WILL NORTH CANTON'S "EMS" LEVY PASS TODAY?

UPDATED:  2:29 PM

As elections go, "special" elections in terms of voting percentage can vary by quite a bit.

However, a Stark County Political Report analysis of "special election" (i.e. elections not held in the context of regularly scheduled "primary" and "general" election cycles) shows that on average 30.87% of eligible voters in a given voting district vote in "special" elections.

And, "special" election issues are more likely to fail than pass.

But what about emergency services issues?

Would a voter really be willing to risk a diminished capacity of my local government's ability to respond to me, my neighbor over a few dollars a year in extra taxes?

There is precedent for that in "special" elections here in Stark County.

Nimishillen Township put on an EMS issue in 2007 and look at the result:

Stunningly! no?

It was surprising to get an e-mail from North Canton civic activist Chuck Osborne this morning, to wit:

DOES NORTH CANTON SPEND PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS WISELY?

On August 8, 2017, citizens of North Canton will be presented with a ballot issue asking voters to approve a renewal of an EMS Levy.

Here are a few things to consider before you cast your vote to continue to provide tax dollars to City officials.

ONE:

The vote to renew the EMS levy could have been presented to North Canton voters at two previous elections at NO cost to citizens.

City officials could have and should have presented this ballot issue to voters in the November 2016 General Election or in the 2017 Spring Primary Election at NO COST to the City.

Who was asleep at the wheel and failed to act?

Council President Jeff Peters?
Council's Chairman of Finance and Property Dan Griffith?
Mayor David Held?
City Administrator Mike Grimes?
Finance Director Laura Brown?
Clerk of Council Mary Beth Bailey?
Law Director Tim Fox?

I would say ALL of the above.

North Canton has renewed its EMS levy at five-year intervals for decades.

This failure on the part of City officials is now going to be expensive as the August Special Election will cost taxpayers approximately $15,000.

City officials could just wait until the November 2017 General Election and place the ballot issue on the ballot at NO cost but they have no trust in the voters of North Canton and want a second opportunity to present the issue to voters should it fail tomorrow.

Well, until there is a change in leadership at City Hall, I refuse to provide more tax dollars for City officials to fritter away.

I have NO faith in the elected and appointed officials at City Hall.

I will vote NO on North Canton ISSUE 1.

TWO:
          Another example of City officials being asleep at the wheel and causing a huge loss of tax revenue for the community is an illegal tax abatement given to North Ridge Place, LLC.

          I am referring to a tax abatement that was given to investors for a 40-unit apartment complex called North Ridge Place, LLC.

          The exemption of property taxes has saved Developers Bill Lemmon and Bob DeHoff and other investors, nearly $60,000 per year.

          Multiplied by twelve years, and with estimated property appreciation increasing the annual tax savings, the investors in North Ridge are getting a total tax abatement approaching ONE MILLION dollars.

          Not one City official admits being aware of the abatement that was given in November of 2012.

          The largest tax abatement ever given in the City of North Canton was kept secret for nearly three and one half years.

          Whether ISSUE 1 passes or not, Bill Lemmon, Bob DeHoff and the investors in North Ridge Place, LLC. will not be burdened with a tax assessment on their 40-unit apartment complex.

          I should add that four citizens of North Canton have alleged that the abatement was illegal in that it violated City ordinances and Ohio statutes.

          Prominent in alleging the illegality of the abatement is former Mayor Daryl Revoldt.

          City business at North Canton City Hall is NOT well.

          I urge everyone to consider whether current officials should be trusted with more tax dollars.

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

It could be that North Canton city officials are glad to see Osborne come out against the issue.

Because he so often comes out "I agin' it" on various North Canton government actions, programs, policies and practices, a number of those officials appear to use Osborne's propensity toward negativity as a smear on his civic activism apparently in hopes of generating a "whatever Osborne is against or God-forbid, for— I am the opposite."

So it will be interesting to see how this particular "special" election turns out.

Will it end up being a referendum on Osborne's points-of-view?

Or, will the vote be to follow the Nimshillen 2007 example on an obvious basis of "no or very little confidence in North Canton government" so pervasive that it sinks something that we all care very, very much about:  emergency services?

OSBORNE "SUBTLY" ADMINISTERS "EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH" TEST ON NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL?

