MORE OF THE "SAVING THE SOUL OF CANTON" STORY.

After publishing yesterday's blog, yours truly received a lengthy letter from Ward 7 councilman John Mariol.

Mariol's explanation of the current and ongoing crisis in Canton city government on the issue of the planning, allocation and expenditures of the city's capital fund is so well done that it needs further media exposure.

Accordingly, the SCPR publishes as "Part 2" a second blog on The Battle to Save the Soul of Canton featuring Mariol's letter.

But first a little background on Mariol.

Yes, Mariol lost his election try in 2011 to incumbent councilman Patrick Barton.

However, Barton in 2012 went on to become Canton's Information Technology director and on May 12, 2012 John Mariol became his replacement on being selected by the Ward 7 Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee members.

He was elected in his own right in 2013.  But he is being challenged in the Democratic primary to be held on May 5th.

The SCPR is projecting that Mariol will win handily.

He is one of four "relatively new" councilpersons the SCPR has tabbed as being "the four young turks" with the disclaimer that Ward 9 Councilman Frank Morris "ain't so young."  (lol)

And on March 4, 2015 Councilmen Fisher, Mack, Mariol and Morris remain a major basis on which to think that Canton will dig itself out of its decades-in-the-making deep, deep hole.

On the veteran side of council, Bill Smuckler has been instrumental is schooling the four on being effective as council members and each is making a mark for himself in focusing on various aspects of Canton city government.

Mariol, it seems to the SCPR, is paying special attention to Canton's revitalization in the downtown part of the city (e.g. the Onesto Lofts, the Market Square project and the like).

Mariol as chairman of council's Public Property Capital Improvement Committee has drawn ire of a number of his fellow councilpersons (Smith - Ward 4, Dougherty Ward 6) for proposing that a lion's share of Canton's $400,000 set aside for Ward road maintenance projects be redirected to pay Canton's share of a mandatory "local match" in order to get a state and federal government grant of $1.25 million to repave Fulton Road Northwest which runs from West Tuscarawas Street out past the Pro Football Hall of Fame to the city limits.

Between Mariol's justification of his position and Ward 8 Councilman Edmond Mack's of yesterday, Cantonians now have the resources to be fully informed on the "deep, deep 'road maintenance' hole" that previous administrations and councils (including current mayor William J. Healy, II's, but going back through Republican Creighton and Watkins administrations, at the very least) have - through their neglect - brought to Canton.

It is clear to the SCPR that the conditions of roads and streets of Canton is now a political "elephant-in-the-room" that has grabbed the attention of all of council and over time is on the way to being remedied.

And the SCPR attributes much of the impetus to reordering priorities to bring neighhoods (i.e. the demolition of abandoned vacant properties), to bring street/road conditions out of backlog and to increased police and fire coverage to acceptable levels to the likes of Fisher, Mack, Mariol and Morris.

That is not to say that the remaining councilpersons are not part of the effort.  It is that the SCPR thinks that "the four" have doubled down and taken the lead to solve all of Canton's "overwhelming" problems undaunted by the gigantic scope of those problems.

Economic development and its corollary of creating city of Canton taxpayers is always going to be the top priority so that funds are available to do neighborhood blight removal, street and road repair/improvement and making the city secure.

However, a focus and emphasis on economic development will not work if the city is blighted, pothole filled and unsafe.

It takes energetic and imaginative leadership to "keep-all-those-balls-in-the-air" and the SCPR thinks that "the four" have those qualities in spades and thereby provide Cantonians with hope that the city is slowly but surely getting a grip on its decline and turning it around.

Here is the entire text of Councilman John Mariol's letter to the SCPR:

Martin,

Before I give my take on the debate at last nights Council meeting, I would like to touch on some figures regarding the Capital Budget. At the end of 2013, we passed a temporary budget that set aside 1 million dollars for road maintenance and paving. After we selected our Majority and Assistant Majority Leaders, we started working on our permanent budget for fiscal year 2014. Working with the Administration, we were able to increase the 1 million dollars of road maintenance to 1.75 million dollars. This year we set aside 1.9 million for paving and put $400,000 into councils' budget, with the intent of using it for paving.

Recently, we were able to identify another $200,000 that we will be moving into paving— bringing our projected total budgeted amount for paving to 2.35 million dollars. Even with these changes, we are still 10 million dollars behind in paving, and with the winter we had, I do not believe we will make up ground. We currently have the opportunity to secure 1.25 million dollars, in the form of a grant, to pave a road that is in deplorable condition (Fulton Rd). To secure this grant, we need to come up with around $351,000.

We have a few sources to look at for these funds. First is the unappropriated line of our Capital Fund. Currently, we have 1.1 million in unappropriated capital, and that money is historically used for engineering projects, equipment for our departments, and potentially, more paving. This year, we had 4.4 million dollars of requests from departments and engineering, yet we only have 1.1 million to allocate. Working with department heads, we have come up with a plan that reduces the 4.4 million requested amount down to around a $900,000 dollar allocation— and leaves about $147,000 in un-appropriated. If we take the money for the matching funds from the 1.1 million dollars, we will have to forgo purchasing items such as body armor for the police, turnout gear for the firefighters, computers for the law department, or multiple engineering projects— and in turn, lose out on other matching funds.

Secondly, we can take the matching funds for Fulton out of our paving budget. This would put us even further behind on paving, and in my opinion, would be damaging to our city.

Third, and finally, we could use the $400,000 we have in Councils' budget to fund Fulton Rd. Lets lay out some facts regarding the $400,000 in Councils' budget. During my time on Council, we have never had $400,000. $400,000 represents 40% of all the unappropriated funds in our Capital Account, and Council does not have the authority to spend the $400,000 on paving without first moving it elsewhere. In my opinion, the only logical place to look for the $351,000 for Fulton Rd is in Councils' budget.

Regarding the disagreements from last nights Council meeting, this was the first time I've experienced such opposition from a small minority of Council on funding a project with matching funds that will cover 80% of that project. I strongly supported these types of projects in the past, regardless of which ward they are in. It is no secret

that we have funding issues in the city due to the cuts in local government funding. Anytime we can leverage taxpayer money to secure grants— those votes become "no-brainers". It's also no secret that we are dealing with decades of neglect to our roads, which have resulted in roads that are barely drivable. If we are to fix this paving problem, we must be fully dedicated to allocating as much money as we possibly can. We need the discipline to delay our wants, so we can fund our needs. In the past, we did not do this— resulting in the road conditions we are dealing with today. The "kicking the can down the road" has to end.

Some members question the fairness in spending this amount of money on a road that is located in only two wards of our city. I find this confusing given that we regularly judge projects based on need, matching funds, and overall impact to the city— not what ward is "next in line". The Mahoning Road Corridor is an example of such. Although the projected cost to the city for the Mahoning Road Corridor project is around 5 million, it passed unanimously— because it is a 55 million dollar project. This equals a high return on investment.

I believe that when it comes to the upcoming vote to fund this project, it will pass unanimously. Although every ward in our city has needs that exceed the revenue available, we must place a high priority on funding street maintenance at a sustaining level. As Councilmen and Councilwomen, we have a duty to vigorously debate the issues, but at the end of the day, cooler heads will prevail. I am confident my colleagues will unanimously approve this ordinance.

(VIDEOS) CANTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: GOING NOWHERE?

VIDEOS

Councilman/Majority Leader

Frank Morris, II

April 28, 2014 

Morris

on

October 2, 2014

Citizen Sandy Reo

October 2, 2014

Ward 1

Councilman Greg Hawk

October 2, 2014

Ward 7

Councilman John Mariol

October 2, 2014

Councilman at Large

Bill Smuckler

October 2, 2014

On Thursday last, Ward 9 councilman and Canton City Council majority leader Frank Morris, III hosted a series of community meetings designed to acquaint Cantonians with Canton's Comprehensive Plan.

Announced by Canton mayor William J. Healy, II in his "State of the City" Address on April 2, 2014 and authorized/endowed by Canton City Council to the tune of $350,000 to hire a consulting firm, "the plan" does have its skeptics.

Council on April 28th did vote to finance the plan on a 7 to 4 vote.  (Morris, Babcock, Hart and Smuckler voting "no")

The foremost "negative" is Morris.

Here is Morris on the 28th.



Here is Morris last Thursday evening at Schreiber Elementary School:



Also chiming in on the plan were:

CITIZEN SANDY REO (WARD 9)



WARD 1 COUNCILMAN GREG HAWK



WARD 7 COUNCILMAN JOHN MARIOL



CITYWIDE COUNCILMAN BILL SMUCKLER



The SCPR attended the first Canton Comprehensive Plan meeting in Edmond Mack's Ward 8, (September 16) and midway-point meeting last Thursday and contemplates attending the finale in Kevin Fisher's Ward 5 on October 16th at the J. Babe Stern Center.

The "elephant in the room" question is whether or not the Canton Comprehensive Plan has "a snowball's chance in Hell" of ever being implemented.

Because Canton officialdom is mired in despair over the decades decline of the Hall of Fame city, an implemented Canton Comprehensive Plan is viewed by some on council as Canton's last chance at resurrecting this once proud city.

The SCPR gets the impression from Councilman Morris that he views the plan as much hogwash and he will be holding the Healy administration accountable for wasting $350,000 of taxpayer money if all the plan proves to be is a publicity stunt of sorts.

One Cantonian (Citizen Cantonian) has asked what the SCPR thinks is a very good question:  If a plan is constructed from citizen input from the city's nine wards, where is the money coming from to implement it?

The SCPR is told that within the next week or two, the Healy administration will be sending legislation to council for passage with respect to generating some $15 million to $17 million in bond money to help finance various projects throughout the city in a kind of a "pre-plan:  Canton Comprehensive Plan."

Well, a second question has to be:  If it is taking $15 million to $17 million to "pre-plan" plus millions more as Canton's share of the Mahoning Road and 12th Street corridor projects, where in "God's little green acre of Canton, Ohio" are the millions upon millions to come from - that, undoubtedly, will be needed - to fund Canton's "in the works" Comprehensive Plan?

The Report is told that various council members (Ward one's Greg Hawk [finance committee chair], Ward seven's John Mariol and Morris) have been involved in discussions with the mayor regarding "how much" and for "what uses" will the contemplated bond issue defined.

Here is a speculated preliminary list:

1.  $5,000,000.00    Hall of Fame project.

2.  $2,000,000.00   Onesta Loan

3.  $2,000,000.00   Chamber Downtown Project (The Kresge Lot)  Amphitheater I believe.

4.  $2,000,000.00   New Roofs (Civic Center, Sears building etc.)

5.  $2,000,000.00   City share of demolitions cost.

6.  $2,000,000.00   Street Department new building and truck wash.

And The Report is told that the Healy administration is working on a sub-plan to sell the Sears building which houses various city offices and relocate them in substitute purchased alternative site; namely, The Canton Jewish Center on 25th Street.

The point being that if the Sears/Jewish Center story is accurate (which surely will require "above and beyond" revenues from the sale of Sears) to get The Jewish Center rehabbed and ready for Canton government's use.

Again, if this report proves to be well-founded, you have a $15 million to $17 million bond fund expenditure, you have millions of city money going into Mahoning/12th Street, and - perhaps - money going into rehabbing the Jewish Center; the question compounded comes out:  Where is the money going to come from for implementing a Canton Comprehensive Plan.

The SCPR thinks Citizen Cantonian is asking the correct questions about the funding of a Canton Comprehensive Plan.

The SCPR thinks Frank Morris is not being a "doom and gloom" councilman in his consistent expressions of skepticism of about the practicality, reliability and viability of the much touted Canton Comprehensive Plan.

