TRUMP II & BIKER? JIM RENACCI FOR GOVERNOR

STARK CO GOP CHAIR JEFF MATTHEWS TO BE OUT FRONT FOR RENACCI?

Right now Republican congressman Jim Renacci (Ohio's 16th congressional district which includes northeast Stark County, a spur into Canton to catch the Timken Co and part of Lake Township) thinks that it is an advantage to run as Donald J. Trump, II in his quest to succeed Trump adversary and current Republican Ohio governor.

Renacci is reportedly one the richest congresspersons in all of the United States Congress.

But like his political idol, he likes to bill himself as the common person's advocate in government.

And to plant that notion more firmly in the public mind, he has taken to donning a biker's motif as a part of his campaign presentation.

Looking to Ohio's, the 16th congressional district and Stark's recent electoral history, the Trump II theme seems to be supported by 2016 exercised voters' preference, to wit:

But with the president's proclivity to shoot himself in the "political" foot, the Trump II Renacci strategy could be absolutely the worst theme come the 2018 Republican primary election,

Even as of May, 2017 Renacci has an uphill fight to "trump" declared fellow Republican candidates as shown in the following graph:

But Renacci can be sure of one thing.

Stark County Republican chairman Jeff Matthews will be squarely in his corner in this fight as he was when Renacci had primary opponents in the 2010 election to determine which Republican was going to take on then-incumbent Democratic congressman John Boccieri.

So why is The Stark County Political Report willing to predict this early on that Stark GOP chairman Jeff Matthews will be out of the gate with Renacci for governor.

For the same reason he weighed-in his attempt to persuade Ashland, Medina and Wayne GOP chairpersons to support Renacci over Miller, Schiffer and Smith.

Matthews wife Heidi had had a cushy political job with former and long time 16th District congressman Ralph Regula and undoubted it was in his self interest and the family finances interest that he work very hard to help Renacci unseat Boccieri.

And the apparent investment by Jeff Matthews in the 2010 campaign of Jim Renacci paid off in spades for the Matthews' family financial fortunes, to wit:

Which political investment seems to have a continuing payoff.

Matthews and wife have to be totally comfortable with Renacci's decision to try to be Trump II as further indicated by his logo "Ohio First" as clearly a take off of Trump's "American First."

When many people were counting Trump out as a potential victor in the 2016 general election, the Matthews were front and center at Trumps 2016 Canton campaign rally.

The "many people" were wrong and now the nation as to deal with "Tweeter Trump."

Another Trump-phile; namely, Jane Timken, a former vice-president of the Stark County GOP and now the Trump backed to take over the top Ohio Republican Party job in a highly competitive race for the chairmanship of the Ohio Republican party, one would think, has to be squarely in Renacci's corner in the race to be the GOP nominee for governor.

Witness this June 2, 2017 tweet by Renacci (is he picking up on Trump's tweet habit?).

In any event, the SCPR for one would not count Jim Renacci out in his quest to be the Republican nominee for governor come next spring's primary election in Ohio.

Maybe, just maybe he will come roaring into Canton/Stark County on his bike for a campaign rally between now and May 8, 2018?

Let's hope.

It would be quite a show, no?

HAGAN & GOP CONCERN ABOUT DEMOCRAT DEBBIE CAIN IN THE 50TH?

To the Stark County Political Report, the upcoming general election between Republican incumbent Christina Hagan (Marlboro Township) and Democratic candidate Debbie Cain (Lake Township) has from the get go been a slam dunk for Hagan.

But, on second thought, maybe not?

The Report was asked by a top Stark County Republican elected official what the SCPR's take on the race is?

On reflection, the mere asking of the question is a clear indication that - at the very least, the Stark County GOP - is not so sure Hagan is going to breeze through on November 4th.

After re-evaluation, The Report stands by the SCPR blog of January 2, 2014.

Notwithstanding apparent Republican concerns, the SCPR still sees Hagan as a cinch to win in November.

The Report hastens to add that Christina Hagan being part of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly, Stark County is the worse off because of it.

And to be non-partisan about it, the same needs to be said for Democrat Stephen Slesnick.

It is not enough that Slesnick is a highly ineffective legislator (owing more to his lackluster legislative abilities than to his being part of a superminority Democratic Ohio House caucus), he had to embarrass himself and Stark Countians in being cited by the State Highway Patrol on February 13th for DUI.

It only took local mainstream media about 90 days to ferret this news out.  And, of course, Slesnick did not send them a press release about the occurrence when it happened.

So why would anybody connected with the Stark County Republican Party wonder at all about whether or not Hagan is going to reelected?

