GROGAN IS BRINGING ANOTHER CONTROVERSY TO CANAL FULTON?

Several months ago Mayor John Grogan was involved in a controversy about a bar fight in one of Canal Fulton's bars.  Questions arose about how the Canal Fulton police investigated the matter and the decision making process"not to prosecute" Grogan was made by the Massillon Law Department.

Next chapter.

Probably the last thing most citizens of Canal Fulton want to happen is for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to "getting on their back."  But sources tell the SCPR that the ACLU may be in the process of packing its bags and coming to Canal Fulton.

Why is that?

Because there is a heated election going on in Canal Fulton.  There are four seats up on Canal Fulton City Council this November and a group nominated "the slate of four" by the SCPR is running to unseat incumbents Cihon, Deans, Downings, and Zahirsky.

There are a total of six candidates running for the seats.  The SCPR has endorsed the "slate of four" and non group member Susan Mayberry.

It seems as if Council Loesch (as he reportedly stated at Council meeting this week) had a couple of complaints about the 4 foot by 6 foot signs planted throughout Canal Fulton by Messers Bagocious, Buwala, Gabbard and Mouse (the members of "the slate of four").

The question to Councilman Losch:  Do these signs comply with Canal Fulton sign regulations.

Hmm?  Mayor Grogan apparently says to himself, being a person who likely wants to keeps Council just the way it is, "manna from heaven!"

So he sends his zoning inspector out to check the signs.

The SCPR send Mayor Grogan an e-mail asking about the reported "sending out the zoning inspector" initiative, but Grogan is not answering.

Finding of the zoning inspector?

The sign dimensions do not comply with zoning standards.

So, what to do?

If Grogan et al order the signs taken down, then - for sure, such would be s clear invitation to the ACLU "coming to town."

Hmm?  Grogan and friends must has counseled among themselves:  how can we deal with this and, perhaps, achieve the objective of getting the signs down?

Someone from among the City Hallers likely pipes up.  "Eureka!  I've got it."  "Let's send a letter to each and every property owner telling him/her that the signs are not in compliance - but leave it at that. If we take no offcial action, then what is there for the ACLU - if they come - to do?"

More and more Canal Fulton City Hall is looking like Canton City Hall.  Political machinations and manipulations galore.  All while the city is struggling to survive tough economic times.

Grogan and his incumbent friends on Council likely have outsmarted themselves on this one.  They seem bent on putting their citizens smack dab in the middle of a turmoil that does not reflect positively on Canal Fulton.

H1N1 is spreading these days.

And so, too, is politics for politics sake among Stark's communities as November 3rd approaches.

In the case of Canal Fulton, city officials may be inviting a guest into the "canal boat city" who will be staying for longer that it takes for a ride on the St. Helena?

HMM? CANAL FULTON POLICE INVESTIGATE INCIDENT INVOLVING MAYOR. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA?

The SCPR knows of at least one Canal Fulton resident who does not think is was appropriate for the Canal Fulton Police Department to investigate an incident involving Canal Fulton mayor John C. Grogan on August 8, 2009.

Here is an outline of the basic facts redacted from the Canal Fulton Police Department report of the incident:

See a copy of the entire police report below.

It is interesting to note that Officer Buhecker and his supervisor Officer Swartz were aware from the get-go that they had a "political hot-potato" on their hands.

As soon as Buhecker figures out that Mayor Grogan is somehow involved in the incident, he calls Swartz and on the way to the scene Swartz calls Chief David Frisone.

No reference at all in the police report as to whether or not Canal Fulton police should be investigating this matter, but there is a heavy implication the thought of conflict-in-interes entered Buhecker's and Swartz's mind because of their contacting the next higher level.

In the opinion of the SCPR, as soon as the Canal Fulton Police Department knew that the mayor was part of the investigation, they should have backed off and called in an alternative policing authority to do the investigation.

And why (?) didn't Grogan, in his capacity as mayor, say: "You know what, the Canal Fulton Police Department investigating the mayor's involvement in an alleged Ohio criminal code violation is not a good idea. Please bring in an outside policing authority to do this work."

What's more is that Grogan is a lieutenant in the Summit County sheriff's department (corrections) which the SCPR believes is an additional basis, in terms of an additional perspective, for him to have suggested outside policing on this incident.

The SCPR did pass this situation by a Stark County based police figure who didn't have the problem that yours truly and the Canal Fulton resident (referenced above) do with Canal Fulton police investigating this incident.

The SCPR's opinion is based on the following reasoning:

Given the lines of authority connections between the police department and the mayor, any decision to prosecute or not is going to be questioned. Such a state of affairs is not fair to anyone: not the public and its confidence in the police department's objectivity and its ability to identify and remove itself from obvious conflict-in-interest situations nor the subjects of the investigation itself.

In the end, the judgment that matters is that of the Canal Fulton community.

So to that end, the SCPR provides the entire police department for your review. What do you think? Did the police make the correct assessments? Did the prosecutor?

Here are the pertinent documents in their entirety for you to review in making your judgment.Grogan Police Report Docs Grogan Prosecutor Conclusion