(VIDEOS) NORTH CANTON OFFICIALS SAY THEY WANT TO COLLABORATE, BUT DO THEY "REALLY" WANT TO?

 UPDATED AT 4:08 PM 

(VIDEO:  DISCUSSION AMONG COUNCIL MEMBERS & MAYOR DAVID HELD)

VIDEOS

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

COUNCILMAN MARK CERRETA

ON

NORTH CANTON

DESIRE

TO 

COLLABORATE

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

LAW DIRECTOR TIM FOX

ON

COLLABORATION 

&

WHY HE "INITIALLY" FAILED

TO PROVIDE COUNCIL WITH 

A "KEY" DOCUMENT 
===========================
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JON SNYDER
ON
THE
"MISSING DOCUMENT"
===========================
ENTIRE "RAW" VIDEO
ON
NORTH CANTON COUNCIL
"COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE"
ON
MEDA "COLLABORATION 
===========================
DISCUSSION AMONG COUNCILMEMBERS
AND
MAYOR DAVID HELD
 

All the talk at Monday night's North Canton City Council (NCCC) Committee of the Whole (COW) was "politically correct," but the Stark County Political Report is skeptical that public officials of "the Dogwood City" - really - mean it.

Politically correct?

The SCPR thinks so.

Witness this video excerpt of the meeting in which Councilman-at-Large Mark Cerreta (referencing the presence of the SCPR camera) emphasizes the desire of North Canton to enter into what is officially titled:

Three of the four "prospective" partners have signed onto the original agreement, but not North Canton.



From a January 24, 2014 SCPR blog:

On October 30th [2013], North Canton sent representatives to a meeting at Jackson Township Hall to "celebrate" what was touted as being a historical agreement between North Canton, Canton, Plain Township and Jackson Township whereby they agree to cooperate and collaborate in forming (as opportunities present themselves) JEDDs (Join Economic Development Districts) or CEDA (Comprehensive Economic Development Agreements) to encourage/empower/enable job creation activities in the participating communities.

And, according to Plain Township trustee Louis Giavasis, the law directors (or legal representatives) of the participating communities (including North Canton law director Tim Fox) met for hours in the context of several meetings and presumably exchanges of e-mails and telephone calls hammering out the details of the agreement which Plain, Jackson and Canton have signed.

In an apparent (to the SCPR, anyway) "vote of 'no confidence" in Director Fox, North Canton went out and hired an "expert" in economic development agreements (Christiane Schmenk of Brickler and Eckler/Columbus [LINK to her "bio"]) and she is telling NCCC that the "original" agreement is not good for North Canton.

Below (in this color; white is "original" version) is the main part of her recommended changes:

ARTICLE 2

ANNEXATION

    A.  The parties agree that whenever any of the Property is annexed into North Canton or Canton, it shall remain in Jackson or Plain, and not become part of McKinley Township or Hoover Township after the approval and acceptance of said annexation.  Jackson, Plain, North Canton and Canton shall fully cooperate with State and County officials to create an additional taxing district if necessary.

     B.  North Canton and Canton agree not to engage in any annexation of the Property in Jackson Township unless the Jackson Township Trustees agree to the annexation or Plain Township unless the Plain Township Trustees agree to the annexation.

Now, North Canton's reworked version: (underlined shows added language, strike through show deleted language from the original):

ARTICLE 2

ANNEXATION

     A.  The parties agree that whenever any of the Property is annexed into North Canton or Canton, it shall remain in Jackson or Plain, and not become part of McKinley Township or Hoover Township after the approval and acceptance of said annexation.  Jackson, Plain, North Canton and Canton shall fully cooperate with State and County officials to create an additional taxing district if necessary.

     B.  North Canton and Canton agree that if they intend to not to engage in any annexation of the Property in Jackson or Plain Townships, they will provide written notice to Jackson and Plain Townships and will first negotiate in good faith, with said Townships for an agreed annexation or some other means of economic development such as a Joint Economic Development District (JEDD) or Joint Economic Development Zone (JEDZ). unless the Jackson Township Trustees agree to the annexation or Plain Township unless the Plain Township Trustees agree to the annexation.

Question:  Will Canton, Jackson Township and Plain Township officials agree to the proposed change?

Answer in a word:  No!

That from Plain Township trustee Giavasis in a telephone conversation between him and myself late Wednesday evening.

Giavasis stands by his insistence (sounds better than "demand," no?) that North Canton ratify the agreement not later than Plain's upcoming February 11th meeting.

Let me preface The Report's analysis of Fox's role in Monday night's meeting with a "sort of" disclaimer to the effect that from the get-go of Fox becoming North Canton's law director have tangled.

Undoubtedly, he was smarting from blogs done from the days he was a councilman when it appeared in hindsight to the SCPR that he segued from being a councilman into becoming the law director in what a number of folks including The Report believe to have been a done deal arranged by council before Fox resigned as councilman.

