SCPR "ELECTION 2009 SERIES" (VOL 4): BOSLEY ACCUSES NIMISHILLEN TWP FIRE CHIEF RICH PETERSON OF WORKING WITH ANTI-SALES TAX COMMITTEE. HMM?

They used to be tight with one another.

But that is all changed now.

Nimishillen Township Fire Chief  Richard J. Peterson and Commissioner Todd Bosley couldn't be further apart.

Yesterday,  in a one-on-one conversation with Bosley, the commissioner told the SCPR that Peterson is working with the Stark Citizens Right to Vote Committee to have Stark Countians vote "No" on Issue 5; a "no" vote being "not to retain the 0.5 imposed sales/use tax" voted by the commissioners in December, 2008.

The SCPR took Bosley's comments to mean that he thinks Peterson is running a 5th column-esque movement in which Peterson and his sponsors, the Nimishillen Township trustees are working to undermine the Stark County Council on Governments Governance Committee's effort to fix the county's broken 9-1-1 system.

Bosley said that Peterson is "the Wizard behind the curtain" who is providing the anti-tax movement with information such as cited by movement spokesman Charlie Snyder that 9-1-1 does not need $5.5 million a year.

Why would Peterson do this?

Bosley believes that it is because Peterson was not selected to head up the Governance Committee's effort.  He lost out to Joseph Concatto for the position of project manager to put together the Countywide 9-1-1 Dispatch Center.

There is heavy irony in this falling out between Bosley and Peterson.

Fixing 9-1-1 was a collaboration between Peterson and Bosley going back to the days that Bosley was a Nimishillen Township trustee.  Fixing 9-1-1 is the reason, in the opinion of the SCPR, that Bosley was elected over sitting commissioner Richard Regula in November, 2006.

Bosley says that the 9-1-1 plan he has been pushing, is a plan conceived and constructed by Richard J. Peterson.

So what went wrong between Peterson and Bosley?

Two things, according to Bosley:

One - Peterson was not selected as project manager (even though Bosley fought tooth and nail with Gonzalez trying to get Peterson) and

Two -  Nimishillen Township Fire Station Number 3 (which houses Nimishillen's CenCom Dispatch Center) is to be phased out as a surviving Stark County dispatch location under the SCOG plan.

Back in June the SCPR reported that Peterson was "a fire chief scorned" and, moreover, yours truly was of the opinion that Peterson was already working to possibly scuttle countywide centralized dispatch.

So between June 30th and September 30th, has Peterson been marking his time, waiting to pounce on SCOG and Bosley?

Bosley thinks so.  And he hopping mad.  In fact, like Howard Beale of the movie Network, Bosley is, in effect, saying of Peterson "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

Bosley is out talking to media big time.  Not only is he talking to the likes of the SCPR, The Rep and others; the commissioner is going the extra step.
He sent yours truly the following link to an Alliance Review article dated, get this, March 8, 2008 which reveals a different sounding Chief Richard Peterson.  Politician Bosley does do his political research.  And he will beat an opponent's head in with it!

For Bosley, his tiff with Peterson appears to be more than "let's agree to disagree."  No, the Bosley offensive has the markers of being an all out offensive to smoke Peterson out and discredit him.

Bosley says that Stark Right to Vote Committee leader Tom Marcelli was quoting Peterson (according to Commissioner Tom Harmon, per Bosley) in The Rep's endorsement interview on Issue 5 which was held on September 29th.

Moreover, Bosley says that Charlie Snyder's (who acted as spokesperson for the anti-tax group) questioning of  the need to fund Countywide 9-1-1 Central Dispatch at the rate of $5.5 million annually could only come at the coaching of Peterson.

Snyder, according to Bosley, - on his own - would not have a clue as to the amount needed to run a centralized dispatch center.

Additionally, Bosley says that Peterson has been out trying to disaffect other Stark County based fire chiefs from their support of a countywide dispatch.  Bosley specified that North Canton Fire Chief John P. Bacon is a primary target of Peterson's effort, but that there are others that Peterson is working on.

Get the idea of the scope and the ferocity of  the Bosley political attack on Peterson?

THE SCPR REACTION

What is the SCPR's reaction to this hubub?

No surprises here.

The SCPR was the first to say that Peterson was badly stung in being rejected as project manager.  He has been highly critical of Joseph Concatto to yours truly from the time it became known that Concatto was selected over him.

While the SCPR has not made a final determination as to whether or not to vote to retain the tax or to vote for its repeal, yours truly is leaning towards supporting retention.

THE PERSONAL AXE TO GRIND FACTOR

What turns yours truly off, and likely most Stark County voters, is the personal agenda of many of the of cast of characters who have involved themselves in this political fight.

Peterson and the Nimishillen trustees fit the "personal agenda" billing in their trying to force Nimishillen's CenCom on the rest of Stark County.  They have a lot of explaining to do to Nimishillen taxpayers about the continued utility of Fire Station #3.

Many Stark County politicos fill the "personal agenda" billing in their working over Stark County taxpayers by seemingly using Stark County government as a personal employment agency.

Why would Stark County taxpayers want to fund support for the sales/use tax increase?

What public official's relatives, friends and political supporters will end up on the county payroll, if taxpayers decide to retain the tax?


THE IRRATIONAL FACTOR

Most of the Stark Citizens Right to Vote Committee appear to be irrational on whether or not the tax is to be retained.

Take Charlie Snyder.  Three of the four reasons he gave, as spokesperson for the Stark Citizens Right to Vote, as seen/heard on his Repository video, were out there somewhere.

Reason #1 - The implied "we are going to punish Stark County as a whole" for the tax imposition action of the county commissioners.   The anti-tax group remedy to the commissioners' action bears no rational relationship to whether or not Stark Countians need to have an up-to-date 9-1-1 system and whether or not Stark County government needs more money for day-to-day operations.

What would be rational is for these folks to work to defeat Bosley and Harmon when they run again and thereby send the message that any commissioner that does not afford citizens the right to vote on taxes will not be abided by Stark County voters.

Reason #2 - A $22 million tax increase would be irresponsible,  a point made by Snyder, if that was the plan.  But he misstates the total revenue that is to be generated, if Stark voters decide to keep the tax and the commissioners implement the promised termination of an existing tax.  The increase at the end of the day should generate about about $11 millon annually.

Certainly, Snyder knows this.

Is it irresponsible/irrational to misstate the facts, Mr. Snyder?

However, Snyder does make a point that is rational in this argument.  Sales/use taxes are regressive.  The rationality:  0.5 percent on a person earning and spending $20,000 a year is a lot more burdensome that 0.5 percent on a person who spends $20,000 a year but has total annula income of $50,000.  It is simple, basic math.  Even Charles Snyder can figure this out.

Reason #3 - $5.5 million is too much to put into making 9-1-1 viable, according to the Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote Committee.

Okay, Mr. Snyder; what should the cost be?   In his comments, Snyder said that the hodgepodge of  Stark communities are currently spending $6.8 million.

So is it logical that Stark Countians should continue to spend $1.3 million a year more (in the context of a fragmented collection of communities) that the proposed $5.5 million for a system that is not working at an acceptable level?

Reason #4 - Mismanaged funds?  That's what Snyder says, then he goes off on a non-sequitur about the alleged theft in Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler's office.  Stolen funds are not mismanaged funds.   Hello there, Charles Snyder? 

