(VIDEOS) WILL CANTON PARKS LEVY ISSUE BE "VICTIMIZED" BY HEALY/NORDMAN FEUD OVER CANTON POLICE & FIRE FUNDING?

UPDATED:  11:30 AM

VIDEO

BRUCE NORDMAN

GROUP 175

ON

GROUP 175 POSITION

ON

CANTON PARKS LEVY
======================
NORDMAN
(FULL VIDEO)
SETTNG FORTH
HISTORY & CURRENT STATUS
OF 
GROUP 175 FIGHT WITH HEALY

One of Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II's goals for his entire nearly six years in office has been and continues be to restructure Canton's parks and recreation over a three-year period so as to make it more efficient and responsive to the needs of Cantonians and, I might add, to many outside-of-Canton Stark Countians who use Canton's parks.

There appears to be no organized opposition to the 4 mill levy to be voted upon by Canton voters next Tuesday.  It is designed to raise about $2.9 million per year and, if passed, would free up about $1.2 million for other general fund applications.

Currently, the Canton park system is run by an independent (of the mayor and city administration) by a Board of Commissioners, to wit:

On the Canton Parks "levy committee" website there is a thorough discussion of what park officials plan to do with the $2.9 million if it becomes available.

And, undoubtedly, there are a number of interests both in and out of Canton government who will be pressuring the Healy administration and Canton City Council to use "the new found money," if it materializes for pet projects.

One interest that has already surfaced is one named Group 175 formed by Vassar Park (located in Ward 9 - Councilman Frank Morris, III) residents Bruce Nordman and Bruce Brewer (president of the Vassar Park Neighborhood Association).



Earlier this year, this collection of Cantonians prevailed on Councilman Morris to sponsor an "informal resolution" wherein council goes on record as putting the Healy administration on notice that should the park levy pass, the resulting new infusion of $1.2 into the general fund is to go towards beefing up Canton's safety forces (police and fire) numbers.

The measure passed unanimously.

The goal of Group 175 is to get the police force up to 175 strong (now about 150) and the fire department to 175 strong (now about 140).

Because the mayor is proceeding cautiously (acceding only to step increases of 12 new hires for the police and fire departments; likely over the next year)  and not committing to Group 175's goals within the foreseeable future, Group 175 is taking a "hands off" approach in terms of supporting the levy.

Parks director Derek Gordon has tried to get Group 175's endorsement but has failed to corral it due to Healy's refusal to commit to the 175 with a timetable certain satisfactory to Norman, Brewer, et al.

For a full presentation on the history and the current status of Group 175's ongoing fight with Mayor Healy, the SCPR presents the following videotaped October 30, 2013 interview with Nordman that provides all the details:



To the SCPR, should the park issue fail, in terms of cobbling the available financing together to fund Group 175's goals; it seems that the loss of the $1.2 million would severely damage the prospect that the Healy administration would have the financial wherewithal to get to the 175 policemen and firemen level.

However, The Report suspects that in the mind of the Group 175 folks, there is this plan to seize the day should the parks levy fail and generate a citizen initiative for an income tax increase specifically designated as being for police and fire operations only.

Such a levy (if for a reasonable amount) probably will be relatively easy to pass.

County officials were surprised when in November, 2011 they were able to pass a 0.5% countywide sales tax increase on the promise that the $22 million, more or less, that it generates would be dedicated to spending for "law enforcement purposes 'only.'"

It passed by a surprisingly comfortable margin.

Nordman will not admit to the SCPR that a "for police and fire manpower only" tax issue is in Group 175's future and therefore the group sits on their collective hands on the parks issue.

A dedicated "for police and fire ONLY" levy would be the surest past for Group 175 to ensure that Canton achieves and maintains the 175 police and fire staffing level, no?

Reading between the lines, it seems to the SCPR that Group 175 does not trust Mayor Healy to energetically and with purpose to work with them to find funds (including the $1.2 million) from various sources to get Canton's police and fire to 175 in force each.

While the SCPR above all understands the "lack of trust of Healy," it does appear that his plan for restructuring makes sense and should be supported by Canton voters.

Councilwoman-at-Large Mary Cirelli opposed the plan when the levy issue was up for a council vote because 4 mills, she says, generates too much money.  She would support it at 2 mills or $1.45 million.

Councilman Edmond Mack (Ward 9) also voted "no" because, he says, that the 4 mills is too expensive for what Ward 9 residents will get out of it.

Nearly all city officials (including 11 of the 13 councilpersons) are supporting the parks levy.

Impressive is the list that promoters of the levy have come up with in terms of contributors to the levy campaign, to wit:

In the pre-general report filed on October 24th, the levy committee shows that it has raised some $23,000.

But in the end, the levy's passage or failure could boil down to the "silence" of Group 175.

But have they thought of this possible consequence should the parks levy fail?

Given this is a "pet project" of Mayor Healy and if he is convinced that the failure came at the hands of Groups 175's "silence," won't he prove to be much more resistant to their achieving their goal any time soon?

GOV'T BY CITY COUNCIL IN CANTON AND MASSILLON?

As unrealistic as it seems to the SCPR that such is a viable option for governance, it appears that the city councils of both Massillon and Canton are asserting themselves more and more in ways that indicate a contest with the respective executive branches of government is underway to determine which branch has the major say in the way in which the city is governed.

MASSILLON

At the Monday night council work session "all Hell broke loose" in a battle between Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry and several council members over council's effort to reform the structure of the city's parks and recreation board.

Charges and counter charges on truth telling with respect to the tenure of former parks and recreation directors were the order of the night at Monday's session.

It appears that this fight is being won by council and that the end of the Councilman Larry Slagle-led Parks and Recreation Committee deliberation; it will be council (through the Parks and Recreation Board) that prevails on that particular issue.

And, of course, those who have been following developments in Tigerland government circles, know that the council/city executive fights have not been limited to the parks and recreation matter.

There have been the fights between council and the mayor over taxes and the cutting of expenses.

Beyond the issues in and of themselves, it is painfully clear that most of Massillon council does not trust the mayor.

The mistrust and differences on the issues and the role of council in decision making for the city will spill over into the upcoming council ward elections

The "unstated" stakes in the councilmantic races include whether or not the Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. led political faction can elect anyone to office and, if he is reelected, whether or not Ward 6 councilman Ed Lewis, IV uses his reelection as a springboard to run against Catazaro-Perry in 2015.

Maier et al are contesting Republican Nancy Halter in Ward 2 and Lewis in Ward 6.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the Maiers are also vying with Republican Jim Triner in Ward 4.

It appears that stand-in (for Quinessa Hampton - who quit the race because of compatibility issues with her military service) Shaddrick Stinson is trying to distance himself from the Maier faction, but the SCPR is not buying and I believe that, if elected, Stinson would by and large stand with Maier executive government proxy Catazaro-Perry on the important issues (to the administration) that come before council.

The SCPR has learned that the Stinson folks have been making overtures to powerful Ward 4 political factors in an endeavor to retain this seat for the Democrats in one of Massillon's most heavily Democratic wards.

The Report is told by one long time Massillon Democrat that a Republican probably hasn't represented the Ward 4 since the 1950s.

If Quinessa's husband (running as a non-partisan) can be a factor (siphoning off Democratic votes) and if other Ward 4 Democrats can be neutralized, then Triner is in a good position to take Ward 4 for the Republicans.

The Catazaro-Perry administration main hope in staving off the challenge as to who will dominate Massillon city government rests in the Maier faction's ability to elect council members politically aligned with the administration.

So all eyes in November's election should be on Wards 2, 4 and 6.

CANTON

While the SCPR does not see councilmantic challenge of the Healy administration to be as pronounced as in Massillon, there is no question that expected results of Canton's November election will alter the relationship between the mayor and council as a whole.

On key issues, the SCPR sees the more or less "let's challenge Healy forces on council" will be bolstered by the election of Democrat Roland K. Burns, III at large and the return of former councilman and Democrat Bill Smuckler.

While Mayor Healy does rid himself of the troublesome Mary Cirelli (who stepped down from council to run for city treasurer in a losing effort), the reintroduction of Smuckler spells big trouble for the mayor.

Smuckler has a different vision for the city than Healy.

And he has been frustrated in his attempt to become the city's chief executive (losing to Republican Janet Creighton in 2003) and to Healy (in the Democratic primary) in 2011.

So The Report expects him to lead a "let's challenge Healy" majority (re:  key issues) on council.

Smuckler does not trust Healy but, nonetheless, being the practical politician he is and understanding that council in a structural sense is not suited to actually run city government, he will use his power as the de facto if not de jure leader of council to compel Healy to implement policies and practices that are his/council's idea and not Healy's.

The "let's challenge Healy" group should have a 7 to 5 majority post November 5, 2013.

SUMMARY

The SCPR does not see how a city council can effectively govern any city.

Council simply does not have the structure to do so.

The best that can be hoped for is for any council that wants its point of view, its preferred operating model to rule is to convince the executive authority (i.e. the mayor) to become its alter ego.

MASSILLON

There is no hope that such can happen in Massillon even if the Republicans maintain their majority.

Many believe that Kathy Catazaro-Perry is not "the real mayor" of the city.  Rather, they believe, the city is run by Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. who thinks he can run the city like he runs his clerk of courts operation.

Maier, in effect, is the elected executive officer of Massillon's clerk of courts office and his word within the department in the "word of god."

However, that mode of operating "will not play in Peoria" in relation to city council.

But Maier will never ever become a "come and let us reason together" guy.

It is indelible that Maier is an "old school" power broker politician who leaves no prisoners.

So - going forward - a strong and able council with a mind of its own, especially if it continues to be controlled by the Republicans, is likely to be in one battle after another on one issue or another with the Catazaro-Perry/Maier administration.

At one time it looked liked council and Catazaro-Perry were coming together on the parks and recreation issue.

But that The Report now believes was merely a "feint" and beneath it all was a determination by the administration to come out of that fight on top and not having compromised with council one iota.

So the SCPR thinks Massillonians will be caught up in a continuing administration/council battle as who is to prevail in having its way in the running of Massillon city government.

CANTON

The return of Bill Smuckler to Canton City Council is likely to be - in an ironical sense - the salvation of the William J. Healy, II administration.

Make no mistake about it.

Smuckler and his "let's challenge Healy" majority will make their mark, and Healy, (the quintessential "let me live another day" politician) will find a way to allow "the will of council" to affect the priorities of Canton government so long as Healy gets some headline making credit for whatever the manifestation of "the will of council" turns out to be.

Smuckler is quite adept at accommodating egos and therefore the SCPR sees Canton's turning for the better with Smuckler's de facto city of Canton leadership from "his perch on city council."

(VIDEOS) UNIONS/DIVERSITY CONCERNS AND OTHER TURF INTERESTS DOOM CANTON'S CHARTER GOV'T FLIRTATION?

In order for Canton Ward 8 Councilman Edmond Mack to get the issue of Canton's going to a charter form of government before city voters, it is going to take a dramatic turnaround on the thinking on the part of most Canton City Council members.

A vote on the legislation, which Judiciary Committee chairman Tom West has said he will sign off on (on the condition of Monday night's town hall meeting having been held) in order to get the Canton Law Department to work drafting the legislation, will likely take place between January 6 and March 6, 2014 in order for the question (if council approves the legislation) to make the filing deadline for it to be on the May, 2014 primary election ballot.

By the SCPR's nose count of councilpersons, it appears that Mack has an uphill fight to get council to approve presenting the matter to voters.

Co-sponsor Mary Cirelli will not be around to be one of his "yes" votes inasmuch as she - having opted not to run for re-election to council - will not be around.

Additionally, Cirelli announced Monday that she will not be a candidate for the charter commission should city council place the question on the ballot.

Come January, he will acquire a superb ally to aid him in the cause.  Longtime charter advocate and former councilman Bill Smuckler will be returning to Canton council.

On Monday council minority members West (D - Ward 2) and Chris Smith (D - Ward 4) said flat out that they will not be voting for the legislation.

The SCPR is disappointed in West in that he argues for citizens and fellow council members to be educated on city issues (e.g. Redflex traffic cameras) before forming a position while seemingly, in The Report's estimate, having made up his mind on the charter issue.

In an interview with him Monday night post-meeting, West appears to be open to the possibility of changing his mind.

However, The Report thinks that his seeming hedging on having made up his mind is more a case of wanting to give the impression of openness rather than being genuinely open to changing his mind.

After all, it is a tad hypocritical to decry others for not being informed and then close one's own mind to perhaps mind-changing information - is it not?

Another SCPR criticism of West has to do with what yours truly thinks is unfounded focus on the diversity issue.

Canton now has two African-American council persons out of total of thirteen total councilpersons when one includes the council president.

Okay.

A little math lesson is in order:  2/13 = 15%.

Hmm?

Canton has a 24% black population.

So why is he and why is Chris Smith (D - 4) zealously protecting the status quo?

Are they willing to settle for a mere 15% of black leadership roles in Canton government in the face of African-American composing 24% of Canton's population?

It is hard to see how African-American representation in any proposal that a charter commission might come up with would be less than 15 per cent.

The potential is there for African-American politicians to achieve citywide and countywide offices.

Kelley Zachary ran a very respectable race for Stark County treasurer and Canton treasurer.  West himself ran well against Kirk Schuring a number of years ago for the state Senate in a district that covered about 90% of Stark County.

There is a case to made that BUT FOR Mary Cirelli being a candidate for Canton treasurer that Zachary would have defeated Kim Perez.

But for African-Americans to improve their numbers one would think that a Canton/Stark County African-American needs to step up to the plate having designed a workable plan for electing blacks citywide, even countywide.

Of course, it is not enough to come up with a plan. Someone will have to actually "roll up the sleeves" and do the hard work of selling the plan to the electorate.

Who better than Councilman West?

Being the social worker, politician, businessman and educated man he is, West should have inner characteristics, qualities and resources to get creative and be a pro-active Stark County minority leader that gets results.

To boot, he has been a councilman ten years.  Hardly a novice, no?  But in all fairness one has to ask what does he have to show for it?

While yours truly personally likes Tom West, it seems that he needs to be challenged "to be all that he can be" in terms of making his mark in Canton and Stark County as a leader among leaders.

That is not what The Report is seeing in Tom West of 2013.

West is no different than another other Stark County-based elected official who is not measuring up.

The Report typically prods those Stark County political subdivision "a day late and dollar short" leaders holding public office who are not delivering a quality of leadership that Stark County cities, villages, townships and boards of education so sorely need.

Stark County does have a model of county level of leadership being ratcheted up to a higher level with the election of Tom Bernabei and Janet Creighton in 2010.

Before Bernabei and Creighton, SCPR readers will recall what a mess Stark County government was in.

It is encouraging to see that Canton in Edmond Mack as a person who is willing to take on a "the odds are against me" issue and seek to turn the negative thinking around. Folks, this is leadership.

Not to pit them against one another, but yours truly thinks Councilman Edmond Mack (only now finishing up his first two year term) demonstrates far more in the kind of leadership that the SCPR is looking for than West does.

There is no doubt about it.  Mack seemingly faces insuperable obstacles of bringing charter government to Canton.  But do not tell him that.  He embraces the challenge of adjusting and accommodating to various perspectives in quest of reaching his ultimate goal.

The Report presents via video the entire formal presentation of both from Monday's town hall meeting on the charter government issue.

Edmond Mack.



Thomas West.



The Achilles Heel of Mack's presentation was his failure to tie in creating a charter government to specific benefits to be derived by everyday citizens.

West was far too much into "the fear factor" and resting on the security of the maintaining the "status quo" in appealing to the base instincts of people.

Lastly, yours truly has a special word for Stark County organized labor as personified by Stark County trades union president David Kirven.

Kirven did what he is paid to do which is look out for the interests of unions.

But for elected public officials to factor special interests into their decisions as to what structure of government is best for the public is not a responsible basis for decision making.

While The Report personally favors Project Labor Agreements (PLAs), prevailing wage laws and protecting public workers' pensions, it doesn't follow that maintaining a statutory form of government has anything whatsoever to do with those matters.

To sum it all up, it appears to the SCPR that the private, political and special organization interests of a number of Canton city councilpersons (i.e. turf interests) are playing into the decision on whether or not Cantonians will have the democratic right to determine their own structure of government.

The overall interests of the citizens of Canton appear to be taking a back seat.

The obvious decline of Canton that is underway should be an wake up call to the city's councilpersons.

As one citizen said on Monday night on recounting the dramatic loss of population since 1950, "don't you think we might be doing something wrong" in terms of how we do government in Canton.

And it is noteworthy that Cantonians took a look at fashioning charter government in 1962.  Unfortunately, the 1961/62 set of commissioners came up with an ill-founded plan of electing all of of the commission member at-large.  In doing so, they took away the ability of Cantonians living in clustered neighborhoods (e.g. Vassar Park) to hold individual councilpersons accountable.

Cantonians reacted the way they should have at the ballot box in voting 78% against that proposal.

The beauty of the chartering process is that the voters can always say "no," if out-of-touch charter commissioners loose their heads.