UPDATED:  09:31 AM

STILL UNCLEAR 
WHETHER OR NOT

NORTH CANTON COUNCIL

HAS HAD AN ATTITUDE CHANGE

ON 

EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH

At the June 26, 2017 meeting of North Canton City Council, long, long, long time North Canton civic activist Chuck Osborne (a former councilman), got tossed from council meeting by acting council president Doug Foltz for displaying an sign that was sure to offend North Canton law director Tim Fox.

Osborne feels that his removal was a violation of his U.S. Constitution rights as extended to the states (including its political subdivisions such as city governments) by virtue of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

Here are parts of e-mails (except the entire July 10 e-mail) that he sent (or copies of) to The Stark County Political Report, to wit:

July 10th

For tomorrow night, I have a shirt with the words “Remove Law Director Tim Fox” printed, front and back, that I intend to wear. I have consulted my attorney ...  on both the sign and the shirt and he did NOT think it should be an issue. He took pictures of both items when I was in his office last Wednesday.

July 8th

Hello Martin,

The attached state statute [see insert below] has been brought to my attention in regards to interference with the civil rights of citizens by public officials .

Wanted to share this with you.

Generally, Law Director Tim Fox is obsessed with following state law. Do you think he will be influenced to any degree with this law?

I would like to clarify a point you made in your blog of the North Canton meeting where Vice-President of Council, Doug Foltz, at the urging of Law Director Tim Fox, took exception to my little protest sign.

I had not spoken out until Mr. Foltz addressed me, and then at that point I was simply responding to Mr. Foltz.

Until that time, I was sitting there quietly.

I think you mischaracterized the situation incorrectly in your blog post.   

(Note:  My recollection does not match Osborne's, LINK to that blog) 

When Mr. Fox took notice of my little sign and prompted Mr. Foltz to act (after it had been on display for about five minutes and which no one else in the chamber knew of or could see), only then did I speak out and that was to respond to Mr. Foltz.

At any rate, I will provide this for the moment and we will see where all of this leads.

Thank you,
Chuck

June 27th

Hello Guys,

I know most of you did not get to see the small sign I had displayed at Council tonight so I have attached the 8 ½ x 11 inch sign for you to see.  (note:  see SCPR blog link above)

From thirty feet or more, I am surprised it was readable from the front of the Council Chamber but apparently it was.
...

For something so small and unobtrusive, I believe Council is overreacting but that is what they do. And always at the direction of Law Director Tim Fox.
...

Several weeks ago, I used the word “Hell” and Law Director Tim Fox made a Federal case out of it, but when Councilmember Domonic Fonte used the word “Hell” tonight, Mr. Fox had nothing to say.

In the 2004 hearings to remove former Mayor Tom Rice from office, a resident wore a complete body suit of a Kangaroo to the hearings and no one questioned it.

A small 8 ½ x 11 inch sign and I get removed from the Council Chamber.

No tolerance for democracy in North Canton.

A little “civil disobedience” is a good thing but it is not tolerated in North Canton.

It is what it is.
...

I had no doubt Citizen Osborne would follow through on his plan as set out in his July 10th e-mail.

What I was unprepared for was the timid manner in which he exercised his First Amendment rights at Monday's meeting.

My take on Osborne is that he has not in my experience of seeing him in action had any reluctance whatsoever to do a "in your face" routine when sparring with a North Canton government official.

On Monday, as he often does, Osborne spoke during a time allotted by council (5 minutes) to members of the general public under agenda item Recognition of Visitors which the SCPR tabs as being "public speaks."



Notice that he was wearing a sport jacket which in my recollection is not something that he generally, if ever, does.

To me, doffing the jacket would have been a true test of whether or not North Canton Council president Dan Peters would have been prompted to gavel him down and compel him to cover up or remove the "Remove Law Director Tim Fox" shirt.

To repeat, I am surprised that Osborne was so reticent about "showing his 'civil rights' colors" on Monday.

Could it be that Osborne is changing his ways in terms of less confrontation?

Insofar as I could tell, Osborne's jacket masked the Fox message during the entirety his addressing of council.

It was only when he sat down near his camera set up with which he records council meetings that one could discern the "Remove Law Director Tim Fox" on blue shirt imprinted plea.

In a post-meeting Q&A, Osborne told me that a motivating reason for his covering up the shirt was to ensure that he would be permitted to do his public speaks in the first place.

He had noted that a North Canton policeman was stationed just outside council chambers.   Was the policeman placed at the ready by council leadership in case needed to escort Osborne from the meeting room.  That, apparently, was Osborne's thought as another reason why the jacket remained on covering the anti-Fox slogan.

Near the end of the meeting during his space to address any matter he wished with council and the Held administration , Fox pointed out that he had noticed Osborne's "Remove Law Director Tim Fox" shirt.

In doing so, he proceeded to launch an attack (my take) on Citizen Osborne in saying that he (Fox) considered it a "badge of honor" that Osborne was calling for his removal as law director and as justification for his deeming the call a "badge of honor" he recited a number of causes that he says Osborne opposed over Fox's five year tenure as law director which causes Fox said were good for North Canton.



Monday was not the first time Fox has used a North Canton taxpayer forum to single out Osborne for a tongue lashing.

Here is a LINK (July, 2015) to a SCPR blog in which it appears that Fox used the city's website to in effect excoriate Oborne for using a citizen's right to challenge city actions in a court of law.

And, my recollection is, that Fox has caused to be published at least one other account of holding Osborne up to what I think was purposeful public ridicule (i.e. costing North Canton taxpayers money to defend against an Osborne initiative) for his use of various constitutional devices to hold the city accountable.

I missed it, but Osborne tells me that Fox took his picture with him wearing the "Remove Law Director Tim Fox" shirt at an earlier point in the meeting.

On reviewing my video, apparently Fox pulled out his cellphone and snapped Osborne's picture during Councilman Dominic Fonte's report time.  Fonte sits at the end of the council dais and looking at Fonte meant that Fox could not miss Osborne's sitting in the line of sight with his jacket open revealing the "Remove Law Director Tim Fox" script.

Just to be a little bit funny, one has to wonder whether or not the picture Fox is said to have taken is a public record subject to a public records request.

While done with his "personal" cellphone, he is an appointed North Canton official participating in an official meeting of North Canton City Council.

Could make for an interesting courtroom challenge, if Fox resisted such a request, no?

Backing up a bit, what was the picture taking all about?

A case of public official intimidation?

A picture he wants to have framed and placed in a prominent place in his home for all to see the likeness of his favorite civic activist?

Or, perhaps, to throw darts at?  That's how much animosity that I think North Canton public official Tim Fox has for Citizen Osborne.

To be fair, I think the feeling is mutual.

I do not disagree with Osborne that since Fox has come on board as North Canton's law director, he, and number of council's members (mostly through whomever happened to be president of council at the time) and even Mayor Held, on occasion, have exhibited considerable hostility to Osborne.

Osborne has given at least given as much as he has gotten.

At times, it seems as if there are no adults in the room when it comes to Osborne's interaction with council, the law director and other city officials.

However, one always hopes that there are some "cooler heads" in the room among officialdom to play the adult and calm things down and, where called for, tell their fellows (Fox in this case) that he has gone too far.

Democracy can be messy.

Government officials are certainly entitled to defend themselves when criticized by citizens, but it is part of the territory for elected and appointed officials to be critiqued and they need to have a temperament of measured response.

For the rest of North Canton government (i.e. council members and the mayor) to sit by and allow the city law director (selected in North Canton by council) to chastise a citizen for opposing this or that policy, practice or program suggests to me that they are enablers of Law Director Fox going on the attack on a citizen exercising his/her due process rights (i.e. the right to be heard) and that folks puts them in a pretty bad light in my judgment.

It's not only Osborne who appears to be a target of the law director and the council through its president.

There are  a number of North Cantonians who, since Fox came on as the hiree of council, had the audacity in coming before council in the manner of not being there to "praise Ceasar" but rather to tell the "King, he had no clothes."

North Canton officials seem to obsess about being told how great they are.  Undoubtedly, they are out to make "North Canton Great Again."  Not unlike a certain person who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.

I have written quite a few blogs providing chapter, verse and video of some of those occasions when things get testy when council members are being told they are not so great.

The shy way Osborne exercised what he thinks is his exercise free speech Monday evening, leaves it open to question whether or not there has been a change of attitude on the part of council expressed through its president and its legal advisor on the matter of citizens exercising their constitutional free speech (verbal and non-verbal) rights.

It is always a constructive thing when the public's business can be conducted without disruption.

That Osborne did not flagrantly show off his shirt as I expected that he would was refreshing.

He says that his low key approach was purposeful so as not to inflame.

It is encouraging that President Peters did not react to obvious Fox's unhappiness that Osborne was wearing a protest-Fox shirt.

However, it is disappointing that we really do not know if Osborne's removal from the June 26th meeting (Foltz as acting president) provoked a reevaluation of silent protests on the part of the council president/law director and that going forward there will be no reactions so long as there is no verbal interjection outside the "Recognition of Visitors" forum.

It is totally out of order and disruptive for Osborne or anybody else to shout out from the audience during an ongoing council meeting.

That he did none of that on Monday, is also encouraging.

The only discouraging thing that happened at Monday's meeting was Fox's "badge of honor" speech.

As I said earlier in this blog, Fox should have been called out for what I think was an attack on Osborne.  Very unbecoming of a professional and city official, no?

If there is a change of approach vis-a-vis the likes of Osborne underway, it would have been helpful for President Peters to have articulated same, no?

But maybe his "silence" and non-action is the best we can hope for given the present climate.

"REPUBLICAN MAYOR DAVID HELD: "STATEHOUSE REPUBLICANS UP TO NO GOOD!"

UPDATED:  10:40 AM

STARK COUNTY'S MOST EXTENSIVE "VIDEO" COVERAGE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

VIDEOS

CITIZEN OSBORNE GETS EJECTED FROM COUNCIL MEETING

.....

"POLLYANA" COUNCILMAN FONTE ON:
 MAKING NORTH CANTON GREAT AGAIN

.....

NORTH CANTON GETS A NEW POLICE CHIEF
THE SWEARING-IN
also

Slide Show of Who Attended

.....

MAYOR HELD CHASTISES OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY

There were at last night's North Canton City Council meeting quite a number of items dealt with by council and the Mayor David Held administration.

There was North Canton civic activist Chuck Osborne getting kicked out of council meeting for exercising his First Amendment right of "free speech" in putting up a sign "Silence Law Director Tim Fox" towards the end of the meeting.

Here is a SCPR video of Osborne being "thrown out" via police escort of last night's meeting (1:07 in length).



Let me say this about Osborne.

At last night's meeting he shouted out from the audience several times in disruption of the meeting.

He had had his opportunity to address council and the administration during the "Recognition of Visitors" part of the meeting agenda.

That he chose to demonstrate a lack of self-control in the verbal outbursts is inexcusable.

He may or may not have a point on his First Amendment rights being trampled upon by the meeting's leadership.  I for one hope he does bring a court case on his being expelled from council for the sign he posted on his camera easel.

As much as Tim Fox seems to think he is "judge, jury and executioner" on North Canton questions of law, there are those of us who have not hesitation whatsoever to challenge his take.

On North Canton council appears to buy-in to the Fox perpetuated notion that he is "the Great Lawgiver!"

For me, I trust the courts of Ohio and this nation to get to constitutional determinations; not a law director no matter what the city but especially not North Canton law director Tim Fox.

Moving on.

There was the consideration by council to approve agreements with the North Canton City Schools and North Ridge Place, LLC in settlement of a dispute between the schools, North Ridge and the city on a "thought by some" to have been an illegal 100% abatement of real estate property taxes (70% of which goes to the schools) over 12 years BUT which could not be "once and for all passed" BECAUSE two members of council (Dan Peters, Ward 2, president of council) and Marcia Kiesling (at-large) were absent.  Absences on the part of North Canton council members seem to me to be excessive.

There was a Councilman Dominic Fonte over-the-top laudation of  how (impliedly) North Canton government is "making North Canton great again."

Let me say, that Dominic Fonte as a person seems to be an impeccable individual.

However, his "pollyannish" take on the "overall" working of North Canton government is very self-serving and took on a "Dear Leader" tone of a recent presidential cabinet meeting in which the president was fawned over by adult men and women except for Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

Of course, North Canton stand-in president of council Doug Foltz and the rest of council soaked the self-love like they were sponges extraordinaire.