 There you have it folks.

Those of us who want to do what is best for our community in the long term have to wade through the maize of personal agendas and irrationality/irresponsiblity to get to the correct decision.

Democracy is messy, isn't it?

A SCPR MULTIPART SERIES: BIRTHING THE CANTON PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT, AS PAINFUL AS CHILD BIRTH?

PART TWO

CANTON JOINT RECREATION BD MEMBER

DON PETERSON, III

WANTS CJRD TO BUY FORMER CANTON JEWISH CENTER

VIDEOS

ENTIRE

CANTON JOINT RECREATION DISTRICT BOARD

MEETING

OF

JUNE 16, 2016

(2 HOURS, 15 MINUTES)

AT END OF BLOG

ADDITIONAL VIDEOS

TRANSITION MEETING SET FOR 07/19/2016
4:30 PM
CANTON GARDEN CENTER

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

DISCUSSION OF MEMBER PETERSON
PROPOSAL FOR CJRD
TO CONSIDER PURCHASING
FORMER CANTON JEWISH CENTER

lt came out at the regular June 16, 2016 meeting (this past Thursday) of the Canton Joint Recreation Board (CJRD) that the CJRD has some $850,000, more or less, in revenue surplus to spend before it dissolves into oblivion with the impending (likely about December 31, 2016) merger into the into the new Canton Parks and Recreation Department (CPRC) of Canton city government.

SCPR Note:  Members Peterson and Ross-Freeman were about 30 minutes late to the meeting.

Though a department of Canton government, the CPRC is separate from the city in that it has its own governing body (a commission of three commissioners appointed by the mayor of Canton for three year terms; one appointee each year) and an independent source of revenue in the form of its only 5 mill levy.

After failing in November, 2015, the levy passed in March, 2016 and now the march is on to consolidate the CPRC and the CJRD.

The passed levy was largely the work product of CJRD president J.R. Rinaldi.

On July 19th both the CJRD (at 4:30 p.m.) and the CPRC (at 5:30 p.m.) will be meeting to continue preparations for the merger of the two entities under the authority of the CPRC.

In this Part II of The Stark County Political Report series on the birthing travail that is taking place as the merger of the CJRD into the CPRC with the former Canton Park Commission with three board members appointed by the mayor of Canton picks up a full head of steam.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, one of the more controversial members of the CJRD has been and continues to be Don Peterson, III. 

He and former CJRD president Eric Resnick (now a member of the Canton City Schools Board of Education) created a ruckus when they as members of the CJRD personnel committee hired without prior board approval Canton based attorney Sally Henning to provide legal advice to the CJRD dating back to December, 2014/January, 2015. 

Current CJRD president J.R. Rinaldi roundly criticized Resnick and Peterson at the time for the hiring which was approved by the CJRD after the fact.

Rinaldi and Resnick faced off in 2013 for a CCS BOE seat in a bitterly fought contest which Rinaldi won.  (SCPR blog LINK)

Peterson has been among those CJRD board members (the only other, the SCPR thinks, was Resnick) who pushed hard for the CJRD to be the surviving entity in the-then in talking stages merger (2014).  

As seen in the this video, Peterson in his contribution to the discussion of the future relationship of the CPRC and the CCS, points out:  had his model of parks and recreation merger been adopted (three members of the board appointed by the mayor; two members by the CCS-BOE), there would be a formal role for the schools in the administration of the merged unit.

It also appears to the SCPR that Sally Henning and Sharon Fladen (an attorney who Henning hired to work on CJRD matters) were heavily involved in advocating that the CJRD and its funding source (a larger tax base inasmuch as the district is composed of the Canton City Schools' tax base footprint) as the "makes sense" lead in the proposed merger.

Matt Rink, now editorial page editor of The Canton Repository wrote (as a then reporter for The Rep) a thoroughgoing piece on the controversy that SCPR blog readers out to read.  (LINK)  (also, see SCPR blogs on the topic:  LINK 1, LINK 2, LINK 3).

Peterson came in late to the CJRD regular monthly meeting last Thursday evening. 

Perhaps he was getting "all his ducks line up in a row" prior the gracing the meeting as he asked that the board to continue a discussion regarding the CJRD purchasing the former Canton Jewish Center (CJC) which he said was brought up at the May meeting of the CJRD. (LINK)

The center located at 2631 Harvard Ave., NW opened in 1964.

The proposal presented was the feasibility of purchasing the CJC and its 14 or so acres for somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million (with a State of Ohio low interest loan that state Rep. Kirk Schuring told him "might" be available).

A forty-two minute discussion ensued, to wit:

Peterson did specify what portion of the money remaining in CJRD coffers after spending for this year's operation (thought to be about $850,000) would be drained off to complete such a purchase.

Board president J.R. Rinaldi came prepared with a preliminary written outline of what to do with the $850,000 or so in surplus funds.  In the meeting, assertions were made that previous CJRD boards had failed to "along the way" to make needed capital improvements.

It was apparent to the SCPR that the CJRD is not about to merely hand over its revenu surplus to the CPRC.  However, Rinaldi did say that any capital equipment/property items would be split 50/50 between Canton and the Canton City Schools on the finalization of the merger between the two entities.

One of the main persons that Peterson brought into last Thursday's discussion was one Greg Luntz  an commercial real estate agent for NAI Spring.

There was something about Peterson's "buy the Canton Jewish Center project" that does not seem quite right to the SCPR.

For one thing, Luntz was unable because of what he said was a confidentiality factor to provide very little useful information to the CJRD board if board members were to be interested in pursing the Peterson advocacy.

For another, Luntz said that the property may be unavailable for purchase because of an existing "option to purchase" held by an "unnamed 'potential' buyer."

So it appears that the Peterson CJRD initiative is being treated by NAI Spring as a back up plan for moving the property should the option to purchase not be exercised.

For a third, Peterson could be viewed by some to having played a "race card" in giving reasons why the the CJRD ought to purchase the Center.

That Peterson jumped on the revelation of Canton rehabbing the Southeast Community Center complex at a cost of $4 million including $900,000 from Canton's current levy  got a reaction from former CCS BOE member Ida Mae Ross-Freeman (an African-American) who was defeated in a bid for reelection in November, 2015.

Just as easily Peterson's initiative could be viewed as a North side, South side argument.  The Southeast Community center is in Ward 4.  The J. Babe Stern Center also received $900,000 and is located in Councilman Kevin Fisher's Ward 5.

There are no equivalent Canton government supported facilities in the north side of the city.

For a fourth, Peterson's bringing the Pro Football Hall of Fame Village Project (HOFVP) as somehow connected to the fate of the former Jewish Center seems to the SCPR to be quite a stretch.

For a fifth, he brought Canton City Council into the fray in having a Councilman John Mariol substitute Ward 8 Councilman Edmond Mack (Mariol is Ward 7 councilman, the site of the former Canton Jewish Center) appear at Thursday meeting 

For a sixth, Peterson strongly suggested that those opposing or resisting a consideration of buying the CJC lacked vision.

Does Peterson consider that they might well have a more plausible vision and the future they envision is taking on a burden in acquiring the CJC that the CPRC can ill-afford given the tight, tight budget that the commission faces in allocating scarce dollars to park and recreation activities and facilities?

Peterson invite Craig Luntz wouldn't even tell (ref:  the confidentiality thing) CJRD board members when the option expires.

