STATE SEN. OELSLAGER & STATE REP. CHRISTINA HAGAN TAKE STAND AGAINST DEMOCRACY?

News came down today (via The Alliance Review in Stark County) that the Ohio Democratic Party has filed a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to invalidate the Republican controlled Ohio General Assembly's (OGA) action in re-carving (aka "gerrymandering" designed, in this case, to enhance the GOP's control of the Ohio congressional delegation) of Ohio's congressional districts.

Yawn?  Both parties do it.  It will not get to first base with the Ohio Supreme Court!

Perhaps not.

Why not?

Because the Republicans including state Senator Scott Oelslager (the 29th Ohio Senate district) and Christina Hagan (the 50th Ohio House district) (disingenuously, the SCPR thinks) tagged on an appropriation intended to remove the gerrymandering effort from review by the people of Ohio via a referendum vote by one of the exceptions contained in Article II (Section 2.01d - see below).

The SCPR is not sure why Republican state Rep. Kirk Schuring and Democratic state Rep. Stephen Slesnick did not go along with Hagan and Oelslager in their votes, but they did not and are to be commended for supporting the right of the people to weigh-in on OGA passed measure to the greatest degree possible.

The Oelslager/Hagan action is somewhat like action taken by the then Stark County Commissioners Todd Bosley (Democrat), Tom Harmon (Democrat) and Jane Vignos (Republican) who "imposed" a 1/2 cent on a dollar sales tax increase (December, 2008).  However, there is a difference which makes the Bosley/Harmon/Vignos action take a back seat to what Hagan/Oelslager and those legislators who voted with them are trying to foist on Ohioans (including, of course, Stark Countians).

Stark Countians had the ability to get back at Bosley/Harmon/Vignos by collecting signatures (about 20,000 or so) and Vote No Increased Tax Committee formed and did so, placing the question of a tax increase before the voters in November, 2009.  Stark County's voters overwhelming rejected the commissioner triumvirate's attempt to circumvent our democracy.

Perhaps, the Ohio Supreme Court will do the same thing to the Ohio GOP's circumvention effort.

Here is what the Ohio Constitution has to say about referendum votes:

§ 2.01c The referendum


The second aforestated power reserved by the people is designated the referendum, and the signatures of six per centum of the electors shall be required upon a petition to order the submission to the electors of the state for their approval or rejection, of any law, section of any law or any item in any law appropriating money passed by the general assembly.
... .
(Adopted September 3, 1912. HJR 3; Amended, effective November 4, 2008.)

 § 2.01d Emergency laws; not subject to referendum


Laws providing for:

• tax levies, 
• appropriations for the current expenses of the state government and state institutions, and 
• emergency laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, 

shall go into immediate effect.  (structure changed to achieve clarity and emphasis)

... .

The laws mentioned in this section shall not be subject to the referendum.

(Adopted September 3, 1912.)

In 2009, Democratic Governor Ted Strickland tried to bypass the people of Ohio on his desire to generate new revenues by inserting (with the complicity of the Ohio General Assembly via the 2010-2011 biennium state budget [HB 1] 17,500 video-lottery-terminals [VLTs] at racetrack which dot Ohio.

However, the LetOhioVote organization (which the SCPR believes to be a Republican front group) struck a blow for democracy in filing its lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court (Court) against then Democrat Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner for refusing to certify its referendum effort.

The Court struck down the Strickland contrived effort, to wit:

The question that arises now is as to whether or not the Court stays consistent in its decisions.

The SCPR believes it will and that Ohio will have a political mess on its hands in figuring out who is running for what congressional district in the 2012 elections.

(VIDEO: SHERIFF SWANSON TELLS - THE REST OF THE STORY - HIMSELF) PLAIN TWP TRUSTEE LOUIS GIAVASIS COMPLAINS TO THE SCPR ABOUT THE REP'S COVERAGE OF TUESDAY NIGHT'S REGULAR TOWNSHIP MEETING. HMM? WHAT DO YOU EXPECT IN A "ONE NEWSPAPER TOWN?"

Yesterday, late afternoon, yours truly returned a call from Plain Township Trustee Louis P. Giavasis.

The SCPR had been at the regular meeting of the trustees on Tuesday (September 27th) and he wanted to know whether The Rep's report of the meeting told the full story of what happened at the meeting.

Here is the article he complains of:

First, Giavasis was unhappy that for a meeting that lasted about an hour, The Repository saw fit to publish two paragraphs (his words).

Second, he was upset with this sentence:  "Swanson said the sales tax campaign doesn’t affect the police service his department is contracted to provide for Plain Township." (enlarged for emphasis)

The Report's response:  "No! it doesn't."

An important part of the presentation by Sheriff Swanson and his Chief Deputy Mike McDonald (the jail division) was that: (paraphrasing) "Yes, the Plain contracted officers could come to the scene of the incident, but if there was a need for an arrest and jailing, Plain Township residents were in no better shape than any other Stark County police jurisdiction because booking will be limited to a specific block of time (not 24/7 as it is now) and except for murderers and rapists and the like, there will be no room in what will be a 122 bed jail should the November 1/2 cent on the dollar sales tax increase be rejected by voters."

For those readers who want to see a much more complete version of Stark County Swanson's presentation, a video of such is included in this blog at the conclusion of the written portion.

More and more the SCPR gets calls from the Stark County public complaining about the thoroughness and completeness of Repository reports of governmental meetings and political happenings in Stark County.

For years now (even before the SCPR began upwards of four years ago) yours truly has via letters to the editor and comments in The Rep itself complained that The Repository being a monopoly (i.e. "one newspaper town') has a special obligation to take measures to ensure that it compensates for the lack of competition.

But in the judgment of The Report, it hasn't.  To yours truly, it acts as if it were a public utility or, perhaps, a unit of government.  One of SCPR's favorite lines out of The Rep comes from former Executive Editor David Kaminski when he made a statement in one of his editorials equating The Rep to "An 800-pound gorilla which buys ink by the barrel."

Statements like that folks, is unbridled arrogance and we all know the arrogant just shove it down our collective throats and we get what we get in coverage and ability to respond or contest what is written and just go away and shut up!

July 3, 1930 was a day of infamy in terms of Stark County newspaper readers having a choice and The Rep being compelled to compete.  It was on that day that the then owners of The Repository bought out the Canton Daily News.  In hindsight, we Stark Countians would have lamented and wished that it would have been the reverse.

Of course, not many, if any, of us Stark Countians were around then to read the pre-July 3, 1930 competing newspapers.  But it is impressive that the in 1927, the Canton Daily News was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service on the work of prize reporter Don Mellet.

Apparently, the assassination death of the hard-hitting, thorough Mellett was also the death of the Canton Daily News.

As terrible as all of that was, it is only part of the story of tremendous loss visited upon Stark County.

Because the ownership of The Repository has basked in the comfort of being the only newspaper in Canton rather than take on "super-responsibility," the constituents of the seat of Stark County government and other Ohio political subdivisions (boards of education, villages, cities and township, et cetera) and the concomitant politics that goes with such government, have been poorly served in the "public service" aspect of newspapering.

