PART I - SCPR MULTI-PART BLOG - TOM BERNABEI: WHY HE IS RUNNING FOR MAYOR OF CANTON, IN HIS OWN WORDS WITH SCPR COMMENTARY

VIDEOS

COMMISSIONER JANET CREIGHTON

CELEBRATES

BERNABEI FILING FOR MAYOR

====================

COMMISSIONER BERNABEI
ON MONDAY
WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS FILING

As everybody who follows Stark County political subdivision government and politics knows, Democratic (when elected/re-elected as commissioner in 2010 and 2014 ) Stark County Commissioner Tom Bernabei - as initially reported "exclusively" by The Stark County Political Report  - filed on May 4, 2015

• the day before sitting mayor William J. Healy, II defeated Canton treasurer Kim Perez for the Democratic nomination for mayor in the November 3, 2015 general election   

to run as an "independent" for the mayorship of Canton.

Though the SCPR did capture Commissioner Bernabei speaking to the matter, he would not even say at the time that he would or would not be filing out of deference to the Democratic primary to select a Democratic Party nominee.

He did not want his plans one way or the other to affect the outcome of the Healy/Perez match up.



But there is thinking that once word got out that over the days preceding Monday's filing deadline for "independent" that he was collecting "put me on the ballot" signatures, there was an effect and it inured to the benefit of Mayor Healy in that voters who might have otherwise voted for Treasurer Perez opted instead to vote for Healy in anticipation of a Healy/Bernabei face-off.

Nobody in Stark County was more pleased with the Bernabei filing that fellow Republican Commissioner Janet Creighton.

As readers of the SCPR know, the home-base of The Report's blogging has been the regular Wednesday, 1:30 p.m. weekly meeting of the Stark County Board of Commissioners.

Unfortunately, the SCPR camera was not yet turned on when on entering the commissioners' meeting room on the second floor of the Stark County Office Building to record Commissioner Creighton "dancing and singing" rejoicing over the news of Bernabei's filing.

However, the SCPR did record a discussion among Commissioner Creighton, fellow Republican Commissioner Richard Regula and Bernabei himself over Creighton's ebullience.



As promised on Monday after his "non-committal" video with The Report, Candidate Commissioner Bernabei sat down with yours truly for about 45 minutes after Wednesday's regular weekly commissioners' meeting.

What will follow over the next several days is a multi-part series on this stunning City of Canton political development with "Bernabei in his own words," SCPR commentary thereon and reaction from Stark County based political/governmental figures and from members of the Canton electorate.

Coming tomorrow, Part Two - THE CREIGHTON FACTOR

STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: "A MIXED BAG" ON THEIR HANDLING HANDLING NEXUS PIPELINE "SUPPORT" REQUEST

CREIGHTON & REGULA 

HAVE PREMATURELY DECIDED?

 (SEE CORN'S REACTION)

Updated:  5:15 AM

The big problem that exists between the Nexus gas transmission group (NGT, a partnership of Spectra Energy and DTE Energy is a communication problem, plain and simple.

WHAT CORN HAS TO SAY



WHAT NGT HAS TO SAY



Back on February 11, the COalition to Re-route Nexus showed up at a Stark County commissioners meeting and asked for an opportunity to meet with the commissioners for the purpose of persuading the commissioners to support CORN's effort to convince the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to condition approval of Nexus to NGT agreeing to and accepting an alternative pathway.

The commissioners agreed to do so and set this past Tuesday, February 24th at 10:00 a.m. for CORN to come in.  Mondays and Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. have been set aside for use as "work sessions" which serve as a vehicle for the commissioners to learn about concerns such as CORN's.

And they invited the folks from NGT, who surprisingly enough showed up.

Before Tom Bernabei and Janet Creighton became commissioners (first elected in November 2010), there was no such thing as regularly provided for work session time slots.

NGT's plan includes traversing Stark County's Lake, Marlboro, Nimishillen and Washington townships (on a line that runs about half way between State Street and Midway Street in Lake).   

CORN's general approach (unrefined as of now) is to relocate Nexus south of U.S. Route 30 in Stark County taking up some 30 miles of more rural land as compared to NGT's more populated route.

It was interesting that Commissioner Bernabei picked up on the communication problem.



While he was perceptive about what the real problem is between CORN and NGT, he should have - in the view of the SCPR - pushed NGT harder on getting NGT to commit to resolving the communication problem which The Report believes is solely attributable to NGT.

At the end of the session, yours truly tried to engage John Sheridan, the spokesperson for the NGT point of view as to why talking direct to CORN was a problem.



But as seen in the video, he was having none of it.

Here is a series of shorter videos on various matters that came up in the "indirect" discussion.

The complete video appears at the end of this blog.

WHO ARE THE PLAYERS?

NGT (SPECTRA ENERGY & DTE ENERGY)



CORN



LOCATION OF THE PIPELINE

NGT



CORN



SAFETY OF THE PIPELINE

NGT



CORN



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

NGT



CORN



So who was persuasive with the commissioners?

Well, insofar as Commissioners Creighton and Regula (both Republicans) are concerned, apparently NGT.



And here is CORN's reaction (asked for by the SCPR in an e-mail) to what CORN spokesman Paul Gierosky says in essence (the SCPR agrees) is a premature decision by Creighton and Regula.

OUR REACTION

The Repository wrote "Commissioners Janet Weir Creighton and Richard Regula have said they aren’t inclined to support the NEXUS re-route plan. Commissioner Tom Bernabei said he hadn’t reached a decision."

It sounds like you elicited a more definite response. But pressed to say something what is a person’s natural reaction? Personally, I was not surprised nor deterred by the statements in CR. The Commissioners have very little information, so far, on which to base their decision. Which CORN re-route plan are they not inclined to support? We have not proposed a definite plan. Are they saying they are not inclined to support any re-route plan? Or, are they saying they will only support a re-route that takes Nexus out of Stark County altogether? I don't know. We certainly would like their input.

I understood Commissioner Creighton mentioned in the meeting that from the statistics we shared the burden was being shifted to Stark County. However, the statistics do not support that. The number of structures within 1500’ on either side of the pipeline on the current Nexus route is 1052. On our preliminary alternate re-route that number drops to 488. This is a clear improvement. Is she not inclined to support a route with a clear improvement to the safety of the public? I don’t know the answer because we did not get a chance to ask.

The current Nexus route passes through 28 acres of wetlands in Stark County. Our alternate re-route passes through none. Are the Commissioners not inclined to support and defend the integrity of our wetlands environment? We have not had a chance to get into those details either, yet.

I thought her statement that inferred the Nexus pipeline was a burden on Stark County did convey something about her opinion.

We view this as a process. It is our responsibility to inform, educate and persuade the Commissioners to support our re-route proposal which avoids the heavily populated and faster growing counties in Ohio, for a more southerly, less populated and safer route.

We started this process in this manner in Medina County in mid-December it took 7 weeks, 20 different residents speaking out many at several meetings, multiple one-on-one meetings to build a personal relationship and countless emails providing information to build and support our case.

To expect anything less in Stark County would be unreasonable.

We will be submitting a re-route alternative to Nexus and the Commission (FERC) in the next 2-3 weeks. We would like the Stark County Commissioners input to, involvement with and support of what we believe is a sensible proposal.

What is disappointing about Creighton and Regula is that they are giving no reasons for their positions.

Bernabei (a Democrat) is much more impressive.

He is thinking about it.

And he thinks he needs to comment on his decision when he arrives at one.

Whether one agrees with CORN or not, the work they are putting into their fight for a re-route is impressive and shame on Creighton and Regula for apparently deciding negatively on the request without the courtesy of offering reasons why.

This is the sort of thing that helps erode individual citizens confidence in their government that they are "really" heard and undoubtedly have to question whether or not they are respected when seeming arbitrary decisions are made.

As pointed out in the SCPR's first blog on Nexus, both Spectra Energy and DTE Energy have strong lobbying groups in Washington and Columbus.

CORN only has motivated and energized  everyday citizens.

The SCPR is impressed with CORN and encourages them to continue the fight.

Their effort is responsible citizenship at its finest!

Here is the full video of Tuesday.

STATEWIDE DEMS ADMIT THEY ARE ON THE CUSP OF A WIPEOUT; CAN GEORGE MAIER SURVIVE THE ONSLAUGHT?

VIDEOS

COMMISSIONER THOMAS BERNABEI

ENDORSES

MAIER

COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA

SAYS HE'S NEUTRAL

COMMISSIONER JANET CREIGHTON

SAYS SHE ONLY CARES

ABOUT

HERSELF & JOHN KASICH

Recent Ohio political news indicates that the Democrats have given up on the November 4th election.

It is looking more and more like Republican John Kasich's margin of victory will challenge George Voinovich's resounding defeat of Democrat Rob Burch back in 1994.

Two days ago, the SCPR got this email (extract):

Martin,

Democrats are just two points away from a complete wipeout.

That's what a Quinnipiac pollster announced today. But he also said something else -- that nearly half of Ohioans don't know enough about what's at stake in this election and that a quarter of the people supporting the current governor are likely to change their minds.
...

Melissa Klide Hedden
Finance Chair

And a few days ago, this from the Cleveland Plain Dealer "online" edition:

One might think that these headlines spells doom for the candidacy of Stark County Democratic Party appointed sheriff George T. Maier.

But not necessarily.

George's brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr survived the 1994 candidacy of Burch (losing 72% to 24% to Republican Voinovich) and, in fact, pretty much reversed the percentages (66% to 34% [rounded off] in his reelection bid to the Ohio House of Representatives.

Twenty years later, is Stark County political history about to repeat itself?

Not likely, because a number of things have changed.

First, the 56th Ohio House District is not the equivalent of Stark County as a whole.  Junior had the Democratic stronghold of Massillon in his district.

While the SCPR thinks that Stark County leans Democratic (especially in presidential years); the county is pretty evenly divided in terms of the chances of a Republican or a Democrat being elected.

Second, the Maier name in terms of political oomph, even is Massillon, is not what it used to be when Johnnie got the family enmeshed in local politics.

At one time, the SCPR thought Johnnie was an up and coming, democratic-republican system enhancing public official.

But no more.

Beginning in 2002, yours truly has gotten an "up close and personal look" at Johnnie and in seeing all of his political warts, The Report now sees him and his sidekick Stark County Dems' political director Shane Jackson as being Stark's foremost political bullies.

And it seems that more and more Stark Countians are taking on the SCPR's view of this former chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.

From what The Report has experienced of George since he became the Stark County Democratic Party appointee as sheriff, it appears that he is also a "you can agree with me or you can be wrong" sort of guy.

He exudes arrogance.

Exactly what one wants in a law enforcement officer, no?

While The Report does not think George, in his race for sheriff against Republican Larry Dordea, can match Johnnie's 1994 feat; he just might show like - "a Salmon swimming up stream against a rushing current" in the species' annual trek to the spawning grounds - that he can withstand the Ed FitzGerald generated political Tsunami that is about to engulf Ohio and Stark County.

A Maier survival seems plausible in light of what the SCPR views as a Dordea "patty cakes" campaign approach and the apparent unwillingness of a key Stark County Republican (Creighton) to go "all out for Larry."

Maier received a boost on Wednesday from Stark County Commissioner Thomas Bernabei who, in a press conference (question posed by an Akron Beacon Journal reporter) at the end of the regular weekly meeting of the commissioners, endorsed George.



Richard Regula (a Republican, and son of former long time 16th District Congressman Ralph Regula, now retired) repeated his "I am going to be neutral" stance which the SCPR blogged on recently.



The Report does not believe him, given his connections to what the SCPR calls "The Maier Loyalty Club."

Commissioner Janet Creighton, Stark County's most influential and powerful Republican politician came off very disloyal to fellow Republican Dordea in her statement that she is for herself (Ha! Ha! Ha! - she's running unopposed) and for Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich.

She very obviously refused the opportunity to endorse Dordea.



Creighton is heading up Kasich's reelection effort in a northeast Ohio multi-county area (including Stark County).

She did sign his petition in January of this year when he filed to run for sheriff.

The SCPR's take is that with political friends like Janet Creighton, who needs political enemies, which, of course, Dordea has in spades with the Maier Loyalty Club who are "all out" for Maier.

One thing that the Dordea campaign needs to put him over the top next month is to be embraced in Stark County by Kasich.

Crieghton is in a position to facilitate such a connection, but the vibes that The Report is getting is that such is not currently on the table.

Given the shellacking that Kasich is going to visit on FitzGerald, Dordea certainly would benefit from videos, billboards, campaign literature and the like showing him arm-in-arm with the governor with a statement from the lips of Ohio's chief executive saying: "Vote for me and my friend Larry Dordea."

Another problem for Dordea is a surfacing of discontent within the upper level Stark County Republicans with campaign chairman Alex Zumbar who is the Stark County treasurer.

He is described by a top notch Republican as being extremely conservative in what he is willing to counsel Dordea to do in tactics and campaign strategy.

Some Republicans want Dordea to go after Maier on character issues.

In the view of the SCPR, there is plenty to go after.

Off the top of the head, there are three opportunities for Dordea to use to "seal the deal" with Stark County voters; namely:

• his "alleged" derogatory treatment of state highway patrolmen as the assistant director of Public safety,
• claims of "over-the-treatment" of Lawrence Township trustee Michael Stevens while he served as a streets department supervisor in the Cicchnelli adminstration, and
• what number of Stark Countians think to be his politicizing of the Stark County sheriff's department.

THE HIGHWAY PATROL FACTOR

In August, 2008 the Columbus Dispatch published an article about allegations that Maier had abused Ohio state highway patrolman, to wit:

Some troopers and officers whom Maier once commanded as a captain accused him of threats, intimidation, favoritism and creating a hostile workplace.

When state troopers leveled charges of misconduct against the assistant director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, the top boss and top cop began butting heads.

Col. Richard Collins, superintendent of the State Highway Patrol, strongly urged that Ohio's inspector general be brought in to investigate Assistant Public Safety Director George Maier.

However, Public Safety Director Henry Guzman declined to dig into the charges against his No. 2, ruling that there were no grounds to justify either an in-house or outside investigation of Maier.

The article goes on to describe the allegations:

Some troopers and officers whom Maier once commanded as a captain accused him of threats, intimidation, favoritism and creating a hostile workplace.

The Dispatch tried to interview Maier, but he refused.

As far as the SCPR knows, Maier has never told his side of the story.

As a candidate to Stark County's "top cop" position, The Report thinks is obligated to.

Obviously, he is not going to step forward on his own.

Exactly what is the Dordea campaign doing to "smoke Maier out" on this issue at joint appearances and by having campaign supporters question him in campaign appearances?

Moreover, why aren't the "unanswered questions" being trumpeted in campaign literature and on the social media?

You can bet that tables were turned, Maier supporters would be all over Dordea.

THE MIKE STEVENS INCIDENT

Back in 2012, before George T. Maier was a candidate for sheriff, the SCPR did a blog on allegations of mistreatment by Maier made by Lawrence Township trustee Mike Stevens in his capacity as a streets department employee of Massillon city government.

Here is a summary of Stevens account:

Again, the SCPR thinks that Maier owes it to Stark County voters to give his account.

But he won't.

If any part of the state highway patrol allegations and the Stevens' allegations are true, it certainly bears on the question to be decided by Stark Countians on November 4th:  Is George T. Maier suited to be elected Stark County sheriff?

Dordea appears to be taking the "high road" and that is commendable.  But it might well mean  that he setting himself up to lose once again in his quest to become Stark County sheriff.

IS THE SHERIFF'S DEPT BEING POLITICIZED?

The SCPR thinks so.

The Report blogged on this issue on Wednesday.

This campaign should be Larry Dordea's to lose in light of the favorable political environment for Republicans and the political baggage that George T. Maier carries.

The Report thinks it is highly "chancy" for the Dordea campaign to primarily be relying on 2014 being a banner year for Republicans.

Such appears to be the case.

If it is and folks like Creighton do not pick up the pace, Dordea and Zumbar and the Stark County Republican Party may well wake up on November 5, 2014 to this SCPR headline:

MAIER DOES A "SALMON SWIMMING UP STREAM AGAINST A SWIFT CURRENT" DASH TO VICTORY!

REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA FOR STARK DEMOCRATIC PARTY APPOINTED SHERIFF GEORGE T. MAIER?

Back on January 3, 2013, The Stark County Political Report wrote a blog on newly elected Stark County commissioner Richard Regula (son of former 16th District Republican congressman Ralph Regula)  being sworn in the midst of a group of hardcore Stark County Democratic Party well-wishers.

Here is part of that blog write up:

It was interesting to hear him [Regula to the SCPR] describe his swearing-in last Thursday at the Massillon Municipal Court with Judges Roland Centrone (a Republican) and Eddie Elum (a Democrat and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. political ally) doing the honors.

Two other political significants he [Regula] identified included Massillon Mayor Kalthy Catazaro-Perry and her political mentor Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.  Maier is a former chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party and currently serves as the elected head of the  Massillon clerk of courts office.

The Report went on in the blog to describe fairly frequent instances in which Regula has shown up and Democratic candidate fundraisers over the years going back to the early 2000s.

So it was no surprise to the SCPR to receive a telephone call from a staunch Stark County Republican saying that he had word that Regula was going around telling everybody what a great sheriff he thought Maier was and thereby leaving the impression that Regula was supporting Maier for sheriff over Republican Larry Dordea.

The caller further informed the caller that he told Regula that if he did publicly support Maier that he would lead an effort to deny him reelection in 2014 when Regula's current term is up.

The SCPR asks the question:  Is this a case of "turnabout is fair play?"

For the SCPR thinks that former Democratic sheriff Tim Swanson supports Republican Larry Dordea for sheriff and George T. Maier seems to agree.

The Report is told that in Swanson's lawsuit in a personal liability against Maier claiming some $90,000 in damages for his assuming office of Stark County sheriff illegally for the period February 5, 2013 through November 6, 2013 (according to an Ohio Supreme Court ruling), the Maier forces are saying that the litigation is designed to help Dordea defeat Maier in the November election.

And, get this.

Maier's attorneys have submitted with pleadings making the claim, copies of Stark County Political Report blogs.

The Report can remember George's brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr as a Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) member dissing the SCPR as The Report pushed through to gain the right to videotape BOE meetings for the benefit of the Stark County general public.

For the record, the SCPR does not think Swanson is using the lawsuit as a tool to defeat Maier.

Larry Dordea's folks certainly appear to be interested in doing so.  And, you can be sure that if Maier prevails before election day, he and his supporters.

For the Dordea interest, a helpful headline would read:  MAIER FOUND TO BE USURPING SHERIFF.  ORDERED TO PAY SWANSON $90,000 IN DAMAGES.

For Maier and his supporters, they would love to see:  COURT FINDS MAIER DID NOTHING WRONG IN ASSUMING OFFICE ON FEBRUARY 5, 2013.

We should find out late this morning whether or not it is likely that a decision in the civil liability case of Swanson v. Maier will be forthcoming prior to election day.

Not long ago, The Report published a photograph of (taken by Swanson himself) of his son and grandson sporting Dordea for Sheriff campaign shirts in the front lawn of Swanson's home.

And many think that Stark County Democratic prosecutor John Ferrero is telling his supporters to vote for Republican Dordea.

Swanson and Ferrero were among 84 Stark County Democratic Party officials (precinct committee persons) who voted against Maier and for Swanson protege Lou Darrow when they vied with one another on February 5, 2013 to replace sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (November, 2012) who was unable to take office on January 7, 2013 due to an illness which proved fatal on February 22nd.

In fact, Darrow filed a lawsuit to keep Maier from being eligible to seek the Dems' appointment.  That suit failed.

Swanson, however, was successful with his quo warranto lawsuit filed on February 12, 2013

On December 11, 2013, the Dems reappointed Maier but some 66 of the precinct committee persons still voted for Darrow.

Darrow recently retired from the sheriff's department.  The SCPR is told that a tiff developed between Maier and Darrow on Darrow getting a prized assignment within the department and Maier was saying "wait until after the election."

Question.

Is that the reason for the Darrow retirement?

Does this signal that Darrow will be encouraging his family, friends, neighbors and acquaintances to vote for Republican Dordea?

The point of all this discussion is to demonstrate that Maier has much more of a problem holding onto hardcore Democrats on November 4th than does Dordea holding onto to the likes of a Richard Regula.

For his part, Regula told the SCPR yesterday that he is staying neutral.

But he did admit to the SCPR that he attended a George T. Maier breakfast fundraiser last year.

He says that as commissioner he thinks well of both candidates and whomever is elected he has to and looks forward to working with

Hmm?

Does that mean he is going to skip voting in the Maier/Dordea race?

The Report thinks that there are enough Regula ties to the Maier Loyalty Club that he will tap the electronic voting screen for George T. Maier come November 4th.

And that should be of some comfort to Maier.

But the discomforting fact has to be those Darrow supporters, Darrow himself, Swanson and Ferrero seem to remain unreconciled to George T. Maier.

In a year that many normally voting Democrats likely will stay at home because of the weak Democratic gubernatorial candidate (FitzGerald), Darrow, Ferrero and Swanson and their followers may be a difference maker in the Stark County sheriff race.

If George T. Maier wins by one vote, then maybe Dordea and Stark County's Republicans will be looking Richard Regula's way?

(VIDEO) WRAP-UP ON SCPR SERIES ON 2014 STARK CO BUDGETING PROCESS

VIDEO
 BUDGET REVIEW

Marc Warner
Stark Co Ct. of Common Pleas 
Chief Administrator

Alan Harold
Stark County Audtior

Richard Regula
Stark County Commissioner

Rick DeHeer
Stark Co. Ct of Common Pleas
Family Division
Chief Administrator

UPDATE:  03/19/2014 AT 7:20 PM

Martin: (From Chris Nichols/5:30 PM)
...

There were a few minor adjustments from the Operational Budget numbers you saw last week, primarily with the Prosecutor (to reimburse for a Capital Purchase made earlier in the year), Sheriff (due to some updating to actuals from estimates for liability and vehicle insurance premiums), Clerk of Courts (for an unanticipated retirement) and the Common Pleas Court (to correct a minor calculation error).  In net, these two Appropriation Resolutions complete a total 2014 Operational Appropriation amount of $57,729,005 or just $8,378 more than the budget presented at last week's meeting.

That amount combined with the $3,200,000 Capital Budget provides a total 2014 Appropriated Budget amount of $60,929,005.

I have also updated (and attached) the Budget Presentation to show the final appropriation amounts for each department.

... .

Chris 


ORIGINAL BLOG

As "a public service" the SCPR brings to everyday Stark Countians a multi-part series (eight blogs in all) on the "proposed" (see disclaimer in graphic above) 2014 Stark County budget.

Today, The Report presents Volume labeled "Wrap-Up" of Stark County Commissioners' Budget Director Chris Nichols' 2014 Stark County "proposed" budget.

Readers of this blog to get a full appreciation of Nichols' presentation should make sure that they have read prior blogs in order as listed below:

1. Volume 1
2. Volume 2 
3. Volume 3 
4. Volume 4
5. Volume 5 
6. Volume 6 
7. Q&A, Commissioners Comments

In Volume 1, Commissioner Thomas Bernabei appears in the video and outlines the four (4) guidelines that he and fellow commissioners Janet Creighton and Richard Regula laid out to Nichols in formulating the 2014 budget, to wit:

1. The county must live within its means,
2. New revenue for the year must support the operation budget of the county through 2019,
3. Carry-over funds cannot be used to fund the day-to-day operations of government,
4. He must build a 2014 budget that forms a viable base on which budgets through 2019 can be realistically projected as being "sustainable budgets"

Today's blog features: (in the video at the end of this blog)

• Marc Warner, Stark County Court of Common Pleas chief administrator,
• Alan Harold, Stark County auditor,
• Richard Regula, Stark County commissioner, and
• Rick DeHeer, Stark County Court of Common Pleas - Family Division - chief administrator,

on their take on Budget Director Nichols' March 13, 2014 presentation featured in this SCPR series (Volumes 1 through 6) on the 2014 Stark County budgeting process.

The reviews are positive for Nichols and the commissioners but we are only in the base year (2014) of a five year span.

As the SCPR sees it, 2016 will be the "pivotal" year in which Nichols and the commissioners will first see the "tell-tale" signs of whether or not the budgeting work done in 2014 will result in a "sustainable" budget through 2019.

Meanwhile, the apt expression is:  "the jury is still out!"

(VIDEOS) IN BUDGET HEARINGS, COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA ASKS BD OF ELECTIONS' OFFICIALS: "ARE YOU GOING TO POST THOSE FOUR NEW POSITIONS?" WHAT A LAUGH!

UPDATED AT 6:00 PM

VIDEOS

COMMISSIONER RICHARD REGULA

ASK  BOE OFFICIALS

ARE THE FOUR NEW JOBS GOING TO BE POSTED?

===============================

COMMISSIONERS CREIGHTON & BERNABEI

DRESS DOWN

BOE OF ELECTIONS OFFICIALS

FOR

BREAKING

2% RAISE GUIDELINES 

One of the best forums from which the Stark County Political Report obtains information about Stark County government operations are the meetings of the Stark County commissioners.

The commissioners are now in the depths of their yearly budget hearings and these hearings, in particular, yield a great deal of information for The Report to repackage into blogs which make Stark Countians some the best informed people about their county, township, village and city governments in the entire country.

Yesterday, representatives (Director Jeff Matthews, Deputy Director Jeanette Mullane, Republican Board Member Curt Braden and Democrat Board Member Sam Ferruccio) of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE') trooped into the the commissioners' meeting room on the second floor of the Stark County Office Building for their time before the commissioners.

One of the things that the Bernabei, Creighton and Richard Regula of the Stark Board of County commissioners zero in on in the course of budget hearings are new hires and the year-to-year salary increases that Stark County departments of government hand out to their employees.

In the course of the back and forth between the commissioners and Director Matthews was Matthews' revelation that the BOE 2014 budget included the hiring of four additional employees in the year 2014.

Here is Richard Regula with his questions and Matthews' answer.



What a hoot! - no?

Not only the Stark County Board of Elections but any Ohio Board of Elections posting job listings for the taxpaying general public citizenry to apply for prompts a  "you have to be kidding!"

The public perception is that these jobs only go to the politically connected, plain and simple.

To say it again:  "job posting"  by a Board of Elections.

 Laugh, laugh, laugh and laugh some more!  Ha!, Ha!, Ha!

The SCPR thinks that Matthews stumbled and bumbled all over the place answering Regula's question and the latter revealed (as least that is what The Report thinks) that three of the four "non-posted" to the public have already been hired, subject to official BOE approval.

It is irony upon irony that each of Ohio's 88 counties have a department of government that is all about citizens having a choice (called elections) run by unelected, politically appointed folks who only have to account to the county Democratic and Republican party chairmen. 

Hmm?

As soon as The Report could get to a computer, an email was fired off to Deputy Director Jeannette Mullane asking follow up questions, to wit:

 

Jeanette,

With respect to the four hires referred to by Matthews in today's budget presentation, I have the following questions:

What are the job titles?

How much is each position to be paid as a starting salary?

With respect to the three hires to be made in January, have the candidate for those jobs been selected subject to the approval of the board?

If so, what are their names.

When is the four hire contemplated to be made?

Thanks,
Martin Olson
SCPR

MULLANE'S INITIAL ANSWER

Jeanette,

With respect to the four hires referred to by Matthews in today's budget presentation, I have the following questions:

What are the job titles?  Clerks

How much is each position to be paid as a starting salary?  $15.60 per hour or $32,459.65 annual

With respect to the three hires to be made in January, have the candidate for those jobs been selected subject to the approval of the board?  The Board hires the employees.

If so, what are their names.

When is the four hire contemplated to be made?  Unknown at this time.

Note that Mullane does not answer "all" the questions posed, to wit:  "If so, what are their names?"

However, the SCPR, if anything, is persistent:

The Report's "reply" attempt to get Mullane to answer "all" the questions posed.

MULLANE'S REPONSE TO THE SCPR'S FOLLOW UP

As you can see, Mullane refuses to respond to the SCPR request for names.

Why do you think that might be?

Hmm?

'Tis a puzzlement, no?

Well, Ms. Mullane, Director Matthews and each and every one of the Stark County Board of Elections can be assured that the SCPR will be at the January 21st meeting to record it all.

Of course the SCPR had to fight (Blog Link) for the right to videotape Stark BOE proceedings (Blog Link).

Courtesy of the work of Stark County commissioners' "second-in-command" administrator Chris Nichols (who obtained the information from the Stark auditor's office), The Report is publishing the current payroll of various departments of government.

Since, today's blog, the Stark County Board of Elections is the topic, below is the payroll as this month.  Of course, next month there will be three additions $32,459.75 (access denied to the general Stark County public courtesy of unelected "highly partisan" public officials) with a fourth to follow soon.

The BOE completely blew off the commissioners on their guidelines of no more than two percent (2%) increases in Stark County departments for 2013.

The chief, Matthews, (chairman of the Stark County Republican Party [an unpaid position] who was making a "mere" $78,708 (plus about $25,000 in benefits) gets a 4.3% increase to reach $80,000.  A nice, neat rounded off number, no?.  And the man apparently includes himself in the category of these "poor employees" the haven't  a raise in 4 or 5 years.

Now that's a convincing argument for a person who in total compensation package is likely well over $100,000 annually all of which is paid by the Stark County taxpayers, isn't it?

And look at Travis Secrest who has dutifully run for a couple "sacrificial lamb" campaigns for the Stark Republicans.  Wow!  From $31,514 to $41,200 (a whooping 30.7% increase) all within one year and he is a person that has not been on the job all that long.  And, again, you can tack on about another $12,000 annually in benefits so that his total taxpayer dollars take is over $50,000 annually.

Not to neglect the Democrats, there is Holly Tichnor who got a 12.7% increase in 2013.

In this video, see Commissioner Janet Creighton and Tom Bernabe take BOE members Republican Curt Braden and Democrat Sam Ferruccio to task for the flagrant BOE disregarding of the commissioners' 2% raise guidelines.



Since members of the BOE; namely Demeatrious St. John,  Sam Ferruccio (the Democrats) and Curt Braden, William Cline (the Republicans) are unelected, the only accountability for elected officials are Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Regula.

Right now the only consequence is "a dressing down by the commissioners" as seen in the video.

Of course, for the likes of St. John, Ferruccio, Braden and Cline, you just "grin and bear it."

For the commissioners' admonitions to mean anything, they are going to have to come up with "real world" consequences for county government entities that in effect tell them that their guidelines mean nothing to them.

We shall see what the commissioners do in devising effective measures to stop the "thumbing of the nose" they are experiencing by the likes of the Stark County Board of Election members.

SHOCKING! MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXPAYER MONEY DOLED OUT TO STARK STATE COLLEGE, KENT STATE - STARK TO GET "AWFUL-ON-STERIODS" GRADUATION RATE RESULTS

It was unsettling to read Bob Dyer's piece (Akron Beacon Journal, August 11, 2013, UA graduation rate is awful) for a variety of reasons.

Being a graduate of Akron University myself (1968 - undergraduate; 1973 - law school), reading his column was dismaying for the very fact of The University of Akron being my school.

Although working a full-time job, I graduated from the university within four years of starting.

Same for law school.