How lame is that in terms of Peterson's preparation for the presentation?

It is unreal that Peterson would advance "let's think about purchasing the former Jewish Center" idea in the context of the marked uncertainty of the property's availability let alone other telling points advanced by a number of those in attendance at Thursday's meeting.

If the CJC becomes available, one would think that Luntz and his anonymous client have gotten the notion from Peterson's zeal in favor of the purchase that they can pretty much depend on getting the asking price of $2 million, no? 

The  SCPR's take on:

• "the give and take" between CJRD board members "other than Peterson" and Peterson and CPRC board members (Black, Hanke and Sliman, who were in the audience of the CJRD meeting as was recently chosen CPR director Derek Gordon) 

is that Peterson's proposal is a non-starter and that his persistence is being abided out of considerations of giving him a diplomatic "no."  

The July 19th meetings are looking more and more interesting as the interplay between the CJRD and CPRC continue and Peterson seeming intent on forcing the CJC matter.

These meetings should be a top draw for Cantonians who care about the future of park and recreation facilities in Canton, Ohio.

The SCPR video of the entire June 16, 2016 meeting of the Canton Joint Recreation District meeting:

STARK CAN HAVE A FIX TO THE 9-1-1 SYSTEM WITHIN 6 MONTHS: WHY WOULD ANYONE PLAY POLITICS WITH STARK COUNTY SAFETY ISSUES?

Towards the end of last week, the SCPR got a telephone call from a county official saying that Stark County's fire chiefs had met recently and voted to reject Nimishillen Fire Chief Rich Peterson's "alternative" to centralized, countywide 9-1-1 dispatch.

The official said that the information had come from Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) Governance Committee chair Randy Gonzalez.

The Report immediately began contacting alternative sources for confirmation or disaffirmation of the reported Gonzalez read.

This is what yours truly has learned.

North Canton Fire Chief John Bacon told the SCPR that the Peterson Plan (which he now calls the Fire Chiefs' Plan) is the plan that  Stark's fire chiefs will present to the Technical Advisory Committee of SCOG at its January 22nd meeting.

Bacon said that not only did the fire chiefs not reject Peterson's alternative, but that they voted "unanimously" to adopt the plan as their own.

One of the leading proponents of a centralized, countywide Plan; namely, Ted Heck, fire chief in Gonzalez's home area (Gonzalez is the elected fiscal officer in Jackson), voted in favor of the alternative plan.

Bacon said that the vote was not anti-centralized, countywide dispatch, but that the Peterson Plan is doable within six  months whereas the Gonzalez Plan (a SCPR phrase coined by The Report as a shorthand reference to the centralized, countywide plan) will not be up and running for two years.

The fire chiefs believe they are putting community safety first by doing the fix now (within six months) and not delaying the project for up to two years.

The Peterson plan, according to Bacon, can be done with the money currently available to support 9-1-1 (the cellphone surcharge and the small property tax levy) and no money collected from the commissioner  "imposed" sales/use tax (December, 2008) will be needed.  However, the Peterson Plan does not include all first reponders having 800 megahertz radios.

Bacon does not deny that there may be a turf issue involved in the Peterson Plan for the benefit of Peterson and Nimishillen Township trustees.  However, he said that he was willing to abide that possibility because he feels that the alternative, in terms of the timing issue, puts the safety of Stark Countians first.

The SCPR maintains that the Peterson/Nimishillen self-interest is a primary motivation for Peterson's Plan.  The Report accepts Bacon's take that parochial interests can be accepted when "the greater county good" is also achieved contemporaneously.

More troublesome to the SCPR are the positions of Commissioner Bosley and Governance Committee chair Gonzalez.

Why were they so set on going centralized and countywide dispatch in "one fell swoop?"

Why not get the fixes done immediatley within the concepts of four to five dispatch centers with up-to-date equipment which makes calling 9-1-1 seamless to callers and which will be state-of-the-art in terms of identifying locations of cellphone callers?

The Report suspects that if there are politics involved, it is coming more likely from the commissioners' office and from Gonzalez than from the professional emergency services folks.

A main ingredient in Bosley becoming commissioner was his embracing of Peterson's Plan , as a central aspect of his campaign, when he decided to take on incumbent Republican county commissioner Richard Regula in 2006.

Along the way Bosley got off of the Peterson Plan and bought into the Gonzalez Plan.

It was Commissioner Bosley who conceived the idea of imposing the 0.50 percent increase in the sales/use tax and sold fellow commissioners Republican Jane Vignos (since retired) and Democrat Tom Harmon (since resigned) on the idea.  In December, 2008 the commissioners imposed the tax.

A major part of the tax was splitting the revenue with the county's general fund.  County administrator Mike Hanke has been saying for some time now that substantial cuts in county department budgets would be in the offing by 2011, if additional revenues were not found.  In fact, the county is looking at a average of 3.5% cuts (on average) across Stark County government dependent on general fund monies.

The SCPR believes that Bosley saw the imposed tax as being a way to further his future political ambitions (i.e. the "fixer" of  9-1-1 is a natural progression from his 2006 campaign) and, at the same time, he could make his future as county commissioner financially viable by bringing additional funds in to county general fund coffers.

Gonzalez has many government roles in Stark County, one of which is being Stark County Democratic Party chairman.

As readers know, the SCPR is not wild about party chairpersons having a government role.  The Report repeatedly expressed a sour attitude about John Ferrero, county prosecutor, having been Stark County Democratic party chairman before becoming prosecutor.

Party chairpersons are about "political power" and what it can do to enhance them  and their constituents (candidates for office and elected officials).  In the opinion of the SCPR, Gonzalez and "his many political irons in the fire, is not the best person to be heading up the Governance Committee effort.  It should be someone who is not so ensconced in Stark County politics.

Gonzalez and Bosley have already locked horns over who should be the 9-1-1 project manager.  Bosley fought long and hard to make Nimishillen Fire Chief Rich Peterson that person.  In a classic and ironical "politics makes strange bedfellows" twist; it is interesting that Peterson and Bosley - once bosom buddies -  are now squaring off on 9-1-1.

Politics have a way of working themselves out (i.e. "shifting political alliances), and longer term Stark County may well indeed get over the politics of fixing 9-1-1 and eventually get to the Gonzalez Plan.

Bacon is hopeful such will be the case.

One lingering issue is, if the Technical Advisory Committee accepts the chiefs' recommendation, what to do with the money collected for the Gonzalez Plan from the imposed tax?

Bosley has already suffered one defeat on this issue.

While Harmon was still a commissioner, he brought up for a vote what to do with the monies collected post-voter rejection of retaining the tax.

The decision:  put it into a "stabilization fund (aka a "rainy day fund").   Administrator Hanke had asked the commissioners  for guidance on the tax revenues because the formulation of the 2010 budget is underway and Hanke and his fellow administrators needed a financial basis on which to project cuts to county departments. 

Bosley vigorously objected.  He insisted that half the money go towards implementing the Gonzalez Plan.

By the way, Hanke tells the SCPR that the "rainy day fund" could reach $6 to 7 million  before the county needs to dip into it come 2011.

Some final notes:

The SCPR was not well taken with the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee."   Now The Report has somewhat of a changed look at the work the Committee did in convincing Stark Countians not to retain the imposed tax.

The Committee did create conditions for the Peterson Plan to see the light of day and the SCPR recognizes the Committee for this contribution of time and space for a reconsideration of how and on what timetable Stark County fixes 9-1-1.

However, a big negative remains.  Stark County does indeed need new money beginning in 2011 for its general fund.

One more thing.

If the Technical Advisory Committee accepts the Peterson (err) Fire Chiefs' Plan, what will come of the money being held for the Gonzalez Plan implementation?

Bacon says that is for the politicians (Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) to figure out.

The SCPR does believe that the commissioners and Governance Committee chairman Gonzalez care about the safety of Stark Countians.

However, the SCPR trusts the fire chiefs, police chiefs and emergency medical chiefs to filter out the politics inherent in the situation  more effectively than folks running for elective office.

ON STARK COUNTY'S 9-1-1 PLAN: GONZALEZ "OUT SMARTS & OUT MANEUVERS" NIMISHILLEN FIRE CHIEF RICH PETERSON?

UPDATE:  01/26/2010 AT 10:30 AM

Today, the SCPR received an email reponding to The Report's assessment that Randay Gonzalez chairman of the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) 9-1-1 had prevailed over Rich Peterson in their battle over which plan was going to be adopted by SCOG.

Here is an excerpted part of Peterson's email to the SCPR which contains the Nimishillen Township fire chief's response:

ORIGINAL BLOG

The battle over 9-1-1 is finished.

The SCPR declares "the Gonzalez Plan - as modified," the winner!!!

To the politically observing Stark County Political Report, Stark County has just witnessed the "Gonzalez Plan" coming back from the dead.  It was two weeks ago or so that the SCPR was told by North Canton fire chief John Bacon that the fire chiefs had gotten behind Niimishillen fire chief Rich Peterson's Plan and would be presenting  the "Peterson Plan" to the Stark County Council of Government's (SCOG) Technical Advisory Committee as an alternative to the "Gonzalez Plan."

CLICK HERE to see more detail on the ephemeral "Peterson Plan" victory.

The official line is that the interested parties have found "a third way" via a - slight - modification of the Gonzalez Plan made by Stark County Emergency Management"s director Tim Warstler.

The gist of the modification?

In the words of a person in a position to know, to wit:

Tim Warstler told me we could do remote hosting instead of primary or secondary PSAP's and the equipment could be assimilated into the new center when it's built.

Moreover, the Gonzalez Modified Plan will go ahead without all users of the system on the 800 megahertz system (which the SCPR thinks is a huge mistake that will cost Stark County's countywide 9-1-1 dearly in tens of thousands of dollars in lost grant opportunities).

The Gonzalez Plan triumph is a testament to the political power wielded by Randy Gonzalez in Stark County.

Rich Peterson (the "Peterson Plan) gave all he hah, but he is no match for Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez and Stark County commissioner Todd Bosley.

A heavy irony plays in this match-up.  It can be argued that Todd Bosley would not be Stark County commissioner without having latched onto the "Peterson Plan" for fixing 9-1-1 when he ran against sitting Republican commissioner Richard Regula.

Gonzalez, being the consummate politician he is, co-opted Bosley and brought on board Gonzalez's countywide plan (Gonzalez in his role as chairman of the 9-1-1 Governance Committee of the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG).

Gonzalez deserves credit for finessing Bosley into proposing a political career threatening "imposed" 0.5 percent sales/use tax.

How's that?

Bosley probably thinks the imposed tax idea was his.  But the SCPR isn't buying that take.

Gonzalez did not go to Bosley and say:  "this is what I want you to do."

No,  Gonzalez is far too politically sophisticated a politician to do that.  He merely talked and talked and talked about needing money to get the 9-1-1 fix underway.  Bosley seeing fixing 9-1-1 as being the gateway to higher political office jumped on the opportunity to coincidently please Gonzalez and boost his own political career.

Boost his own political career?  How about the "political career threatening" stuff above?

Well, at the time Bosley thought to himself "Eureka! (I've found it)":  the perfect plan to come up with the funding for countywide 9-1-1 and to put booster rockets on my political career.

Bosley did not think that "imposing" the tax was much of a political risk at the time.  He had vetted "to himself" his plan and came out convinced it was a sure winner in every aspect.

Peterson, by now, is astounded that his former political ally had been lured off the Peterson Plan onto the Gonzalez Plan.  But Peterson is a fire chief; he is not a politician.  And that reality has been vexatious to Stark's well meaning, largely non-political fire chiefs.

An outstanding example of a non-political guy who just wants the best for all Stark Countians is Tom Burgasser, chief in Massillon.  Tom wants to get to the bottom of things, get answers to the unanswered questions and move forward in the most efficient and effective way to serve all of Stark County.

Burgasser leaves the politics to the likes of Bosley, Gonzalez and the Nimishillen township trustees (who, by the way are controlled by Nimishillen fire chief Rich Peterson).

On Saturday, yours truly was talking with a highly respected source who has a keen intellect and the subject of Randy Gonzalez came up.

The Report's observation:  "Randy Gonzalez has won the 9-1-1 battle which is a demonstration of his ability to outsmart and outmaneuver his adversaries."

Response:  "If he uses those skills for the public good, it is a good thing."

As readers of the SCPR know, The Report believes that Gonzalez does a lot of self-serving for himself, his relatives, his political allies and loyalists - on the taxpayer's dime.

But on the 9-1-1 issue, the SCPR endorses the Gonzalez Plan as modified.

As an aside, to make the point of how Gonzalez  covered all bases in his maneuvering on 9-1-1, the SCPR takes note of the question that Commissioner Bosley raised with respect to the "promised" 9-1-1 share of "to be collected" imposed tax which expires mid-year this year because Stark County voters rejected retention of the tax this past November.

Ex-commissioner Harmon, before he vacated office on December 1, 2009, teamed up with Commissioner Pete Ferguson to divert all of the "to be collected" revenues into the county general fund.  Bosley portested loud and clear and  asked "what about our promise?"

Enter Steve Meeks. (Harmon replacement appointed by the Stark County Democratic Central Committee - controlled by Randy Gonzalez)

Political insiders understand that Gonzalez and Meeks are indeed joined at the hip.  Gonzalez (who wears many, many "political power" hats) is fiscal officer for Jackson Township and a former Jackson trustee.  Meeks is a former guess what?  You have it.  Yes, a former Jackson Township trustee.

So these two have a poiitical relationship that makes it hard to know who is "really" commissioner; Meeks or Gonzalez.

As a sidenote,  it appears that Meeks in more ensconced in Stark County government than the SCPR had known.  The Report learned recently that Meeks' daughter works for Stark County clerk of courts Nancy Reinbold (the wife of former Common Pleas judge Richard Reinbold).
It appears that Reinbold's office may be a haven for family, friends and loyalists of the Stark County Democratic Party leadership heirarcy.

The connection?  Phil Giavasis, the clerk of courts for Canton Municipal Court - formerly the Common Pleas clerk of courts, who handed that job off to Nancy Reinbold).

So where does Gonzalez come in?

He is Phil Giavasis' chief deputy.

Interesting, no?

Back to Gonzalez and his modified 9-1-1 plan.

Surely Gonzalez would prevail on Meeks to vote with Bosley to reverse the Harmon initiative?

Not at all.

Gonzalez wants Meeks to succeed as county commissioner, above all else.  Meeks is Gonzalez's ticket to continued and extended political power in Stark County like Stark County has not seen in many a year.