Of course, council as it was then composed and Fox denied that such was the case.

So at the very first meeting in which he was law director that the SCPR attended, when approached with camera in hand, Fox refused to be interviewed and laced the back and forth with gratuitous remarks about "how tough he is."

Since then, The Report has received a number of reports of incidents in which various North Canton citizens who have had to deal with Fox have - according to their accounts - encountered a surly, uncooperative and recalcitrant Law Director Tim Fox in their endeavors to obtain public records from the city of North Canton.

Clearly, North Canton city council members have to be aware of the discontent among some sectors of the North Canton citizenry with Fox's civility and cooperativeness in dealing with them.

Nevertheless, he seems to continue on "unchecked" by council.

The SCPR now takes the position that North Canton City Council as a whole bears responsibility for Fox's demeanor and apparent acerbic relationship with some members of the North Canton public and media.

In a sort of "poetic justice" being meted out, it seems to the SCPR that council itself got a good dose of what The Report thinks is an arrogant Tim Fox.

The SCPR believes that council prized hiring Fox because the hiring membership wanted a "tough guy" to deal with the likes of "boring in" civic activist like Chuck Osborne to make life difficult for Osborne.

So whatever they say about being transparent, accessible and accountable to the North Canton public, such is suspect if the SCPR belief is accurate.

It had to do with Fox's failure to provide council at the Council of the Whole meeting of Monday night with a marked up copy of the MEDA and that he was sent scurrying to get a copy of the missing document despite putting council off with a "I will provide you with a copy of the document tomorrow" rejoinder.

To their credit, council was having none of that.

But to their discredit, they have only themselves to blame for how Fox treated them Monday night.

Below is an edited video in which The Report takes excerpts of exchanges between Fox and council members and puts them in one video to focus on Fox's interrelationship with council.  Keep in mind that this meeting was not sprung on Fox.  He had plenty of advance notice that Chairman Marcia Kiesling was going to be presenting on MEDA on Monday evening.

SCPR comments on video:

• At the 8 minute mark note that Councilperson Daniel Griffith (at large) asks Fox for "the attached document,"
• Griffith is followed up by Councilperson Daniel "Jeff" Peters with a question (at 09:30 into the video):
• "[Schmenk] references 'an attached marked document,' does it exist or does not exist?"
• SCPR NOTE:  Aha!  Council was not given every document by Fox.  Hmm?
• Fox at the 09:45 mark:  "I was begging for this document all day long."
• SCPR NOTE:  A case of "passing the buck" to Attorney Schmenk.  The fact of the matter is as of council meeting time Fox had the document to be presented to council. 
• Fox at the 11:15 mark says that he had already given council 5 or 6 pages and implied that if he had given council "the attached marked up document" that it simply would have been too much for council to absorb,
• SCPR NOTE:  The, the SCPR thinks, demonstrates the arrogance of this guy.  "He will decide" what is good and acceptable for council to have.  The Report thinks this attitude is typical of how Fox interacts with some members of the North Canton public and the media. 
• Fox at the 12:10 mark:  (This is hilarious)  "If anybody is thinking I am hiding this [i.e. "the Schmenk 'attached up document'],
• SCPR NOTE 1: Again, "what a hoot!"  Why on God's "green little acre" would the notion cross anybody's mind that Fox was hiding the document from council?"
• SCPR NOTE 2:  Actually The Report does not think he was hiding the document.  The Report's point is that his withholding shows the arrogance of the man.
• Fox at the 17:00 mark:  (This is another hilarity - because most people, the SCPR thinks, would have "gotten it" that council wanted the "attached marked up copy" and the wanted it now!)  But Fox says that he would get council members a copy of the document "tomorrow."  At the 19:14 mark of the video, at the urging of Chairperson Kiesling, Fox can be seen to be exiting the meeting to go get the document for council to see "now."  At the 19:20 mark he is to be seen returning and distributing the document to councilpersons. 
• As a "parting shot" Fox is to be seen "continuing" to make excuses for not having provided council with the "unattached marked up [Schmenk generated] document," 

Here is the "Tim Fox/North Canton City Council Video:"

Note:  At the end of this blog, the SCPR will, in due course, present the "entire" discussion of MEDA so that Fox cannot claim that the whole story was not available to the the readership of the SCPR.

As if Fox did not embarrass himself enough, after the meeting council president Jon Snyder "sort of" piled on as witness the video below.

