STARK COUNTY: THE QUALITY OF POLICE ADMINISTRATION?

Last weekend The Repository's Kelli Young and Matt Rink broke out with a series of articles which should raise to "inquiring minds" the question of the quality of police administration in Stark County.

To the SCPR, there is very little that is more scary than a person authorized to carry a gun driving through the neighborhoods of Stark County when the person may be a rogue cop.

After digesting the Young/Rink work, it strikes The Report that too many of those in charge of getting "the bad apples" off Stark's police forces are not doing an effective job.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule and for these exceptional police leaders Stark Countians should be thankful.

But for those not getting the job done, public pressure should be brought to bear on the political leaders (i.e. those we elect) to ratchet up the quality of leadership needed to ensure that you or I are not going to be a victim of a cop gone bad.

And, to be sure, it is not just about police persons going bad.  There are other "appointed to their positions" public officials who should not be in their public jobs but are not effectively dealt with in terms of on going scrutiny in terms of their negative interactions with John and Jane Q. Public.

Hopefully, the days are gone in which Stark County/city/village and board of education elected officials have not put in place adequate safeguards to ensure that a public employee cannot walk off with taxpayer dollars.

But, of course, these folks do not carry guns.

Alarming to the Stark County public should be the fact that public official police supervisory types and their legal advisers have been largely unsuccessful in winning arbitration cases in those instances where supervisors have determined that particular police officers should not continue to be so employed.

From Taking away the badge:  Fired officers often return to duty:

The Repository’s analysis found that 34 law-enforcement officers (including a sheriff deputy) have been fired in Stark County since 2003. Nineteen of those officers appealed and more than half of them returned to their jobs — largely due to arbitrators. 

Of the 13 appeals that went to arbitration, 10 of the firings were reversed. About half of the reinstated officers also received back pay for the time they missed from the job.

Yours truly remembers years ago (early 1980s) hearing ad nauseam the complaints of a local school district board of education member about all the bad (in terms of effectiveness) teachers the district had on board.

And yet the district was not documenting the deficiencies to a legally sufficient degree to get rid of teachers who were not up to the job of educating our kids.

In the district you had teachers who yours truly witnessed saying such things as:

"Oh, but Mr. Olson if only your daughter had handed in her homework she would have gotten one grade higher."

The obvious question:  "Why didn't I know that she wasn't handing in her homework?"

Answer:  "Oh, but Mr. Olson if I had to notify each parent of a student that was not handing in homework of such I would have to work an hour or two more a week."

And there were the teachers who routinely called 13/14 year old students orangutans and the like.

Or the teacher who got upset with the classroom question: Why is "Pi" is 3.14?

Undoubtedly the readers of the SCPR have many, many similar stories which should at least bring up the question of whether or not the offending teacher belongs in the classroom.

But by and large such stories are dismissed as the teacher having a bad day or we don't have the personnel to adequately monitor what is going on in the classroom or like in the Stark County police dismissal stories, it is those unions and those arbitrators who keep ineffective or undesirable employees in place.

The SCPR is not buying the line that disses unions and arbitrators.

Rather The Report thinks it is more a case of the supervisors and their legal advisers not being up to the task of protecting the public from having on the public payroll employees who should not be there for a variety of reasons.

Particularly offensive in this regard is the quote in the Young/Rink series attributed to Jackson Township trustee James N. Walter with regard to the township's efforts in arbitration, to wit:

I think the arbitration system is seriously broke.  To shove this down the community’s throat is indefensible.  

Young attributes to Walters:

Walters believes employment decisions should be made by elected officials who are accountable to the public, not by an out-of-area arbitrator who answers to no one. 

Tell us all about it Mister Trustee Walters.

Walters as an "elected" Jackson trustee is a part of a board that the SCPR thinks has fumbled and bumbled the matter of David Zink being appointed as police chief in the first instance and has been decidedly ineffective in dealing with sexual harassment allegations that have been made against Zink.

The Zink situation is not an arbitration situation, is it?

The SCPR only hopes that Jacksonians will hold the Board of Trustees accountable.  It is interesting that Walters himself is not up for election this time around.

Walters and his disingenuous "hold us accountable" is akin to "the pot calling the kettle black."

Except the only reason that the arbitration kettle may be black in terms of not working is because those who have to make the case are proving in spades they do not have the skills needed to win a vast majority of arbitrations.

What if prosecutors had a track record of losing 77% (10 out 13) of their cases?

There would be a public outrage, no?

