A "SLIP OF THE TONGUE" BY A MASSILLON GOV'T OFFICIAL ON I.D. OF POTENTIAL AFFINITY SUCCESSORS?

UPDATE ON SATURDAY (0825/2018)
 $389,700 MORE IN APPROPRIATION ON AFFINITY EXPENSES
(See below main graphic)

TWO CLEVELAND AREA HOSPITAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE RUNNING TO WORK A DEAL WITH MASSILLON GOVERNMENT ON THE AFFINITY FACILITIES?

On August 21st, the Massillon Independent published an article regarding the identity of "Three groups vying to take over closed Affinity hospital."

Here are a few sentences from the article:

Catazaro-Perry declined to name the three entities making private, separate pitches to the city, and wouldn’t say whether any group is based in Stark County or Ohio. 

Privacy is paramount during the negotiations, she said while citing the city’s ongoing contract with the law firm Tzangas, Plakas and Mannos to ensure attorney-client privilege, thus keeping talks confidential. 

“If we share any specific information (or name them) publicly, a company can walk away,” the mayor said. “But we’re heading in the right direction.”

So the identity of the groups slipping out into the general public could only have come from somebody in Massillon government, no?

So one can imagine the astonishment of this blogger that (August 23, 2018) when in an "out-of-Stark-County-venue" heard two hospital industry employees talking (talkers) about by name what one said was the identity of two of the three groups "vying to take over Affinity hospital."

There was no indication whatsoever in that conversation that the topic of the conversation was "forbidden to be talked about" from the talker's source nor was the revelation shared in "hushed" tones.  Any of estimated six to eight other employees and others in the vicinity of the talkers discussion could easily has overheard the conversation.

To the SCPR that the identity of the Affinity pursuing groups (or, two of them) was being so openly and loudly talked about indicates that somebody in Massillon government has shared ultimately the source.

All of which is to point out the futility of governments and private sector entities of trying to keep the government's respective general publics"out-of-the-loop" on information.

The SCPR is highly skeptical of Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry's:   “If we share any specific information (or name them) publicly, a company can walk away.” 

Of course, anything can happen whether or not the company's names are generally know by the public or not.  What a ridiculous statement by a seeming disingenuous mayor.

Such (Catazaro-Perry's "can" statement) is not a good enough basis on which Massillon government should be withholding information from the taxpaying/voting public.

It seems to the SCPR that from the get-go Massillon government has rushed to do things re: Affinity which may have been unwise from the public interest standpoint and the danger in the current "secrecy mode" is that Massillon's citizens may once again (for lack of information) be brought up on the short end of the "financial stick."

From an April 29, 2018 SCPR blog:

It will be interesting to see whether or not the information that The Stark County Political Report has as to the specific identity of Cleveland-area-based (two of the three entities interested in picking up where Affinity left off) is accurate.

Irrespective of the identity factor, the take-away for Massillonians ought to be "Beware of Agreement(s) made Behind Closed-to-the-Public Doors" and then rushed through Council without the public having had the opportunity to thoroughly vet the quality of any such agreement(s).

The Report's experience is that it is government that wants to hide as much as possible the details of a really bad agreement for its taxpaying public when that government is between a self created "rock and hard place" and needs to make a deal; any deal.

When citizens apply for government jobs, they are subject to be discovered by name by Ohio's Open Records law.   Some folks do not apply for fear of being identified as thinking about leaving their current jobs.  In the private sector, anonymity can be and often is accorded to applicants.

In the public sector, there should precious little that the public is not fully informed upon.  Unless there is compelling proof that revelation of a private sector entity (by specific name) interest in working a deal with government at any level would likely compromise that entity's ability to compete, there should be no sheltering of the name of that entity.

The SCPR suspects that Massillon is on the cusp of making a bad deal for the Massillon taxpaying citizen in having bought a "pig in a poke" in settlement of its dispute in the closing of Affinity.

With all the secrecy surrounding current negotiations, Massillonians ought to be worrying about Massillon government making a bad deal for Massillon.

Secrecy and "rush to judgments" (e.g. a hurry up to get Council approval of any tentative agreement made) go hand-in-hand in foisting on the taxpaying public some really bad deals.

Massillonians needed to be leery of their own government!