PART II: SCPR MULTI-PART SERIES ON TOM BERNABEI'S RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT

VIDEOS

ENCORE PRESENTATION

Commissioner Janet Creighton

Talks About Dancing and Singing

in Response to Bernabei Filing

====================

Bernabei Addresses

Creighton Support

On Sunday, The Stark County Political Report began a multi-part series on the filing on Monday, May 4, 2015 (the day before the Stark County political subdivision primary election) by sitting Stark County Commissioner Thomas Bernabei as an "independent' candidate for mayor of Canton.

Bernabei, had, prior to his making moves over the past week or so to position himself as a political "independent," been a lifelong Democrat.

Back in March, 2014 in an Alliance Review profile of Commissioner Bernabei, Stephanie Ujhelyi wrote in part:

"Yes, I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who serves with two Republicans. I'm not a closet Republican -- although some infer that. However, ultimately (getting the job done) is about hard work, sound management principles and hiring the best people as well as finding the middle ground ... "

Mind you, not just a Democrat.  But a "dyed-in-the-wool Democrat."

Kind of reminds you of Nancy Pelosi, - a "dyed-in-the-wool" kind of Democrat that comes to the mind of many of us, no?

Can you imagine her suddenly announcing she's has had a conversion and has become - not a Republican, but rather an "independent?"

Probably not.

And undoubtedly Democrats who have known Commissioner Bernabei for years and years are disbelieving and therein lies the rub for his pulling off a Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) certification that he has done so lawfully.

It will be interesting to note how the vote goes.

The Republicans to certify; the Democrat not to certify?

Republican secretary of state Jon Husted being a guy who is on record being in favor of "letting the people vote" breaks a tie in favor of a Democrat (err "independent") once again?

Below are links to blogs done by the SCPR on the question of whether or not Bernabei would in fact file as an "independent."

• May 6, 2015, Part 1, SCPR Multi-part Series ... 
• May 5, 2015, Collateral Damage, Bernabei filing ...
• May 4, 2015, Breaking News !!! Bernabei files ...
• May 4, 2015, Is Bernabei running ... 
• May 4, 2015, A Persistent Rumor ... 

Later on in this series, you will see/hear Bernabei's take on the issues (ditching his political party affiliating/his residency) of his having filed and whether or not he thinks his candidacy "will fly."

Months ago, the SCPR received a tip from a highly reliable source that Bernabei was thinking about running against Canton mayor William J. Healy, II (for whom he had served as service director/chief of staff January, 2008 through January 2009 [unceremoniously fired in January, 2009]) presumably in the 2015 Democratic primary.

On being asked about the speculation by yours truly, Bernabei merely laughed the suggestion off.

And the SCPR thinks that he was not spoofing The Report nor Cantonians in making the denial at the time of the posed question.

Obviously, things have changed.

One who has not masked her enthusiasm on the prospect of a Bernabei candidacy as an "independent" candidate for mayor this coming November has been fellow Republican Commissioner Janet Weir Creighton.

She and several other notable Stark County Republicans were among the 16 circulators circulating petitions (collecting some 267 signatures) on Saturday and Sunday a week ago from this past weekend.



Note the list included former Creighton administration officials:

• A.R. "Chip" Conde (ran against Healy in 2011 and is currently employed by Stark County Auditor Alan Harold), and
• Joseph Concatto (currently is [on reduced hours basis] and over he past several years has been StarkCounty's 9-1-1 CAD project manager),

Auditor Alan Harold (a staunch Republican) also circulated a petition for Bernabei.

The Stark County "organized GOP" has no candidate in Canton's November 3, 2015 mayoralty race.

However, with Creighton, Conde, Concatto and Harold being involved in Bernabei's candidacy; some might think of Bernabei as being the de facto Republican candidate?

CREIGHTON'S PETITION

CONDE PETITION

CONCATTO PETITION

HAROLD PETITION

As cited above (Ujhelyi's article), Bernabei himself understands that with some Democratic leaders (i.e. Healy and company) he looks like a Republican.

His having key Republican leaders circulate his petitions adds credibility to the pro-Healy Dems (and perhaps even other Democrats) likely claim that he is a de facto Republican.

There were two noteworth Democrats who circulated for Bernabei:

REINBOLD PETITION

The only major Democratic Stark County officeholder known so far to be supporting Bernabei's "independent" run is Stark County Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold.

The SCPR thinks that others will surface over the next five months (assuming he overcomes legal challenges) and act as a counter to the likely forthcoming claim that Bernabei is nothing but a Republican hiding under the "independent" label.

HAWK PETITION

Canton Councilman Greg Hawk (Ward 1) that is.

Somewhat of a surprise to The Report inasmuch as this is what yours truly wrote in a recent blog:

Councilman Greg Hawk part of an effort to salvage the mayoralty of William J. Healy, II?

You have to be kidding?

For it was Healy who had to be behind the move that put Hawk out of his treasured chairmanship of council's finance committee in the aftermath of the November, 2011 elections, no?" 

Answer:  You know the adage - "politics makes for strange bedfellows."

And there is more.

A SCPR source says "no way" was Greg Hawk a part of the Mack and Mario effort.

Hawk is said to have wanted to be Canton treasurer when Bob Schirack announced that he was resigning before the end of his term in 2013.  Had he done so, Councilman Hawk, being the solid Democrat he is, stood a good chance to be appointed treasurer over Kim Perez and thereby get a head start on Perez in his quest to get the nomination in May, 2013 in the Democratic primary election.

However, The Report's source says that Mayor Healy intervened to persuade Schirack to stay on until the end of this term (probably because of the Hawk/Healy historic animus) and that consequently Hawk holds a grudge against the mayor.

That could be, but the SCPR has another source saying that as between Perez and Healy (remember the Bernabei candidacy did not get rolling until May 3rd and 4th), Hawk loathed Perez more than Healy.

After all, Kim Perez is the treasurer of Canton.  A position that Hawk once coveted.

Perez had to know that Hawk very much wanted to be Canton's treasurer.  But of course Kim Perez's first priority is Kim Perez.

Why Healy's intervention?

Probably to do Perez a favor in helping him land a position, any position, after losing his county auditor spot to Alan Harold and thereby - hopefully - dissuade him from running for mayor, no?

That's how the SCPR thinks Healy operates.

Perez probably was "all too happy" to let Healy think that being treasurer is all he cared about being.

These two deserve each other.

Hopefully, the people of Canton won't have to have either.

BACK TO THE CREIGHTON FACTOR

Creighton, who the SCPR considers as being Stark County's foremost and powerful Republican in terms of proven vote-getting ability on the basis of her having been elected/re-elected:

• as county recorder, 
• as county auditor, 
• as mayor of Canton (2004-2007), and 
• as a Stark County commissioner 

It indeed was somewhat surprising that she lost to William J. Healy, II in November, 2007 as she sought a second term as mayor.

But there is one big reason why it should not have been surprising.

Registered Democrats as part of the body politic of Canton out number Republicans about 9 to 1.

A sign that the Healy defeat (or perhaps any Democratic candidate including a second run by long time hugely successful candidate in Canton proper William Smuckler) was to be seen in the numbers she won by over the non-charismatic Smuckler in November, 2003.

Had she lost to Smuckler in 2003, she would not have liked it, of course, but The Report thinks she respects Smuckler and therefore would not have harbored the bitter feelings the SCPR thinks she still has as a consequence of her lost to him in November, 2007.

The Report believes Creighton does not respect Healy by virtue of his being perceived by herself and many other Cantonians and Stark Countians as being a consummate, oily politician with state-of-the-political-art-skills at spinning this or that screw up on his conduct as mayor individually and in his role as the city's chief executive.

Moreover, for quite a time after Healy took over as mayor, guess who he blamed for "all that ails" Canton?

Of course, the immediate preceding mayor:  Janet Weir Creighton!

Undoubtedly, in the days preceding their both being elected as county commissioners in November, 2010 in a "save Stark County mode" growing out a "crisis of confidence" in Stark County government as a consequence of what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has termed as being "Zeiglergate" (LINK), Creighton as a local government official interacted from time-to-time with one Thomas Bernabei.

Little did they know in those days that one day they would come to share a common bond of hatred of "all things William J. Healy, II."

But with Bernabei's having worked for Healy as service director and chief of staff and his humiliating firing in January, 2009 and with Creighton reeling from her 2007 polls defeat to Healy;  it was bound to happen that as commissioners, though of different political party identities, they would unite in their disdain for Canton's current mayor.

So it should not be surprising that Creighton as shown in yesterday's blog and repeated in today's blog a SCPR video showing the ebullience she brought to last Wednesday's regular commissioners' meeting as evidenced in her celebrating the Bernabei filing on the prior Monday as an "independent" candidate for mayor.

As one of the circulators and likely a coordinating factor in obtaining other Republicans (as noted above) to participate in circulating Bernabei petitions over last weekend, Janet Creighton is likely to be a major player in asking Cantonians to vote for "independent" candidate Thomas Bernabei for mayor should he survive legal challenges that are sure to come.

And here is a video of what Bernabei had to say in last Wednesday's interview as to Creighton's involvement in his effort.

It appears that Bernabei and Creighton are attempting to do for Canton what they have teamed up to do for Stark County in restoring public confidence in local government processes and substance.

In 2010, it was Stark County government involving both of them running for office.

In 2015, it is Canton government with Tom Bernabei being the point person.

Tomorrow's SCPR blog:  Part III - "How Bernabei came to decide to run and how the 'last minute' effort unfolded."

WARD 9 COUNCILMAN FRANK MORRIS: THE ONESTO TIF - A CASE OF CANTON CITY COUNCIL MAKING THE RICH RICHER! UNNECESSARILY?

VIDEOS

Deputy Mayor Fonda Williams

on

the

Onesto Loffs

Tax Incentive Financing

=======================

COUNCIL MEMBERS

"SOUND OFF"

ON

TIF ISSUE

SMUCKLER

BABCOCK

FISHER

MORRIS

WEST

MARIOL

SCHULMAN 

HAWK

=======================

LAW DIRECTOR

JOE MARTUCCIO

=======================

MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY, II

=======================

MORRIS

POST-MEETING INTERVIEW

======================= 

In a YouTube published video made in 2008 (LINK, the source of his photo above), Steve Coon of Louisville (Stark County) makes an impressive presentation on the potential of a restored/reconfigured (1928 built, 1930 opened) Onesto Hotel (Wikipedia Commons photo credit LINK) which is sited in the core of downtown Canton at 2nd Street, NW & Cleveland Avenue.

Note:  The video was made available to the general public on YouTube "courtesy of Deloris Angeli from Plant Et Art and the Sadie M. Angeli Foundation."  The SCPR encourages readers to pause and view the video.

The project is billed on the YouTube site as being the "Historic Onesto Loffs Renovation - 2008."

According to Coon in the video, he paid $100,000 to acquire the building.

When he gets done, according to an "independent" audit ordered and paid for by the City of Canton, it will be worth $10.8 million when completed.

But if his optimism and projected occupancy rate of the 45 apartments that comprise the project prove accurate (93% in the first year, according to local media reports), it seems to the SCPR that Coon will net over $1 million yearly by 2020 and accordingly and seemingly will recover his personal and his company's funding/underwriting of the heavily taxpayer subsidized project in just a few years.

Coon, who has been restoring historic buildings for over 30 years,  back in 2012 completed what appears to be a similar restoration in Hamilton, Ohio.

Along the way in proceeding on the Onesto project, Coon and his company will have had a lot of taxpayer support at the federal, state and local government levels.

So far, it appears (from local media reports) to the SCPR that he has received some $4.05 million in federal and state grants including a $1 million Clean Ohio grant for asbestos removal.

Coon specifically mentioned the Clean Ohio subsidy in the video referred to above.

And it looks like Canton is going to kick in:

• perhaps as much as another $2 million or so in the form of a proposed Tax Incentive Financing (TIF),
• 75% of property taxes returned to Coon's enterprise; 25% to local government entities for a 10 year period of time,
• as well as guaranteeing - in effect - via a city issued bond, a $2 million loan
• with the risk that the project does not pan out and the city might be left "holding the bag" or some portion thereof.

The SCPR thinks that Ward 9 Councilman Frank Morris, III may well be correct in his prediction (see video below) that Coon will complete the Onesto restoration EVEN IF Canton City Council decides not to do a TIF on the property.

If he is correct and a majority of his council fellows join him in voting down the proposed TIF, then Canton and various other Stark County political subdivisions could have the benefit of a $10.8 million fair market value property to draw $300,000, more or less, upon in property taxes annually to be divided accordingly a formula (effective tax rate) shown in a SCPR generated spreadsheet published later on in this blog.

If council approves the TIF, which is highly likely, then Stark's political subdivision by the SCPR's analysis see them only having about $70,000, more or less, annually to divide up.

While the SCPR agrees with Ward 1 Councilman Greg Hawk "in theory" it is better to get 25% of something, rather than 100% of nothing."

The "reality" seems to be that the Onesto rehab is likely "a done deal" in terms of going forward to completion - "no matter what,"  and consequently Canton's legislature may be giving Steve Coon and his enterprises "something (vitally needed taxpayer dollars to support vital local government services) for nothing."

The "reality" may be that the Onesto TIF is unnecessary and therefore to the tax revenue detriment of:

• Stark County government, 
• Canton city government itsef,
• the Canton Joint Recreation District
• the Stark Parks, 
• the Stark County District Library, and
• various mental health agencies and 
• children services.

At a work session of Canton City Council last Monday (January 5, 2015), there was a thoroughgoing discussion of the proposed TIF.

DEPUTY MAYOR FONDA WILLIAMS
 
Williams opens the discussion chaired by Ward 4 Councilwoman Chris Smith.

He describes and summarizes the general terms of the TIF and answers questions posed by council members.

COUNCILMAN BILL SMUCKLER

Does the "Urban Redevelopment TIF"  include the adjacent Bliss Tower and attendant parking garage?

COUNCILMAN JIMMY BABCOCK

Is the Onesto project being treated differently than the hotel that was recently constructed alongside of Interstate 77 south of Canton.

COUNCILMAN KEVIN FISHER

(CONTENDED BY COUNCILMEN HAWK & SMUCKLER on getting into matter of developer/union negotiations)

Does Canton have a history of doing TIFs?

How is that Mr. Coon terms the project as being "residential" when it comes to dealing with union wage rates (commercial mandating higher wages) but then "commercial"when it comes to a TIF inasmuch as residential properties are not eligible for TIF status?

COUNCILMAN FRANK MORRIS

(Councilman West joined-in on matter of improving "core" downtown Canton beyond one building)

Morris:  Why is Canton abiding a millionaire coming to council for a tax break after Canton government having already provided for a $2 million loan to his company on the same project?



COUNCILMAN JOHN MARIOL

Isn't it important to approve the Onesto TIF in order to enhance Coon's ability to repay the $2 million loan already provided to his company by Canton City Council?



COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN SCHULMAN

Isn't the key in approving the Onesto TIF to protect the $2 million loan investment already agreed to and to forward council's commitment to improving downtown Canton?

COUNCILMAN JIMMY BABOCK 
(a former Stark County auditor's office employee)

Is the high appraisal designed to provide more taxpayer dollars to Coon's company?




LAW DIRECTOR JOE MARTUCCIO

Explains the steps involved in approving the Onesto TIF.



COUNCILMAN GREG HAWK
(chairman of CCC Finance Committee)

Makes the point that 25% of something is far better than 100% of nothing, Mayor Healy agrees with him.

How about that!


MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY (his part in video)


SCPR question:  If council does not approve Onesto TIF, is it "a deal killer?"



COUNCILMAN MORRIS

Says a few councilpersons will join him in voting "no" on Onesto TIF.

If council would reject the TIF,  the Onesto project will still go forward to completion.

As the SCPR understands TIFs (be sure to take a look at this explanatory LINK) of this variety, Coon's company will receive 75% of property tax receipts calculated on the Canton City School District (CCSD, 00020) rate to spend on the restoration over the next 10 years. Assuming the Stark County auditor deems the independent appraisal ordered and paid for by Canton government to be an accurate "fair market value" statement of value, here is what the SCPR calculation looks like:

 


So, by the SCPR's calculation, the TIF could generate over $2 million additional for the Onesto restoration. On other side of the equation is how much in terms of absolute dollars (25% of the 35% taxable value assuming a fair market value of $10.8 million) remains to be distributed over the next 10 years to other Stark County political subdivisions (CCSD) recipients of property tax revenues. Here is the SCPR "projection" (note emphasis on "projection"):



  

Right now, these local governments get next to nothing. 

As Ward 1 Councilman Gregory Hawk said in last Monday's council work session:  "25% of something is better that 100% of nothing." And Mayor William J. Healy, II agrees with him. 

Morris did vote with the rest of council back on  September 15, 2014 (a 12 to 0 vote) in agreeing to the issuance of a bond to provide Historic Onesto, LLC (a Coon company) with a $2,000,000 loan to use in completing the Onesto Loffs, to wit:

The Director of Public Service, on behalf of the City of Canton, is authorized and directed to enter into an interest bearing loan agreement in a principal amount not to exceed $2,000,000.00 with Historic Onesto, LLC in order to provide gap financing for Phase One of the Historic Onesto, LLC Redevelopment Project. 

The execution of said loan agreement is contingent upon passage of pending supplemental legislation which shall provide for the initial designated capital funding, the creation of loan fund(s), with necessary appropriations, and the issuance of bond anticipation notes.

The interest rate shall be determined based on what rate the city shall be obligated to pay plus costs, and basis points.  The final interest rate shall be defined and will be included in all supplemental legislation

It appears to the SCPR that the TIF will pass, but Morris says he will not be among those voting "aye." 

Morris' point of how well the entrepreneural class does at the public trough appeals to the SCPR in that one that the SCPR thinks deserves very careful consideration. 

Council should approve the Onesto TIF:

• if BUT FOR the TIF, the Onesto project will not be completed, then
• Should a councilperson be satisfied that BUT FOR  is NOT the case, he/she needs to go one step further (before approving the TIF) and consider:
• the number, quality of and duration of jobs the project will generate,
• the degree of aesthetic enhancement to downtown Canton, and
• the value in putting the Onesto back on the property tax rolls beyond 2025 at 100% of the revenues goong to the political subdivision beneficiaries 

Moreover, in this step (assuming the analysis gets beyond the BUT FOR test), members need to ask whether the overall benefit benefit substantially outweighs

• the risk of the possibility that the project might fail and the city loses upwards of $2 million on a loan gone bad, and 
• the additional loss of some $2 million plus in a TIF that would be better spent on other projects (i.e. "the opportunity cost." 

In the event that the Onesto would be completed anyway should the TIF not be approved by council and council goes and approves it nonetheless, such is somewhat reminiscent of North Canton Council (the SCPR's very favorite Stark County city council) action in May, 2009 approving a $6,600 abatement without the company having asked for it in the first place.

Undoubtedly, Stark County taxpayers think it is hunky-dory for council persons to give away taxpayer money either when unasked for or not a difference maker as to whether a economic development project goes forward.

Maybe Canton's council persons who are about to approve the Onesto transaction (assuming it would go forward without the TIF) relate to former North Canton councilman (in fact, council president at the time) Daryl Revoldt's "we want them to feel loved" sentiment?

There is of course one important difference between the North Canton situation and the Canton one.  Steve Coon very much wants the TIF.  And he has some very important and powerful people in Canton government who support his quest.

Of course, these are taxpayer dollars; not the personal dollars of the decision making government officials involved.

Go figure! no?

One final point on the Onesto valuation, the SCPR thinks, is at play.

And that is the role of Stark County auditor Alan Harold.

The auditor's office will make the determination of what the fair market value of a restored Onesto will be.

This is how Harold put it in an e-mail to the SCPR's question about the process, posed on Friday:

Martin - thanks for the note.  I have not seen an appraisal so I don't want to opine on its purpose or any of its conclusions.

As to what the values we will assign to the parcel, the staff is still completing its work (and, coincidentally, had a site visit today).  The next value we set will be for 1/1/2015 and that will be made available sometime mid-summer.

So, what's the point?

Well, Harold, not that many years ago worked for Steve Coon's company.

Harold had worked at Huntington Bank.

In 2007/2008, he got the itch to run for Stark County treasurer.

In hindsight, there are undoubtedly many Stark County officials (including Democratic officials) who wished that he would have run in 2008 and won.

But, as the SCPR has written in prior blogs, it appears that political pressure was brought to bear on Harold in 2008 (a staunch Republican) by high up Huntington Bank officials to condition Harold's continuing employment with the bank on his not taking on the-then treasurer Gary D. Zeigler.

Of course, we all know the rest of the story.

For those readers who are new to the SCPR or new to Stark County, here is a LINK for you to catch up on 2009 through 2011 developments in the Stark County treasurer's office)

Nobody can blame Harold for backing out in face of the Huntington Bank hierarchy's edict.

Interesting enough, Harold decided to move on from Huntington and went to work for Coon's company.

As events from what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley coined as being "Zeiglergate" unfolded,  Harold decided to run against one-time Zeigler political pal Kim Perez for county auditor.

And in November, 2010 he was elected as county auditor.

The Report thinks very highly of Harold.

However, nobody gets by the scrutiny of The Stark County Political Report.

In view of the past employment connection between Harold and Coon's company, the SCPR thinks Harold should recuse his office from the Onesto valuation process.

He should ask another highly competent by reputation county auditor office with no connection whatsoever, past or present. with Coon or his commercial enterprises to make the determination of the fair market value of a fully restored Onesto.

Whatever value is assigned to the Onesto property must be constructed to stand the test of time and challenge.

Councilman Babcock, the SCPR thinks, implied in his line of question last Monday that it is in Coon's interest to have a "high" appraisal now so that he gets a return of more taxpayer dollars from the 75% TIF.

In ten years, the entire "taxable" (the 35% figure) valuation will revert to Stark County political subdivisions and the work done in 2015 needs to be well-founded enough that the increase inures to the benefit of those subdivisions.

Understandably, Coon or a successor business, playing the astute businessperson, might want to challenge the 2015 valuation a few years down the road.

And that's every taxpayer's right under the law of Ohio.

Accordingly, the work done now must be absolutely solid and not vulnerable to attack.

Again, the SCPR thinks Harold is a public official of very high character and would insist on thoroughgoing and documented standards being implemented in the Onesto fair market value determination process.

However, in view of his past Coon connection (chief of financial operations), his office should farm out the Onesto fair market value determination process.

A SCPR 2014 POLITICAL CAMPAIGN REPORT: ALAN HAROLD, A RISING STARK GOP STAR?

There is a saying in politics:  "Early money is like yeast."

The extract from Harold's recently filed pre-primary finance report shows that he, going into today's primary, has raised $33,860.00.

And that is no easy task for someone running for county office.

As we all know, the yeast raises the dough to be even more dough.

And it appears that Republican Stark County auditor Alan Harold has learned his political lessons and is not about to lose his grip on being Stark County auditor.

By comparison, his opponent come this November, Canton City Schools chief financial officer Jeff Gruber (a Democrat, of course), has raised only $2,620.00.

Gruber's campaign data is an SCPR extract taken from is recently filed report. Moreover, his photo is from a YouTube video.

 Jeff Gruber was hired as Canton City Schools' (CCS) chief fiscal officer in May, 2009 after having been the treasurer of R.G. Drage Career Technical Center for the two years preceeding his CCS hire.  And before the Drage stint, he had worked in the State of Ohio auditor's office for seven years.

Politically, it appears to the SCPR that Gruber is a novice and likely in for the political lesson of his life in his November match up with incumbent Alan Harold.

His principal political sponsors appear to be former Stark County commissioner and former long time Canton Municipal Court clerk of courts Tom Harmon and his wife Carlene (a former Nimishillen Township fiscal officer), both Democrats.

The early fund raising disparity is a  sign that the Gruber/Harold square off is likely to result on a lopsided general election victory for Harold.

The Stark County Political Report first ran into Alan Harold at former Democratic Congressman John Boccieri's campaign event (his opponent was Kirk Schuring [then a state senator]) at the Sunoco gasoline station located on West Tuscarawas back on June 27, 2008.

Harold was across the street (on the south side of Tuscarawas) with a bunch of Republican activists screaming (sound familiar) "Drill Baby Drill!"

At the time gasoline prices were skyrocketing and the Republicans were trying to make Boccieri into some kind of pro-environmentalist who was not interested in tapping into America's oil reserves.

From a November, 2012 SCPR blog:

In 2008, Harold was all set to run against then sitting Treasurer Gary Zeigler when at the last moment - sources tell the SCPR - Harold's employer at the time (Huntington Bank) told Harold that if the ran against Zeigler he would be fired.

In hindsight, it was a good thing that he did not run against Zeigler because there is no doubt to the SCPR that he would have lost "big time" to Zeigler in November, 2008.