But does anyone think that a new commission would repeat the mistakes of the 60s era group?

Canton council needs to approve letting a new group of 15 give formulating a charter a new try.

Having at the ready flexible tools (whether or not they are ever used) to do a more efficient and effective job for the taxpaying public equips government to more responsive to public demands to fix things gone wrong.

The Report understood Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher on Monday night of having talked about getting the Ohio General Assembly to change the formula for the election of charter members to reflect the demographics of a city.

Fisher's idea is a good one that the Canton's representative to the Ohio House (Stephen Slesnick - D/Canton) and Stark County's representative to the Ohio Senate (Scott Oelslager - R/Plain Township) should pick up on.

For Canton, such a change could mean electing a 13 member charter commission:  Nine (one each) from the existing wards plus four at-large members.

But there is no chance that any change in state legislation will be forthcoming over the next six months.

Nevertheless Canton desperately needs a fresh start with as much flex as Ohio law allows for charter cities to structure themselves for the maximum benefit of the citizenry.

Seventy-three percent (73%) of Ohio's cities are charter cities.

If statutory status meets the optimal need of cities, why have 3/4ths of Ohio municipalities opted for the charter form?

As long as Canton is represented by the self-centereds who pretty much flesh out a "public be damned" underlying attitude in pursuit of their perceived special interests, the city will continue its downward spiral.

More and more Cantonians should be asking themselves this.

Is a Detroit scenario really all the far away from Canton's doorstep?

MARY CIRELLI: SHE MAY HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY BLOODIED, BUT SHE IS NOT BOWED!

Come January 1, 2014 there will be Mary Cirelli (to borrow the Richard M. Nixon phrase) "to kick around."

Her last great political fight may have been to keep Kim Perez from becoming Canton city treasurer.

Cirelli told the Stark County Political Report that she has known all along that she could have easily retained her seat as councilwoman-at-large in the Hall of Fame City.

However, she simply could not sit by and let Kim Perez waltz in to the treasurer's office without having a stiff fight.

Apparently, she did not consider Kelly Zachary to be capable of putting up a fight on her own to keep Perez on the political sidelines having been put there by Republican Alan Harold in the November, 2010 election.

As it turned out, Cirelli surprised us all who do political analysis (and from her perspective, not in a good way) in coming in third in the three person race.

While Cantonians may see Cirelli as a councilperson (one among a number), it seems that they do not see her as "the" person, as an executive, to be in charge of a government office.

That public perception of Cirelli is likely the primary reason  she came in third.

Her zeal to provide opposition to Perez was very costly to her.  She says she put some $13,000 of her own money into the race and, of course, she  necessarily lost her council seat by virtue of her treasury run.

Though only 41% of Cantonians wanted Perez to be Canton's treasurer, it appears that perhaps Zachary was the better bet to have prevented Perez's restoration to public office.

Zacharay only lost (in the sense of:  "unexpectedly" to most of us) to Perez by about 8% points which means that of the 26.51% of the total vote pulled by Cirelli, Zachary would have had to have gotten about 66% of Cirelli's 26.51% to have kept Perez from winning.

It seems to the SCPR that a good part of the respective Zachary/Cirelli vote was a ABKP (Anybody But Kim Perez) vote.  Perhaps enough to have swung the election against Perez, had the election been a two person race.

The SCPR thinks that Zachary had a better opportunity to have gotten enough of what The Report terms as the ABKP vote given her eight (8%) percentage point loss in the three way contest.

Mary Cirelli with her nearly 15% margin of loss to Perez had a much more difficult hill to climb in terms of getting the lion's share of Zachary's part of the ABKP.   She would have had to have gotten about 75% of it.

While the SCPR calls it the ABKP vote, in a two person race he likely would have ended up with a distinct minority of the vote (notwithstanding it largely being ABKP) simply because some of those voters could not stomach either Cirelli or Zachary no matter which of the two would match up against him in a two person race.

Of course, the above discourse is the stuff of political analysts.

The bottom line is that both Zachary and Cirelli are out and Perez is in.

 For Zachary life goes on as it did before as she only has served briefly as an elected official.

Cirelli is a different story.

She has almost been an institution in Canton.

She has been Ward 3 councilperson (in which she polled rather poorly, by the way, in the treasurer's race), councilwoman-at-large, state representative, and county commissioner.

Moreover, her bio shows an impressive record of overall community service:

The question becomes what is to come of Mary Cirelli come January 1, 2014?

Her answer?

(The SCPR's interpretation.)

People remaining in Canton government will wish she was still an insider rather than an outsider.

For if people thought she was an annoying, chronic questioner and generally an out-and-out pest as a government official; they have not seen nothing yet.

As a public official, she says she restrained herself somewhat in the interest of reciprocal respectful relationships.

But as a private citizen, it appears, she is going to be less beholden to decorum.

The SCPR does not expect her to go beyond the bounds of propriety.  However, Cirelli is likely to be heavily involved in Canton government as Citizen Cirelli and perhaps "a looser cannon."

She may be gone from council but she is not going to let her former fellows nor the administration forget her.

She says that if her health holds out (she is in her 70s), she can definitely see herself running for council-at-large in 2015.

Would it surprise anyone for Mary Cirelli to be Councilwoman-at-Large Cirelli come January 1, 2016?

As the title to this blog says:  Mary Cirelli may be politically bloodied, she is by no means bowed.

Mary Cirelli: "not done yet; not by far!"

ON THE BALLOT OR NOT, THERE WERE SOME "REAL" LOSERS IN YESTERDAY'S ELECTION, NO?

UPDATE AT 09:20 AM

------------------------------------------------------

SUBTOPICS

LOSERS

CANTON

THE BIGGEST LOSER IN YESTERDAY'S ELECTION:
CANTON MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY, II

• COLE LOSS
• PORTER LOSS
• GROUP 175

CLOSE BEHIND, MARY CIRELLI

NEXT, PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS BUSINESS AGENT DAVE KIRVEN

MASSILLON

A BIG LOSER:    MASSILLON'S JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR.

• AULT LOSS

FINALLY, MASSILLON MAYOR KATHY CATZAZRO-PERRY

• CITY REVENUES PICTURE

WINNERS

• BILL SMUCKLER
• GREG HAWK
• FRANK MORRIS
• KIM PEREZ
• MEGAN STARRETT

-------------------------------------------------------

THE HEALY LOSSES

The person who had the most to lose in Stark County's 2013 primary election yesterday was Canton mayor William  J. Healy, II.

And he came through in flying colors.

By the Stark County Political Report's calculation, on future Canton City Council key votes (meaning on issues that Healy thinks he must win on), as a consequence of Joe Cole's defeat in Ward 9 and Greg Hawk's win in Ward 1, he is likely going to lose at least by a 7 to 5 vote.

Or, as a leading Canton politician told the SCPR last night, at the very least he is going to have to compromise with council to council's liking.

Of course, everyone who understands Hizzhonor, he is a "my way or the highway" type of guy and so there are likely to be some ugly, nasty fights between him and council with the dawn of 2014 and a new make up of council.

While Healy tried to make it appear that he was okay with either Cole or Frank Morris, III (the incumbent Democrat councilman) in the 9th ward in making equal campaign contributions to both; the truth of the matter is that he was an out-and-out Cole supporter and Cole's loss is understood by political cognoscenti to also be a Healy loss.

One of the big fights in Canton politics in 2014 is going to be the fight initiated this year by Citizen Bruce Nordman from Ward 9's Vassar Park and his Group 175's effort to force the city to get the Canton police force up to 175 officer strength.

Healy is against this move because of city's dire financial condition.  He has intimated to Nordman et al that he might be open to going up to 165 in 2014.

That was before the Cole/Morris results.

And, make no mistake about it, Vassar Park's Group 175 was a key to Morris' smashing victory yesterday and one can see Healy backpedaling already and scrambling to find the money (about $1.3 million per year) to bring the CPD up to 175 officers strong.

One more thing on the Cole/Morris race.

A humongous loser from an investment standpoint were the Stark County trade unions who contributed to the Cole campaign.

In the end (including monies raised after the last reporting date:  04/17/2013) these unions likely will be shown to put more than $10,000 in to the Cole campaign coffers.

You talk about a bad investment?

Wow!

Didn't Kiiven and union pals come out looking like they flushed a big wad of hard working union members' money right down the toilet?

And the word is that Kirven is working feverishly signing up precinct committee members in his quest to take over the Stark County Democratic Party with the precinct committeepersons elections of 2014.

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly thinks Randy Gonzalez is an ineffective party chairman (e.g. can't get meaningful opposition to Stark's statehouse Republicans [Oelslager, Schuring and Hagan]).  But, at least, he not throwing thousands of dollars into hopeless causes.

SMUCKLER BECOMES MAJORITY LEADER?

There are other changes in Canton government as a result of yesterday's election results.

Long time Canton political and government figure Bill Smuckler will be returning as a councilman at large.

And he is not just "any councilman-at-large!"

He is a Healy political nemesis.  Smuckler bested Healy in the 2003 Canton Democratic Primary to earn the right to face off against Republican Janet Weir Creighton in that year's general election.

That election was the beginning of a Healy/Smuckler hate/love political affair that has persisted ever since.

Love?

Yes.  Smuckler did rely on Healy for help of sorts in his losing effort to become a Stark County commissioner last year in his battle against Republican Regula.

But the SCPR sees the relationship more like "political hate" or at least "intense political competition."  And such is to become very evident in 2014 as Smuckler takes control of Canton City Council in either a de facto sense or a de jure (perhaps as majority leader replacing Healy ally David Dougherty - Ward 6) sense of control.

It had to be galling to Healy that Smuckler garnered the "most votes ever for Smuckler in a Democratic primary" in becoming one of three Democrats qualifying for November's general election (which is tantamount to election even if some non-party/independents file).

HAWK BECOMES FINANCE CHAIR, ONCE AGAIN?

Another negative fallout for Healy is the reelection of Ward 1 Councilman Greg Hawk.  Should we now be looking to Hawk's return as the finance committee chairman with Cole's (the current chairman) defeat?

Hawk has been nursing a grudge against Healy and his council allies for having removed him as finance chairman after the 2011 elections.

If Hawk returns as the chair, Healy's life will be dramatically affected in a way not to the mayor's liking.

Remember also that Hawk was one of six councilpersons who pushed legislation to significantly increase the pay of cadet Canton police which effort was shunted aside by Cole at the mayor's request.

We should be looking for that issue to resurface in 2014, no?

One final note.

There is speculation that Jimmy Babock (councilman-at-large) will be going to work for his old boss (at the Stark County auditor's office) Kim Perez with Perez's victory in the Canton treasurer's race yesterday.

There is further conjecture that the defeated Joseph Cole would be in line to replace Babcock on council.

Hmm?

Let's see.  Cole got hoodwinked into not running for reelection for councilman-at-large by Mary Cirelli. Instead he files for Ward 9.  He loses big time.  In the meantime he introduces legislation to eliminate council-at-large positions in Canon.

So is this an opportunity for Joe Cole to show once again what a huge political hypocrite he is?

Such would not surprise the SCPR.

JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR. (AND, OF COURSE, SHANE JACKSON) & CATAZARO-PERRY LOSE IN MASSILLON

In Massillon's Ward 5, former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (also Massillon clerk of courts) Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. was "all-in" in the Ault/Geragherty/Starrett Ward 5 Massillon City Council race.

Now held by Republican Donnie Peters, Jr., who is not seeking reelection, this ward is Massillon's "most Democratic ward" and therefore very likely to fall back into the hands of the Dems this fall.

The Healy equivalent in Massillon is Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

He is a guy who is a power politician who looks at politics as black and white (translated:  "for Maier or against Maier") and desperately seeks to absolutely control everything he puts his hand to.

His political power perch in Massillon is in the form of Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

He handpicked her to take on the-then 24-year mayor Frank Cicchinelli in the Democratic Primary of 2011 and succeeded in spades in putting his person in charge of Massillon's executive branch of government.

But with her election, a "Houston Massillon - we've got a problem" surfaced immediately.

It became obvious early on that KCP was not going to get along with a Massillon City Council controlled 5 to 4 by Republicans.

While it may seem to be a Republican/Democrat problem, it is not.

It is Catazaro-Perry being high-handed (go figure, no? - her political patron is Johnnie A. Maier, Jr) vis-a-vis council which is the bane of her existence.

Solution?

Elect KCP friendly councilpersons to Massillon City Council, no?

Enter Catazaro-Perry self-styled political gurus Maier and his acolyte Shane Jackson (political director of the Stark County Democratic Party).

One such person was supposed to have been Joseph Ault in Ward 5; a November election Democratic "plum for the picking," no?

Maier and friends pumped impressive money into Ault's campaign effort.

It seemed reasonable to think that with help from Massillon's political elite duo, Ault could be the beginning of finding an end of the mayor's frustration with council.

But it will not be Ault!

Lo and Behold!  Maier and Jackson fail in their effort to help Catazaro-Perry.

Chalk Ward 5 up to being a winner for Stark County prosecutor John Dee Ferrero, Jr. (a man who has deep political roots in Massillon as having been Tigerland's law director).

Megan Starrett is on Ferrero's prosecutorial staff.

In Massillon there are three factions in the Democratic Party:  the Maier faction, the Cicchinelli faction and the Ferrero faction.

While Ferrero may have won the Ward 5 battle, he lost on the city's attempt to get an increase in the income tax.  And he lost big time.

Catazaro-Perry has battled Ferrero and his chief counsel John Kurtzman (also a man with deep, deep Massillon ties and history) over her desire:

• to have Massillon deal with its financial short fall with a reduction in the credit that Massilonians living in other income taxing jurisdictions get against their Massillon income tax, and
• to add fees (e.g. assess citizens for street lighting fees thereby eliminating such as a Massillon general fund expense),

as the way for Massillon to cope with its revenue woes.

Ferrero and Kurtzman make relatively big bucks as the honchos in the county prosecutor's office and by virtue of the office being in the city of Canton they pay Canton's 2% tax which because of the Massillon credit means they pay no tax (given Massillon's 1.8% tax) to Massillon.

Had the Massillon tax issue passed they would have paid an "itsy-bitsy" amount to Massillon because the new tax rate would have increased to 2.1%.

But it didn't and so Ferrero, Kurtzman and their cohort (Starrett) will pay no income tax to Massillon.

Catazaro-Perry may take some delight in the tax issue failing inasmuch as she "quietly" opposed it.

For her to do so is more than a bit perverse.

Because she now faces having to administer a city that will via council action be implementing huge cuts in city services.

Think she isn't going the face a lot of heat from a public who wants it both ways:  city services as usual, but do not ask for more revenues.

In view of the lopsided citizen rejection of more revenues for Massillon government, how could she possibly continue her push her "not by a vote of the people" drive for enhanced revenues?

She may not see it this way, but the SCPR thinks that the resounding vote of the people against more taxes was an emphatic loss by her on the issue of whether or not there are to be additional revenues for Massillon government.

If she chooses to persist on her quest, should she decide for reelection in 2015; she will see her position come back to haunt her.

While Maier came up a loser in the Ault/Geragherty/Starrett race, all may not be lost.

In Ward 2 there was a face off between Irwin and Bobby Martin in the Democratic Primary.

And Irwin won.

There is no direct evidence that Irwin (a Stark County recorder employee) is a Maier man, there is plenty to indirect evidence.

Irwin works for Stark County recorder Rick Campbell who is married to Plain Township administrator Lisa Campbell who is the daughter of former Stark County commissioner and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr protege Gayle Jackson (son Shane is Maier's chief deputy in the Massillon clerk of courts).

So there may be hope that Maier can help out Herhonor in getting some support from council?

Probably not.

The SCPR figures that Republican Nancy Halter will win again in the 2nd in November.

So in the long run, Maier likely strikes out totally in his foray into Massillon City Council politics.

Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. a political loser twice on council?

And there could be more.

Still to be analyzed is his involvement in Ward 4 and in Ward 6.

IT'S TURN OUT THE LIGHTS, THE PARTY IS OVER FOR MARY CIRELLI?

The win by Kim Perez in the Canton treasurer's race (in terms of long time Canton politician Mary Cirelli coming in third) was a BIG surprise to yours truly.

Although yours truly did say on Ron Ponder's Points to Ponder on Monday that the SCPR would not be surprised to see Perez win; that Mary Cirelli comes in third was not part of The Report's thinking.

Mary has a history of doing well in three person races.

So her third place finish is indication that she is done in Canton politics.

Inasmuch as Mayor Healy was a big Perez supporter, he gets a little bit of being a winner with Perez's election.

More importantly, he will not have to deal with (at least, in an official capacity) Mary Cirelli any longer.

She will be off council in January, 2014.

Cirelli, while having fun with Cole in the filing deadline saga with him as to whether she was running for reelection to council or for Canton treasurer, made had huge political blunder (in hindsight) on her own.

She should have stayed in the council race.  Certainly, one would think, that she could have come in at least third, if not second, in a three person race, no?