Yours truly has lived in Stark County for nearly 40 years.  How much of that time has been spent as a subscriber of The Repository?  Six months, perhaps, a year total.  An avid newspaper reader until the onset of online newspaper editions, that says quite a lot about one estimate of the quality of The Repository.

About year ago, Reporter Robert Wang of The Rep told yours truly how much Executive Editor Jeff Gauger at The Rep hated Martin Olson and his Stark County Political Report.

Interesting, no?

A one-person-operation sought to be devoured by a self-described 800-pound gorilla?

So much for fostering a free press, no?

(VIDEO OF CO-CHAIRS OF "YES FOR SAFETY ISSUE 29")STARK COUNTY'S MAYORS MISSING FROM EFFORT TO PASS 0.5% SALES TAX INCREASE? FOR CANTON: HEALY HATRED OF ALL THINGS CREIGHTON & BERNABEI THE CHIEF REASON? CANTON STANDS TO LOSE $400,000 IN CITY INCOME TAX DUE TO LAID OFF COUNTY EMPLOYEES WORKING IN CANTON?

Should Issue #29 fail, Stark County commissioners and other elected officials say they will have to lay off Canton-sited county employees.  And co-chairman of the Yes for Safety: Issue #29 Dan McMasters said in remarks yesterday (see video below) that the city of Canton stands to lose $400,000 in sales tax revenue as a consequence of the laid off employees.



Stark's elected officials and county employees gathered yesterday at the Stark County District Library (Canton branch) in a public political campaign meeting (public because two or more Stark County commissioners were present) to finalize plans for gaining passage of the tax.

If it still existed, the short-lived Stark County Mayors Association (the brainchild of Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II) could be a handy organization to help Stark County pass its sorely needed 0.5% sales tax on November 8th.

But it doesn't.  Because of Mayor Healy's insistence on being "the man in charge," the organization, announced as being formed on December 29th, 2008, quickly fell apart and was officially pronounced dead by the SCPR on May 15, 2009; less than six months after its formation.

One key campaign official intoned to The Report (paraphrase):  "Why is Mayor Healy among the missing and silent as this campaign get underway?"

Short answer:  If Healy is not running an activity from top to bottom, forget him being a part of anything.

That's why his promising idea of a Stark County Mayors Association fell apart quickly.

Longer answer:  Mayor Healy REALLY DOES NOT LIKE Stark Commissioners Tom Bernabei and Janet Creighton and is not real fond of the commissioner that everybody else in Stark County officialdom absolutely loves (Pete Ferguson).

Democrat Healy ran against and defeated Republican Creighton in November, 2007 in a bitterly fought campaign.  After the election, Healy trashed Creighton has having left him a mess to clean up.

To clean up the mess, Healy brought in fellow Democrat and for Canton Law Director Tom Bernabei into the  TeamHealy administration as one of his very top officials.  But lo and behold, Healy found out that Bernabei has a mind of his own and was not reluctant to criticize Healy's fanciful ideas of how to fix what Healy termed as being the Creighton train wreck that he says the former mayor left behind.

Ferguson?  Well, he had this idea that it might be a "good idea" for Stark County's villages, cities and townships to merger whatever functions they could (building departments, health departments, informational technology departments, et cetera).  However, the "fatal flaw" in Ferguson's approach was that Canton would not be in charge of the newly merged functions.  Result:  Healy telephoned Ferguson and read him the riot act on putting together mergers and

The campaign official went on to ask:  "Where is the mayor of Massillon, the mayor of Louisville, mayor of Alliance?"  He should have included township officials, too.

While these political subdivisions do not stand to lose much, if any, tax revenue as a consequence of an Issue 29 failure, they will lose the ability to take people at all hours of the day and night to be booked at the Stark County Sheriff's department and, moreover, even when they are booked they will be put out on the streets pronto because the Stark County Jail will be cut down to 122 beds.  And these beds will be set aside for murders, rapists and the like and not the day-in, day-out type of offenses that most village, city and township police departments arrest for.

None of Stark's political facilities have jail facilities of their own to house the folks they arrest.

An obvious campaign strategy of the Yes for Safety Issue 29 campaigners is to wake up the sleeping giant of political subdivision officials and employees who are scattered across every nook and cranny of Stark County.

Former Commissioner Todd Bosley's idea, when he joined the then Commissioners Tom Harmon and Jane Vignos is "imposing" a 1/2% sales tax (December, 2008) for rehabbing Stark's broken 9-1-1 emergency service system and for additional county general fund revenues, was to give Stark's political subdivisions a stake in the revenues generated by promising "free" 9-1-1 call receiving and dispatching services.

It was a grand plan that Bosley hatched, but he was never able to get village, city and township officials on board in a unified way.  Consequently, a committee of ordinary citizens (Vote No Increased Taxes) mounted a drive that resulted in the imposed tax being overturned in an overwhelming fahion in November, 2009.

In an ironical sense, 9-1-1's rehab is still not completely done despite the fact that over $2 million sits in the county budget set aside for the project.

Why is 9-1-1 not yet complete?

The SCPR believes "the failure to complete" is owing to Mayor Healy and his insistence that Canton be in charge at the end of the day when a revamped 9-1-1 is up and running.

When the general public sees the self-serving shenanigans of the likes of Healy, they develop a jaded attitude towards government in general and efforts like Yes for Public Safety Issue 29 get caught up in the public's dismay.

The question of success or failure for Yes for Safety Issue 29 may well be whether or not they can mobilize their natural allies fanned out across Stark County?

A key question:  Will the mayoral likes of Healy (Canton), Cicchinelli (Massillon), Held (North Canton) and Middleton (Alliance) be sitting this one out? If they do and the issue fails, what are they going to tell their constituents when they see that those charged with serious crimes are walking the streets of their respective communities?

(VIDEO OF HELD GOING AFTER OSBORNE) BARE KNUCKLE POLITICS IN NORTH CANTON?

By the SCPR's calculation, former North Canton Councilman Chuck Osborne (currently running for an at-large seat) walked into IT last night.

IT being the political fist of Mayor David Held and Councilman Doug Foltz (Ward 1 - running unopposed this time around).

Osborne is known for his political polemics directed against Held and North Canton City Council (Council), in general, on most regular meeting nights of Council.

Last night Osborne decided it was time to lash out at the part-time Council members for having in place a healthcare family/individual plan as being too costly for North Canton in light of the financial stress that all local government units are under these days.  Moreover, he pushed his political dagger in deeper and twisted it a bit in holding up Hudson, Ohio City Council as an example of selfless public service in that its members are paid $120 a year (contrasted to North Canton's $4,800) with no healthcare benefits and a mayor who is paid $3,300 annually (as contrasted to Mayor Held's $15,000).

If one adds the cost of North Canton's healthcare plan, the participating five council members in the family plan (Councilman Cerreta takes neither plan) costs North Canton ($4,800 + 13,916.88) $18,716.88.

Council President Jon Snyder (who is paid $5,700 annually as president) has the individual plan and thereby only costs the city ($5,700 + 5,380.08) $11,080.08.

Mayor Held is at ($15,000 + 13,916.88) $28,916.88.

Sounds like Candidate Osborne has scored a knockout punch of his own?

Not really.

After Osborne's "public speaks," Mayor Held came out with a flurry of counter punches in defense of Council (and, of course, implicitly himself) in pointing out that Osborne himself accepted the family plan during his term as a North Canton councilman from 2002 through 2004.

Here is a video of Held's rhetorical pugilism on Osborne.



As if the Held effort was not enough of a pummeling, after the meeting Councilman Doug Foltz revealed to yours truly that while Osborne was councilman he was on board to raise councilpersons annual salary from $3,600 to the present $4,800.

When The Report questioned Osborne about these two revelations, he wanted to differentiate himself out of his own criticism.

Paraphrasing:  "I was a new councilperson and all I knew was that out of the blue I had a family healthcare plan that I really didn't need because my wife had coverage for the family from her work."  "North Canton was in much better financial condition then."  And, on and on and on.

As readers of the SCPR know, such separation does not work with yours truly.

For The Report, Osborne's criticism is political hypocrisy:  pure and simple!

Nobody critiques local government officials more than the SCPR.  And, generally, The Report is pleased to see the likes of Chuck Osborne do his research and bring merited criticism to bear on the councils of government.

At the very least, Osborne should have noted that he had taken the healthcare benefits and the salary when he was on Council.  Moreover, he should have explained why, as a council-at-large candidate this election cycle, he should be taken as a credible critic and his request that Council act to end family plan benefits before the end of the current term of Council should be taken seriously and not as some sort of political gambit designed to enhance his chances of being elected.

He failed to do so and therefore the SCPR admonishes him for such.

The SCPR does have a word for Mayor David Held.  Undoubtedly, he immensely enjoyed taking his political nemesis to task.  But The Report's experience Held indicates to yours truly that he is hardly flawless in his own right.

Several weeks ago in a conversation with Held, he fed the SCPR information to the effect that Stark County Educational Service Center (SESC) Superintendent Larry Morgan was about to retire and that North Canton Superintendent Mike Gallina was by prearrangement was set to replace Morgan.

Well, yours truly's spouse is an elected member of the SESC and as The Report is wont to do, checked out Held's allegation.  Answer:  "not true.

So a man (Held) who wants to be treated with fairness and chastises others who transgress, gets unfair with fellow - though unelected - public officials?

All of which brings into question Held's motivation for correcting Osborne.

Was it because he "really" feels that participating Council members deserve the effect - with healthcare benefits - of quadrupling their pay from North Canton (doubling - in the case of Jon Snyder) or was he himself being political in the sense of currying favor with Council and in the sense of taking advantage of the Osborne misstep to pay Chuck Osborne back for the numerous criticisms that he has lobbed Held's way?

IS HALLOWEEN IN STARK COUNTY THIS YEAR ON OCTOBER 31ST OR NOVEMBER 8TH?

One of the side issues between Stark County commissioners and some Stark County citizens is whether not the commissioner projected county financial crisis is the real deal.

The likes of local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (a leader in the "Vote No Increased Taxes" in the overwhelmingly successful repeal of the 2008 commissioner [Bosley, Harmon and Vignos]) imposed 1/2% sales tax saying that there are more cuts to be made in the current Stark County general fund budget and thereby suggests (in the SCPR's take) that the county has once again constructed a scare situation as the Vote No group claims that Bosley et al did leading up to the November, 2009 repeal vote.

Readers of The Report will recall that "the retain the 2008 imposed tax" forces focused on horror stories of several Stark County-based incidents in recent years in which emergency forces lost precious time in responding to emergencies because out-of-date and inadequate structures of operation and equipment.

Moreover, what the proponents did not talk much about was the fact that half of the imposed sales tax money was designated to go to the county's general fund. 

The SCPR tends to agree with the Vote Nos that the "imposing," the horror stories and the soft-peddling of the general fund fact on the 2008 sales tax coalesce to give credence that the proponents of the 2008 effort were trying to scare Stark Countians into providing new county revenues.

As to the current effort to get voter approval of a 1/2% sales tax increase on November 8th, Conley points to what he terms as excessive pension/health care benefits that he says many county employees get. 

His main focus has been on Sheriff Tim Swanson and his failure over his many years in service to keep the benefits in line with what is being done in the private sector.  The idea appears to be that there is revenue in the county budget for the county to operate at a level supported by a majority of Stark Countians and that to free that money up major revisions need to be made to county pension and health care plans.

Conley, at last report to the SCPR, is not supporting the requested tax increase which, if passed, will raise $11 million in 2012 and $22 million per year starting in 2013.  However, he is not involved in a formal opposition effort.

County officials deny that they are out to scare anybody.  They say they are only presenting the Stark County public with the facts that constitute the dire financial realities of reduced county services should the issue fail.  Chief among the reductions will be additional layoffs at the Stark County Sheriff's department and a a dramatic decline of the number of prisoner housed to 122 as compared to a total of 501 potential inmates were the funding at adequate levels.

If one looks at the Facebook page,  there is material for the sales tax increase opponents to point to in supporting their thesis that the campaign effort is a scare tax dominated effort.

But there is also the Joe Friday of yesteryear television's Dragnet:  "the facts mam, the facts.  All I want is the facts!"

As far as the SCPR is concerned, there is a real need for the 1/2% sales tax to be passed.  The disturbing factor about the 1/2% is that it is not nearly enough to get Stark County into activities such as a vibrant and meaningful economic development program/plan and fixing Stark County badly broken ditch infrastructure which leads to much flooding of the homes of Stark Countians. 

For those whose us who are convinced of the need but that it is being addressed inadequately, the question is whether or not it is wise - in the long run - to support a tax issue designed to get the county into a "treading water" conditions.

That is a decision that yours truly has not yet made.

For those convinced of the need but are bothered by the "fear factor" approach (which the SCPR assesses is clearly a part of the campaign), the question becomes:  which is the higher good, resisting being intimidated or taking and deep breath and swallowing hard and focusing on real need clothed in Halloween-esque garb?

NO PRESS RELEASE FROM MAYOR HEALY ON "ZERO TOLERANCE" IN 2011? IN WAKE OF SETTLES MURDER? HMM? WHY NOT?

A major campaign tool of Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II (Democrat) is the "press release."  If a medical report surfaces that less and less Cantonians suffered hang-nails in 2011 than in 2007 (the last year of the Republican Creighton administration), "you can bet your bottom dollar" that Healy will command his press agent to crank out a press release somehow claiming credit.

Looking at the press release list currently published on Canton's website (i.e. RECENT POLICE PRESS RELEASES), note that there is nothing new since February 9, 2010:  a veritable eternity for the likes of Mayor Healy; a man who consummately tries to manipulate the press into being his adjunct political press office.

The SCPR believes that in all fairness, crime statistics have very little to do with whom is mayor UNLESS there is a concentrated effort (a la New York City in the 1990s the "broken windows" approach in the Giuliani administration) to ramp up the police force and criminal justice operations in general so that one can track rather directly whether or not the "specific" effort is working.

Nothing on the substantive scale of the NYC effort has been done by the Healy administration in Canton.   However, when mere statistics seemed to coincidentally indicate that his administration's policies and practices was the reason for the drop-off of crime in Canton. 

From the SCPR's vantage point, Healy with his campaign-induced sloganeering of "Zero Tolerance" is an example of and indicative of Healy's overall model of governing on rhetoric rather than by the substantive and proven.  Substantive and proven crime reduction methods do exist.  But to implement such is not Healy.

The real key in economic development for Canton in realizing reduced crime is that the perception that a community is a safe place to be is the most basic starter as to whether or not most companies would be interested in entertaining the idea of coming to Canton in the first place.

The murder that occurred on the 600 block of Hazlett Avenue in Canton last Thursday night of a man who had just attended a bible study is an unfortunate reminder that Canton is on track to have its highest murder rate in recent years.

All of us who traipse through the streets of Canton do so warily.  The Hazlett Avenue murder is confirmation that the fear is not grounded in paranoia but rather in the real.

Such can hardly be reassuring to companies that the Healy administration is trying to lure to Canton.  A basic question that they all have to ask themselves:  "can our employees get safely to and fro from the parking lot to the office?"

Here is a snippet from a press release from Healy's main opponent for the mayoralty of Canton (Republican Conde):

I want to know why the Mayor is hiding.   If you recall his campaign advertising from 2007, all he talked about was his tough stance on crime.

Statistics can be manipulated and numbers can be arranged to tell any story.  But the fact of the matter is that the Healy administration has stood idly by and watched Canton spiral downward into a very dangerous place.

FBI statistics show the following murders in the Canton area:

2007 = 8         2008= 8          2009 = 13      2010 = 2         2011 = 11 to date [as of 9/8/2011 - with the 9/22/2011 murder the 2011 number is at 12 with three months to go this year]

On October 4th, The Repository and WHBC 1480AM are sponsoring a mayors debate at The Palace Theater.

Undoubtedly, Conde and Canton's voters will hear some sort of political spin on the obvious failure of rhetorical Zero Tolerance from Mayor Healy then, no?

It would be stunning indeed if Healy were to admit the obvious that his Zero Tolerance verbalization with "real" action has been a political scam on the people of Canton:  apologize and promise to govern in the concrete best interests of Cantonians in a new term with a minimum of politicizing.

Do not look for Healy to have had "a road to Damacus" experience come the 4th.

The SCPR's take is that Healy will be re-elected on November 8th.

The tragedy of Healy's likely re-election is that he will take aid in comfort that the spinning of his way through office and from election to election works for him and his re-election will  be four more years of splash-and-dash for Canton while the Hall of Fame City, serving as Stark County's seat of government, falls further behind the seven other major metropolitan areas of the state of Ohio.

And the people of Canton and Stark County say:  "Woe is us!"

"NEW" OHIO HOUSE & SENATE DISTRICTS? A SCPR ANALYSIS. HOW ABOUT FRANK CICCHINELLI RUNNING AGAINST SLESNICK IN THE "NEW" 49TH?

For starters, if some in Alliance area think they have been marginalized by being put in Ohio 13th congressional district as the only Stark County factor in the district, such would be doubly so for the residents of the Stark County communities of Canal Fulton, Lawrence, Tuscarawas and Sugarcreek townships.
 
THE 38TH AND THE 50TH

With the new 38th House District and the 27th Senate District, the Stark County folks are likely only to be a factor in a very, very close election.

Of course, if you believe The Repository's Robert Wang in his coverage of the redistricting that:  in the re-do of the 50th, the possibility that former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (currently clerk of courts in Massillon) is a political casualty in that he has been redistricted out of running against Republican Christina Hagan; you wonder why he did not offer up the possibility of Maier, who lives in Tuscarawas Township, running for the "new" 38th?

The answer:  Maier - unless there is a monumental political calamity for him with his being defeated as the Democratic clerk of courts candidate against Republican Megan Todaro Kirschner on November 8th - is ensconced in the well-paid clerk of courts position with his political sidekick (Stark County Democratic Party political director) and "gofer" err chief deputy Shane Jackson and Maier wouldn't have taken on Hagan even if the district miraculously had gotten reconfigured to the way it was when Maier was first elected in the early 90s.

Another thing.  Maier is busy right now consolidating his political power in Massillon.  Should his political protege Kathy Catazaro-Perry be elected mayor of Massillon as the SCPR predicts she will be by a substantial margin, then he has the job of being the de facto mayor of Massillon, no? 

Wang offered up other examples of the loss of Democratic potentials in the 50th.

Celeste DeHoff?

You have got to be kidding!

It took Todd "I helped 'impose' a county sales tax" Bosley to outdo her in terms of margin of defeat in the 50th notwithstanding the political prestige and political power of Maier/Jackson expended on (brought the then Governor Ted Strickland, former Senator John Glenn, Senator Sherrod Brown and the then state Treasurer Richard Cordray to campaign for her).  Moreover, the Ohio Democratic Party - undoubtedly at Maier's behest - put tons of money into her campaign.

For Democrats to have put her up again, had the she remained in the 50th; you talk about a sacrificial lamb!

Gayle Jackson?  A former Stark County commissioner who Maier (the employer of her son,  hmm?) likes to say at Democratic loyalist gatherings is Stark's greatest commissioner of all time is likely to be remembered by the more realistic as being a run-of-the-mill commissioner who, at best, is one of a number of commissioners who have served in modern times to have allowed Stark to slide into financial and economic duress.

Only the starry-eyed on Jackson Maier would offer her up as a viable challenge to Christina Hagan in what son Shane recognizes (being the political cognoscenti Maier makes him out as being) to be a solidly Republican district.

Richard Regula?

Perhaps Stark County's laziest political candidate.

He has relied on the Regula name in his campaigns and has done very little, if any, hard nosed campaigning and as a consequence lost - notwithstanding the Regula name - to, get this:  Gary D. Zeigler (who had lost multiple countywide races before defeating Regula) and political neophyte at the time:  Todd Bosley.  And, of course, notwithstanding having the former 16th district congressman in his corner, he could not out muscle the Hagans (can you imagine John Hagan having more clout in Columbus than Ralph Regula?).

THE 48TH (House) & 29TH (Senate)

As safe as ever (the 51st and the 29th [Senate]) for Kirk "musical chairs" Schuring and Scott Oelslager.

Until Stark County Democratic Party Chairman Randy Gonzalez gets up off his duff and finds a viable [name ID and money] candidate to run against Schuring and Oelslager, they will continue to serve in the Ohio General Assembly until they become too feeble to serve.  Schuring and Oelslager  play a version of musical chairs between the 51st [now to be the 48th] and the 29th where each of them gets a seat:  just a different seat.

THE 49TH

Remains solidly Democratic.


The SCPR is told that Democrat Stephen Slesnick is "as worthless" in the Ohio House "as _ _ _ _ on a boar hog."

With the Massillon being included in the 49th, how about freshly defeated Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr (Massillon's 4th Ward), at the hand of the Massillon Maier political machine, running in a Democratic primary to take on Slesnick?

Doing so would give Cicchinelli as second bite at the apple in his ongoing political feud with Maier, Jackson et al. One of things that Maier likes to do with Cicchinelli is to asperse him as being a de facto Republican.  Cicchinelli bristles at such characterizations. 

Cicchinelli running has two bright sides to it; one for the public and the other for the lame duck mayor personally.  First, if he can unseat Slesnick, the step up in quality of representation would be manifold.  Secondly, he would certainly be a downer for the powers Maier and his wing of the Massillon Democratic Party and for the Stark County Democratic Party which stood by (Chairman Gonzalez being politically close with Maier) and let Democratic stalwart Cicchinelli be humiliated in intra-party warfare.

Not likely, but an intriguing thought, no?

BIG ISSUE IN ALLIANCE THESE DAYS: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. BUT WHERE TO LOOK FOR GUIDANCE? CANTON - NO; STARK COUNTY - PERHAPS; YOUNGSTOWN - "YES" IN SPADES

 ALLIANCE CITY COUNCIL IS GETTING IT?

It is very encouraging to see that the major discussion going on in the Alliance City Council (Council) races this fall is on a economic development project (Council candidates talk new jobs in Alliance, Stephanie Ujhelyi, The Alliance Review, 09/22/2011).

One project involves a microloan program designed to incubate new "small" businesses in Alliance and to encourage expansion of existing small businesses.

One of leading proponents of the the loan program in James Dyke who is running as an independent to unseat loan time Alliance Democrat Phyllis Phillips in Alliance's 2nd Ward.  Phillips has been a long time fixture on Council and appears to the SCPR that she has not demonstrated the creativity and energy needed to help turn Alliance around.  Alliance voters should be taking a serious look at Dyke as a possible alternative to Phillips.  The second ward councilwoman did not answer The Review's candidate questionnaire.  Go figure!

Another program being looked at in Alliance by Council is an incubator program.  While "it better late than never," Stark County municipalities have been bringing up the rear on this concept if bringing it up at all.

A THUMBNAIL SKETCH OF AKRON/CANTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

In 1983 Akron initiated an incubator program and it has grown by leaps and bounds ever since.

Only now is Canton under Democrat Mayor William J. Healy, II, who is into the final part of his initial four year term, getting up and running with incubating new businesses capability.  So Healy has sat and done nothing for the most of his four years in office.  But he is not the only Canton mayor since 1983 who has sat on his/her duff for the nearly 30 years and watch other nearby communities and many across the country pass Canton by.

One would think that Canton voters would want to politically punish Healy for not using his New York University Stern School of Business self-touted education during his first four years to get Canton much further along in economic recover than he has achieved.

However, his Republican opponent A.R. "Chip" Conde is not exactly "knocking off socks" with compelling ideas as to how he might - in concrete ways - accelerate Canton's recovery from the economic doldrums.

BACK TO THE ALLIANCE EFFORT

So where is Alliance to look for guidance?

How about Youngstown?

While Akron has done an impressive job of re-inventing itself from being the rubber and trucking capital of the U.S., Youngstown is in the process of pulling off the near miraculous in terms of recovering from the the demise of the U.S. steel industry which caused Youngstown in the recent past to be tabbed as the "poster-child" quintessential representative of the "rust belt."

However, largely through the effort of the Youngstown Business Incubator Corporation (YBI) (since about 1997), Youngstown is being frequently referred to these days as perhaps Ohio's leading "comback city," and a lead example for all of America in terms of bringing deep thinkers and energetic entrepreneurs together in an effective coalition spark Youngstown into a rejuvenated state of business, financial and manufacturing existence.

The GM plant in Lordstown has been brought back to new life with three shifts of producing the Chevy Cruze (4,500 workers with workers from Janeville, Wisconsin being reassigned to Lordstown), a new tube plant (300 construction jobs; 400 new operation jobs) is in the final stages of being completed among a bevy of new job-producing jobs.

Another factor for Youngstown and its economic resurgence has been the "Congressman Tim Ryan" factor.

It could be that a silver lining of Alliance being sliced off from the rest of Stark County in the Republican Statehouse gerrymander of the county into three different districts is that its new congressman - Tim Ryan - is a founding member of what is called the "House Manufacturing Caucus" and of which he currently serves as co-chairman.

Yours truly heard a Ron Ponder (WHBC - "Points to Ponder") interview of Ryan this past week and was tremendously impressed with his focus in helping cities like Akron and Youngstown (in his current [the 17th] and new [the 13th] district.  Undoubtedly, he will warmly embrace Alliance and give the city a strong assist to get moving on rehabbing the Carnation City's business and commercial infrastructure.

In Ujhelyi's piece reference is made to Leadership Stark County (LSC) as being involved in the Alliance effort to re-invent itself.

Great news to the SCPR.  The Report has written frequently that has not appeared to be developing creative, energetic leaders but rather credential collecting types.

Could LSC involvement in Alliance be an indication that the leadership development arm of the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce is finally getting its act together?

If so, then perhaps Stark County could be developing some ability to "pull itself up by its bootstraps" and get something significant and meaningful going so that Stark County one day might also be heralded as a model of what can be done with competent, if not extraordinary, leadership.

Apathy on YES! for Stark - ISSUE #29. A SIGN THAT ITS GOING DOWN?

The Stark County commissioners have done their damndest to get the Stark County public and local government officials aware of the impending financial crisis that stalks Stark County "county-level" government, but apparently to no avail.

From February of this year through June, the commissioners held 22 community meetings across the landscape of Stark County to meet the people and get their input on whether or not:

• there should be a sales tax levy put on the ballot,
• if so, for how much and for how long.

The community connection effort was a major bust!

For instance, in Canton nobody showed up and only two did so in Alliance.  Only in Perry and Jackson did significant numbers of citizens show an interest in connecting with their Stark County commissioners.  And those numbers (given the population of those township) were not anything to write home about.

Commissioners did not place a renewal of 1/4% sales tax that expired earlier this year because they felt that with the plummeting of the public's trust in county government, they (representing a new regime of commissioners with the November, 2010 election of Republican Janet Creighton and Democrat Tom Bernabei) needed time to connect with Stark Countians in a new model of local government which emphasizes accessibility, accountability, community connectedness and transparency.

Accordingly (i.e. being the only county in Ohio without a piggyback sales tax), Stark County government revenues are set to dive from being in the 50s millions to the 30 millions come 2012 and correspondingly will mandate a huge drop off in county services. 

It appears that among government types, only directly connected Stark County employees and officials are participating in meaningful numbers in the effort to get the 1/2% sales tax for 8 years placed on November's ballot passed.

This week the "Yes! for Stark ISSUE #29 Stark County 1/2 cent sales tax" committee decided to hold a series of three meetings (one in western Stark, one in central Stark and one in eastern Stark) to interest local government officials in seeing that they and their constituents have a compelling interest to pass the sales tax increase.

Another major bust?

It appears so.

Yesterday, after the Stark County regular Wednesday weekly meeting, Commissioner Creighton said that only one person showed up at R.G. Drage.

Given the unmistakeable apathy that the commissioners are seeing at the hand of the Stark County public and among local government types, it is hard to see that there is any way that the sales tax initiative can pass.

As the SCPR comes into contact with government officials throughout Stark County and the question of the fate of the sales tax is put to them by yours truly, the response:  "it is not going to pass."

Tax issues are hard to pass even when there is a core citizen group saying "let's campaign for this" and they follow through with the talk with action.  It seems to be an automatic response for voters to want to say "no" to any tax increase, especially so in these days of the tea party movement.

Add on the clear case of apathy that is underway among the Stark County electorate (including local government officials) and one has to wonder whether or not the 1/2 cent sales tax in reduced to the proverbial "snowball's chance in Hell?"

FORMER 16TH DISTRICT CONGRESSMAN JOHN BOCCIERI SET TO RUN IN THE "NEW" 6TH?

Last evening the SCPR had a conversation with former 16th District Congressman John Boccieri (presently living in Alliance) as to his thoughts on what appears to be Ohio's new congressional districts and what his immediate political plans are.

From that conversation and on the basis of analyzing other factors, The Report is ready to project that John Boccieri is likely - if he becomes a candidate at all -  to be a candidate for the "new" 6th (which also was the number assigned to the "current" district) congressional district.

Why does The Report say the 6th currently held by Republican Congressman Bill Johnson?

Three reasons.

First, in the conversation yours truly detected a focus on the 6th.  While Boccieri made it clear that he had a number of options on the table, The Report's interpretation of his comments was as said in the first sentence of this paragraph:  Boccieri seemed to dwell on the 6th as opposed to others.

However, The Report believes that the next option would be for Boccieri to run against Jim Renacci to re-claim the 16th district seat which still includes north central and northwest sections of Stark County.  He might even be able to maintain his Alliance residence since it is in Stark County and handle any potential hue and cry by Renacci that he does not live in the district (which, by the U.S. Constitution, he is not required to) by:

• countering that Renacci lobbied Ohio Statehouse Republicans to put him and the Democratic strongholds of Canton and Massillon outside of the 16th, and
• making the point that the 16th does indeed include parts of Stark and he lives in Stark.

Second, one of his foremost political mentors and sponsors, former Democratic Governor Ted Strickland (who, at Boccieri's coming out at North Canton's Bitzer Park as a candidate to succeed the retiring Ralph Regula in 2008, said that "[he] love[d] Boccieri as if he were a brother") has a storied history of winning in the sixth congressional district.  Undoubtedly, Strickland is having communication with and influence on Boccieri in whatever decision he makes.

In the last 20 years Ted Strickland won six times and Charlie Wilson, Jr. won twice with healthy Democratic margins.

With Republican congressional approval ratings as low as 13% across the nation and Johnson being a freshman legislator, Boccieri has to feel good about his chances in the "new" 6th.

A major obstacle in a Boccieri return via the 6th may be a desire by Wilson to re-claim the seat.  This is where Strickland and others Boccieri-politically-powerful-friendlies could be enormously helpful by persuading Wilson to step aside for the much younger Boccieri who seems to have a star quality about him, at least insofar as a number of leadership Democrats (local, state and national) seem to buy into.

The Wilson defeat in 2010 is not troublesome to Boccieri because he views the 2010 Republican/Tea Party landslide to have been a consequence of perfect political storm sequence of events not to be repeated (and, in large part reversed) in 2012.

Third, if Boccieri is going to move again (he moved into the 16th to counter his 2008 opponent Kirk Schuring's argument that he was not a Stark Countian) there is no place that he would rather be than Mahoning County (which is partially included in the 6th) from whence he came into Stark.

He has young children a number of whom are school age and no doubt he wants more than anything else to have a stable situation for them and a return to Mahoning would appear to offer an acceptable alternative to moving to parts of Ohio in which the family has no roots.  Moreover, he was recently promoted to lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve and is set to serve as an instructor pilot at the Youngstown Air Reserve Station.

Those three are the reasons why the SCPR thinks former Congressman John Boccieri will surface by the filing deadline (which could be as early as December 7th) as a candidate for Ohio's 6th District in the Congress of the United States of America as a new district in the Republican gerrymandered 2011 every ten year reapportionment.

(VIDEO: ANDREANI & OKEY ON ALLIANCE REDISTRICT CARVE OUT) - WHAT KIND OF RECEPTION WOULD FORMER CARNATION DAYS QUEEN AND NOW STATE REP. CHRISTINA HAGAN GET IN ALLIANCE TODAY?

UPDATE:  9:45 AM -  Recently, Representative Mike Fortner (R - Illinois) won the Ohio League of Women voters competition for drawing "fair" districts in the every 10 year reapportionment mandated by the U.S. Constitution.

Under his map Stark County remain a unitized entity.  However, it likely would cause a change in who represents the 16th.  Current Congressman Jim Renacci lives in Wadsworth and therefore would not be in the Fortner Plan confines.  While not required by the Constitution to live in the district, the politics of the situation require it as a practical political matter. 

Former Congressman John Boccieri did not live in the 16th when he decided to run for the seat in 2008.  But he got the message and moved into the district (Alliance).

Under the Fortner configuration, current 17th District Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan would likely become Stark County's congressional representative.  Below is a extract map and partial data from the Ohio League of Women Voters website.

ORIGINAL BLOG

Odds are that were state Rep. Christina Hagan to run for Carnation Days Queen in the Carnation City (Alliance, Ohio), she might experience a different result than her crowning event in 2007.

Appointed earlier this year when 50th District Representative Todd Snitchler jumped ship for a high paying ($124,500) job in the Kasich administration, Hagan has distinguished herself in voting in lockstep with the folks who are responsible for her appointment; namely, the Ohio House Republican caucus.  Of course, voting the party line is understandable when one goes from being a restaurant server and college student to making $60,000 a year with no prior experience.  One wouldn't expect her "to bite the hand that feeds her."

Her vote to  sever Alliance from the rest of Stark County, in terms of what congressional district Alliance sits in, may come back to haunt her one day and the next time it will not be whether or not she is elected Carnation Days Queen.

Alliance now resides in the 16th congressional district and is the home of former Democratic Congressman John Boccieri.

A part of the the slicing and dicing of Stark County by Hagan and her political pals in Columbus was two-fold in the opinion of the SCPR.  First, get rid of most of Canton and Massillon out of Republican Congressman Jim Renacci's 16th District and to put Boccieri outside the district.

Because Boccieri has a substantial name ID and credentials as being a former congressman, he represents the biggest threat to Renacci returning to Congress.

Being the Republican loyalist she is over and beyond Stark County interests, Hagan not only voted for the Stark County carve up; she also - under the tutelage of the Republican Columbus political pros - tried the spin Stark being split up into three districts as being a good thing.

But Alliance is not buying the spin.

Last night Alliance City Council passed a resolution dissing the fracturing of Stark County to put Alliance in the 13th Congressional District and Democrat Paul Ryan and the likes of Mahoning and Trumbull counties.

Resolution 79-11: Introduced by Andreani: A Resolution objecting to the proposed Congressional redistricting and requesting that the State elected Officials establish Congressional Districts which maintain the City of Alliance with Stark County Congressional representation.

The resolution passed by unanimous voice vote (four Democrats, three Republicans).

The SCPR hears that the Hagans (Christina and her father and former state Rep. John Hagan [2000 - 2008]) like to hang out in Alliance.