Harold did  have another "political" bump in the road when he ran for and lost his bid for a seat on the Stark County Education Service Center board (note:  The Report's spouse is a member of that board).

But then what local civic activist Craig T. Conley tabbed as being "Zeiglergate" happened.

From a recent blog:

He [Harold] ousted Democrat Kim Perez in November, 2010 probably as a consequence of Perez being perceived by the Stark County voting public has having been "politically" too close to former Stark County treasurer Gary D. Zeigler who The Report thinks the public blames him for not having had administrative practices, procedures, polices and secure facilities in place so as to have prevented his former chief deputy treasurer Vince Frustaci from having stolen perhaps as much as upwards of $3 million in Stark County taxpayer money.

 So now in 2014 Harold has to run in "normal" political times.

How, the SCPR asks, is he likely to do?

As stated above, he is being a prudent politician and raising a ton of money and is generally perceived across Stark County as doing a excellent job as Stark County auditor.

Taking those qualities and combining them with running against political novice Gruber, The Report is projecting now (the date of the "primary" election) that Harold will make quick work of the Canton City Schools' chief operating officer in the upcoming general election.

The SCPR thinks Harold has positioned himself to be the successor (in the sense of being a member of a younger generation) to Stark County current "most popular Republican" (countywide); namely, Janet Weir Creighton.

Creighton is not done.

She is running for reelection (uncontested) for Stark County commissioner.  She, fellow Republican Richard Regula and Democrat Thomas Bernabei have done such a bang up job as commissioners restoring trust in county government that one Stark County political figure and official said to the SCPR yesterday that this board of commissioners is likely the best that Stark County has ever had.

The point is that if Alan Harold is eventually to fill the shoes of Janet Creighton when she retires from public life, he has a ways to go to be able to do so.

His largest task in that regard is "self-management."

He does have a tendency to "go off the reservation" in his zeal to be "the perfect" public official and his sometimes "over-the-top" Republicanism.

But he is relatively young.

The Report thinks he has a chance to become "the Republican go-to-guy" as he accumulates experience and wisdom.

Do not look for Harold to be Stark County auditor long.

As he gains stature, pressure will be brought to bear on him to carry the Republican banner for higher office either at the state or national level.

He certainly has to be impressing Stark County Republican pols in his fundraising prowess.

Just take a minute to scan this impressive list of about 160 donors (some repeats) in his accumulating his nearly $34,000 in pre-primary contributions:

(VIDEO) WRAP-UP ON SCPR SERIES ON 2014 STARK CO BUDGETING PROCESS

VIDEO
 BUDGET REVIEW

Marc Warner
Stark Co Ct. of Common Pleas 
Chief Administrator

Alan Harold
Stark County Audtior

Richard Regula
Stark County Commissioner

Rick DeHeer
Stark Co. Ct of Common Pleas
Family Division
Chief Administrator

UPDATE:  03/19/2014 AT 7:20 PM

Martin: (From Chris Nichols/5:30 PM)
...

There were a few minor adjustments from the Operational Budget numbers you saw last week, primarily with the Prosecutor (to reimburse for a Capital Purchase made earlier in the year), Sheriff (due to some updating to actuals from estimates for liability and vehicle insurance premiums), Clerk of Courts (for an unanticipated retirement) and the Common Pleas Court (to correct a minor calculation error).  In net, these two Appropriation Resolutions complete a total 2014 Operational Appropriation amount of $57,729,005 or just $8,378 more than the budget presented at last week's meeting.

That amount combined with the $3,200,000 Capital Budget provides a total 2014 Appropriated Budget amount of $60,929,005.

I have also updated (and attached) the Budget Presentation to show the final appropriation amounts for each department.

... .

Chris 


ORIGINAL BLOG

As "a public service" the SCPR brings to everyday Stark Countians a multi-part series (eight blogs in all) on the "proposed" (see disclaimer in graphic above) 2014 Stark County budget.

Today, The Report presents Volume labeled "Wrap-Up" of Stark County Commissioners' Budget Director Chris Nichols' 2014 Stark County "proposed" budget.

Readers of this blog to get a full appreciation of Nichols' presentation should make sure that they have read prior blogs in order as listed below:

1. Volume 1
2. Volume 2 
3. Volume 3 
4. Volume 4
5. Volume 5 
6. Volume 6 
7. Q&A, Commissioners Comments

In Volume 1, Commissioner Thomas Bernabei appears in the video and outlines the four (4) guidelines that he and fellow commissioners Janet Creighton and Richard Regula laid out to Nichols in formulating the 2014 budget, to wit:

1. The county must live within its means,
2. New revenue for the year must support the operation budget of the county through 2019,
3. Carry-over funds cannot be used to fund the day-to-day operations of government,
4. He must build a 2014 budget that forms a viable base on which budgets through 2019 can be realistically projected as being "sustainable budgets"

Today's blog features: (in the video at the end of this blog)

• Marc Warner, Stark County Court of Common Pleas chief administrator,
• Alan Harold, Stark County auditor,
• Richard Regula, Stark County commissioner, and
• Rick DeHeer, Stark County Court of Common Pleas - Family Division - chief administrator,

on their take on Budget Director Nichols' March 13, 2014 presentation featured in this SCPR series (Volumes 1 through 6) on the 2014 Stark County budgeting process.

The reviews are positive for Nichols and the commissioners but we are only in the base year (2014) of a five year span.

As the SCPR sees it, 2016 will be the "pivotal" year in which Nichols and the commissioners will first see the "tell-tale" signs of whether or not the budgeting work done in 2014 will result in a "sustainable" budget through 2019.

Meanwhile, the apt expression is:  "the jury is still out!"

(VIDEOS) CAN YOU FAULT AUDITOR ALAN HAROLD FOR NOT BEING WILLING TO ASSUME "FAMILY" LIABILITY RISK ON HIS HANDLING (AS PUBLIC OFFICIAL) OF STARK COUNTY'S BMV LICENSE PLATE OPERATION?

The political bitterness appears to remain with some who were part of the Kim Perez regime when the current Canton city treasurer was Stark County auditor (2005 through 2011).

In the November, 2004 Democrat Perez defeated former Stark County auditor Janet Creighton's pick (Brant Luther, current Stark County chief administrator) to succeed her as auditor.

In November 2003, Creighton (now Stark County commissioner) ran for and was elected mayor of Canton.

The Republicans had held the auditor's office under Creighton and her predecessors before Democratic interloper Perez upset Luther in 2004.

Stark County's organized Democrats were besides themselves with joy (especially, the-then chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr) when the Dems won the auditor's office which is one the of the largest offices in Stark County government and offers rich, rich opportunities for handing out political patronage jobs.

Life does not get any better for the likes of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

Well, unfortunately, for the Dems along came what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (a Republican) calls Zeiglergate.

Because he was perceived in the public mind as being a political "bosom-buddy" of Zeigler, Perez was one of the casualties of Zeiglergate and went down to defeat to Republican Alan Harold, Stark's current auditor.

And the Perez/Harold face-off was a bitter, bitter campaign with the highlight of Harold buying billboard space featuring a picture of Perez on an golf outing with Zeigler and former chief deputy Vince Frustaci [who was convicted in 2009 of having stolen upwards of $3 million from the county treasury).

Zeigler has never been implicated in the Frustaci theft but the SCPR believes that most Stark Countinans thought, as of the election of 2010, that he had not put effective policies, practices, programs and facility reform measures in place during his tenure as treasurer (beginning in 1999) to have, hopefully, prevented Frustaci's theft.

Coming full circle, Perez suffered electorally from a public perception that he was a "political pal" of Zeigler's.  Moreover, more than a few Stark Countians appear to believe that Perez should have spotted trouble in the county treasury (which it seems he did) and moved more aggressively than he is generally perceived to have done to bring his concerns to the attention of Stark County/State of Ohio authorities.

Ever since Perez was defeated (November, 2010), some of his former "political patronage-esque" appointees have been carping at Harold on one thing or another.

The Report thinks that the latest manifestation of "nipping at the heels" of Harold is an indication that some of Perez's lieutenants are still sore at Harold for having defeated Perez in 2010.

Notwithstanding what the SCPR believes to be a political motive, when approached by the Perez ally, The Report confronted Harold with the ally's question:  "How could Stark County auditor Harold give up on some $400,000 to $500,000 ($50,000 in net profits) in revenue to the county treasury?"

First, the background.

Yesterday, Auditor Harold was in to see the Stark County commissioners to describe and to explain his action of "abandoning" being deputy registration for the State of Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Bureau) in what is the Bureau's largest Stark County operation.



Afterwards, the SCPR cornered Harold outside the commissioners' office and asked him to explain to Stark Countians in greater detail than he provided the commissioners.



So what is the SCPR's conclusion?

To The Report it is understandable that Harold would not want to jeopardize his personal financial security in continuing as the deputy registrar.

While Ohio statutory law does hold him as well as any other public official liable for the loss of taxpayer funds in the administration of public office,  when the Bureau insisted that his wife join him in signing off on the bond required for one to be a deputy registrar, then that was quite a different matter.

Some public officials put their major family assets in the names of the spouses so that the family will not be wiped out if that official is held liable for the misfeasance/malfeasance of an employee or for some other basis that results in a loss of taxpayer funds.

But when the spouse is compelled to join in, that is a different matter and The Report believes that Harold is fully justified in not assuming such a risk.

On the face of it, a 10%, more or less, annual profit is "nothing to sneeze at," but when one digs into the details it often proves out that the "devil - indeed - is in the details."

If The Report was in Harold's shoes, its a "no-brainer" that in no way, shape or form, should a spouse  be subjected to liability for what may occur in the public workplace.

Some folks may think that a bond protects the liable party.

But it does not.  A bond does not function like insurance.

What happens is that the insurance/bonding company who issues the bond pays legally sufficient claims made on the bond but, in turn, goes after the person(s) bonded for indemnification for the amounts so paid.

A bond is not the equivalent of an insurance policy.

And the SCPR doubts there are many Stark Countians who would risk family assets.

At the end of the day, the Perez ally, in the judgment of the SCPR, is showing political comeuppance in complaining about Harold's action.

Such is the nature of politics, no?

And it is a game played by both political parties to the detriment of the public's confidence in county government, no?

(VIDEOS) COMMISSIONERS "KNUCKLE DOWN" ON DEPARTMENT HEADS & COUNTY EMPLOYEE RAISES

LAST UPDATE:  11:55 AM

UPDATE STATUS:  07:55 AM (ALL 2013 PAY RAISE ABOVE 2% POSTED)

UPDATE STATUS: "NEW" VIDEOS POSTED

VIDEOS

(NEW)

===================

CHRIS NICHOLS

STARK CO. BUDGET DIRECTOR

EXPLAINS

2014 BUDGETING PROCESS
(posted at 09:27 a.m.)

========================== 
ALAN HAROLD
JUSTFYING PAY RAISES 
TO
COMMISSIONERS
(posted at 11:55 a.m.)
 ==========================
 

From the time they took office, Thomas Bernabei (November, 2010) and Janet Crieghton (January, 2011), they, as county commissioners,  have brought a measure of austerity to Stark County government that the county has not seen in many of a moon.

But it has not been without a fight.

In June of 2011 they got into a huge fight with now retired Stark County Veterans Service (VSC) executive director Robert Toth over salary increases being handed out at the VSC.

In her famous "the bureaucrats upstairs" (see video below) spiel,  Commissioner Creighton excoriates the board of the VSC for having approved what she deemed tp be "excessive raises."  Moreover, former Chief County Administrator Mike Hanke can be seen reading a resolution whereby the commissioners go on record as opposing the increase.



Well, it is 2-1/2 years later but apparently little has changed insofar as the commissioners are concerned with the Veterans Services Commissioners.

Obviously, it is a touchy subject for the commissioners to deal with, but in the commissioner (Bernabei, Creighton and now former commission Pete Ferguson) instituted work session format begun when Bernabei and Creighton took office, the commissioners are digging deeper that probably any other board of commissioners in modern times have dug in their endeavor to find "government waste" and to root it out.

Moreover,  they have taken to "jawboning" independently elected department heads and other department heads not under their control into complying with commissioner established pay raise guidelines.  For 2014, that guideline is a maximum of 2%.

SCPR readers will equip themselves to better and more fully understand the county budget process if you take a few minutes to look at this video of Budget Director Chris Nichols explain the documents that he has obtained from each county department in a "more or less" common format.



As the commissioners gain experience and hear the "tales of woe" from many of the the department heads, to wit:

• employees have not had pay raises in 3, 4 or 5 years,
• pay raises are "a must" to prevent an exodus of employees,
• the pay raises do not come out of general fund money,
• such and such employee is critically important above all others in the operation of the department, and,
• the department is returning "unused" money from last fiscal year
• SCPR NOTE:  The commissioners suspect that in some cases department heads over request in a given year so that the are always returning money and thereby give the illusion they are being frugal

they are developing rejoinders that effective blunt the justifications all of which seem to be on a "list of reasons" that seems to be circulating among department heads as a sort of "cheat sheet" or "talking points" when a particular department head appears before the commissioners.

The commissioners have recently hired Canton Township trustee Chris Nichols as the second-in-command in the commissioners' office to get a handle on Stark County's budgeting process and to help the commissioners ensure that Stark Countians are "getting the 'best bang' for the Stark County taxpayer buck" that is doable.

The Stark County Political Report thinks that the commissioners effort is working but that there is more work to be done and it will probably be another budget cycle (2015) or two (2016) before Nichols and the commissioners "bring the 'resistant'" department heads fully on board.

Here is 2014's "working" (that is to proposed) budget:

One example of a county official who has "taken to heart" the commissioners' determination to gain control of the efficiency with which county money is spent is county records chief John Runion.

(Note:  Data in these charts does not necessarily reflect all the employees in a given department, but is designed to provide the commissioners with a look a "raise trends" in the department)

The SCPR has put together a composite of charts showing trends in pay raises (above the 2% guideline) in 2013 given by department heads, to wit:

Here is a video of portions of yesterday's (01/14/2014) session between Auditor Alan Harold and the Stark Commissioners regarding his "more than 2%" pay increases.

CHECK BACK AS ADDITIONAL CHARTS ARE POSTED

Moreover, The Report has put together a video composite showing interactions between selected department heads on the issue of requests for commissioner approval of projected 2014 raises.

CHECK BACK FOR VIDEO

Each year the commissioners appear to becoming more adept at asking the right questions of county officials after having dug deep into the county's financial data and finding data that suggests that the county may not be as efficient with taxpayer dollars as it might be.

The Report commends the commissioners for their hard work.

It should be becoming apparent to county department heads that "the days of wine and roses" are over in Stark County in terms of playing games with department finances so to out maneuver the commissioners and the likes of the SCPR in detecting and bringing to public light their attempt to bamboozle the public.

Shame on those who try it.

Kudos to the commissioners for digging, digging, digging and ferreting out the inefficient and wasteful spending practices on the part of some of Stark County's department heads.