SCPR ELECTION SERIES: (GOP GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES) MIKE DEWINE

The Stark County Political Report (SCPR) does not generally go to political campaign fundraisers.

But when a campaign brings in a well known, highly significant political figure into Stark County, well! that's an exception.

On Monday, the SCPR interviewed Democratic candidate for governor Joseph Schiavoni (of the Youngstown area) in a thoroughgoing fashion.  Democrats who want to be informed Democratic voters come May 8, 2018 will make sure they see this video (LINK).

And, The Report is working on getting the remaining Democratic campaigns to sit down with me to answer questions which are foremost in the minds of Stark Democrats as they make a selection between announced candidates Schiavoni, Pillich, Sutton and Whaley.

North Canton mayor David Held may be in for the run of his political life as he is being challenged by Scott Kelly.

Soon the SCPR will be sitting down with Kelly and Held for one-on-one interviews like the one already published on Plain Township trustee Scott Haws (LINK) and within the next few days one of Trustee John Sabo (interviewed on September 20th).

Moreover, for a thorough understanding of State of Ohio Issue #2, Stark Countians have a resource to be completely informed on the issue by going to this LINK and soaking in the material in the blog based on coverage of the Canton League of Women Voters (LWV) and The Repository sponsored forum on the issue.

Last night the SCPR had access to Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike DeWine who is currently the attorney general of Ohio.

While The Report would have liked to had a little more time with DeWine, it was getting late and he had a two plus hour trip ahead of him getting back to Columbus.

Readers of the SCPR likely have picked up on The Report's focus in interviews is how they view matters and will act upon if elected to the enhancement or detriment of all things Stark County.

Two of the three questions that DeWine agreed to answer were on two very important issues to Stark Countians.

First and foremost how he will deal with the financing local government funding.

Canton council president Allen Schulman should find DeWine's answer interesting because in framing the question I refer to Schulman's famous diatribe of a couple years ago on the Republicans (the Kasich and supermajority Republican Ohio General Assembly) draconian reduction in local government funding so that the state could balance its budget.

Secondly, a question on the continued viability of "land bank" funding beyond 2019 (the beginning of the term for whomever gets elected governor in November, 2018).

In Stark County, the chairman of the Stark County "Land Bank" is Stark County treasurer Alex Zumbar.  One of the essential conditions of revitalization of Stark County urban communities is the demolition or rehab of blighted properties.

 And, of course, the scope of ridding Stark County's villages, cities and townships of blighted properties is receiving federal and state dollars teamed up with local match dollars.

A Republican, Zumbar is the Stark County head of the Mike DeWine for governor campaign.  (see LINK  blog of June 29th wherein the SCPR writes about  Zumbar/Creighton joining the DeWine campaign)

If DeWine gets elected, one would expect Zumbar to parlay his influence with the governor to convince him to keep the Lank Bank movement financially alive and thriving post-2019.

The SCPR sees Zumbar's administration of the Land Bank as being highly effective but there is a long ways to go before Stark County can say that the blighted property problem is behind us.

For the job to get done, Ohio's next governor is going to have to be committed in terms of budgeting dollars and cents to the cause in Ohio's biennium budgets.

Here is the videotaped interview between the SCPR and Mike DeWine:

CONTINUING SERIES (NOVEMBER, 2018): GETTING TO "ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE"

REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE & CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL

MIKE DEWINE

DENIED OHIOANS

THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON FAIR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS IN NOVEMBER, 2017

UPDATED:  10:26 AM

It appears that Attorney General Mike DeWine is not much of a small letter "d"emocrat.

The Stark County Political Report thinks he is into foot dragging on an initiative generated early this year allows to speak through the franchise on a fairer way for Ohioans to choose congresspersons after the 2020 U.S. census becomes official.

According to the graphed-above Columbus Dispatch article, on May 4th DeWine:

... rejected it because it didn’t say challenges under the proposed constitutional amendment would be heard directly by the Ohio Supreme Court and because the summary didn’t cite the part of the Ohio Constitution under which the Supreme Court would have that jurisdiction  

Executive Director Catherine Turcer of Common Cause—Ohio, the lead in the effort under a coalition effort known as Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio said that DeWine's objections "seem very minor."

Oh yes, Mike tell us.

Ohio voters are going feel that he in doing his job as attorney general didn't protect us in not holding out for the inclusion of the Ohio Supreme Court language.

Although nearly every Stark County Republican that I talk to (e.g. Commissioner Creighton [regional chair of DeWine for Governor], Treasurer Zumbar [the county chair] and North Canton mayor David Held say that DeWine in a high quality individual on a personal basis, my take on the guy is that he wears his Republicanism on his sleeves and he knows that right now gerrymandered congressional districts favoring Republican candidates is a huge advantage in giving "organized" Republicans a 12 to 4 advantage in the United States House of Representatives.

Ohio in pretty much a 50/50 state in many statewide elections going back quite a few years.

Here and there, one political party or the other will dominate. 

Now is the Republican time. 

Eventually, "the worm will turn" in Ohio and elected legislative Democrats will try to subvert the fairness of our election districts if the Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio does not get on the ballot and pass.

If anyone doubts that "organized" Democrats are just as capable of constructing "in effect" rigged elections take a look at this piece about 2011 Maryland elections in The Atlantic:

Getting back to DeWine, I think he abused his attorney general discretion in favor of a Republican Party interest in dealing in the picayune.

His nitpicking will not prevail.  

But a consequence of DeWine's hyper technical if not constitutionally illegal approach is to delay a statewide vote on the issue until November, 2018 rather than the originally sought November, 2017.

Hopefully, Republicans in the May 8, 2018 primary election will remember DeWine being a ninny on the issue as a factor in whether or not to vote for him.

In 2015, Ohioans/Stark Countians overwhelming passed a similar measure having to do with state legislative races.

The date for correcting ballot language to DeWine's satisfaction and circulated to sign up sufficient numbers of qualifying registered voters so that the initiative could appear on this year's general election ballot was this past Wednesday, July 5th.

More and more voters are eschewing the label Republican/Democrat and donning a "non-partisan" mantle.

Too many "organized" partisans beginning with Elbridge Gerry (July 17, 1812) as Massachusetts governor signed legislation into law a measure that violated the "one person, one vote" principle of the U.S. Constitution.

The contorted district is said to have looked like a salamander and hence the Gerry action came to be known as "gerrymandering."

On July 17th, 2017, the Fair Congressional District for Ohio folks are planning a party celebrating the group's work to undo in Ohio what Gerry and his fellow political partisans started in Massachusetts in 1812.

One of the reasons why Americans are increasingly distaining partisan political alignment is evidenced by what I think is a silly but nonetheless damaging partisanship on the part of the likes of DeWine in helping those who are intent on adulterating our congressional election district configurations into being "unfair" districts.

The Common Cause-led Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio is undeterred by the DeWine set back and in a telephone discussion with initiative supporters (including myself), Director Turcer discussed the details (LINK to a recording of the event) of the process in a session which lasted a little over one hour.

This is what Turcer had to say about the signature on petitions effort to date in an e-mail sent out on Wednesday:

We have been thrilled by the level of enthusiasm we’ve seen in volunteers picking up petitions. We have thousands of volunteers spread across the state, carrying tens of thousands of petitions. A big thank you to all of you who have helped us get this far.  For only being one month into the petition signature gathering, we are way ahead of schedule. That’s a real testament to all the hard work of you, our Fair Districts volunteers.

A consequence of DeWine's delaying tactic, the collection of signatures effort should be complete about September 1st.  It could slip further into the fall if additional signatures are needed once the validation of signatures process gets under way.

In Stark County, it appears that the "organized" Stark County Democratic Party volunteers are doing the heavy lifting in circulating petitions.

In yesterday's telephone conference, Turcer shared with conferees that the 2013 Republican dominated Ohio General Assembly legislatively via Senate Bill 47, (apparently in reaction to a "overwhelmingly successful" initiative petition repealing Senate Bill 5 anti-union law by referendum of 2011) burdened future initiative petition drives with an electronic filing requirement (shortening the time frame in which signatures could be collected) which, of course, makes the process more difficult and time consuming, to wit:  (from Ballotpedia website)

Note:  Stark County Republicans Scott Oelslager (Senate, District 29), Kirk Schuring (House, District 48), and Christina Hagan (District 50) voted for the restrictive on initiative petition Senate Bill 47.

Submitting signatures

When a petition is submitted, an electronic copy must also be filed and the petition must be broken into parts that are all numbered sequentially and labeled by the county in which it was circulated. The petition must also include a summary of the parts of the petition and the signatures on each ... 

An initiative or referendum committee cannot collect additional signatures for a petition after it has been submitted, except for in a ten-day window beginning after the secretary of state notifies the committee that petition, as submitted, was insufficient and provides the required official form for additional signature collection, which must be used when collecting supplemental signatures in the ten-day window allowed. ... 

A petition that has been rejected cannot be resubmitted.  ... 

DocumentIcon.jpg See law: Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 1g, Ohio Revised Code, Title XXXV, Chapter 3519.06 and Senate Bill 47 (2013) (emphasis added)

Another indication, in the estimate of the SCPR, that these folks are not small letter "d"emocrats.

In making the process more burdensome, Ohio legislators feed the growing disenchantment that many of us have with partisan political parties and their "card-carrying" members, especially the elected officials.

However, political party negativity is offset by civic groups like Common Cause and the coalition of civic partners helping with the redistricting petition initiative.

(VIDEOS) IN EFFECT, HEALY ADMITS THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION HAS LOST CONTROL OF CANTON'S CRIME PROBLEM? CALLS IN FEDS & ATTY GENERAL DEWINE TO HELP FIX PROBLEM.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT SCHULMAN BLASTS DEWINE FOR EXCLUDING PRESS

VIDEOS

HEALY ON DEWINE VISIT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHULMAN ON DEWINE BARRING OF PRESS  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
HEALY "PUBLICLY" THANKS PRICE FOR SERVICE 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was an interesting night to say the least at Canton City Council's (Council) regular September 9, 2013 meeting.

At the very beginning of the meeting, Council president Allen Schulman recognized Mayor William J. Healy, II in a rather unusual move in terms of the usual order of a Council meeting.

The gist of Healy's comments were that a recent series of murders in Canton prompted him to contact federal and state of Ohio law enforcement officials to come to Canton to assist local officials in getting Canton's crime problem under control.

The feds say that they might come.  Ohio attorney general Michael DeWine was here yesterday to meet with Healy and a number of Canton/Stark County law enforcement types.

However, the typically "I never met a press release telling the public 'how great I am'" DeWine insisted that local media be excluded from the meeting.

 Well, Allen Schulman was upset, to say the least.



One has to wonder where Mayor Healy "really" was on the matter.

The SCPR has to believe that the mayor was all too happy to accommodate DeWine (by being "the good host") on his allowing DeWine to proceed without any public accountability as to what was discussed.

Schulman says there was absolutely nothing discussed in the meeting that was sensitive in terms of getting a grip on Canton's pervasive crime problem that the public should not have been privy to.

Undoubtedly, the Council president is right on the money.

However, there is the matter is the "airing of Canton's dirty laundry" in public and The Report is guessing that perhaps DeWine, being the politician he is and being up for reelection next year, wanted to spare the mayor the embarrassment of the press picking up on the magnitude of Canton's crime problem.

If that is the case, DeWine needs to get more familiar with Canton and Stark County.

Cantonians and Stark Countians are well aware of "how 'out-of-control' Canton's crime problem is."

And there is nothing that was said at yesterday's secret confab which would startle locals.

As if Healy did not have enough problems yesterday, his fire chief, Stephen Rich, showed up "in force" with his top fire department lieutenants and in the Public Speaks forum of Council painted an alarming picture of the how the Healy administration has let the fire and EMS personnel strength level atrophy to highly dangerous levels.

Reading between Rich's lines, were Canton to experience a conflagration or disaster necessitating resort to maximum EMS capability; the city is in "no way, shape or form" prepared to cope with either.

The mayor's answer?

Blame the state of Ohio and its draconian of local government funding beginning in 2011.

A further question.

Is the mayor's answer washing with the Canton public?

Perhaps not.

And maybe it is dawning on the mayor that with the Democratic primary being only 21 months away (May, 2015) and with the near certainty that there will be a formidable "Democratic" candidate to oppose him; time may be running out on efforts to get Canton's crime problem under control.

Yours truly, knowing how the mayor's "political" mind works, is confident that he is already focused on May, 2015 and "who to blame" as local media's headlines blare out the almost daily recounting of the reality that Canton is one of the least safe cities in all of America.

Earlier on in his tenure as mayor, Healy had high hopes of moving on from Canton to "bigger and better things."  Running for a statewide job (e.g. treasurer) or, perhaps, with the reelection of fellow Democrat Barack Obama, a Washington job.

But his administration of Canton (i.e. in addition to the crime problem; no significant economic development) has not been distinguishing for him.  Moreover, with the "constant revolving door" of leadership change, seemingly, any official who shows any backbone get pushed out the door.

Generally, in public, Healy says laudatory things about a given public official who leaves.



But privately, he has been prone to trashing them.

One may have to look to further than the departure of Warren Price. 

On August 29th, the Healy administration threw "a going away party" for Price.  But only one problem.  Warren Price did not show up at the party given to him.

The SCPR has heard two versions of what prompted Price not showing up.

One is that Healy had a discussion with one of Price's very closest of friends (unbeknownst to Healy) in which he said some pretty vile things about his former service director, chief-of-staff, annexation director and safety director.

A second account is that the night before (the 28th) the party, Healy and Price had had a heated confrontation.

And you know what, maybe both are on the mark.

So what is to be taken out of all the machinations coming out of the Healy administration?

Increasingly, it is becoming apparent to the SCPR that this administration should be known as being "the revolving door" administration.

INTERNET CAFES GOOD FOR STARK COUNTY? NOT IF YOU ASK CANTON WARD 8 COUNCILMAN EDMOND MACK

UPDATED/REVISED:  10:58 AM

Editor's note:

Gonzalez has pointed out to the SCPR that townships are not part of the revenues that are dispersed to local governments throughout Ohio.

Some counties, cities and Ohio's schools are.

Gonzalez also looks takes a perspective different from that of The Report.  He sees the discussion solely about whether or not townships will loose money.

The Report extrapolated from the issue articulated upon in the Rink report and conjectured as to whether or not he, Giavasis as compared to DeWine and Mack favored or disfavored Internet cafes.

Gonzalez does not say one way or the other if he favors or disfavors Internet cafes.

The same appears to the SCPR to apply to Giavasis.

Gonzalez says he have never talked to Giavasis about the matter.  The SCPR in using the expression "Gonzalez joined with Giavasis" was not meant to imply that the two had had a discussion.  "Joined" as in the SCPR's take of their sharing a perspective.  Language in the original blog changed to make it clear that The Report's take is a matter of opinion.

UPDATE:  09:13 AM - RESPONSE TO BLOG FROM PLAIN TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE LOUIS GIAVASIS:

Martin,

At the time Plain Township went through the process to add zoning regulations for this internet sweepstakes they were not illegal at the time we did this. These business's were opening everywhere and the state did not regulate them so we went through what I believe was the proper process to try do it ourselves. We added language to our zoning text that outlined where they would be allowed to open and not in residential zoned area's, we wanted to make sure they met safety guidelines for buildings they opened in, we submitted that language to the Stark County Regional Planning Commission, public hearings were held, our zoning commission held a hearing and so did our board of trustees. The language was approved by all three board members not just myself.  

Now as the article you mention I state in it " I think we all were surprised at the amount of revenue they generated", and yes they amount was substantial but in no manner do I condone any illegal activity or some of the other things that you mention at times happens in some of these establishments such a tax evasion and some of the other things. The reason for our regulations was to try to curtail illegal activity by making the owner's and operators register with us, license with us, and follow the all county occupancy building codes fire safety codes. The other purpose was so we could provide this information to law enforcement.  We were doing something the State Could not or would not attempt to do, regulate them and that is what I believe the legitimate owners in this industry in Ohio was asking for, regulate us, tax us, force the illegitimate operations out of business, not all of us. Now I am sure no illegal activity happens in or around Ohio four casinos's as the honorable councilman from Canton states, I think those major casino's foster other elements he mentions such as prostitution, drugs and other criminal activities. 

As that articles also mentioned the State of Ohio could not get these owners to register and provide information about the number of machines among other things, our zoning department did. The hypocritical things is that Canton City benefits financially directly from Ohio's 4 casino's as non of the Townships in Stark County get a dime from their legalization in Ohio as the revenues that come back to the local level are only shared with the Stark County General Fund and Canton I believe?  I did not read anywhere that Mr. Mack is willing or wants to introduce an Ordinance to refuse those dollars from Ohio's 4 casinos because of the criminal element. I those 4 casino's in Ohio will not create very criminal activities mentions since Ohio says they are legal to operate and Canton benefits from. The bottom line is evident and does not change the fact the Ohio Gaming Lobby successfully lobbied to get skill games parlors eliminated and while doing it the leadership in the Ohio Legislature told everyone member to return any campaign contributions they may have received from the skill game industry or business owner, but only before passing a law to eliminate them? 

The bottom line is Plain and other townships will continue to take cuts in revenues in multiple area's and will comply with whatever the State of Ohio law says, Canton will continue to profit largely from this so called legal gambling industry and everything that comes with it while no other subdivision in the county gets a nickle. It's laughable, and Hypocrisy is what it is called Martin.

Lou Giavasis

ORIGINAL BLOG

A number of Stark County government officials do not share the the view of Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Canton Councilman Edmond Mack that Internet cafes are not good for Ohio's localities.

According to Matt Rink of The Repository (Communities could lose funds if Internet cafes close, June 16, 2013), Stark County has a number of public officials, desperate for monies to fund their local governments, who do not share the DeWine/Mack viewpoint.

However, unless some kind of legal action prevents the enrolled Ohio House Bill 7 (HB 7) from becoming effective on September 4th (LINK), it appears that the end is near for the cafes in Stark County and, of course, all of Ohio.

The Stark County delegation split 50/50 on passage of the bill.

Republicans Scott Oelslager (Plain Township) and Christina Hagan (Marlboro Township) both voted for passage.  However, Republican Kirk Schuring (Jackson Township) voted against passage and thereby joined Canton Democrat Steve Slesnick in opposition.

The overall vote by the House (66 for, 29 against [LINK] and the Senate (27 for, 6 against [LINK]) was not close.

The likes of Schuring and Slesnick argued for tight regulation whereas most of the legislators constituting the majorities took a more moralistic and evangelistic approach (Christina Hagan but not likely the motivation of Schuring and Slesnick) in wanting to make it next to impossible for the cafes to operate profitably.

DeWine and Mack, in the view of the SCPR, took the appropriate tack.

For them it appears that law enforcement problems they associate with Internet cafes were persuasive that HB 7 should become the law of Ohio.  In fact, DeWine was very helpful to those opposed to the cafes' spread in terms of providing them with non-religious based support in their opposition.

The Ohio Legislative Service Commission (LSC) analyzed the bill thusly: (click on graphic to enlarge it)

Rink reported that Plain Township (to the seeming delight of Democratic Trustee Louis Giavasis) had revenue of $135,000 from licenses issued in December, 2012 and January, 2013.

Jackson Township fiscal officer and Stark Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez appears to the SCPR to have joined Giavasis in the Rink piece as being in favor of the cafes for the revenues the produce to township operations.

The only other Stark County local government entity that realized meaningful revenue was Perry Township.

The SCPR thinks the neither understands the mentality that abounds in Columbus these days with the Republican religious right (exemplified in Stark by Christina Hagan) pretty much being in charge of Ohio's legislature.

Gonzalez, in particular, the SCPR thinks, is way off the mark in his posing that the passage of HB 7 was some sort of plan to deny a source of funding for local governments.

Duh.  Doesn't a major share of state revenues from the recently authorized casinos go to local governments?  [LINK]

Giavasis is much more credible in suggesting that perhaps Ohio's casinos were a significant factor in tapping into the inclination of religiously motivated legislators to place barriers to the spread of already profligate state sponsored/enabled gambling in Ohio.

Implicit in Giavasis' point is the hypocrisy among state legislators (including some of the religious right) in giving the go ahead for certain forms of gambling which serve as a "cash cow" for the coffers of state government.

But then he loses it in saying:  “Again, Columbus is giving a knuckle sandwich to the mouth of local government.”

Apparently, he had talked to Gonzalez.

The Internet cafe industry is poised to try to get Ohio's voters to overturn the work of the Ohio General Assembly.

For them to succeed, they will have to wage a successful "urban" versus "rural" political war.

The SCPR doubts that the pro-cafes can win that battle.

For there is another side to this story that is not bound up in taxing sin (notwithstanding Gonzalez's claim in Rink's writing:

Gonzalez said the Jackson’s ordinance “wasn’t really a money grab,” but rather an attempt at regulation done through its zoning department.

Gambling costs taxpayers, pure and simple!

Not only the gamblers and their families, but communities which have gambling establishments in their midst.

Canton Councilman Edmond Mack (a leader on Canton City Council in gaining passage of a moratorium on new permits to operate within Canton, pre-effectiveness of HB 7) in response to the Rink piece articulated compelling (non-religious) arguments why the passage of HB 7 is good for Ohio and derivatively for Stark County, to wit:

Mr. Olson,

I did read the [Rink] article with great interest.  My reaction is as follows:

There can be no doubt that the Ohio General Assembly placed a huge financial burden on municipalities by substantially eliminating our local government funds.  For this reason, I respect the views articulated in the article.  However, from the City of Canton’s perspective, just because municipalities are searching for new revenue sources does not mean we should embrace questionable and illegal industries within our jurisdictional borders.

With respect to internet sweepstakes cafés, I agree with Attorney General DeWine when he remarked: "The real purpose of these sweepstakes is not to promote the sale of a product; rather it is to get people to play the electronic machines. These operators answer to no one and often rip-off their customers.”  DeWine, M., Ohio Atty. Gen., Gambling in Ohio: A Guide to What is Legal, What is Not, and What Needs to be Fixed, [LINK substituted by SCPR for Mack's long form cite]. 

Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, continued:

“What we’ve seen a lot with these Internet sweepstakes cafes is it’s a way to get around gambling laws.   The only reason people are going to these facilities and spending so much time and money is because it’s gambling. If it wasn’t gambling, it wouldn’t be popular.”  [LINK substituted by SCPR for Mack's long form cite].

However, the potential for illegal gambling is only part of the problem.  In addition to tax evasion and other financial illegalities documented by the article, with internet café arcades comes a marked increase in incidental violent crime.  As examined by The New York Times, skill game and internet café arcades are considered “magnets for crime because they usually have large sums of cash on hand.”   [LINK substituted by the SCPR for Mack's long form cite]  This results in a significant burden on our already strained police and prosecutorial services.  This is likely the reason why Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty issued a statement in support of the Ohio General Assembly’s efforts to end this illegal industry [to wit:] (click on graphic to enlarge it)

For the City of Canton, the Ohio General Assembly did the right thing by eliminating this illegal industry with the passage of HB 7.  I will not criticize this effort due to the fact that Canton can no longer tax this parasitic industry.  Canton would probably stand to financially benefit if we could tax illegal drug use or prostitution.  That does not mean that we should seek to have these indisputably destructive industries de-criminalized.  As with illegal internet sweepstakes cafés, from my perspective, the cost to Canton simply outweighs the benefit.

Edmond

Could it be that if Internet cafes were to become prolific enough in Plain, Jackson and Perry and turned out to be the source of a huge law enforcement problem, then, perhaps, maybe Giavasis and Gonzalez would not be so supportive of their spread?

Has their judgment of what is good for their respective communities been clouded by their incomplete take on the money issues?

Gaining revenues is one thing.

But ignoring the likely costs and potential attendant law enforcement problems is quite another, no?

WHY WOULD A MAN RUNNING "UNOPPOSED" HAVE A POLITICAL FUNDRAISER?

UPDATED: 12:30 P.M.

Republican David Held (mayor of North Canton) is running unopposed in the Stark County Republican bastion: North Canton (November, 2009).

So why is he holding a $40 per attendee fundraiser at The Fairways Country Club on August 25th?

And he is trotting out the "biggies" of Stark County Republic politics as indicated in the list of "host committee" members in the graphic above.

The headliners are Timmy Timken of Timken Company fame, former U.S. Senator (having been defeated by Democrat Sherrod Brown in November, 2008) and now Republican candidate for Ohio attorney general Mike DeWine.

As if the "headliners" are not enough, the Held supporters threw in the Republican "holy grail" of Stark County politics and former (now retired) Congressman Ralph Regula.

Who knows, maybe even Congressman John Boccieri (Democrat - Alliance) will show up for this one?

John honors Ralph at every turn as a subtle way to entice 16th congressional district Republicans to "not really go after him" (ask Kirk Schuring about this one) come election time. Moreover, Boccieri has reason to show the "unopposed" Held some support. After all, Held was there for John when he announced for Congress at Bitzer Park about a year out from the 08 election.

But that might not play too well with Stark Democrats?

Why is that?

Well, maybe just maybe this fundraiser is designed to enrich the campaign coffers of Held so that he can take on one of the Democrat bigs in Stark county come next year.

Held has to find something to do. He may be tiring as the chief executive at the Stark-Wayne-Tuscarawas Sold Waste District especially since the inside political scuttlebutt is that Stark is looking for ways to get out of the district. David did take a serious look at applying for being the new CEO and superintendent of Stark MRDD but found out that he is defined out by the perequisites of the office.

Also, the SCPR is reminded that Held applied to be president of Malone College in 2006. So he is clearly an ambitious guy.

So there has to be some Held planning going on. No?

One has to wonder what role Mount Union professor Jack DeSario is playing in Held political future planning.

Readers will recall that DeSario's name keeps popping up in the campaigns of local politicians: e.g. Richard Regula (the former congressman's son) at the request of the congressman himself, former North Canton mayor Thomas Rice and Canton mayor Jamie Healy and, of course, Held himself.

The interesting thing about DeSario, (trained as a lawyer but, at last SCPR check, not registered with Ohio as a active practiioner) and who teaches political science at Mount Union College who moonlights as a political consultant, is the questions he seems to bring to the campaigns he is associated with.

David Held has a special relationship with DeSario. He has lived nest to DeSario for a number of years. So it is so, so easy and "natural?" that DeSario would be in the middle of his future political plans.

But what are Held's plans?

Well, there are Stark County commissioner Todd Bosley and Stark County auditor Kim Perez, both Democrats, who are up for re-election come November, 2010.

And there is big time pressure on Stark County Republican chairman Jeff Matthews to begin turning around the fortunes of the Stark County Republican Party countywide. His predecessor Curt Braden wrecked the Stark Republican organization. If Matthews does score a win soon, then he will become co-owner (with Braden) of the debacle that is occurring at 2727 Fulton Drive, NW.

So is Held being prepared to make a run at one of these offices?

Bosley has worked hard to cultivate a friendly relationship with Held. Though Bosley is one of the most intense politicians in Stark County that will dig out political dirt on an opponent who everyone else thinks is "squeaky clean" as part of his standard operating procedure in running for public office, he seems preoccupied with who the Republicans will put up against him in 2010.

It could be that Bosley is worrying about the effect his participation in imposing the .5 sales tax will have on his re-election effort especially if the Tom Marcelli led effort to get a repeal of the tax on the November, 2009 ballot and the tax gets repealed.

If this saga plays out, Bosley could be vulnerable.

Perez?

He just wins. The SCPR has a hard time figuring this one out. But it could be that the Braden/Matthews led Republicans send the politically uninitiated (Luther and Fallot) after him.

Would Held be any better?

Not in the opinion of the SCPR.

Stark County at-large is not North Canton and you can be sure that Perez will repeat what he did (probably better than any other Stark Democrat) to Luther and Fallot in the urban parts of the county (Alliance, Canton and Massillon): GOTV in solidly Democratic precincts. The SCPR believes that if Democrats running for countywide office focus thusly, it is virtually impossible for a Republican to win.

It is desperation time for Stark Republicans. Even in the face of a number of Democrat officeholders (Zeigler, Healy, Ferguson and Harmon) trying to self-destruct.

So it could be that the star-studded Republican line up for David Held is a prelude to a attempt by the Stark County Republican Party to come back to life.

A reinvigorated, highly competitive Stark County Republican Party is critical if Stark County is ever going to dig itself out out the mess it finds itself today.

Republican one-party-rule over about 16 years put Ohio in a deep economic hole and the hole has only gotten deeper with the recession now going on.

Democrats have done the same to Stark.

With the likes of "teabaggers" Matthews and his operative Jason Wise running for Stark Republicans, it is hard to be optimistic that the local GOP is going to revivify any time soon.