Probably because in looking at the contributor base in Cain's campaign, it is clear that she is "the candidate" that the Stark/Ohio Dems are pushing for in this election cycle and the hope that Cain with:

• some campaign money, 
• some big Dem names behind her, and 
• the fact she is a member of the State Board of Education (having been its president during the Democratic Strickland administration years),

combined with Hagan:

• being an undistinguished member of the Ohio House for over four years now, and
• being in lock-step with the Tea Party/religious right crowd

might just sneak up on Hagan and bounce her out of her Ohio House 50th District seat.

While Cain as of the pre-primary campaign finance reports has more money that Hagan, don't look for that to last long. 

(SCPR Note:  Campaign finance data in this blog was extracted from campaign finance reports located on the Ohio secretary of state's website)

Compared to the Hagan reports:

To The Report,  that the Dems think they can unseat Hagan with Cain in 2014 is evidence that they are on a nomadic trip across a political desert and are experiencing a mirage.

They may think they see some sort of political oasis off in the distance, but as they approach "the spot" of their attention they figure out there is nothing there but more desert.

Recently, Canton's treasurer Kim Perez appeared at Canton City Council and spouted off about how local governments are getting screwed by the Ohio General Assembly.  And, the SCPR agrees they are.

The Report laughs at Perez because it appears that his spouting off is nothing but political rhetoric.  Look at his support of Democratic candidates for state office going back to 2010 (when Kasich was elected).

And where is his support for Debbie Cain?

For a man of Perez's mouth, there is very little evidence that "he puts his money where his mouth is," no?

And The Report has heard Stark County Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez (a Cain contributor) do the same thing as Perez, repeatedly.

But guess who Gonzalez got to run against 48th Ohio House/Senate (the 29th, formerly) J. Kirk Schuring?

How about nobody!

Of course there is nothing wrong with the likes of Gonzalez (Jackson Township fiscal officer) getting along with Schuring (Republican - Jackson Township) even though they are of different political persuasions, but the SCRP's take is that Gonzalez likes Schuring in that Schuring has helped him get legislation passed (e.g. SCOG matters and funding sources for 9-1-1 centralized dispatch) and it seems to the SCPR he only puts a lukewarm, at best, effort into getting a viable a candidate to run under the Democratic Party label against Schuring and Republican state Senator Scot Oelslager as well.

It is one thing for a state legislator to do a few good things for his constituency and be appreciated for the production, but is quite another to roll over for him when it comes to provide stiff opposition to him come election time.

The SCPR has always said that Kirk Schuring does not depart from the Ohio House Republican Caucus position (usually bad for the hoi pollio) on "the really big issues" that affect all Ohioans and therefore on balance (the bad outweighing the good) is deserving of a vigorous test of whether or not he should be reelected.

All of which makes the SCPR wonder whether or not Gonzalez (a Democrat in a sea of mostly Republican voters) is looking out more for his own political hide at the sacrifice of local government services ( due to inadequate state funding) to Stark Countians and, indeed, all Ohioans in not seeing to it that Schuring is meaningfully challenged.

So Perez can grandstand all he wants about the shafting that the Republicans are giving local governments, but with the likes of his Stark County Democratic chairman not providing a candidate, let alone a viable candidate, against a member of the "screw you, local governments" crowd;  who is going to take Perez's rant seriously?

The Report doesn't know why Natkin withdrew but suspects that she figured out that she clearly was going to be a political sacrificial lamb.

Something that Debbie Cain has not figured out.

If this was a presidential year election (about the only time Democrats vote in significant numbers), there might be some basis of optimism that someone like Debbie Cain can be elected.

She is clearly the substantive superior to Christina Hagan.

But 2014 is not a presidential election year and Republican governor John Kasich is going to take Democratic challenger Ed Fitzgerald to the cleaners on November 4th and any thought of a Cain upset of Hagan will perish in flood that is going to engulf down ticket Democrats.

It is prudent that Stark Republicans should worry about Hagan because she is in way over her head as a legislator.

To repeat, so is Democrat Stephen Slesnick.

Stark GOP chairman Jeff Matthews has done a "virtual" Gonzalez (reference:  the 48th and Schuring) with regard to Slesnick in that their is only a write-in Republican running against him.

However, Matthews has not been heard to sign the praises of Slesnick as the SCPR has heard Gonzalez do of Schuring.

Interesting, no?

Who would want to be the candidate of a Party chaired by Randy Gonzalez?

Answer?

Debbie Cain.

A bit of SCPR political advice for Ms. Cain.

Figure this year's race as "a dry run" for 2016.  Only in presidential years does a Democrat have a chance to win in the gerrymandered 50th.

In a few words, Christina Hagan and the Republicans "have nothing to worry about" for election year 2014!