The SCPR thinks that Mayor Healy and his planning gurus need to start answering those questions.

For now, the administration should be projecting a "within our 'maximum' capability" skeletal capital needs budget that Canton finances and projected taxpayer support will allow for.

The Report thinks the planners need to know Canton's "reality-based" financial capability before coming down with a plan.

The only thing worse than having no plan at all, is to have a "pie-in-the-sky" plan that has no chance of complete implementation.

The SCPR thinks such is what concerns Frank Morris.

Though Morris' views do not appear to be popular among his peers, they would be wise to pay attention to his skepticism and insist that any Canton Comprehensive Plan be fundable and therefore doable!

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

 UPDATE:  09:00 AM (Revised and Amended)

CLARIFICATION OF EFFORT
FROM EDMOND MACK

Edmond J. Mack
        Today at 8:20 AM

To:  tramols@att.net

Martin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Edmond J. Mack

ORIGINAL BLOG

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

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

Both present themselves as "men of the people."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

Why so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(VIDEOS) CAN CANTON COUNCIL OVERRIDE HEALY VETO?

UPDATE:  09:10 AM

A RESPONSE FROM COUNCILMAN KEVIN FISHER

TAX CREDIT

        Kevin Fisher
        Today at 8:50 AM

To  Martin Olson

Martin,
 
Regarding the vote to repeal the reduced tax credit and today's blog post, I wanted to give you a quick explanation of my vote. This was a tough vote for me, but in the end Mayor Healy stopped by my house with Coach McDaniels and the ghost of Marion Motley and convinced me that any good Bulldog would vote against the ordinance. Later we all sang the McKinley Alma Mater...a good time was had by all!!!

Seriously, It really was a difficult decision for me. I voted against the reduction of the credit in 2012 and continue to have concerns of its impact on construction workers and tradesmen, who routinely work a short amount of time in multiple jurisdictions in the course of a single tax year. This repeal measure, however, I felt was incomplete and failed to address several key issues...primarily, the lack of identifying where the subsequent cuts in spending would come from or creating replacement revenue in coming tax years. The city recently hired 35 safety officers...the cost of which will increase by nearly half a million dollars simply by going from first year to second year employees in 2015. The relocation of the Timken Research facility to the Airport will cost the city another half a million dollars. The impending passage of HB5 in the General Assembly will take yet another $750,000 from the city's General Fund (according to our Treasurer's Office estimate). This would have reduced that revenue by another estimated $400k per year. I have asked for weeks, including during the committee hearing for an accounting of how the revenue would be replaced or spending cuts would be made, and have yet to see said accounting. I felt, that as a member of the Finance Committee, this was the only responsible vote I could cast at this time.

I hope this answers any question you may have...and as always GO PUPS!!! 

Kevin L. Fisher
Canton City Council - Ward 5
(330)-489-3223
(330)-412-4681
kevin.fisher@cantonohio.gov 

ORIGINAL BLOG

Last night Canton mayor William J. Healy, II reacted swiftly to Canton City Council's 7 to 5 vote to restore the income tax credit of Cantonians who work out-of-town to a full 2%.  The vote was a reversal of a July 30, 2012 vote instituting a .3% reduction (LINK).

He address his promise to veto the ordinance in the following video.   (SCPR Note:  Healy also responds to a Councilman Bill Smuckler claim that he has gone on a spending spree in the five [5] months that Smuckler has returned to council after being off for two [2] years)



And here are the mayor's remarks during the pre-vote debate in which he argues for a delay on the vote.



The full text of the Healy administration press release in which Mayor Healy explains why he will veto Council's vote last night appears at the end of this blog.

Other players in the fight last evening included what the Stark County Political Report thinks are folks who may be interested in challenging Healy's right to continue on as mayor beyond December 31, 2015.

It will take eight (8) councilpersons votes to override Healy's promised veto.

Here is the actual vote from last night on Ordinance 24.

• Morris, YES
• Smith, NO
• Babcock, YES
• Smuckler, YES
• Hart, YES
• Hawk, YES
• West, NO
• Griffith, NO
• Fisher, NO
• Dougherty, NO
• Mariol, YES
• Mack, YES

To the SCPR, the key person as to whether or not the mayor's expected veto can be overriden is Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher (a Democrat).

Kevin is very tight with Treasurer Perez (having worked for Perez when he was Stark County auditor).

However,  he - in the opinion of the SCPR - is one among the group of young (except, maybe Ward 9 councilman and majority leader Frank Morris) councilpersons that The Report has dubbed as being "the four young turks" (LINK to blog, August, 2012) that is most likely to depart from the turk-group "more or less, coalition" and side up with Mayor Healy in the tug-o-wars that materialize from time to time between the administration and a substantial part of council.

Some say that Kevin's susceptibility to siding with Healy is due to a relationship that has developed between the two on the basis of being Canton McKinley Bulldog fans who can be seen together on the sidelines of a Bulldog home football game.

But others say that such conjecture is balderdash.  Kevin is a fiercely independent councilman and on the income tax credit issue was voting his perception of being the interests of his Ward 5 constituents.

Whichever is the correct take on Fisher, as the SCPR sees it, he is the one possibility for council to override the forthcoming Healy veto.

Below (in this blog) Kim Perez, Canton's recently elected (November, 2013) city treasurer expounds his position the tax issue.

Perez denies to the SCPR that he has gotten active in substantive (meaning policy issues) matters affecting Canton government operations as a build up to running against Healy in the May, 2015 Democratic Party primary election.

Healy, The Report thinks, gets somewhat dismissive of Perez on policy matters (at least to the SCPR) by describing him as being Canton's tax collector.

Here is what Perez had to say about eliminating the tax credit reduction.



Another player is long term councilman Bill Smuckler who recently took a two year break from council in order to run (unsuccessfully) for Stark County commissioner.

He lashed out at Mayor Healy in last evenings pre-eliminate-the-income-tax-credit vote for (since Smuckler has come back on council [which stands at five [5] months now) having hired new employees and giving pay raises all the while "crying the blues" about Canton's fiscal condition in the face of State of Ohio revenue cuts.



Of course, some think that Smuckler's attack on Healy is because he also has designs on the mayor's office.  He defeated Healy in the 2003 Democratic primary for the right to run (in a losing effort) against Republican Janet Creighton.  In 2011 he lost to Healy in the Democratic mayoralty primary.  So a 2015 run would be "the rubber match" to break the tie of one election victory for each.

So around and around the wheel goes and where it stops will be at the seat of  Councilman Kevin Fisher.

Fisher, the SCPR thinks, will decide whether or not the Healy veto gets sustained or overridden.

Mayor Healy's press release:

CANTON, Ohio - Mayor William Healy announced he will VETO the ordinance to increase the income tax credit to 100% if passed by council.

"As mayor of Canton, I have taken an oath to protect the citizens of Canton," stated Mayor Healy. "Therefore, any proposal which would affect hundreds of thousands of dollars and potentially impact essential safety and community services can only be considered after careful scrutiny and analysis."

Healy believes it would be fiscally irresponsible to support this tax proposal ordinance at this point in time when the basic facts related to the proposal have not been provided. Supporters of this legislation have not presented any financial information as to the economic impact this will have on our city.  In addition, there is no indication how the city should offset this revenue stream or identify which services would have to be cut to enrich a select few who would benefit from this proposal.

Mayor Healy's concerns are as follows:

1.    What is the amount of the reduction to our general fund and capital funds?

The City of Canton has lost over $6 million annually as a direct result of the Governor and State Legislature's reduction in funding local governments, including the cuts from local government funds, eliminating the inheritance tax and the tangible personal property tax over the past several years.

The tax credit for Canton residents working in another city was reduced from 100% to 85% to generate revenue to help offset some of those state cuts. The prior City Treasurer conservatively estimated this to be a $400,000 annual impact to the general fund based on our 2012 finances.

These state cuts have had a negative impact on communities across Ohio including every city in Stark County. Currently, Canton, Massillon, Alliance, Louisville and Canal Fulton all have tax credits of less than 100%, while North Canton is in the process of reducing theirs.

2.    What services will be reduced, neglected or left insufficiently funded?

There has not been one serious discussion as to what services will be negatively impacted due to the reduction of revenue this ordinance will create. The citizens of Canton must be informed about what services would be cut to offset this lost revenue. Generally, when a cut of this magnitude is enacted, it means a reduction in workforce including police and firefighters, which use two-thirds of every dollar we spend from the general fund.

Citizens are asking for more police, firefighters, paving of streets, additional pot holes filled, and many other requests that all are paid from the general fund or capital accounts. City Council has also asked for more police and firefighters, more street paving, and even recently requested for the city to hire a Grant Writer, an Animal Control officer, and now a Nuisance Officer. These requests for increased spending have come at the very same time the city is being asked to reduce revenues. Mayor Healy states, "This is a clear contradiction. You cannot increase spending while reducing revenue. It just doesn't work."

3.    Who will be impacted by this ordinance?

This ordinance is a tax cut for a targeted few who would be paying absolutely nothing in taxes to the city of Canton if this goes into effect. For example: If your neighbor works in Akron while you work in Canton, your neighbor contributes nothing towards our taxes while you subsidize every city service they receive. Every resident of Canton uses the same city roads you use, depends on the same police and fire protection you do, and benefits from the same street lighting that comes on every night to make your neighborhood safe. Yet, this ordinance would allow a select few of our city residents to completely avoid paying any taxes to the city of Canton.

However, the services that will be negatively impacted directly benefit all of our citizens. The passing of this ordinance will disproportionately harm seniors on fixed incomes and low income residents. These families will receive little or no tax savings from the passing of this ordinance, yet they could potentially lose essential safety services and community funds necessary to the vitality of their neighborhoods. Or worse, the only other option to avoid reducing services is to increase income or property taxes for everyone. This would disproportionately impact seniors and low income households.

4.    Mayor Healy does not believe this is the right time to reduce taxes to our General Fund.

The mayor presented a complete and comprehensive financial update to Canton citizens on April 8, 2014 when he delivered his State of the City Address. Below is an excerpt from the state of the city delivered April 8, 2014:

"...The city of Canton is experiencing our strongest financial position we have seen in over a decade! Now please don't mistake this for us rolling in cash or having the ability to spend at will, because that is certainly not the case..." and followed it up with,

"...There are still some areas of concern, as our general fund cash flow is significantly lower than it was before the recession..."

"As we all know, the reason we are still millions of dollars below our pre-recession revenues is due soley to reduction of local support by State Government," Healy commented, "and, there is current legislation in committee (HB 5) that could negatively impact our city by even more.  The threat of greater reductions by our Governor and State Legislature to the local communities is still out there, and the financial impact is uncertain."

WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK THAT COUNCILMAN SMUCKLER WOULD WANT TO MIMIC (EVEN IN THE SMALLEST SORT OF WAY) MAYOR HEALY?

One thing that stands out about Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II is that over the term of his first four years he has had way too many incidents of having to explain the ethics of actions as a public official and notorious Stark County political figure.

So it came as no surprise when on 9/11 Mayor Healy (who the SCPR views as being "ethically challenged") barged into a Canton firefighter event specifically designed to "nonpolitically" honor America's fallen firefighter heros.

Canton firefighter Charlie Day (said to be "a man that you can take his word for it") is reported to have said that Healy threatened to charge Coming Together Stark County (a participant in the event) for police and barricades.  Of course, Healy denied the allegation as being "ridiculous."

Notwithstanding his denial, the SCPR finds Healy's power move to be consistent with how the mayor operates as a matter of course.  Sometimes he uses the naked power of office; other times he tries to grease and finesse his way.  However, the objective is always the same:  William J. Healy, II is always intent on it being "his way or the highway" and he will do whatever it takes to realize his goal.

Councilman-at-Large Bill Smuckler, from the perspective of the SCPR, has demonstrated that as public officials go, he is leaps and bounds ahead of Mayor Healy on the ethics plane.

That's why The Report was caught by surprise to read Ed Balint's piece (Canton City Council may raise fee for mobile venders, The Rep, September 16th) about Smuckler seeing no need to recuse himself from tomorrow evening's council vote on whether or not to impose a $250 daily mobile vendor's license fee:  an increase of 100%. 

The SCPR always applauds a pro and con discussion on any policy decision.  It just that Smuckler should not have been the person to introduce a license fee increase and lead the pro-permanent-restaurant point-of-view.  Since he does have a financial interest (self-described as being small) in the subject matter of the legislation, Smuckler (owner of a restaurant supply company) should follow the lead of Councilman Greg Hawk (Ward 1 and restaurant owner) and recuse himself from further participation in the matter.

While "that horse is already out of the barn" in terms of Smuckler weighing in with other council members and while it may not be a "conflict in interest" in the strict definition of the phrase (i.e. he is only one of twelve council members); the SCPR is disappointed with and surprised at Smuckler's insensitivity to his personal interest in the matter - the smallness of the interest notwithstanding.

The increase in the mobile license fees should be decided by the remaining ten council members and Council President Allen Schulman (in the event of a tie).

Smuckler has told the SCPR that he has some interest in running for county commissioner come 2012.

One thing that Stark Countians should be insisting upon for 2012 is that candidates for county office have impeccable ethics.

For The Report, if Smuckler persists in the mobile vendor licensing matter; such will be a signal to county voters, that should he run for county office, they need to examine closely whether or not his ethical standards in holding public office are at the level they need to be at.

A CHANGED CANTON MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY, II? VIDEOS: (1) SCHULMAN ON HEALY ADMIN (2) CANTON CADET POLICE PAY (3) PARKING FUND IMBALANCE (4) HEALY ON NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

 

The Stark County Political Report is not ready to say that Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II has had a "born again" political experience.

Perhaps, Canton City Council President Allen Schulman is (see/hear Schulman in his own words in the video immediately below this paragraph), but not The Report. 

However, there are increasing signs that the erudite (at least, in his own eyes) and beleaguered mayor is making significant progress along the lines of acquiring political maturity.  

It seems to The Report that Healy has been somewhat chastened by the rough and tumble experiences (largely brought on by himself - e.g the firing of critique prone Tom Bernabei as service director and chief of staff early on in his administration) of "fishbowlish" political and government life.

Inside information that The Report started getting almost from the get-go of his newly elected administration's assumption of office as the executive function for Stark County's largest city and county seat indicated trouble was brewing for the man who incessantly touted that he was uniquely qualified to lead the Hall of Fame city by virtue of his having been a successful (?) businessman with an MBA from the New York University Stern School of Business.

The Report remembers an occasion when Democratic Governor Ted Strickland came to Stark County (Brewster) in the spring of 2008 to tour a local business - in a back and forth with Healy - in which he spent most of the conversation bashing his predecessor Republican Janet Creighton for "the unbelievable mess she left Canton in."

 

That slam on Creighton was a clear indication that Healy was going to start out his administration as a excuse making regime.  And that is exactly what he has been doing for most of his three years plus in office.   Rather than manning up and cleaning up the mess (giving him the benefit of a doubt that he is accurately describing the Creighton legacy), Healy did what many immature politicians do:  blame someone else.

But the SCPR is starting to see small changes in the Healy administration.

There was a fuss between Healy and Councilman-at-Large Bill Smuckler (who lost to Healy in the May mayoralty primary) over police cadet pay.

It seems as if the pay has been like a volleyball in recent years:  too low; too high; maybe just right and now the argument - just right or too low.

The Healy administration does not want the cadets to come out of their twelve month training (probation) period and jump into a job where the new policeman is making more money than a second-year policeman.  This is what Healy claimed in Monday night's council meeting at which the Healy administration announced a reduction the cadet pay range to $26,000 up to $30,000.

Councilman Smuckler argued that the reality is that the numbers of highly qualified cadets eligible for the $30,000 pay will be few and far between and that the reality will be that most will get paid the $26,000 which he claims means inferior policing because only marginal candidates will apply at that pay.

Healy tells The Report that he disagrees with Smuckler.  The mayor thinks that $30,000 will be more the norm and that Canton will be graduating competent, capable policemen and policewomen.

Who is correct?

The Report thinks it depends on how many police are to be hired.  Healy could or would not say on Monday night.  If large numbers are hired, then Smuckler is likely closer to the mark.  If a small number is hired (the most likely given Canton's financial stress), then Healy is probably closer to the mark.

The redeeming point is that the discussion between Healy and Smuckler is the obviousness that reasonable minds can differ respectfully.  However, should Healy prove incorrect over time and the quality of Canton's policing suffers, then Cantonians will be right to question whether or not the mayor is looking out for them.

Here is a video summary of the Healy and Committee of the whole exchange.

One other matter that came up for discussion was between another Healy adversary (Ward 1 Councilman Greg Hawk) and His Honor.

The topic this time?

The need to take $160,000 out of the general fund to supplement the City Parking Deck/Lot Fund (CPDLF).

Councilman Hawk chided Mayor Healy about not budgeting the total amount needed for the CPDLF for the entire year earlier in the year when council passed the city budget.  Hawk's needling was clearly an attempt to get to Healy's goat.  A major riff between some on council and the mayor as the budget was being put together was the administration's short funding of police and fire functions in order to make it appear that the budget was balanced.

Healy did not take the bait.  But he did somewhat regress into the blame game again (guess who? - yes - the Creighton administration and a ten year economic development package designed to keep Huntington Bank in downtown Canton).  However, he did not use the Creighton name in the public discussion.

Those of us who have been following the council/administration knew full well the identity of the blame though.  It did take prodding by the SCPR in a person-to-person interview for Healy to actually accede to the naming of the Creighton administration as the blameworthy factor.

Here is a summary video of that discussion.



Recently, the Healy administration has had success with economic development in bringing 1,000 jobs to Canton Centre by attracting VXI Global Solutions, Inc (a China-based company).  Mayor Healy told The Report that a few minor details still remain to be worked out with VXI, but that he is confident that the deal is a done deal.  Moreover, last week an announcement was made that the Cleveland Cavaliers are bringing their D-League (minor league) basketball franchise to Canton to the Canton Memorial Civic Center.

Here is a video of Healy talking about the economic development projects.



All in all, the SCPR agrees with Council President Allen Schulman:  good things do seem to be happening in Canton.

It could be that a primary reason is that Mayor William J. Healy, II is finally getting a grip on the reality that as talented as he may think he is individually, success only comes through a committed team approach.

Healy has tabbed his campaign efforts since he first ran for mayor, then state representative and then mayor again as being "TeamHealy."

When yours truly noticed that the reality was anything but a team approach (it was William J. Healy, II - the man in charge), it was apparent that Healy thought he could full people with rhetoric.

He has persisted for quite a long time in this vain effort.  Consequently, he and Canton has gone through the experiences that were more owing to the mayor's ego problems than outside factors (i.e. the legacy left by the Creighton administration and the downturn in the economy).

The Report sees more and more that Healy realizes he is not "Superman" and that he and Canton can only succeed through collaboration and cooperation.

A litmus test of what The Report sees is real progress or a mirage will be in what the mayor does in the way of collaborating with and cooperating with Stark County and Stark's other political subdivision to bring into being more cost effective and service efficient regional project such as a countywide 9-1-1 and merged/consolidated building, health and information technology departments.

As stated above, the SCPR is not willing at this time to declare Mayor William J. Healy, II being born again. 

"Let's keep hope alive!!!"  With God, all things are possible!

(VIDEO ON 3.3% PAY RAISE DEBATE IN COMMITTEE) GOVERNOR KASICH TRIED TO SAVE CANTON CITY GOVERNMENT ABOUT $1.5 MILLION. CANTON'S RESPONSE: "NO THANK YOU!" HMM?

 

 UPDATED AT 12:30 PM

With his support of Ohio Senate Bill 5 (SB 5), Republican Governor John Kasich trying to save Ohio taxpayers millions of dollars in pension costs by prohibiting local governments from picking up the employees pension contribution rates after July 1, 2011.

Thanks, BUT NO THANKS!!!  That's what Canton's councilpersons and the Healy administration says.  And that includes Republican Councilman Mark Butterworth who told the SCPR last night that he opposes SB 5.

Recently, Canton decided to do an end-run around the Kasich administration by doing a PERS conversion whereby the city increased management and AFSCME service workers 7.26% to offset the employees paying the entire 10% employee pension contribution that city officials anticipated would go into effect with SB 5.

Gary Young (Canton's auditor's office) tells The Report that, in the case of the pre-2003 management employees the conversion (had it not been done) has an "opportunity to save cost" of approximately $500,000.  Young used an average salary of $57,000 for 110 employees in arriving at the estimate.  He is currently working on refining the data to "actual data," but the work is not complete as of the date of this blog.

Young also estimated that the "opportunity to save" cost for AFSCME service employees to be about  $1 million.  To estimate this figure, Young took this group's total payroll number and multiplied it by the 7.26%.

Young took no position on whether or not the conversions should have been done.  His only role for purposes of this blog was to provide the data cited above.

It could be that it turns out that there is no lost opportunity because SB 5 gets put on the November, 2011 ballot and is defeated by Ohio's voters.  And The Report believes that such is very likely to happen.  But one never knows in the world of politics.

Pay issues are a sore point in Canton City Council (Council) these days.  Last night there was a long and protracted debate in the pre-Council-meeting Finance Committee meeting (Ward One Councilman Greg Hawk, chair).  Be sure to view the video at the end of this blog to get a flavor of the debate.

The approved raises (3.3%) are said by Canton Finance Director Joe DiRuzza to cost Canton up to $198,000 ($91,000 of which for management/administrative employees, $107,000 for enterprise fund employees).

DiRuzza told yours truly that those numbers presumes that everybody (management/administrative) will be getting the 3.3% raise.

City officials (especially Mayor Healy) like to trot out the "enterprise fund" answer as sort of a "perfect squelch" to any criticism because the given expenditure does not come out of the general fund directly paid for by taxpayers.  However, the truth of the matter is that as enterprise department expenses increase (e.g. water, sewer et cetera); rates go up.  So the fact of the matter is that enterprise fund expense increases do cost Cantonians.

Of course, the sticking point with opponents to the 3.3% raise (Cirelli and Smuckler) is that the money needed to be spent on additional firemen and policemen.  

Last night a citizen who is involved in a Canton neighborhood association appeared before council and complained about Canton's policing.  Another complained about deficient city ambulance service.

Here is a video (Finance Committee meeting) which is indicative of the debate on the pay increases.

(VIDEO: FOR CITIZENS & PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN "EFFICIENT" GOV'T) - BID EXPRESS - ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR STARK COUNTY GOVERNMENT TO BECOME MORE EFFICIENT?

At Commissioner Pete Ferguson's initiative, local officials assembled at the Stark County Regional Planning Agency to hear a presentation by Bid Express officials to interest county, township, city and village officials in an Internet program offered for a fee by the company which appears to more than pay for itself in savings to local governments who have to competitively bid out government business (by state law) and, where not required to do by law, should do so.

By coming together, local governments can pool their resources to make the program affordable.  Commissioner Ferguson and Councilman-at-Large Bill Smuckler (who will be running for mayor of Canton in May, 2011) are spearheading the effort.  Although Ferguson is newer at the effort than Smuckler (who has been the foremost advocate of regionalism in Stark County), he is pushing hard to get better cooperation.

But will local governments be receptive to the Ferguson/Smuckler prodding?

Yours truly has written before on this topic and will continue to do so in an effort to push efficiency and effectiveness in local government.

It has been like pulling teeth to get local governments (17 townships and 19 villages and cities) to work together on such things as developing an efficient and effective countywide 9-1-1 call and dispatch system, consolidating health department functions and merging building department duplicated operations.

On 9-1-1, for instance, a major 9-1-1 player with its CenCom center - Nimishillen Township - refuses to cooperate with county officials putting together a countywide system. 

On the building department issue, there is a problem with outright merger because Canton has more detailed requirements than Stark County and therefore a countywide agency would not suffice.  However, the county can and the SCPR believes should contract with Canton to do the county's work.

One has to wonder where Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II is on the issue of consolidation.  He talks a good game.  However, his administration presented and had Canton City Council pass a measure Monday evening to continue an independent contract for building code oversight and enforcement and not coordinate with Stark County officials despite Canton's supposed interest in   His prime opponent in May, Councilman Bill Smuckler seems to be much more consistent and hence reliable on government consolidation, merger and cooperation than Healy.  Smuckler voted against the Healy administration proposal.

On another front, apparently the mergers of the health departments are pretty much a certainty with the Canton Health Department likely to be the surviving entity.

Ferguson issued an invitation to many more political subdivision officeholders than showed up at the October 19th meeting he called for them to hear Bid Express make its presentation.  The Report has prepared a video for those not attending and for citizens interested in the taxpayer savings to be realized in an adopting of the Bid Express program to see.

The presentation is compelling and Commissioner Ferguson tells the SCPR that he believes that its adoption will become a reality.

With the county facing as much as a $20 million drop off of revenues from 2010 to 2012 and with many of Stark's villages, cities and township facing financial difficulties, the time has never been a better time to push for more cooperation, sharing and merger of duplicative services among all of Stark County's governments.

Much more needs to be done than is currently being considered.  However, Stark Countians should be encouraged with the efforts underway.

Here is the video presentation by Bid Express.

STARK COUNTY GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO CHANGE. BUT IN WHAT WAY?

In the budget bill (House Bill 1) for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, (enacted in the summer of 2009) there was a very important provision which does not deal directly with Ohio's budget.

It had to do with setting up a 15 member commission known as The Ohio Commission on Local Government Reform and Collaboration (Commission) to study ways to make local government more efficient and effective.

The Commission was charged to come up with recommendations to the Ohio General Assembly and the Governor by July 1, 2010 on:

Well, July 1st has come and gone and, of course, there has been slippage on the due date of the Commission's report to today, September 1.  However, the last meeting of the Commission was on August 27th.  One has to wonder if today will actually be the day.

In any event, the report will be issued very soon, if not today.

The SCPR believes this is a very important report for Stark County.

Why so?

In the opinion of The Report, Stark County is in need of restructuring. More so than even Canton.  Canton only elects an auditor, treasurer and law director in addition to the mayor and councilpersons.

Stark County has nine centers of political power.

The whole fiasco with the Stark County treasury and the lack of checks and balances within county government to prevent the admitted theft by Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci of some $2.46 million makes it obvious to yours truly that Stark County government needs reworked.

One current option under the law of Ohio is for Stark to go charter government a la Summit County (1974) and Cuyahoga County (2009).  Lucas County (Toledo) is mulling charter government over, but note one of the co-chairs of the Commission is the auditor in Lucas County.

And that may turn out to be the choice for Stark Countians to make.

However, the work of the Commission may contain recommendations that are even better for Ohio's counties, cities and villages in a more collaborative and regional context.

On April 30, 2010 the Ohio Council of County Officials (elected officials) submitted written testimony to the Commission which appears to the SCPR to be opposition to as good part of the work of the Commission (i.e. efficiencies).  The Report takes the inviolability of the right of county officials to be elected is code for opposition.

Although Stark citizens are likely to besiege the county commissioners when they have county problems.  In actuality, the commissioners have very little control over the functions of county government other than their own office.

An example is their inability to get independently the elected auditor, clerk of courts, coroner, engineer, prosecutor, recorder, sheriff and treasurer to anticipate the immense financial crisis (exaggerated by the $2.96 loss in county funds in the treasurer's office) under way in county government and make voluntary cuts.

Over the next few months there will be a lot of squabbling and infighting within county government over who gets cut and how much.  What Stark Countians will witness is likely to be wrangling not cooperation.

Here is a diagram of the structure of Stark County government today:

 While the SCPR has never be wild about Councilman Bill Smuckler of Canton because he has a very uninspiring personality (which makes it difficult for everyday citizens to buy into his program), the work of the Commission might, if its recommendations include true intergovernmental collaboration mechanisms, be a godsend for his candidacy for mayor of Canton.

Canton desperately needs to get its act together after four years of disastrous Healy administration leadership (even after factoring in the bad overall national and state economies).

Because of his many years of work on regionalism, Smuckler appears to be ideally suited to adapt whatever local government structural reform opportunities come out of the Commission's work to do collaborative (consolidation/merger/integration, et cetera) work with Stark County government and Stark's other political subdivisions.

The SCPR continues to believe that former Canton mayor Janet Creighton and Thomas Bernabei (who has had multiple roles with Canton government as well as experience with the Stark Area Transit Authority) will become Stark County's next commissioners.

If their elections materialize and Smuckler wins next May and the Ohio General Assembly adopts cutting edge government structural reform coming out of the work of The Ohio Commission on Local Government Reform and Collaboration, then the trio can go to work on restoring the public trust in the way government operates in Stark County.

WHOOPEE-DEE! EVERYBODY TURN SOMERSALTS - BILL SMUCKLER IS RUNNING FOR MAYOR OF CANTON!

Its a close call. Who is the most boring candidate in all of Stark County? Richard Reinbold (Democrat - running [yawn] against Republican "musical chairs" Scott Oelslager for Stark County 29th Ohio Senate district) or Bill Smuckler?

The Repository says, today, that Smuckler is to make a formal announcement (Facebook and Twitter, a "formal" announcement?) that he is running for mayor of Canton.

Of course, anybody who knows anything about Canton politics knows that today's heads-up announcement has been known about for months.

To gin up excitement, it appears that Smuckler is trying to give the impression that he is a "with-it" guy who uncharacteristically, for a man of his age, is into Facebook and Twitter and in that way do a "novel" - not anymore - and "exciting" formal announcement.

Hmm.

Well, that will probably be about as exciting as Bill Smuckler gets.

A fresh face in Democratic politics would beat William J. Healy, II hands down.  But Smuckler?  It could be Healy is about to "even the score" with Smuckler, having lost the 2003 Democratic primary by 139 votes to "the power behind the throne" of Canton City Council.

The key to who wins the 2003 rematch is how "in political reality" the 8 Ward councilmen (Ward 8 is represented by Republican Mark Butterworth) and two (other than Smuckler himself, obviously) council-at-large persons line up.

Here is how the Wards broke down in the 2003 election.

Healy won only in Wards 1, 3 and 6 and ran rather poorly in in Wards 8 and 9.  Actually, Healy "lost" the election in Wards 8 and 9.

Readers are reminded that there were three other candidates in the 2003 race.  And it is these votes, 2,231 of them where the battleground of the 2011 primary election will be fought.

Look for both Healy and Smuckler to lean on the councilpersons and other key "organized" Stark County Democratic Party players for support.

Healy, of course, can count on Ward 2 (Thomas West) and Ward Four (Chris Smith).  Smuckler can count on Council President Allen Schulman, Ward 1 (Greg Hawk), Ward 6 (David Dougherty) and Councilwoman-at-Large Mary Cirelli (who Healy defeated in her bid to be re-elected state representative in the 52nd District in 2004).

The SCPR believes that Canton's Democratic voters will be in a "choose your poison" mode come May, 2011.

Despite all his promises when he ran against and defeated Republican Janet Creighton in 2007, Healy has not delivered for Cantonians.  Unless, that is, one defines delivering as being controversy and its concomitant negative effect on the smooth and beneficial flow of government.

While Smuckler has remained what he as always been, a bland politician.  He has generated nothing new and invigorating as the future of Canton.

He and his sidekick Sam Sliman (the self-described "Darth Vader to the Townships") have basically pushed hard for annexation as a way for Canton to get its way out of the economic cesspool.

Smuckler is trying to put on the look of a "new look" with the Facebook and Twitter stuff, but the reality is that he had nothing new to offer Canton.

Yes, Smuckler has been Stark County's leading proponent of regionalization for a long time.  Regionalization is a partial answer to cutting the cost of government.  But it is not economic development which is what Canton sorely needs.

The 2011 Democratic primary will not be a happy election for Cantonians unless a new, fresh face interlopes to give Cantonians a real choice.

As was said above, Smuckler and Healy are both unattractive candidates.  Healy has more personality than Smuckler, but the "its all about me" stuff is a downer for Cantonians.

The Report believes that the Stark County Republican Party will pretty much ignore the Canton mayoralty contest.  The GOP is working hard to capitalize on winning county offices in 2012 on the heels of what local attorney and civic activist Craig Conley has dubbed "Zeiglergate."

So whatever comes out of the May, 2011 Democratic primary is likely to be "all she wrote" for Canton's voters come November, 2011.

WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT? MAYOR HEALY BEING REHABILITATED BY COUNCILMAN-AT-LARGE BILL SMUCKLER?

Canton mayor aspirant William Smuckler is turning out to be Mayor William J. Healy's best friend in Healy's pursuit of being re-elected next May.

May?

Isn't the general election in November?

Indeed, but Canton is such a lopsided Democratic city that the reality is that whomever wins the Democratic primary one year from now, will be the mayor of Canton for the next four years.

Mayor Healy has been on a self-destruct track ever since he took office in January, 2008.  But that may be changing.

Of late, his almost certain opponent in next May's Democratic primary, William Smuckler seems intent of appearing more political than Healy in the run up to 2011. 

And that is really hard to do.

Smuckler totally embarrassed himself during and after this past Monday's Council meeting from the Council president's chair (Council president Allen Schulman was absent) and in concert with Finance Committee chair Greg Hawk (a staunch Smuckler political ally) got it wrong (according to a SCPR source) in suggesting that $700,000 in federal stimulus money (which does not in fact exist) to hire more Canton policemen.

The Report's source says that Smuckler completely demagogued the issue by using a Public Speaks citizen's comments about bullets being shot into her home for his political purposes.

The source claims that Smuckler has not done anything to solve the citizen's particular problem (despite having three pre-Council meeting contacts with the citizen and did not even bring the matter to safety forces attention) and used the citizen's plight to advance his campaign to unseat Healy.

The Report is told that Smuckler will address the faux-$700,000 fuss he turned into a political sideshow at next Monday's meeting. Hmm?  What is there to address? 

All of this makes for good political theater.

It is obvious to the SCPR that no matter who survives the Democratic primary next year, Canton is the loser. 

The only way for Canton get off the pathway to destruction is for Smuckller to abandon his plans to run in the primary and for Healy to not seek re-election and for the surfacing of someone like service director and chief of staff Warren Price to seek the Democratic nomination.

Beyond that, Canton Republicans need to find someone who has a fighting chance to break up the Democratic domination of Canton city government.

If Canton cannot rid itself of the likes of Smuckler and Healy, it will find itself in a deeper and deeper hole. 

A hole so deep that it will take a generation of Cantonians to dig out of it!