In the video, Snyder, can be seen:

• terming the "initially" missing document as being "critical" to the consideration of council,
• giving Fox the "benefit of the doubt" in attributing the document's omission to, perhaps, that Fox viewed the document to be protected under the "attorney client privilege," 
• SCPR Note:  Nowhere during the meeting did Fox mention the "unattached marked up [Schwenk generated] document" as being withheld on account of an "attorney client privilege,"
• declaring that the document is available to the general public including the media which of course includes the SCPR,
• SCPR Note:  The Report requested an "electronic copy" about 24 hours ago and still has not been provided the requested copy by Director Fox

Hopefully, this aspect of the blog will lead to someone on council (which should be council president Jon Snyder taking ahold of Fox and making it very clear to him that he must treat "all" members (even those who criticize him) and the media with respect, dignity and cooperativeness.

Beyond Cerreta's assertion that North Canton wants to collaborate and the Tim Fox focused videos (Fox engaged video is not included in this video), the SCPR has put a video in which highlights Chairman Marcia Kiesling's (as chairman of North Canton economic development committee), Mayor David Held (the first and most steadfast opponent to MEDA), and various other council members in the exchanges among themselves on the topic.

Highlights of this video - posted after the bulleted points (including SCPR comments thereon):

• At the beginning the video, Chairperson Community and Economic Development:  "I don't know where we are"
• SCPR  Note:  Well, then who does?
• Mayor David Held: (beginning at the :53 second mark of the video)
• "To find ways that we can work in cooperation with our neighbors,"
• "Our goal is to enhance [North Canton's] revenue,"
• "The cities and the townships are inherently at odds,"
• "The specific benefits or liabilities [e.g. no annexation for 50 years] to the city are not stated" in the MEDA,
• "If we can make modifications [to the MEDA] that would benefit the city, I would be fully supportive of that,"
• (at 11:40 mark) "We may or may not be able to come to an agreement on a JEDD" over the next 50 years, 
• (at 18:10 mark) "I am sure that Jackson, Plain and Canton will give us ... a couple of weeks three weeks ... to review ... and make the changes ..."
• President Jon Snyder address the tax issue (at the 7:55 mark):
• Township keeps about 9% of tax revenues, however, a condition of getting that revenue the townships service the affected JEDD/CETA area,
• Chairperson Kiesling: (8:40 mark)
• Non-annexable territory is territory that North Canton cannot get to now, but things could change over 50 years,
• Canton, Plain and Jackson do not need North Canton to be part of the the MEDA,
• Canton, Plain and Jackson are extending the hand of cooperation (a SCPR characterization; not Kiesling's) as a matter of being friendly,

To summarize:

For North Canton - in pursuing its interests - to join the compact, Schmenk recommends/advises the changing of language in the "annexation" provision of the original agreement.

The Canton, Jackson and Plain "insisted upon" language (i.e.the original agreement which included participation by North Canton law director Tim Fox):

The SCPR believes that Held has convinced enough members of North Canton's council that the MEDA needs to be changed as a condition of North Canton signing on, and that therefore it is highly likely that North Canton will not end up being a participant in the collaborative compact.

While North Canton talks collaboration, official re-action communicates something quite different, no?

Here is a video of the entire discussion of MEDA at Monday night's North Canton City Council meeting.

(VIDEO) NORTH CANTON'S LAW DIRECTOR & MAYOR EMBARRASS NORTH CANTON COUNCIL?

UPDATE AT 12:35 PM  

(Note:  The information that Doug Lane is correcting that which was furnished by council president John Snyder)

Martin,

In reviewing today’s SCPR I noted some facts that need clarification. The North Canton Chamber will not be opposing Issue 13. We are not taking a stand pro or con on the matter but will be hosting (with TAP) a forum on October 17th to help sort out the facts. I will not be debating Chuck Osborne on the merits, but will be serving as moderator. Plans are to have someone present the current system laid out in the Charter, Chuck or someone in favor of its passage will present and an individual not in favor will present. As moderator I’ll do my best to have all participants stick to the facts and avoid personal opinion in their presentations. We anticipate an open Q & A at the end.

I appreciate you correcting the record. The Chamber has occasionally endorsed issues, but will not be doing so with this issue at this time.

Doug

UPDATE AT 11:51 AM

NOTE:  Osborne tells me that "he will not" be appearing at the October 17th event at the Hoover complex in that he plans on being out of town on that date.

He also informs me that he advised North Canton Chamber of Commerce representative Randy Smith of such yesterday morning.

OSBORNE RESPONDS

TO

NORTH CANTON OFFICIALS

Hello Martin,

Saw your report this am. The conjecture that the proposed Charter amendment is aimed at present Mayor David Held is not accurate. Mayor has told me that after this upcoming term as Mayor he will have served 10 years as Mayor and that he intends to pursue other interests. Mayor Held is free to run in 2015 as a full-time Mayor if he desires. For well over a year, there has been discussions and legislation proposed in Columbus to reduce the number of Solid Waste Districts in Ohio and quite possibly Mayor Held may find himself no longer employed with the state, thus he would not have to choose between private employment or public employment.

As far as any increase in costs for a full-time Mayor that is not true as well. In fact there could easily be a reduction in costs. Five years ago, City Council saw fit to create a high level position titled, Director of Administrative Services. That position was in effect an assistant to the City’s Administrator. This resulted in three individuals running day-to-day operations of the City with salaries and benefits totaling approximately $206,000 annually (Mayor at near $31,000, City Administrator at nearly $100,000 and Director of Administrative Services at near $75,000).

The intent of the charter amendment is to make the office of Mayor available and accountable to citizens and businesses and this could come at less expense to the taxpayers.

By restructuring salaries and eliminating the Director of Administrative Services position, citizens of North Canton can have a Mayor who is available and accessible for less expense (with added savings in health care costs with one less individual on the City’s healthcare rolls). I would envision salary and benefits for a full-time Mayor at $85,000 and for City Administrator at $65,000 or something very close to that. This is far less than the $206,000 annual costs that has been expended in the past for the three positions that have been staffed in the Mayor’s office.

When City Council created the position of Director of Administrative Services five years ago, no one seemed to be concerned about the expense then. Why is that? Now when there is an opportunity to save money for taxpayers and have a full-time Mayor powers that be are suddenly thinking about personnel costs.

The Director of Administrative Services position was created for demoted City Administrator, Earl Wise, who held the position for approximately 7 months. Most recently, William Bartos held the position for 2 years, leaving in February 2013.

North Canton needs a Mayor that is engaged in all aspects of the City’s business and the current City Charter does not allow that.

The current part-time position of Mayor presupposes that the employer of the Mayor will allow that individual to conduct some City business on that employer’s time. This arrangement came to a breaking point in 2001 when former Mayor Revoldt resigned as Mayor at the height of a major water crisis when his duties as Mayor intruded on his employment at the time.

The charter amendment is intended to strengthen the current office of Mayor while maintaining the Mayor-Council form of government.

I should also point out the following past and present City Council members who signed the petition to place the Charter amendment on the ballot: Current Ward 2 Councilmember Jeff Peters, Former Ward 2 Councilmember Greg Sarbaugh, Former Ward 3 Councilmember Jeff Davies, and former at-Large Councilmember Jim Repace. In addition, the signatures of 952 citizens of North Canton, well above the 746 signatures that were needed.

The bottom line here is that it is time for a change and that the City needs a full-time Mayor who is available and accessible during business hours and who is fully engaged. Citizens should have at least one of its eight elected officials representing residents full-time at City Hall.

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

VIDEOS

COUNCILWOMEN

STEPHANIE WERREN

&

MARCIS KIESLING

ADDRESS RESOLUTION CONCERNS  
=====================
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JON SNDYER
SPEAKS TO
ORDINANCE 13
&
"DRAFT" RESOLUTION
======================
COUNCILMAN DOUG FOLTZ
WEIGHS-IN 
ON
ORDINANCE & "DRAFT" RESOLUTION    

Those of us assembled at North Canton Council's work session last evening were expecting a discussion and, perhaps, a consensus to pass a resolution opposing North Canton citizen activist and former councilman (early 2000s) Chuck Osborne initiative petition (Ordinance 13) which would compel the city to make its mayor full-time rather than its current part-time status.

But the next thing we knew Jon Snyder (council president) had a motion to adjourn which was passed and gaveled the meeting to the end.

That is when the fireworks began in the give-and-take between the media and various members of council who stayed behind.

Ater all was said and done, I think it is believable to conclude that:

• The idea for the resolution was the brainchild of either Law Director Tim Fox or Mayor David Held or, perhaps, a shared project.
• Council was prepared to go along with it even though Council president Snyder said it contained "inflammatory" language until Snyder was called out on it by Osborne's spouse at a chance meeting at Fishers grocery on 44th Street this past weekend.
• Council will end up passing the resolution but in a much modified form.
• Council is highly concerned that Ordinance 13 will pass and that Mayor Held will have to choose between continuing as mayor or as executive director of the Stark-Wayne-Tuscarawas Joint Solid Waste District.

To summarize, last night's proceedings; it is apparent to the SCPR that whoever initiated and formulated the resolution's language did council no favors.

BUT FOR the sagacity of President Snyder in pulling it, had the language been maintained, it would have left council members out there having to defend the indefensible.  In effect, the author(s) were in effect "hanging members of council out in the winds of political fury to dry."

And, perhaps, ensured the ordinance's passage?

Here is video Snyder's specific explanation on the history of the "drafting" of the ordinance and his discarding it:



Snyder says:

• The resolution needs to be redrafted to express the "true" facts of opposition and to extricate the "inflammatory" language in the resolution as originally drafted,
• The resolution did not come at the initiative of any council member.  He does not know who initiated it.  
• The law director does not have the authority to initiate legislation,
• North Canton cannot afford a full-time mayor,
• A full-time mayor would not have enough to do,
• Though council opposes Ordinance 13, he endorses the citizens right to consider initiative petitions,
• Osborne's wife confronted (in a respectful manner) at Fishers' grocery at 44th Street on Sunday and expressed her displeasure at being insulted by the language of the "drafted" ordinance,
• He will support a resolution if it can be established that having a full-time mayor that the city can afford and who will enough to do to justify having a full-time mayor,
• That council's is being inconsistent in that it did not have a resolution against Osborne's 2012 initiative and that in hindsight council should have weighed-in on the 2012 effort,
• North Cantonians think that North Canton has a full-time mayor and that once they learn that such is not the case they will think and vote in favor of having a full-time mayor

THE IDEA FOR THE RESOLUTION CAME FROM FOX AND/OR HELD

The repeated time after time after time after time question of Councilpersons Snyder, Werren, Kiesling and Foltz was:  "Who initiated the resolution?"


None of them would say directly and forthrightly who the person was other than to say on a run through of all the council persons of North Canton City Council that it was none of them.

Okay.

That leaves only some administrator for the city to have done the deed in the sense of coming up with the idea.

To the Stark County Political Report's way of thinking there are only two North Canton administrators with any motivation whatsoever "to want to come down heavy" on Osborne and his coalition of supporters (Rita Palmer [Osborne's wife], George Daniluk, Larry Tripp, and Hillary Mueller, who is running against Jon Snyder in the fourth ward.

FOX'S MOTIVATION.

It may be that the resolution was not a Fox original idea (reference Snyder "he does not have the authority to initiate) and that it originated with Mayor Held, (assuming Snyder's denial that anyone on council was involved), but it is hard to believe that Fox did not play a huge role in encouraging and formulation the resolution.

From day one of his becoming North Canton's law director, I see Tim Fox as a self-appointed "tuff guy" who began with Mission One of putting Osborne in his place.

Oh, make no mistake about it, I do think that there was sort of a "wink and a nod" from many, if not all, of North Canton council persons that Fox could clearly have taken as being a signal that he don the role of being a one-person-'political-goon-squad' with Osborne being a prime target.

Osborne is a whiny, irritable guy who plays "gotcha" on the minutest of points of error which occur within council proceedings and the administration of North Canton government.

The Report has witnessed many exchanges between Osborne and members of council and members of the Held administration which bespeak an undertow of mutual distrust and disgust.

And, there is the rocky historical relationship between Osborne and Fox, to wit:

• From the beginning (going back to September, 2012), Osborne was all over council and Fox at what some think was "an inside deal" whereby the newly elected Republican councilman (Ward 3, having defeated incumbent Republican Jeff Davies) became law director in the first place.
• As an example of the testiness that has evolved ever since between the two, here is a letter sent to Fox on September 4 of this year:
• Mr. Fox,
  I am tired of playing this cat & mouse game or “Mother May I” game with you. Whatever you want to call it.
  
  I have made two requests for these records, the first request going back a week ago to August 28, 2013.
  
  First of all, your continued interference into the production of records request made to the Clerk of Council is thwarting the Clerk’s obligation to produce records as required by state law.
  
  Clerk of Council Kalpac has an index for each year’s legislation that has been voted on. That is part of her well organized system of tracking legislation and general record-keeping in the council office. I am sure that is what she worked from when the city began posting legislation to the City’s Website.
  
  For the time you spend spewing your legalese upon citizens who make records request, the request could have been met and everyone could go on about their business.
  
  I am sorry to vent but your position as a full-time Law Director does not entail spending your time working against the citizens of the very community you are expected to serve.
  
  I will give you two options: Either produce the information requested or I will refer this to my attorney. Please advise by the end the business day, Thursday, September 5, 2013, the path you intend to take.
  
  That is it in a nutshell. Your choice!
  
  Thank you,
  Chuck Osborne

• When Fox took office about a year ago, he came out swinging (the SCPR thinks) at Osborne under the guise to giving order and decorum to North Canton's Public Speaks.
• Recently, Osborne filed a lawsuit against North Canton (currently in process) whereby he alleges that North Canton Council (on the legal counsel and advice of Law Director Fox) illegally used "emergency legislation" designation to thwart citizen review (via referendum) of council's raising of their salaries effective with the next elected council.
• Of course, who can forget that this lawsuit has a background itself of Osborne having initiated and secured passage of an issue (November, 2012) whereby council was precluded from providing itself from health care benefits.

The SCPR could go on and on with the grievances which have piled up between Fox and Osborne which The Report's way of thinking makes Fox the prime suspect in having conceived of and formulated the ill-fated resolution.

HELD'S MOTIVATION

This one is real easy.

The SCPR's archive of blogs (going back nearly six years) is replete with confrontations between Osborne and Mayor David Held.

Here are just a few links:

• December 5, 2009,
• June 29, 2010,
• September 27, 2011,
• April 18, 2012,
• August 13, 2013

Needless to say, there is "bad 'political' blood" aplenty between the two.

Seemingly, the "bad blood" has boiled to the point that Osborne wants Held out as mayor.

That's how the SCPR sees this feud as having escalated to a full and complete manifestation in Ordinance 13 whereby Held would be forced to choose between being mayor of North Canton and continuing as director of the Stark-Wayne-Tuscarawas Joint Solid Waste District.

And make no mistake about it, Held and his friends on council are plenty worried that the ordinance is going to pass.

Councilman Snyder and other councilpersons told the SCPR after last night's meeting that citizen feedback is such that many think that North Canton already has a full-time mayor.

Once they understand that their mayor is only part-time, the reactions seems to be:  "Oh! Well the mayor should be full-time" and therefore the worry is that an uninformed voting public (as to the financial/structural complexities/consequences) might well give Osborne a second initiative petition success (reference the November, 2012 health care initiative) two years running.

Councilwoman Stephanie Werren (chair of council's Ordinances, Rules and Claims Committee) and Councilwoman Marcia Kiesling express their concerns in this video.



Their points/concerns in addressing the motivation to put together the resolution in the first place:

• Voters will be confused in that they think North Canton has a full-time mayor now and that when the learn that the city does not will be likely to vote for Osborne's initiative,
• Several years ago (this from Jon Sndyer) a North Canton charter review commission proposed a full-time mayor, but it was not adoped by council,
• North Canton has no money to pay a full-time mayor,
• It is out-of-character for Osborne wanting to spend more money for North Canton government inasmuch as his record has been to press for cuts and for frugality,
• Osborne's initiative is a vendetta against Held (denied by Osborne), and 
• The North Canton Chamber of Commerce and TAP (Talk About Potential) will be publicly opposing the ordinance

In addition to Snyder, Kiesling and Werren, Councilman Doug Foltz (Ward 1) spoke with the SCPR.



His main points were:

• "If its not broke, don't fix it" in the sense North Canton part-time mayor structure has been in place for 63 years with full-time privately employed persons being willing to serve "effectively" as a part-time mayor, and
• The resolution itself needs some work before it ready for passage.

There will be a debate on the topic.

The SCPR learned that on October 17th at 7:00 p.m. at the auditorium of the former Hoover Company complex Chuck Osborne will be debating North Canton Chamber of Commerce president Doug Lane on the advisability of Ordinance 13.

While council will have rectified the "over-the-top" resolution, does anybody doubt that Osborne will be doing an "in your face" to Law Director Fox and Mayor Held on the 17th?

(VIDEOS) AN EXAMPLE OF "WHEN WE ALL WORK TOGETHER, OH! HOW HAPPY WE WILL BE!"

NORTH CANTON OFFICIALS, STATE REP. KIRK SCHURING (R - JACKSON), STATE OF OHIO,  AND COUNTY OFFICIALS TEAM UP TO GET NORTH CANTON FLOODING PROBLEMS UNDER CONTROL

On March 28th of this North Canton Council President Jon Snyder brought to North Canton's Civic Center a number of officials to address the city's Zimber Ditch generated flooding problem which has been going on for years and years.

Zimber has been - increasingly - a problem for a variety of reasons.  A number of them include:

• It gets clogged up by debris that as a matter of nature falls into the waterway,
• It gets clogged up by neighboring residents dumping various materials into the channel,
• It has to handle more water than it was originally designed for because more and more nearby asphalt and concrete part and parcel ofcommerical and residential development become conduits in shifting rain waters into the Zimber drain.

And, of course, there are other contributory reasons.

So those who live in the vicinity of  Lucille and Glendale in North Canton have had their fill of flooding and have beseeched city hall to do something now to solve the problem.

The ditch itself is not going to get fixed anytime soon because it would be a mammoth financial project running in the millions upon million upon millions of dollars to do so.

Proving that one "persisting leadership" man can make a difference, Councilman Snyder responded in bringing together at the meeting of the 28th:

• State Rep. Kirk Schuring (Republican - Jackson Township) whose 48th Ohio House District includes North Canton
• Steve Ferryman and Josh Stigmon of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Emergency Management Division,
• Director Tim Warstler of the Stark County Emergency Management Agency, and
• Bob Fonte the executive director of the Stark Parks (who, himself, is a hydraulics engineer)

And Snyder has kept up with his effort.

At last night's regular North Canton City Council meeting, Snyder was the bearer of some good news for many of the folks who get flooded out frequently by the overflowing Zimber.

