NORTH CANTON GOVERNMENT: "THE KILLING FIELDS OF DEMOCRACY?"

UPDATED:  08:45 AM

VIDEO

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF NORTH CANTON

ON

• JUDGE HAAS DECISION
• COMPLAINTS ABOUT COUNCIL
• COST OF COUNCIL TO  TAXPAYERS
• WE'RE NOT GOING AWAY  

APPENDIX

THE HAAS OPINION 

(without footnotes)

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

FULL COMMENTS

OF 

OSBORNE'S

ATTORNEY

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

COLLECTION

OF

OSBORNE QUOTES

Last Tuesday's decision by Judge John Haas, Stark County Court of Common Pleas (Court) as interpreted by the SCPR clearly indicates that leading North Canton civic activist Chuck Osborne (a burr in the posterior of North Canton City Council and Mayor David Held) may have gotten "the cart before the horse in submitting his initiative petition denying part-time council members taxpayer paid health care insurance benefits for  voter consideration in the November, 2012 general election.

• SCPR Note:  Judge Haas was as trial judge a key figure in the Ohio Supreme Court finding that Lake Township officials in the election of November, 2011 on the advice of legal counsel Charles Hall had not properly framed the issue whereby Lake Township was seeking to convert Lake's police department into a township-wide department.

Perhaps Osborne should have submitted - first - an initiative petition to amend North Canton's charter changing that part of (Section 4.04) North Canton's charter, although the editors at The Repository apparently think that he did not have that option.

In a recent editorial, probably "the worst editorial board" for a city newspaper the size of Canton (so the SCPR thinks) erroneously says that it will be 2017 before amendments can be done to North Canton's Charter.

Well, just take a look at this language from the Charter itself:

Section 6.04.  Charter Review.

     In January, 1967, and in January of each tenth year thereafter, the Council shall appoint a commission of fifteen (15) electors of the municipality who hold no other municipal elective or appointive office, except on advisory bodies of the municipality, as members of a Charter Review Commission.  Such commission shall review the Municipal Charter, and within five (5) calendar months after such appointment, recommend to Council such alterations, revisions, and amendments, if any, to this Charter, as in the judgment of the Charter Review Commission are desirable.  The Council shall cause the recommendations of the Charter Review Commission to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the municipality on two successive weeks, and Council shall hold a public hearing on such recommendations within one week after the second publication thereof.  Meetings of the Charter Review Commission shall be public meetings

 And.

Section 6.05.  Amendments.

This Charter may be amended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. 

To be sure, every ten years North Canton is mandated by the Charter to review its provisions via a body of review commissioners which council appoints.

Let's see if these editors have the journalistic maturity to publicly correct their error.

On second thought, maybe North Canton government should have Judge Haas issue a declaratory judgment on The Rep's interpretation of the Charter on when it can be amended.

Who knows?  He may find a basis to side with the editors.

Could we be looking at:  

This Charter may be amended [only in seven year intervals beginning from 1967] in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.
.  .  .  .

The editors are mighty powerful people; at least in their own eyes, no?

Though Osborne's initiative passed by an overwhelming margin, Haas "got cutesy" in his opinion adopting the position of North Canton Law Director Tim Fox that the measure was invalid for running afoul of North Canton's Charter.

Currently, the Charter read thusly on the matter of compensation included "fringe" benefits (e.g. health care insurance):

The Council shall have the power to fix the compensation of its members and that of the Mayor, the Director of Administration, the Director of Finance, the Director of Law, officers of the municipality, of each job classification, and the members of any board of commission of the municipality, wither elected, appointed, or chosenl

Haas got all hung up (for months of seemingly interminable deliberation) on the fact that in the cited Section 4.04 language whether or not the omission of the word exclusive from the phrase (where the SCPR puts three dots) had legal significance:  The Council shall have the . . .  power to fix the compensation . . .

In a strange piece of reasoning that the SCPR cannot follow, he says that in omitting "exclusive" from the phrase (reference the .... above) the framers of the Charter in legal effect made Council the exclusive authority to deal with matters of North Canton government compensation.

Wrap your heads around that one!

It could be that Haas is wrong (in 'legal' error) and will get reversed on appeal either by the Fifth District Court of Appeals and/or the Ohio Supreme Court.

Osborne says the he is going to appeal.

But do not count on a reversal!

Percentage wise, relatively few trial courts get reversed, even if they made some mistakes in getting to a decision.

The Report has word that the longstanding antagonistic battle between Citizen Osborne (a former councilman, probably going back pre-year-2000 days) and more recently the Concerned Citizens of North Canton (CCNC) will likely include not only Osborne's appeal but an amendment initiative (not necessarily by Osborne) on the matter of power of the electorate to deal with compensation of North Canton government employees (including, of course part-time council persons).

The amendment initiative could come as soon as 2015 and perhaps in a special election.

But only if the initiators get permission from The Repository Editorial Board.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Only kidding editors.  Journalism has to have humor to it, doesn't it?

Should the electorate approve the North Canton Charter being amended, then any North Canton elector can once again go to North Canton voters to ensure as a matter of the fundamental law of North Canton (subject only to superseding and Ohio and federal constitutional limitations) that the electorate (i.e. "the people" of North Canton) has the right to "ultimately" decide what the compensation for city officials will be.

While the SCPR thinks that Haas could have just have easily interpreted (and, found legal precedent justification) the Section 4.04 language of the North Canton Charter language on compensation to allow the people's decision of November, 2012 to stand; it appears that he is more a of philosophical "republican" (leadership by the few) than a "democrat" (participation of the many) when it comes to the fundaments of American government and therefore his decision was predictable.

It is surreal that in a democracy a vote of the people gets overturned on the flimsy basis of Haas' ruling.

The Supreme Court case Haas cites as legal justification for his North Canton decision dealt with a situation that NEVER MADE IT TO THE BALLOT.

Decisions like these should be - going forward -  a strong factor as to whether or not to vote for John Haas or those of his seeming philosophical persuasion in future elections.

And decisions like this should give Ohioans "pause for thought" on Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor's desire for Ohio judges to be appointed rather than elected.

No, thank you!

Elected officials like Haas should be held accountable at the polls for overturning a vote of the people on what largely boils down to his difference of opinion with Osborne's attorneys over whether or not Section 4.04 requires that he in effect "judicially" insert the word "exclusive."

Does Haas' action sound just a tad like a case of judicial activism (i.e. legislating from the bench)?

This decision the SCPR thinks undermines democracy and gives aid and comfort to imperial types in government (e.g. North Canton law director Tim Fox?) to interpret against the peoples' right to participate or to know (public records) in the peoples' government.

It is getting nearly impossible to get day-in, day-out citizens to be involved in government at any level (even vote) and the SCPR thinks government officials like Haas and Fox are to blame.

The Report does not ever want to hear from the lips of either lamentations regarding ordinary people disdaining government.

Here the people have clearly spoken, but their choice is wiped out by the stroke of Judge Haas' pen.

It would be nice for a judge to err on the judge of democracy rather than as a thwart to democracy.

It appears to the SCPR that Haas is implying in referring to the "mirror" legislation to the passed citizen initiative ordinance amounts to "no harm, no foul."

Maybe he's not suggesting such.  But if he isn't, why is that fact in his decision?
 
In promising to file an appeal, Osborne certainly is not assuaged by the reference.

Lamentations are not likely, especially from Fox.

If there ever is a person who - in the opinion of the SCPR - ill suited (by temperament and his apparent "anti-citizen" attitude) to be a public official, it is North Canton Law Director Tim Fox.

Reports of his applying for a Republican Party (i.e. Republican governor John Kasich) appointment to replace Stephen Belden (who resigned effective November 30th) as a Canton Municipal Court judge is just a tad scary to the SCPR.

Stark County already has enough of power mongering judges, for example:

• Dixie Park, Stark County Probate Court,
• Frank Forchione, Stark County Court of Common Pleas, and
• Eddie Elum, Massillon Municipal Court,

we certainly do not need another.

Stephen Belden was egregious enough in that regard.

For him to be replaced by the autocratic Tim Fox would be more of the same if not worse, the SCPR thinks.

Most local politicos that the SCPR talks to think that that a Fox appointment is not going to happen.

If it does, by chance, happen, there is general consensus that nearly any of the Democrats considering the race would be odds on favorites to defeat him in November, 2015.

And maybe, on second thought, that is a win-win for everybody?

Of course, in enabling North Canton's imperial acting law director, his supporters on North Canton Council share responsibility (to name names) for citizens opting out in increasing numbers (e.g. percentage of citizens registering and actually voting going down) of our democratic-republican processes.

No doubt about it!

North Canton government is broken when it comes to most of the councilpersons and the mayor being citizen-participation-friendly.

However, over time it could be that a group of hardy citizens (Concerned Citizens of North Canton) will prevail in fixing what ails North Canton government.

The SCPR sat down with two representatives of the CCNC yesterday and videotaped these reactions to the Haas decision, the group's overall mission vis-a-vis council and its durability.

REACTION TO THE HAAS DECISION


ARTICULATION OF CCNC EFFORT TO REIN-IN COUNCIL & SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT COUNCIL


IF NORTH CANTON COUNCIL MEMBERS RESUME COVERAGE, THE COST TO NORTH CANTON TAXPAYERS



"WE'RE NOT GOING AWAY"



And, to repeat, Baughman and McCleaster tell the SCPR that CCNC's message to North Canton City Council and Law Director Tim Fox is:  "We are not going away!"

Look for council as a whole and the mayor to do everything they can to stymie the CCNC effort.

North Canton City Council is the only hostile council in all of Stark County in relationship to any Dogwood City citizen that dares to question or disagree with a majority of them.

Only a replacement next November of four of the seven (pick any four) will change the culture of North Canton City Council.

APPENDIX

THE HAAS DECISION

This matter came on for consideration upon separate motion.

This action involves the validity of the Initiative Healthcare Ordinance passed by the voters of the City of North Canton in the General Election held on November 6, 2012. On March 28, 2014, North Canton initiated this action with the filing of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment seeking a declaration that the Initiative Healthcare Ordinance is invalid.

The parties have filed stipulations leaving one disputed legal issue for the Court's consideration: whether the Defendants' initiative action is contrary to North Canton's Charter or whether the initiative ordinance is a valid and enforceable ordinance in the City of North Canton.

North Canton asserts that because the Defendants initiative action seeks to reduce or deny North Canton's elected officials' health care benefits, it conflicts with its Charter requirement that City Council shall set those compensation levels, which levels include health care benefits. Defendants, on the other hand, maintain that the Initiative Healthcare Ordinance is valid and enforceable municipal legislation.

It should be noted that, even though North Canton believes that the Charter conflict rendered the initiative action void, because it reflected the will of the electorate, North Canton enacted a mirror ordinance to repeal the initiative and enacted a mirror ordinance in its place. The parties have stipulated that North Canton's elected officials have not just reduced their health care benefits to comply with the mirror ordinance, all eight of them have completely waived North Canton-paid health care benefits for themselves and their families.

Declaratory Judgment

In order to obtain a declaratory judgment, a moving party must show the following essential elements: 1) a real controversy exists between the parties; 2) the controversy is justiciable in character; and 3) speedy relief is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties.

Given the facts as admitted in the pleadings and Joint Stipulations, the Court finds that all three elements have been met.

Initiative Healthcare Ordinance is Void

North Canton has been a charter municipality since November 8, 1960. The Charter specifically adopts and incorporates the provisions of the Constitution and laws
of Ohio regarding initiative petitions and setting compensation for council. The initiative provision contained in the Charter provides as follows,

(1) INITIATIVE. The electors of the municipality shall have the power to propose ordinances and other measures by initiative petition in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and laws of Ohio now
or hereafter in effect. Article V, Section 5.07(1).

The initiative power is, without doubt, an important component of a democratic government. However, the power is not without limitation. It is a well-settled principle that that a municipal ordinance in conflict with its charter is void.  This is true whether passed by the legislative body or initiated by the electorate. North Canton's Charter provides as follows:

The Council shall have the power to fix the compensation of its members and that of the Mayor, the Director of Administration, the Director of Finance, the Director of Law, officers of the municipality, of each job classification, and the members of any board of commission of the municipality, wither elected, appointed, or chosen. Article IV, Section 4.04.

Defendants contend that because Section 4.04 does not say that Council shall have exclusive power, the power of both city council and the people to legislate compensation runs concurrent. The Court is not persuaded by this argument. North Canton's charter does not conflict with Ohio's statutes regarding City Council setting compensation levels and with initiative actions.  Additionally, "[m]unicipal charters must be construed to give effect to all separate provisions and to harmonize them with statutory provisions whenever possible.  In applying these principles, the Court finds that no ambiguity exists, and, even if there is an ambiguity, in harmonizing all provisions, it is clear that only council, as the legislative body, may set compensation for its members.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has spoken to the issues before this Court. In State ex rel. Werner v. Koontz, the Supreme Court examined an initiative petition for a proposed ordinance that five men filed with the City of Columbus Clerk of Council.  The initiative petition contained provisions fixing a minimum number of officers, members, and employees of the fire and police departments and fixing their minimum salaries. After examining the initiative petition with respect to the Columbus Charter, the Court found that the charter provided that the city council shall fix the salary or compensation of council members, the mayor, and all other officers and employees. The Court found that "(I]t is perfectly plain that the designated proposed ordinance if adopted would be directly contra to the charter's compensation provision."

The Court held that the initiative was actually a proposed charter amendment, cloaked "under the guise of initiating and adopting and ordinance."  The Court went on to say that any amendment to the charter could be effected only in the manner prescribed by the charter. Likewise, if the North Canton electorate wishes to amend the Charter, it may, but the proper procedure must be followed.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the Initiative Healthcare Ordinance is invalid because it conflicts with the North Canton Charter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants' Initiative Healthcare Ordinance is void, ab initio. Because Defendants' remaining claims are contingent upon the validity of the ordinance, those claims are hereby DISMISSED.

This is a final appealable order and there is no just cause for delay.

EXTENDED COMMENTS BY OSBORNE'S ATTORNEYS

“We are, of course, disappointed that the Court elected not to uphold the rights of all citizens to exercise their right to initiate legislation and actively engage in the legislative process.

The Ohio Constitution reserves to the people the inherent right of self-government, so when the concerned citizens of North Canton proposed and the voters overwhelmingly approved legislation to address fiscal irresponsibility by permanently restricting the benefits available to city employees, the peoplenaturally expected that their will would be done.

North Canton, like most governmental entities today, views itself as a superior legislative authority over and above the citizens they purport to represent.

The Court has again sided with the government to suppress the inherent power reserved to the people by the Ohio Constitution. We no longer live in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but rather a government of the politicians, by the politicians and, most importantly, for the politicians.

We are discussing with our client his appellate rights.”

A COLLECTION OF OSBORNE COMMENTS

The ruling by the court was rather pathetic, especially given the statewide importance of the question before the court, the constitutional issues that were at play here and the work invested by both sides in this case. Our arguments were not even addressed by the Court. Nine months and this is the best the courts can come up with. I intend to have my attorneys move ahead with an appeal.

I am stunned that a court would find it so easy to throw out an entire election.

SAD DAY IN NORTH CANTON FOR DEMOCRACY!

Attached is the Trial Court ruling released this morning on the validity of Health Care ordinance that was initiated by the citizens of North Canton and passed overwhelmingly 3 to 1 by the voters of North Canton in the November 2012 General Election. North Canton’s elected officials raised no objections during the initiative process and actually participated in placing the issue on the ballot. The ballot issue was known as Issue 5.

Fourteen months after the Stark County Board of Elections certified the vote and the Initiative became law, North Canton’s elected officials raised objections claiming citizens had no right to restrict health care benefits to part-time elected officials under the North Canton City Charter.

The proposed ballot language was filed with the City of North Canton on May 9, 2012. At that time, City Law Director Hans Nilges raised no objections. Long-time North Canton Law Director Roy Batista, appointed interim Law Director soon after petitions signatures were turned in to the City raised no such concerns.

On February 27, 2014, Mayor Held released the legal opinion of Law Director Tim Fox claiming the Initiative Health Care Ordinance violated North Canton’s City Charter.

Why did it take North Canton Elected Officials from May 9, 2012 until February 27, 2014 to makes these claims?

ONLINE COMMENTS

POSTED TO [REPOSITORY] DECEMBER 6, 2014, EDITORIAL TITLED: 

 "ITS BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD IN NORTH CANTON"

This editorial is factually incorrect just as, I believe, the court was in throwing out an entire election and ruling against the citizens of North Canton.

North Canton’s charter does NOT limit changes to its charter to 10-year intervals as stated in the editorial.

Did the Repository Editorial Board totally forget last year’s charter amendment to make the office of Mayor a full-time position? It was Issue 13 on the ballot. This paper did cover the story in numerous reports, and later urged voters to reject the proposed change!

I might add that there is nothing magical about “council appoint[ing] a 15-member charter commission that can recommend to voters changes it believes are appropriate.” The recommendations are actually made to Council.

It fact there is a major downside to that process. Council can introduce politics and refuse to place Charter Commission recommendations on the ballot.

This happened to the Charter Review Commission in 1977 when Council refused to place one of the four recommendations of the Charter Commission on the ballot. Citizens collected signatures on an Initiative, which were validated, forcing Council to place the fourth recommendation of the Charter Review Commission on the ballot.

Government exists to serve the people. Not the other way around. The right of Initiative is a protected right under the Ohio Constitution. It is too bad that the trial court had no interest in asserting rights of the people that are provided for in Ohio’s Constitution and instead chose to throw out an entire election.

The City’s charter does say, “The Council shall have the power to fix the compensation of its members and that of the Mayor” but that statement is not exclusionary. Two previous North Canton Law Directors had no problem with the ballot issue before the current City Law Director came along.

The trial court offers one opinion. And it will be reviewed by judges who hopefully realize the significance of the issues raised in this case.

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

NORTH CANTON LAW DIRECTOR TIM FOX: "STILL OUT OF CONTROL?"

In hindsight, the Concerned Citizens of North Canton would likely view the following photo with alarm.

Former North Canton Ward 3 councilman Tim Fox making the transition from councilman to law director has turned out to be a nightmare for North Cantonians who want their city council to exercise control over Fox.

As early as September 12, 2012, The Stark County Political Report sensed that there might be "an unholy relationship" between Fox and his former fellow council members.

It is now apparent that there is something about Fox and his relationship to council wherein they are prepared to the last man, the last woman to defend the beleaguered law director from accountability through council (the republican aspect of American government) to citizens (the democratic aspect), whom, of course, (i.e. "the consent of the governed") constitute the authority of any government institution in the United States of America.

But apparently not in North Canton, Ohio.

It has been one fight after another fight after another fight between Law Director Fox and a community political action group which calls itself the North Canton Concerned Citizens (CCNC).

On July 16th of this year, the SCPR "naively," (as it turns out in terms of a continuing effect) wrote that "citizen action works" in assessing the effectiveness of the CCNC in getting North Canton in compliance with the Ohio attorney general's office (OAG) notion of what constitutes compliance with Ohio's Open Records law.

The problem?

Law Director Fox was telling OAG officials how wrong the office was on its interpretation of the law.

Under pressure from the CCNC, North Canton City Council and Mayor David Held (who staunchly defends Fox on any pronouncement he makes as if "it as come down from God Almighty), Fox was "brought to heel" on the public records matter.

The SCPR no longer believes that there is any check on Fox within North Canton government and that the mayor and council have allowed him to become "a virtual law unto himself."

At times, it appears that Fox runs North Canton government in its entirety.

Accordingly, The Report thinks that citizens and groups like the CCNC need to square up with the obvious political reality of Fox's excessive control and to start work now to replace four councilpersons, any four, of the currently sitting councilpersons come November, 2015 with four North Cantonians who are committed to reining Fox in.

On May 28, 2014 long time council clerk Gail Kalpac resigned.

While she never said so herself as a matter of the public record, it is believed that she was a victim "the impossibility" of working for Fox who many think is a "my way or the highway" type of government official.

Last night, CCNC president Jamie McCleaster presented at North Canton Council's "Public Speaks."

The topic?

You've got it!

Out-of-control Law Director Tim Fox.

This time Fox is disputing the Ohio Auditor of State office's take on the legality of how North Canton government (presumably on Fox's advice) has gone about implementing a "comp time" policy for non-exempt North Canton employees who work beyond a 40 hour work week.

The CCNC does not oppose the policy change.

However, the concerned citizens are concerned that the manner in which is not the proper way and that when the Ohio auditor's offices comes to North Canton to do its next annual audit that employee beneficiaries of the comp time policy change will be required to pay money into the North Canton treasury for time off taken pursuant to - according to the state auditor's office - the illegal way the policy change has been handled so far.

Undoubtedly, the SCRP thinks, in digging deeper in the CCNC's protest - of the apparently Fox advised comp time policy change on the basis of questionable legal authority - runs deeper than the change itself.

The Report thinks that there is "a pitched battle" between Fox, the mayor and council on one hand and the CCNC and other citizens on the other hand, and, that it is a matter of political will as to whom is going to prevail.

While the SCPR applauds the CCNC for using "the bully pulpit" of "Public Speaks" to try to get council to assert control over Fox, it is apparent that nothing short of a reconstitution of council with at least four votes committed to controlling Fox will work in getting the law director under control.

Otherwise, the prospects are for persistent, continuing conflicts between Fox and the citizens.

The issues will change, but the underlying dynamic - the CCNC perception of an "out-of-control law director - will remain the same.

It is hard to see how North Canton government can function efficiently and effectively in this environment of chronic strife.

In the graphic at the lead of this blog, the SCPR - by way of example - lined out the names of Councilpersons Foltz, Peters, Werren and Kiesling. Such was not to suggest necessarily that those four be the target come the November, 2015 election.

The CCNC is in the best position in terms of knowing the thinking of existing council members on the matter of reining Fox in and therefore should be the guiding light as to whom should be opposed with vigorous opposition in next year's election.

What follows is a publication of McCleaster's Monday night remarks, to wit:

Statement to North Canton City Council 10/13/14
in regards to comp time for exempt employees
CCNC-PAC

I’m here this evening as the Spokesman of Concerned Citizens of North Canton Political Action Committee. 

Tonight, I’d like to talk about comp time for the city’s exempt employees.

All documents and supporting information that I reference, as well as our recommendations will be provided to you this evening for you to review at your leisure.

In January of this year then Council President Jon Snyder, and the Mayor, without a committee discussion, a passed ordinance, or any public mention took it upon themselves to grant comp time to exempt city employees. 

We have many hard working employees here in North Canton, I’m not here tonight to discuss whether or not they should have comp time, but rather the manner in which this policy, so to speak, was enacted.

Through a public records request from the Ohio Auditor’s office, we have received a chain of emails sent between Finance Director Alger, the Auditor’s Office, Law Director Fox, Administration and all Council members beginning in late March of this year. 

Finance Director Alger asks the Auditor’s office how the city would authorize the comp time “policies.”

On March 24, 2014 Lori Hoffman from the Auditor’s office replied that, and I quote, “in order for the city to follow the [policies], they would have to be approved by council. If they aren’t approved by council at a public meeting, we would not recognize them as being valid ordinances.” 

This response was forwarded by Finance Director Alger to all of council as well as Law Director Fox and the Administration. 

What’s of particular interest is the responses that Mr. Fox gives to the Auditor’s office. 

It’s been well documented and reported that Mr. Fox thinks that the Attorney General’s opinion in regards to Ohio’s Sunshine Laws is “ridiculous,” and judging from his response to the Auditor’s office, he must feel that their opinion is ridiculous too. 

In the end, on April 2, 2014, Mr. Fox, after citing a previous legal case he felt that showed he was still in the right, relented and said that the city will treat this as an ordinance.

That was over six months ago. 

Why has this ordinance not been brought to committee and ultimately passed?

Has Mr. Fox convinced Council that he is right and the Auditor’s office is being ridiculous, and that no ordinance is needed? 

Something needs to be done now to protect our city employees. 

I would hate to see these dedicated, hardworking employees have to repay the city or have their vacation or sick time adjusted for their comp time usage because they were illegally given a benefit by someone who wasn’t able to solely grant said benefit.

Unfortunately the inaction described here is becoming a pattern with this council.

Earlier this year council failed to act when 4 members elected to continue taking health insurance benefits that they weren’t entitled to take, and action only came after public outcry.

This summer, all members of council sat idly by as Law Director Fox failed to follow Ohio’s Sunshine laws, and suppressed citizens requests for electronically transmitted public records. 

Are you receiving bad advice from your Law Director on this and other issues affecting our city? 

Something needs to change. 

The previous inactions were a public embarrassment to the city, and cost three of you financially when repayment of health benefits was necessary. 

Now, I’m afraid your inaction may cost our hard working employees financially. We ask that you bring this issue up for discussion and do right by your constituents and employees at your earliest opportunity.

While you are discussing the subject of comp time we ask that you look into not only what the federal and state governments consider to be an exempt employee and how they can and can’t be compensated based upon hours worked, but also what our peer cities listed in the annual audit do in regards to comp time. 

Wadsworth and Fairview Park offer no comp time to their exempt employees, whereas Perrysburg utilizes flex time which is utilized, quote, “very sparingly, per supervisor approval and according to work load.”

 It’s worth noting that the cities that we contacted that do offer comp time do so through ordinance, not via resolution or memo from the council president.

 Even given that the current exempt ordinance for the City of North Canton specifies that the exempt employees of the city “shall work the necessary hours to properly discharge all duties involved in their respective positions,” the members of Concerned Citizens of North Canton PAC urge you to honor these hard working employees, and to adopt a policy of flex time, such as what is employed in the city of Perrysburg going forward. 

We would recommend that if flex time is issued to an employee, that it be used within the pay period earned, or the period that immediately follows. At the end of the day, whatever your decision, don’t fail to act on yet another important issue!

(DAVID HELD AUDIO) CONCERNED CITIZENS OF NORTH CANTON BRING LAW DIRECTOR TIM FOX TO HEEL!

UPDATE:  06:51 PM

Public records

        [Jeff Peters, president of council]

        Today at 3:22 PM

To:   tramols@att.net

Martin, I would like to thank you for your report on the issue of public records. However, I will take you to task regarding your opinion on me.

I have always taken the stance that public records should be delivered to Chuck, Miriam and Jamie  and anyone else who may make a request in the medium that they request.

After I became president and before Gail retired, that is exactly what I did.

Even though we had an opinion from our law director, I instructed our clerk(Gail) to email records as well as the meeting agendas and all accompanying documents to all who wanted them.

When Gail retired and before our new clerk came on board, the law director was handling his and the clerks duties.

We knew, and I suspect that the few folks who make the majority of records requests knew, that there was going to be some hiccups.

Now that Mary Beth Bailey is in her new position, we are going to accommodate all requests in the medium that they request.

My reasoning for asking the OAG their opinion on the Law Directors interpretation was for my information only. I've had multiple phone conversations with Miriam and Jamie and told them that once our new clerk was on board, we would be back to normal business, and that is exactly where we are at today.

To characterize the situation as I or council trying to make life difficult for the few who make the majority of records requests could not be further from the truth.

For example, I've known Miriam since I was 9yrs old and I hold her and her opinions in very high regard. She is someone that I can go to for advice and direction, and know that she'll never steer me down the wrong path. I would never intentionally bring harm to her, or anyone else in our great city! It is my intention, moving forward, to lead in an open and transparent manner which will bring honor to all that call North Canton home. We have many difficult decisions on the horizon and we owe it to our neighbors to give that our full attention, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

Regards, Jeff Peters

UPDATE:  09:49 AM

E-mail regarding Public Records Training going on in North Canton this morning:

Public Records Training

        chuckosborne1949@gmail.com
        Today at 9:40 AM

To:  Martin Olson

Ironic that a Public Records training class is scheduled here in North Canton this morning. Has been scheduled for several months. Just arrived myself. Miriam Baughman will be here as well.

Sent from my HTC One on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network

ORIGINAL BLOG

A VIDEO ENCORE

CITIZEN BAUGHMAN

TAKES

FOX

NORTH CANTON COUNCIL

TO TASK ON

PUBLIC RECORDS

Although, at about 5:15 p.m. yesterday, North Canton mayor David Held called to thank The Stark County Political Report for The Report role in helping to bring about a change in the way North Canton responds to citizen public records requests, the credit belongs to the Concerned Citizens (chiefly Miriam Baughman) of North Canton, civic activist Chuck Osborne and citizen Holly Pierpont.



The import of the telephone call is that Peters sat down with Law Director Tim Fox yesterday (which the SCPR was told over the weekend was in the works when Peters returned from vacation) is a lesson of great significance to Stark County's core of civic activists who take on the hand of various branches of Stark County government when elected/appointed officials decide to become a problem rather than a help to Stark County's taxpaying citizen base.

Since he was appointed law director in September, 2012, former North Canton Ward 3 councilman Tim Fox assumed the role of "tough man" (which the SCPR thinks was his taking a cue from North Canton city council members and Mayor Held) and started giving everyday citizens "a hard way to go" in obtaining public records.

Not to exonerate Fox at all, but the SCPR thinks the North Canton public should blame Held (the mayor); former Ward 4 councilman Jon Snyder (as council president, apparently the leader in the effort), Jeff Peters (now the council president), Marcia Kiesling, Dan Griffith, Doug Foltz, Mark Cerreta and Stephanie Werren for the hostility that developed between North Canton government and North Canton citizens on the matter of access to public records.

While the focus has been on Fox's refusal (on council's approval, he says) to honor e-mail requests for public records (including one made by the SCPR), the difficulties run much deeper than the e-mail factor.

Right now we are only dealing with words.

Whether or not there has been a real change in the attitude of North Canton government through Fox and the clerk of council office will only be known through the passage of time.

The SCPR thinks that Law Director Fox will be drug kicking and screaming to a "new" citizen friendly posture on the matter of access to North Canton's public records.

The Report suspects Fox will continue to be Held's and Council's "tough guy" designee.

The Report credits Miriam Baughman (supported by Concerned Citizens leader Jaime McCleaster and the overall membership of the group) with putting the hard work of research and confrontation in motion that The Report believes has been the major factor in the North Canton turnaround.



The Baughman/Concerned Citizens/Osborne/Pierpont success should give heart to all Stark County activists who are dissatisfied with the way local governments throughout Stark County are interacting with the taxpaying citizen base.

Readers should take a minute and go back and review the SCPR blog of July 2, 2014 to get a full appreciation of Baughman's superlative work of poring over Ohio attorney general pronouncements on public records.

All too often, elected and appointed government officials forget who they are in office to serve.

However, one Miriam Baughman is enough to awake them from their slumber.

In all the developments on this issue, it appears that the SCPR right was "right on the mark" on the suggestion by North Canton officials (including Fox) that he was contemplating getting clarification from the OAG's office, to wit:

There has been talk that Director Fox might seek an opinion of the OAG's office as to the legality of his unwillingness to use e-mail to transmit copies of public records.

The SCPR thinks that such a suggestion is a lot of Fox "huffing and puffing" inasmuch as the OAG's mediation service is an  existing available forum that has been around for some time but which the law director appears to not have sought out.

Well, take a look at this "e-mail" (don't you just love the irony of the medium of the communication) exchange between the OAG's office and North Canton citizen Holly Pierpont.

Gold text equals Pierpont

Green text equals Ohio attorney general

        Holly Pierpont
        Jul 15 at 3:31 PM

To:   Rmccleaster@aol.com
        tramols@att.net [Stark County Political Report]

Mr. McCleaster,

Upon recently reading a blog on the SCPR website regarding your struggle to receive public records from the North Canton city law director, I forwarded the story to the Ohio Attorney General.  Below is the response I received from them today.

Take care,
Holly Pierpont

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:
> From: Jeff Clark <Jeffery.Clark@ohioattorneygeneral.gov>
> Date: July 15, 2014 at 3:16:45 PM EDT
> To: "holly.pierpont@att.net" <holly.pierpont@att.net>
> Cc: Kristen DeVenny <Kristen.DeVenny@ohioattorneygeneral.gov>
> Subject: FW: CID # 940387 - Pierpont
>
> Dear Ms. Pierpont,
>
> I wanted to let you know we’d received your e-mail, and that we appreciate your interest in the area of public access law.  Although you hadn’t specifically asked us to contact the City, I gave Mr. Fox a call to see whether the city or the county prosecutor had contacted our Opinions Section for a formal opinion, and if not whether we could facilitate that contact.  However, Mr. Fox advised me that some further discussion of the legal points, and city policy, had already concluded, and that the results of that discussion will likely be posted on the city web site soon.  You may want to check their web site over the next couple of day.
>
> Thanks again for your interest.
>
> Jeff Clark
>
> Assistant Attorney General
>
> From: Kristen DeVenny
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 4:38 PM
> To: Public Records Unit
> Subject: CID # 940387 - Pierpont
>
> This matter is assigned to Jeff.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -----Constituent Information-----
>
> MatterID:       940387
> Constituent:  Holly Pierpont
>
...
>
> County:         No County entered
>                     330-999-9999
>                     Email: holly.pierpont@att.net
>                     Received Date:  07/02/2014

> --------Original Message--------
>
> It has come to my attention that North Canton City Law Director, Tim Fox, has reached out to the OAG for assistance in interpretation of the Ohio Sunshine Laws pertaining to recent public records request originating with North Canton, Ohio constituents.
>
> I would like to bring to the attention of the OAG, this blog written by a local Stark county reporter, which has highlighted the true struggle that North Canton citizens are encountering in obtaining public records according to the law.
>
> http://starkpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2014/07/elected-north-canton-officials-either.html
>
> http://starkpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2014/06/videos-blast-away-session-at-north.html
>
> I would like the Attorney General to help by:
>
> I would like the OAG to consider the requests embedded in this blog, as well as the responses sent by law director, Tim Fox, in their "interpretation" to secure that the citizens of North Canton should not have to jump through extreme hoops to request what is rightfully due to them via a standard public records request.  Please review the links included in this concern, for a 360 degree view of the issue at hand. 

Thanks.

Undoubtedly, it was an eyeopener to Law Director Fox to have gotten a telephone call from the OAG's office.

An office which commented last week that Fox's position of refusing to send public records as being "ridiculous."

North Canton officials are trying to make the best of a bad situation that they and they alone created.

The SCPR encourage citizens across Stark County to take heart from the success of the likes of Baughman, Chuck Osborne, the Concerned Citizens of North Canton and Holly Pierpont and take up the mantle of holding their respective local government accountable to the taxpaying public.

An appropriate close to this blog is an e-mail response from Baughman to the SCPR on her reaction to the change in North Canton's public records policy, to wit:

Attorney General e mail

        Miriam Baughman
        Jul 15 at 8:17 PM

To:  tramols@att.net

My comment is:   Why did it ever come to this?     Why didn't our North Canton City Law Director read and interpret the Ohio Public Records Law correctly frpm the beginning?

Thanks

Miriam Baughman

(VIDEOS) NORTH CANTON COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE TAKEN "THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED" RATHER THAN "THE PRIMROSE PATH?"

UPDATED:  08:35 AM

VIDEOS

COUNCIL PRESIDENT JON SNYDER

DENIES
HE CONSIDERED STEPPING DOWN AS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT

DENIES COUNCIL CONSIDERED REMOVING
TIM FOX AS LAW DIRECTOR

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

CITIZEN OSBORNE LASHES OUT ON

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

LAW DIRECTOR TIM FOX

ON "THWARTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

ON

HEALTH CARE ORDINANCE

ALSO

CITIZEN GLENN SAYLOR

CITIZEN RITA PALMER 

JAMIE McCLEASTER
LEADER
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF NORTH CANTON

MIRIAM BAUGHMAN
NORTH CANTON CHARTER EXPERT

KIMMIE PETERS
LONG TIME RESIDENT OF NORTH CANTON 

=================================== 

VARIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS
ON
WAIVING "ATTORNEY CLIENT" PRIVLEGE
ON
HEALTHCARE ISSUE

=================================== 

COUNCIL MEMBERS APOLOGIZE

SNYDER

KIESLING

WERREN

Along the pathway of North Canton governance, council members had a choice to make.

They could have gone down "the road less traveled," but they chose to take "the primrose path" - apparently - prepared by Law Director Tim Fox.

From what the Stark County Political Report could detect from the abundance of apologies to North Canton voters at last night's council meetings, they are now wishing they had taken "the road less traveled."

The question has been whether or not Issue 5 (denying healthcare "family" coverage to part-time council members or "single" coverage when other employer provided coverage is available) is "valid" legislation that binds North Canton's council members?

In May, 2012 North Canton civic activist Chuck Osborne initiated a ordinance petition for the November, 2012 general election ballot which presented the question to North Canton voters.

Since 2012 was a presidential year ballot, large numbers of North Cantonians came out to vote.

The result?

So come the "new" term of council beginning December, 2013 the ordinance goes into effect, no?

Not so fast, SCPR readers!

While the people of North Canton may have spoken in overwhelming numbers, North Canton Law Director Tim Fox had not yet had his say.

And as we all know, elected officials across Stark County - when they do not like "the will of the people," they are known to try to find a way around "the will of the people."

Like in the case of the 2008 Stark County Board of Commissioners (Bosley, Harmon (Democrats), and Vignos (a Republican) anticipating that voters might object in a "free will of the people election" decided to "impose" a 0.5% sales tax on Stark Countians for a widely advertised purpose of fixing Stark County's broken 9-1-1 emergency call/dispatch system but more or less hidden purpose of adding money to the county general fund.

Stark Countians were having none of it and in November, 2009 by huge numbers removed the tax from the Stark County fiscal landscape.

Accordingly, "following the will of the people" was a "painless" lesson for onlooking North Canton council members to learn, but what have they done since November, 2012?

You've got it!

They chose to ignore "the will of the people" and follow the advice of North Canton law director Tim Fox that Osborne's ordinance is invalid and could be ignored.

Consequently, four members of council (Peters, Ward 2; Werren, Ward 3; Snyder, Ward 4 and Kiesling, at-large) chose to take the "easy path; "the primrose path," if you will, and thereby ignore "the will of the people" and maintain their respective city of North Canton (at taxpayer expense) health care insurance coverage.

To the SCPR and to many frustrated citizens of North Canton (personified by citizen activist Jamie McCleaster (leader of the Concerned Citizens of North Canton) it has been mind boggling that "elected" by their constituencies councilpersons would "blow-off" the overwhelming November, 2012 vote of the people of North Canton.

Matters have grown so tense among North Canton City Council members that the SCPR is told by a "highly, highly, highly" reliable source their has been active discussions going on for Snyder to step-down to be replaced by either Councilman Peters or Council Cerreta.

Moreover, The Report is told that consideration has been given to the removal of Tim Fox as law director.

Of course, the SCPR asked Snyder (on camera) "head-on" about these - what the SCPR considers to from an impeccable source - reports.

Here is his response.



The Report made a "video" collection of the statements of quite a number of everyday North Canton citizens who troubled themselves to come out to last night's council meeting and availed themselves of the "Public Speaks" forum on the agenda of the meeting to express their disgust with council.

Readers of the SCPR who care about citizen participation in making their governments accountable should watch each and every one of these videos.

Doing so will inspire scores of Stark Countians to resolve to follow the example of these extraordinary folks and "do likewise" in holding governments across the county accountable.

Here are the videos, pleeeaaaseeeee! watch them!!!

First up, the "dean" of North Canton civic activists Chuck Osborne.



As seen, Osborne:

• Points out the fact that council has an ordinance on last night's agenda which - on an un-needed emergency basis (since anything passed will not go into effect until December 1, 2015) and suggests that perhaps council is trying to deceive North Cantoninans into thinking that it is remedying council's failure to heed the vote of November, 2012 which was designed to have to gone into effect as of December 1, 2013,
• Reviews how city council looked on as the ordinance was formulated in May, 2012 and processed through the electoral process without council objection,
• Describes how the lack of implementation of the initiative ordinance was discovered by another North Canton citizen by happenstance, and
• Questions the proper role of the law director in advising on the ordinance,

Next, Citizen Glenn Saylor:



As seen, Saylor says:

• "actions of law director [Fox] was a 'poke in the eye' to the citizens of North Canton,'
• Cites North Canton city ordinance in outlining the duties of the North Canton law director,
• "communicates legal policies, procedures, decisions to:
• city council,
• city officials, and
• the general public (emphasis added by SCPR),
• "[law director] had an obligation to notify the public [of his opinion of the invalidity of Ordinance 5] since it was the public who passed the ordinance in the first place,"
• Does not buy into there being an "attorney/client privilege on the health care ordinance,
• Asks that council's recorded by amended to reveal the exact date (am members present) in late 2013 that Fox counseled city council on the invalidity of Ordinance 5,
• Chides council "which loves to pass all sorts of emergency legislation" for not doing so in correction of the alleged defects of voter passed Ordinance 5 so that it could go into effect on December 1, 2013,

Then Citizen Palmer.



As seen in the video, Palmer:

• Chastises council for ignoring her and other North Canton citizens in previous protests for council not enforcing Ordinance 5,
• Cite language in a Repository editorial demanding that council fix and enforce the will of the voters of North Canton expressed by them voting overwhelmingly for it in November, 2012,
• Returns to her having been ignored before and insists that council hear her this time,

Palmer was followed by Citizen Jamie McCleaster (leader of the Concerned Citizens of North Canton [CCNC]).



McCleaster, in the video, takes council to task:

• For ignoring him and other CCNC citizens when the appeared before council two weeks ago complaining about the heath care ordinance issue,
• For council president Jon Snyder (who the SCPR shows on video later on in this blog apologizing on three occasions last night) having threatened him with a lawsuit two weeks ago,
• For not having guidelines in place (which he offers up on behalf of the CCNC) for how council conducts itself,

Next Miriam Baughman.



Baughman in her videotaped presentation shows:

• She likely is more knowledgeable than anyone on council (she goes back to 1961) and certainly much more that Law Director Tim Fox on North Canton's charter, and
• That contrary to what Fox is reported to be saying as being an invalid process, North Canton instituted council power to provide for health care insurance benefits for councilpersons in 1981,
• That - in a telling point on what appears to the SCPR to be a "flawed" Fox analysis - the overwhelmingly voter approved Ordinance 5 "merely" negated a prior ordinance,

Finally, Citizen Kimmie Peters makes her SCPR videotaped appearance.



As seen, she pummels council with:

• "I have never been so embarrassed by a city government (i.e. North Canton city council) as I have been over the last couple of years,"
• "You really have destroyed my trust and I think the trust of a lot of the other people who are here."

It is truly amazing how what should be the obvious road for any elected official to follow becomes "the road less traveled" when the voter paved road does not match the collective un-wisdom of those who hold office.

What is even more amazing is how North Canton council members have rallied around Director Fox to empower and enable him to deny to North Cantonians an accounting - chapter and verse - how he came to arrive at his advice to the councilpersons.

Director Fox is not sharing with North Cantonians the specifics of how he arrived at his advice to North Canton council members or Ordinance 5?

How could that be?

How about council hiding under what is known as being the "attorney/client privilege?"

And it has to be council, for the privilege does not belong to the attorney, it belongs to the client.

So, the SCPR cornered four of the councilpersons last night after the meeting and asked them whether or not they individually are willing to waive the privilege for each and every one of themselves?

Here are their responses.



To top off the evenings event in which council members Snyder, Kiesling and Werren gushed with apologies for not following the will of North Canton's voters, the SCPR lodged some really tough, head-on questions with council president Jon Snyder.

Undoubtedly, Snyder could not have been happy with these questions, but he answered them.

His answering the questions is more can be said for the likes of Stark County Democratic Party Randy Gonzalez, Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee appointed sheriff George T. Maier, Stark County Democratic Party Board of Elections member Deametrious St. John, Stark County GOP chairman Jeff Matthews and Republican state Representative Christina Hagan.

Most Stark County elected/appointed officials do "face the music" of answering SCPR "pointed" questions when strange things appear to be happening on their watch, but not Gonzalez, not Maier, not Matthews and not Hagan.

Hmm?

Here is Snyder last night "facing the [SCPR's] music!"

Here is Sndyer in a kaleidoscope of film footage apologizing "all over creation - now that I have been caught" on ignore "the will of the North Canton people."



Last night, North Cantonians assembled at council meeting saw an "old-fashion" evangelical-church-esque altar call in a "come to Jesus" moment.

Here is Marcia Kiesling apologizing.



Here is Stephanie Werren,



And last week the SCPR wrote an article (LINK) on Councilman Daniel "Jeff" Peters (Ward 2) making contrition.

But for the "Hell, Fire and Brimstone" administered by North Canton's civic activists, would there have been any repentance?

The SCPR thinks not.

Apologies are one thing; action is another.

At a Snyder initiative, Council last night began consideration of an ordinance mirroring Osborne's Ordinance 5.

And - as pointed out in the Public Speaks - there is no need for the ordinance to be declared "to be an emergency."  For even if passed last night, it will not go into effect until December, 2015.

Council is not allowed - by virtue of Ohio statutory law - to pass legislation on council pay/benefits that impacts on the council passing the legislation.

And there was a bonus.

Councilman Doug Foltz announced that he was going to be hard pressed to ever again vote for "emergency" legislation.

Hmm?

Guess who has been complaining about that happening all too often?

You've got it, one Chuck Osborne - civic activist "persisting and enduring" City of North Canton, Ohio.

Osborne, McCleaster, Conley, Balas-Bratton and scores of many other Stark Countians who make the sacrifice of having their good names slammed by errant public officials are the unsung heroes of Stark County.

Proof of whether or not Snyder, Werren, Peters and Kiesling are truly repentant will not be forthcoming on the health care issue unless and until they compel Law Director Tim Fox to explain to North Canton voters the chapter and verse of "the primrose path" the SCPR thinks he created for North Canton council!

Who is in charge, North Canton's city council members or Law Director Tim Fox?

We shall see in coming weeks, no?

OSBORNE'S COMPLAINT TO THE REPOSITORY FOR LACK OF COVERAGE

Where Is The Healthcare Story?  Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:39 PM

From:   Chuck Osborne

To  Robert Wang 

CC

        Robert Cyperski 
        Martin Olson
        Gayle Beck
        1 More...

Hello Robert,

I am growing increasingly concerned as to why the story on the Healthcare Ordinance and the brazen violation of that Ordinance by members of City Council, with the support of the Law Director, has not been published.

This should be a front-page headline story in the Repository. Here you have a City Law Director who is surreptitiously subverting a lawfully enacted ordinance that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters 3 to 1 in the November 6, 2012,

General Election and who is actively encouraging elected officials to violate the law.

The path followed by citizens to enact this Ordinance was long and arduous, and the required process was followed to the letter.

The City was duly alerted on May 9, 2012, that a petition was being circulated to gather signatures with the goal of placing the issue on the ballot. The City was provided a certified copy of the ballot language.

On June 7, 2012, the City was presented with petitions containing 1,108 signatures for review and submission to the Stark County Board of Elections for validation.

On June 15, 2012, The Stark county Board of Elections issued a letter certifying the validity of 1, 090 signatures, far in excess of the 746 signatures needed to place the issue on the ballot.

On July 5, 2012, the North Canton Finance Director, Karen Alger, and Clerk of Council, Gail Kalpac, co-signed a letter to the Stark County Board of Elections stating, “Notice is hereby given that in pursuance of a resolution passed by the

Members of Council of the City of North Canton, Stark County, Ohio, on the 5th day of July, 2012, there will be submitted to the vote of the qualified electors of said city, at the General election to be held November 6, 2012.…”

On November 6, 2012, the Healthcare Initiative, known as Issue 5, passed overwhelmingly with 6,480 votes (71.76%) YES and 2,550 votes (28.24%) NO.

On November 27, 2012, the Stark County Board of Elections certified the vote, and according to ORC 731.31, became law on the fifth day after the Board of Elections certified the official vote. Issue 5 became a lawfully enacted Ordinance December 2, 2012.

North Canton’s part-time elected officials had ample warning, a full year’s notice, that come December 1, 2013, the beginning of the next term of City Council and the Mayor, they all would have to comply with the Healthcare Ordinance.

If the City, or the Law Director, had any questions or objections to the lawfully enacted Ordinance, why were they not raised prior to December 1, 2013?

Why would elected officials openly violate a City Ordinance based on secret assurances from the Law Director in backroom private meetings that the Ordinance was invalid?

When was the public going to be made aware of any of this?

My point in all of this is to ask if it is your editors who are holding up this story? Knowing that your Editorial Board has undertaken to support the Jackson – Plain – Canton Agreement, wholeheartedly (with several editorials urging passage), I question whether it is the intent of the Repository to shield North Canton City Council from controversy or distraction until the agreement is passed by City Council.

The violation of a lawfully enacted City Ordinance by City Officials is simply “government out of control” and it is hard to fathom that a paper that holds itself out to protect and further democratic ideals is failing in those pursuits!

When is this issue going to appear?

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne