Showing posts with label Massillon Financial Planning and Supervision Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Massillon Financial Planning and Supervision Commission. Show all posts

Thursday, July 2, 2015

(VIDEOS) MASSILLON RESTORATION PLAN WILL BE "MISSION IMPOSSIBLE" UNTIL MAYOR KATHY CATAZARO-PERRY GETS HER WAY?



Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry's way or the highway?

Perhaps not.

While yesterday's vote resulted in a stalemate (a 3 to 3 tied vote) and therefore the 07/01/2015 Massillon Financial Restoration Plan was not adopted, there may be a way out notwithstanding Mayor Catazaro-Perry seeming to be an impassable roadblock.



It appears to The Stark County Political Report that the key to the Massillon Financial Planning and Supervision Commission (Commission) being accepted by a simple majority (likely a 4 to 3 vote; Hanrahan:  "consensus is not likely") is for Massillon City Council to scrap that part of its Restoration Plan (Plan) that calls for council to cut the pay of certain elected officials.




Dropping the cuts will only cost the Plan some $30,000 in revenue:  A mere "drop in the bucket" when it comes to solving Massillon's longer term financial woes.

Commission member Bob Yund, the SCPR thinks, committed himself to changing his vote from "no" to "yes" on the Plan presented to the Commission yesterday on the condition that council takes the elected officials pay cut out of the Plan.

As The Report sees it, Yund was the only realistic person among the three "no" votes (Catazaro-Perry, Campbell, and, of course, Yund) when the six members present (council president Tony Townsend was absent) voted on the Plan submitted to the Commission on June 19th and formally considered by the Commission yesterday.

The Report suspects that Townsend likely knew he would be put on the spot in breaking the three to three tie on accepting/rejecting the 07/01/2015 Restoration Plan submitted to the Commission yesterday and therefore opted to bail out on the meeting.

Bail out?

Why?

Democrat and Catazaro-Perry ally Townsend is in for the political fight of his life to remain as council president this November with former Republican Claudette Istnick qualifying to run as an "independent" against him this November and The Report thinks he knows that he must avoid any controversy if he is to have any chance at all remaining as council president.

Hence his absence reportedly for "personal/family" reasons yesterday.

However, to repeat, there is a pretty simple way out of the stalemate that the SCPR assigns to Mayor Kathy as being the cause of as between her administration and Massillon City Council.

To say it again, the simple path to resolution is through MFP&SC member Bob Yund.

The Report sees Yund as a "good faith" member of the Commission.

From the video of Yund's participation in yesterday's meeting (see video posted at the end of this blog) note that:
  • He initiated a detailed discussion of what the specific levy passage campaign would entail and in the process got a response from Councilman Paul Manson on the particulars as they exist as of 07/01/2015,
  • He broached a topic that appears to have gone over like "a lead balloon;"  that being the idea of eliminating the income tax reduction credit completely, but MOST IMPORTANTLY,
  • In responding to desperate moves by Chairwoman Hanrahan, as cited above, he offer to changeover from a "no" to a "yes" on the 07/01/2015 Plan if only council would remove the pay cuts to elected officials as specified in the graphic above.
Yours truly does not see Catazaro-Perry nor Elaine Campbell as a "good faith" members.

The latter two seemed to throw in everything but the kitchen sink in explaining to the very, very, very patient chairwoman (Sharon Hanrahan) when she asked each "no" vote what it would take to change their respective votes to a "yes" vote.

Some of what Campbell had to say yesterday includes:
  • Out-of-the-gate her questioning of the "good faith" of council in formulating its part of the Plan,
  • She was obviously disappointed that the 07/01/2015 Plan does not contain a formal and developed campaign, and 
  • she gave specific examples of what council should have done prior to yesterday's meeting very little of which could be accomplished before the Commission next meets in August
Massillon Cable TV owner and Commission member Bob Gessner finally did it!

Did what?

He looked Her Honor in the face and zinged away with one direct question after another and showed her for the impossible person she is on the question of working out a "come let us reason together" restoration plan for the financial fiscal emergency that the SCPR thinks she brought on unnecessarily in the first place.

If readers watch no other video published in this blog, this one pretty much tells the whole story about the obstinate mayor of Massillon.




Several meetings ago, The Report detected in Gessner a statesmanlike quality and in the two meetings since, he has done nothing but confirm and expand upon that impression.

His questions are such that it is obvious that he has carefully read the Plan presented and he persists with his queries until he gets clear answers.

A focus on Mayor Catazaro-Perry's engagement yesterday shows:
  • The mayor to be zeroing in on the restoration of the income tax credit reduction
    • to those who work out-of-town on the base 1.8% Massillon income tax rate,
      • which she and council have battled over the percentage of which almost from day one of her administration in January, 2012,
    • as bringing back the reduction means according to her:
      • that there will be a loss on the 1.8% rate loss of MP&RD revenue,
  • Her transitioning into a discussion (in the manner of throwing everything including the proverbial kitchen sink) from the effect of the restored income tax credit on the 1.8% and the effect of same on MP&RD revenues to the Plan or lack thereof as such impacts on:
    • the reduction of revenue to replace equipment in all Massillon departments of government,
    • the loss of some $85,000 in proprietary fund dollars used to deal with street repairs,
    • Massillon's crumbling streets and the need to replace scads of storm sewer grates,
    • Being behind on vehicle replacement,
    • Thinking the proposed .2% income tax increase will have a hard time getting passed,
      • Notes that council has not yet passed authorizing legislation to place the .2% proposed increase on the March, 2016 ballot
        • SCPR Note:  which of course will not be collected until beginning with January, 2017 and will not be available to deal with the mayor's concerns as outlined above probably until mid-2017,
    • Saying that the Plan is not a good faith, doable, supported by all of council and therefore will not work because it is not a solid plan,
  • Making the 10% cuts of elected Massillon elected officials a sticking point,
  • Using her discussion with one member of council (Andrea Scassa, Democrat, Ward 3) as evidence of the administration reaching out to council only to be rebuffed by council,
  • Requesting that the Commission reject the Plan and "go back to the drawing board" claims that she has been shut out of the process of Plan development by council, 
  • Rambling on in a confusing, disjointed dissent to the Plan
The Report suspects that Catazaro-Perry and MFP&SC member Campbell spend a lot of time on the telephone jointly preparing their hand-in-glove agenda that comes off as being an tag team effort to undermine and make impossible council's endeavor to work collaboratively with the administration to develop a Plan which all can wholeheartedly support.

More and more it seems that the mayor is intent on sabotaging any Plan - though she has signed off on it (see Gessner grilling her on inconsistency in the Gessner video above) - in hopes she can delay the Commission process enough to get by November's election with herself re-elected and perhaps a sufficient number of new councilpersons (there will be at least three) sympathetic with her whims so that she can have her way.

It is a risky strategy she appears to be embarked on.

As things stand now, if former mayor Frank Cicchinelli gets on the ballot as a "independent" candidate for mayor in November; The Report believes she would lose rather decidedly.

Many times when reality of a losing hand sinks in, the bad cards card holder seeks to delay for delay's sake in hopes that the adversary will make a huge mistake and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

That's where the SCPR sees Catazaro-Perry at the present time.

Who knows?

She might "pull a rabbit out-of-a-hat" and surprise everybody by winning a second time over Cicchinelli and if she has fantastic good fortune on election day in November, she might even get a favorable simple majority (5 to 4) on council out of the election.

There no doubt with The Report that "Hell will freeze over" before the mayor and her joined-at-the-hip-friend Campbell will vote for any plan but one the mayor thinks is a face-saving-plan for her politically-out-of-control ego.

By the way, the SCPR agrees with the mayor that there are those council members who are being political with the Restoration Plan matter.

However, not nearly to the degree as she is.

The SCPR is highly impressed with Sharon Hanrahan with her patient, methodical and peace making approach of leadership.

As shown in the video the entire one hour and 42 minute session posted at the end of this blog,   Chairwoman Hanrahan's commitment to cobbling together a majority (four of seven members) to get a Plan on the road to implementation is obvious:
  • She, in contrast to Catazaro-Perry, focuses on the positives of council's contribution to developing the Plan, to wit:
    • Emphasizing that council included "drop-dead dates" of getting things done such as:
      • August 1st, the date by which council and the mayor will have put together a campaign committee staffed by community persons, and
      • August 31st, the date by which council says it will have passed legislation by to put the .2% income tax increase on the March, 2016 primary election ballot,
  • She points out that in setting dates for action to be taken, council creates a standard by which the Commission can judge the genuineness of the body's commitment to making the Plan work, and therefore,
  • She expresses a willingness (which how she actually voted) to give council the benefit of any doubt that council's work on the Plan has been and will continue to be in "good faith."
But Hanrahan with all her experience as the top Ohio Office of Management and Budget administrator of Financial Planning and Supervision has not had to deal with the volatile political situation like the one currently in place in Massillon.



The Report gets the impression that she thinks that most of the problem reaching a concord lies with Massillon's council.

However, as with Gessner, yours truly sees her slowly but surely coming to a realization how dug in the mayor is on having things go her way notwithstanding the mayor's disingenuous insistence that she has bent over backwards to work with council.

Hanrahan has to be totally frustrated with the political battles taking place between the mayor and council that has made it seemingly impossible to get the two sides together on a Plan for the well being of the people of Massillon.

But if anybody can pull it off, it will be Hanrahan.

All Massillon council has to do is to leave the Plan unchanged after dropping the elected officials pay cut.

And if Yund is a man of his word, he will join the Hanrahan, Gessner and the third "yes" vote and pass the Plan 4 to 3 at the Commission's next scheduled meeting of August 3rd at 1:30 p.m. at the Massillon Chamber of Commerce conference room.

Council members should not waste their time trying to satisfy the mayor's and Campbell's multiple and confusing and undoable (timewise) objections.

If council were to change anything else in the Plan, such would only be new material for the mayor twist into a new basis for why a majority of  Commission members should reject the Plan.

Council should not be foolish enough to take the Catazaro-Perry/Campbell bait.

Catazaro-Perry is so far out there in political "la-la-land" that she actually thinks that her "behind-closed-doors" session with solitary council member Andrea Scassa was the equivalent having a successful negotiation with all of council.

Councilman Paul Manson told the SCPR yesterday that Councilwoman Scassa herself told her colleagues that what she brought to them from her one-on-one with the mayor were what she termed as being "talking points."

The Report does see Scassa as person of enormous goodwill who could be a bridge between council and the mayor except the mayor has not and yours truly thinks will never authentically reach out to council in a collaborative mode.

Manson after the meeting had this conversation with The Report:



And here is the full video of yesterday's session:


Wednesday, April 8, 2015

FUZZY PLAN CAUSES REJECTION OF MASSILLON RESTORATION PLAN!


VIDEOS

REACTING TO REJECTION

COUNCILMAN PAUL MANSON
COUNCILMAN ED LEWIS, IV

CHAIRMAN HANRAHAN'S TAKE AWAY

COMPLETE VIDEO
OF
ENTIRE MEETING

Today's blog has on the lead graphic above "mud" (source) superimposed on the SCPR group photo as an oval center in the rectangular space between four tables set up for yesterday's Massillon Financial Planning and Supervision Commission (MFP&SC, Commission) "special meeting" that had as its assignment to either accept or reject a Massillon City Council submitted Financial Restoration Plan (FRP, Plan).

Massillon's need to come up with a FRP arose, the SCPR thinks, because of a Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry politically motivated (going back to December, 2011 though elected but not yet sworn-in as mayor) insistence that Ohio state government place Massillon into fiscal emergency.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY
COMMISSION MEMBER
ELAINE CAMPBELL
She finally got her way and thereby, The Report thinks, unnecessarily humiliated Massillon government nearly two years later (October 9, 2013) when State of Ohio Auditor David Yost placed Massillon in fiscal emergency on the flimsiest of grounds, to wit:


And here is some more background so that Massillonians fully understand what the SCPR believes their mayor and her genius "Kitchen Cabinet" advisers (Johnnie A. Maier, Jr, Shane Jackson and Eddie Elum)  has put this proud city through.

From a prior blog:
As it turns out, the State uses six criteria to determine whether or not a city is in fiscal crisis.  And Massillon barely fit into one of the six on State of Ohio Auditor Steve Yost acceding to the Catazaro-Perry wish. 
The placement of Massillon in fiscal emergency is one of the key battlegrounds in which the mayor and council have battled. 
Because Massillon is in fiscal emergency, the mayor and council need to agree on a "restoration" plan or face 15% across-the-board cuts to all departments of Massillon government.
Catazaro-Perry (grudgingly) and council recently formulated a second restoration plan after the first (also agreed to after much acrimony between the mayor and council) failed in November, 2014 with the overwhelming defeat of an income tax increase among other measures.
The second council FRP formulation of March 18th of this year and submitted by the mayor on the following day to the MFP&SC lacked clarity; that is to say it was not specific enough due, in part, to clerical errors and therefore confusing.

The Commission did the right thing in voting unanimously yesterday to reject the Plan.

Taking the lead in identifying the blurriness of the Plan was Commission chairman and Massillon Cable TV president Bob Gessner.

BOB GESSNER
PRESIDENT
MASSILLON CABLE TV

The SCPR is impressed with Gessner's quick grasp of the confusion that was inherent in the joint plan (joint because the mayor "reluctantly" signed on to council's plan) documents submitted by the mayor to the Commission.

Gessner is clearly the lead assessor from among all the Commission members and appeared to be donning a statesman-like attitude in yesterday's meeting.

Being the skeptic that the SCPR is on nearly all things Catazaro-Perry, Maier, Jr., Jackson and Elum, The Report wonders whether or not the Administration has known since the 19th all about the somewhat confusing condition of the submitted documents and was content to sit back and watch council be embarrassed.

Four members of council were present at yesterday's meeting; namely, Councilpersons Manson, Halter, Lewis and Del Rio-Keller.

COUNCILPERSONS
LEWIS
MANSON
TOWNSEND
HALTER
Also present, of course, was Commission member former Ward 4 councilman Tony Townsend who The Report views as a Catazaro-Perry apologist.

And the SCPR is impressed with Commission chair Sharon Hanrahan of the State of Ohio Office of Budget and Management Commission.


She kept the meeting moving and civil and did not let it devolve into hostility towards council which The Report is told marked previous Commission meetings in varying degrees.

A major factor that could have led to yesterday's "confusion" problems may have been in large part be owing to the compressed time frame (about 10 days) that council had within which to put the second plan together.

If the SCPR understands the abbreviated timeline within which (about 10 days) council had to obtain due diligence type information from the Administration needed to analyze the mayor's plan or to put together a council's own plan, it appears understandable that errors would crop into the process.

The Administration used most of the 30 day time period allotted for the formation of a plan agreed upon by council and the mayor as a condition precedent to the MFP&SC taking the matter up on an up or down vote.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, Mayor Kathy is to blame for creating conditions that led to yesterday's rejection.

As Councilman Paul Manson said in a SCPR post-meeting interview "haste makes waste."



Manson played the role of a gentleman in not landing on the mayor for putting council "under the gun."  It was abundantly clear in council's March 11th work session that it was scrambling to cobble together its own plan which was in effect of the mayor's real property tax increase plan.


Again, being the skeptic the SCPR is prone to be of the good faith of the mayor, The Report tends to believe that the delay in providing council with critical data as being a political calculus designed to put council in a time crunch and thereby pressure council to throw up their hands in frustration and be left with no alternative but to accept the mayor's plan.

Well, council showed its mettle in not caving into the Administration generated compacted time span. But in doing so, it probably disserved itself in the public relations that seems to be part of a political game the mayor is playing on Massillon government finances.

If such is the mayor's gameplan, council is to be credited under the bipartisan leadership of Councilmen Manson (a Democrat) and Ed Lewis (a Republican) in persisting in due diligence deliberation and coming up with an alternative to the mayor's plan.

However, in allowing itself to be boxed in by the mayor timeline wise, yesterday was a PR coup for the mayor.

Yesterday's rejection is only temporary and council will fix things rather easily and quickly as articulated upon by Councilman Lewis in the following SCPR post-meeting interview.



But one can only imagine the chortling that is going on between the mayor and her political loyalists.

The Report has learned that the mayor's plan had its own defect which is interesting in view of the Administration taking the lion's share of the time available before the deadline for submitting a plan to the Commission.

The called for a property tax of 1.5 mills to be voted on in February of 2016.

The Report is told that Ohio law does not allow property taxi issues to be voted on in "special elections" and, if it did, the cost to Massillon would have been $15,000.

While $15,000 isn't a huge amount, every single dollar counts for a city said by the mayor to have been in need of being placed in fiscal emergency, no?

Chairman Hanrahan distinguished herself with her leadership of the Commission yesterday in keeping the discussion civil and in setting the time for councils' rework of its plan for Commission consideration on May 19th.


The chairman yesterday and has had over the course of Commission meetings had to walk a very fine line between the battling branches of Massillon city government.

She impressively has functioned as "quite the diplomat" and is slowly but surely inching Massillon government to a "all on the same page" solution to what the SCPR thinks from the very beginning has been nothing other than a cash flow problem.

Here is a SCPR interview on her assessment on how yesterday's meeting went.



Her bosses in Columbus should be pleased with her leadership.

The bottom line for all this with the SCPR is that as long as Catazaro-Perry is mayor and her confidant Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. is clerk of courts in Massillon, it is hard see Tigerland in any mode other than a political turmoil.

And The Report thinks that both could be around as Massillon elected officials for the forseeable future.

The political drama that the likes of Catazaro-Perry and Maier, Jr. foster is good for The Stark County Political Report but it is absolutely gut-wrenching for the good citizens of Massillon!

Here is the full video of yesterday's Massillon Financial Planning and Supervision Commission.

This video is about 55 minutes long.