North Canton is in line to get about $1.5 million dollars ($30,000 from council, $60,000 from the Stark commissioners, $100,000 from the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, $1.125 in a state of Ohio federally funded grant and, presumably, the rest from Stark Parks) to buy out properties in the vicinity so that they can be razed to allow Zimber to overflow its banks when the big rains/flash floods come and perhaps lessen the problem

Some 10 to 13 homes a currently set for buyout, but depending on what effect the razing of the first batch, other could follow if city officials can find additional funds.

The city will follow up with a second round request for a federally funded state grant in hopes od doubling its money to apply to the Zimber Ditch problem.

A public meeting is scheduled at the North Canton Civic Center for September 26th at 7:00 p.m. so that officials can explain the specifics of their remediation plan to North Cantonians, one-on-one.

Insofar as the SCPR is concerned Snyder is "the main man" in getting a solution underway for the unfortunate North Canton residents.  However, he was quick to share with The Report his gratitude of having many state, Stark County and federal (including Congressmen Jim Renacci, Republican - Wadsworth - the 16th congressional district) work with him and each other.



At the session immediately prior to the regular council meeting, President Snyder explained the grant received from the Ohio Emergency Management Agency and took questions from council members.



Snyder's taking the lead on working to finding a solution to the perennial flooding experienced by North Cantonians adjacent to the Zimber Ditch is impressive.

But The Report has seen quite a number of Stark County public officials start off a project with a lot of "vim, vigor and vitality" only to get fatigued in the process and end up giving up on the project.

That Snyder is "staying the course and "seeing this project through" should be an inspiration and a model to his peers across Stark Connty's local governments.

It appears to the SCPR that North Canton is doing the realistic thing in fashioning a solution to the flooding problem.

Fixing the ditch itself is definitely long term and will take many millions of dollars.

For a few million, North Canton local government, working with local, state and federal officials, have shown North Cantonians that government can be responsive to the needs of its citizens.

A SCPR "Hats Off!" to North Canton Council, its council president and the Mayor David Held administration but with a special "Tip-of-the-Hat" to the president - Jon Snyder - for putting this team effort together and keeping the team on task.

As the saying goes:  "there is no 'I' in the word TEAM."

And Jon Snyder - in this instance - amply personifies what team work is all about!

NORTH CANTON COUNCIL "BRINGING THE HAMMER DOWN" ON ALL ITS CITIZENS AS A PRETEXT FOR DEALING WITH ONE?

Austin Carr, a former basketball star at Notre Dame and later with the Cleveland Cavaliers, likes to say when a Cavalier slam-dunks the ball through the hoop that the Cav has "brought the hammer down!!!

One has to wonder whether or not former North Canton Councilman Chuck Osborne is feeling like he is experiencing having the hammer brought down on him these days as he continues his civic work as a citizen "check and balance" on the actions of North Canton City Council.

Last week, as reported in the SCPR (LINK), North Canton Council trotted out newly council appointed law director Tim Fox at their regular weekly meeting to administer, in the opinion of The Report, the first hammer blow to Osborne to drive home the point that council was on a path to rein him in.

Council president Jon Snyder went to great pains to emphasize to yours truly that Fox's lecture (The Report's interpretation of Fox's exercise) on the proper rules of decorum for the Public Speaks portion of regular North Canton Council meetings was directed at everyone (including council members) in attendance and was not directed at Osborne.

The SCPR was skeptical of Snyder's claim when made and there has been a development since the meeting of November 26th that heightens The Report's skepticism.

Apparently, some on North Canton Council got anew-exercised about chronic critic Osborne (going back at least 10 years) upon reading in area media that Canal Fulton had been sued by Canal Fulton community activist Michael Mouse for what he claims to have been violations of his person and rights (First Amendment) by certain Canal Fulton council, fire and police officials.

In hindsight, the SCPR is beginning to wonder whether or not council's run through a number of law directors in recent years doesn't have something to do (at least in-part) with former directors' seeming inability to aid them in developing legal strategies to mute Osborne's civic activism.

Like such is an appropriate goal for legislative councils in democratic America?

And, of course, the current director (Fox) has had first hand experience (from a council perspective) in having to deal with Osborne.

Having "shared in their pain," could it be that Fox has Osborne under special scrutiny all to the delight of council members?

Now to the additional development heightening the SCPR's skepticism of Snyder's claim.

On or about November 20th, Osborne sent out a "public records" request to various Stark County municipalities (including North Canton) like this one to Massillon:

To which Massillon responded thusly:

In Massillon, an administrative clerk for council responds and fulfills Osborne's request.

But North Canton?

Not so simple.

From North Canton, Osborne gets a response from Fox:

Hmm?

"[Does] not appear," "If you wish to restate your declaration into a request for reasonably identifiable records ... ."

Hmm?, again.

So Fox chooses to make "a federal case" out of a simple request for information?

Citizens can get on-file "written" records but not information that exists "electronic" form somewhere within the bowels of North Canton government?

How unimpressive that Fox would take the time to pen such a response (which, of course, is an "opportunity cost" to be doing other more productive work [in the opinion of yours truly] for the taxpayers of North Canton.

Hmm? a third time.

Osborne tells The Report that he will play the game with Fox and council and he will refashion his request to deal with Fox's obvious and marked effort to be difficult.  For Osborne there is nothing new about this technique.  He says it has been ongoing for years with various North Canton officials.

The SCPR has not known much about Tim Fox other than his published bio.

Having talked to him "off camera" (at his insistence) after the November 26th council meeting, The Report is getting the impression that he is imperious sort of guy.

In that conversation, he out-of-the-blue volunteered to yours truly:  "I am a tough person."

Wow!  What brought that on? A mirror-image of what yours truly has heard from at least one North Canton councilperson.  Interesting, no?  

And, to boot, such is a strange attitude for public officials who are, in our democratic system, to be open, accessible, transparent and communicative, no?

Fox went on describe his role for council as being a kind of shelter from having to take tough positions on dealing with citizens of North Canton in the context of talking about the rules for Public Speaks.

Councilpersons are elected officials and they have to walk a fine line between keeping order and decorum at public meetings on the one hand and not being brusque, perhaps even rude and insulting, on the other in enforcing rules of procedure.

The Report believes that Fox has gotten the idea from council members that a primary function for North Canton legal counsel is to be "the cop on the beat" and thereby help them avoid the messy business of managing democratic forums.

And The Report takes the position that if the "cop on the beat" assessment accurately portrays council's attitude; council is making a huge mistake in terms:

• of chilling the exercise by citizens of the U.S. Constitution First Amendment Right and, of course, 
• of placing roadblocks in the way of the  expectation that many in the public have that citizens will endeavor to become as informed as possible before taking civic action.

So what profit was there to the democratic integrity of North Canton governmental processes for Fox to be difficult with Osborne in his quest to be a fully informed decision?

Sorry, Council President Jon Sndyer, but the SCPR believes Fox is taking his cues from council and, accordingly, council is making Osborne (based on the recent evidence cited taken in the historical context of Osborne/law director/council relationships) a special case.

The Report further thinks that North Canton's using the Canal Fulton situation as a justification for reformulating the ground rules for public interaction with council is more pretext than squaring up with real concerns.

From the SCPR's perspective, there are few in any of the current lot of North Canton councilpersons who have or have had (for those who have been around for a while) the skills to deal with the likes of a Chuck Osborne.

While Daryl Revoldt was council president, he demonstrated that he was willing to engage/embrace the messiness of democratic institutions and managed to maintain control notwithstanding a number of run-ins with Osborne.

Shucks!  On one occasion he had Osborne removed from council chambers when he felt that he had gotten out-of-hand.  

Did he like having to do so?  Of course, not.  But was Osborne welcome back at the next meeting of council to participate in accordance with the rules administered judiciously and generously at the hand of the skilled former council president.

Revoldt was not interested in sacrificing our treasured right to redress grievances of government in the context of First Amendment expression because of a temporary disruption or discomfort.

It appears to the SCPR that North Canton Council is embarked on a course of action that is not consistent with America's democratic-republican values.  

It appears that council is trying to systematize procedures of democracy and thereby corral Osborne.

But democracy is person-to-person, citizen to government, and government bureaucratization of channels of communication stifle citizen participation and involvement.

There is no doubt to the SCPR that Citizen Osborne can be a proverbial "pain in the _ss."  But such is what one has to be at times when pursuing civic causes.

There is no doubt that council is smarting from Osborne having lucked on to an issue which resonated with the North Canton voting public.  By North Canton's initiative ordinance procedure, he convinced about 80% of voting North Cantonians at last month's general election that the taxpayers should not be paying (for future councils, being part-time) for members' health care benefits.

Now, from council's perspective, this is serious stuff.  

His citizen activism is getting into their pocketbooks.

Now they have to figure out a way to raise salaries ($4,800 per year) to offset the loss in benefits, no?

That could prove politically difficult to do.

So The Report believes that what appears to be "bringing the hammer down" could well be grounded in some comeuppance.

The Report has gone round and round with Osborne a number few times.  In fact, he has been the subject of several critical blogs.  But it never occurs to yours truly that he should be discouraged in his civic pursuits.

While the SCPR has and will continue to take exception to Osborne (like yours truly does with nearly everyone (at one time or another) in the course of writing this political blog, Chuck Osborne and all his ilk make a very important contributions to the health and well-being of our democratic institutions.

Accordingly, North Canton Council needs to in the name of promoting democratic values to back off of what seems to the SCPR to be a resurgent "bring the hammer down" mentality.