(VIDEO) STARK CO. BOARD OF ELECTIONS (BOE) PROVES, ONCE AGAIN, THAT IT IS NOT CITIZEN FRIENDLY!

BOARD OF ELECTIONS
 MAY BE ON A COURSE

TO MAKE A "MAJOR"

LEGAL MISTAKE

UPDATE 10:31 AM

STARK CO. ASS'T PROSECUTOR
DEBBIE DAWSON
REPSONDS TO SCPR
QUESTION ON
SHERIFF CERTIFICATION

VIDEOS

ENCORE PRESENTATION
COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA
ON
STARK BOE
JOB POSTING
(LAUGH, LAUGH)

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

STARK BOE MEETING

OF

JANUARY 22, 2014

 UPDATED AT: 08:52 AM

Being a White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (WASP), I have not had very many occasions to experience the sting of discrimination in my entire life.

But the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE/Board) has managed to bring that bitter lesson home to this WASP in making it plainly obvious that the Stark County Political Report is not welcome to its meetings.

Derivatively, Braden, Cline, Ferruccio and St. John will be affecting the Stark County public's right to know the "complete" story of what goes on at the Stark BOE.

And, this from an entity of government supported by your tax dollars and my tax dollars.

It all began in February, 2010 as I showed up to a meeting of Stark County Board of Elections meeting with my camera.

William Cline and Curt Braden (the-then Republican members who remain to this day) and Democrat members Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and Samuel Ferruccio, Jr (a remaining member) composed the Board.

Here is a lift from a February 22, 2012 (see May, 2010 blog on the same topic) that explains the historical hostility:

Well, why was the SCPR at this particular [the regular February, 2010 BOE meeting] meeting anyway?

The Report had asked Director Jennette Mullane (an appointee of the Stark County Democratic Party which board member Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., is a former chairman of and who recently hired Mullane's sister to work for him as clerk of courts in Massillon), to place an item on the Board's agenda.

What was the item?

That the Board set up a plan with a timetable to scan in petitions and campaign finance reports as they are filed so that these documents are speedily and readily available to the Stark County Public.

Well, was the matter on the agenda?

No!

So, what did The Report do next?

After the meeting, yours truly asked Mullane about the omission.

Her answer?

The Board would not allow her to place the matter on the public meeting agenda.

So that was complaint #2 filed with the Ohio secretary of state.

Complaint #1?

Board member and Chairman William Cline (Republican of North Canton) denied the SCPR's effort to video-tape the meeting.  No vote was taken of the entire Board.  No.  Cline, unilaterally makes the decision. But after having to delay the meeting's start to have a private tete-a-tete with board member Maier.

Hmm?

What do you suppose that little confab might have been about?

While the discussion with The Report and Cline was going on, member Maier (in a sub voice) set upon disparaging blogs and the audacity of a blogger to be expected to be treated on a par with the likes of The Repository (which did have a reporter present).

The SCPR understands Maier's disdain for blogging because for him blogging appears to be a partisan political weapon; not the equal opportunity incisive critic that the SCPR is.

While Stark Politics was still up and running, Maier and his  Stark County Democratic Party political director Shane Jackson (who is Maier's chief deputy at the clerk of courts office) were going bananas over the blogs attacking Democrats and a scant few Republicans who were less extreme than the anonymous Stark Politics blogger..

They wanted yours truly to do a countervailing blog.

What an insult!

But Maier is, in the opinion of The Report, a master of political insult and arrogance.

Of course, the rest is history.  Not only did yours truly reject the request, but went totally the opposite and put together the SCPR to put both Republican and Democrat officeholders and candidates under intense scrutiny.

Mutual acquaintances have fed back to The Report that Maier has been known to go into spasm with some of the political critiques appearing in the SCPR.

Earlier this month a rather hilarious exchange between took place between Stark County commissioner Richard Regula on the occasion of BOE executive director Jeff Matthews (a target of quite of few SCPR blogs) presented the 2014 BOE budget request (all of which - to make the BOE/taxpayer tie once again to the bigs at the BOE - is funded with Stark County taxpayer dollars).

Here is a repeat from that blog so that readers can fully understand the BOE pique at the SCPR.

One of the things that the Bernabei, Creighton and Richard Regula of the Stark Board of County commissioners zero in on in the course of budget hearings are new hires and the year-to-year salary increases that Stark County departments of government hand out to their employees.

In the course of the back and forth between the commissioners and Director Matthews was Matthews' revelation that the BOE 2014 budget included the hiring of four additional employees in the year 2014.

Here is Richard Regula with his questions and Matthews' answer.

What a hoot! - no?

Not only the Stark County Board of Elections but any Ohio Board of Elections posting job listings for the taxpaying general public citizenry to apply for prompts a  "you have to be kidding!"

The public perception is that these jobs only go to the politically connected, plain and simple.

To say it again:  "job posting"  by a Board of Elections.

 Laugh, laugh, laugh and laugh some more!  Ha!, Ha!, Ha!

The SCPR thinks that Matthews stumbled and bumbled all over the place answering Regula's question and the latter revealed (as least that is what The Report thinks) that three of the four "non-posted" to the public have already been hired, subject to official BOE approval.

It is irony upon irony that each of Ohio's 88 counties have a department of government that is all about citizens having a choice (called elections) run by unelected, politically appointed folks who only have to account to the county Democratic and Republican party chairmen. 

Hmm?

One more sharing of the "very special history" between the SCPR and various members of the BOE.

From a February 26, 2010 blog:

In late 2009 or early 2010, BOE member Curt Braden had traveled to Columbus on official BOE business and "lo and behold" where does he spend over night?

You've got it!

At one of Columbus' most posh hotel and, of course, at Stark County taxpayer expense.

While the SCPR understands that public officials do not necessarily concern themselves with being frugal with your tax dollars and my tax dollars, one would think that a guy like Braden would at least take care to get the very best rates at one of Columbus' finest hotel, no?

Not on your life.

"Who cares," he must have said to himself.

Consequently, he signed up for a room at $144.00 a night whereas if he had gotten prior Stark County government approval - as he is required to do according "to the rules," the rate would have been $80.00 per night.

So while Braden and his fellows are careful to rein in the Stark County Political Report with rules, he is not so careful about himself nor with our taxpayer dollars.

SCPR rules?

Yes at Tuesday's meeting, Director Matthews told me (seated in the first row in order to get the best picture of "our Stark County Board of Election members in action) that "the rules" did not allow me to sit in the front row (where nobody but a Repository reporter was seated) but that I would at least have to remove to the second row and once seated "was not to move about."

While my experience is in no way, shape or form the equivalent of that experienced - even in 2014 America by African Americans and other minorities - the Matthews' (Board supported) rebuke caused me to reflect just a little as a WASP what it must feel like to experience somebody's prejudice.

After Tuesday's meeting, I was told by one in the room that "the Board"  [Cline, Braden, Ferruccio and St. John) obviously does not like you.

I hope that St. John (an African-American) - if he does not like me and the work of the SCPR - will disassociate himself from the discriminatory work of he fellow BOE members.  For it would be a bit hypocritical of him to take offense about African-Ameriocans are treated but not care about bloggers and the obvious put-down that I experienced by Maier (back in February, 2010) and the entire BOE in the fashioning of the discriminatory rules in favor of the mainstream press.

Now to the reason why I attended the January, 2014 BOE meeting.

First, to see Matthews' explain to the Board how he/Mullane (the Democrat deputy BOE director) labored long and hard to screen from among many, many applications the hopefully received for some of the best - if not the absolute "best" - paying Stark County government entry level jobs ($32,000 plus about another $10,000 in benefits) in all of Stark County.

Second, to see whether or not the Board dealt in any kind of detail with the necessity of setting a date before February 18th for the Board to meet in order to pass on whether or not those Stark Countians filing partisan petitions (deadline:  February 5th) had done so properly.

Mostly, the review includes making sure that the would-be candidates have obtained the minimum required "registered voter" signatures to be qualified.

However, this year there is a wrinkle to the qualification process.

The 2014 primary ballot will include sheriff candidates.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the BOE has to make a determination of whether or not the sheriff candidates meet the criteria of ORC 311.01 that specifically set out in Ohio law as being mandatory if one is to legally take office as a sheriff.

The Report doubts anyone reading this blog does not know about the fight within the Stark County Democratic Party to appoint a sheriff.  Rather that regurgitate that fight and how George T. Maier got bounced by the Ohio Supreme Court from being sheriff, here is a LINK for readers to get up to speed.

The SCPR hears that there is talk among the lawyer members of the BOE to ignore ORC 311.01 and merely deal with the sufficiency the validty/number of the signatures on the sheriff candidate petitions.

The Report can assure the BOE members that if they go that route, they will face a legal challenge.  Perhaps the should be taking a look at this Ohio Supreme Court case which is an expression of current Ohio law on the matter.

The BOE is truly between "the deep blue sea and the Devil" on this issue.

For if the Board finds Maier to be disqualified, "you can bet your 'bottom dollar' that the Maier forces will be filing litigation.

In viewing the videotape of Tuesday's meeting (posted at the end of this blog), readers can see what transpired in its totality unfiltered by the SCPR.

What more could one ask for?

Particularly noteworthy are the comments of member William Cline that make it clear that the BOE itself was not interested in vetting Matthews/Mullane, to wit:

• about the specifics of how many applications were received, 
• how the general public might have known about the job openings,
• whether or not political affiliation or any other connection (laugh, laugh, laugh Commissioner Regula et al) had anything to do with whom got hired, and
• what were the critical criteria which separated the applicants in the Matthews/Mullane determination of who would be recommended for hire.

Cline's laudatory comments are clear indication to the SCPR through the words of Cline - who is an attorney and clearly knows how to cross-examine - was not interested in showing that the Board had done its "due diligence."

Folks, it is this very blog you are reading and the revelations it contains that has put the SCPR in the category of receiving discriminatory treatment as being a second class citizen compared to the mainstream media representative.

I expect any day to get a call from the bigwigs at The Repository - because of their devotion to the journalistic values of "Sunshine Week" coming up soon - with the message that they are going to weigh-in to insist that I and my blog be treated with respect (which nearly every other public entity/official accords The Report) and "the equal protection of the law."

The Rep bigs uttered nary a word back in February, 2010?

Should I hold my breath on this January 23, 2014 waiting for that call?

Tuesday's meeting video follows:

(VIDEOS) IN BUDGET HEARINGS, COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA ASKS BD OF ELECTIONS' OFFICIALS: "ARE YOU GOING TO POST THOSE FOUR NEW POSITIONS?" WHAT A LAUGH!

UPDATED AT 6:00 PM

VIDEOS

COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA

ASK  BOE OFFICIALS

ARE THE FOUR NEW JOBS GOING TO BE POSTED?

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

COMMISSIONERS CREIGHTON & BERNABEI

DRESS DOWN

BOE OF ELECTIONS OFFICIALS

FOR

BREAKING

2% RAISE GUIDELINES 

One of the best forums from which the Stark County Political Report obtains information about Stark County government operations are the meetings of the Stark County commissioners.

The commissioners are now in the depths of their yearly budget hearings and these hearings, in particular, yield a great deal of information for The Report to repackage into blogs which make Stark Countians some the best informed people about their county, township, village and city governments in the entire country.

Yesterday, representatives (Director Jeff Matthews, Deputy Director Jeanette Mullane, Republican Board Member Curt Braden and Democrat Board Member Sam Ferruccio) of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE') trooped into the the commissioners' meeting room on the second floor of the Stark County Office Building for their time before the commissioners.

One of the things that the Bernabei, Creighton and Richard Regula of the Stark Board of County commissioners zero in on in the course of budget hearings are new hires and the year-to-year salary increases that Stark County departments of government hand out to their employees.

In the course of the back and forth between the commissioners and Director Matthews was Matthews' revelation that the BOE 2014 budget included the hiring of four additional employees in the year 2014.

Here is Richard Regula with his questions and Matthews' answer.



What a hoot! - no?

Not only the Stark County Board of Elections but any Ohio Board of Elections posting job listings for the taxpaying general public citizenry to apply for prompts a  "you have to be kidding!"

The public perception is that these jobs only go to the politically connected, plain and simple.

To say it again:  "job posting"  by a Board of Elections.

 Laugh, laugh, laugh and laugh some more!  Ha!, Ha!, Ha!

The SCPR thinks that Matthews stumbled and bumbled all over the place answering Regula's question and the latter revealed (as least that is what The Report thinks) that three of the four "non-posted" to the public have already been hired, subject to official BOE approval.

It is irony upon irony that each of Ohio's 88 counties have a department of government that is all about citizens having a choice (called elections) run by unelected, politically appointed folks who only have to account to the county Democratic and Republican party chairmen. 

Hmm?

As soon as The Report could get to a computer, an email was fired off to Deputy Director Jeannette Mullane asking follow up questions, to wit:

 

Jeanette,

With respect to the four hires referred to by Matthews in today's budget presentation, I have the following questions:

What are the job titles?

How much is each position to be paid as a starting salary?

With respect to the three hires to be made in January, have the candidate for those jobs been selected subject to the approval of the board?

If so, what are their names.

When is the four hire contemplated to be made?

Thanks,
Martin Olson
SCPR

MULLANE'S INITIAL ANSWER

Jeanette,

With respect to the four hires referred to by Matthews in today's budget presentation, I have the following questions:

What are the job titles?  Clerks

How much is each position to be paid as a starting salary?  $15.60 per hour or $32,459.65 annual

With respect to the three hires to be made in January, have the candidate for those jobs been selected subject to the approval of the board?  The Board hires the employees.

If so, what are their names.

When is the four hire contemplated to be made?  Unknown at this time.

Note that Mullane does not answer "all" the questions posed, to wit:  "If so, what are their names?"

However, the SCPR, if anything, is persistent:

The Report's "reply" attempt to get Mullane to answer "all" the questions posed.

MULLANE'S REPONSE TO THE SCPR'S FOLLOW UP

As you can see, Mullane refuses to respond to the SCPR request for names.

Why do you think that might be?

Hmm?

'Tis a puzzlement, no?

Well, Ms. Mullane, Director Matthews and each and every one of the Stark County Board of Elections can be assured that the SCPR will be at the January 21st meeting to record it all.

Of course the SCPR had to fight (Blog Link) for the right to videotape Stark BOE proceedings (Blog Link).

Courtesy of the work of Stark County commissioners' "second-in-command" administrator Chris Nichols (who obtained the information from the Stark auditor's office), The Report is publishing the current payroll of various departments of government.

Since, today's blog, the Stark County Board of Elections is the topic, below is the payroll as this month.  Of course, next month there will be three additions $32,459.75 (access denied to the general Stark County public courtesy of unelected "highly partisan" public officials) with a fourth to follow soon.

The BOE completely blew off the commissioners on their guidelines of no more than two percent (2%) increases in Stark County departments for 2013.

The chief, Matthews, (chairman of the Stark County Republican Party [an unpaid position] who was making a "mere" $78,708 (plus about $25,000 in benefits) gets a 4.3% increase to reach $80,000.  A nice, neat rounded off number, no?.  And the man apparently includes himself in the category of these "poor employees" the haven't  a raise in 4 or 5 years.

Now that's a convincing argument for a person who in total compensation package is likely well over $100,000 annually all of which is paid by the Stark County taxpayers, isn't it?

And look at Travis Secrest who has dutifully run for a couple "sacrificial lamb" campaigns for the Stark Republicans.  Wow!  From $31,514 to $41,200 (a whooping 30.7% increase) all within one year and he is a person that has not been on the job all that long.  And, again, you can tack on about another $12,000 annually in benefits so that his total taxpayer dollars take is over $50,000 annually.

Not to neglect the Democrats, there is Holly Tichnor who got a 12.7% increase in 2013.

In this video, see Commissioner Janet Creighton and Tom Bernabe take BOE members Republican Curt Braden and Democrat Sam Ferruccio to task for the flagrant BOE disregarding of the commissioners' 2% raise guidelines.



Since members of the BOE; namely Demeatrious St. John,  Sam Ferruccio (the Democrats) and Curt Braden, William Cline (the Republicans) are unelected, the only accountability for elected officials are Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Regula.

Right now the only consequence is "a dressing down by the commissioners" as seen in the video.

Of course, for the likes of St. John, Ferruccio, Braden and Cline, you just "grin and bear it."

For the commissioners' admonitions to mean anything, they are going to have to come up with "real world" consequences for county government entities that in effect tell them that their guidelines mean nothing to them.

We shall see what the commissioners do in devising effective measures to stop the "thumbing of the nose" they are experiencing by the likes of the Stark County Board of Election members.

STARK "GOT SCREWED" ON CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION BY OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY (INCLUDING STARK COUNTIANS OLESLAGER & HAGAN)

STARK NOT ONLY SPLIT INTO THREE DISTRICTS (WHICH STARK GOP CHAIR MATTHEWS SAYS IS GOOD), BUT IT ALSO SHARES IN BEING AMONG 400 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS WHICH ARE LARGELY NON-COMPETITIVE DUE TO GERRYMANDERING.  WITH RENACCI MOVE, NO CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE LOCATED IN STARK.

UPDATE:  09:43 AM

VOTE OF STARK COUNTY'S "THREE" CONGRESSMEN ON PASSAGE OF "AVOIDING FISCAL CLIFF"

GIBBS - 7TH - NO

RENACCI - 16TH - NO

RYAN - 13TH - YES

ORIGINAL BLOG

Where are Stark Countians who remain in the 16th congressional district going to have to go to visit their congressman?

Wadsworth located in Medina County, that's where!

The Medina Gazette is chortling over the move of Congressman Jim Renacci's office from Belden Village to an office complex located in Wadsworth.

And, of course, Stark Countians have Stark County GOP Chairman Jeff Matthews (also, STARK COUNTY Board of Elections director), state Senator Scott Oelslager (R, Plain [Stark County] - the 29th) and state Rep. Christina Hagan (R, Marlboro [Stark County] - the 50th) to thank for either endorsing and/or participating in the gerrymander Republican-skewed drive (at the hand of Republican dominant Ohio General Assembly) that took place in late 2011 that resulted in Stark (which was the main act in the "old" 16th) being split into three congressional districts.

For those readers who need a refresher on the background on the redistricting process, here is a LINK that provides a thoroughgoing analysis of the process.

The dominant Stark County populated congressional district is the 7th.

Compared to the other 9 counties composing the 7th, Stark is far and away the largest player.

In the 2012 election, Stark County cast 33.57% of the total votes voted.  However, even lackluster Democratic candidate Joyce Healy-Abrams (brother of Canton mayor William J. Healy, II) beat Gibbs by sizable majority (given the volume of 105,964 votes). 

Consequently, you can bet your bottom dollar that Republican Gibbs will not giving Stark County top billing in terms of attention.

After all he is a politician.  And we all know that politicians look after their own hides first and foremost.

So, despite the fact that Chairman Matthews and Representative Hagan said back in 2011 that having three districts would be good for Stark, a rational look at the numbers show their analyses for what they are:  partisan political spin.

Stark having the attention of one of three congressmen is problematical at best, and, perhaps "not in the cards!"

Rational political thinkers will conclude from the numbers presented in the chart above that Stark is very likely to get short shrift from Gibbs whereas Holmes at 82% for him (his home county), Ashland, Knox, Richland, Huron, Coshocton, Tuscarawas (all producing 60% plus for the congressman) will undoubtedly get the lions share of his attention.

Does anyone (who has their head in political reality) doubt that perhaps Lorain and most certainly Stark are in for a taste of political oblivion as far as Gibbs in concerned.

And we have Matthews, Oelslager and Hagan to thank for justifying and and endorsing (Oelslager and Hagan by virtue of their votes for the enabling legislation [HB 319]) not having the ear of the congressman even though the county has by far the largest plurality of constituents.

Well, maybe Stark can do better with the alternative districts?

Let's take a look at those  numbers in the 16th and then the 13th congressional districts.

First, the 16th.

The 16th is the best prospect for Stark County's voice to be heard in the halls of Congress.

Probably the most compelling factor in Congressman Renacci hearing the pleas of Stark County interest is the fact that Heidi Matthews works for him.  She is the wife of Jeff Matthews.  And, Matthews was the party chairman from among the Republican Party chairmen in the "old" 16th (Stark, Wayne, part of Ashland and part of Medina) who initiated the drive for Renacci to become the party nominee in his successful bid to unseat Democratic congressman John Boccieri of Alliance.

However, what works against Stark having much pull with Renacci is the fact that Stark represented only some 19% of the total 2012 vote in the 16th.  The good in the "however" is that of that 19% Renacci received 57% of the vote; the highest of all five of the counties that comprise the "new" 16th.

And the case can be made, that - but for Stark and its Renacci plurality of 9,069 votes; Renacci might well have lost to Democrat Betty Sutton.  She had 3,499 vote edge in the four other counties of the 16th.

The SCPR thinks the numbers so far in The Report's analysis (the 7th, the 16th) show that the 16th is the best bet.

The index for the 16th for Republican Renacci in a presidential year election for is 50.92%.  Not much of a margin.

Accordingly, the pressure is on for him to shore up his numbers in Cuyahoga, Portage and Summit Counties or face close race after close race after close race every two years.

A future strong Cuyahoga County-based candidate could prove to be his political Waterloo, no?

So he might be tempted to "not appreciate all that much
what Stark County did for him in terms of putting him over-the-top given that Stark only represents 19% or so of the vote, no?

On to the 13th congressional district numbers.

Forget it! Stark County.

No help here!

Even though folks from Marlboro Township (Hagan's home) and the Alliance area gave Congressman Tim Ryan (Democrat - Youngstown) a solid victory (62.90% of the vote), it paled in comparison to the other counties (Mahoning [78.96%], Portage [68.13%], Summit [68.85%] and Trumbull [73.42%]) and more importantly Stark only represents 3.11% of the total voting this past November.

So how much attention is Tim Ryan going to pay to a county that comprises 3% or so of the total vote in a presidential year?

You've got it.  It's between "slim and none" and slim just left town.

A Democratic favorable index of 72.64%.  Wow!  

Republican strategy?

Dump as many Democratic areas as possible in two northeast Ohio congressional districts (the 11th [Cuyahoga] and the 13th) and thereby preserve the 16th for the Republicans and Renacci, even if narrowly.

As a consequence of the Republican gerrymandering, Ohio ended up with 12 of Ohio's 16 congressional seats being Republican, to wit:

This in the face of Democrat Barack Obama winning Ohio 50.1% to Republican Mitt Romney's 48.2%.  Hmm?

The Ohio incongruity is indicative of what is happening nationwide at the hands of Democrats and Republicans who capture control of state redistricting processes and use the process to abuse democratic procedures.

And this historical phenomenon is no trifling matter.

As the SCPR's favorite (because he is the most reliable) political blogger Nate Siliver of the 538 political blog points out, what used to be over 100 competitive congressional districts (1992); only 35 remain.

So the next time you see one of your local political party die-hards (e.g. Matthews, Hagan and, surprisingly by virtue of his HB 319 vote, Oelslager [Republicans] or the likes of former Stark County Democratic chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr), be sure to give them a big sarcastic thank you for their serving political party and their individual political interests over the public interest of having competitive democratic processes.

Matthews, Hagan and Oelslager have said in their statements and by their actions that political competition is best sacrificed to parochial partisan interests.

In the end, given the numbers published in this blog, Stark Countians might well have no one among Gibbs, Renacci and Ryan to turn to have our voice heard in Washington.

But we should think it is a good thing that Stark County is represented by three different congressmen?

WHICH STARK COUNTY CONGRESSPERSON IS SPENDING LESS/MORE ON HIS/HER STAFF? RENACCI STAFFER HAS GOTTEN 188% IN INCREASES SINCE STARTING WITH REGULA IN 2001.

UPDATED AND REPUBLISHED 04/06/2012

LINK to underlying USA Today article.

ORIGINAL BLOG

According to state Rep. Christina Hagan (Republican - Marlboro) and Stark GOP Chair Jeff Matthews it is a good thing, due to the decentennially required by the U.S. Constitution redistricting and the Ohio Republican Party gerrymandering the districts to the GOP's advantage, that Stark County is split up into three districts.

Accordingly, the SCPR tracks the spending habits not just on the 16th Congressional District (currently held by Jim Renacci - R/Wadsworth) which used to encompass all of Stark County but also Congressmen Bob Gibbs (currently R -18th; to be the 6th) and Tim Ryan (currently D -17th; to be the 13th).

Because Ohio loses two congressional seats due to population loss, Congressman Renacci has to battle current Democratic 13th District Congresswoman Betty Sutton for the right to remain in Congress.

So as asked in the title to this blog, who is the most frugal congress person vying for office in the 2012 congressional election for Stark County?

The winner is:  16th District Congressman Jim Renacci.

As can be seen from extracts from LegiStorm, he bests his November opponent by over $150,000.

And as can be seen by the graphics on Congressmen Gibbs and Ryan below, he best Gibbs by about $25,000 and Ryan by some $357,000.

Congratulations Congressman Renacci.

However, readers of The Report are reminded that this measure of frugality with taxpayer money is a relative phenomenon.

Note, that if Renacci had stayed at his 01/01/2011 - 03/31/2011 pay standard he could have saved taxpayers an additional $100,000.

But he chose to grant staff raises totaling 4.5%, 15.6% and 9.5% in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters and thereby blemished his record of frugality.

Does anyone think that his car dealership is handing out 29.6% per annum in raises?

He still does better that the others who are likely to represent Stark County (except, maybe Sutton) come January 1, 2013, but the key point for everyday Stark Countians is that nearly 30% in staff raises is not happening at their places of employment.

By this standard, even Renacci looks he like does not have much of problem spending "other people's money."

Think he might "hold the line" next year, if elected?

Another note that the SCPR cannot pass up.

One of Renacci's staffers is Stark GOP Chairman and Stark Board of Elections Director Jeff Matthews' wife Heidi.

Heidi started out as staff assistant to now retired Congressman Ralph Regula in 2000.

In her first full year (2011) she earned $27,833.34.

By 2009, she was earning just a few dollars shy of $100,000.

Well, Congressman Regula retired.

But with Renacci's defeat of Democrat John Boccieri in November, 2010, she was back on the job with the Republican Renacci.

The Report is told that husband Jeff (remember, Stark County GOP chair) took the initiative with other 16th District GOP chairmen (losing only the Ashland County chairman -  the home of Renacci Republican primary opponent Matt Miller) to enhance Renacci's chance of getting the GOP nomination.

Again, credit is due Renacci.

He did not bring Matthews in at $100,000.

He cut her and cut her good to a mere $80,208.33.  About a 20% cut from her last Regula year.

And he even cut her rather large quarterly raises enjoyed under Congressman Regula.

Ms. Matthews only got about 20% in raises from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Compared to the Regula years, quite a come down.

Not counting her year at $100,000 under Regula, Matthews has received as measured her current Renacci salary 188% over a ten year period.

18.8% per year over ten years!

Interesting, no?

For comparision purposes, here are the salaries meted out by Congressmen Gibbs and Ryan for 2011.

Your tax dollars at work!