Gonzalez knows that Stark County is facing a financial crisis of epic proportions in 2011.  The SCPR has heard the county's administrator make this point ad nauseam in the many county commissioner meetings.

So what is Gonzalez to do?

No doubt, the Gonzalez Modified Plan could use the money.  For one thing, because of the deficiency in revenues, countywide  9-1-1 will not be able to purchase 800 megahertz mobile radio for all emergency forces to be on the same communication system.  Second, in order to fianance basic operations,  countywide 9-1-1 dispatch will be exacting a "user" fee from all of Stark County political subdivisions (villages, cities and townships).

Well, being the bright guy he is, Gonzalez put his pencil to paper and figured it out.

"A 9-1-1 countywide plan which is a marked improvement over what exists, but not quite what it ought to be; can be cobbled together and the Stark County public will be appreciative - with the money we now have."

"Hmm?  Now,  I (Gonzalez) I think I can give Steve Meeks a pass on supporting Bosley's motion to undo Harmon's move and satisfy both of my concerns."

In fact, the SCPR received an email from Gonzalez (sent at 1:33 p.m. on that day's commissioner meeting) responding to The Report's question on this very matter saying that countywide 9-1-1 could proceed to fruition without the $2.75 million.

Before the commissioners meeting, the SCPR is told that Gonzalez's son Kody (chief deputy for Recorder Rick Campbell)  was huddled up with Steve Meeks immediately before the meeting in which Bosley's motion was rejected by Commissioner Pete Ferguson and Steve Meeks.

Hmm?  Last minute instructions on the vote?

The SCPR takes Bosley at his word that he was sincere about wanting to keep the commissioners' promise made in December, 2008; but as Steve Meeks said: (consistent with Gonzalez to SCPR email) "I was not part of the decision.  I have been told by Randy Gonzalez that 9-1-1 countywide  can get by without the $2.75 million; therefore, I stand behind putting the money in the county general fund (paraphrase)"

Now from the Peterson side.

When Rich Peterson lost Bosley's support for his plan, the "Peterson Plan" for a number of primary and secondary PSAP's was doomed.

He tried to work the "Vote No Increased Tax Committee," and the Stark County fire chiefs to give his plan new life.  And he nearly succeeded.

Peterson's major failure?

He did not figure on Gonzalez having strong ideas about how Stark County should get to countywide 9-1-1.  Peterson refused to dialog with Gonzalez et al.  Moreover, he convinced Nimishillen Township trustees Gress, Lynch and Schafer to refuse engaging SCOG officials (which is another way of saying Gonzalez) on transitioning into a countywide system and the role CenCom (Nimishillen's dispatch center) could be integrated into the countywide plan.

A major, major mistake.

Now Peterson and Nimishillen will take what Gonzalez dishes out.

Knowing Gonzalez to be the highly skilled, intelligent (contrasted to his predecessor Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.) and consummate politician he is, the SCPR believes, that although he won the battle with Peterson; he will be gracious in victory and make the change as painless as possible for the folks in Nimishillen.

So there you have it folks.  A thumbnail sketch of the political ins and outs of getting to a countywide 9-1-1 system.

UPDATED SCPR "TOP TEN" ELECTED OFFICIALS: JULY, 2015 #5

Councilman Frank Morris, III, a Ward 9 Democrat, makes his debut on the SCPR Stark County Political Subdivision Elected Officials "Top 10 List"  (List) today.

Morris takes on the spot held by political independent and Canton Councilman at Large Richard Hart in the March 27, 2015 initial listing of #5 on the List.

Hart has not done anything to prompt his de-listing.

Yours truly currently looks at the #5 spot as being one that will float for the time being among Canton's councilpersons other than Edmond Mack.

The SCPR projects Mack to be #1, #2 or #3 going forward because he has demonstrated that he has unique and consistent leadership skills that indicate that on one issue or another he will continue to surfaces as a leading voice on Canton City Council or in Stark County politics and governance (e.g. part of the effort to prevent the candidacy of the SCPR #1 Thomas Bernabei as in "independent" candidate for mayor of Canton) on critically important to Stark County issues of the day.

But Mack is far from the whole show on Canton City Council.

As the SCPR has written for several years now, other councilpersons have and will continue to surface on various and sundry issues which will catapult them into the #5 position.

For the current quarterly evaluation, The Report places Councilman Morris in the #5 slot.

The current "hot-button" issue that prompted yours truly to elevate Morris onto the List is the controversy over the merger of the Canton Joint Recreation District and the Canton Parks Commission.

In April, the SCPR did a blog (LINK) that featured Morris as a principal player in the back and forth on the issue, to wit:

Morris surfaced as the leader of Canton City in January, 2014 with the help of three fellow councilpersons which as a group the SCPR dubbed on August 30, 2013 as being "the four young turks."

While Morris is "the old man in the group," he qualifies the SCPR thinks as being young on account of his willingness to play the role of maverick councilperson and thereby challenging all of council to think "frankly" (no pun intended, meaning honestly) about the impact of council's actions.

Recently, Morris made news in tangling with Canton Joint Recreation District (CJRD) board member Don Peterson, III (a Mayor Healy appointee and a Stark County media person) who the SCPR thinks wants to make "the tail wag to the dog" in his stance that the CJRD be the surviving entity in relation to the Canton Parks Commission.

It is strange to see Peterson at odds with Mayor Healy's desire that the Commission be the surviving entity inasmuch as Peterson took issue with the SCPR a few years back over this blog's largely critical (continuing to this day) take on Healy's executive management (mismanagement from The Report's perspective) of the city.  Peterson is also an appointee of Healy on the Canton Community Improvement Corporation (CCIC).

Peterson was telling yours truly then (2010) what a good guy Healy is and that The Report needed to lighten up on Healy.  At the time The Report was making periodic political commentary appearances on Peterson's Q92 and the Pat DeLuca Show.  It wasn't long after conversation that the yours truly was persona non-grata on the show.  Apparently, Don Peterson, III told DeLuca to take Olson off-the-air.

If so, he didn't realize that being on the radio or any other medium is inconsequential to yours truly inasmuch as doing the SCPR as an independent voice beholden to nobody is THE REASON that The Report exists, having been around for over seven plus years now.

Back in September, 2012 the SCPR's take on Peterson is that he turned out to be "a mealy mouth" on the issue of Healy's claimed inadvertent use of a CCIC credit card for personal expenses which he ended up reimbursing the CIC for.

Shortly thereafter Healy resigned as a member of the CIC.

Could it be that now that Peterson is on the outside of Healy's agenda that he can now see Healy's flaws?

The Report has never had much regard for Peterson's public persona, especially because he is a media connected person, inasmuch as his - at that time - support of Healy seemed to be based upon a personal/sports connection to the Healy family. 

A Morris/Peterson exchange which was described in an area media report thusly:

During a heated discussion peppered with profanity, recreation board member Don Peterson III, who cast the dissenting vote Monday, accused Mayor William J. Healy II and Canton City Council Majority Leader Frank Morris of employing “bullying tactics (and) intimidation” during a closed-door meeting and said he didn’t think any deal had been struck.

The SCPR's point is that Frank Morris is the "frankest" politico to come on the Stark County political and governance scene in many, many a moon and is a refreshingly "what you get is what you see" politico.

Quite of the opposite of William J. Healy, II who is about as "oily" as a politico gets.

But until the  CJRD/Canton Parks Commission thing, the were best of friends?

So it was a delight to the SCPR to see Peterson to have to butt heads with Councilman Morris.

Morris was clearly going to come out on top in that match up.

He doesn't always come out on top, but he is going to make plenty of noise when he disagrees with anybody on a public issue.

The SCPR thinks that is a good thing.

There is a lot more dissension in government and politics than the public ever knows about.

Public discussion and airing out is a productive process in our democratic-republican form of government.

And, to repeat, Morris is effective at getting public discussion going.

A few examples of his doing so include:

• The CRJD/Canton Parks Commission thing,
•  The Onesto Hotel rehabilitation TIF,

•  The Canton Citywide Plan

• And, on a number of other matters (in conjunction with fellows Fisher, Mack and Mariol):

There is no doubt that Ward 9 Councilman Frank "Curmudgeon" Morris is a provocateur legislator and as as such is a Canton government "check and balance" factor who is a model for at least one councilperson on each and every city council in Stark's other major cities of Alliance, Massillon and North Canton.

For the foregoing reasons, Councilman Morris qualifies to be this quarter's #5 on the SCPR List of Top 10 Stark County Political Subdivision Elected officials.

POST SALES TAX SERIES #4 - COMMISSIONER BOSLEY AND "VOTE NO'S" CRAIG CONLEY ARGUE WHILE ALL OF STARK COUNTY WAITS?

At the Noember 4, 2009 Stark County commissioners meeting, Commissioner Todd Bosley and "Vote No's" spokesperson Craig Conley got into a heated argument over Issue 5's failure and where we (Stark County) goes from here.

Almost all Stark Countians familiar with the current condition of 9-1-1 admit that the system is broke and needs a thorough redoing.

All except Rich Peterson, who is fire chief out in Nimshillen Township.

He suggests that all 9-1-1 needs is some "tinkering" (the SCPR's word) at significantly less money than Issue #5 and the cellphone telephone surcharge (about $3 million now) dollars.

It is clear to the SCPR that the "Vote No" folks have bought into the Peterson argument, "hook, line & sinker."

Peterson and the "Vote No" partisans have a heavy burden to carry these days.  Peterson went as far as to tell the SCPR that the audios that the "Yes for Public Safety" group put up on it campaign website did not speak to the failure of Stark's current patchwork of a 9-1-1 system.

The next time that someone dies in Stark County and it becomes clear to everyday Stark Countians that a broken 9-1-1 is to blame, the SCPR believes all eyes will turn to Peterson and his "No on 5" cohorts.

The cohorts might want to re-examine the Peterson's "spin."  His numbers are suspect to yours truly as is his suggesting that all that is needed is some "tinkering."

Although the SCPR is less sure that Peterson's opposition to Issue #5 was all about Peterson losing out on being named 9-1-1 project manager to Joseph Concatto; arguments like this one keeps yours truly of the overall opinion that Peterson is still smarting on not being in charge and has let his ego get in the way of the Stark County Council on Governments (SCOG) Governance Committee plan.

The SCPR understands that there is a well-spring of outrage building within the Stark County safety force community (which Peterson is apparently oblivious to; in fact he tells the SCPR he is leading an effort of a group of these same folks, hmm?) to deal with Peterson because of a perception that he played a key role in providing a plausible yet erroneous rationale to the "Vote No" group to present to the Stark County voters as a justification for a "no" vote on Issue 5.

The SCPR took extensive video on the November 4th encounter between the "Vote No" representatives (Conley, Snyder and Marcelli) and county commissioners (mainly, Commissioner Todd Bosley).

Today's segment presents Conley and Bosley arguing over whether or not the "Vote No" people have an alternative.

Here is the video.

IN THE CASE OF STARK'S 9-1-1 PROJECT MGR SELECTION, BOTH "FORESIGHT" & "HINDSIGHT" WAS 20/20? NIMISHILLEN FIRE CHIEF RICH PETERSON RAGGING ON CONCATTO & HIS MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT?

UPDATE:  10/01/2010 AT 12:01 AM

9-1-1 PROJECT MANAGER JOE CONCATTO RESPONDS TO NIMISHILLEN TOWNSHIP FIRE CHIEF RICH PETERSON

Martin a few comments about your blog on September 28, 2010, regarding the County’s 9-1-1 Project:

First, let me be clear that the Countywide 9-1-1 Dispatch Center Plan is not a one man operation led by one person.  This project is governed by a Governance Board which is a sub-committee of the Stark Council of Governments (SCOG).  The Governance Board has eighteen members with representation from the Stark County Fire Chief’s Association, the Police Chief’s Association, the Sheriff, small townships, large townships,  the Criminal Justice Information System, Stark County Government, SARTA, the City of Canton, the public and each of the larger dispatch centers in the County including CenCom.   SCOG has representation from each of the 37 government entities in the County.   All policy and procedures, budgetary issues, spending of funds and direction of the project must be approved by the Governance Board and if required sent on for approval from SCOG.

The countywide Computer Aided Dispatch system and budget was one of those projects that were approved by both the Governance Board and SCOG.  The selection process for this project was the responsibility of the CAD Project Team which is an adhoc (sic) committee of the Governance Board.   This Team consisted of the Director of the RED Center, the Louisville Fire Chief, a Captain on the Alliance Police Department, the Director of Computer Systems for the Stark County Sheriff, the Applications Development Administrator for the City of Canton, and me. 

It is important to note that the new IP based 9-1-1 system is a completely private deployed intranet network that is closed off to the public with virtually no access to the system.  The System is monitored 24/7 365 days a year and has additional security built into the system by both AT&T and Plant CML. 

Our project is driven by the new technology that will be put into this Center.  The new IP based 9-1-1 system is scheduled for May of 2011 and the Countywide CAD system will take at least 18 months.  While these technologies are being developed we continue to move forward toward one Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) in two locations.  This Plan brings to the County a more efficient and cost effective countywide dispatch center.  It represents regionalization of county services which is paramount in today’s economy.

The recent incident regarding a downed aircraft is an example of why we should have one center.  This technology would be put into one center and not nine.

Presently the county is paying approximately 6.4 million dollars for dispatching in the county.  The plan is to reduce this cost by 2 million dollars.  We would use the same user fee process that is presently be used in the county but at a lower rate for most users.

The 2.75 million dollars held by the Stark County Commissioners is appropriated to the Countywide 9-1-1 project regardless if it is transferred to SCOG or not.

My motivations are not driven by a higher pension but by a sincere desire to see our county improve on an antiquated county dispatch system that has been described as a disaster waiting to happen.  It is easy for someone to step on another’s character to enhance his ego; I think that’s called lack of character.

ORIGINAL POST

A well known saying is:  "hindsight is 20/20."  In the case of the person that the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) Governance Committee selection of a project manager it may be that the saying is in for revision:  "both foresight and hindsight are 20/20."

In mid-March, 2009 SCOG selected former Canton fire chief and Creighton administration official over Nimishillen Township Fire Chief Rich Peterson as project manager to oversee the consolidation of Starks 11 centers (including the Stark County Sheriff's call center) into one center with a backup.

The contest between Concatto (as a substitute for preferred choice Tom Nesbitt - former safety director for Canton's Healy administration) and Peterson was intense with a lot of political maneuvering going on.

For the SCPR, at the time of the selection, it was unclear who would be the better choice.  But that was not the case for SCOG Governance Committee chair Randy Gonzalez.  He was adamantly opposed to Peterson from the get-go and it turns out - in the opinion of The Report - that Gonzalez had better insight as to which choice would be best for Stark County in the end.

The wisdom of Gonzalez's choice became even more apparent to The Report this past Thursday night as yours truly engaged Rich Peterson in a discussion of the progress of reconfiguring Stark's 9-1-1 while at Nimishillen Township Hall on another matter.

The SCPR believes - in hindsight - that Peterson is proving himself a "sore loser" and doing what he can to make the remake of Stark's 9-1-1 as difficult as possible.  David Scheurer writing for The Repository on September 25th (Nimishillen Township meeting for September 24) wrote:

In the ensuing discussion,  Peterson had these raps on the Concatto-led 9-1-1 reform effort:

• The $160,000 allocated to selected a CAD system is a waste of money.  Something, Peterson says, was done in Nimishillen by in-house people with the capability to assess the quality of competing systems.  He says Stark County could do the same.
• Because the Stark system is Internet based, the Stark 9-1-1 is susceptible to being hacked by computer hackers and put out of commission.  The better system would be to have a hybrid system (a mix of Internet based and non-Internet).  Under a hybrid system, the system would be much more secure.
• Concatto (much older than Peterson and who makes about $75,000 annually) will not be the project manager much longer because his primary reason for wanting the position was to beef up his retirement benefits. 
• Who knows when Stark's 9-1-1 consolidation will be up and running.  Had the county gone with "the Peterson Plan," the system would fully functioning at a much cheaper cost.
• There have been two recent incident (one involving locating a downed aircraft) which Stark's EMA could not locate, but which Nimishillen's CenCom can and did locate.
• The county has no financial plan to support the redone countywide 9-1-1 dispatch long term.
• The $2.75 million held by the Stark County commissioners cannot be transferred to SCOG.

It is apparent to the Stark County Political Report that Rich Peterson is the "go to" guy in Nimishillen and obviously has the trustees (except maybe Allen Gress) in thrall.

As long as Rich Peterson is fire chief in Nimishillen Township, there is virtually no chance that CenCom will be merged into the Stark's countywide 9-1-1 system.

Undoubtedly, had Peterson be chosen as project manager; he would be singing an entirely different tune, no?

NIMISHILLEN'S CENCOM BEING DISINVITED FROM THE 9-1-1 GAME PLAN?

UPDATE: 06/16/2009 (09:20 AM)

COMMENT: NIMISHILLEN FIRE CHIEF RICH PETERSON

Martin: Some points of order to your article:

* CenCom is currently providing the level of emergency dispatching services that Director Concatto is proposing and for substancially (sic) less than the 12 million dollar price tag and the 5.5 million dollar annual operating fee.

* CenCom will remain an alternative for those communities seeking professional emergency dispatching services tailored to their individual dispatching needs.

* CenCom was constructed in a secure, below grade, concrete reinforced facility designed from the ground up (not renovated as an after thought) with technological and redundant qualities not found in the sites selected by Director Concatto as the county dispatching centers.

* Chief Peterson did not convince then Trustee now Commissioner Bosley to get behind fixing Stark County's 911 system, Mr. Bosley took that cause as his own because of a mishandled 911 call within Nimishillen Township.

* I do not need nor did I seek a "reward" from Commissioner Bosley. Successfully constructing and operating a regional communication center that is instrumental in saving lives and property is reward enough. (Isn't that what it's all about...saving lives?)

* Anyone can "say" they are going to design, construct, and implement a successfull (sic) 911 / emergency dispatching operation. Delivering on the promise is much more difficult.

* Please don't confuse being proud of our operation with "boasting".

* I would appreciate not being the focal point of the SCOG dispatching initiative. By removing myself and CenCom from the process, I hoped to allow the SCOG to succeed or fail on its own merit. I find it odd that folks still want to drag me back into the SCOG arena. I respect Mr. Loudiana's opinions but I suggest he concentrate his energy on following thru with his promise of providing high quality emergency dispatching services to Stark County agencies for "free" and not chastising a small, unimportant operation such as CenCom.

ORIGINAL POST

Mike Loudiana was speaking only for himself; not the Stark County Council on Governments (SCOG). However, Rich Peterson (Fire Chief/Nimishillen & CenCom head) ought to be a bit worried that his cat and mouse game with SCOG will end up with SCOG being the cat that catches and eats the mouse.

Loudiana told the SCPR he is pleased with the direction in which the SCOG Governance Committee is heading and that he is satisfied that the countywide 9-1-1 reconfiguration is proceeding in a manner promised to the Stark County public.

Moreover, he seem unconcerned with the Nimishillen Township antics even to the point of suggesting that CenCom can do whatever it pleases for now, but in the long run he is convinced that CenCom will be absorbed into the reworked countywide system.

His rationale? Once the new 9-1-1 gets up and running and Stark County's villages, cities and townships see how well it is working; any malcontents outside the system (including CenCom) will tuck tail and make their way into the centralized countywide system.

Loudiana firmly believes that Stark centralized dispatch will be a reality on a schedule promised to Stark Countians in the context of one dispatch center and a backup.

The last time the SCPR talked with Peterson, he was boasting about the number of non-Nimishillen communities CenCom is serving.

But what he did not address is this question that Loudiana raised anew.

Why would community residents want to pay twice? Pay the imposed 0.5 per cent sales/use tax imposed by commissioners in January, 2009 and then pay CenCom to provide the same but disconnected (to the rest of the county, in a fully integrated sense) services.

Loudiana make another good point. Stark Countians provide a lot of emergency services to out-of-towners (non-Stark Countians). How better to have them share in the cost of those services, but through a sales/use tax.

It is more than touch ironic that Rich Peterson and his "lone wolf" strategy could hurt Commissioner Todd Bosley in his re-election chances. If for some reason Peterson's foot dragging causes delays in moving the reconfigured 9-1-1 along, it could come back to haunt Bosley in the 2010 election cycle.

And this would be ironic.

Peterson convinced Bosley in the first place (back in the days that Bosley was a Nimishillen Township trustee) to get squarely behind fixing Stark's 9-1-1 system. So much so that Bosley made it the centerpiece of his campaign when he ran against and defeated incumbent Republican commissioner Richard Regula.

Undoubtedly, Bosley appreciates Peterson's winning idea and has tried to reward him

What he and Peterson didn't calculate was Bosley's inability to deliver the 9-1-1 chief job to him. Bosley argued vehemently for Peterson, but Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez has proved in the selection process that he has more political clout than Bosley does.

Being the spoil sports they are turning into, the SCPR believes that Peterson and the Nimishillen Township trustees are primary factors in undermining Bosley's 2010 reelection effort.

In the end, however; the Nimishillen folks will not win this battle and Bosley should be unaffected by their pot stirring.

The more serious political threat to Bosley remains the Stark County Citizens for the Right to Vote.

If these folks get the repeal of the imposed sales/use tax on the ballot, then it's anybody's guess whether or not the imposed tax will stand.

In tough economic times, the advantage is clearly with the would-be repealers; notwithstanding the huge political effort (manpower wise, money wise) the pro 9-1-1 forces will muster.

GENERAL ELECTION SERIES (VOL 1) AUGUST 4, 2014: THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR "AUDITOR" ALAN HAROLD?

THE SETH PETERSON SAGA

It could be that the "hottest" race in Stark County in this year's general election could be between incumbent Republican Alan Harold and Democratic challenger and Massillon Ward 6 councilwoman Linda Litman.

As depicted above, Harold might well be in a precarious position in retaining his post as the elected Stark County editor.

Since 2003 when now Stark County commissioner Janet Creighton resigned the office she had held for years (1991—2003) to take over as mayor of Canton, the auditor's office has been a political war zone between Stark County's "organized" Democrats and Republicans.

Current Stark County Brant Luther was appointed by the Republicans to replace Creighton.  But he was unable to hold the office losing to then Canton auditor Kim Perez in 2004.  Luther was Creighton's "right-hand-man" for part of her stint as county auditor.

As expanded upon below, Perez got caught in a political buzzsaw which local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley labeled as being "Zeiglergate" which provided current auditor Alan Harold (a Republican) an opportunity that he took full advantage of to reclaim the seat for the Republicans

It might be that a series of recent goof-ups by Harold (which will be the focus of this series) will provide Democrats a way back into controlling the office at the hand of Massillon councilwoman Linda Litman whose resume includes extensive experience in the financial world (e.g. First Merit Bank, now Huntington Bank).

Later on in this series, the SCPR will be sharing with readers the outrage that has been expressed by some leading Stark County Democratic officials who perceive Harold as "not playing fair" with the Democratic candidate trying to unseat him.

It is a growing Stark County Political Report perception that Alan Harold as county auditor has been his own worst enemy in doing a number of things as auditor that has brought The Report to downgrade him from his long held perch as one of this blogger's top tier Stark County elected officials.

The Report has not updated an evaluation of Stark County elected officials lately, but readers can be certain that Harold has fallen of the list which he once attained a #2 ranking, to wit:

Today's volume deals with (as a "first" example of his being "his own worst enemy") his hire of college pal Seth Peterson as his chief of information technology.

Harold, elected initially in 2010 in an environment in which Democrat incumbent Kim Perez (now Canton city treasurer) was, among other things (see below) apparently thought by Stark Countians to have been too politically close to Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler when on April 1, 2009 news broke that Zeigler's chief deputy treasurer Vince Frustaci was suspected of having stolen Stark County taxpayer money and, rightly or wrongly, Zeigler and Perez were seemingly perceived by the Stark County voting public:

• (in Zeigler's case) of not having done enough in having secured the county treasury physical facilities/policy/practice-wise to have prevented the eventual Frustaci pleaded guilty to theft, and
• (in Perez's case) of not having acted on irregularities in data/information coming from the treasury from Frustaci so as to have alerted officials so that the theft might possibly have been ended earlier in the 2003—2008 ($2.46 million).

Zeigler reached an agreement with Stark County commissioners amid many "legal" twists and turns in October, 2011 to retire/resign.

Perez was defeated by an Alan Harold who was politically in the right place at the right time.

Harold was re-elected in November, 2014 when opposed by Canton City Schools treasurer Jeff Gruber who, as the SCPR recollects, did not actively campaign.

On August 4, 2014 Stark County auditor Alan Harold hired as his chief information technology officer one Seth Peterson at some $122,000, more or less,

Okay.

So?

Well, Peterson, a personal friend of Harold's dating back to their days as students at then Mount Union College.  Witness these e-mail exchange between The Stark County Political Report and Harold a couple of days ago:

SCPR:  Moreover, I am told (which surprised me because you didn't volunteer it when I asked you why the hire of Peterson?) that you were a roommate of Peterson's at Mount Union. 

Is this allegation true or untrue?

Note:  The Report is incorrect in Harold not having provided his history with Peterson in prior conversations (see this LINK)

Harold:  Untrue.

SCPR:  As a follow up, if you were not a roommate of Peterson's at Mount Union, did you have any connection with him at Mount Union or post-Mount Union whatsoever before his hiring by the Stark County auditor's office?

Harold:  Yes

SCPR:  If so, please detail that/those connection(s).

Harold:  I met Seth at Mount Union and considered him a friend.  

We lost touch through the years after college and reconnected when he had called me in +/-2012 to inquire about a job posting in another unit of local government. 

One conversation led to another, several on-site interviews were held with various staff that led to a job offer, though he declined to work for the county due to his commitment to his job at the time. 

 When that specific project ended, we re-engaged and he joined our staff.  He was well-qualified for the job and certainly had the requisite experience.  

I remain disappointed by the events surrounding his departure and believe reasonable employers would have reached the same conclusions that I did. (emphasis added)

Hiring one's personal friends or political pals has a long human history as being a move that is fraught with perils especially when the hiring puts that friend/pal in a public service position.

The Report thinks Harold made a monumental mistake (as said so at the time) in not promoting Anita Henderson to the top spot.

Everybody the SCPR talks to about Henderson gives her rave reviews.  And, this blogger has covered quite a few Stark County commissioner meetings in which it was apparent that Henderson knew her stuff.

One tends not to properly vet a friend/pal as one would if contemplating hiring a total stranger.

Henderson's cmployment date:  June 14, 1987.  Over 30 years.  Wow!

Talk about a sure thing in terms of reliability to do the job as it should be done in all aspects of doing the job of being the top information/technology person Anita Henderson appears to be about a good as it gets in knowing what you're getting in an employee, no?

Disappointed in Peterson?

This from a Repository report of June 2, 2016:

[A female technology sector employee] had received a warning letter in March, which among other things, said she was spending too much time away from her desk and in the office of a male information technology employee.

Multiple SCPR sources say that the "male information technology employee" was Seth Peterson.

Both Peterson and the female employee departed employment with the auditor's office on or about May 4, 2016.

It appears that Harold did what he should have done in asking Peterson and the female employee to resign their employment with the auditor's office.

And he did the appropriate thing in not offering Peterson any severance pay.

The troubling thing about the resignations is that Harold did pay the female employee $9,142 in settlement money.

Settlement for what?

That is a question that Auditor Harold so far has refused to answer.

He did provide the SCPR with a copy (at his initiative) of her filing a claim for unemployment compensation showing that she had been denied.

If anything, the unemployment compensation denial buttresses the SCPR's position that paying the employee $9,142 was unwarranted unless Harold provides compelling justification for having done so.

He is not entitled to pay out in his official capacity taxpayer money without a forthcoming explanation as to why.

Here is a guy who refused to allow Gary Zeigler

• when he was restored to the position of Stark County treasurer in 2010 by the Ohio Supreme Court 
• because the-then Stark County commissioners did not afford Zeigler "due process of law" in terminating him as treasurer 

to use Stark County government facilities when he returned to the treasurer's office on being restored by the court BECAUSE Zeigler could not get a bond issued him.

So why is it now okay for Harold (according to The Rep's Tim Botos' June 2nd report) to pay out $9,142 together with an approximate $40,000 more to other dismissed/resigned employees without chapter and verse explanation?

So far, Harold, who usually answers the SCPR's questions, is mum on this one.

To boot, Harold had agreements written (undoubtedly, he would say "on advice of counsel") which included these clauses:

The SCPR thinks that the above-clauses are not so much designed to protect Stark County government but rather to protect Harold's perception of his personal interests.