(VIDEOS: CIRELLI, SCHULMAN, McMASTERS, HEALY & REAM) IS ISSUE 29 HEADED TOWARDS APPROVAL? CO-CHAIR DAN McMASTERS SAYS STARK COUNTIANS SHOULD FEAR CONSQUENCES OF NOT PASSING THE ISSUE. A KEY QUESTION: IS PASSAGE OF ISSUE 29 AT A RATE LESS THAN IS NEEDED A WISE THING FOR THE LONG TERM?

It is hard to know about Issue 29 (the 0.5% sales tax increase) prospects on next month's ballot:  are the stars lining up as a omen that the issue will pass?

Well, the "Yes for Stark Safety - Issue 29" (YFSS-29) campaigners are scattering to and fro across Stark County trying to get all 35 of Stark County's local government entities to endorse the effort.

Last night YSFSS-29 forces showed up at Canton City Council and got a 10 to 1 thumbs up (Councilwoman Cirelli voting no and Councilman West absent due to a death in his extended family) on a requested endorsement via an informal resolution.

Cirelli seemed to cause consternation among the pro-29 folks in questioning the courage of the Stark Commissioners in not voting to impose the proposed tax increase rather than leave it up to a vote of Stark Countians.  Apparently, the councilwoman has forgotten that a former board of commissioners (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) imposed a 1/2 cent sales tax (December, 2008) which Stark Countians overwhelming repealed in November, 2009.

Another point that Cirelli pushed hard on to make clear is that while county officials say that Issue 29 money will be used "primarily" to make the sheriff's department whole to 2010 levels, the fact of the matter is that the 1/2% increase will not be used exclusively for that purpose or even the expanded notion of the entire Stark County criminal justice apparatus.   A significant part of the money will still be used to cover all other county operations that currently participate in county general fund allocations.

Here is a number of video excerpts indicating the frustration of Issue 29 supporters with Cirelli's argument and point.



If it were just local government types that were voting on the issue, there is no doubt that the issue would pass overwhelmingly.  But there is a detectible nervousness emanating from the campaigners for 29.

Why so?

Because it is believed that some 100,000 or so Stark Countians will be voting on the issue on November 8th and notwithstanding a strong campaign to reach all of them with convincing proof that Stark County government is on the brink of a massive financial collapse come 2012 should the issue fail, and uncertainty persists that given the stubbornly down economy and the influence of a general anti-tax attitude as overtly manifested by the the likes of the Tea Party movement whether or not YFSS-29 can get to 50,001 votes.

Most of the YFSS-29 campaigners have stayed away from out-and-out using fear of the consequences to voting no in terms of the devastation they say the failure of a tax increase failure will have on Stark County governmental services.

But Co-Chair Dan McMasters (a Massillon State Farm Insurance agent) is not one of them.

Here is a video of McMasters articulating on the "fear argument" last night.



All-in-all it was a very good night for YSFF-29, witness this video of endorsements by Mayor Healy and Safety Director Thomas Ream.



It is looking more and more to the SCPR that the stars may be taking on a favorable alignment for the passage of Issue 29.

But, at best, the commissioners are only treading water if the issue passes.
On this point, Council President Allen Schulman had the best question of the night in pointing out what the 1/2 cent tax does not do in terms of not providing money for economic development and job production.

A major concern for commissioners should be whether or not the passage of the 1/2% increase will make it impossible for an additional hike in a year or so.

For it is abundantly clear that even with a 1/2% increase that Stark County will be right back in a financial crisis very soon indeed.

In fact, word has just come out that the Veterans Service Commission (VSC) which is entitled as a matter of Ohio law to about $3.2 million in the county's share (about 4% of the total take) of property tax assessments is going to be taking about $2.5 million for 2012 as compared to $1.3 million this year.  On October 14th, the VSC board is holding a meeting of Stark County veteran stakeholders to consider using much of its available money to facilitate a plan being pushed by Commissioner Pete Ferguson to develop a Veterans Home in Stark County.

So in one-fell-swoop it appears that beginning in 2012 commissioners are going to lose $1 million or so annually for its general fund operations in heretofore unused VSC fund set asides.

The SCPR believes that this action is at least - in part - a VSC board reaction to Commissioner Janet Creighton's question (paraphrased) earlier in this year when the board gave VSC pay raises over the objection of commissioners, to wit:  "What does the VSC do for Stark County veterans, anyway?"

These are times that call for very wise political/governmental leadership in Stark County.

The ultimate question which Issue 29 raises is this:  Are Stark Countians getting wise leadership from the current crop of county officials?

(VIDEO: STARK EMERGENCY MGT DIRECTOR TIM WARSTLER EXPLAINS RAMPED UP STARK CO 9-1-1) . BUT NIMISHILLEN TWP AND CITY OF CANTON ARE STILL PROBLEM SPOTS!

Yesterday, Stark County Emergency Services Director Tim Warstler made an auspicious announcement at the Stark County commissioners weekly regular meeting to the effect that Stark County made a huge step in improved 9-1-1 emergency services in implementing a "state of the art" (on the call receiving side) technically advanced system.

However, the dispatch side is unchanged.

Stark County has come a long way from this 2008 analysis of the Stark County system commissioned to GeoComm, to wit:

This [Stark County's] current [February, 2008] lack of radio interoperability can be, and has been, the cause of injuries and death to public safety professionals and citizens and therefore needs to be resolved.

But day-to-day coordination means more than radios that talk to each other.  The lack of coordination inherent in having dispatching done from ten different places on ten different radio systems under ten different procedures and five different computer systems with ten different sets of employees is a disaster waiting to happen, if it has not happened too many times already (and in Stark County it has).

Despite the advance, problems still remain.

While Warstler, being the diplomat he is, would not say it this way (the SCPR will), the city of Canton under the direction of Mayor William J. Healy, II and his Safety Director Tom Ream stand in the way of completing the "disaster waiting to happen" rebuild of Stark's emergency 9-1-1 system.

Moreover, Warstler is very kind to the Nimishillen Township trustees.  Again, the SCPR will not be so kind.  It appears to The Report that a board of former but also the current trustees have let Fire Chief Rich Peterson hamstring them into not fully participating in the revamped countywide emergency services system.

While Warstler says Nimishillen's CenCom does now have communication integration with the county's new system, it does not receive call direct from emergency callers as does the rest of Stark County.  Also, because of equipment disparity (Nimishillen refused the countywide 9-1-1 offer of new equipment made last year) future enhancements to the countywide system (texting and video) could be, Warstler says,  problematical.

The Report believes a former board of  Nimishillen trustees got talked into (an unwise decision) building a new fire station principally to house CenCom and because of an outstanding large mortgage the current trustees cannot see a financially clear path (needing the revenue generated by CenCom) to merging CenCom into the countywide system.

Here is a video of Warstler and 9-1-1 Project Manager Joe Concatto talking about the CenCom (Nimishillen) problem (the SCPR's words, not Warstler's and Concatto's).



Insofar as Canton is concerned, the SCPR is especially disappointed in Councilman Bill Smuckler.  In his losing campaign to replace Canton Democrat Mayor William J. Healy, II as the Democratic Party nominee, he pushed Healy (during the campaign) to get on board "fully" with countywide 9-1-1 and thereby save Canton about $480,000 a year.

Smuckler even had a public meeting schedule to compel the Healy administration to give an specific accounting as to why he and Safety Director Ream were dragging their feet.  But then came the announcement that Sheriff Swanson was "off the 9-1-1 - fully participating - reservation" (he is now back on board) and Smuckler seems to have vanished on this issue.

The Report expects more of Smuckler than being Healy-esque (what is in this for me politically).  He has long been one of if the the leading proponent for local Stark County governments working together.

Smuckler still has five months left as councilman.  If he allows Healy and Ream continue to get in the way of the finalization 9-1-1 rebuild, then yours truly has to wonder how much different is he from Healy after all.

While a monumental positive advance has been made on the 9-1-1 call receiving side, much work remains on the dispatch (CAD) side.  Healy and Ream talk like they intend to come to a resolution on the impasse between Canton and the county, but - in fact - "the devil is in the details" of getting to where Canton needs to be in order to finalize a fully rehabilitated countywide 9-1-1.

The SCPR will be keeping the heat on Healy and Ream to step forward and say specifically why they are dragging their feat.  Moreover, Canton City Council needs to get involved and fight to release the choke hold the Healy/Ream tag team seem to have on Canton's full participation in both sides of the 9-1-1 fix.

Here is a video of Warstler reporting to the Stark County commissioners on the implementation of the the 9-1-1 call side rehab:

(VIDEO) CITY OF CANTON: A LEGISLATIVE FIGHT OR A POLITICAL FIGHT?

Canton City Council has been fighting over the form of updating its building code and concomitant inspection requirements for about a year.   It's a fight between the "white hats" (those favoring mandatory inspections at sale or once every five years) and the "black hats" (those who worry about the cost to slumlords and whether or not the increased standard of inspection will pay for itself or threaten an additional drain on the city's general fund).  An outsider might think this is a good thing.

Why?

Because one of Canton's many problems is neighborhood deterioration.  For what good building codes are, Canton's prior codes have not been effective towards deterring slumlords from coming to Canton in droves to collect their rents, put very little - if anything, into the rental units and then move on when their houses/apartments collapse.

And the SCPR agrees that it would be a good thing for Canton to vigorously attack its neighborhood.deterioration problem.

But is restoring the neighborhoods "really" what's at play in this fight?

The Report thinks not.

This fight is against a political backdrop of incumbent Democratic Mayor William J. Healy, II straining to survive an intraparty challenge from Councilman Bill Smuckler come May, 2011 and the Democratic primary.

What the Smuckler forces on council will be doing from now until May will be to find one issue or another to make political hay for the challenger.  And, Healy supporters will be doing the same for the mayor.

Doesn't mean that some "good for the citizens" won't come out of the political vying.  But it does mean that the governors (the mayor, the appointed officials and the council members) cannot for the life of themselves get out of their primarily political stance into a more civic model.

Unless and until Canton's governing class learns to minimize the political, Canton will continue its downward slide.  New businesses will not be attracted to a city in constant political turmoil.  All that will get any new economic development to Canton will be the special deals (i.e. tax incentives, et cetera).  Once those evaporate, the businesses will vamoose.  For there is nothing inherently compelling about Canton as it presently stands and is operated.

All Cantonians can hope for is for May 3, 2011 to come and go quickly.

Perhaps, if Smuckler wins - remember, the word is "perhaps," Canton has a better chance to get out of the "politics for the sake of politics" mode and move on to a bona fide repair of its image, its infrastructure and onto "real" economic development.

Smuckler appears to be less political than Healy.  However, that may not be saying much.  Mayor Healy is, in the view of the SCPR, a master politician.  Maybe enough of a master to survive as mayor of Canton.

Here is a video snippet of the argument between the two adversaries Healy (West) and Smuckler (Hawk).

MAYBE IT WON'T BE FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT SCUTTLES THE CHARTER INITIATIVE IN CANTON; THE NUMBER MAY BE DOWN TO THREE?

AN AMPLIFICATION:  It has been pointed out by a reader of the SCPR that by the Rules of Procedure of the Canton City Council that a council member may ask Council as a body to remove an item from within a committee. If Council refuses to remove the matter from committee and the committee never reports it out, then the matter is effectively killed at the end of Council's term.  It would have to be reintroduced in a new term.

If Council does remove, by a majority vote, the measure from Council, then it goes to Council's Committee of The Whole where it will need seven votes (a simple majority) to get on City Council's agenda for consideration of passage.

ORIGINAL POST

The SCPR wrote on Tuesday that Councilman Mark Butterworth (R - 8th Ward) may have trouble finding eight of twelve votes within Canton City Council to get a measure on the May, 2011 to create a Charter Commission to formulate a charter for Cantonians to vote on in November, 2011.

Like it or not, this measure is getting caught up in politics and the political insecurities of at least two of the councilpersons who sit on the Judiciary Committee headed up by Councilman Thomas West (D - 2nd Ward).

So it could turn out that only three "no" votes (25% of the voting members of Council) refusing to report out the measure to full Council will kill the charter movement for Canton.

Another factor is that the Healy administration is cool to the idea of Canton going to a charter.

In a larger since, it is also probably a case of the "establishment" caucus of the organized Stark County Democratic Party on Canton Council who are trying in a stealth manner to kill the charter proposal.

Why?

Because the establishment folks are in charge now and any change is likely seen by them to threaten their control of Council.

Who are some of these folks?

A source tells the SCPR that Councilmen West, Cole and Hawk, if they can conjure up a superficially plausible basis for voting "no," they will do so.  The source says that one of the consequences that West and Hawk fear is that the drawing of new council district lines under a charter would put them in the same district and therefore have to run against one another in a face off.  Such a race would likely mean the end of Hawk's career on Council.

The SCPR believes Mayor Healy is "cool" to the idea of charter because Councilman Bill Smuckler is for it.  Smuckler has for many years advocated for Canton going to a charter form of government.  Smuckler is likely to run against Healy in next May's Democratic primary to be the Democratic nominee for mayor in November's election.

An important factor in all of these political maneuverings is that a Republican (Mark Butterworth) is pushing the charter thing.  A mistake that Butterworth made in proposing a charter commission is not getting a Democrat, any Democrat, to join him.

His mistake seems credible to the "establishment" Democrats being whispered around City Hall that this is a plan by Republicans to gain more representation on Council.  After all, it was Republican operative Michael Cunnington who earlier this year call a community meeting at Malone College to discuss the idea of circulating petitions for a ground-up movement to install a charter in Canton.

The SCPR is told that Cunnington ran into a buzz saw of "establishment" Democrats beholden to Mayor Healy who caused a ruckus at the community meeting over the Cunnington proposal.

The SCPR believes that it is a difficult task that the "establishment" Democrats have to pull off.  With Canton being in the financial/economic doldrums, it is clear that something has to be done to reverse Canton's fortunes.  But what?

Well, how about a change in structure of government which suggests the infusion of "new" blood into Canton government?  One not overwhelmingly controlled by the organized Stark County Democratic Party.

Cantonians are likely to be infuriated if they come to believe that they are being denied the right to vote on whether or not they want to go to a charter government by insecure Democratic politicians.

So the "establishment" Democratic forces have a touchy matter in their hands.

We will know better after August 9th and a meeting of the West-controlled Judiciary Committee at which Councilman Butterworth will seek to educate committee members on the ramifications of going charter.

Will this matter get out of Judiciary?

The SCPR thinks it depends on Councilman Joe Cole.

Why Cole?

Well, he is the new kid on the block in Council and has not really identified himself as being part and parcel with "establishment" Democrats on Council and also with the Healy administration.

The Report believes that if Cole signals he favors a vote of the people, then West and Hawk will likely flip over to voting "yes" with him.

But if he indicates strong reservations about charter proposal, it would not be surprising at all to see 25% of the members of Canton City Council deny the entire City of Canton electorate the opportunity to vote on the charter measure.

It all boils down to what the anti-charter folks can cook up that makes it appear to Cantonians that they are not being obstructionists.  But, rather, they are doing the responsible and productive thing for Canton.

The charter thing presents an interesting sideshow to the looming showdown between Mayor Healy and powerful Canton Council Bill Smuckler in a mayoralty face off in May of 2011!

HAVEN'T HEARD FROM SCHULMAN & CANTON CITY COUNCIL ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR ADAM HERMAN LATELY? GUESS WHY?

A few weeks back Canton City Council president Alan Schulman grilled Mayor Willaim J. Healy, II for keeping the "useful - to Healy, but not necessary" Communications Director Adam Herman in employment in the light of the administration laying off firefighters.

After the meeting, according to a source who says she witnessed the exchange, additional words of the 4-letter variety flew between Schulman and Healy.

Healy reportedly told Schulman to never, never again embarrass him in public.

Another source tells the SCPR that as insurance that Schulman will never again humiliate him publicly over Herman, Healy let it be known to the council president that should he ever again make Herman an issue that Healy would terminate Herman as communications director but not to leave city employment.

No, Herman would remain as the chief of Canton's Management Information System (MIS) department.

All this makes sense to the SCPR.

Recently, The Report sent Herman a email question about who (in terms of a name and a phone number) could yours truly talk to in order to get more information about a media report that Perry Township trustees were talking with Canton officials about Canton providing dispatching services to the township.

Here, in part, was Herman's response:

As readers can see, it is a typical Herman "smart a_ _" comment that he apparently learned in Columbus when he was a assistant communications person with the Ohio Democratic House Caucus.

Readers will also recall that Healy was a short time (after having ousted fellow Democrat and now Councilperson Mary Cirelli back in 2004) a state representative.  This connection between Healy and Herman may be the explanation as to why Healy is fanatically loyal to Herman and will never, ever allow Council or Schulman to browbeat him into letting Herman go.

For a little more history on Herman the SCPR did a little googling on him because yours truly was reminded by Pat DeLuca of "Deluca in the Morning" - Q92 that Herman emails had surfaced in the former attorney general Marc Dann brouhaha that resulted in Dann's resignation not long after taking office in January, 2007.

By the way, you can hear yours truly on Deluca's show next Thursday at 9:05 a.m. at 92.5 on your FM dial.

Back to Herman:

It seems that Herman in talking (via email) with some Dann administration folks, thought it would be therapeutic that people swear in the workplace.

Here is part of the email:

Hmm?

Sounds like a fine crowd we have at Canton City Hall, doesn't it!

A JANUARY THAW IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CANTON, JACKSON TOWNSHIP & NORTH CANTON?

As previously reported by the SCPR, WHBC's Ron Ponder ("Points to Ponder") did bring together officials from Canton, Jackson Township and North Canton to begin a healing process among some of Stark County's most important political entities.

Readers will recall that Canton and Jackson have teamed up in what can be best described in everyday human existence is known as a "lovers triangle" leaving North Canton on the outside looking in.

North Canton and Jackson had been discussing an annexation, but according to powerful North Canton City Council president Darryl Revoldt, broke up because of Jackson's demand that it be protected from "unwanted" annexation for 99 years and because the financial numbers did not make sense.

Spurned by North Canton, another Stark County political powerhouse, Randy Gonzalez (Jackson Township fiscal officer), turned to Canton and its political leadership (Mayor Healy and Councilman Smuckler - de facto leader of Canton Council) as a replacement suitor.

The Canton/Jackson "romance" took, but did generate "jilted-esque" hard feelings between former suitors Jackson and North Canton.  So much so that when Canton and Jackson "married," North Canton went to court to force an annulment.

So far the courts have said "no" to the North Canton effort to force Canton and Jackson apart.

But enter Ponder.  Being the wise man he is, Ponder knew that Canton, Jackson and North Canton weren't going anywhere.  They are going to be a part of Stark County for as long as there is a Stark County.

So it is best for themselves and, indeed, all of Stark County that they reconcile.

Ponder who, for years, has been a leading Stark County politics and government commentator and who knows Healy, Smuckler, Gonzalez, Held and Snyder (North Canton Councilman) well, did the right thing and a good thing.

Yesterday, he had the five over to WHBC for a little "let's make up" chit-chat.

And here are the results as reported to the SCPR by Ron:

First, he says:  "the bottom line is that they [Canton/Jackson on the one side; North Canton on the other] could not make definite agreements but agreed in general terms to some substantial items."

Second, the items:

1. North Canton has a water issue that Canton promised to resolve to North Canton's satisfaction;
2. Canton, Jackson and North Canton will work together on various future regional matters;
3. Working together on 9-1-1 dispatch; and
   
4. North Canton using Jackson's EMS collection service.

The SCPR reiterates that Ponder is to be appreciated by all Stark Countians for his effort at mediation.

He along with The Report will be monitoring how well Canton, Jackson and North Canton are doing at their "making-up" efforts.

One fly in the ointment, according to Ponder, could be North Canton council President Daryl Revoldt.

Ponder could be right.  The SCPR has talked with Revoldt at length about the Canton/Jackson and North Canton economic development love/hate triangle.  He is fully invested in terms of being a primary even if "in the background player."

The SCPR will continue to discuss the triad relationship with Revoldt in hopes in some small way The Report can help Ponder bring these Stark County communities together.

After all, "making up is fun to do!"  And and cooperative Canton, Jackson Township and North Canton benefits Stark County as a whole largely.

A renewed SCPR "tip of the hat" to Ron Ponder - "Points to Ponder" - WHBC-AM (1480 on your radio dial on Monday thru Friday 10:00 AM to noon).

IS CANTON CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN SCHULMAN "SCAPEGOATING" COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR ADAM HERMAN?

A significant part of last night Canton City Council meeting was Council president Allen Schulman's grilling of Mayor Healy on his need for a communications director.

Here is Schulman grilling on video.

As yours truly was leaving the meeting last night, I heard "Martin" uttered from the distance.  Turning to see who had called for me, lo and behold it was Adam Herman, Mayor William J. Healy, II's communications director.

It soon became obvious that Director Herman was not happy with Schulman singling him out.

"You know," he said "there are other departments with employees that are similar in significance to me.  Why is Schulman's focus on me?"

To which, yours truly retorted:  "You have a good point and I am the guy to make good points to."

The Healy top-level administration thinks that the SCPR is dead set against the mayor.  Actually, the opposite is true.  The analyzing and critiquing is designed to prod the administration into doing better.  Healy is the mayor of Canton, like it or not, and everyone should be pushing him to become a better mayor.

