THE BATTLE FOR "THE SOUL OF CANTON?"

A number of Canton councilpersons tell the SCPR that "all Hell broke loose" (The Report's interpretation) at last night's council meeting.

Chances are normally pretty good that the SCPR would have been there to video record the event "blow-by-blow."  However, yours truly underwent surgery on Thursday of last week and is not quite up to making it out to local government meetings.

But of course the SCPR has a rich base of "on the scene" resources upon which to write a blog.

One might ask, why the need to write a blog (an opinion supported by data/facts) on a matter that appears to be nothing more than a turf war: that is to say a "ward councilperson perspective" versus "Canton as a whole councilpersons?"

Answer:  The SCPR thinks this battle is one of a number that have been fought and will continue to surface as Canton's government sorts out "what really is important" for the Hall of Fame city to drag itself out of decades of decline.

The fight going on among Canton city council members appears to be the age old among humans "short-term" versus "long-term."

Last night the short-termers where Councilwoman (and assistant majority leader) Chris Smith, Ward 4 and Councilman David Dougherty, Ward 7 (former majority leader).

Interestingly enough, the SCPR thinks Dougherty was ousted as majority leader January, 2014 because he had run afoul of Canton City Council president Allen Schulman who clearly is foremost among council's long term thinking councilpersons.

And, the SCPR is told (which Schulman vehemently denies), that President Schulman has been working "behind the scenes" to replace Smith as assistant majority leader (1st vice president) because of her opposition to recent council initiatives including the Onesto Loft project and the $5 million that Canton has designated for the long term economic development project known as the Hall of Fame Village.

And, it could be that after last night's performance, Vice President and Majority Leader of council Frank Morris (in more or less siding with the visionaries) has extricated himself from Schulman's "hit list" inasmuch as he too in the last SCPR City of Canton government blog was said to be on "the wrong side of" President Schulman.

What prompted last night's fight?

Answer:  The repaving of Fulton Road Northwest from it terminus at Tuscarawas Street Northwest to out at the city limits which is at point beyond the Pro Football Hall of Fame complex.

The short-termers are furious that $400,000 set aside recently to be used for road maintenance projects "in the wards" is now being proposed to be tapped into in order for Canton to come up with "the local match" dollars needed for Canton to get $1.25 million in state of Ohio and federal grant monies with which to repave Fulton.

There is no doubt that one way or another Canton WILL come up with "the local match" to get the $1.25 million.

Can you imagine the political ruckus that foregoing $1.25 million would create in Canton?

The SCPR would daresay that such an occurrence would doom Dougherty and Smith in the November elections.

Though neither has a Democratic opponent in the May primary, should Dougherty and Smith convince five other councilpersons to join them in defeating the diversion of the $400,000 to the Fulton Road project (which the SCPR thinks is highly unlikely); does anybody doubt that an "independent" candidate will file before the May 4th filing deadline?

Such fate is not likely what Dougherty and Smith have to look out for.

What should be of concern to these short-termers is the "long-term" effect on their respective relationships with their fellow councilpersons.

It should be instructive to both that, though we live in a deliberative democratic-republic in which legislative debate is prized; if they are perceived "overall" to be on the wrong side of issues important to the power brokers, their devotion to their respective wards in council deliberations may be retributed upon by the "real" powers in Canton City Council.

The SCPR appreciates Dougherty and Smith "standing their ground" on last night's issue and encourages them in their short-term pursuits for the interests of their respective wards.

However, on this issue The Report agrees with the long-termers.

That we can disagree with one another in the United States of America without retribution is a quality that sets us apart from the rest of the world.

Of course the stakes were much higher.

But we saw in Russia this past weekend how some body politics handle their disputes.

To The Report, the blog of February 17th (though denied by Schulman), is this writer's contribution to the notion that we Americans can disagree in a deeply felt manner and life goes on as before.

And such should be the case on the Fulton Road repave issue.

Councilman Bill Smuckler (at-large; formerly a ward councilman) tells the SCPR is that he is working on a plan to satisfy both "the local match" problem and going ahead with the $400,000 neighborhood street repair plans.

He says that he is working with Canton's finance director to find those dollars in the nooks and crannies of Canton city finances and thereby satisfy both the short-termers and long-termers.

Another top-flight Canton councilman is Ward 8 councilman Edmond Mack.

The SCPR queried Mack and other councilpersons about their reaction to last night's session.

Here is what he has to say:

RE: Fulton Road Matter

        Edmond J. Mack
        Today at 10:31 AM

To: tramols@att.net

Thanks for the note, Martin.

The Fulton Road NW re-surfacing project is simply a no-brainer.  It is a major corridor in our City.  This road is not only a residential thoroughfare, but it connects our major tourist attraction, the Pro Football Hall of Fame, with our downtown and arts district.  And anyone who has driven on this road recently knows that it is in absolutely deplorable condition.  Though this road is not in my ward, the economics are clear – if we have the opportunity to accept a grant that pays 80% of this desperately needed project, we capitalize on the opportunity.  Regardless of the ward a particular councilperson may represent, the policy conclusion that should be drawn is obvious.  End of story.

Regrettably, last night’s council meeting devolved into a ward versus ward turf battle, with members criticizing the Fulton Road project as an expense to their ward’s self-interest.  This was very disappointing.  While each ward councilmember has an obligation to advocate for their respective ward, fighting for a member’s ward should not come at the expense of the City as a whole.  We have made much progress overcoming this old “ward versus ward” mindset, and it seems as if last night was a bit of a backslide.  The fact of the matter is that we all rise and fall together.

All of our wards – including my own – have been the recent beneficiary of critical infrastructure grants.  E.g., The 55th Street NE Improvement Project (Ward 8:  $1.1 Million); Sherrick Road SE Resurfacing (Ward 4:  $1.27 Million); 12th Street NE /Mahoning Road NE Corridor Project (Wards 2 and 6:  $53.55 million); Southeast Community Center Spray Park (Ward 4: $556,363).  These projects provide an undeniable ROI, often at rates in excess of 400%.  We should therefore encourage the utilization of these grants on projects that are needed, such as the Fulton Road NW project.  Not opposing them simply because they are not in our respective ward.

I do believe, however, that yesterday’s backslide was temporary.  It was simply a manifestation of the frustration all of us on Council feel regarding the extremely limited resources we have to manage our City’s roadways and infrastructure.  The funding cuts imposed upon us by the Columbus State Legislators are very real and very deep.  We are all human with human emotions, and our frustration will invariably express itself from time to time.  Nevertheless, we have a very good City Council, and I believe every one of us are serving for the right reasons.  I predict that the vote on the Fulton Road NW project will be unanimous, and our body will maintain its excellent work of collectively moving our City forward.

Sincerely,

Edmond J. Mack
Canton Council, Ward 8

In last night's meeting there was the offer by Councilman Morris to release some $120,000 of the $400,000 for projects in Ward 9 to help reach "the local match."

Also, Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher tells the SCPR that he is willing to join Morris in his offer by offering to forego some $57,000 of the $400,000 dedicated to his ward.

This folks is mature leadership and being responsible councilpersons.

The SCPR compliments Morris and Fisher for stepping forward with their offer.

Both short-term and long-term interest are legitimate in terms of dealing with city priorities.

The players (Canton's councilpersons and leadership) need to cultivate a climate of satisfying both in the give and take of council's proceedings.

It looks to the SCPR that the actions of Morris, Fisher and Smuckler are in the right direction.

In order for "the soul of Canton" to be saved consistent with the American structure of government, it is imperative that various ward and citywide interests be debated and resolved without there being a lingering ill feeling and possible retribution hanging in the air!

WHAT WAS UP AT JASMINE'S ASIAN BISTRO (02/11/2013) WITH BUTTERWORTH, COLE & HEALY?

Whether there is anything political to it or not, when a former councilman (Butterworth) sits down with the mayor of Canton (Healy) and a current city councilman (Cole), people are going to speculate that some sort of deal is being cut.

Former councilman Mark Butterworth (a Republican - Ward 8), has filed petitions to run against the man (Democrat Edmond Mack) who defeated him in his bid for reelection on November 8, 2011.

So, of course, the sit down which occurred at Jasmine's Asian Bistro located on 30th Street is going to create a political buzz.

Especially when:

• Butterworth is taking on one of four troublesome councilpersons (Fisher [5th], Mariol [7th], Mack [8th] and Morris [9th] to Mayor Healy and his chief ally on council (Cole), and
• Cole himself is taking on a second of the four troublesomes (Mack).

The SCPR did contact Mark Butterworth to get his side of the story.