Apparently, the voters knew that Mary was unsuited to be treasurer.  Prior to running for treasurer, she had never be THE person in charge.  She always been either one of twelve councilpersons, one of three commissioners or one of ninety-nine state representatives.

In such contexts she could ask questions galore and thereby served in a "for the public benefit" prized role.  And, she could not make screwy decisions for the body politic in these settings.

However, a Canton city treasurer, she would have been the  "elected" by the people and only accountable to the people at reelection time chief executive.

Hmm?

Like her or not on a personal basis, who thinks that Mary Cirelli is chief executive material?

But do not count her out from trying a council comeback in 2015.

Probably the person who - on the merits - should have been elected is Kelly Zachary.  And she did make a very credible showing.  And this on top of a respectable showing against Republican Alex Zumbar in the Stark County treasurer race of 2012.

Perhaps the Stark County Democratic Party leadership should be finding a place for Ms. Zachary on next year's ballot?

SCPR CONCLUSION ON THE BIGGEST LOSER IN THE 2013 STARK COUNTY PRIMARY ELECTION

The bottom line of this SCPR analysis is that - all-in-all -Mayor William J. Healy, II stands as the biggest loser in yesterday's primary election!

This election could be the beginning of the end of William J. Healy, II as a viable Stark County political figure!

CANTON CITY TREASURER RACE: WHO WINS? WHICHEVER CANDIDATE GETS HER/HIS VOTERS TO THE POLLS!

As to who will win the Democratic Primary for Canton city treasurer on May 7th, one veteran Canton politicians tells the SCPR that he thinks:

• Kelly Zachary wins Wards 2 and 4,
• Kim Perez wins Ward 1 (his former ward when he was in council),
• Mary Cirelli wins Ward 3 (which she formerly represented) and Ward 5 and, perhaps 6, and
• Wards 7, 8 and 9 are up for grabs,

The overall winner, he thinks, will be the candidate that gets her/his voters to the polls.

Not a whole lot there to disagree with from the SCPR's vantage point.

But there are a number of things to consider.

First of Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher has sided up with Kim Perez.  He worked for Perez when Perez was county auditor.  And it would have been surprising indeed for Fisher to abandon him in the treasurer's race.

So Mary Cirelli winning Ward 5 with Fisher doing a campaign flyer for Perez?  The SCPR is skeptical.  It makes a lot more sense that Fisher pulls Perez through in Ward 5.

If he doesn't, he may give pause for thought for someone to take him on two years down the road.

The Report believes it is likely that Cirelli comes in a competitive second in the 5th and by coming in second in the wards she does not win could be the key for a squeaker overall victory for her.  Should she slip to third in this ward, it could portend a Perez victory.

Also, Ward 6 is a troublesome spot for Cirelli.  Majority Leader Dougherty is the councilman for Ward 6 and one only has to take in his sighs of exasperation when Cerelli speaks up at council meetings to pretty much know that he (being Healy's point man on council) is going to be supporting the mayor's choice who, of course, is Kim Perez.

So yours truly does not see Cirelli winning Ward 6.  But she does come in a relatively close second.

But she will have to place first somewhere other than in the 3rd to become Canton treasurer.

Cirelli wins the election if she is victorious in Wards 7 and 8. 

They are Canton's largest (in terms of number of voters who show up on election day; election year-in, year-out) voting wards.  And they are Canton's most Republican wards.  Of course, this is not the general election and Republicans do not factor in.

The only question along these lines would be if the Democrats in these wards are more Republican like than any other wards in the city?  If they are, Cirelli wins because Perez is the personification of Democratic establishment politics (i.e. one of the Dems "good ole boys").

Keys in these two wards are Councilmen John Mariol (who is running unopposed in the 7th through the general election) and Edmund Mack (unopposed in the primary in Ward 8).

You have to believe that they are leaning Mary's way inasmuch as they often vote with Mary when opposing controversial Healy administration legislative proposals.

A Cirelli triump in Ward 9 (Frank Morris' ward - likely to have a large turnout because the of the Morris/Cole face off) would be icing on her political cake.  Cirelli is nonstop wearing her Group 175 button in support of Vassar Park (located in the 9th Ward) resident Bruce Nordman's campaign to force Canton to add 25 or so police offices to the Canton force.

The SCPR thinks her solidarity with the Vassar Park folks could be a key to a Ward 9 win for Mary.

Speculation is flying around that Fisher and Councilman-at-Large Jimmy Babcock (who also worked for Perez at the county auditor's office) are in line to work for Perez once again.

Fisher says emphatically that he will not be becoming a Perez employee.

Political sideliners seem convinced that Babcock will be off to the treasurer's office in a heartbeat if Perez wins.  And so he is certainly going all out for his former boss.

Why is the SCPR focusing on Cirelli and Perez and pretty much leaving Kelly Zachary out of the discussion up to this point?

Though she has impressive educational background and has the support of the Stark County Black Caucus (Caucus) and current treasurer Bob Schirak, the SCPR sees her likely to take Wards 2 and 4 and running third in the rest of Canton's wards.

It is hard to see how she has a winning campaign strategy.

She is part of a line up at a  Stark County Black Caucus Candidate Support Gospel Concert Rally to be had at the Mount Olive Baptist Church this coming Saturday beginning at 5:00 p.m.
 

While the Caucus should be able to deliver Wards 2 and 4 to her, the SCPR believes that such a base is a losing proposition citywide in heavily Democratic Canton with the likes of Kim Perez and Mary Cirelli on the ballot.

However, one has to wonder whether or not she might be vulnerable to being upset given her thrashing (though running as the incumbent) at the hand of current Councilwoman Chris Smith in the 2007 Democratic Primary?

Smith is now solidly behind Zachary and a good word from Chris may pull her through to victory.

