(VIDEO) SCPR RECOGNIZES STARK COUNTIANS PATRICK ROBECK AND DON CIRELLI FOR THEIR WORK TO HELP SUSTAIN PEACE IN NORTHERN IRELAND: THE CANTON/MASSILLON ULSTER PROJECT

The Stark County Political Report in the course of covering the politics of government of Stark County has the happy opportunity, on occasion, to see everyday Stark Countians recognized for their public service by the political subdivisions of the county.

On July 11th the Canton City Council (Council) passed an informal resolution (#21) commending Stark Countians who participate in the Massillon/Canton Ulster Project (Project).

The SCPR joins Canton City Council in recognizing the outstanding contribution that the Massillon/Canton Ulster Project (Project) makes in promoting peace between Catholics and Protestants living in Northern Ireland.  The Project teams up equal numbers of Catholics and Protestants with an American host teen (and, of course, his/her family).  The idea is that Catholics and Protestants located in Northern Ireland because of the historical acrimony between the two groups find it difficult to get to know one another and that the U.S. (and its "melting pot" heritage) makes an ideal place for them to come together to forge relationships and dialogue that will serve to promote peace between them at home.

The Ulster Project website lists 28 U.S. based project sites.   Moreover, the site provides a thorough overview of why the Project got started in 1975, its mission and purpose, how it functions, an analysis of whether or not it works and how a person can get involved with the Project.

Representing the Massillon/Canton group before Council were Chairperson Patrick Robeck and Publicity Committee Chairman Don Cirelli (son of Council Councilwoman-at-Large Mary Cirelli).

Don Cirelli is a well known Cantonian for his incisive comments various Stark County related issues and events in the space provided by The Repository at the end of  most of its published content.  He has been working with the Massillon/Canton Ulster Project for 16 years and is currently serving as the project's publicity committee chairman and webmaster.

Here is a video of the Massillon/Canton Ulster Project making an appearance at Canton City Council on July 11, 2011:

COULD IT BE MAY, 1995 ALL OVER AGAIN (WELL, SORT OF) ON COUNTY SALES TAX?

As yours truly recalls, when Republican John P. Dougherty (a former state school board member) ran for and was elected county commissioner in 1994 he was telling voters do not elect me unless you pass the sales tax issue too.

Well, he won - ousting incumbent Democrat Mary Cirelli (now a Canton councilwoman-at-large).  On the day after the election Cirelli said she expected to lose as much as two months out from the election because it was a Republican year (1994:  remember Newt Gingrich and the Republican "Contract with America) and therefore did not put much money into the campaign.  Hmm?

 

But the levy lost.

Interestingly enough, current Commissioner Janet Creighton (a Republican) was on the ballot as an incumbent candidate for county auditor.

So like it or not, Dougherty and fellow commissioners Don Watkins (a Republican) and Gayle Jackson (a Democrat) had to go back to the drawing board for a new try for the May 2, 1995 primary election.

Watkins wanted to put on a full 1% for an indefinite period.  However, Dougherty and Jackson opted to push for a 1/2 cent tax increase for four years with one-half of the tax dedicated to criminal justice. Stark County had voted down 8 sales tax issues for the period 1985 through 1994.

The "deja vu, all over again" Yogi Berra "funnyism" comes into play because the SCPR has gotten indication (last Wednesday) from a Stark County commissioner that the commissioners have under active consideration the placing of a 1/2 cent sales tax issue that (here is the difference from 1995) that may be fully dedicated to Stark criminal justice system (in the main:  the sheriff and the courts).

County officials often repeat that the criminal justice expenses to the general revenue fund are about 70% of Expenditures.

 

All the commissioners will tell you that they want to get back to a fully funded criminal justice system (a la 2009 and 2010 which would bring 41 sheriff deputies back to work).  Seventy percent times $56 million (rounded off to simply this discussion) equals about $39 million needed for a fully funded criminal justice system.

A 1/2 cent sales/use tax raises about $22 million in Stark County.  If the tax were to pass, then the county would have to take about $17 million from the general revenue fund (funded by non-sales-tax revenues of about $34 million) allocated to  to the criminal justice line items leaving about $17 million for other general fund obligations.

