UPDATE: TUESDAY, 12/11/2018
FOX & TOP NC OFFICIALS BY PAY
PAYMENTS TO OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL DURING FOX TERM AS LAW DIRECTOR
(December 11, 2018 1:15 p.m.)
The fact of the matter is that this blogger sent the inquiry to the "wrong" Peters and hereby publicly apologizes to President Peters of North Canton government for incorrectly attributing to him a failure to respond when he didn't get the e-mailed question in the first place.
In bringing the matter to this blogger's attention, Peters stated that he never failed to respond to a SCPR inquiry.
Such is not the recollection of this blogger.
While generally Peters has been responsive to The Report's inquiries (a few of the members of council have not been); there have been a few occasions over which Peters has been a member of Council in which there has been no response which undoubtedly was a factor in this blogger presuming that such was the case in this instance and prompted the admonition which has been retracted because of the inadvertent failure of this blogger to get the e-mail to the correct party from whom a response is desired.
Of course, Peters knows about the inquiry now by virtue of having read this blog as evidenced by his e-mail to the SCPR alerting this blogger to the fact that he had not received the inquiry.
The Report immediately generated this correction and renewed the request for an answer to the question posed in the erroneously directed e-mail.
To date, the SCPR has not received an answer to the question posed.
In the "alerting" e-mail (he did not respond to the question posed in the e-mail), Peters said going forward he would rethink whether or not to respond to SCPR questions.
So the question becomes, has Peters decided to punish the North Canton citizens right to know through media (i.e. specifically the SCPR) questioning because of the errantly directed original e-mail?
If so, is it not appropriate for the reading public and this blogger to surmise that a correction/retraction was a but too quickly published in the sense of presuming that President Peters would accept the fact of the misdirected e-mail.
Please answer the question President Peters!
Otherwise, the original chastisement is readopted.
And the SCPR will be submitting additional questions over time so that the North Canton public gets answers to council's handing of the public's business.
Answer to question: Peters says he did not direct Law Director Tim Fox to apologize to Citizen Osborne. He says Fox did it on his own.
From Wikipedia:
The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals, ensured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791).
Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ensures the right to petition to the European Parliament.[1]
The right can be traced back to the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany,[2] the Bill of Rights 1689, the Petition of Right (1628), and Magna Carta (1215). (emphasis added)
Yes, "redress of grievances" is traceable back to the year 1215, but it appears to The Stark County Political Report that North Canton City Council members "grind their 'collective' teeth" as North Canton citizens dare to tell them and the North Canton administration and a glaring Law Director Tim Fox that all is not right with North Canton government.
LINKS
Law Director Fox, the SCPR thinks, was hired (after, by the way, serving ever so briefly as Ward 3 councilperson; a post now held by Stephanie Werren) by council to, as his top priority mandate from Council, to "handle" those "pesky" citizens who meeting after meeting after meeting are wont to clutch the "Recognition of Visitors" (which the SCPR prefers to call "Public Speaks") designated lecture to deliver stinging indictments on how North Canton government governs the city.
While the SCPR believes that most members are so, so, so insecure that it shakes their self-confidence and generates ego threatening "insecurity" in the core of their innermost being to be critiqued.
The solution for "it comes with the territory" disagreed with local legislators who cannot hand the heat, is for them to get off Council.
Political dissent, is, of course, enshrined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution with a parallel in the Ohio Constitution.
It seems that a particular target of Fox's has been for North Canton city council member Chuck Osborne. It appears that Osborne responds in kind.
Let it be said that the SCPR does think that Chuck Osborne on occasion does get "out-of-hand" on occasion when he addresses Council, Mayor David Held and the rest of the North Canton administration.
And, on several occasions, he has been removed at the direction of multiple Council presidents.
Osborne tells the SCPR that he was apologized to by Fox after the meeting on November 26th. Moreover, Osborne says that Fox was directed to do so by President Peters.
The Report has e-mailed Peters to determine whether or not he asked Fox to apologize. (Correction: email to the wrong Peters)
To give readers some insight to what appears to be the pettiness of Peters (likely bristling from past SCPR of his performance as president of Council) in answering the simplest of questions, here is the SCPR's email to him, to wit:
The text of the incorrectly address e-mail:
Martin Olson <tramols@att.net>
To: Jeff Peters
Dec 9 at 9:28 AM
McCleaster says he did not contact you as reported to me by Mr. Osborne re: the Planning Commission meeting.
A corollary question:
Did you direct LD Fox to apologize to Osborne on 11/26?
... .
In view the mistake in addressing the question, this blogger hereby retracts the following commentary.
If Osborne's account is accurate, the apology should not have been a one-on-one apology to Osborne but rather a "on-the-record" during Council meeting apology to the North Canton public.
If Fox did in fact apologize to Osborne on the 26th, his contriteness appears to not have lasted long.
A source independent of Osborne has confirmed to the SCPR that during a break of a Planning Commission meeting, Fox, apparently uncomfortable of Osborne's proximity to a discussion that Fox was having with three Planning Commission members lashed out at Oborne on the issue of proximity by calling him a "jackass."
A case can be made that Fox more fits the billing of being a "jackass" rather than Osborne.
For Law Director Fox to have used such language in relation to a North Canton citizen is certainly "conduct unbecoming of an 'appointed' officer" who earns $91,354 annually courtesy of North Canton's taxpayers
Calling a citizen a "jackass" should not be abided by North Canton Council, the part of North Canton government that hired him back in 2012.
The person in North Canton government that the Council president and the at-large and ward council members ought to be modeling is Mayor David Held.
Held has been the target over his years in North Canton government in public in a manner, to say the least, has been vitriolic.
Nevertheless, Held persists in recognizing the value of likes of Osborne even in the face of vitriol in bringing to the attention of government his grievances which he (Osborne) thinks needs "fixin."
Held himself has told the SCPR about his first-hand experience in being handled brusquely (former mayor Tom Rice) without recourse when he was the North Canton city administrator. Ultimately, he was vindicated in running for and being elected mayor of North Canton.
Moreover, earlier his year Held himself stood front and center at a meeting of Strengthening Stark and upbraided Professional Football Hall of Fame officialdom with suspicions for their (actually Stu Lichter of IRG and HOF Village LLC) handling of federal government financing (i.e. EB 5 Visa funding) that he had reason to believe had migrated from the North Canton Hoover rehab project into monies being used to fund the estimated $1 billion Hall of Fame Village (expansion) Project.
Here is the video of Held in action.
Indeed, Held is a model for Council to follow in the sense of valuing a "the King has not clothes on" approach to holding government at all levels accountable.
The citizen-activist contenders with Council and Law Director Fox are apparently taking a new tact in trying to rein Fox in.
They have been making the case to the SCPR that Fox has been shed by North Canton government of a number of activities/duties and therefore a "full-time" law director is not needed.
The question that this blogger has is this:
What will making Tim Fox part-time accomplish?
Yes, such a change could drive him back into the private sector for full-time employment BUT isn't it likely he remains as North Canton's law director and will thereby continue a presence at Council meetings to be Council's enforcer in "chilling" citizens seeking "redress of grievances" vis-a-vis North Canton government.
Along these lines, the only "effective" remedy to making the law director position part-time is to farm out the position to the private bar with a proviso that nobody with connections to North Canton government in any way, shape or form would be considered for hire.
Moreover, a part of the contract language should be included that forbids legal counsel from directly engaging citizens using "Public Speaks" and only being a part of North Canton government process in answering the questions of the Council president or members of Council with regard to the law that pertains to Council/citizen dialogue.
Nowhere in the "official duties" list for the North Canton law director, does "shut down public dissent" on aspects of North Canton governance appear, to wit:
Director of Law.
A Director of Law shall be appointed by Council as legal counsel for all divisions of the municipality in connection with municipal affairs and may be removed at any time by an affirmative vote of four (4) Council members.
The Director of Law shall be an attorney-at-law admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, and shall have engaged in active practice in excess of five (5) years prior to appointment.
Assistants may be provided by Council.
Essential Duties:
Represents the City Council, Mayor and all Department Heads in all administrative and legal proceedings ranging from federal to municipal matters.
Manages claims on behalf of, and against the City.
Participates in all City Council meetings, CIC, Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeal’s meetings.
Provides legal advice to City department heads and other City employees in regard to their official duties and responsibilities.
Inspects and approves contracts, bonds and policies in which the City is involved.
Drafts and reviews ordinances, resolutions, deeds, easements, agreements and other legal documents for the City Council, Mayor, Administrator and other City officials.
Investigates and makes recommendations to the City Council on cases for and against the City.
Renders verbal and written opinions to City Officials.
Communicates legal policies, procedures and decisions to the City Council, City and officials, and the general public.
Assists Department Heads to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully performed.
Performs other duties as directed by a majority of Council or provided for under the City Charter.
Works closely with outside hired attorneys, the Clerk of Council, the City Administrator and the Finance Director to gather information to provide to Council.
Activist citizens have identified the following as being legal job functions which are no longer being done by Fox.
North Canton Law Director is no longer responsible for --
1. collection of delinquent income taxes
2. unresolved nuisance violations (now forwarded to Municipal Court)
3. North Canton no longer has a Mayors Court
4. recent lawsuits (North Ridge & water board) have been outsourced to private law firms
5. labor negotiation
Of course, the immediate question is whether or not Fox's salary has been reduced to account for the lighter workload he has?
Moreover, how much more is North Canton government paying for others to do what Fox formerly did (reference the list above) at his September, 2018 hire.
And there is this from a commenter on what work Fox continues to do, to wit:
It is strongly recommended the Law Director follow the Charter and provide legal counsel upon request, and not insert himself into daily functions and decision making of the divisions of the municipality.
No comments:
Post a Comment