(VIDEO) CANTON CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE 128/2012 "IS HIS BABY," BUT WARD 5 COUNCILMAN KEVIN FISHER SAYS CITIZEN NORMA MILLS DESERVES THE CREDIT

LEGISLATION APPEARS SET TO SAVE CANTON AT LEAST $250,000 IN LAWN MOWING AND OTHER EXPENSES THE CITY NOW SPENDS ANNUALLY ON FORECLOSED PROPERTIES

In October 2011 when KevIn Fisher was in effect Councilman-elect  having won a contested Democratic primary in May and was running unopposed in the general election, he was contacted by Canton community activist Norma Mills who asked him whether or not he would be willing to introduce legislation in Canton City Council to hold foreclosing banks as being responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of properties being foreclosed upon.

Councilman Fisher had gone to an OccupyCanton meeting and had taken in and participated in a discussion the group was having about doing something about the urban blight that is afflicting Canton.

Fisher says that MIlls was the prime mover then for the legislation passed originally on August 27, 2012.

He started on the bill in late January, 2012 which was the same month he took office.

It was some seven months of arduous work before he was able to convince colleagues to pass his and Norma's pet project.  As can be seen from the graphic below, it was July 30th before his bill got a first reading.

The Stark County Political Report captured Fisher on August 13th at a council work session explaining to his fellows the import and specifics fo Ordinance 128 - 2012.



And, you will note from the graphic set forth below,  he had three council allies sign on to help him; namely, Councilwoman Mary Cirelli (D, at-large), Councilmen Greg Hawk (D, Ward 1) and Frank Morris (D, Ward 9).

Later on, when it was learned that the original legislation was deficient in terms of "ease of enforcement," Councilman Thomas West (D, Ward 2 and chairman of council's Judiciary Committee) became a very important figure in getting the legislation in shape for "full speed ahead" in terms of enforcement.

The SCPR captured Fisher at a work session of the Canton City Council to explain the import of the-then proposed legislation.

Fisher first challenged for the Ward 5 council seat in 2005, when he took on sitting Democratic councilman Terry Prater.

And the Stark Democratic Party leaders were not happy about Fishers challenge of Prater.

That he only lost by 38 votes was clear indication that Fisher was a "comer" and by 2011 (when Prater moved on to a job at the Stark County Board of Elections) he proved he was ready for political prime time in winning the 2011 Ward 5 Democratic primary very handily.

Even though Ordinance 128 - 2012 passed on August 27th and was signed into law by Mayor Healy, very little, if anything, was done by the administration to enforce the legislation.

Mayor Healy would tell Fisher one-on-one that he was favorable to the legislation but he had no money to hire staff to implement its provisions.

But Fisher also knew the Canton's chief building enforcement officer Angela Cavanaugh (recently hired away from Canton by Stark County) reportedly was saying she had problems with the language of the original legislation and therefore was unenthusiastic about enforcing it.

The Ward 5 councilman compliments Cavanaugh for being a first-rate plans persons for permitting purposes, but is unimpressed with her attitude towards the enforcement issue.

So here is a mayor and his administration allowing taxpayers to in effect subsidize banks who it appears were gaming the legal system by filing foreclosure but aborting them just short of taking legal title.

The taxpayers of Canton were paying to have non-city-owned-properties boarded up, their lawns mowed and otherwise attended to - to the tune, Fisher says, of some $250,000 or better annually.

And the mayor says that saving Canton $250,000 in general revenue fund dollars annually in expense and plus getting revenue at $200 to $300 per ordinance enforcement action is not enough to hire someone dedicated to enforcement?

The SCPR will say it.  Councilman Fisher will not.  It is more phony-baloney from the mayor. Knowing this guy, there has to be some political motive for his not firing up his chief building officer.

Here is a guy who does not abide members of his administration not following his direction. 

What is he afraid of?  Offending the banks?

Guess who is lurking in the background while this procrastinating was going on?

You've got it!

Norma Mills.

And Norma Mills, Fisher says, is someone to be put off when she is on a mission.

Fisher credits her with keeping the heat on him, on his colleagues and the administration to get the enforcement mechanism up and running.

If The Report's conjecture is correct that Healy had a political motivation not to press Cavanaugh on enforcement, then one has to believe that Norma Mills and her political dynamism trumped what other political factor may have been in the mayor's mind.

Meanwhile, the city of Youngstown picked up on the legislation (which Norma Mllls and an Ohio citizens activist group she is associated with [Stand Up for Ohio] had discovered had been passed and implement in Springfield, Massachusetts) and for some reason was able to solve the supposed language problem with Canton's ordinance.

One has to wonder about the Canton Law Department and it apparent inability in reviewing Fisher's legislation (i.e. the Mills Stand Up for Ohio bill modeled after the "working" Springfield, MA ordinance) to have his original legislation in shape to be enforce when passed on August 27, 2012.

Youngstown has $800,000 or so in bonds posted.

In April of this year Mills had had enough.  She organized a rally held at Nimisilla Park hosted by Stand Up Ohio.

She also arranged for local officials (which included a representative from the Canton Law Department, Ward 2 Councilman Thomas West and Canton's building department) to meet with Youngstown officials to learn how Youngstown was able to do what Canton's official family seemed unable to figure out.

Councilman West appears to the Stark County Political Report to have been a key person as chairman of Canton City Council's judiciary committee to get "amending" legislation on the books so that Canton officials now feel comfortable in enforcing the legislation that Fisher got passage of in August, 2012.

West gets high marks from Fisher for being an integral force in getting the legislation in shape.

Amending legislation passed on September 30th.

Fisher is optimistic that the administration finally "gets it," that the delays in implement his legislation are over. 

He says that Kyle Stone who is the Healy administration's Fair Housing officer will be doing the enforcing rather than the building department.  Soon, he says, Stone will be meeting with the banks to get them on board with ordinance compliance.

He sees Stone as being a highly aggressive enforcer.

So it appears that the Canton foot dragging cost Canton taxpayers perhaps as much as "a quarter of a million dollars" and a plentitude of neighborhood eyesores.

This from a mayor who says he cares about Canton's neighborhoods.

Political rhetoric is something that the mayor is quite accomplished at.

But if citizens' priorities are not his, then, they can forget it.

Canton subsidizes banks $250,000 or so annually and then says he does not have enough money to keep all fire stations open and cannot afford to bring the police department up to levels they were at when he took office.

Such poor mouthing rings hollow, doesn't it.

He seems to find money for whatever tickles his fancy, no?

One has to wonder how long Cantonians are going to put up with this guy.

Councilman Fisher, West, Cirelli, Hawk and Morris all deserve praise for their work on this important piece of legislation.

But Fisher says the most deserving person in Stand Up for Ohio's and Canton's Norma Mills.

A SCPR "Hats Off" to Norma Mills for working to make Canton a better place to live in!

REVISITING CANTON CITY COUNCIL'S REJECTION OF RULES CHANGES. RE-CONSIDERED SCPR ANALYSIS IN LIGHT OF CLERK OF COUNCIL TIMBERLAKE'S EXPLANATION.

The SCPR wrote a blog on Tuesday of this week (LINK) on the matter of Canton City Council rejecting a number of proposed rule changes to the rules of council in the form of an informal resolution.

The focus of the blog was on two particular changes that several of the six councilpersons who voted "no" on the proposed changes cited to The Report as being objectionable, to wit:

The Report characterized the submitting of the rule changes for council's consideration as being "slip[ped] through" and that the consequential "no" vote was predictable and therefore a "dumb" move by leadership and indicative of that the council members not playing with a full deck in terms of the wisdom of such a move.

Since the original blog was published new information has surfaced.

As as the SCPR always does when new matter comes to yours truly's attention, space is made available for information that may be contrary to The Report's take on a given topic.

In the light of member Mary Cirelli (one of the "no" votes) sending the SCPR (without comment) a copy of an e-mail sent out by Clerk of Council Cynthia Timberlake Tuesday (about 10:30 a.m.), The Report is thinking, perhaps, that the characterizations ("slip[ed] through," "dumb," "not playing with a full deck") are subject to being re-evaluation.

Timberlake's letter:

Members of Council,

As Clerk of Council I wanted to receive clarification and a better understanding of why my requests for Rule changes to Rule 1, Section B, Rule 22, Section B, Rule 28, Section A, Rule 29 and Rule 44, Section F were defeated.  (emphasis added by SCPR).

Rule 1, Section B needed changed so I could provide notification via email

Rule 22, Section B, Rule 28, Section A, Rule 29 all relate to referrals - since the untimely death of President Denczak in 2006 I have been doing referrals.  When newly elected Council President Schulman joined City Council I approached him as to the duty and responsibility of the Presiding Officer performing the task of referrals.  He requested that I take on that responsibility which I did and have continued to do so.

Upon my arrival in City Council I was provided a referral spreadsheet that was used as a guide by former President Denczak and that is what I use.  I have attached the spreadsheet for your review.  On Monday mornings I sit down with Council staff and review the agenda and we designate the referrals.

I did not feel I made any unreasonable requests to update Council rules.  I just wanted the Council rules brought up to date and to reflect what is actually occurring.  I am highly offended if anyone else feels I did this for any other reason.

What really disappoints me is that in committee each rule was reviewed and not one question was asked.  I would have been more than happy to answer any questions.  Why didn't anyone ask any questions or ask for amendments?  I thought these were routine rule changes.  Is there no respect for protocol?

If anyone wants to break the code of silence I would really appreciate an answer as to why the Council rules I suggested were defeated.

Respectfully,
Cindy

The SCPR learned late last week that the informal resolution was forthcoming and that objecting members on council planned upon turning the proposed changes down without the usual dialogue - at their initiative - that usuallly takes place among council members when there are questions about the proposed legislation.

The resolution was presented at the majority leader's initiative.

So why didn't he explain to council why he was presenting the changes (e.g. Clerk Timberlake requested these changes)?  An advocate of anything, does has the burden of justifying same, no?

Not to belabor the SCPR original points, but:

• wasn't this "dumb" leadership on Dougherty's part in not communicating with "all" of council the need and basis for the changes?
• wasn't it unreal for  the rest of the "yes" votes not to chime in with justification for the changes thereby quashing the notion that they were not playing with a full deck in thinking that their fellows (who were not in on the formulation of the changes) would vote for the changes unquestioned?

On the other side of the fence and more specifically, why did the objecting members do what they did in voting down the resolution with nary a word nor question?

Was it political comeuppance?  Or was it because of differences of opinion as to the efficacy of the proposed changes and no amount of discussion was going to change their minds?

After the meeting, the SCPR did interview member (to see video click on this LINK) and council president Allen Schulman (D-Canton, who had no vote on the matter, but did have an opinion).

He indicated in the interview to The Report that:

• he wanted to preserve the prerogatives of the council president not only for himself but for future council presidents, and, 
• he hastened to add, that he thought the council majority leader (Dougherty - D-6) and the members of the rules committee had pure motives in presenting the proposed changes.

Councilman Hawk (D-1) told the SCPR yesterday in a telephone conversation he voted "no" because the changes were not needed and that motivation or lack of motivation for offering them had nothing to do with his vote.

Councilman Edmund Mack (D-8) had this reaction on Tuesday (via e-mail):

I voted against the proposed rule change for a very simple reason: to preserve our system of checks and balances. 

I am sure there are many motivations behind the proposed change, and I have no doubt the motivations are well-intended.

But as an attorney, I look to the plain language of the text of the proposed change.  And a consequence of this rule change, while maybe unintended, would be to concentrate decision-making in the position of Majority Leader, and take it away from the Council President.  It does not matter who currently holds those positions; rather, this is a decision that could affect our Council 20 years from now as much as it would today.  In my view, checks and balances are important at all levels of government, including Canton City Council.

Undoubtedly, some of my fellow Councilpersons may express the view that this change was intended to make our rules conform to current practice.  I respect this view.  However, in my opinion, if our conduct is not complying with the rules, we should change our conduct – not the rules themselves.

Here is what Councilman Mariol (D-7) had to say to The Report yesterday:

I still stand by my vote [in light of the Timberlake e-mail]. 

Upon reviewing the rule changes it became apparent that many of the rule changes took away many duties of the President of Council, and I oppose this because  I believe in a balance of power in Council. 

I also had objections to the idea of presenting legislation to the Majority Leader and Committee Chairmen's before it goes on our agenda.  This inhibits myself and my fellow Councilmen of addressing our constituents issue's in a timely basis and implies that we must get an ok from someone else other then those we represent before submitting ordinances. 

While these rules were done in good faith I do not believe they promoted a balance of power and control on Council or made it easier for Council to address the issue's facing Canton and for those reasons I voted no and stand by that vote. 

Our clerk of Council (Cynthia Timberlake) and the whole staff that works in the Council office are some of the best people I have ever had the pleasure of working with. They truly are the reason why things get done. 

The city of Canton is a better place because of them.  From time to time council has its disagreements but one thing we all agree on is that we are lucky to get to work with such a fantastic Council office staff.

Councilman Fisher (D-5):

... I have absolutely zero interest in stripping any powers awy from the President of Council.

Back when I was sitting in the front row of council meetings, I would see each term a little more of the power would be taken away from Ray Denczak and each time it would make the position of Majority Leader a little more powerful. It is not a positive thing for Canton to have more and more power in fewer and fewer hands...

Beyond the rule changes themselves, most of which were fine in my opinion, there was a serious issue of the manner in which the changes came about

... [i]f you were not a member of the Rules Committee, you did not see the changes until at the earliest, Friday afternoon.

Show up Monday night and have a Committee Hearing at 7:15 and vote on it at 7:30?

It's not going to happen...if one thing should be abundantly clear by now, its that this new Council will not have anything rammed through on us. It the Committee felt that changes were needed, make your case and we will debate...otherwise, you will get what we had Monday night.

Councilman Morris (D-9 - on video from the Tuesday blog - LINK), plus this:

    I stand behind my vote on the rules change and I feel I justified my vote when you interviewed me.

    As for responding to our clerks email, all I can say is that the only people I have to explain the way I vote to is those who elected and god (sic).

Councilwoman Cirelli (at-large) did not respond with additions to her video comments from Tuesday's blog - LINK)

So as the SCPR sees it, at the very least Majority Leader Dougherty, Assistant Majority Leader Griffin and the members of the the Rules Committee exercised exceedingly poor judgment in their communications vis-a-vis the block of councilpersons who voted "no," notwithstanding Timberlake's e-mail.

If the resolution is indication of future relationships between the majority leader, his core supporters and the rest of council, then Canton city government is in for some rocky times indeed!

DISCUSSION: ANOTHER ARROGANT ACTION, WHO ELSE? WILLIAM J. HEALY, MAYOR OF CANTON - THAT'S WHO

There once was a day that yours truly would get random telephone calls from William J. Healy, II. But no more.

Why not?

Because if anyone has the audacity to disagree with the Mayor of Canton then that person is taken off the "telephone list" and put on the "_ _ _ _ list."

Well, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) is pleased to be on Healy's "_ _ _ _ list." The Repository is on Healy's telephone list. He calls them and asks to come in to talk with the editors so that he can finesse them into writing PR pieces for him. And, they comply. Stark County's ONLY countywide newspaper provides its readers with jaundiced editorials on Healy.

Now a story surfaces where Healy is freezing out someone other than The Report for criticizing him. Namely: Canton City Councilman Greg Hawk who according to a Repository report yesterday that Hawk had disagreed Healy on the budgeting process. Such is Healy tactic #1, if you don't work for him. If you work for him, you get fired!

DISCUSSION: HEALY FAILS AGAIN WITH CANTON CITY COUNCIL - COUNCIL POISED TO REJECT "REWORKED" CONTRACT PROPOSAL

UPDATE: MARCH 19, 2009, 5:00 A.M.

Mayor Healy must read the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT and saw the numbers posted above.

- FROM THE REP 3/18/2009 (LATE EVENING POST) “It appears to me the (City Council) votes are not there to get it through council at this point in time,” said Mayor William J. Healy II, following a Finance Committee meeting earlier tonight.

It appears that only the sure "pro-Healy" votes were informed personally by the mayor what the changes he negotiated with Redflex Traffic Systems as a proposed contract to install traffic law enforcing cameras in downtown Canton.

As the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has been saying all along, Mayor Healy is a "my way or the highway" type of guy who is considerate, nice and informative to those he thinks are his "yes" men and women.

The Report's source related how the Canton City County chair of the Public Safety & Thoroughfares Committee (Karl "Butch" Kraus) was snubbed by Healy and that Councilman Kraus learned of the proposed changes by reading the Canton Repository's account that the Healy administration had already shared with Councilpersons Casar, Smith and West, and, of course, The Rep.

The Report also learned that Councilman Griffin's meeting with the public last evening did not go well for the Mayor Healy and his staunch allies on Council (Casar, Smith and West),

Forty or so citizens show up at Griffin's meeting with only a couple or so supporting. One of the supporters is Cynthia Vignos who his running for council-at-large against the anti-Healy leading incumbent-candidates Mary Cirelli and Bill Smuckler.

The amazing thing about Healy is how he fails to learn from his experiences. He has had difficult relationships with Council from is taking office in January, 2008 through the present. The only way he was able to work with Council was via the facilitation provided by his fired safety director and chief of staff Tom Bernabei.

Unless Healy can twist some councilperson arms, he will suffer a humiliating defeat on this coming Monday, the 23rd.

The Report has learned that Council President Allen Schulman will be out of town on Monday which explains why he lambasted Healy on the "bad appearances" that accepting campaign contributions from folks who have an interest in obtaining city contracts this past Monday.

As Mayor Healy stumble bumbles his way around City Hall, Canton languishes and suffers.

The Report's condolences to the good folks of Canton.