If Healy can control his arrogance and demonstrate that he can work with others and take hard questions, governmental and political, and be responsive, and, above all, demonstrate that he has good, workable ideas to bring the city of Canton out of its funk, then The Report is open to revising his take on Healy et al.

Healy has been two years in creating a negative impression; it is likely to take that amount of time - perhaps longer - to reverse the impression.  Should Healy be of a mind to change himself, there is hope.  But he better get cracking because in a little over a year the 2011 Democratic primary will be upon us and Healy will have to had done enough by then to have any chance at all of surviving the primary.

Back to Adam Herman and the communications director job.

Herman does have a good point.  He appears to have been made the "poster child" of everything that Schulman and others do not like about Healy and his close-in staff and cabinet. 

Is it fair for Schulman and other critics to tie Herman's job to the $4.5 million projected city deficit for 2010?  Are there jobs in other departments that merit the same scrutiny that the communications director job has gotten?

Perhaps, Canton does need to eliminate the communications director job, but it should not be just that job.  There have to be others spread out over Canton's 35 departments of government.  If there were 15 such jobs (at a total cost of about $70,000 per), you would have $1 million in savings.

There was much talk about shared sacrifice at last night's Council meeting.  The SCPR gets the idea that there is an Animal Farm-esque (remember:  "more than equal") quality about the cuts that are going on.

There is some evidence that the firefighters are among the "less equals" with the Healy administration.  Healy never really answered Schulman's question on whether or not the director of communications job is essential.  Of course, everyone knows that firefighting and police jobs are essential.

It is obvious that there is a lot of political infighting going on among Canton city employees over who gets cut or the size of pay cuts or the number of furlough days.  And, the elected officials are doing a lot of demagoguing the "cuts" issue.

Schulman is, in the opinion of the SCPR, the brightest of all of Canton's Council.  Accordingly, he has to fully understand that he was grandstanding - on Herman - as a play to the Canton firefighters assembled at last night's meeting. He did seek to tamp down the raucous response of the safety forces, but he had achieved the desired reaction.  Kind of like asking the "inadmissible question," getting a response, and then having the judge to tell the jury to disregard, no?

Having said the "demagoguing" thing, the SCPR will say that Schulman has, over the years, been highly attentive to the voice of organized labor, while Mayor Healy has not.

So what is the SCPR position the director of communications job?

If the effort is to embarrass Healy and single out Herman, then the matter should be dropped.  All a move like this would accomplish would be to fan the fires of mutual animosity that now engulf City Council and Mayor Healy.  Yes, there would be some savings to be applied to saving a firefighter job or two; however, the "intangible" cost in terms of damaged relationships may not be a good trade off.

If Herman's fate is meted out to similarly situated employees (i.e. useful, but not essential) in other departments and the city can save a half-millon, a million or more, then by all means make the cuts.

Above all, scapegoating Adam Herman in his capacity of being the communications director will not help Canton through this financial crisis!

DO YOU HEAR IT? HEALY PROGRAMMED TRAFFIC CAMERAS: "WE'RE COMING BACK!"

One of the reasons that Mayor Healy (Canton) parted company with former Canton safety director Thomas Nesbitt was his opposition to "traffic cameras" being installed in downtown Canton, according to Healy, for "safety reasons."

Who believed that?

A safety director opposed to safety?

Nobody.  In fact, to this day many Cantonians believe it was a mistake for Healy to turn loose of Nesbitt.  For a person to come to Canton from out-of-town (Nesbitt) and gain the respect of so many Cantonians in such a short period of time (a little over a year) is rare indeed.

But, apparently, Nesbitt smelled a rat.

The Rep editors said it best in their editorial of August 5, 2009 (Nesbitt said too little or too much)

And it didn't take much reading between the lines to know that Nesbitt also had issues with a proposed city contract for traffic cameras, which involved a company whose employees also had donated to Healy's 2007 mayoral campaign.

What was the rat?

Healy's disinformation on the "real reason" why he wanted traffic cameras.  He said he wanted it for traffic safety.

Healy betrayed himself on this point  in a local radio interview on Tuesday of this week.

Like the commissioners and their effort to get money for county general fund operations by bringing in the red herring of 9-1-1 as the "apparent" focal point (which it now turns out can be almost fully implemented notwithstanding voter rejection of the commissioner "imposed" sales/use tax), Healy revealed by "sleight-of-mouth" on the Pat DeLuca Q92 program "DeLuca in the Morning," that had Canton City Council implemented the traffic camera program when proposed by the mayor, Canton would have about $1 million less of a deficit looming in 2010.

 Hmm?

Was this the master manipulator's way of introducing the topic again?

Indeed, it appears so.

The SCPR has learned that the Healy administration is working with two Canton City Councilpersons to bring the camera legislation back.

Perhaps, this time Healy will be more honest with Cantonians and say:  "Canton needs the money, and, by the way, the cameras will make Canton traffic somewhat safer as a byproduct of having the cameras.

A little known story about the Healy administration is that it has gone about raising "rates"  (which is really a tax surcharge to users) on a number of enterprise fund operations of city government.

The SCPR is in the process of gathering information on these "low-profile" increases and when yours truly is satisfied that he has a complete picture of the activity, will publish same in future blogs.

"After you, Alphonse.", "No, you first, my dear Gaston!" ARE HEALY & SLIMAN CANTON'S "ALPHONSE & GASTON" ACT?

Stumbling and bumbling birthed in the soup of political arrogance.

Are Mayor Healy and Annexation/Civil Service Director Sliman the perfect match for the stumbling/bumbling going on at Canton City Hall?

Looks like it.

William J. "Arrogance Personified" Healy, II has been down right goofy as the "decider-in-chief" for the Hall of Fame city.   He revels in having graduated from the New York University Stern School of Business with a Masters of Business Administration and coming home to Canton to assume his rightful has the King of Canton.

Sam "Darth Vader to the Townships" Sliman looks down his nose to the rubes (as evidenced by him attributing to himself the aforemention Darth Vader attribution) out in the hinterland of Stark County.

He and the complicit Randy Gonzalez (Jackson Township fiscal officer, Stark County Democratic Party chair and deputy clerk of courts - Canton Municipal Court) have concocted this notion of the huge metropolis of CanJackson (Canton and Jackson Township) that by virtue of their combined largeness are thereby entitled to steam roll the rest of Stark County.

In an adaptation of the Alphonse and Gaston comic strip of  yore, the SCPR sees Healy and Sliman as deferring to one another in their arrogance.

If one looks at the definition of arrogance, one finds that arrogance is born of insecurity rather than self-confidence grounded in thorough preparation for the task at hand and for the tasks that loom in the future.

Healy and Sliman are working to create a culture (by ridding the administration of "independent types" like Bernabei and Nesbitt) at City Hall that is dragging the once great city into a financial/economic cesspool. 

The latest Healy/Sliman arrogence-bred stumbling/bumbling is summed up in an incident whereby Civil Director Sliman's clearly demonstrated an inability to do basic administrative/legal ministerial work in a tragic-comedic exercise of laying off cadet firemen in order to help the city save money in a desperate attempt to survive without going bankrupt.

 Healy and Sliman are negative leaders; a perverse form of leadership.

Cut,cut, cut, cut and cut some more.  And that is all Healy and Sliman can do now.  For they have dug themselves a huge hole over nearly two years in power.

Because of their failure to correct the fundamental errors of the Creighton administration (which Sliman was also part of) and, moreover,  because their failure to develop a sound, positive economic growth program (annexation is negative, temporary economic growth - over the long haul) in the Healy administration; Canton is in a downward spiral.  A crash landing is just over the horizon.

Matters have gotten so desperate these days that Sliman has been inquiring of Plain Township for the right to compete with Sheriff Swanson to handle police services for Plan.

No way would Plain ever agree to that scenario. 

Plain is government done right.  Canton is government done wrong.

CAN STARK'S POLITICIANS WORK TOGETHER TO BRING JOB PRODUCING BUSINESSES TO STARK COUNTY?

The news for Stark County was bad yesterday in terms of the Stark County commissioners having to sue Alliance and Massillon to get them to pay up on what the owe for jailing their prisoners in the Stark County jail.

As longs as these silly fights persist in the county, there is very little chance that the county can right itself economically and become a once again prosperous community.

The same goes for Canton.

Mayor Healy has created such a negative political situation with Canton City Council that he will end up spending his four years (if he lasts that long) in one political brouhaha after another. The SCPR suspects that Healy is relishing in the political cover the infighting provides for his failure to have made meaningful progress in turning around Canton economically.

The one bright light in Stark County is Commissioner Todd Bosley. He has been trying to get something going to turn around Stark's dire economic downturn. But he is getting resistance. The SCPR has learned that Commissioner Tom Harmon is resisting Bosley's effort to get Stark to collaborate with Chevron on a biomass economic joint venture.

Rather than fight and/or sitting on their collective duffs, Stark County's politicos should be brain storming ways they can work together cooperatively to bring economic revitalization to our county, cities, villages and townships.

Stark County has an opportunity to be the first in Ohio to become a magnet for auto manufacturers of electric/hybrid cars.

USA Today did an intriguing piece in today's edition revealing that electric/hybrid car makers are accelerating their electric/hybrid car production schedules to meet anticipated demand. Nissan (per the quote in the accompanying graphic), will be focusing its market on communities that build a support infrastructure to accommodate buyers of these vehicles which get the gasoline equivalent of up 387 miles per gallon.

Perhaps Congressman John Boccieri could find some federal money to help Stark local governments build this infrastructure. Could Reps Oelslager, Slesnick, Okey and Senators Schuring and Shiavone do the same at the state level.

A North Canton elected official supports an unasked for tax breaks to Albrecht's Acme grocery store operations in the city, "just to show them that North Canton is business friendly" and thereby to send a message to the business community at large.

The SCPR can see the officials' perspective, but questions whether or not this is the kind of ambiance that will "really" jump start economic development.

A better plan would be for North Canton to band together in a countywide infrastructure development plan like the "re-charging station" idea. Now this really would create a "buzz," if that is one is looking for.

And who knows, it might even promote a local businessman to open a "first of its kind" selling electric/hybrid motor vehicles to the Stark County consuming public.

As much as the SCPR likes Commissioner Bosley and his demonstrated initiative, there is a missing element.

It is critically essential that a Stark County put together a "continuously-existent economic development taskforce" which brings all stakeholders to the table to develop a sustainable program of countywide economic development.

The taskforce must be broad enough to include all stakeholders, but structurally efficient enough to see its consensus based recommendations (always in the state of being refined) realized in actual economic development projects throughout the county; the cities, villages and townships of Stark County.

Commissioner Bosley needs to be pushing for the creation of such a taskforce.

MAYOR HEALY & SHERIFF SWANSON IN "EXTENDED" CONVERSATION - ABOUT WHAT? COULD IT BE ABOUT A CERTAIN CANTON POLICE CHIEF?

Sheriff Swanson's office recently investigated allegations that Mayor Healy had an inappropriate relationship with a 16 year old. The investigation resulted in "no charges" being filed.

The last person the Swanson should want to be seen huddled up with is Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II.

Why?

Well, to hear Mayor Healy tell it, he has all these political enemies out there who are trying to keep him from being a successful mayor of Canton. Healy implied, in various media appearances, that the allegations on the 16 year old came from among his political enemies.

If Healy is correct, might not these same political enemies bide their time until one or more of them come up with more allegations?

Of course!

Well, who is to investigate?

Sheriff Swanson?

Most likely.

So if Swanson is perceived in the general Stark County public to be buddy-buddy with Healy, will Swanson have to do another Gary Zeigler/Stark County treasurer's office investigation maneuver: fade into the background?

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) has written recently how Healy and Swanson were seen huddled up at a recently celebrity event talking for about an hour.

The point of the previous SCPR piece was that while Healy had leaned on others to pass on possible law enforcement rumors to Sheriff Swanson touching on a Canton City Councilman; Healy didn't breathe a word of it to Swanson in the one hour huddle up.

What did Healy and Swanson talk about?

The word to The Report is that Healy was seeking advice on how to deal with Canton Police Chief Dean McKimm.

The Report has frequently written about Healy's dissatisfaction with McKimm (civil service protected) which spread to Safety Director Tom Nesbitt (who continues to look for work elsewhere) when Nesbitt could not find a basis to fire McKimm which would pass muster with the Canton Civil Service Commission.

The Report has also written frequently how smart Mayor Healy is. At least in his own eyes.

Well, the celebrity event conversation was not too smart for Healy nor Sheriff Swanson.

How in the world could Healy ever make a credible presentation to the civil service folks after all his "cloak and dagger" machinations? Moreover, how could Sheriff Swanson's office possibly be the investigating agency if Healy's political enemies were to make additional future allegations?

Clearly, the Healy/Swanson duo has a constitutional right of "freedom of association" like every other American.

But then when it comes to the Sheriff doing his public job doesn't this consideration, in the light of close encounters of the type described in this blog, militate - from a public perception point-of-view - that if the Mayor should become a subject in an investigation in the future that Swanson step aside?

Isn't "being to close to the subject matter of the investigation" exactly the same kind of thing that prompted Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor to push Swanson to the sidelines in the Stark County treasury investigation?

Will Swanson ever learn to be civil and courteous but ever mindful of the need keep an appropriate distance from local politicians and public figures?

DISCUSSION: KEY HEALY SUPPORTER TELLS "THE SCPR" THAT HEALY ADMINISTRATION PLANS "FAVORABLE" LGBTAC" LEGISLATION. REALLY?

UPDATE: April 21, 2009 at 7:00 AM - No mention was made by Mayor Healy of the Resnick predicted action on favorable LGBT legislation in his State of the City address.

Back on March 20, 2009 the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) did a piece on campaign contributions to the TeamHealy Committee by out-of-town contributors.

A highly puzzling piece had to do with one Tony Dane of Las Vegas, Nevada who contributed $15,070.00 to William J. Healy, II's run for mayor of Canton.

CLICK HERE to see the referred to piece for detailed background information.

In short, this contributor was puzzling to The Report because how utterly anti-gay Tony Dane is known to be in Las Vegas political circles. The Report has never fancied Healy as being anti-gay. In fact, one of his key supporters is openly gay.

That supporter has supplied the missing link between Dane and Healy.

What is it?

Go figure!

Healy and Dane went to the New York University Stern School of Business together, for heaven's sake. Yours truly should have known!

Apparently the Healy supporter referred to (Eric Resnick - who writes for the GAY PEOPLE'S Chronicle.com), was distressed that Healy had received money from a LGBTAC basher and must have gone to the Mayor with his concerns.

Resnick in his email to The Report promised to provide a "hot tip" once he knew a telephone number contact. The Report was immediately wary of the promised tip.

Why?

Because the tip could easily have been included in the email. Why the need for telephone contact?

The Report believes that something else was up. Whatever something else was, if it was anything, never materialized.because telephone contact was never established.

Yours truly thinks that the "hot tip" was going to be Healy's ethics ordinance proposal that The Repository reported on and which The Report commented on.

The Report suspects that Resnick was acting as an emissary from the Healy administration as a Healy-esque manipulation in an attempt to blunt The Report's propensity to be highly critical of the imperious and ethically challenged ways of the Mayor.

While The Report appreciates getting tips, yours truly has been around the political block a time or two and is onto such attempts.

If Mayor Healy would only sit down with the SCPR and provide chapter and verse on his campaign contributions, perhaps yours truly would be less suspicious of matters emanating from the Healy camp. But Healy does not have the stomach to face The Report when he has the soft touches on The Repository Editorial Board to finnesse.

The Report does thank all of you readers who have provided significant and timely tips. For those of you who have important inside political/governmental info to share, you can reach The Report at (330) 699-5002 or at tramols@att.net.

Back to Healy and Resnick.

Interesting information that Resnick provided in his email is the following (an excerpt from his email):

The Healy administration has lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender support, and a gay cabinet member. There will be, as time goes on, some administration-led legislation very favorable to LGBT Cantonians. I doubt that contributions from Tony Dane will inoculate the mayor from local nut ball gay haters when that time comes.

So the next question is?

When will the "administration-led legislation very favorable to LGBT Cantonians" be forthcoming and, picking up on Resnick's point: will there be any political fallout for Healy if and when he makes to legislative move forcast by Resnick?

And, of course, exactly what will be the specific subject matter of the Resnick predicted legislation?

DISCUSSION: WHO BROUGHT THE NEED FOR AN ETHICS ORDINANCE TO CANTON CITY GOVERNMENT? YOU'VE GOT IT. NONE OTHER THAN THE "PROPOSER-IN-CHIEF" WM HEALY

Canton City Councilman Bill Smuckler says it best: “Up until recently, I don’t think there’s been a need ... We haven’t seen too much of anything that we even questioned until recently.” (Reference: Ethics ordinance proposed by Mayor, Canton Repository, April 17, 2009)

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) takes this proposal as Healy "playing the public for the fool" once again.

An abiding premise of The Report is that Mayor William J. Healy, II of Canton is that Healy thinks he is smarter than anyone else in the world and he can manipulate anything he wishes to his political advantage.

If Healy "really" meant business he would take the suggestion of The Repository editorial board in its March 17, 2009 editorial entitled Mayor, server donation-contract link with this suggestion:

Specifically, he should decide this: Individuals and companies that contribute or have contributed to his campaign won’t be considered for city contracts while he’s in office

Healy's failure to heed this sound ethical wisdom presented by The Rep editorial board does indeed make his reasoning ("avoiding the very appearance of impropriety" for ethical reform laughable as evidenced by his position that accepting political contributions from those who end up doing business with the city of Canton "complied with state law."

This Mr. Mayor is not "avoiding the very appearance of impropriety." It is meeting the technical definition of the law which any lawyer knows is meeting the "minimum" ethical standard; not the highest ethical standard implicit in the "very appearance of impropriety" language.

Healy continues to be an unrepentant ethical minimalist (to be generous to him) who thinks he can bamboozle yours truly, The Rep editorial board, Canton City Council and, yes, the people of Canton.

Healy has forgotten the adage: "you can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time but not all the people all of the time."

Healy is an amoral politician who in proposing ethics legislation in the light of his individual conduct establishes himself as a "living oxymoron."

Meanwhile, he looks on as Canton continues to slide into the economic abyss.

But William J. Healy, II has never been about the welfare of Canton in a primary sense of caring. He is about the well-being of William J. Healy, II and how he looks in the public eye.

DISCUSSION: IS THE CANTON CITY HALL FLAP ABOUT RECORDING/NOT RECORDING THE REAL ISSUE? HOW ABOUT A LACK OF TRUST?

On the surface it appears, according to Repository reports (Canton mayor's taping of meetings irks some in council, Ed Balint, April 13, 2009) that there is a fight between the Mayor and council members about recording or not recording Canton City Council committee meetings.

But the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) does not believe that this case. Rather this is a fight grounded in "a lack of trust."

If it were just a recording issue, count The Report has being on board with Mayor Healy except for his "sorta" secreting the recording activity. His actions should be front and center. The meetings are public meetings and any citizen is entitled to record the event.

The real issue is that Mayor Healy has created an environment of mistrust beginning with the firing of former service director and chief of staff, that he now has to deal with "irreparable harm" in his relationship with council.

The Report believes that a majority of Canton City Council members were not favorably disposed towards Healy from the beginning of his administration. His projected "I'm smarter than the rest of the world" attitude (intentional or not), got him off to a rocky start.

Bernabei was Healy's salvation. However, it became unacceptable to Healy that his chief of staff had the ear of council whereas he did not. Hence, the firing. The Report does think there were reasons Healy could not abide Bernabei, but the "council thing" really ate at Healy.

Many of the council members know Healy to be a vindictive type and they "really" do worry that he will parse the recordings and use the snippets as negotiating and political weapons.

And The Report can see these members' concerns. Nevertheless, the law of Ohio does not allow Council to stop the recordings.

It was a smart move by Healy (for the sake of his relationship with the distrustful council members) to have the recorder turned off. However, this is not a efficacious solution.

A productive solution is for Healy to work 24/7 (in a metaphorical sense) building what he has never had: a trusting relationship with the Canton City Council.

CANTON CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE SERIES: VOL 2 - VIGNOS ON "LOCAL GOVT CORRUPTION"

This is the second in a series on the upcoming Canton City Council-at-Large race which may boil down to who among six Democratic candidates (no Republicans filed) will succeed Councilman Don Casar who has decided not to run for another term.

The Report expects incumbents Bill Smuckler and Mary Cirelli to be elected with ease.

By the way, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) invites all candidates to contact The Report at tramols@att.net with information or issue positions with respect to individual candidacies.

Recently, Cynthia Vignos e-mailed The Report with her latest statement on the campaign.

It appears to The Report that Vignos does not concede that Smuckler and Cirelli are shoe-ins.

In her statement, she launches an attack on sitting councilpersons, to wit: (excerpted quotes)

The general concensus (sis) of opinion [in Vignos' talks with voters]that corruption is rampant in our local government.

Why do we continue to elect the same people over and over again, whilethe quality of life in our city continues to deteriorate?

Why are public jobs given to friends and relatives of government officials, when there are so many qualified individuals looking forwork right now?

Vignos then get more specfic, zeroing in on Councilman at Large Smuckler:

Why are members of council and other committees permitted to participate in projects that are ethically questionable? For example –a member of City Council and the annexation committee who was involved in the Park Foods annexation has admitted publicly that his hotel and restaurant supply company is a major customer of Park Farms.

Consequently - he should have abstained from the project, due to the obvious conflict of interest.  Additionally, the annexation process for his own business (which is less than ½ mile from Park Farms) has not been implemented until recently, although he has served on council for 20 years. Why would an elected official in Canton continue to operatea business just outside the city limits without applying for
annexation, when he could have been contributing much-needed tax-revenue to the city he has sworn to serve?

Next Vignos takes a shot a Council in general in alleging that it is as a body being too secretive, to wit:
Why are the committee meetings that take place prior to City Council meetings held in a small venue that discourages public attendance? Why are no written minutes or audio and/or video recorded minutes taken for these meetings? Judicial doctrine attests that “democracy abhors undue secrecy” yet the citizens of Canton are excluded from deliberations that should be open to the public, a practice that clearly violates the Ohio Sunshine Laws.
Then seems to align her candidacy with the Healy administration:
Why are the campaign contributions to one person (William J Healy II) under such public scrutiny, yet the contributions given to his opponent (Janet Creighton) and those of other candidates and/orelected officials are not being given equal examination?
Finally, Vignos bills herself as the candidate of change from "the good old boys" network.

Any reaction to the Vignos charges?

DISCUSSION: A GOOD IDEA GOING BUST?

It appears that Canton Mayor Healy's Stark County Mayors Association is on the brink of folding or at least hibernating like a bear until times turn better. The group met in January, but there were no meetings in February and March.

Why so?

Because the Association has no money? So is the explanation that the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) got from of one the Stark mayors participating in the group. The Report did ask Mayor Healy for a statement on the effort through Canton's communications director Adam Herman. The request has not be responded to as of the writing of this blog.

Modeled after the Summit County Mayors Association (which appears to be a vibrant, functioning economic development collaborative - e.g. sent some members on a 14 day trip to India the first two weeks of February, 2009), the Healy initiative lies dormant, at best, because of the lack of funds.

The Report's contact says that the Stark group needs about $20,000 to get up and running, but with the economic downturn in full swing; city councils of the member cities are not likely to agree to ante up membership fees.

What would the $20,000 be used for? Most likely to hire a director (apparently, part time) and fund some economic development seeding trips, perhaps like the Summit County trip to India.

The Report applauded Healy for the effort when it was announced and stands by our support for the idea.

What bothers The Report is a suspicion that very little forethought and concrete planning was put into forming this group. Was this a desperation diversionary move (i.e. the positive publicity) by a mayor in the midst of a fight for his political life?

Healy owes the Stark County public more information on the details of the structure, finances and mission of the Stark County Mayor Association.

If this information is not forthcoming in short order and have a convincing tone to it that this will be a viable organization, then Cantonians and Stark Countians will be likely to conclude that they have been gamed by Mayor William J. Healy, II of the city of Canton for political survival reasons.

But it wouldn't be the first time that Mayor Healy has outfoxed himself.

DISCUSSION: IS MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY, II ABOUT TO GET "LUCKY?"

CORRECTION: 03/28/2009 AT 11:55 AM. Jack DeSario was a "political consultant" to William J. Healy, II in his race for mayor of Canton; not "campaign manager" as stated below. A SCPR thank you to the TeamHealy member who wrote in to point out the error.

These days Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II is probably saying to himself: "I'd rather be lucky than smart." That is quiet a leap for Healy who prides himself on and widely touts himself as being a graduate of the New York University Stern School of Business."

But a politician has to do what a politician must do to survive.

And Healy's luck may be turning?

Earlier this week Governor Ted Strickland announced Stark County's share of federal stimulus money: $21.5 million.

Guess where most of it, if not all, goes?

You've got it. To the city of Canton.

Remember that the governor has a huge stake in the survival of the Healy administration.

How's that?

It took Strickland (according to Jack DeSario) to get DeSario to agree to become the campaign manager of the TeamHealy Committee (the Mayor's campaign committee).

Some Stark Countians believe DeSario's involvement was a key to Healy's victory over Republican Janet Creighton. Although DeSario denies that he had anything to do with Healy being able to attract campaign donations from Cuyahoga County political figures, a number of local political observers are skeptical of the denial.

It has long been a sticking point with Stark County Democratic officials and undoubtedly the likes of Chris Redfern (chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party who personally donated $5,000 to the Healy campaign), that Canton (before Healy's election) was the only one of Ohio's eight major cities not to have a Democrat as mayor.

So it stands to reason, once your man wins you will do anything the law allows for to keep him in office, although his performance on the job indicates that he is heading pell mell for failure.

Hum? Stimulus money? Canton's economy is going nowhere? So why wouldn't the governor who is an arch-Healy supporter, with tons of discretionary authority, direct the money where certainly a huge need exists, (Canton has an 11.5% unemployment rate) and - by the way - co-incidentally props up a political ally?

Now on to the Swanson factor.

It could be that Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson is so deficient in manpower that he cannot conduct expeditious and efficient investigations.

If such is the case, Swanson needs to farm out his work to less busy investigatory units - especially when there may be a political dynamic to the matter being investigated.

Maybe the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) is just seeing things that don't exist, but it does appear to The Report that Swanson has tough time being expeditious and efficient in investigation on politically sensitive cases.

The Report believes that Marlboro Township Devies case is an example of a "slowdown." In the judgment of The Report, there is no way it should have taken over two months for Swanson to make a determination of whether or not Marlboro Police Chief Ron Devies and his son Kyle may have violated Ohio's criminal laws in course of Kyle being a township employee working the township's computer system.

The Report has an advantage over the readers of this blog. The Report has a working knowledge of the intricacies, relationships and connections of Stark County politics from both sides of the isle.

The Report does not believe Tim Swanson is dumb enough to let the fact that Ron Devies openly supported his opponent (Republican Larry Dordea) in Swanson's 2008 re-election campaign be a motivation in how the Devies matter has been handled.

If politics were involved in what The Report perceives to be a slowdown, and The Report emphasizes the IF, then the politicizing factor would have been far more subtle and virtually untraceable to the average observer.

The Report does not know whether or not politics were a factor in the perceived slowdown in the Devies investigation nor, for that matter, in the Healy investigation. But The Report does know that political relationships and connections exist deep within the Stark County political establishment which could - if were ever know the truth of the matter - end up being factors.

Okay, assuming The Report's perception is correct and there was indeed a slowdown in Devies; such begs the question:

Why?

The Report believes that the investigators were having a difficult time finding (criminal charge wise) something to nail the Devies' with. And there were a couple of township trustees rear-ends to protect (from possible civil suits, if nothing else - NOTE: the SCPR has learned that Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero sent "civil side" legal counsel to the last Marlboro Township trustee meeting to advise the trustees during the meeting). And, maybe just maybe, political pressure (from the deep recesses of Stark County political relationships and connections) was being brought to bear to find something.

Well, how does The Report's take on Devies factor into the Healy situation.

Pretty much the same, but with one important difference. In the Healy situation, the political push (if there is one) from Stark County's deep political recesses would be the opposite of what The Report speculates in the Devies matter.

In Healy, The Report's conjectured reasoning is that slowdown is needed to give time for the local political climate surrounding the Mayor to cool down. Once matters cool down, then it would be easier to sell a "no bill" to the awaiting public.

Whether or not The Report is correct in its analysis, one thing is for sure.

The political survivability of Mayor Healy is looking better everyday.

Healy may in time join in on a chorus with his TeamHealy devotees, the New York Sun editor September 21, 1897 penned the refrain: "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."

DISCUSSION: WILL HEALY HANG ON UNTIL CANTON GETS RAVAGED BY AN ECONOMIC STORM?

It is becoming more and more clear to the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) that Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II is prepared to take the "great" city of Canton down with him in his political troubles.

The Report has had a conversation with an area politically powerful person who insinuates that politicians in high places (e.g. Columbus and Washington) now see Canton as a liability in terms of doing anything extra to help Canton pull itself out its economic blight.

Who's to blame?

The answer.

The political turmoil that Jamie Healy has brought to Canton in his coming into office in January, 2008.

The turmoil began when it became apparent to local political observers (including The Report) that Healy and Canton City Council were not going to hit it off. Healy's one chance to bridge over to Council was through the goodwill that his services director and chief of staff Tom Bernabei had with many council members. In hindsight, The Report's take is that this was likely a major liability for Bernabei because it is likely (given Healy's hubris) that the Mayor viewed the relationship suspicicously.

Next we had the 1888OHIOCOMP matter and associate contributions to the Healy campaign along with the revelation that figures being investigated by the FBI in the Cuyahoga County government corruption investigation had contributed to the Healy campaign.

Next was the dramatic press conference by Healy in which he outed allegations that he was involved with a 16 year old female.

Then the firing of Bernabei.

Number next. Safety Director Tom Nesbitt (brought in by Healy from Nebraska only a year or so earlier) announces he is applying for 9-1-1 Project Manager as part of the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) revamp of 9-1-1 into an efficient and effective emergency services unit.

Next there begins to emerge a possible pattern of folks who made campaign contributions to Healy end up with city contracts. So much so that even The Repository editors (whose employer has a publishing contract with Canton) call for Healy to pledge that anyone who contributes his campaign will not be considered for a city contract.

As a Nesbitt sequel, he announces that he will be leaving the city in the near term future.

The Report on an ongoing basis investigates the connection between out-of-town contributors and the Healy administration. The question: Why are folks from Maumee, Las Vegas, Cleveland, Columbus and Akron contributing to the TeamHealy Committee.

After being promised by Director of Communications Adam Herman that a TeamHealy person would respond to The Report's questions about the contribution, The Report has received no contact. The Report did make a follow up call to TeamHealy's campaign treasurer; only to be ignored.

What does Healy/TeamHealy have to hide on the Mayor's campaign finance reports?

Yes, The Report believes that the political cloak and dagger world that William J. Healy, II has brought to Canton is hurting Canton terrifically.

The area "politically powerful person" is on to something.

While Healy is mayor and enveloped in controversy, Canton will stay put - at best, but more likely it will regress.

Know Healy as The Report does, it is hard to believe that he would be willing to take the city of William McKinley down with him.

But isn't that exactly what he is doing?

DISCUSSION: THE SCPR FORCES THE REP'S HAND?

The Canton Repository is now legendary in its "sitting on its hands" while event after event unfolds from within the Healy administration. As a guardian of the public interest, The Rep has a miserable record. With its editorial yesterday, it again is "a dollar short and a day late."

While the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) can readily agree with the Editorial Board's suggestion heralded in today's graphic, it will take a lot more scrutiny and publicizing of suspected quid pro quos for the likes of Mayor Healy to get the message and adopt The Rep's proposal.

The Report predicts that The Rep will not follow through on its recommendation and will let its proposal die a quiet death.

Moreover, anything The Repository editorializes on/reports on with respect to Healy and his administration is diluted in value because of The Rep's (through Ohio Gate House Media, Inc - its parent) contractual relationship (up to $20,000 per year) with the Healy administration to print a glossy quarterly; the Canton Connection.

Readers of The Report know full well that the main reason The Repository is responding at all to the shenanigans from within City Hall, is the work of The Report.

DISCUSSION: MAYOR STARTS A FIGHT HE CANNOT WIN WITH COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN SCHULMAN?

Canton's Mayor William J. Healy, II is besieged on all sides. One would think he has the smarts not to get into a fight with Canton City Council President Allen Schulman.

The first ironical twist to a political fight developing between these two in bound up in their similarities, to wit

Both men are "smoooooooooth" politicians. They pride themselves in their ability to cultivate powerful relationships which each hopes will carry him far in realizing personal and political ambitions. Both are polished, urbane and cosmopolitan. Each are careful not to take on political fights that have low prospects of being winnable. In short, they skilled at ironing (no pun on the graphic intended) things out.

But here we are. At the breakout of the fight of the century in Canton politics.

Both likely will try ot back off from this fight. In the end, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) believes it will surface as a full scale battle.

Who will win?

The Report's bet is on Allen Schulman.

Fight? What fight?

Actually the first indication of a fight is when Healy fired Canton service director and chief of staff Tom Bernabei. Schulman was shocked to read from Washington (while engaged in Obama inaugural activities) that Healy had fired Bernabei with nary a word to the Canton City Council president.

A very unwise move by Healy.

Fast forwarding through all the talk about Healy's other troubles of late (allegations about an inappropriate relationship with a 16 year old, questions about campaign finance contributions, the Healy desire to get rid of McKimm matter, the Nesbitt "I'm here, I' m out of here" debacle, the Redflex situation, et cetera), Schulman must sense that The Report's early-on projection that the Healy administration is a sinking ship has increasing credibility.

Hence at last night Council meeting, The Rep's Ed Balint ("Schulman puts Healy on hot seat) reports as follows:

The City Council president said the mayor’s acceptance of a combined $250 in campaign contributions from two associates of Redflex Traffic Systems “creates the appearance of potential influence.”

Here's where a second and the highest degree of irony (both men understand and use campaign contributions skillfully) sets in as the catalyst for open political warefare breaking out.

Allen Schulman certainly is one of the highest - and the The Report believes - the highest dollar and most prolific campaign contributor in Stark County, maybe in all of Ohio. And he holds his own nationally. While The Report believes that Schulman does a lot of contributing because he is a "good government guy" who knows that it takes money to win elections, it is not lost on Schulman that making campaign contributions to key political people certainly does open doors.

Healy knows of Schulman's prodigious record of making campaign contributions to the politically powerful. Just picture this in your mind's eye. As Healy listens to Schulman's scolding, he has to be boiling inside. He must be thinking: "What brass?" "I can't believe I'm hearing this from Mr. Campaign Contributor of Stark County!"

So how does Healy's internal combustion erupt?

Here it is from Ed Baling:

After the council meeting, Healy said Schulman’s comments tell “more about his character than my operations.”

If a war were not already underway, when Schulman reads that Healy has attacked his character; the die is cast and The Report believes Alan Schulman will not rest until William J. Healy, II is no longer the Mayor of Canton.

The Report would not be surprised to see Healy start backtracking immediately. But sometimes the heat of battle gets so intense that things get said that are not retractable or explainable away and in the end - forgivable.

Attacking any man's character is a grievous act.

Attacking a politically powerful man's (i.e. Allen Schulman) character is beyond grievous in the political world and this act may well have been the political death knell for William J. Healy, II.