FIRST IN A SERIES ON CANTON GOV'T FINANCES: CANTON'S "DEFICIT" FINANCES CAUSING LAW DIRECTOR JOE MARTUCCIO A MAJOR HEADACHE?

UPDATED:  11:16 AM

VIDEOS

Canton Law Director

Joe Martuccio

Pleads for $50,000 More in His Budget

....

Finance Chairman John Mariol

Speaks

to the

Issue

...

Citizen Pete DiGiacomo

Support

Martuccio Request

One can be sure that Canton mayor Thomas Bernabei would like nothing better than to come out full bore in favor of Law Director Joe Martuccio getting $50,000 added to the law department's annual operating budget.

Watch Martuccio's plea at Monday night's (July 17, 2017) council meeting.



For one thing, Martuccio likely is law director today because he received the blessing or former law director Thomas Bernabei some 17 years ago when he gave up the position.

For another thing, Martuccio was among the first high ranking Canton city officials to come out for Bernabei in 2015 when Bernabei announced that he was abandoning the Stark County Democratic Party to become a political "independent" to take on third-term-seeking-Democrat William J. Healy, II for the mayorship of Canton.

But Bernabei sat back and watched on Monday as Martuccio twisted in the political winds of Canton City Council as members were seemingly at a loss as how to accommodate Canton's long time law director in light of the 2017 projected shortfall expenditures over revenues leaving about Three-Thousand-Dollars to carryover to 2018.

In the video Martuccio's main finances-based justification for council to act on his request was his office's highly successful negotiation with utilities proving utility service to Canton government and a resultant claimed by Martuccio savings to Canton of "hundreds of thousand of dollars, if not a million, in utility costs to Canton over the next several years.

There is a problem with this justification.

Finance director Mark Crouse tells the SCPR that it is likely that whatever revenues show up in Canton financial portfolio will likely be deposits into Canton's enterprise fund (users pay) operations and very little if any into Canton's general fund.

Hence the struggle on the part of council to find funding with which to fund the hiring of a new lawyer in the law department.

Director Martuccio points out to the SCPR that his staff provides legal services to several Canton enterprise fund operations and therefore there is justification from his perspective of tapping those funds as a means of financing the $50,000 he has asked for.

The better argument for saving Canton's stressed finances money was his expressed reluctance to hire out to private legal counsel on a project-by-project basis at $200 per hour which—compared at about $50,000 to support an additional in-house hire—would get Canton only 250 hours of legal work contrasted to about 2,080 added capability for an in-house hire.

Watch finance committee chairman John Mariol (Ward 7 Democrat) as he responds to a Stark County Political Report query on Martuccio's request.



I asked the mayor to weigh in on the matter post-council-work-session.

He declined saying that restoring $50,000 of a 2017 law department reduction of $90,000 was a council matter and not an administration matter.

In all due respect to the mayor whom I have cited as being "far and away" Stark County's most capable most disciplined and most future calculating government leader; I believe that the mayor has likely weighed-in "off-the-record."

I can't get anybody to say it, but I think Bernabei has told council leaders privately that restoring the $50,000 would send a message to the rest of general fund funded departments of government that their respective reductions in budget are "elastic" and one can override the fiscal discipline that the mayor has instituted by in effect going over his head and pleading with council as Martuccio did on Monday.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Martuccio absolutely hated to be doing so on Monday especially in light of Bernabei being his mentor and political benefactor.  However, he does say that he thinks the $90,000 or so cut was disproportional to cuts made to other general fund funded departments of Canton government.

It appears that council under Mariol's finance committee chairmanship will find a way to muster up the $50,000 so that the law department can be better positioned to deal with the massive infusion of legal work that has inundated the department over the past year or so.

Yesterday, the SCPR reported in a third blog on a continuing series on the headache that Canton has on its hand with the recent revelation of a Rover pipeline contaminated (with diesel fuel) drilling mud spill near Canton's most vital financial/economic resource that being its abundant water supply and a concern that the contamination could potentially leach into that supply.

The law department is devoting hours and hours of its in-short-supply "time" resources to ensure in a legal monitoring context that Canton is protected by state (OhoEPA) and federal (FERC) regulators and, alternatively, to set Canton up to recover from the perpetrator of the spill losses that Canton might incur as a consequence of the spill.

Beside the Rover pipeline matter, there are other more or less unexpected matters that require large time expenditures in legal analysis.

One such major item is the complexity of working with Pro Football Hall of Fame officials in working out financial (i.e. special sales tax district) and property matters for the $700/$800 million dollars "Village" project that was announced a couple of years ago.

And then there are items like the desire of council to weigh in on the president's announced intention to withdraw America from the Paris Climate Accords.

Martuccio says that because of the influx of work generally he has had putting together a legally appropriate resolution/ordinance on the backburner.

It appears that council will at its July 31st meeting come up with a way to finance a new lawyer position in the Canton law department.

Sometimes citizens do not see the ramifications of deficit budgets in concrete terms.

Here is a video of Citizen Pete DiGiacomo at Monday's meeting.



He seems to think that it is relatively easy for Mariol et al to find a mere $50,000 out of a $50,000 million plus annual budget.

But it isn't

Lurking in the background of this is the stir caused by Stark County clerk of courts Louis Giavasis in a recent Facebook post that he has been encouraged by dozens of Cantonians to challenge Bernabei's continuation beyond 2019, should he decide to run.

While I think Giavasis is doing a Donald Trump in terms of engaging excessive, braggadocio talk, Cantonians who care about the long term welfare of Canton government should take the Giavasis threat seriously.

Ward 9 councilman Frank Morris (majority leader [only Democrats hold council positions in Canton]) has come out of the political closet to endorse Giavasis more than two years before the election.

Giavasis said he would provide the SCPR other names.

To-date, nothing.  Hmmm?  Why is Giavais hiding those names?

Just as it appears that Trump is plunging America into the dark ages of politics and government, I think Louis Giavasis as mayor would be a complete reversal of all the very, very,very difficult fiscal discipline and responsibility work that Mayor Bernabei has instituted.

Louis Giavasis as mayor of Canton would be a return to the days of William J. Healy, II, if not worse.

Of course, it was on Phil Giavasis watch as Dems' Stark County chair that Bernabei bolted to "independent" status in order to take on Healy.

Maybe a little revenge factor at play with Louis' threat to run against Bernabei?

Maybe, just maybe, no?

One of the touchstones of effective fiscal work is sustainability of whatever financial obligations a government takes on.

"Sustainability, " in a word, is the most significant factor of John Mariol's uttered words in the above-presented video.

The SCPR applauds Canton council under Mariol's leadership in vetting the continuing financial viability of granting Law Director Martuccio's work.

When council acts to approve Martuccio's request, members should make it clear that council fully support the Bernabei instituted fiscal austerity and that the law department deviation is merited by an infusion of unforeseen legal work into the law department's operations.

This blog is the first in a series in which the SCPR will be taking a detailed look at Canton's financial picture.

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

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

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

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

Since the original blog was published new information has surfaced.

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

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

Timberlake's letter:

Members of Council,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Cindy

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

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

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

Not to belabor the SCPR original points, but:

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

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

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

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

He indicated in the interview to The Report that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councilman Fisher (D-5):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Especially when:

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

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

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

So whom contacted whom to set up the meeting?

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

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

Hmm?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does The Report believe him?

Not really.

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

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

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

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

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

That is hard to believe.

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

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

SCPR 2013 EDITION OF STARK COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIAL, PUBLIC FIGURE NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION