.

The Stark County Political Report has learned that Canton Councilwoman Mary Cirelli (at-large) encountered an interesting situation this past recently at Aldi's out on Route 62 as she endeavor to go through the checkout to pay for merchandise she was purchasing.

As the story goes, she says that she was put on hold by the checkout clerk as store personnel were dealing with an in progress alleged shoplifting.

In a discussion that ensued, store clerks revealed to Cirelli that this was the third time that the store was engaged in trying to thwart the alleged shoplifter and that the Canton Police Department (CPD) refuses to send an officer to the scene.

The police's rationale:  Aldi's video record would later be examined by CPD officials and if the alleged theft was detected then the CPD would publish the photo of the person alleged to be doing the theft on its website in hopes that someone from the public would identify the person to police.

Cirelli, The Report understands, is concerned (as a councilperson) that the apparent disinterest of the CPD in responding immediately when the alleged thief is still in the store communicates the wrong message.  A supplemental Cirelli concern obviously is citizens (including a couple of teenages)  overhearing Aldi personnel describe repetitive occurrences of CPD personnel refusing to respond to an alleged crime in progress.

So Canton has a Zero Tolerance of crime policy, but can't respond to a report of alleged crime in progress?  However, patrolmen can prowl the streets and highways of Canton for speeders?  Wow!

From an email forwarded to the SCPR by a reader:

From: Mary Cirelli

To: mayor healy ; thomas.ream@cantonohio.gov ; dean mckimm

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 1:59 PM

A direct quote excerpt from Cirelli email, to wit:

I find this totally unacceptable !!! please [Mayor Healy, Safety Director Ream and Police Chief McKimm] let me know the status of the situation so I can share it with my fellow Councilmember's as well as the General Public !!

So what is the reason that the Canton Police Department could not send an officer to Aldi's  to take a report on the alleged theft?

Is it because the Canton PD has strained its law enforcement resources enforcing speed laws throughout the city?

Is the Healy administration with its directives to the Canton Police Department making a mockery of the Healy campaign pledge (the 2007 campaign against Republican Janet Creighton) of Zero Tolerance on dealing with reported criminal allegations?

What's the expression?

"Not a way to run a railroad!!!"

DISCUSSION: YOU BE THE JUDGE, IS HEALY SETTING UP TO FIRE CHIEF POLICE MCKIMM?

Some time ago the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) wrote that Mayor William J. Healy, II attempted to fire Canton Police Chief Dean L. McKimm (CLICK HERE TO SEE PRIOR REPORTS).

Of course, all Cantonians have gotten is denial, after denial after denial.

Denials seem to "the coin of the realm" in the Healy administration these days.

The Report has known from the day yours truly first laid eyes on Healy that - to say the least - he is a "self-assured" person; some say "cocky;" while The Report (as has written before this piece) says he is arrogant.

The Report has come to an additional assessment of Healy based on his response on governing issues on the table regarding Canton government. To say the least, he is disingenuous. The Report believes that he is unbelieveable on most of the critical matters that are swirling around Stark County about Mayor Healy and his conduct in office.

But readers of The Report should be equipped to make their own assessments.

In that spirit, The Report endeavors to provide readers with documents generated by the Healy administration itself, to assist in the assessment task.

Doesn't the letter printed in the accompanying graphic give credibility the thinking that Healy is building a record on which to fire McKimm through the Canton Civil Service personnel process?

MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY - THE MASTER AT FUMBLING "POLITICAL" FOOTBALLS? ALSO, CANTON DEP. CHIEF THOMAS REAM & REP'S LORI MONSEWICZ BLOW OFF THE SCPR

A month or so ago the SCPR had a discussion with a Healy administration official who lamenented "if he could only stop shooting himself in the foot."

Or, to use another metaphor: "quit fumbling the football" in cruicial situations.

As everybody who is familiar with Canton politics knows, Mayor Healy insists as mayor on being the star on everything and he and he alone carries the football. Only trouble is that time-after-time-after time he fumbles the ball at critical times.

The big laugh about Healy is that he named his campaign organization "TeamHealy." A Stark County countywide elected official has told the SCPR that Healy is impossible to work with. "TeamHealy?" "Really?"

His administration, not that far from half-time of his four year term, cannot advance "the betterment of Canton ball" because of all his fumbling: Bernabei, Schulman, Hawk, Nesbitt, ethics questions, "achieving zero-tolerance," and on-and-on-and-on goes the Healy fumblitis.

Recently Healy appointed Canton Police Chief Deputy Thomas Ream as safety director to replace the outgoing Thomas Nesbitt (Ream to replace Nesbitt as safety director, The Rep, July 1st). Question is: Has Healy fumbled again?

If so, Healy may have squandered his last chance to regain the confidence of Cantonians.

What are opinion upon that the Ream appointment may be another Healy political fumble?

First, there is the problem with the Ream appointment (effective August 4th) in that the beleaguered (at the hand of the Healy administration) McKimm working for his former deputy who The Report believes will be under continuing pressure from Healy (as yours truly believes Nesbitt was) to terminate McKimm.

Moreover, there may be a question of Ream's judgment.

The SCPR has learned Deputy Ream went to the White Crown Cafe shortly after a triple murder occurred outside the bar - in his words or to the effect thereof - "to establish a police presence in order to reassure neighborhood residents of their safety."

The Report's understanding is that even though Ream was there to establish a police presence (apparently in uniform), he may have been off duty at the time. Does this make sense?

Furthermore, he was seen allegedly consuming alcohol at the time. And to boot, he was observed being in conversation with a Repository reporter Lori Monsewicz who reportedly purchased Ream a beer?

The SCPR did place a telephone call to Monsewicz for a confirmation, denial or an explanation. However, the call has gone unanswered. Moreover, Monsewicz has not answered the SCPR's e-mail on the subject matter. A reporter not answering telephone calls? Not responding to e-mails? Very interesting indeed.

"A reassuring police presence?" Sitting around talking to a reporter allegedly drinking beer? Doesn't sound like very good judgment to the SCPR on Deputy Ream's part, if true. The SCPR has telephoned Canton-safety-director-to-be Ream to ask about all the matters touched upon by this report. But like Monsewicz; no response.

There's another interesting tidbit about Ream. The SCPR has learned that he was high on the list of candidates to be hired as Perry police chief (at the time Escola ended up getingh hired) until he refused to take a lie detector test. Taking such a test is probably routine for anyone applying for such a sensitive position.

What are Ream's reasons for refusing the test? A matter of principle? Perhaps Ream and the Healy administration owe the public an explanation.

And finally it is noteworthy that when Healy hired Nesbitt as safety director, Ream reportedly was a candidate. So, Ream was not good enough in late 2007, early 2008, but now he is?

Does Healy have an explanation about what changed over the course of time?

To the SCPR, this Healy choice of Ream as safety director is the equivalent of carrying the ball in one hand as a easy target for approaching tacklers to knock out. Bingo! Another fumble. If this appointment proves to be a fumble, could this be a fumble that costs TeamHealy (and, unfortunately, Canton) the game?

Or, at the very minimum, the Healy administration and Canton is back on defense once again. Of course, defense is familiar territory for this administration. Just when it appears that Canton is going to get its offense started, what happens? Another fumble?

Time and time again that is exactly where Healy has placed Canton with his malady of "political" fumblitis.

Does Healy care about the well-being of Canton at all?

Or, it is all about William J. Healy, II?

How much more can Canton take?

DISCUSSION: TODAY AT CANTON CITY HALL - HEALY TRIES TO FIRE POLICE CHIEF MCKIMM?

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has learned that the beleaguered and besieged Mayor William J. Healy, II of Canton tried to fire Canton Chief of Police Dean L. McKimm today.

Canton Law Director Joseph Martuccio stepped in and stopped the firing.

It appears that Mayor Healy is coming unglued.

The Repository today reported that the mayor issued a directive to city workers not to talk to recently fired service director and chief of staff Tom Bernabei. Why would he need to do that. Probably because Healy put Bernabei in a position in which city workers saw Bernabei functioning as the mayor.

Further evidence that the mayor may not see himself as being in control.

The Report also has an observation of a city hall observer that Safety Director Tom Nesbitt may not last the week.

What news will be coming out of city hall tomorrow?

DISCUSSION: "NESBITT STILL LOOKING TO LEAVE CITY OF CANTON?" - OF COURSE, HEALY'S REAL ATTITUDE; "DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE _ _ _?"

It is problematical, at the very least, to swallow the lines that Canton Safety Director Tom Nesbitt and Mayor William J. Healy, II fed Repository politics and government writer Kelli Young (posted below).

What follows is the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) take on those lines or omissions of as to the real reasons why Nesbitt is on his way out of the Healy administration.

The Report believes that "Nesbitt declines to give his reasons for leaving" because one of the unarticulated reasons (in the Report's analysis) is not flattering to Mayor Healy and the other is bound up in the well known expression "don't burn your bridges behind you" by making public declarations of disgust.

Reason number one. The Report believes that Healy has given his safety director a heave-ho in so many words, but with time to find a new job. Forget all that malarkey that Healy says to Young, to wit:

“I think he’s [Nesbitt's] done a fine job for us, and you don’t like to see turnover when you have good employees,”[....] “But I’ve found that when you find really good people, they tend not to stay long term because other opportunities come their way... . If that means I can (either) have a really good employee for a year or have an average employee for three years, I’ll take the really good employee and then replace him with another good employee.”

Mayor Healy appears to have an intoxication with anybody whom he perceives to be, in an allegorical sense, "a greener pasture: " a New Yorker, Nebraskan, Akronite, Clevelander, Las Vegasan, Arizonaian or from wherever. From elsewhere, that's where the good employees come from if you follow Healy's words and actions.

Never mind the destabilizing effect of having "the exotic" from wherever come and be a key person in the administration and then move on after only one year.

Can you imagine being an employee with the city of Canton over the duration of the Healy administration? These folks will experience one directive change after another after another from a succession of one year at a time cabinet members.

Down home Cantonians or Stark Countians (let's say a Tom Bernabei), to use Healy's words, are the "average employee" who work "for three years" and coincidentally provide continuity and stability. Healy's "three year employee" language translates into: they are "a dime a dozen" unless, of course, you have to fire one of them because he turns out to be every bit the equal or superior to (management skill wise) the Mayor himself."

The thing about folks like Healy, who are afflicted with "the greener pasture syndrome," is that they soon learn that the person brought in from the Land of Exotica - puts his/her pants on the same way everybody else does. Then disenchantment sets in and it is only a matter of time until "the exotic" is nudged out a la Nesbitt.

The Report believes that reason number one is only part of the answer as why Nesbitt is looking to leave Canton after a little more than one year on the job.

Reason number two. The Report has learned that Nesbitt has been saying quite generally to various Stark County leaders, in more or less private settings, that the Healy administration is falling apart and near being in shambles. So this must be the "rest of the story" for being out looking for a new job.

Nesbitt lucked onto a grand opportunity for staying put in Canton when the Stark County commissioners took a bold step in January in imposing a sales/use tax to fund a countywide 9-1-1. Somehow he was able to get ear of Randy Gonzales who is head of the Governance Committee of the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG). He applied for the 9-1-1 Project Manager position, AFTER - The Report believes - he had assurances from Gonzales that the job was his.

Gonzales did try to deliver.

But he did not figure on Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley taking the stance of Nesbitt "over my dead body." And Gonzales fought Bosley tooth and nail to get Nesbitt in. However, In the end, it was more important to Gonzales to get on with the business of putting the countywide 9-1-1 system together than holding out for Nesbitt.

Gonzales' need to compromise (Bosley was pushing equally hard for Nimishillen fire cf Rich Peterson), is why Nesbitt has to go to Plan B (all those other opportunities). The Report believes Nesbitt was both stunned and irate when he learned that Gonzales could not produce for him. The Report has previously reported on Nesbitt's immediate reaction to not getting named 9-1-1 Project Manager. (CLICK HERE for a direct link to that piece)

The Report thinks there are other reasons for Nesbitt's impending departure such as Healy being frustrated at Nesbitt's inability to get rid of Canton police chief Dean McKimm. Because McKimm is protected by civil service rules and regulations, Nesbitt has not been able to produce for his boss.

The tragedy of all of this political intrigue is that it is a roadblock to solving the very real problems Canton has.

Even if there weren't rampant disharmony at Canton City Hall, the best of leaders would have a huge challenge to redirect Canton from being a dying city into being a rejuvenated city.

With the way Mayor William J. Healy, II is handling Canton City Hall, is there any basis for optimism for turning the city around?

DISCUSSION: MAYOR STARTS A FIGHT HE CANNOT WIN WITH COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN SCHULMAN?

Canton's Mayor William J. Healy, II is besieged on all sides. One would think he has the smarts not to get into a fight with Canton City Council President Allen Schulman.

The first ironical twist to a political fight developing between these two in bound up in their similarities, to wit

Both men are "smoooooooooth" politicians. They pride themselves in their ability to cultivate powerful relationships which each hopes will carry him far in realizing personal and political ambitions. Both are polished, urbane and cosmopolitan. Each are careful not to take on political fights that have low prospects of being winnable. In short, they skilled at ironing (no pun on the graphic intended) things out.

But here we are. At the breakout of the fight of the century in Canton politics.

Both likely will try ot back off from this fight. In the end, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) believes it will surface as a full scale battle.

Who will win?

The Report's bet is on Allen Schulman.

Fight? What fight?

Actually the first indication of a fight is when Healy fired Canton service director and chief of staff Tom Bernabei. Schulman was shocked to read from Washington (while engaged in Obama inaugural activities) that Healy had fired Bernabei with nary a word to the Canton City Council president.

A very unwise move by Healy.

Fast forwarding through all the talk about Healy's other troubles of late (allegations about an inappropriate relationship with a 16 year old, questions about campaign finance contributions, the Healy desire to get rid of McKimm matter, the Nesbitt "I'm here, I' m out of here" debacle, the Redflex situation, et cetera), Schulman must sense that The Report's early-on projection that the Healy administration is a sinking ship has increasing credibility.

Hence at last night Council meeting, The Rep's Ed Balint ("Schulman puts Healy on hot seat) reports as follows:

The City Council president said the mayor’s acceptance of a combined $250 in campaign contributions from two associates of Redflex Traffic Systems “creates the appearance of potential influence.”

Here's where a second and the highest degree of irony (both men understand and use campaign contributions skillfully) sets in as the catalyst for open political warefare breaking out.

Allen Schulman certainly is one of the highest - and the The Report believes - the highest dollar and most prolific campaign contributor in Stark County, maybe in all of Ohio. And he holds his own nationally. While The Report believes that Schulman does a lot of contributing because he is a "good government guy" who knows that it takes money to win elections, it is not lost on Schulman that making campaign contributions to key political people certainly does open doors.

Healy knows of Schulman's prodigious record of making campaign contributions to the politically powerful. Just picture this in your mind's eye. As Healy listens to Schulman's scolding, he has to be boiling inside. He must be thinking: "What brass?" "I can't believe I'm hearing this from Mr. Campaign Contributor of Stark County!"

So how does Healy's internal combustion erupt?

Here it is from Ed Baling:

After the council meeting, Healy said Schulman’s comments tell “more about his character than my operations.”

If a war were not already underway, when Schulman reads that Healy has attacked his character; the die is cast and The Report believes Alan Schulman will not rest until William J. Healy, II is no longer the Mayor of Canton.

The Report would not be surprised to see Healy start backtracking immediately. But sometimes the heat of battle gets so intense that things get said that are not retractable or explainable away and in the end - forgivable.

Attacking any man's character is a grievous act.

Attacking a politically powerful man's (i.e. Allen Schulman) character is beyond grievous in the political world and this act may well have been the political death knell for William J. Healy, II.

HEALY'S PR AGENT STRIKES AGAIN. REP EXECUTIVE EDITOR SHILLS FOR THE MAYOR ONCE AGAIN?

Stark County has fallen on hard times, Canton has fallen on hard times and The Repository has fallen on hard times.

With the assignment of Jeff Gauger as executive editor of The Repository, GateHouse Ohio Media has delivered a telling blow to the quality of editorial work being done at Stark's only countywide newspaper.


With Respect to Mayor William J. Healy, II, The Rep's reporting and opinion page reflect more of a public relations stance than tenacious reporting and political/governmental analysis.

An ominous piece was written by Rep reporter Ed Balint on May 9, 2009, to wit:  Canton's quarterly newspaper produced in partnership with GateHouse Ohio [Media], (The Repository's parent company).

The SCPR was skeptical that a thoroughgoing news enterprise could remain separate and apart from a profit making commercial enterprise entered into by the commercial publishing wing of the same newspaper conglomerate.

“We’re excited to be able to assist the city in the publication of their magazine,” said Kevin M. Kampman, president of GateHouse Ohio and publisher of The Repository.

 Kampman went on to say:

“This business relationship does not involve our newspaper newsrooms and will not shape the independent coverage decisions made by GateHouse Ohio journalists.”

 Now that a year has transpired since Kampman's disclaimer, who believes it?

Let's see, here it is March 6, 2010.  Two days ago, The Rep gave over the pages of the paper to pushing its spin on Canton's crime situation.  By way of intro, editorial writer Gayle Beck gave this synopsis of the hand over:  (By the way, Beck assumes the "unassuming" role of "staff writer," really Gayle?)

We chose questions that we thought would have the broadest interest in the community. We skipped the handful of loaded questions. I can tell you, though, that the police chief takes exception to the notion that traffic tickets are a form of extortion.

Key phrases "[w]e chose questions ... ," and "[w]e skipped a handful of loaded questions."

This language indicates that The Rep editorial writers were filtering in "set up questions" to the liking of Healy administration officials at the same time they were filtering out "hardball questions."

The Result:  A Healy administration PR piece!

Shouldn't surprise anyone.

For Gauger, Beck et al to allow such use of The Repository shows the extent to which the Healy administration has been able to compromise the journalistic integrity of The Rep.

For instance, who believes for one New York minute (for Healy and his New York University connection) that 1,173 traffic citations in January, 2010 compares to only 57 in January, 2009 were primarily, according to Safety Director Thomas Ream (the same Thomas Ream who is said - as a leader in the Canton Police Department -  sat down with a Repository reporter over beers to have been bought by the reporter) for safety reasons.

Nobody believes this Administration propaganda.

And yet the Rep editorial writers let these statements go unchallenged.  Moreover, the SCPR labels the editorialists as being complicit in the deception:

More of the Healy administration pablum:

Decreases in calls involving criminal activity are letting police do “work that should have been done all along, if we’d had the ability,” [Canton Police Department Chief] McKimm said.

Healy anticipates that the traffic crackdown will force drivers to change their habits, leading eventually to fewer citations and less revenue for the city.

When you couple the March 4th publication with an overall look at how the relationship that The Rep has with the Healy administration, it is easy to conclude that there is a "sweetheart" relationship between Gauger and colleagues and the Healy folks.

The relationship gets manifested in photo ops (e.g. Healy meeting with J.L. Watson who was picketing in support of Canton firefighters and Healy picking up garbage) which obviously requires tip-offs being phoned in from City Hall to The Rep offices, and the failure of  The Rep generally to provide scrutinizing coverage of the administration.  Moreover, on more than one occasion, The Rep has virtually handed over its editorial pages to Healy as an avenue to pump his spin out.

It is GateHouse Ohio Media's newspaper to run as the ownership sees fit.

But with all its co-mingling relationships, who assigns it much credibility?

HEALY VERSUS SMUCKLER: MAY, 2011 - THE MAIN ISSUE IS SHAPING UP?

Is the main issue shaping up in the looming primary battle for the Democratic nomination for mayor of Canton come May, 2011?

The SCPR thinks so.

What will the main issue be?

Healy will likely say that it is economic development and that Councilman-at-large Bill Smuckler has been a hindrance in equipping Canton government with the proper structure/staffing to go all out in reversing the slippage in Canton's economic development effort in recent months.

Smuckler will probably seize on Healy's "Zero Tolerance" campaign theme against former mayor Janet Creighton and the obvious reality that crime still exists in Canton's neighborhoods in intolerable quantities.

On Monday night, Canton City Council voted 10 to 2, with only out-and-out Healy loyalist councilmembers Thomas West and Chris Smith voting with the Mayor, to reject Healy's plan to reconstitute Canton's economic development effort in rejecting the creation of a new cabinet-level position.

In the post-vote discussion, what did Smuckler talk about?  Taking money saved with the resignation of the City's communications director (Adam Herman) and putting it into Canton's high crime neighborhoods.

The SCPR believes that Smuckler has hit a Healy nerve which has the Mayor on the defensive already.  Healy is disclaiming a George Bush-esque "Mission Accomplished" stance.

Why the need for a disclaimer?

Because Healy has been going around Canton with Police Chief Dean McKimm and Safety Director Thomas Ream touting FBI statistics showing that Canton crime is down.

Any yet what are Canton residents doing in significant numbers these days?  They are showing up at City Council meetings and complaining about what?

You guessed it!  Yes, crime in the neighborhoods.

Yes, we are more than a year out from May, 2011, but it appears that "the heart and soul" of the looming Smuckler versus Healy mayoralty battle is already becoming apparent.

Economic development on the one hand versus safety in the neighborhoods on the other!

DISCUSSION: LARRY DORDEA TO BE HEALY'S NEW SAFETY DIRECTOR?

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) remembers well being the first in Stark County to reveal that Canton safety director Tom Nesbitt had applied to be the new Project Manager of the 9-1-1 countywide restructuring effort.

For The Report, the Nesbitt decision to move on (only after about a year on the job; having come from Nebraska) was the second most significant event in a line of precursors to the end of the Healy administration.

After the Nesbitt application, there was a day about a month ago or so when the rumors where flying hot and heavy that Healy had given Nesbitt the heave-ho. Despite the Healy and Nesbitt denials, The Report believes that Healy did tell Nesbitt that he was "fired" but thought better of it when he realized he had no one in the wings he could feel comfortable with as a replacement.

Why did want Nesbitt gone in the first place?

Because Nesbitt failed on Healy's desire to be rid of Canton police chief Dean McKimm.

When the Nesbitt decision was made, Healy and his is left of his top administrators, huddled in the lofty reaches of the 8th floor of Canton City Hall and asked among themselves: "Who can we replace Nesbit with?"

No one on current Canton scene was satisfactory. So it was decided to float the name of retired Alliance police chief Larry Dordea.

Only problem was, nobody had asked Dordea (a Republican who had run against Democrat Tim Swanson (the incumbent sheriff in November, 2008) if he was interested.

It turns out that Healy was being his old presumtious self and "assumed" Dordea would be interested. How silly of Healy. Larry Dordea is a smart guy. Why would he want to join a sinking ship on its way down?

Answer: He's not.

The only conversation Dordea has had will Healy is to tell him to quit floating his name as a possible replacement for Nesbitt.

Do you get it Mayor? Smart, savvy folks don't want any part of your rapidly failing administration If you cared anything about Canton, you would resign first thing Monday.

If there is a "crisis of confidence" at the national lever, then just magnify it many times over as far as the furture of the city of Canton is concerned.

The more Healy hangs on, the more clear it is that he cares for his own future over the future of Canton and Stark County.