While the SCPR thinks that there are good things happening in North Canton at the city's governors, respect for its critiquing citizens is not one of them.  Note in the following video how Fonte sort of apologizes to his peers for agreeing with North Canton's civic activist in his previous three years as a councilman.  Originally, he was appointed by those he sits alongside of today.

And pick up on Fonte's use of the word "Hell."  Square that up with the Foltz/Fox failure to censure Fonte on the use of a swear word, with Fox's admonition of Citizen Osborne for use of the very same word several weeks ago during a council meeting.

Maybe just a little bit of a double standard?

It is well known that Fox and Osborne do not like one another.

This disparity in treatment, I think,  is one manifestation of quite a number over his nearly five years as law director that evidences what I think amounts to Fox singling Osborne out for "special" treatment.

For council and the mayor not to put an end of what I see as Fox hostility to any North Canton citizen is not an example of "good government" no matter what Dominic Fonte says.

The Fonte video (3:35)



There was council approval of changes in the North Canton charter which does not seem to be "citizen" friendly.

There was the passage of legislation to put a tax issue on a "special" August ballot at an estimated cost of $14,300.  (Source: Stark County's most knowledgeable official at the Stark County Board of Elections):

Travis E. Secrest <tesecrest@starkcountyohio.gov>  Today at 10:18 AM
To:  Martin Olson

The calculated estimate cost to run a Special Election in Stark County is $1,100 per precinct. The City of North Canton has 13 precincts which results in an estimate cost of $14,300. 

Again, this is an estimated cost. Since there is also an election taking place in the Louisville Public Library District some of the costs for administering the election will be split between the two districts resulting in the possibility of a lower total cost for both districts.

Travis

There was the swearing in of new North Canton Chief of Police Lt. John Minock before an overflow crowd of area police and fire officials.

First, a slideshow of who attended and candid shots of key persons:



Next, the video of the "actual" swearing in with comments by Mayor Held, former chiefs Grimes and Weldon and the current fire chief.



But that's not all of it.  (see "Back to meeting," below)

As an aside:

You talk about "fodder of media overload" at a single meeting of a Stark County local government, it was present "in Spades" at last night's meeting.  Unfortunately, much of it will not be printed by The Canton Repository, Stark's "only" countywide newspaper.

A publication people have to pay for.  If I were a subscriber, I'd likely think I was being short-changed.

Time and time again, I am told by Stark Countians that if were not for the SCPR much of the highly significant happenings of Stark County political subdivisions regarding the welfare of everyday Stark Countians would go unnoticed.

Back to the meeting.

Finally, there was the bombshell of a Mayor David Held report on pending action (any day now) of the Ohio General Assembly perhaps doing big harm to city government finances across Ohio.

As far as The Stark County Political Report is concerned, Held's presentation was a sound thrashing issued by Republican mayor David Held of the Ohio General Assembly including area representatives Scott Oelslager (the Senate, the 29th) and Kirk Schuring (the House, the 48th), both Republicans of the supermajority Republican General Assembly for the manner in which it is dealing with as aspect of House Bill 49 (the two year biennium budget bill affecting all of Ohio governance) which Held perceives to be wrought with danger for Ohio's cities.

It is curious that Held neglected to include 50th House District Republican Christina Hagan as a legislator to contact.  Hmmm?

Here is Held in his own words:



About three weeks ago (June 5th), I did a blog (LINK) on the oft-violated by Ohio legislators Ohio constitutional mandate that there be only one subject on any given piece of legislation.

Accordingly, the SCPR couldn't agree more with Held.

So there you have it folks, the most entertaining, inspiring and compelling local government meeting certainly in Stark County and likely all of Ohio if not the nation right here in the Hall of Fame county!

BREAKING NEWS! TODAY - OSBORNE TO FILE COMPLAINT WITH STARK BOE ON WARD 3 NORTH CANTON COUNCILWOMAN WERREN

UPDATED:  2:55 PM (INCLUDING A  COPY OFACTUAL WERREN POST-GENERAL CFR)

WHERE WILL THE FILING LEAD TO?

On November 3, 2015, North Canton civic activist, former North Canton councilman and candidate Chuck Osborne lost another election in his continuing quest to be a North Canton government official.

So, of course, the question immediately becomes:  Is this a case of "sour grapes" on Osborne losing to Werren in last fall's North Canton Council elections?

To which The Stark County Political Report responds:  to number of North Canton voters, probably so.

