Wednesday, March 10, 2010


On February 11, 2010 it became known that Canton City Council was not going to appoint East Cantonian Mike Rukavina to the Canton Construction Board.  Three members of the Personnel Committee would not sign a "discharge letter" to get the matter before the full Council.

 Apparent reason?

The Personnel Committee of Canton City Council didn't think he fit the profile of a suitable person for the position?  Moreover, he is not a Canton resident?

Real reason(s)?

1.  He's a "staunch" Republican?  (Council has only one Republican on it)

2.  He was recommended by the Healy administration?  (Bill Smuckler, a almost sure opponent of Mayor Healy in the May, 2011 Democratic primary sits on the Personnel Committee)

3.  He represents the interests of property owners, real estate investors and landlords and in such capacity has had differences with various members of council?

Answer:  "Real" reasons:  1. 2 and 3 above.

One has to wonder what Council was thinking of?  As it is, Council is largely controlled by Council president Alan Schulman and long term Council-at-Large member Bill Smuckler; both, fierce opponents of Mayor William J. Healy, II.  And as such, it apparently has become "a group think" body and a good part of the reason that Canton continues to slide into a deep, deep hole of economic oblivion.

To be sure, the Healy administration itself is a significant part of the problem.  The SCPR has written repeatedly that Healy himself does not allow diversity to flourish on the 8th floor at City Hall.  But why would Council mimic a bad model?

The tragic thing about the confluence of competing "group thinks" in Canton government is that the real losers are the citizens of Canton.

In rejecting Rukavina, council is showing itself to be an "insulting body."  Insulting?

Yes, insulting!

A well qualified member of the housing industry who operates his business within Canton, is rejected for a "volunteer - no pay" position because he doesn't fit in with City Council group think?

Give me a break!

Rukavina, if appointed as the Public-at-large replacement, would be one of nine members.  Okay, so some members disagree with Rukavina's point-of-view.  

He's one vote of nine!  One vote out of nine!!  One vote out of nine!!!

How insecure can Council be?

The strength of a community is found in its ability to advantage itself by considering and pondering a variety of perspectives.  

The Healy administration and Canton City Council show repeatedly that they obviously disdain diversity.  Accordingly, the citizens of Canton get bombarded by insult, after insult, after insult in having the good counsel and advice rejected by the "wise ones" who people leadership at City Hall.

"Two peas in a pod," no?

Wise ones?


No comments: