COUNCILMAN MACK STARTS CHARTER GOV'T ISSUE PROCESS FOR NOVEMBER BALLOT

UPDATE:  10:00 a.m.

VIDEO INTERVIEW (DONE EARLIER THIS MORNING) WITH CANTON LAW DIRECTOR JOE MARTUCCIO ON PROCESS OF GETTING CHARTER ISSUE ON BALLOT

CANTON SET FOR NORTH/SOUTH FIGHT?

Readers of this blog should refresh themselves by going back to The Stark County Political Report's blog of August 11, 2014 to familiarize yourselves with the underlying issues that will likely surface in the fight on whether or not Canton should proceed along lines to became a charter city and thereby control to a greater degree what it can and cannot do as a political subdivision of the State of Ohio.

Ward 8 councilman Edmond J. Mack, chairman of Canton City Council's judiciary committee, has been unable to persuade his fellow members to put the issue on the ballot and therefore has proceeded to collect enough signatures to bypass council and go direct to the voters come this November.

Back in August, 2014, this is how council voted:

While in 2014, seven (7) of Canton's twelve (12) councilpersons were negative on presenting the charter issue; it appears to the SCPR that the mix will be changed after the November election.

This morning yours truly had the good fortune to be in touch with Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio as he was present as one of the member of the Corrections Planning Commission which among other matters deals with jail use issues.

Taking advantage of the opportunity to get Director Martuccio's legal expertise on what the process is for Councilman Mack to get his initiative onto the ballot, here is a video of the interview done about 08:30 a.m. this morning:



It could be that at-large Councilman James Babcock (a charter "no" vote) could be defeated by the trio (three to be elected; four candidates) of incumbent Democrat William Smuckler, incumbent Richard Hart (an independent) and newcomer but clearly a powerful name in Canton municipal politics having been clerk of the Canton Municipal Court for many years; namely, Tom Harmon who is also a former Stark County commissioner.

Moreover, "no" voter Councilman Jim Griffin will definitely not be back as he decided not to run for re-election.

He will be replaced by charter government supporter Jason Scaglione as the SCPR figures Harmon to be.

Harmon's wife circulated a petition in support of getting the issue on the ballot and this is a strong political ally of stalwart charter government supporter Councilman Smuckler.

Accordingly, after November's election, The Report thinks there could be a reversal of the 7 to 5 "no," to 7 to 5 "yes" on the charter issue which if the issue gets a go ahead to form a 15 member charter commission in November of this year could bode well for ultimate passage of the issue come November, 2016.

The issue may still be tinged with a North/South Canton dividing line fight, but less so with the likelihood that seven of Canton's councilpersons will likely be on record as favoring charter government for The Hall of Fame City.

Councilman Mack is to be commended for his tireless work on behalf of getting the matter of forming a commission on the ballot in this fall's general election.

The SCPR has compiled a list of circulators (24, who circulated 62 petitions) and numbers of signatures obtained, to wit:




And here is a list of the prime movers in favor of charter government for Canton.

One of the key circulators was former Canton councilman Robert Capestrain.

Here he is speaking on behalf of the charter issue back in August.

Readers of this blog should also take a look at the SCPR blog concerning a debate between Mack and Ward 2 councilman Thomas West on the charter government issue on August 19, 2013.

And take a few minutes to listen to former Canton councilman Robert Capestrain promote the charter issue before the current council last August.



There could be another interesting twist to the charter government fight.

And that would be the dynamics of mayoralty candidates this November if current Stark County Commissioner Thomas Bernabei makes it to the ballot as an "independent" candidate against two term incumbent Democratic mayor William J. Healy, II.

The Report sees Bernabei to be much more enthusiastic for charter government than Healy.  Earlier this morning yours truly confirmed (at the above-reference Corrections Planning Commission meeting) with Commissioner Bernabei that he does indeed favor Mack's charter government issue.

However, Councilman Mack has been courting Healy to come out in favor of the issue.  

Mack, who is associated with Lee Plakas representing the Stark County Democratic Party and the Ohio Democratic Party in their effort to persuade the Stark Board of Elections not to certify Bernabei as an independent candidate, might thereby be working at cross-purposes to his desire to have the strongest possible mayoral support for his "bring charter government to Canton movement."

Politics and government in a very complex mix and makes for odd political combinations, interests and alignments including a possible renewal of the North/South Civil War within the confines of Canton, Ohio.

(MULTIPLE VIDEOS) CANTON WARD 8 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: IMPRESSIVE!!!

DEMOCRACY & REPUBLICANISM IN ACTION!

On Thursday evening, Canton Ward 8 Councilman Edmond Mack (a Democrat) hosted a Townhall-esque meeting at St. Mark's Episcopal Church out on 48th Street NW.

The question?

Whether or not Ward 8 shall have a park.

Hmm?

Why would citizens want to reject the establishing of a park and their share of tax dollars that comes with it?

Well, the overwhelming majority of the northern reaches of Ward 8 do want to "turn down -in effect - 'free' money" and have been in a public argument with their councilman and the Healy administration "at least" since Canton City Council's meeting of September 8, 2014.

After the meeting, the SCPR asked Councilman John Mariol (Democrat, Ward 7 and along with Mack one of four councilmen The Report has tabbed as being "the four young turks), his take in action.

His answer?

"Democracy-In-Action!"

And The Stark County Political Report agrees.

About 20 Ward 8ers took to the lectern at Thursday's meeting.

While the SCPR does much more video than any other Stark County media outlet, The Report made a special effort to publish each and every public comment/question registered with Messers Mack and Gordon (see appendix videos below).

There was one humorous moment during the exchange when near the end of the session Director Gordon opined that "one more speaker" would be allowed, then two more speakers would be allowed, then three more speakers would be allowed," to wit:



As it turns out, "things did not go Mack's way" at the St. Mark's meeting, so the SCPR thinks.

In order to find a way to keep $10,000 annually as Ward 8's share of annual money to be divvied out to Canton's nine wards for ward park projects in Ward 8, Mack got together with Canton Park Commission Director Derek Gordon and they came up with a plan to improve the northern end of Ward 8 (which happens to be Mack's immediate neighborhood).

The plan presented to Ward 8 residents involved Canton city government leasing from St. Mark's, a church owned playground park with a picnic shelter building, and putting the complex in "Grade A shape" over a three year period of time.

Though he never claimed to be absolutely committed to convincing his constituents of the wisdom of his and Gordon's idea, the SCPR thinks Councilman Mack has been "bullish" on the St Mark's idea.

As committed as The Report thinks Mack was to selling the St. Mark's park rehab project to area residents and taxpaying citizens, the SCPR came away from the meeting believing that Mack is even more committed to making our democratic-republican form of government work at the grassroots level.

And he demonstrated in commitment on Thursday night "in spades."

Whether they agree with or disagree with Councilman Mack on a given substantive issue, Ward 8 residents should be immensely pleased with him on process.

Though resident Tom Berbelis (who many Ward 8 residents credit with organizing the effort to stop the St. Mark's playground/shelter rehab) did not seem to realize the success of his effort after Thursday's meeting, to wit:



Contrast the foregoing video of Berbelis with one done in September.



Their persistent effort did pay off.

Here is a video of Councilman Mack on Thursday conceding that the plan to rehabilitate the St. Mark's grounds is dead.



The SCRP commends Mack and the residents of Ward 8 for engaging one another in coming to a resolution of the issue.

Mack showed great maturity and civility in working through the "give and take" with his constituents.

More importantly, he heard them and responded as he should have in our democratic-republican system of government and politics.

Mack presents a model of civic engagement that should be adopted by all Stark County elected officials in cities, villages, townships, boards of education across the county.

Even the Stark County commissioners could stand instituting a re-commitment to the fresh start that then newly elected commissioners Bernabei and Creighton gave the county with their election in November, 2010.

The Report thinks they have slipped quite a bit from their beginnings.

Mack is politically sophisticated beyond his age and his time (three years) in government.

The SCPR thinks that Canton will not solve its' severe problems (upwards of 40% poverty level existence in areas of the city) until there are more Edmond Macks in Canton government.

The Report thinks that he and "his fellow turks" are a promising start of Canton developing leaders that - over time - will develop ways, means and workable ideas that eventually will bring Canton back to a semblance of her former self.

But until the mantle of leadership passes from the likes of William J. Healy, II and Kim Perez (the likely candidates for mayor in 2015) to the likes of "the four young turks" Canton is going to continue to stagnate at best or decline in a worst case scenario.

But with Mack and fellow councilmen Mariol (Ward 7), Fisher (Ward 5) and Morris (Ward 9) waiting in the wings, Cantonians can now "see light at the end of the tunnel."

However, "the four young turks are not enough."

Additional young, energetic, forward thinking, imagination embracing and visionary Cantonians need to come forward and inject themselves in the Canton - Rehab project.

In today's blog, the SCPR is going to take you (the reader) video step-by-step (relatively short video clips) through Thusday's meeting so that you can see democracy (everyone having the right to be heard and express her/his opinion (vote), and republicanism (to the man they have twice elected "to represent" them in the councils/counsels of Canton city government) in action!

First, allowing the SCPR to get on the "soapbox" for a moment.

Thursday's meeting is in stark contrast to what The Report has been seeing at North Canton City Council meetings of late.

In this paragraph, The Report links to several blogs done on what has been happening in "The Dogwood City" of late and, in the opinion of yours truly, it "ain't pretty in terms of democratic-republican processes.

The SCPR is convinced that Mayor David Held and at least four North Canton City Council members (four being a majority of seven) have given over their respective executive/legislative functions to Law Director Tim Fox.

As much as the SCPR is impressed with Mack and his "respect the people" processes, The Report is horrified with the "disregard the people" process going on in North Canton councils/counsels of government.

BACK TO THURSDAY NIGHT

Several very democratic/republican enhancing important things happened in the collaborated opening with Mack and Gordon.

VIDEO SEGMENT 1
THE OPEN

First, Gordon did a disclaimer as to his interest in seeing the project go forward. (1 min, 16 sec; correction on video title:  Gordon is director, not a commissioner)



He is a member of St. Mark's which stands to benefit in offloading its deteriorating park to the city for repair and upkeep.

Moreover, he made the point (rather empty in the view of the SCPR) that he "does not have a vote" on whether or not the church, Canton City Council, the Canton Park Commission proceeds on the question.

• Empty?  
• Yes!
• While indeed he does not have a vote, Gordon is the "go-to" guy on Canton park matters and in a sense is an "E.F. Hutton figure, (i.e. when E.F. Hutton speaks:  "people listen") and therefore the less entanglements the more comfortable citizens can feel about the integrity of the process.
• Moreover, remember he is the director and an "overall" key figure in the Mayor William J. Healy, II administration.

The Report thinks that Thursday night's ultimate rejection of the park plan was influenced - to some degree - by Gordon's connections, whether or not he thinks he has a conflict in interest.

BUT he did lend credibility to the discussion by owning up to his connection with St. Mark's and being a key figure within Canton government.

VIDEO SEGMENT 2
FORMULATION OF WARD 8 PARK PLAN

Next, Gordon informed those assembled at St Mark's on Thursday evening as to how what the SCPR calls the Gordon/Mack Ward 8 Park Plan got started.



VIDEO SEGMENT 3
COUNCILMAN MACK PRESENTS PLAN

Next, on Gordon's heels, Councilman Mack took over. (Video:  2 min. 10 sec.)



SLIDE PRESENTATION

 

VIDEO SEGMENT 4 (3 min. 58 sec.)

COUNCILMAN MACK WRAP UP
"If you don't want this, I don't want this."

ST MARK'S OFFICIAL SPEAKS



VIDEO SEGMENT 5 (7 min. 20 sec.)

FIRST QUESTION - Q&A SESSION



At the end of this blog, the SCPR presents the remainder of the Q&A between Ward 8 residents and Director Gordon and Councilman Mack.

These additional videos are in process, please check back as the SCPR fills out all the Q&A session.

A SCPR "tip-of-the-hat" to those Ward 8 residents who participated in Thursday's meeting!

APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL VIDEOS

(VIDEO: CITIZEN MORGAN - A WAY AROUND?) AN EASY PATH TO CIRCUMVENT COUNCIL ON DENYING CANTONIANS VOTE ON CHARTER ISSUE?

 UPDATE:  09:00 AM (Revised and Amended)

CLARIFICATION OF EFFORT
FROM EDMOND MACK

Edmond J. Mack
        Today at 8:20 AM

To:  tramols@att.net

Martin,

I read your blog with great interest this morning.  I can confirm that efforts are indeed underway to explore whether the issue of Charter Government can be presented to Canton voters.

At this time, the analysis does not include the potential for the adoption of a modified statutory City plan pursuant to R.C. 705.01.  This is because such a plan could, and likely would, involve dramatic change to the structure of our government.  In my view, the Citizens of Canton want efficient modifications, not a structural makeover.

With a Charter, efficient, subtle changes can easily be accomplished, and the structure of our government can be left intact.  However, an important consideration in presenting the Charter issue to the voting public of the City of Canton are the number of signatures required to do so.

OH Const. Art. XVIII, § 8 provides in part, "'The legislative authority of any city or village may by a two-thirds vote of its members, and upon petition of ten per centum of the electors shall forthwith, provide by ordinance for the submission to the electors, of the question, “Shall a commission be chosen to frame a charter.’”  There are over 43,474 registered voters in the City of Canton.  At first blush, this language would require 4,375 signatures.  Gathering this many signatures would be an impossible task.

However, recent additional legal research confirms that when interpreting the above Constitutional provision, OH Const. Art. XVIII, § 14 must also be applied.  This Section reads, “[t]he percentage of electors required to sign any petition provided for herein shall be based upon the total vote cast at the last preceding general municipal election.”  See, State ex rel. Concerned Citizens for more Professional Govt. v. Zanesville City Council, 70 Ohio St.3d 455, 457, 639 N.E.2d 421 (1994); State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council, 75 Ohio St.3d 381, 384, 662 N.E.2d 339 (1995).

Therefore, like the adoption of a modified statutory city plan pursuant to R.C. 705.01, only 752 (7611 x 10%) valid signatures will be required to place the issue of Charter Government before the voters.  This is a very obtainable number.

However, there are still many legal, practical, and political details that must be worked out before such an important endeavor is undertaken.  If this going to be happen, it must be done right.  These issues are currently being addressed, and I would expect a conclusion to be reached on this matter in the coming days.

Sincerely,

Edmond J. Mack

ORIGINAL BLOG

At Monday night's Canton City Council meeting seven (7) anti-democratic councilpersons (at least on the issue of charter government as provided for in Article 18 of the Ohio Constitution) voted to deny Cantonians the right to vote on whether or not they wanted wanted to form a "charter review commission" which would have the duty to present to Canton's voters within a year Canton charter government plan for an "up or down" vote.

Surprisingly to the SCPR among the "no" votes were Councilmen Frank Morris (D, Ward 9; the majority leader of council) and Kevin Fisher (D, Ward 5).

Both present themselves as "men of the people."

In terms of qualitative councilpersons, the SCPR rates both of them very high.

As far as The Report is concerned, the rest (Babcock, Dougherty, Griffin, Smith and West) Canton city government can do without.

The SCPR learned yesterday that a concrete movement is underway exploring the feasibility of proceeding under Ohio's Revised Code Section 705.01 (see Edmond Mack's 705.01 "not at this time" in his contribution to the discussion in this blog as posted above) to "go around the seven" and allow Cantonian voters to decide for themselves as to whether or not they wish to govern themselves (to the extent there is no conflict with State of Ohio law) or be governed by the Ohio General Assembly.

A general assembly, mind you, which has taken millions of dollars from Canton in local government funding.

The beauty of the 705.01 and/or Mack's contemplated procedure, if the SCPR's math skills are correctly applied, is that it will only take 762 eligible registered voters, more or less, to bypass council and put a "change of government" measure before Canton's voters.

705.01 Petition for submission of question of organizing municipal corporation under a specific plan.

Whenever electors of any municipal corporation, equal in number to ten per cent of those who voted at the last regular municipal election, file a petition with the board of elections of the county in which such municipal corporation is situated, asking that the question of organizing the municipal corporation under any one of the plans of government provided in sections 705.41 to 705.86 of the Revised Code, be submitted to the electors thereof, such board shall at once certify that fact to the legislative authority of the municipal corporation and the legislative authority shall, within thirty days, provide for submitting such question at a special election, to be held not less than ninety days after the filing of such petition. (emphasis added)

To the SCPR, going charter government is a "no brainer," even if like Stark County city Canal Fulton did a number of years ago when its voters to make it "a charter government city," the identical statutory form of government in place gets transplanted into being the charter form of government.

With the seven Canton councilpersons, the rub is that there is no guarantee that a charter review commission would follow Canal Fulton's lead.

And that is - as the SCPR wrote on Tuesday - where fear kicked in.

The Report thinks the seven were afraid that a charter review commission might write them out of Canton city government in some shape or form and they had to sit idly by powerless to do anything about it inasmuch as Ohio law prohibits councilpersons from being members of a charter review commission.

None of the seven admitted to fear of personal political consequences, but the SCPR is convinced that the "heart and soul" of their objection was, in one way or another, based on ensuring that personal stakes they perceived themselves to have in the present form of Canton government - goes untouched.

Monday night, Councilman Edmond Mack (D, Ward 8), the prime mover behind the charter government ordinance, indicated after he lost on a 7 to 5 vote that he would go back to the drawing board and, perhaps, with a change in the composition of council, try again after the November, 2015 elections (reference:  his video statement that Canton needs to change some councilpersons) to get his ordinance through council.



Also, immediately after Monday's meeting, Canton civic activist C. David Morgan suggested to the SCPR that he and presumably the likes of former judges Harry Klide, Richard Reinbold; former councilman Robert Capestrain and others who spoke out in support of charter government during Public Speaks were considering taking the question of the structure of future Canton city government directly to the people of Canton and thereby bypass the seven anti-democratics.



Yesterday Ohio Revised Code Sections 705.01 was brought to the attention of Councilman Mack (who, undoubtedly, was already aware of the statute) by a Stark County civic activist from Massillon.

Later in the day, The Report learned that Mack ally and Councilman at Large Bill Smuckler was calling around to various Stark County political figures (the SCPR presumes "various" but has verified one such call) to get input on the advisability of "going around the seven" route and, secondly, whether to put such an initiative on the ballot in May, 2015 or November, 2015.

The one adviser that the SCPR knows about told Smuckler that May would be the better timing.  And The Report agrees.

Why so?

The issue is a hot one now and May, 2015 is less than 10 months away.

Adding another six months (i.e. waiting to the November, 2015 election) might work to advantage of those opposing a change in the structure of government for Canton.

There might be another opportunity in a May election in addition to a vote on the change of Canton's form of government.

Perhaps a civic group could cobble together a number of candidates to oppose in the May Democratic primary (the de facto election for a new council in heavily Democratic Canton) councilpersons Babcock, Dougherty, Griffin, Smith and West.

The Report left Fisher and Morris off the list which is not to say they should not have opponents; they should.  However, unless the opposition has clearly superior credentials, The Report sees them as having done an overall good job on council and therefore deserving of reelection.

A change in the five singled out above hopefully would - should Cantonians not approve the 705.01 plan presented - provides an opportunity for Councilman Mack to renew his charter government initiative, which the SCPR thinrks is preferable to the 705.01 alternative path.

The risk, of course, is that Cantonians will adopt a 705.01.  If they do, so be it.  Canton needs to change the structure of doing the peoples' business and the object of change will be to rid the city of a structure that is not serving citizens' needs as presently constituted.

But proceeding with the the ORC 705.01 way might be enough leverage to get the seven defiant council members to come to their senses and approve a charter government review commission vote in May, 2014.

As much as a charter government approach is an unknown, the SCPR thinks that the 705.01 was poses a much greater threat to personal political well being than does the Constitutional provided means of change.

Mayor Healy (reported to have been unenthusiastically supportive of the charter approach) might find himself without a job - more so - under the statutory way of change than as a casualty of a charter review commission.

And in the view of the SCPR that might not be a bad thing for Canton.

Under a plan submitted under a ORC 705.01 procedure, the form of Canton government could range over the following options:

• A 5 member governing commissioner (705.41 through 705.48),
• A city manager plan with nine (9) elected council members (705.51 through 705.60),
• A federal plan in which the only "elected" officials would be a mayor and city council members ranging from five to fifteen members (705.71 through 705.86)

In thwarting Mack's effort, Councilpersons Babcock, Dougherty, Fisher, Griffin, Morris, Smith and West may have given birth to a citizen activism that Canton has not seen in many, many of a moon if ever. 

A charter government review commission is definitely the best path for Canton to new governmental beginnings but an ORC 705.01 or "other alternative" approach seems to provide an excellent opportunity as a way around the seven anti-democratics!

(VIDEO) LEGAL BUSINESS ON NEARLY $100 MILLON STARK CO. CONTRACT TO GO TO COLUMBUS LAW FIRM. CITY OF CANTON SAYS COUNTY INSISTED ON IT!

Canton service director William L. Bartos (only very recently appointed) told Canton City Council on Monday night that Stark County commissioner Thomas Bernabei (former Canton law director) was insisting that the Columbus-based law firm of Bricker and Eckler be hired as a condition of the county joining Canton and North Canton in doing a nearly $100 upgrade on Canton's "water reclamation facility" (WRF).

While Bartos did also refer to "needed expertise" as a factor, my prime takeaway on his presentation was that the county was firm on the Bricker and Eckler law firm being hired.

And knowing Commissioner Bernabei as well as I do, I knew I needed to check Bartos' statement out.

On June 2nd of this year Canton, North Canton and the Stark County commissioners (acting on behalf of the Stark County Sewer District) reached an agreement on the upgrade.

Here is a graphic of a typical water reclamation facility.

The WRF is described on Canton website thusly:

The Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) of the City of Canton, Ohio is responsible for treating all sanitary sewage that flows to the facility from a variety of sources throughout the greater Stark County area.

Between Stark County, Canton and North Canton, some 46,270 Stark County-sited households use Canton's facility.

In the past, the facility has received numerous awards.  However, none in the last three years

According to an Ohio construction and business news website:

The project came about after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a mandate stating that the plant must have lower phosphorus levels come year 2018. The EPA is also expected to require the plan to lower nitrogen levels soon.

The same publication broke down Stark County's, Canton's and North Canton's participation this way:

• Canton City will provide for 51 percent, or $45.2 million;
• Stark County will pay for 47 percent, or $41.7 million, and 
• North Canton City will take care of the remaining 2 percent, or $1.7 million.

So where is the controversy in this matter?

Answer:  the purchasing of out-of-town legal services in the putting together of the construction contracts necessary to bid out the upgrade.

Anyone can appreciate that when one is dealing with upwards of $100 million in contracts, the legal fees for analyzing the project's legal needs in terms of materials, labor and guarantees on the quality/accountability provided by contracting companies, will be considerable.

Certainly, to the tune of many thousands of dollars.

And, of course, with the hiring of a Columbus-based law firm; these are Stark County user fee dollars (those 46,270 households using the WRF) of which my household is a part of, which will be going to the capital city to be recirculated for for goods, services and whatnot in the Franklin County vicinity which is some 100 miles away from Stark County.

Ward 8 city councilman Edmond Mack (himself a lawyer with the law firm Tzangas Plakas Mannos Ltd) raised the issue of "buying local" in council's work session and again right prior to the vote on the proposed ordinance authorizing Canton enter into the joint agreement.

Others raising concerns included Councilman Greg Hawk (who joined Mack in voting "no" in what turned out to be a 10 - 2 (ayes prevailing) vote.



Inasmuch as I have sat through many a Stark County commissioners meeting since the SCPR began in 2008 and, having heard the various boards of commissioners that have served during the ensuing time span emphasize buying Stark County-based goods and services,  I was taken aback (to repeat myself) with Bartos' assertion that Commissioner Bernabei (or, if you will, Stark County) was adamant about having Bricker and Eckler be awarded the WRF legal services contract.

Inasmuch as I was at the commissioners' work session meeting of yesterday, I made a point of cornering Bernabei and quizzing him about Bartos' assertion that the county was fixed on having Bricker and Eckler.

To get to the end of it, it appears that there must have been a communications problem between Bartos and the county folks because it turns out that there was no mandate from the county that Bricker and Eckler be hired.

County officials were clear to me that if local law firms could be shown to have the requisite expertise, then - by all means - hire locally.

The closest that the county came to an expression that could be remotely construed to be a county condition that Bricker and Eckler be the law firm to provide legal service was a off-hand statement by county legal counsel David Bridenstine that Bricker and Eckler as "an example" of a firm, in Bridenstine's opinion, which is up to providing the expertise needed to deal with the complexities and ensuring protection of users/local government units interests going forward.

Bridenstine did say that he believes that no Stark County law firm is in a position to provide a level of legal expertise needed in formulating the WRF construction contracts.

Well, Mack disagrees with him.

Here is what Mack told the SCPR in an email dated September 24th:

Martin,

I am in no position to disagree with the legal counsel provided by Attorney David Bridenstine to his client, the Stark County Commissioners.  Attorney Bridenstine has a good reputation as an experienced lawyer, and it would certainly be inadvisable for the Stark County Commissioners to disregard the legal advice of their attorney under any circumstances.

I further do not dispute that the Columbus based-law firm of Bricker & Eckler would be sufficiently competent to serve as counsel relating to the Water Reclamation Project.  Bricker & Eckler is a good law firm with experience advising clients in sophisticated construction matters with environmental considerations.

However, I do not agree with the notion that the legal work associated with the WRP is beyond the capability of our own Stark County law firms.  For example:

Krugliak Wilkins, a firm with 50 lawyers located in Jackson Township, has vast experience representing commercial and municipal entities in a wide range of construction related assignments.  Krugliak also has a significant environmental practice.

Day Ketterer, a firm of over 40 lawyers located in Downtown Canton services both public and private clients in a wide range of construction and environmental related issues.  Its list of clients includes not only municipalities, but also several fortune 500 companies

Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, a firm of over 60 lawyers with an office located in Jackson Township, has significant experience in both construction and environmental law, navigating sophisticated projects and disputes on behalf of both large companies and municipalities.

Black McCuskey, a firm located in Downtown Canton with 28 lawyers, has significant experience advising clients in sophisticated matters where environmental considerations are prevalent.  A summary of this experience can be found here:  http://bmsa.com/practices/environmental_services.

Although I am a member of a local law firm that is likewise qualified, so as not to distract from the point, I will not list my firm with the above examples.

As a litigation attorney, I often encounter situations where adverse local businesses believe their interests are better served by attorneys from Columbus or Cleveland.  Presumably, their thinking is that, if the firm is located in a bigger city, the quality of the legal representation must be better.  Many times this comes at greater cost.  It is not until after judgment is rendered do they realize that this is not true, and that our attorneys in Stark County are very equipped to handle the most sophisticated legal matters.  More often than not, at greater value to the client.

Many of our local municipalities, such as Jackson Township and Plain Township, utilize the services of our local Stark County attorneys in a wide range of legal matters.  I hope it becomes the standard that, no matter the perceived complexity of a project, all of our political agencies first contact our local law firms.  If the matter is indeed too sophisticated for a particular firm, all attorneys have an ethical obligation to decline the assignment.  However, I do not believe our local attorneys should be “skipped over” in favor of out-of-town lawyers based upon the perceived notion that it is beyond our skill set.  When this happens we are missing out on an opportunity to re-invest our tax dollars back into our local economy.  This should be avoided at all costs.

In sum, our political subdivisions request that our local law firms support their operations, which is done through paying taxes.  Our political subdivisions should in turn support our local law firms by hiring our local attorneys when services are needed.  We all support the hiring of local labor in connection with public projects because it re-invests in our local economy.  Hiring local law firms is no different.

Edmond

To me, there was not enough "due diligence" done by city and county officials in determining whether or not Stark County has law firms that have the competence and experience (and specifically, litigation experience, for the eventuality that could there be a contract enforcement problem) to qualify for the WRF business.

It is unacceptable to me as Stark County Sewer District customer and as a media person who closely watches the processes of government, to see this apparent "goof up" on "due diligence" in determining who is correct (Bridenstine or Mack) as to whether or not the business could have been awarded locally.

The county and city both need to adopt a more formal way of evaluating local capabilities and avoid what Mack was faced with Monday night:  a piece of emergency legislation that needed more work to determine whether or not Bartos' assessment was correct.

In this instance, because the WRF is Canton's facility, the burden was on the Healy administration and, in terms of thorough oversight, Canton city council.

Only members Mack, Hawk, Cirelli and Schulman raised questions/concerns or made comments.

Where was the rest of council?

With Canton and Stark County struggling to cope with currently stressed economic/financial conditions, we citizens cannot abide "stumbling, bumbling local governments."

And such is what I have seen in all too many times coming out of the Mayor William J. Healy, II administration!