At these numbers, the county gets back to some normalcy.

The advantage to the commissioners and other county office holders is that earmarked purposes for voted in taxes seem to work.  One of the reasons that the 2008 imposed tax by Commissioners Bosley, Harmon and Vignos got repealed by voters in November, 2009 was because the revenue was divided between fixing the 9-1-1 emergency system and the county general fund.  Of course, the primary reason was that the commissioners "imposed" the tax.

As the SCPR sees it, a "for the general fund" sales tax has no chance of winning in November.  But a dedicated tax might. 

A key on a criminal justice dedicated sales tax passing could be the term of the tax. The Report believes that five years is a likely term that the commissioners come up with whether or not the tax is dedicated to criminal justice.

The Stark commissioners are busy rebuilding trust at the county level of government.  But Bernabei and Creighton have only been on the job 6 months as of now and it will only be 11 months come November.  Not enough time to restore public confidence.

The Report favors the entire criminal justice system being funded by a sales tax (which would take the better part of a full percent).  However, a one percent sales tax is a non starter in 2011.  In five years?  Perhaps.  Maybe even the overall state and county economy may be significantly better.

(VIDEOS: COUNCILMEN DAVIES & FOLTZ) IS THE FRACKING CONTROVERSY A POLITICAL THING? YES & NO. HOW DOES STARK COUNTY STACK UP ON THE POLITICS OF FRACKING?

One of the least explored questions on the fracking issue is the "politics of fracking."

Horizontal hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking) for natural gas in a formation known as the Marcellus shale is a process by which a vertical hole is drilled to about 8,000 feet below the surface and then turned horizontal for a distance (limited by the size of the lease) and then injected with a high pressure mix of sand and chemicals (some of which are hazardous) and, of course, water to fracture rock which encases natural gas thereby release the gas for collection.

The SCPR's take on the "politics of fracking" is that Democrats generally oppose the process whereas Republicans generally support it.  But, like anything else with a political dimension to it, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule of thumb.

Ohio's leading Republican, Governor John Kasich, has come out strongly in favor of fracking.

For the average citizen, politics does not seem to be much of a factor.  The lure of fracking to everyday Stark Countians is the money to be made by leasing their properties to energy companies who are setting up to do fracking.  However, there are quite a number of Stark Countians who worry about whether or not fracking will result in contaminating drinking water supplies.

Both sides are weighing in with the Democratic and Republican politicians who staff village and city councils or boards of trustees.

Stark County two leading anti-fracking-politicians happen to be Democrats, to wit:  Trustee Louis Giavasis (Plain Township - who The Report believes is the leading authority in Stark on fracking) and Councilwoman Mary Cirelli of Canton.

However, the mix of communities that have passed resolutions (only calls for moratoriums so far) are not so easily identified as promoting a Republican or Democratic view.  These communities include Canton (heavily Democratic), Plain Township and Alliance (pretty much an even split) as well as Hartville and North Canton (which have a Republican dominance).

At least one individual Republican who has strong anti-fracking views is Plain Township attorney William G. Williams who has spent most of his career representing oil and gas interests and land owners.

So while The Report does believe that there is an element of politics at play on the fracking issue in the local domain, big stakes politics is played out in Columbus and Washington not Stark County.

In Stark County the controversy is between folks like Chris Borello (who happens to be a Democrat) of Plain Township and the Concerned Citizens of Stark County (also, Concerned Citizens of Lake Township - on hazardous waste dump site located near the center of Uniontown) and others who care about the possible damage that could occur to Stark localities from fracking but who think that Ohio government has enough safeguards in place to protect citizens and that therefore fracking is a reasonable risk for Ohio, local communities, and local citizens to engage in.

The Report 's take is that Borello represents the "no risk crowd" whereas folks like Williams represents the "reasonable risk" crowd and that the fight is over the risk element and is not, for them, a Republican/Democratic thing.

The SCPR has published material in earlier blogs about positions of public officials from Alliance, Canton and Plain Township.

Today, The Report shares with readers the North Canton perspective.  It appears that North Canton like Canton and Plain Township will be submitting a resolution (likely to be voted on this coming Monday, May 9th) asking state officials to declare a moratorium on fracking until a EPA study commissioned by the national government is completed in about two years.

Here are two videos which emcompass five of seven councilpersons (Councilman Jeff Davies being the lead on the matter) who expressed their viewpoints last Monday.

"WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS NOT GOOD FOR THE GANDER?" WHEN IT COMES TO THE "CONCERNED CITIZENS OF STARK COUNTY?"

It appears to the Stark County Political Report that "what is good for the goose, is not what is good for the gander" sofar as the Concerned Citizens of Stark County (CCSC) are concerned.

Yesterday, yours truly spied a blurb off the Stark 912 (a Glen Beck group) promoting its meeting for Monday, January 10th and 6:00 p.m. at the 356th Fighter Group, 4919 Mount Pleasant St NW. The 912's program is devoted to a consideration of the "fracking" issue that is current in local government and politics within Plain Township and Canton.

Borello's "loose" alliance (in other words, not a formal coupling; rather an identity of interests) with the likes of Plain Township Trustee Louis Giavasis, Canton Council President Allen Schulman, and Canton Councilwoman Mary Cirelli constitutes the "heart and soul" of the anti-fracking movement locally.  There is some question however as to whether or not Schulman is still on board.

So The Report fired off an e-mail to Borello as yours truly found it hard to believe that Borello and friends were not climbing all over this opportunity.

From previous blogs, readers of the SCPR will recall how utterly involved Borello and Giavasis, in particular, have been in a back and forth with state Representative Kirk Schuring, Plain Townshiop Trustee Scott Haws and WHBC1480AM's Ron Ponder of Points to Ponder on the scheduling of Plain Township based meeting to vet the pros and cons of allowing fracking in Plain, Canton, and, indeed all of Stark County.

Here are links to previous SCPR blogs to facilitate the unfamiliar with the history of the "hearing debate."  Moreover, link will bring readers up-to-date on the pro/con arguments on fracking.

WHO IS MORE DETERMINED BLOG

 

STARK COUNTY SITUATION IN LIGHT GOV.-ELECT KASICH'S FRACKING POSITION BLOG

 

OIL & GAS ATTORNEY WILLIAM G. WILLIAMS PUTS PRESSURE ON BLOG

 

PLAIN TOWNSHIP TO TAKE ON THE STATE OF OHIO & THE OIL & GAS INDUSTRY BLOG

 

In light of the prior history, the SCPR fails to understand this response from Borello (edited to include "only" her direct response) to the The Report's e-mail, to wit:

The 356th (located in Jackson Township) is within a stone's throw of Lake and Plain townships.

Why mention Lake and Plain?

Because these two townships are the hotbed these days of community activism with regard to environmental issues.

In Lake, since the early 1980s, it has been the Concerned Citizens of Lake Township (CCLT) headed by Chris Borello it has been the group's clean up push of the Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill former superfund site.

And, in Plain, (as evidenced by the blog links above), the environment issue is the "fracking" issue.

What's more, Canton (where another incipient "fracking" consideration is being mulled over)  is close in terms of a recent annexation agreement with Jackson Township is also geographically nearby.

The Report believes that Borello et al may not be all that enthused about appearing before Beck's Stark 912 group (extremely right wing and politically passionate) because they will likely be appearing before enthusiasts ("inquiring minds wanting to know," being highly disingenuous) for the oil and gas industry and on their turf.

What's more, the CCSC say they want head-to-heads with Chesapeake Energy but when they get it in what they deem to be an unfriendly forum, they "chicken-out?"

Stark's anti-fracking people may be up to the same strategy (witness all the fussing with Ponder, Schuring, ODNR, et al) as the pro-fracking folks.  Set up "tilted" forums."

In this sense, The Report believes that the anti-frackers won't own up to "turn about is fair play," and "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander."

Moreover, The Report believes if the Borello led anti-frackers really wanted to find someone for the Stark 912 meeting this coming Monday, the could.

How convenient:  too short of a notice!

Hmm?