As far as the SCPR is concerned, it should take first-rate preparation and the accumulation/presentation of compelling evidence for a person subject to arbitration to lose his/her job.

For those who are losing arbitration cases at the aforementioned alarming rate, it is high time for them to take a look at themselves and doing a "gut check time" and honestly facing up to the question as to whether or not they are in over their heads and are not up to the task at hand.

The Stark County Political Report posits that as they would if prosecutors lost 77% of their cases, the Stark County public should demand of those Stark County elected officials who have put in place supervisors and legal advisers that are not getting the arbitration job done, that changes be made.

And there is one final thought.

There are police administrators that have an amazing track record of getting resignations from those police officers who do not measure up to the very high standards that they have in place for those who wear "blue."

The resignation route is a "win-win" for the officer in question and the public.

Maybe just maybe Stark County policing officials should be putting together some training sessions staffed by the successful police administrators so that the number of arbitrations get diminished.

But, where the resignation route does not work, it is imperative that those employed to manage the employer's side of arbitration get better at doing what they do.

And, if they do not, then some heads should roll.

If heads do not roll, then the appointing elected official authority should be held accountable come election time.

(VIDEO: STATE REP. SCHURING 2/15/2011) "LET'S WAIT AND SEE" ON STATE DEFUNDING OF LOCAL GOV'T? JACKSON TWP PARKS/ROADS A CASULTY OF SCHURING SUPPORTED CUTS?

 

Back in February, 2011 the SCPR did a blog on the speculated cuts to local government funding at the hand of the State of Ohio.

Here is a video (02/15/2012) of state Representative and Republican J. Kirk Schuring and Jackson Township fiscal officer Randy Gonzalez addressing the prospect of those cuts:



Well, it is time for someone to tell Representative Schuring that the "reality" of the cuts are now being felt big time in the base (Jackson Township) of his constituency, the 48th Ohio House District.

In a Jackson Community Connection piece (Donna Smith, November 19, 2012), Jackson trustee and president James N. Walters is quoted thusly:  " We need to figure out what we are going to do now that we are in a $3 million hole and we need to move forward.”

On November 6th, Jackson voters rejected a "current expenses" levy which was designed to finance Jackson's parks and roads in an effort to offset some of the $3 million is less revenue with a local tax increase:

What does the defeat of the levy mean?

• All Jackson parks' operating houRS are curtailed to dawn to dusk and there will be no lighting,
• Yard waste drop off shortened hours have been implemented,
• Personnel reductions in the roads and parks department may be in the offing.

What are the political consequences to Representative Schuring for having supported local government funding cuts?

Despite working very hard, Democrat Amanda Trump made very little headway in sending Schuring a message that his safe district was becoming less safe.

But now that reality will be setting in with Jackson residents with diminished services by virtue of Schuring's support of draconian state funding cuts, one has to wonder whether or not a similar effort by Trump going forward (i.e. continuing her campaign unabated) might not yield dramatically different results.

It is always been a premise of the SCPR, that it will take something like a stunning electoral defeat of a Kirk Schuring for the Legislature to get the message that Ohioans are "damn mad and aren't going to take it anymore!"

Recently, Ohio Policy Matters (a progressive think tank - LINK), published a comprehensive analysis of the huge impact that the "reality" of the effect cuts will have on the villages, cities, townships and special taxing districts of Ohio.

Here is table that shows the overall picture of how large the cuts are statewide:

And here is Policy Matters' take on how the cuts will specifically impact Stark County:

While the focus of this blog has not included schools, it is interesting to note (according to Policy Matters) that Jackson schools face a 22% cut state revenues in the upcoming fiscal year.

Over the next two years, it will be interesting to see whether or not Jacksonians might increasingly be thinking (as the reality of the cuts sink in) that it might not be that great of a thing to having the budget-cut-supporting Kirk Schuring continue to represent them in the Ohio General Assembly.

WILL SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE CANDIDATES THEMSELVES DETERMINE WHO GETS ELECTED THE NEXT STARK COUNTY SHERIFF?

Ideally, candidates themselves should be the the determining factor as to who is elected to office.

And such is generally the case.

However, in the Dordea (the Republican candidate), McDonald (the Democratic candidate) for sheriff race, the contest might be so tight that outside factors could play a key role in which of the two get elected.

The SCPR has been hearing quite a bit of buzz about the involvement of Jackson Township trustee James N. Walters' (a Republican) involvement in Dordea's campaign from both the Democratic side and the Republican side.

The Democratic input was to be expected.  But from the Republican side too?

The Report has been told by a Democratic source that it is believed that Walters took on a major role in the Dordea campaign with an eye towards landing a job with Dordea should he be elected Stark County sheriff.

As said above, no news here.  Speculation rides rampant in opposing political camps as to what the other side and its supporters might be up to.

But when the Democratic buzz was repeated by a Republican source who is in touch with talk within the Party, then the SCPR sat up and took notice.

James N. Walters, but for an independent candidate being in the 2010 race for county commissioner which included the independent, Walters and former Canton law director Tom Bernabei, would be a sitting Stark County commissioners instead of Bernabei.

And that is not where the Bernabei/Walters saga ends.  One would have thought (given the close call in 2010) that Walters would have been a prime candidate to oppose Bernabei in this year's election.  But lo and behold he did not file.  Rather local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley filed as the Republican candidate.

Then only days (August 10th) before the Stark organized Republican Party could have replaced him with an alternative candidate (August 13th), Conley withdrew.  The Stark GOP ended up not fielding a candidate.  However, the SCPR is told that Walters was contacted by a Republican Party official with an entreaty to replace Conley.  But he declined.

Kind of an interesting twist, no?

Reason why Walters declined?  The Report's source believes it was because Walters is trying to carve out a place for himself in a Larry Dordea administration of the sheriff's department; should Dordea win in November.

The SCPR did contact Dordea and here is what he had to say about reports that The Report is receiving about Walters and his role in the campaign and whether or not there is a quid pro quo between Walters and Dordea should he be elected sheriff.

• "Jamie has never asked me for a job,"
• SCPR:  "What if he did?"  DORDEA:   "I'd have to be elected sheriff first.  And I have to see what he would bring to the table and determine whether there was anything I needed at the sheriff's office that would match his skills."
• That he had never thought of hiring Walters,
• But that Walters is:
• a key player in his campaign with experience (i.e. having run his own campaigns)
• he's a hard worker
• has good ideas
• That he has number of "heavy hitters" involved in his campaign but that Walters and Zumbar (Stark County treasurer) being pre-eminent which Dordea was quick to say was not to diminish the significance and role of others (e.g. Plain trustee Scott Haws, Julie Jakmides [Alliance councilwoman, Steven Tharp, Jr (Brewster councilman) and Scott Svab [Canal Fulton councilman-at-large]),
• That he has had a lot of people inquire about getting jobs if he is elected sheriff and that he always responds that like he did on the SCPR's question regarding Walters,
• That he is not going to have a chief deputy but structure the leadership of the sheriff's office around captains as administrators.

Another concern of the SCPR's Republican source and by extension a number of Republicans that lived through the administration of the sheriff's office by the last Republican elected Stark County sheriff; namely, Robert C. Berens (1981 - 1984) is that Dordea is a politically polarizing figure like Berens was and that the county would get bogged down in that sort of thing again with a Dordea election.

To this Dordea rejoined to the SCPR (paraphrase):  "Martin, in my work as Alliance police chief, Hartville police chief and as Alliance councilman:  when have you ever known me to be a controversial political figure?"

As far as The Report is concerned,  it appears that Dordea's retort is "a perfect squelch" to the notion that he is likely to be a controversial political factor if elected sheriff.  But the question remains, why are some Republicans concerned about such a possiblity? 

For his part, the Democratic candidate told yours truly that he has heard the same reports about Walters' role in the Dordea campaign.  But, of course, he is not in a position to know the truth of the matter.

However, he did have these observations about Dordea and his political operations:

• He knows Larry Dordea to be very political and that he knows a lot more about the political aspects of being sheriff that he (McDonald) is hip to,
• While not making a direct comparison between Berens (reference:  Republican source's concern that electing Dordea would be tantamount to having another Berens), that he is concerned about getting a politician in office (i.e. Dordea) rather than a sheriff (e.g. Dordea takes the political way out on the matter of whether or not the sheriff's office should be considered to man Lake's township wide policing).
• That Dordea should have been bullish in advocating for the office and increased jobs for a department of Stark County government that he wants to lead.

Another issue that the SCPR covered with McDonald is persisting reports that a number of Stark County voters will not vote for him because of his career long association with Sheriff Tim Swanson.

Here's what McDonald had to say:

• Swanson is helping him with his campaign including fundraising which he says is about $35,000 (compared to Dordea's last reported at $21,344 [July 31st semi-annual campaign finance filing with the Stark County Board of Elections]),
• "I have been friends with Sheriff Swanson since I was 17 years old.  He's guided me.  Even when he was a just a deputy he tried to guide me and be a good leader for me.  He's more important than the sheriff's race.  I would take a loss just to keep him as a friend."
• While he and Swanson are friends, he will be his own man in terms of running the sheriff's office and that he is going to do a lot different things than Swanson.

Moreover, McDonald said to The Report that he was taken aback by the SCPR's last blog on his race against Dordea in which the SCPR published a video in which Dordea says that as chief deputy of the Stark County Jail that McDonald has been living in a cocoon and that by virtue of having been police chief of the Alliance Police Department (which McDonald estimates has 35 to 40 members) and the Hartville Police Department (which McDonald estimates has 5 or so members) he, Dordea, is better prepared, in an overall policing leadership preparedness, to lead the Stark County sheriff's office which has about 200 employees.

McDonald rebutted the Dordea assertion, to wit:

• That he is involved in every aspect of the sheriff's department going back to the Babe Stern administration when McDonald was a sergeant, to wit:
• His development of a "hiring" background system (polygraph, psychological exam, background check, et cetera) for the entire department pursuant to a court order that the sheriff's hire 40 deputies,
• His involvement in hiring former military,
• All the moves in the sheriff's department, the hirings, the firings, bid specifications for sheriff department contracts.

All-in-all, it appears to the SCPR that there are issues out there for both Dordea and McDonald that have very much to do with how each will perform if elected as sheriff come November.

The Report's take is that Stark Countians will be getting a quality sheriff no matter which of the two are elected.

And, ironically, the race might be decided on factors (e.g. Swanson, Walters, Berens et cetera) that are irrelevant to the question of providing quality policing leadership.

But, go figure.

That's politics for you.

YESTERDAY THE SCPR TABBED COMMISSIONER CANDIDATE WALTERS AS "CAPTAIN COURAGEOUS," A READER SUGGESTS THAT HE IS A HYPOCRITE? HMM?

 UPDATE:  10/20/2010

ORIGINAL POST

Yesterday the SCPR wrote a commentary on a Repository piece reporting county commissioner candidate James N. Walters making the point that Stark County is paying out $2.7 million annually in "extra" contributions to the Ohio Public Employment System (OPERS) by "picking-up" a part of the state law mandated employee share of contributions to the pension plan.

Walters when on record in the article as being committed to correcting this phenomenon over time as contracts get re-negotiated.

The Report supports the Walters' promised initiative and believes that Commissioner Ferguson (who is not up for election this time around) should adopt the Walters' approach as should sitting Commissioner Steve Meeks and his opponent Janet Creighton.

It is a simple matter of the math.

If something is not done on the revenue side of funding county government soon, Stark County is about to plummet from a current budget of about $55 million to about $35* million in a couple of years. (* - according to Walters' opponent Tom Bernabei).

Nearly $3 million a year is significant money and needs to be recovered to the Stark County coffers.

The Report received the following e-mail yesterday suggesting that Walters' is a political hypocrite:

So The Report contacted Walters and this is what he had to say.

• He did vote to continue employee pick-up for employees that are on the township payroll, however, he did so in the pursuit of a larger objective.
• By agreeing to leave existing employees untouched, the township achieved a concession whereby "new" employees would have to pay the entire 10% that state law mandates be paid by the employee or alternatively in the name of the employee.
• Over time, the township will be relieved of the "extra pension payments" and will save the township hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In any event the e-mail writer's 27% of employee income number to be paid to OPERS cannot be correct.  Walters says, depending on which employees are involved, the number would be either 34% (24% - the township; 10% the employee share - for firefighters) or 24% (14% - the township; 10% the employee share - all other employees).

Another important factor is the fact that trustees decided to extend the same standard to non-union employees of the township.

So is James N. Walters being a political hypocrite?

The Report thinks not.

Disadvantageously negotiated union contracts do take time to repair.  And Walters is not advocating draconian action even at the county level.  So his position seems to be consistent whether it the township situation or the county situation.

The only troublesome part of Walters' position is for the non-union employees.  That change could be made immediately.  Undoubtedly, doing such would cause a firestorm at township hall.

Apparently, Walters does not have the stomach to advocate for that.

So being Captain Courageous only goes so far.

But political courage is so lacking among elected government officials this day and age, we have to be thankful whenever it surfaces.

AT LEAST ONE COUNTY COMMISSIONER CANDIDATE HAS POLITICAL COURAGE, NO?

 

Nearly 62%  (1621 of 2640) of all Stark County employees get the county to pick up part of the employee's share of annual pension contributions to their respective state retirement systems.  This according to a Repository report:  Commissioners candidates weigh-in on extra pension payments, October 14th - a staff report.

For an employee making $50,000 annually, the reported 4.25% pick up amounts to $2,125.

Cumulatively, the "partial pick up" costs Stark County's taxpayers $2.7 million annually.

Obviously, prior Stark County commissioners have allowed the "extra" payments to be negotiated by county officeholders from county coffers while knowing full well that Stark County was heading for a fiscal crisis which will hit full force in 2012.

In fiscal year 2011 county offices are being required to cut their budgets by about 16% and in 2012 they are likely to be asked to cut an additional 30 to 35%.  

In December, 2008, county commissioners (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) voted to impose a 0.50 sales tax increase which was to be split 50/50 between the county general fund and the rehab of countywide 9-1-1.  In hindsight, the county general fund's share would go in significant share to pay for the "extra" pension payments.

In December, 2009, Stark Countians voted overwhelmingly to end the additional tax and so now county officeholders are left holding the bag for increases they negotiated with employee unions without ascertaining that the county has the revenue to pay the increased share.  So it appears that county services will be cut to the taxpaying Stark County general public as a consequence of county officials' irresponsible fiscal action. 

Jackson Township Trustee and Republican James N. Walters (running for the remaining two years on Tom Harmon's term against Democrat Tom Bernabei) has blown the whistle on the irresponsible fiscal action by county officeholders as sanctioned by county commissioners.

The SCPR has written previously that Walters has very little chance to defeat Bernabei.  And by calling county officeholders and past commissioners out on their irresponsible negotiating/approval behavior, he likely has even less chance.

Less chance?

Yes, less chance.

Why would that be?  Sounds like he's a stand-up guy and should be rewarded by the electorate.

Well, it does make sense that he would be applauded for speaking out and rewarded with votes because he promises to correct the reckless action over time.  However, there are 1, 621 employees who Walters is in effect asking to take a 4.25% pay cut and The Report does not believe that they will be out campaigning for Walters.

Indeed not.

In fact, Walters is probably looking at a phenomenon where the word spreads quickly among the affected public employees to friends and family that Walters must be stopped from becoming a commissioner.

Moreover, it is unlikely that the non-employee connected Stark County voting citizenry will become aware of Walters' condemnation of the "extra" county pension payments so as to collect themselves to act in concert in support of Walters to offset the likely adverse county employee reaction to Walters' promise to do away with the "extras."

While she does not say so in direct language in The Rep's report, Republican candidate Janet Creighton (running for a full four year term against Democrat Steve Meeks - the Bosley vacated seat) seems to be interested in Walters' point.

Do not count on Bernabei and Meeks to show much "for public consumption" interest in excising the county pick-up of part of the employees' share,  Privately, they may be interested.  However, both rely heavily on union support and therefore are unlikely to go on the public record as being in concord with Walters.

It will be interesting to see whether or not Walters' position catches on by November 2nd to translate into net votes to Walters and perhaps a huge surprise on election day.

As a follow up to Walters' point is the need to look into the identity of the officeholders (and approving commissioners) who have handed out the handsome "extra" pension pick-up benefits.  

Stark County voters deserve to know who these irresponsible "public servants?" are.  

Voters should have their say in upcoming elections,

A BELLWEATHER RACE: IF ALAN HAROLD DEFEATS KIM PEREZ IN THE STARK COUNTY AUDITOR RACE, LOOK FOR WHOLESALE DEMOCRATIC LOSSES AT THE COUNTY LEVEL IN 2012?

Revised at 11:15 AM

Is the Stark County "organized" Democratic Party close to collapsing?

Hmm?

Collapsing?

A Party which has every non-judicial countywide office under its control, on the brink of collapse?

Not likely, but there are some "nervous nellies" surfacing these days among Stark Dems.  Nervous Nellies?  Nervous about what?

Nervous about the "imminent" unfolding of the legal consequences of the alleged theft of taxpayer money from the Stark County treasury!  Nervous about being the Party (via Commissioner Todd Bosley and former Commissioner Tom Harmon) that imposed a 0.50 sales/use tax on Stark Countians taking away the fundamental democratic right of citizens!!

First, the Zeigler matter.

More and more one hears a castigation of Party officials for not learning hard on Treasurer Gary Zeigler to resign.  These folks apparently feel that as long as Zeigler remains an a elected Democratic official, his presence will "rub-off" on the likes of Auditor Kim Perez and could cause their defeat in upcoming elections.

The SCPR does have indication that a least one key Democrat has been pressuring Zeigler to step down, but Zeigler is adamant that he has done nothing wrong and therefore is not about to quit.

A early test case of whether or not the controversy surrounding the Democrat-controlled treasurer's office will be the Republican Alan Harold versus Democrat Kim Perez auditor's contest coming up this November.  Perez, rightly or wrongly, seems to The Report to be publicly perceived as being a close political ally.

If Perez were to fall in November, then political analysts will be turning their attention to November, 2012.  Who could be next?  Zeigler, the treasurer?  Campbell, the recorder?  Ferrero, the prosecutor?  Swanson or Perez, the sheriff?  Murthy, the coroner?  Reinbold, the clerk of courts? Maybe even Engineer Bennett? (who seems most impervious, because of the requirement of special qualifications)

If Perez falls, will Stark's Republicans be emboldened to go all out to capture more countywide offices?

The SCPR has already chalked the Creighton/Meeks match up as going the Republicans' way.  But it will be a relatively close race.  In the work up to November, it will be interesting to see whether or not former Canton mayor Creighton tries to associate Meeks in any way, shape or form with the goings on in the treasurer's office.

Creighton has queried previously to the SCPR (a kind of thinking out loud type of question), whether or not county offcials should be looking to attempt to recover any deficiencies in county money (the loss, projected by some to be about $3 million, less any bond money recovered) from Treasurer Zeigler himself.

Perhaps, Creighton was thinking of Ohio Revised Code Section 321.04 Ohio's law on the subject since October 1, 1953 which was referred to the SCPR by Attorney Craig T. Conley), to wit:

321.04 Deputies. Each county treasurer may appoint one or more deputies, and he shall be liable and accountable for their proceedings and misconduct in office.  Effective Date: 10-01-1953

Will she be applying pressure on Meeks during the campaign to become a advocate of such an attempt?  If so, how does Meeks respond?

Remember, Zeigler maintains he has done nothing wrong, and, in fact, affirmatively did what the law requires of him in reporting the alleged theft to law enforcement authorities.  Notwithstanding Zeigler's position, the political reality among the Stark County electorate appears to be that Zeigler is in a "the buck stops here" modality and therefore should be held accountable.

Does Meeks say:  "Treasurer Zeigler has said he's done nothing wrong, in fact, everything right.  The alleged theft is an unfortunate incident.  I have no basis to challenge Zeigler's position and therefore there is nothing to be done."

Or does Meeks say:  "I understand what Treasurer Zeigler has to say about his non-culpability in the matter.  I respectfully disagree with him and in terms of "the buck stopping with him" as the head of the Stark treasury, I think the county should consult with legal counsel with a eye towards pursuing a civil recovery from Zeigler for any deficiency and let a judge or jury decide whether or not Zeigler, in his performance as treasurer, bears any legal liability."

Second, the imposed sales/use tax.

While the SCPR does not believe that the Stark Democrats will suffer wholesale losses 2010/2012 election cycle, it could happen.  Especially, if one adds into the political equation, the 0.50 county commissioner imposed sales/use tax increase as being a Democratic gig.

Yes, Republican Jane Vignos did support the imposed tax and she still stands by it as having been the right thing to do.  But isn't the public perception, in the main, that it was a Democrat (Bosley, Harmon) thing?

Will Republican Harold press Perez and will Republican Creighton needle Meeks into disavowing the Bosley and Harmon decision?

How about the survivor of the Republican primary for the two-year commissioner term?:  Windham or Jackson trustee James N. Walter.  Will the nominated candidate join Harold an Creighton and force Democrat Tom Bernabei to stand up or stand down on the Bosley/Harmon action?

And there is one more dimension to the sales/use tax aspect of this blog?  How will it impact on Bosley himself?  Commissioner Bosley is running against Republican state Representative Todd Snitchler in Ohio's 50th House District.

The SCPR has every reason to believe that Bosley will stand squarely behind his December, 2008 "impose the tax" vote as the right thing to have done.  Accordingly, this race - though covering only about one-third of the county - could be at least a partial measure of how much the Stark County electorate are disaffected with Stark County Democrat politicians.

Conclusion.

To repeat, the SCPR does not expect the Stark County "organized" Democratic Party to collapse between now and the 2012 election and lose all of its currently held non-judicial county posts.

But it could happen.

It all depends on how skilled the political players involved turn out to be defining/positioning each other.

November, 2010 could be the election year that local politicos long remember?