However, there is undoubtedly a number of them who think not and applaud Osborne's effort to compel Werren to explain what appears on the face of her post-General 2015 election campaign finance report (CFR) to have filed what seems to be an implausible CFR.

Of course, the difference between the two groups likely is seen by the majority of November, 2015 participating North Canton voters as being "so much politics."

Isn't it a touch ironic that the current director of Leadership Stark County (a project of the Greater Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce) and formerly (as assistant director) ran the Chamber's Government Leadership Academy is being questioned on her making her CFR numbers jives.

After all, a recently published bio (LINK) shows she certainly is well educated, to wit:

A Canton native, Werren holds a Master of Business Administration degree from Malone College and a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science/international studies from Miami University.

Take a look at Osborne's letter of complaint to Deputy Director of the Stark County Board of Elections Jeanette Mullane:



Additionally, a copy of Werren's actual post-General CFR:



Finally, here is a copy of Osborne's research on his take as to why he thinks Werren's CFR data is suspect:

In focusing on Osborne's objective, let's recite his plea for a remedy, to wit:

I ask that the Stark County Board of Elections require a full and honest accounting of realistic, fair-market costs of campaign expenditures from Stephanie Werren. A good start in accomplishing this would be that Mrs. Werren submits the United States Postal Service Postal Statement, PS Form 3602-R1 for each of the three mailings of her PAC, as well as invoices from the vendor who printed her campaign flyers. 

I also would like an update from your office on how you intend to proceed in this matter.

The overriding question to the SCPR is whether or not Osborne can get:

• the likes of the Stark County Board of Elections, 
• the Ohio Elections Commission, the Stark County Prosecutor Offices and 
• whomever might have a role to play
• to take his complaint at face value, 
• investigate, and 
• determine as objectively as possible
• without reference to his history as community activist as being a "pain in the butt" to many North Canton officials including Werren
• in accordance with the law of Ohio
• as to whether or not Osborne presents a compelling case that cries out for remediation in the interest of showing that Ohio campaign finance law does have teeth?

As readers of the SCPR of know, yours truly has a rather dim view of North Canton government (NCG) in terms of (for example, and not as a comprehensive list of what the SCPR thinks constitutes NCG shortcomings:

• council as a whole not respecting citizens who question council's actions,
• appearing to allow Law Director Tim Fox to discharge the function of North Canton government's legal officer to assume the role of a virtual one-man-rule phenomenon,
• only reluctantly respecting the right of North Canton voters to determine the compensation that elected officials receive (i.e. the health care imbroglio), and
• seeming to endorse "a hard way to go" approach in citizens getting public records through public records requests,

The SCPR is skeptical that other players (i.e. other than North Canton government officials themselves) can lift themselves above the smear job that it appears various North Canton officials have over some 15 years or so have built and perpetuated in order to make Osborne into a "not to be taken seriously" citizen activist.

To be circumspect, The Report sees Osborne as having played into the hands of his detractors in:

• being a chronic elective office seeker notwithstanding that North Canton voters have since his two year stint as a councilman have by convincing margin,
• getting hyper-technical in holding various North Canton officials accountable for their official actions, and
• demonstrating personal belligerence vis-a-vis non-cooperative/facilitating North Canton officials

If Osborne were just a little more consistently convivial with those with whom he deals in his community activist work without, of course, abandoning his cause; the SCP sees him as being much more effective.

But that horse likely has been out of the barn for some time now.

Nonetheless, outside-of-North Canton government officialdom should ignore the acrimony that has marked the long term interplay between Osborne and his antagonists.

What Stark Countians should be watching these outside-of-North Canton officials and their ability to administer the rule of law.

Can they do it?

Can Osborne expect a fully vetted, no-respecter-of-persons response to his question, to wit:

I also would like an update from your office on how you intend to proceed in this matter.

BREAKING NEWS! OSBORNE & CITIZEN ACTIVISTS WIN APPEAL WITH JUDGE FARMER OVER NORTH CANTON LAW DIRECTOR TIM FOX

JUDGE FARMER'S DECISION POSTED

 AT END OF BLOG

Court Rules against North Canton

• cosborne@neo.rr.com
• Today at 1:31 PM
  

...

Hello Martin,

My attorney, Robert Cyperski, called first thing this morning to relay good news that Judge Farmer has ruled in our favor in our quest to get City Council to hear our appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the Hoover District South Parking lot expansion. Will send court decision when I receive it.

While North Canton Law Director Tim Fox is not listed as counsel of record (but it will be interesting to see North Canton's pleadings which are not available on the clerk of court's website) on the online docket of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, you can be sure that Fox was in the thick of things on advising North Canton City Council (North Canton Planning Commission/Mayor David Held) on matters related to the Osborne-led citizen appeal on the Hoover District South Parking lot expansion.

The SCPR is making a big deal out of this turn of events because North Canton government officials and Fox trumpet it when Fox and North Canton win in other litigation that Osborne has been involved in since Fox became law director in September, 2012.

From yours truly's perspective, if one chortles on wining (LINK 1) (LINK 2); then you need to own it when you lose.

This is a case that North Canton government obviously on the advice and counsel of Director Fox did not comply with the law.

Is there any chance that Fox or his unnamed adviser will highlight this development on North Canton's website?

THE WRITTEN OPINION/DECISION 
OF 
JUDGE KRISTIN FARMER

STARK COUNTY'S "ANTI-DEMOCRACY" FACTOR ARGUES HIS CASE IN FRONT OF 5TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

VIDEO

5TH DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS

ARGUMENT

NORTH CANTON V. OSBORNE

Due to the influence of nearby Lake Erie, most of northeast of Ohio has less sunshiny days that many areas of the nation.

When one overlays the anti-democrat-republican darkness that emanates from North Canton City Hall, it might appear to some that sun never shines in The Dogwood City and therefore it is truly amazing that anything grows.

In November, 2012 through the legislative initiative referendum of North Canton civic activist Chuck Osborne:

North Cantonians were afforded the opportunity to decide for themselves - the taxpaying public - whether or not part-time elected officias (meaning city council members) were to have as an expression of "the will of the people" (which is to rule in our democratic-republican form of government) taxpayer paid for health care insurance benefits.

The Result?

Damn the people! seems to be the attitude of at least a majority of the member of North Canton City Council and council's handpicked law director Tim Fox:

• a cameo appearance of a councilman [Ward 3] from December, 2011 (elected November, 2011) through his appointment as law director in September, 2012

Issue 5 should have gone into effect in December, 2012 but on the interpretation of Law Director Fox, council dilly-dallied around until March, 2014 until in a face-saving move passed mirror legislation of Issue 5 and, four members of council:

• Daniel "Jeff" Peters, (LINK) now president of council,
• Marcia Kiesling, (LINK)
• Stephanie Werren, and
• now former Councilman Jon Snyder,

paid back to the North Canton treasury amounts paid by North Canton taxpayers from December, 2013 through March, 2014 for their heath care insurance.

The four councilpersons continuing to take benefits was apparently based on an "confidential to council opinion" on the invalidity of Issue 5 by Director Fox issued in November, 2013.

Only on public pressure being brought to bear, did Mayor David Held release the opinion to the public at the end of March, 2014.

The SCPR thinks at least a majority of North Canton City Council loathe activist Osborne:

• a one time councilman himself,

• who has held their collective feet to the fire over a good part of the last two decades, and
• who has filed to replace Stephanie Werren as Ward 3 council person,

In an seeming play to face savings, North Canton government directed Director Fox to file a declaratory judgment action whereby North Canton sought to have an judicial determination that the November, 2015 Issue 5 vote was invalid.

And Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge John Haas did agree with North Canton officials in issuing the following judgement in December, 2014.



Osborne filed an appeal of the Haas decision and oral argument on that appeal was heard on June 16th.

THE BRIEFS

NORTH CANTON



OSBORNE




The Stark County Political Report had the camera rolling on the 16th and the entire video appears at the end of this blog.

But first some SCPR observations about a stream of what The Report thinks has been a stream of anti-democratic-republican actions by North Canton Council and its law director Tim Fox.

Fox, your truly believes, acting on the expectations of council from the get-go of his hire in September, 2012 has endeavored to give North Canton citizens "a tough way to go" in getting their rights as citizens (e.g. public records, proper council procedures and the like) respected.

And that "belligerent to the peoples' overwhelming vote attitude" seemed to The Report to be present in spades as Fox made his argument.

Take a look.

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