SCPR "ELECTION 2009 SERIES" (VOL 21): ISSUE 5 - THE REPOSITORY EDITORIAL BOARD GIVES "NO PLAY" TO REASONS OTHER THAN A 9-1-1 AS A BASIS OF VOTING FOR THE ISSUE

Readers of The Repository could well have quit reading The Rep's October 26th editorial endorsement of Issue #5 after the first sentence.

Now isn't that "in depth editorial" journalism?

No discussion about the tax being imposed!

No discussion about the camouflaged "for the county general fund" aspect of the sales tax!

Wow!

It has been a long time since the SCPR has seen such a super-superficial and incomplete  editorial analysis of a very large issue facing Stark County voters.

Does Gauger, Beck et al expect Stark Countians to give any weight whatsoever to this example of empty, conflict-in-interest - editorializing.

Conflict-in-interest?

Right, conflict-in-interest!

Explain yourself in more detail Olson.

The SCPR has long maintained that the movers and shakers at The Repository are so in-bed with the "powers-that-be" in and of Stark County that Rep readers cannot trust the editors to give them incisive political analysis.

Let's just take one example:  the Hanke hiring by the Stark County commissioners.

As soon as Commissioner Todd Bosley could arrange it (within months of taking office), former county administrator Jeff Dutton was out and the commissioners were looking for a new man.

Guess who should become available?

None other than former managing editor of The Repository Mike Hanke.  After 35 years at The Repository, Hanke retired, but not really retired.  He figured (in the opinion of the SCPR) that he could cash-in on his "close" contacts with the likes of Commissioner Tom Harmon.

Right out-of-the-box, Harmon said that he was Hanke's man inside the commissioner's office. 

Once Harmon said how enamored he was of Hanke, the other 69 candidates could just forget it.   It was Hanke once, Hanke the second time and Hanke the third time.

Was The Repository (Stark County's only countywide newspaper) going to complain?

Of course not.  Hanke gets teary-eyed when he fondly reminisces his 35 years at the Rep.  He still carries a torch for his former employer.  Undoubtedly, tears reverse-flow from the biggies at 500 Market Avenue South too.

Add to this mix that Hanke is the chief spokesperson for the Yes for Public Safety Committee.

He takes on-the-job time at taxpayer expense to go out and campaign for Issue #5 (e.g. Points to Ponder, October 22nd).

Gee, if any other public official goes out and campaigns on the taxpayer's time clock, The Rep is going be all over it.

Think maybe?

The short and long of The Rep's editorial is that a discerning voter will dismiss The Rep's editorial as pure pabulum.

There are good reasons to vote to retain the levy and there are good reasons to vote against retention.

If you were Rip Van Winkle and woke up on November 2nd, how in the world would you garner from Vote yes to retain the 0.5 Stark sales tax that there are a number of arguments for voting one way or another on Issue 5?

Answer.

There is no way in the world.

Now isn't that splendid journalism!