Cirelli and Perez are proven vote getters citywide in Canton.

The city treasurer match up will be unlike Zachary's race against Republican Alex Zumbar in November, 2012 in which Zachary ran well against the Republican in Canton (winning by a substantial majority) but losing it once she got out into the townships and burgs of Stark County.

Her real role in the city treasurer's face off, the SCPR believes, revolves around the question:  Can she be a difference maker as between Perez and Cirelli?

Potentially she can be.

However, only in the sense of BUT FOR ZACHARY being in the race, the Caucus undoubtedly (with Councilpersons Smith and West being solid Healy supporters and therefore presumably Perez supporters) would steer the Caucus to endorse Perez which could have produced enough votes for him to edge out Cirelli citywide in a nip and tuck contest.

Other than being in an off-hand spoiler role, the SCPR does not see Zachary as having much to do with the overall outcome of who becomes Canton city treasurer.

(VIDEOS) COUNCILMAN-AT-LARGE JOE COLE IS LOSING IT IN BID TO BECOME WARD 9 COUNCILMAN??

VIDEOS

  President Schulman Frames the Debate

Cole Slams Morris; Morris Responds

The Entire Debate

(Including Chamber of Commerce Input)

In what seemingly had nothing to do with 9th Ward politics, Councilman-at-Large Joe Cole lashed out at his May 7th primary opponent Frank Morris last night as being "deplorable" on Morris' "no" vote on spending $175,000 in city of Canton general fund dollars on what amounts to be a government subsidy of free enterprise; namely, the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce.

The ordinance:

18.   AMEND APPROP O#209/2012; AUTHORIZE MAYOR &/OR SERV DIR TO ENTER INTO GRANT AGMT W/CCIC IN AMT NOT TO EXCEED $175,000.00 FOR PURPOSE OF FUNDING CANTON REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ACTIVITIES; EMERGENCY

Actually, as the SCPR sees it council president Allen Schulman had it right in saying that those who voted "no" were not against economic development and those voting "yes" were not against increasing the numbers of Canton safety forces.



However, the political stakes are such these days that such is exactly how Cole and Morris were trying to paint each other in last night's regular weekly meeting of Canton City Council.

With Morris, it is not so clear that he was going after Cole.  But the SCPR believes that he was. 



With Cole, in referring to "him" as being the object of his (Cole's) scorn, it was rather obvious that the "him" was Councilman Morris.

It further appears to yours truly that Cole realizes that it will take a political miracle for him to defeat fellow Democrat Morris in the May 7th Democratic Primary election.

Though he is a resident of the 9th Ward, it seems as if the Morris political forces have been able to paint Cole as a carpetbagger of sorts (i.e. someone coming into an area from the outside) who really does not belong in Ward 9 politics and certainly not one to represent the ward in city council.

Cole has fed into the perception in posting signs in the ward suggesting that he is the incumbent councilman.

If one thinks about it, in being a councilman-at-large, Cole does have some basis on which to claim a connection to Ward 9 (other than living there) because in being a councilman-at-large he does represent the entire city.

All of which makes it totally confusing as to why Cole would want to eliminate the three council-at-large seats.

There can be little doubt as to Cole's motivation for pushing the "eliminate council-at-large" legislation.

Back at the filing deadline for council positions, Cole got hoodwinked by fellow council-at-large Mary Cirelli into giving up his council-at-large position (i.e. she finessed Cole into believing that she was running for reelection and therefore he would be the odd man out in the face of Cirelli, Babcock [an incumbent councilman-at-large], and former Councilman Bill Smuckler competition) in a political cloak and dagger-esque drama at the Stark County Board of Elections.

If you haven't read the SCPR blog on this political vignette, you must do so.  It is the "political hoot of the year" if not of all time in the annals of Stark County politics (LINK).

Cole's plainly lashing out at Morris last night bespeaks an indication that Cole knows that he is not likely to prevail in the 9th and he is lobbing "hail Mary" after "hail Mary" in desperation to find something that sticks to Morris in order to pull out a stunning, "at the last second" come from behind victory.

The election is two weeks away.

And the stakes are not simply personal in the sense of who is going to remain on council:  Cole or Morris.

It could be that who wins in the 9th will determine where the balance of political power will lie in the new council which takes office in January, 2014.

By the SCPR's calculation, a Morris victory would likely mean, that on legislation that is the key to Mayor Healy realizing his agenda ambitions, a potential 7 to 5 vote against the mayor.

So Healy is solidly in Cole's corner.

But as The Report sees it, having the mayor in one's corner could be more of a liability in the 9th rather than a help.

The mayor is currently in a tussle with some Ward 9 residents (who have named themselves Group 175) over the overall manpower strength of the Canton Police Department.

They are intent on raising the force strength to 175 and the mayor determinedly resisting saying that the city does not have the $1.4 million or so to finance 25 additional officers.

So to have Healy as an ally appears to the SCPR not to be helping Cole in the slightest and in fact likely hurts him and therefore one can understand why the councilman-at-large is hurling "hail Mary."

And, of course, Cole has his own baggage on the police issue.

He (as chairman of council's finance committee) along with Ward 3 Councilman Jim Griffin (unopposed in the May 7th primary) deep-sixth legislation proposed by Councilpersons Cirelli, Fisher, Hawk, Mack, Mariol and Morris recently to increase the starting pay of Canton cadet police officers so as to stay competitive with surrounding communities in attracting new hires.

Cirelli, last night, was heard referring to the Cole/Griffin act as being two thwarting the will of six (six being exactly one-half of the voting members of council).

All this trashing about by Councilman Cole appears to the SCPR to be an example of one who is the midst of political death throes.

So, so sad for someone who at one time was thought to be an up and coming star on Canton City Council, no?

Here is a video of the entire debate over the $175,000 Canton Council contribution to the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce.