(VIDEO) EVALUATING SCHURING'S BILL TO BRING FUNDING RELIEF TO OHIO'S LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

 VIDEO

Canton Council President Allen Schulman

Responds 

to

Representative Kirk Schuring

Representative Stephen Slesnick

Showing Up

at

Canton City Council

 

Remember misbehaving in elementary school and made by the teacher to go up to the blackboard (or pulling out a piece of lined paper) and writing a resolution 100 times over not to repeat your mistake?

Well, as far as most Stark County local government officials are concerned,  our local legislators (at least on the Republican side of the isle) have been misbehavin' and the officials have been all over them to promise to stop misbehavin' and, in fact, to promise to make atones for their misbehavin'.

Misbehavin'?

Yes.

State Representative Kirk Schuring (and his fellows in the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly) have not been looking after the well-being of local government funding of Stark's villages, cities, and townships in the process and wake of the State of Ohio making massive cuts (about 62.% down from pre-cut 2011 levels) in its funding of the locals.

Only Schuring (Republican - Jackson Township - the 48th House District) among the Republican members of the Stark County delegation has paid any attention whatsoever to the admonitions.

He has made an itsy-bitsy (and probably ineffective, over the long term) move towards solving the problem as promised last Thursday to a few Canton City Council members and Healy administration officials.

He promised he would work to soften the damage done to local government funding by the Republican supermajority dominated Ohio General Assembly (OGA).

Schuring introduced House Bill 115 (HB 115) yesterday as a first act on his promise, to wit:

To enact section 126.33 of the Revised Code to create the Local Government Bridge Fund [funded at $200 million] for the purpose of providing grants to local governments up to the reduced amount of funds the government received in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 from the Local Government Fund to assist in the implementation of efficiency and cost-saving measures, and to make an appropriation.

 Why is Jacksonian Schuring involved in Canton?

Canton's representative (Democrat Stephen Slesnick) is powerless to do anything about the severe financial crisis that his hometown is in the midst of.

The most effective person for Canton in terms of catching the ear of Schuring has been Canton City Council president Allen Schulman.

The SCPR has published a number of blogs (several with videos) with Schulman (a Democrat, by the way; probably even a "liberal" Democrat) raising "holy Hell" with the Stark County delegation (four Republicans [if you count Marilyn Slaby who represents the western 20% or so of the county] and one Democrat) to the OGA for allowing local governments to be ravaged by the State of Ohio.

Schulman was at his finest on Tuesday night.



It is rather shocking that the state may well have a $2.5 billion surplus by June 30, 2013 and having gotten there in part by erasing 62.5% of Ohio's contribution to local government financing.

Schulman says that the total bill for the 2011 level of support provided by the State of Ohio was $575 million.

Hmm?  $575 million contrasted to a possible $2.5 billion surplus.  What?  About 23% or so.  It can't be about the state needing the money, right?

Ohio got into local government financial assistance in 1935 with the passage of a sales tax (in constitutional amendment form) in 1934, 40% of which was returned to local governments.

(Here is a LINK to and Cleveland Plain Dealer article which provides some history of the origin and evolution of Ohio's local government funding).

Locals including Schulman are crying "foul" in the face of Republican Governor John Kasich's initiated cuts in the 2012/2013 fiscal biennium budget.

Here is the governor's response through spokesman Rob Nichols (March, 2011):

I don't think there is any way you can compare 2011 with 1935. I think many people have broken that promise over the last 70 or 80 years, We recognize that we are working within an $8 billion budget hole, and there is less money to go around, making it increasingly important that local governments embrace the reforms and tools we give them to cut costs.

The SCPR's take on Schuring's bill is that it is like an individual or family going to Goodwill, the Salvation Army, the Veterans Service Commission for emergency relief.

What it is not is a "foot in the door" towards getting back to the good old days of lots and lots of assistance from the State of Ohio.

An example of what the new reality is:

The Canton-Stark County Crime Lab (C-SCCL) is funded by 9% of the total Stark County political subdivision take from Ohio's Local Government Fund.

In 2007 that was about $1.5 million

Where is it now?

How about $750,000?

Consequently, the C-SCCL is on life support and in danger of dying.

The SCPR gives Representative Schuring an "A" for effort but his HB 115 one has to think is not going to cut it with local officials.

Schuring's current effort is a second gargantuan task he has taken on.

Back in 2007, when he was on the cusp of running for Congress (long time Republican congressman Ralph Regula was retiring), he took on pushing an constitutional amendment initiative that he said would solve Ohio's chronic public school funding problem.

Here is a LINK to an Alliance Review article which summarizes the effort.

As far as the SCPR was concerned, Schuring's education initiative was a congressional campaign gambit designed to get him loads of free media ink and which had no possibility whatsoever of getting by a Democratic governor's (Strickland) veto even if it got through the Ohio General Assembly.

HB 115 is not a political gambit.

It appears to the SCPR to be desperation move by OGA Republicans (apparently, Schuring has become the "designated hitter" to see if he can hit a home run for the Grand Old Party) to reduce the heat they are taking from Republican and Democratic local government officials across the entire state.

Moreover, it appears to be in line with Republican ideology to cut government to an absolute minimum.

The main problem with this concept is that while many will agree with the Republican way of thinking in theory, when my street does not get repaved, my fire department's station gets closed, my neighborhood gets reduced policing, well!, that's a different matter altogether!!

Then, no!!!  Government should not be cut.

Looking at HB 115 and its core provisions, it requires that applicants:

• Show evidence that their upcoming GRF budget will have a deficit due to the state’s reduction in local government funding.

• Show evidence that without the bridge funding, the local government will have to curtail direct services that the local government provides to its citizens.

• The local government must also show evidence that the growth in its budget has been proportional to its growth in population over the last ten years. If the growth in the local government’s GRF budget is greater than the growth of its population, the local government must state the reasons for the disproportional growth in their budget.

• The local government shall provide a two-year plan for developing and implementing more efficiencies and cost saving measures to balance their budget and identify opportunities to collaborate with other local governments to share services and reduce costs.  The plan shall show how the bridge funds will sustain direct services until the cost saving measures are executed.

• If the local government encounters any statutory restrictions that would impede the implementation of what they are planning, they should submit the plan as if there were not any statutory restrictions and cite in their plan the legislative action that would be necessary for their plan to be implemented.

• The local government can request bridge funding for an amount up to the total reduction they experienced in state local government funding. The amount available will be the difference in the funds they received from the state between FY11 and FY12 and FY11 and FY13.

Because Schuring's bill is in line with Republican ideology, it may well get passed.

But it seems that it will do little to cope with the actual problem of deficient local government funding at a level to meet expectations of citizens to have local governments in a financial position to meet their demands for day-in, day-out services.

But he has kept his promise to do something in the way of helping, hasn't he?

(VIDEO) COMMISSIONER FERGUSON & NORTH CANTON MAYOR DAVID HELD COLLABORATING ON VETERANS HOME FOR THE DOGWOOD CITY. COULD MEAN THAT FERGUSON WILL BE RUNNING FOR SECOND TERM AS COUNTY COMMISSIONER.

 

At yesterday's work session of the Stark County Commissioners, Commissioner Ferguson shared with fellow commissioners Janet Creighton and Tom Bernabei the results of a meeting he had in Columbus last Thursday with Director Moe of the Ohio Veteran Services Commission, Mayor David Held of North Canton, state Representative Kirk Schuring (R-Jackson, the 51st) and state Representative Christina Hagan (R-Marlboro, the 50th) to explore the prospects for getting a veterans home located in Stark County.

The effort is an outgrowth of a letter generated out of the Cuyahoga County Veterans Service Commission which fell into the hands of Commissioner Ferguson.

As Commissioner Ferguson explains in the accompanying video, if the project is realized (and Representative Schuring says (to Mayor Held) that - if it happens - it will be at least three years in the making), then North Canton or wherever the home is eventually located could get up to 200 jobs.

The political significance of the timeline is that Commissioner Ferguson's term expires on December 31, 2012.  As readers of the SCPR know, doing something for military veterans has been a consuming passion with Ferguson.  The Report can't imagine that he would not want to remain to see this project through to the end.

Ferguson has worked hard disassociate himself from what fellow commissioner Janet Creighton has termed as being the "good old boys network" of the Stark County Democratic Party.  Should he seek re-election, which The Report believes he will, only then will Stark Countians know the full impact of the Frustaci scandal.

No Democratic official had any involvement whatsoever in former Stark Treasury Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci theft of at least $2.46 million (some believe to have been $2.96 million) in Stark County taxpayer money.  However, there may be a public perception that certain public officials (e.g. Kim Perez, Todd Bosley, Steve Meeks) did not exercise enough oversight to see to it that the possibility of a theft of public funds be eliminated.

Perez (for auditor), Bosley (for state representative) and Meeks (for county commissioner)  (thought by many to part of a Democratic officials "good old boy network") were soundly defeated in November, 2010 and one has to wonder whether or not a negative public perception as set forth above played a part in the outcome.  Bosley may have caught a double whammy because of his participation in imposing a 0.5 sales tax increase on Stark Countians in December, 2008.

Ferguson has been commissioner since January, 2008.  He was a member of the board that removed Gary Zeigler as county treasurer - August, 2010) under permissive authority of the Ohio Revised Code for the mere fact money was missing from the treasury even though Zeigler was completely exonerated of any involvement by county and federal prosecutors.  So his success or failure in 2012's election might well be dependent on whether or not in the public mind he was  part of the network as expounded upon above.

Here is the video of Commissioner Ferguson and Mayor Held speaking about the prospects of a veterans home for Stark County and specifically for North Canton.

APPARENTLY, REP. SCHURING (R-JACKSON) GETS NO RESPECT IN COLUMBUS? STARK COUNTY SUFFERS!

For many Stark Countians, they "can wait until the cows come home" before state Representative J. Kirk Schuring delivers on any promises of getting legislative action done for them.

It's not that Schuring does not try.  It appears however that he has so little regard of his fellows in the Ohio General Assembly (OGA - including his stint in the Senate) that despite being in the body (OGA) for over 16 years, he has relatively little to show for himself.

His "really big splash" in his legislative career which started in 1995 was in 2008 as he prepared to run against the state Senator John Boccieri for the 16th District congressional seat that, as a state senator himself, he tried to persuade his fellow legislators to place a constitutional provision (supposedly to fix or go a long ways towards fixing the unconstitutional funding of Ohio schools as found by the Ohio Supreme Court in the DeRolfe case).

At the time, the SCPR said it had absolutely no chance to go anywhere even if the OGA embraced it as one of John Boccieri's best political friends was none other than Governor Ted Strickland.  So, as for much of Kirk Schuring's legislative career, the effort was "political posturing, pure and simple."

On more mundane legislative matters (almost of the housekeeping variety) a oft used refrain that Schuring's constituents was likely to hear on their requests that he get legislation passed was:  "I'm working on it."

The SCPR has been a victim of Schuring in this regard.  The Report requested that Schuring get the OGA to amend campaign finance law to require local candidates to report the vocation/employer of contributors of more than $100.  Currently, only those deemed to be statewide candidates are required to do so.  The "local" exemption allows big local fundraisers like Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II to go out and get plenty of the $100 plus contributions and the public has no idea - in most instances - who these contributors are.

Well, after an initial flurry of activity and reports of rosy expectations, Schuring produced absolutely nothing.  At the time, yours truly was a constituent of Schuring because he was in the Senate.  Now that he no longer represents, forget it Martin!  Is that it?

The Report is not alone.  In doing the work of the SCPR, yours truly has heard many of Schuring's constituents (both in and out of government) say "well, you know, I asked Senator/Representative Schuring to get - such and such - passed and he tells me:  'I'm working on it.'"

On March 23rd of this year, the Stark County commissioners invited the Stark County legislative delegation into discuss working on ridding the county of "unfunded" mandates that seemed to be those that for the most part made no sense on being part of the Ohio Revised Code.

Representative Schuring took the lead on the request (the list compiled and articulated upon by Stark Court of Common Pleas Judge Tayrn Heath) and supposedly went to work on the list of 22 items).

A couple of weeks ago, The Report checked with county commissioners and Judge Heath and guess how many items on the list were taken care of?  One!

The Report contacted Representative Schuring and guess, just guess what he told yours truly?

You've got it!   He said "I'm working on it."

The SCPR has the list in hand and this is notice to Representative Schuring that someone is watching as to whether or not he gets this list taken care of.

The Stark County Political Report will not give him a pass.

Another person worth watching on this matter is Stark County Commissioner Janet Creighton.

So far in to her term as commissioner (almost six months now), she has impressed The Report that when she asks for things to get done she keeps track of her requests and publicly holds "the doer/doers" accountable.

The question is:  will she do so with Representative Schuring?

Here is a list of bills which Representative Schuring has sponsored in this legislative term.  They are all languishing in committee except for one which seems to be moving, to wit:  getting a license plate design for the Massillon Tigers.  Wow!

(VIDEO) REP. SCHURING (R-51ST) TALKS ABOUT LOCAL GOV'T: CONTROL OF OIL & GAS DRILLING AT LOCAL LEVEL & COMING STATE BUDGET CUTS/ESTATE TAX ELIMINATION

It was the SCPR's good fortune to get an interview with Representative J. Kirk Schuring (R - 51st House District) at last night's meeting in Plain Township (sponsored by Trustee Louis Giavasis, Schuring and WHBC's Ron Ponder - Points to Ponder.

A couple of important points made by Representative Schuring: (be sure to see the video at the end of this blog)

• Local control of oil and natural gas exploration is gone forever.
• It's too early to tell the degree to which the state of Ohio is going to make local government funding cuts.

His first point has to be a disappointment to the likes of Councilwoman Mary Cirelli of Canton, Trustee Louis Giavasis of Plain Township and citizen activist Christine Borello (Concerned Citizens of Stark County).  

Cirelli, Giavasis and Borello have been leading Stark County proponents of local government measures to slow, if not stop, oil and gas exploration which involves a new emerging process known as horizontal fracking.  Horizontal fracking is used to get to deep natural gas deposits trapped in rock thousands (about 8,000 in the case of the Marcellus shale) and involves high pressure injection of sand and chemicals along a horizontal corridor of varying lengths which takes off at the end of a vertical drill.

Cirelli is trying to get Canton law director Joe Martuccio to come up with legislation to control drilling in Canton.  Giavasis has a proposal (currently tabled) for Plain Township on tap.

The Report believes that Schuring has it right (in political terms) that Ohio localities will never again have control of oil and gas exploration.  

Moreover, the SCPR believes that in an ironical sort of way, Ohio Republican legislators and executives (i.e. the governor and his department heads:  who have a strong bias for local government) will be the handmaidens of taking away much of local citizens' control over their lives.

One would expect centralized planning and control of many Democratic leadership, but Republicans?

On another front, Schuring and his fellows in the Ohio General Assembly have a huge problem in justifying and implementing (via legislation on the Fiscal Year 2012-13 state budget) what the SCPR believes will be huge cuts in state funding of local government.

What this means to local government officials (trustees, city/village councilpersons and mayors) is that they will have to make commensurate cuts in local government services and thereby be the recipients of the ire of their friends and neighbors whom they rub shoulders with day-in and day-out.

Alternatively, they are faced with the prospect of recommending increase in local taxes.

Ohio is 9th of the 50 states in terms of being the highest taxed at the local government level.

Here is Representative Schuring speaking about local government "non-control" of oil and gas exploration and what the future may hold for local government funding.