Worked a full-time job but graduated from the night program (which was programmed for all of us as being a four year course of study [three years day school]).

So it was more than a little bit disconcerting to read Dyer's referenced data which puts the percentage graduating from Akron at 14% within four years and 38% within six years.

This from a university board of trustees that seemingly does not hold its CEO (Proenza) accountable. For he recently announced his retirement and, according to press accounts, Akron U officials negotiated a ten year agreement with him that included:

• a salary increase to $500,000 annually (an 18% increase over his present salary), and additional perks of being granted:
• a post-retirement sabbatical (at the $500,000 per rate), 
• the right to participate in the executive level bonus pool over the next three years, and 
• the right to return to the university post-sabbatical to a full professorship and president emeritus at $325,000 annum to be boosted by:
• the creation of a "Trustees Chair in Higher Education and the Economy" with money raised from current among current university trustees and other friends of the university which is expected to add $50,000 per year over the life of his contract.

Moreover, it appears to the SCPR that it does not bother the trustees and Proenza that as a returning professor he will be making about 30% more than next highest paid faculty member.

Of course, this aspect of Proenza's contract raises the question of whether or it it will trigger labor unrest among the university's day-in, day-out full-time faculty.

In the SCPR's way of thinking, the retirement buyout of Proenza has shades of the CEO who has run a corporation into the ground but nonetheless gets paid handsomely to - over time - go away.  Except, in this case, Proenza is not going away.  He will be back.

Obviously, over his 15 year stint with the university, matters in terms of graduation rate have declined even though Ohio's taxpayers have put millions upon millions of dollars into the university's facilities (e.g. $61.5 for the Infocision Stadium complex), programs and operations.

A $61.5 million stadium outlay for a football team that has been 3 wins, 33 losses over the past three years and thereby is nowhere near making enough money to cover the total university athletic program costs as is the case with the likes of The Ohio State University.

A $61.5 million decision that Proenza had to be "up to his eyeballs in" undoubtedly at the expense of the primary mission of the university (academic excellence) and he gets a "golden parachute?"

In his piece, Dyer attributed the unacceptable graduation rate numbers (in his words) as follows:

Add all these numbers together and we are left to conclude that either:

A.) UA is not giving the students the support they need, or
B.) UA is admitting people who simply are not equipped to do the work.

The SCPR would add ", or C.) UA has had in Proenza an ineffective CEO."

The accurate answer to the question of the horrible numbers is likely a combination of all three.

Recently (May, 2012), Akron announced it was rejecting some student applications and referring them to community colleges such as Stark State College with a main campus in North Canton.

All foregoing prompted the SCPR to take a look at what is happening in terms of the graduation rate of Stark County's two public institutions of higher learning:  Stark State College and Kent State - Stark.

To borrow Dyer's term "awful" in his describing Akron U's rate of graduation, the numbers at Stark County's two public institutions of higher learning merit the descriptive expression "awful on steriods."

STARK STATE COLLEGE (SSC)

If you thought Akron's 14% was bad for getting a degree within four years, look at Stark State's: a whopping 7.3%.

And student-wise, it is about as big as the University of Akron.  Stark State officials claim a total enrollment (credit and non credit) of some 19,000 students.

With Stark State at 7.3% (2010 numbers), such a number makes a clear and convincing case public officials (both executive officials and overseeing directors and advisors) are throwing "good and 'hard earned'" taxpayer money after "totally unacceptable results"

Who in their right mind would put millions of dollars into facilities, programs and operations for a prime bench mark success (or, let's say failure) rate of 7.3%.

And Stark State's officials under the leadership of Para Jones (who only recently became president but has been a keep component of SCC administration going back a number of years [less an out-of-state stint for a couple of years right before assuming the presidency]) are not content with limiting the disservice to taxpayers to the institution's main campus.  SSC has expanded its operations to cover most of Stark County (and even into neighboring counties) and, of course, at the expense of millions of dollars in outlay of taxpayer funds in building/renting facilities and the staffing them.

KENT STATE - STARK (KSU - STARK)

While 6.8% graduating in four years may seem to be worse than Stark State College (SSC), it is not.  For to stay the course for four years is much more difficult that hanging in there for a mere two years as is the case with SSC to get a basic degree.

But the difference is not anything to brag about.

An interesting aspect of the Kent Stark - Stark operation is that it does have a list of prominent Stark Countians who apparently are not holding the feet of Dr. Walter F. Wagor (Dean of Academic Affairs/Chief Administrative Officer) and Dr. Ruth Capasso (Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs) to the fire in terms of accounting for the totally unacceptable graduation rate numbers.

Hmm?

Stark County commissioner Richard Regula among them.

Interesting, no?

Canton mayor William J. Healy, II among them.

Interesting, no?

Well known Stark County educator Jacqueline DeGarmo (former superintendent of Plain Local School District) among them.

Interesting, no?

Stark County Educational Partnership president Adrienne O'Neill among them.

Interesting, no?

The SCPR thinks that Stark County, Ohio and federal taxpayers are getting shafted (in terms of achieved graduation rates) by Stark's public institutions of higher learning.

And all this ineffectiveness vis-a-vis the taxpayer is going on right under the nose of Stark County's legislative delegation to the Ohio General Assembly.

Nary a word about this flagrant inefficiency on the part of Messers Oelslager, Schuring Slesnick and Ms. Hagan.  It is not as if this phenomenon has sprung up over night.  For them to have not seen it is to say that they are not seeing something "hidden in plain sight."

Hagan, in particular, via press releases, tries to make out that she is the maven of fiscal integrity.

From a SCPR blog of November 30, 2011:

She would be far more impressive locally if she were to read the riot act to Stark State and Kent State Stark officials for their poor performance in parlaying tax dollars into acceptable graduation rate results.

She is very bullish for vocational education (Stark State's specialty), if Ohio is to invest in higher education at all. Moreover, she can be read by her public statements as being for no education at all beyond high school for many Ohioans.  She is fond of saying that "college is not for everyone."

Isn't that scary in 21st century America?

In an ironical sense, it could be taken that the graduation rate numbers cited in this blog support her - in general - anti-public-supported-higher-education-stance.

But the base question remains.  Why are we taxpayers paying so much to local institutions of higher learning and getting so little in return with no or little accountability on the part the well paid public officials who run them?

Maybe the Ohio General Assembly, at the agitation of Hagan, should be getting some answers and if no convincing answers are forthcoming, perhaps some heads should roll (figuratively speaking, of course), no?

Does she and her fellows have the stomach for holding the likes of Para Jones, Walter Wagor and Ruth Capasso accountable for the deplorable graduation rate numbers that Stark State and Kent State - Stark are producing?

The SCPR's forecast?  Absolutely not!

That's what makes her feints at accountability for the use of taxpayer dollars appear to be just that:  rhetoric, rhetoric and more rhetoric.

In this discussion, the SCPR has not touched on the all-too-frequent need for remediation of students entering college across Ohio at student and taxpayer expense. Such is required because a significant number of graduating college bound high school seniors have not acquired basic academic skills during their K-12 days.

But The Report saves this topic for consideration in a future blog.

It is now time for big time public pressure to brought to bear on the Proenzas, Joneses, Wagors and Compassos of of academia to develop a plan for putting public money to much more productive and efficient use than 14%, 7.3% and 6.8% bespeak.

They are all amply compensated.  True enough, some (i.e. Proenza) much better than the rest.

The SCPR totally subscribes to Dyer's parting shot in his column, to wit:

Area taxpayers should be demanding to know why a university that has been constructing things faster than a post-World War II Levittown is foundering in one of the most important categories in higher education. 

VIDEOS: FINALLY! CANTON MAYOR WILLIAM HEALY, II IS GOING TO HAVE HIS ZERO TOLERANCE RHETORIC SHOVED RIGHT DOWN HIS POLITICAL THROAT?

UPDATED 03/26/2013 AT 8:00 AM

 VIDEOS

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

Bruce Nordman

at

Canton City Council on Jail Beds

March 4, 2013 

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

Nordman

Moore

Stark Co. Commissioners

on

"Award to Commissioners"

&

on

Getting Canton to 175 Police Officers

March 20, 2013

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

Councilman Joe Cole

Canton Policing
&
His "Popsickle Stick Index" 

October 19, 2009 

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

Mayor William J. Healy, II

Defining Zero Tolerance

June 6, 2011   

 

For two elections now Cantonians have bought into what the SCPR thinks has been Mayor William J. Healy, II's ongoing political scam on solving the Hall of Fame city's rampant crime problem.

The scam?

Zero Tolerance Crime in Canton!

That's it, folks!!

The SCPR wrote an incisive blog on June 7, 2011 (a must read as a refresher for The Report's readers - LINK)

It appears to the SCPR that Canton's citizens are finally wising up to what The Report believes to have been a political ruse and are about to - re: the Healy administration and some Healy-aligned-members of Canton City Council - call checkmate on the chess-like stratagem called Zero Tolerance.

If he really had the smarts that he thinks he has, the mayor should have figured out three weeks ago that "the gig was up" on his: it amounts to a  political rhetoric only Zero Tolerance.

In his State of the City message of March 14th, Healy feigned that he was dealing with the police shortage problem in announcing that he was adding 14 new police to the Canton force.

But even that announcement was a "smoke and mirrors" exercise because in the end, in working through retirements and other personnel adjustments, the Healy administration is likely to be adding a half-a-dozen or so officers perhaps to as high as a police force of 150. 

The SCPR believes that civic activists Nordman and friends are committed to - not as a matter of political rhetoric - but as a matter of reality to make Canton zero tolerant of crime and thereby begin to restore Canton to her former greatness.

It appears to the SCPR that the Vassar Park folks have thrust themselves into a lead role in actually solving Canton's crime problem in a multifaceted approach.

Their number of approaches appear to be expanding as the activists get more understanding of the dimension, scope, and factors at play in their grappling with the problem too much crime in Canton.

So far they have a three-pronged program of action, to wit:

• Get the jail fully utilized at 501 beds,
• The Healy administration has used the underutilization as an excuse for continued unacceptable level of crime in Canton
• Get the police manpower levels up to 175 officers,
•  

• Note:  Focus on the decline in numbers of officers/number of arrests in the Healy years as mayor.  Accordingly to Healy, Canton is less crime infested than with 33 less officers in the Creighton administration:  who will believe that?
  
• Get the quality of the CPD higher by offering competitive wages in relation to other area police department
• Healy administration opposes ordinance to raise beginning officers' pay

These folks are not politicians.  Mayor Healy is.  Who do you trust to make zero tolerance of crime in Canton anywhere near becoming the actual state of affairs in the city?

On March 4, 2013, Bruce Nordman appeared before Canton City Council and got on Council and the Healy administration to do something in the way of getting the Stark County sheriff to bring the county jail capacity up to full utilization at 501 beds.  On the 4th about 400 beds were in use.

Here see Nordman in action.



That particular Nordman initiative was an easy one for council to dispose of inasmuch as they have no say in how the Stark County jail is run.

Of course, every public official at the council meeting was sympathetic and supportive but powerless in terms of correcting the deficiency.

The following day Nordman appeared at the regular weekly meeting of the Stark County commissioners.

At that meeting he succeeded in getting the commissioners to bring the sheriff in the following week for some answers.

The result?

On March 13th, Sheriff George Maier (an appointee of Stark County Democratic Party) under bizarre circumstances (i.e. told a local reporter before the meeting about his decision to increase bed space before telling the commissioners, an omission he later apologized for), jacked up the bed use to 450 beds.

Interestingly enough during the meeting itself (after having already made the decision to go to 450 beds [unbeknownst to anyone other than the reporter) that it would take months to get to the 501 level.

Hmm?

Pretty impressive that Nordman could get action so soon, no?

Again, the point is that if Healy is so bright he should have figured out that he would be next in Nordman's sights.

Here is an extract from Canton City Council minutes of what Nordman said on March 18th which should have been a heads up to Healy, to wit:

Good evening....good evening, my name is Bruce Nordman. I reside at 1623 Logan Avenue, NW. Good evening to Council President and the Mayor. A belated thank you also to the Council... to the Council Members.

This evening I’m coming before you because I would like to talk about police ranks as it relates to crime in the City.

At the end of this meeting we are going to pass out the crimes as they have gone from 2,400 with a strength of 175 Police Officers to about 1,600 last year. We would ask that you give this some study.

We’ll be back next week and would be looking for your answer.

Again, I thank you for your time and interest.  (emphasis added)

Afterwards Nordman tells the SCPR that Council President Allen Schulman told him:

1. To marshal his forces (i.e. the Vassar Park folks) to get the Ohio Legislature to provide adequate local government funding to the likes of Canton so that the city has the funding to bring on more policemen, and
2. To look at the city budget and come up with a plan of his own whereby monies would be available to hire more policemen

 Hmm?

On Schulman's item #1, take a good look at this goody. 

Can you believe it?

Canton's representative - Democrat Stephen Slesnick - to the Ohio House of Representatives is going to be in Akron tonight after having been asked back in February by Councilman Schulman to come to Canton City Council to explain the state funding cuts.

The SCPR has asked Slesnick's office when he is going to be appearing before Canton City Council.

Guess what?  No response.

He can't answer the Stark County-based Stark County Political Report nor Canton City Council, but he can appear in Akron.

Now if Slesnick's insult to Canton and Stark County is not enough for Cantonians to find another state representative come next year's Democratic primary, then nothing is, no?

On Schulman's item #2, Nordman tells the SCPR that "Hell will freeze over first" (the SCPR's interpretation; not Nordman's actual words) before he takes on the job of the administration and/or council members.

Tonight look for Nordman to tell council and the Healy administration such in his three minutes before council.

Healy et al should take Bruce Nordman very seriously.

A quote: "The gauntlet is down.  We intend to pursue this aggressively (i.e. the increase of the Canton police force to 175 officers). 

The day after his appearance at Canton City Council on the increase of police strength (to 175 officers), he was back to the commissioners with a Canton Citizens Award to Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Regula and to ask them to help in applying pressure on Canton City Council and Mayor Healy to get the Canton police force up to 2007 levels, the year Healy was elected as mayor. (emphasis added)

As Nordman sees it, for Stark County to be a safe community to which businesses are likely to be attracted, it is of critical importance that Canton get its crime problem under control.

Here is Nordman's full presentation at the Stark County commissioners meeting last Wednesday.

(Note - video includes the commissioners' response and also including remarks/inquiry by Vassar resident Bret Moore):



The SCPR completely agrees with Nordman.

For Stark County to thrive economically, the first order of business is for the county seat to be relatively crime free.

An ancillary issue to this citizen group call for an increase in police department strength is the matter of the pay that new police officers get.

It is absolutely ridiculous.

Entry pay in Canton is $26,000 per year (which becomes $33,000 when a hiree becomes certified generally a year or so later; an experienced police officer hires in at $33,000).  This according to Sam Sliman who is Canton's civil service director.

Also, last Monday Nordman colleague Bruce Brewer said this:

Yes, my name is Bruce Brewer. I reside at 1520 Harvard Avenue NW in Canton, Ohio.

Ladies and gentlemen of Canton City Council, it has come to our attention that the beginning wages for the new recruits for the City of Canton is so low that candidates applying for the spot and...and trained by the City of Canton would seek employment in a different County or different City.

We are asking Council to re look at the starting wage for the new officers. We sit here at City Council, the average wage being $17,000.00 for a part time job. We ask our Police Officers as a new recruit to strap on a weapon and...and go throughout the City of Canton and put their lives in danger, whether it be a girl or a man for $24,000.00 [SCPR Note:  actually $26,000] a year.   ... .

Guess what it is in Akron?

$42,390 TO $49,504.

Well, if you were going to lay your life on the line which would be the more attractive pay incentive?

And guess what?

The politicized zero tolerance mayor is resisting a move by about half of Canton City Council to raise the pay for new officers.

It is stuff like the lowering of the numbers of policemen on the street and their pay level which tell a good part of the commitment or lack thereof of Canton officials to zero tolerance.

Councilman Joe Cole (a Democrat) is in particular, in the opinion of the SCPR, a political hypocrite.

Below is a video of Cole when he was running for Canton council-at-large (he is running against fellow Democrat Frank Morris in the 9th Ward) back in 2009 had to say about his commitment to policing in Canton.

On October 19, 2009 at a community forum for candidates seeking office Cole made the interesting observation that he observed that it would be community activists who would solve Canton's problems.

Moreover, it is ironic that he (at-large and Finance Committee chairman) and Councilman Griffin (Democrat - 3rd Ward) were the Healy administration's point men on council to kill a request in January of this year by Members Cirelli, Fisher, Hawk, Mack, Mariol and Morris that Canton get competitive in attracting quality applicants for its police force.

Here is the October, 2009 Cole video with him speaking on policing issues and in particular his Popsickle Stick Index of Safety:  "It is an unacceptable standard of safety in which a child cannot be allowed to go to a neighborhood store for a popsickle."



Even if the rest of council opposed the measure, Council President Allen Schulman would have had the deciding vote and thereby could have helped that Canton do the right thing in terms of making the beginning salary attractive enough that the very best candidates would apply to become a Canton policeman.

The SCPR believes that Schulman would side with the proposers of the change.

Schulman has a history of putting his money where his mouth is.

And this proposed legislation provides him an opportunity to do so.

Leader Dougherty needs to revive the effort and thereby provide a vote opportunity which will show who on council cares about the quality of Canton's police force and who does not.

The SCPR ends this blog with the video of Mayor Healy on June 6, 2011 defining zero tolerance and the Canton effort at zero tolerance.

As far as The Report is concerned, this presentation is a political performance.  And note the soon-to-be-resigned safety director (Thomas Ream) nodding his head in full agreement with the mayor.  No wonder Canton's crime footprint has in reality grown larger notwithstanding Healy's protestation to the contrary.

LINK to prior blog showing Canton crime rate as being 4 on a scale of 100 with 100 being a completely safe city.

And to further show his commitment (sarcasm) to effective Canton policing only this past week announced that Canton would no longer have a full time safety director for the next six to 12 months.

Warren Price is a capable city official.  However, there is no way he can be an effective service director, chief-of-staff, safety director, and annexation director all-at-one-time.

No way!

To the SCPR, Mayor William J. Healy,II has by his downgrading of the numbers of Canton police on the street, supporting a non-competitive salary, and going to a part-time safety director and thereby overburdening Price shows his true stripes.

The SCPR believes Healy's zero tolerance political rhetoric is a political scam on the people of Canton and, moreover, anyone who has an occasion to be in Canton, either as a resident or to visit to do social, cultural, government or business activities, has their personal safety hanging in the balance on the outcome of the good work of the Vassar Park residents.

These folks live in the heart of Canton.  Mayor William J. Healy, II lives out on 52nd Street.

Not quite the same vulnerability to the effects of crime, no?

If one lives on 52nd Street, it is easier to game zero tolerance for political purposes, no?