He tells The Report that "No," Joe Cole and Mayor Healy did not hand him a manila envelope containing his marching orders for his November, 2013 campaign to reclaim the 8th Ward seat.

So whom contacted whom to set up the meeting?

Butterworth's answer was forthcoming about two or three minutes after the question was posed after some dithering by Butterworth on whether or not he could recall who made the initial contact.

Butterworth says that he had heard that Cole was experiencing personal difficulties that Butterworth himself had gone through and that he had contacted Cole (about February 8th) to see whether or not he could be of some guidance on the matter.

Hmm?

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly is a devotee to political competition as the cure to a lot of bad politics and bad governance.

When Butterworth was elected in 2009 as the lone Republican on council, The Report was pleased and expectant that - though just one person - he would put together a sort of "loyal opposition" plank to Healy administration/Democratic council member proposals.

However, in The Report's judgment, Butterworth was not up to the task.

Oh, he did have convictions about this issue or that issue.  But he seemed to lack the courage of the convictions.

One of his big issues was getting a measure through council for Cantonians to decide whether or not the city should become a charter city.  However, Councilman West (chairman of the Judiciary Committee) proved too much of a hurdle for the-then eighth ward councilman.

Other matters came along during his term that the SCPR had gathered were important to Butterworth, but seemingly time and time again, one by one they faded into being political mist.

On the other hand, his successor Edmond Mack picked up with an agenda and has been able to forge a political alliance of sorts with Councilmen Fisher (Ward 5), Mariol (Ward 7) and Morris (Ward 9).

What the SCPR has been impressed with is the coming together of these four in a collective effort to put their heads together to help solve Canton's neighborhood problems.  Problems fueled by Canton's burgeoning and chronic crime malady, notwithstanding Mayor Healy's "zero-tolerance-to-crime" first term political campaign promise which The Report and many others think has been a huge failure.

The Report has dubbed the four as being the "four young turks." 

The four have been a real thorn in the side of the Healy administration and a couple of Healy's most loyal council members (West and Smith) who have openly attacked (The Report's take) the four during a council session on the four having held a consolidated ward meeting with their constituents.

Being the pure driven politician he is, one might well think Healy would be behind a Mark Butterworth (though a Republican) running against Mack and his loyalist Cole running against Morris.

Butterworth flat-out denies that such is the case with him.

He owns up to not handling his interaction with the overwhelmingly Democratic council/Democratic mayor in his 2010-11 stint on council well.

Because both Mack and Mariol were part of the collection of Canton politicians present at Jasmine's on February 11th, the SCPR believes that Butterworth's denial of deal making with Healy/Cole is credible.

It would be rather ridiculous to be plotting political strategy as your opponent sat nearby, no?

At the very least, though, it was politically unwise for him to be seen in public with Cole and Healy.

It was totally predictable that the Jasmine's meet up would set off speculation that Healy was behind Butterworth's filing.

Healy has a history of doing things such as this - witness his involvement in trying to get Councilman Hawk defeated in Ward One (denied by Healy) and his attempt to become a power player in the make-up of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee in the last election cycle for committeepersons.

The SCPR believes he aspires to be Stark County's Democratic Party's kingmaker.

Back to Butterworth and his trying to reclaim the Ward 8 seat.

In so many words, Butterworth told the SCPR that if elected he will be a councilman who scrutinizes everything brought forward in council deliberations and proposals, either by the mayor or the Democratic supermajority.

And, he added, it would not be outside the realm of possibility, that if elected he would seek to join in with Fisher, Mariol and Morris (if he is reelected) as one of the four young turks.

Does The Report believe him?

Not really.

He will want to be a different type councilman but the SCPR does not see him as having the strength of personality to persevere on his vision for Canton in the face of inducements/pressures from Healy or his fellow council members.

Councilman Mack, in contrast, has demonstrated in this term of council by real action what former Councilman Butterworth aspired to during his 2010-11 cycle.

In his meeting with Cole and, perhaps, Healy; one should not totally dismiss the notion that it was part of a deal being cut as absurd as the setting was.

One would hardly expect Butterworth to fess up, if such were the case.

The SCPR's take on Butterworth's description of the conversation was that nearly everything was of a personal nature and very little was in fact political talk.

That is hard to believe.

Get a bunch of politicians in a room and they are going to talk about everything else but politics?

Where did you say that swamp land you wanted to sell is located?