Perhaps now they will be looking for alternative haunts in that they are likely to hear it from dissatisfied Alliance residents and public officials. 

Here is a video of the reactions of Republican Councilman-at-Large Alan Andreani and Democratic Councilman-at-Large Steve Okey (who are opposing  one another for mayor of Alliance this November) to the Hagan endorsed excising of Alliance from the rest of Stark County.

IT TOOK READING THE ACTUAL COMPLAINT TO FIGURE OUT THAT STARK CO. TREASURER ZEIGLER (THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY) ACCUSED FORMER BD. OF COMMISSIONERS (BOSLEY, MEEKS AND FERGUSON) OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT. HMM?

One of the dangers of living in a one-newspaper-town which is also Stark County's only countywide newspaper (The Repository) is that readers are at the mercy how writers choose to write their stories.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, it is important news that Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler through his attorney in a August 29, 2011 court pleading for civil damages accuses/alleges that former Commissioners Todd Bosley, Steven Meeks and Pete Ferguson (who also sits on the current board) of having committed a crime (a first degree misdemeanor) under Ohio Revised Section 2921.45, in removing Zeigler from office on August 23, 2010 - to wit:

2921.45 Interfering with civil rights.

(A) No public servant, under color of his office, employment, or authority, shall knowingly deprive, or conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of interfering with civil rights, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Effective Date: 01-01-1974

Of course, in the SCPR readers get unvarnished reality.  Some material may make for uncomfortable reading.  But those who want to be fully informed, brace up for the reality of life.

The Report has no idea why The Rep writer(s) wrote up this portion of the interpretation of Zeigler's complaint the way it was.  It appears to have been done the way it was done for aesthetic/euphemistic purposes.  It could have been an oversight?  The answer lies in the mind of the writer(s).  Who can go there and figure that out?

The SCPR thinks that the reading public has the right to know - as near as possible - the real deal.

Yours truly has read and re-read (and using word search)  the referenced piece and finds no mention of the "violates his [Zeigler's] constitutional rights" in the context of being an alleged violation of Ohio criminal law.

It could be that Hoover (and, perhaps, Wang - Hoover lists Wang as a contributor [whatever that means]) wanted to write about the criminal allegations but were overridden by higher ups.  Again, this is something that The Rep nor the writer(s) would not likely share with Stark Countians.  Remember, Canton is a "one-newspaper-town."

One could say:  "Well, the general public can go down to the courthouse and look at the pleadings themselves."  And they could.  But, realistically, how many will?

Despite being a non-commercial, one person operation, the SCPR does its very best to say it like it "really" is!

WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK THAT COUNCILMAN SMUCKLER WOULD WANT TO MIMIC (EVEN IN THE SMALLEST SORT OF WAY) MAYOR HEALY?

One thing that stands out about Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II is that over the term of his first four years he has had way too many incidents of having to explain the ethics of actions as a public official and notorious Stark County political figure.

So it came as no surprise when on 9/11 Mayor Healy (who the SCPR views as being "ethically challenged") barged into a Canton firefighter event specifically designed to "nonpolitically" honor America's fallen firefighter heros.

Canton firefighter Charlie Day (said to be "a man that you can take his word for it") is reported to have said that Healy threatened to charge Coming Together Stark County (a participant in the event) for police and barricades.  Of course, Healy denied the allegation as being "ridiculous."

Notwithstanding his denial, the SCPR finds Healy's power move to be consistent with how the mayor operates as a matter of course.  Sometimes he uses the naked power of office; other times he tries to grease and finesse his way.  However, the objective is always the same:  William J. Healy, II is always intent on it being "his way or the highway" and he will do whatever it takes to realize his goal.

Councilman-at-Large Bill Smuckler, from the perspective of the SCPR, has demonstrated that as public officials go, he is leaps and bounds ahead of Mayor Healy on the ethics plane.

That's why The Report was caught by surprise to read Ed Balint's piece (Canton City Council may raise fee for mobile venders, The Rep, September 16th) about Smuckler seeing no need to recuse himself from tomorrow evening's council vote on whether or not to impose a $250 daily mobile vendor's license fee:  an increase of 100%. 

The SCPR always applauds a pro and con discussion on any policy decision.  It just that Smuckler should not have been the person to introduce a license fee increase and lead the pro-permanent-restaurant point-of-view.  Since he does have a financial interest (self-described as being small) in the subject matter of the legislation, Smuckler (owner of a restaurant supply company) should follow the lead of Councilman Greg Hawk (Ward 1 and restaurant owner) and recuse himself from further participation in the matter.

While "that horse is already out of the barn" in terms of Smuckler weighing in with other council members and while it may not be a "conflict in interest" in the strict definition of the phrase (i.e. he is only one of twelve council members); the SCPR is disappointed with and surprised at Smuckler's insensitivity to his personal interest in the matter - the smallness of the interest notwithstanding.

The increase in the mobile license fees should be decided by the remaining ten council members and Council President Allen Schulman (in the event of a tie).

Smuckler has told the SCPR that he has some interest in running for county commissioner come 2012.

One thing that Stark Countians should be insisting upon for 2012 is that candidates for county office have impeccable ethics.

For The Report, if Smuckler persists in the mobile vendor licensing matter; such will be a signal to county voters, that should he run for county office, they need to examine closely whether or not his ethical standards in holding public office are at the level they need to be at.

REPUBLICAN CHRISTINA HAGAN STANDS WITH STARK GOP CHAIR JEFF MATTHEWS IN DEFENDING PUTTING STARK CO. IN THREE (3) CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS AS BEING "A GOOD THING" FOR STARK!

What would you expect from a person who "owes her political soul to the company store," the Ohio Republican House Caucus being the "company store" in the case of Christina Hagan.  Of course, Hagan was not even born when the song was first recorded in 1946.

Earlier this year she was astoundingly - in light of her credentials and experience - appointed to Republican Todd Snitchler's Stark County based 50th district Ohio House seat.  Snitchler jumped ship to become Republican Governor John Kasich's appointee at $124,500 per year as chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).

Hagan went from being a college student and a server at a Canton area restaurant to being a $60,000 a year state legislator.  Wouldn't just about any college student love to have the stroke of good fortune?  Especially these days when finding a job, any job, is tough for new college graduates.

The SCPR has always known that the primary reason for the Hagan appointment is that the caucus folks knew she would be a dependable water carrier and Kool Aid drinking caucus member for them.  Her father John was when he held the 50th seat (2000 - 2008).  Why wouldn't the daughter?  After all, "the apple does not fall far from the tree."

And so far she has not disappointed the Republican caucus leaders.  She has voted in lockstep with the dictates of Billy Batchelder (the Republican Speaker of the House) on each and every controversial issue that has come before the Ohio House:  Senate Bill 5, the state budget (to name just a couple) and now the congressional redistricting bill which passed the House on Thursday.

Hagan had her talking points in hand (i.e. from the Ohio Republican Statehouse caucus and, apparently, Stark GOP Chair Jeff Matthews - who has been quoted as having the same take) when she talked to an Alliance Review (Regula, Boccieri react to redistricting, Jack R. Weber, Jr., 09/15/2011) reporter on Thursday about her vote, to wit:

"The county will now have three sources of congressional representation that can provide assistance related to federal issues. This increases the number of voices that the people of Stark County have to represent them and allows our region to have additional clout in Washington. While the state is losing two congressmen, Stark County could gain two, to our benefit."

Only the mind of Christina Hagan would conclude that fragmentation and division is a strength!

Gee, why doesn't Stark volunteer to be chopped even more.  Wouldn't it be just grand to be able to say that Stark has a half dozen congressmen looking out after her in Washington?

It appears that Hagan is a total wipeout, at least on this issue:  again, taking her marching orders from the likes of Ohio GOP party chair Kevin DeWine.  Why doesn't Hagan put her college education to work and demonstrate she can do her own thinking?

Of course, what does the former 16th District Congressman (for 36 years running and having sat in on three prior reapportionment efforts) Ralph Regula know?

Again, from The Alliance Review:

"This plan is going to cause a lot of confusion for constituents," said Regula, who sat in on three redistricting plans during his tenure as a U.S. representative but said he never remembers a plan "this gross."

"Part of the job of a representative is to be an ombudsmen between the people and government agencies," continued Regula. "The people of Stark County won't know who to call. This plan will make it very difficult for the people. They shouldn't need a GPS to figure out who their representative to Congress is."

It is yet to be determined what Hagan's "new" district will be when the Ohio Apportionment Board gets its work done on October 5th.

She will not be allowed by Ohio's election rules to run "as for re-election." Rather, she will have to run for "retention" inasmuch as she has never been elected to any public office.

One thing for sure.  Whomever runs against her should make one of a number of issues against her be her support for diluting the power of Stark County in Washington.

Some kind representative she is!

TENS OF THOUSANDS OF STARK TAX DOLLARS GO TO SUPPORT THE STATE OF OHIO AUDITOR ("SOA"). INTERESTING, NO? SOA FAILED TO SPOT FRUSTACI THEFT FOR BETTER PART OF SIX (6) YEARS. REPOSITORY FAILS TO SPOT SOA REQUEST FOR A BETTER THAN 50% AUDITING FEE INCREASE "IMPOSED" ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS?

Unless the SCPR has missed something, it appears that the Canton Repository and other mainstream media (with their Columbus news bureaus - oops, forgot, The Rep no longer has a Columbus presence) completely missed (before it happened) a state of Ohio Auditor (SOA) per hour fees increase (from $24 to $41).

Here is an e-mail between The Report and The Columbus Dispatch reporter who wrote the story (in gold color).

RE: Locals criticize state auditor for raising fees

Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:04 AM

From:

"Cathy Candisky" <ccandisk@dispatch.com>

To:

"'Martin Olson'" <tramols@att.net>

Mr. Olson –

 

I have not written anything about this issue before today’s article and am personally unaware of anything in the Dispatch previous to that.

 

 

-Cathy Candisk

 

---

From: Martin Olson [mailto:tramols@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:38 AM
To: Cathy Candisky
Subject: Locals criticize state auditor for raising fees

 

Ms. Candisky: Martin Olson here of the Stark County Political Report. Just read the above-reference article.  What I am curious about is what information did the Columbus Dispatch put out to the general public pre 9/6/2011 hearing and pre 9/12/2011 meeting that the auditor's fee increase was in the offing. I'd appreciate your response. Martin Olson Stark County Political Report http://starkpoliticalreport.blogspot.com tramols@att.net 330 499 0465

Shocking!

As The Report sees it, the per hour SOA auditing increase is tantamount to a statewide tax increase because two out of three local government entities across the state (according to a Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review - JCARR - analysis) use the SOA for audits that are required annually if the government unit receives federal funds (otherwise, every two years).

And, of course, state Reps. Kirk Schuring (Republican - the 51st) and Christina Hagan (Republican - the 50th) mentioned nary a word about the additional drain of local tax dollars (in addition to a 50% loss of local government funding and 100% of estate tax revenues).

So while local governments pay the additional fees, other sorely needed local projects will go unfunded. If residents want the project/programs, they will have to pass a revenue raising measures (i.e. some sort of tax increase) at the school, village, township or city level of government.

Politicians like to say that fee increases are not tax increases.  Democrat Ted Strickland during his time as governor raised fees across various agencies of state government by some $36 million but used political sophistry to deny that the fee increases were in reality tax increases.

Statehouse Republicans scoffed at his disclaimer.  But now that the shoe is on the other foot, guess what Republicans are doing?  Of course, parroting the Strickland line.

The Report hates to keep saying this, but the general public is not buying it from either side and are increasingly saying "a pox on both of their houses."  And the alienation between the governors and the governed grows.  The governors are bringing public incorrigibility on themselves.  The Report does not want to hear complaints from public officials about the cantankerousness of the citizenry.

And because the likes of The Repository, The Columbus Dispatch et al appear to have been asleep at the switch on August 2nd, the measure sweep through with barely a protest.  A public hearing was held on September 6th in Columbus.  Who in Stark County courtesy of The Rep knew about it?  Moreover, at a regular meeting of JCARR on September 12th, the fee increase went through because there was no objection and hence no vote to stop it.  Had there been a motion, it would have taken six of the ten legislators to return the measure to the Ohio General Assembly for an up or down vote on the measure.

The SCPR spoke with a Stark County local school district treasurer and learned the district paid the SOA about $26,000 last year at the old rates.  So the question that The Report has is this:  does the SOA fee increase mean about $40,000 to $45,000 this year?  Magnify the increase over 16 other school districts as well as over villages, townships and cities and local taxpayer money draining out of Stark County becomes very large indeed!

As the rule change will not be implemented until October 17th at the earliest, no one can say for sure right now what the final number on Stark County based taxpayer dollars which will be emigrating to Columbus.

Isn't a bit more than ironic that local governments get massive tax cuts from state government and to add insult to injury, local governments are a very undemocratic and unaccountable way have "imposed" on them the obligation to prop up an agency of state government, to wit:  the State of Ohio Auditor's office.

Here in Stark County we, in light of the theft of upwards of $3 million from the Stark County treasury over about a five (5) to six (6) year span right "under the noses' of State of Ohio Auditors, should love this quote out of The Dispatch's article on the increase, to wit:

Yes, Auditor Yost, your department (under now Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor) did a splendid job of catching "sloppy accounting, mismanagement and fraud" here in Stark County (sarcasm, of course)!!!

It would have been nice to have had an opportunity for Stark Countians, in particular, to have had the opportunity to weigh-in on Yost's ramrodded through increase.  But, as we now know, the mainstream media was asleep at the switch.

On the local front, the SCPR likes to be helpful to the mainstream media whenever possible.

For the benefits of Gauger et al, at The Repository, here is a graphic with a JCARR url on it so that The Rep can be put on the mailing list of JCARR so there is not a repeat of the apparent failure by Stark County's only countywide newspaper to let Stark Countians know about the JCARR action BEFORE IT HAPPENS.

Though only a staff of one, The Report will be keeping an eye on the JCARR mailing so that Stark Countians can be informed about the local ramifications of state of Ohio actions.