(VIDEO) COMMISSIONER-ELECT CREIGHTON & OUTGOING COMMISSIONER BOSLEY SPAR OVER STARK CO FAIRGROUNDS ISSUE

The worst thing outgoing commissioner Todd Bosley could have said at Tuesday's work session was that incoming coming commissioner Janet Creighton did not matter.  He said it in the sense that she does not have a vote until after she is sworn in on about January 1, 2011.

But that is exactly what Bosley did at the Bernabei (newly seated commissioner)/Creighton called work session held yesterday.

From that point in the meeting, the discussion got a little rocky.  Creighton took offense and asserted that even though she is commissioner-elect, how Commissioners Bosley, Ferguson and Bernabei rule on the Stark County Fair Board's (Farigrounds) request for an infusion of Stark County capital improvement funds (sitting at about $1.9 million according to Chief Administrator Mike Hanke) into repairs on facilities owned by the Fairgrunds but sitting on land owned by the county does matter as to how the county commissioners (post Jaunuary 1, 2011) will be able to cope with demands on county finances.

The SCPR was not all that surprised to see the sparks fly a little bit between Creighton and Bosley.  It was clear from the outset of the meeting to The Report that Bosley was not a happy camper at being involved in a Tuesday work session instituted on the joint call of Bernabei and Creighton.  When Bosley was a commissioner-elect in 2006, he initiated himself differently to county affairs and apparently feels that Creighton and Bernabei should be following the model he used which he adopted from what other commissioner-elects have done down through the years.

So with Bosley in a negative mood (in the opinion of the SCPR), it was predictable that a flare up would occur and, most likely, between himself and Creighton..  After all, Creighton has just defeated Bosley political pal Steven Meeks (a fellow Democrat from Jackson) on November 2nd.

Bosley has long been a advocate for helping the Fairgrounds out.  But with the county only having the $1.9 million for capital improvements (which is not much considering all the facilities under county control and care), Commissioners Ferguson and Meeks needed convincing by Fairgrounds representative Jim Tressel to fork over money to the Fairgrunds.  How much money?  The SCPR believes that the real request is whatever Tressel can talk commissioners into, however, the money being talked about is in the $200,000 to $400,000 range.

Bosley's position on providing the Fairgrounds requested money is based on an implied promise he says was made back in 2008 when the Stark County Farm was sold at auction.

Well, at yesterday's meeting, Creighton jumped on the implied promise thing.  To paraphrase, "no legal obligation" she opined.

Creighton started out saying that the Fairgrounds' request was lower on her list of priorities given the overwhelming needs of the county.  However, when Ferguson and Bosley injected safety of the fairground buildings concerns, Creighton seemed to elevate her willingness to consider the Fairgrounds' request to a higher priority (see the included video).

The testiness between Bosley and Creighton was an interesting aside at the meeting.

Bosley's overall quest is to force a decision before he vacates his commissioner's post on December 31st.

Why?

The SCPR believes that any chance at all that the commissioners will give money to the Fairgrounds will be with Bosley serving as advocate.  Once he is gone, the chances of the Fairgrounds getting any county money plummet.  It seems to be "a point of honor" with Bosley that he produce on the implied promise.

The SCPR is with Creighton on this one.  What is this business of implied promises being made by county officials?  This is the second time around in recent times on this implied promise stuff between county officials and political subdivisions (Alliance and Massillon) on not being charged for Stark County housing inmates convicted in municipal courts.  The only county obligations are legally enforceable obligations not this "wink and a nod" kind of stuff done behind closed doors between public officials.

What's more, why would Stark County put taxpayer money into decrepit buildings owned by another entity?

If commissioners were to do so, the county would be throwing good money after bad money.  In time these buildings will have to be replaced.  It would be irresponsible for commissioners to spend taxpayers money as a stop-gap measure.

No county money should go into fairgrounds' buildings!

The SCPR believes that the Fairgrounds' board has been irresponsible over many years of not having an adequate ongoing maintenance and capital improvement effort to modernize and replace buildings as a share of each and every ticket sold to fair attenders.

If Commissioners Bosley, Ferguson and Bernabei (or, Ferguson, Bernabei and Creighton) provide the Fairgrounds with the requested money, they are mimicing the federal bailout of irresponsible bankers.  That a government unit is the object of the bailout does not negate The Report's stance that the Fairgrounds' board  has been irresponsible and that irresponsibility should not be rewarded.

In the next few months Stark Countians will be hearing of proposals to deal with the impending county financial crisis which will hit full bloom in 2012.

A decision by commissioners to sink county into rickety buildings will be a clear signal to Stark County taxpayers that commissioners are not responsibly managing taxpayer money.

If they persist, then taxpayers should take such action into account in determining whether or not to support any of the revenue raising measures likely to surfaces in the next month or so.

SCPR GETS COMMISSIONER ANSWERS TO CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE CRAIG CONLEY'S LETTER. THE REPOSITORY IGNORES THE LETTER!

Back on March 10, 2010 Craig T. Conley (a local attorney who was the lead person in the Vote No Increased Taxes Committee) wrote a letter (see full text in accompanying video below) to the Stark County Commissioners asking certain questions of the commissioners.

Conley faxed a copy of the letter to The Repository and sent it by snail-mail to the SCPR.  Who took up the cause of his letter?  The Repository or the SCPR?

Of course, The Report.

At commissioners meeting last Wednesday, The Report asked commissioners to respond to the Conley letter.  The video below, contains the commissioners' responses (Bosley did not make one on camera, but only inquired as to whether or not Conley serves on the Citizen Review Committee).

Off camera, Bosley confirmed what appeared to be his on-camera contribution a la Ferguson:  "let the Citizen Review Committee deal with it."

Not only did The Repository not do anything with Conley's letter, even though The Report's question was asked during the meeting, The Rep failed to publish anything on the letter in its coverage of the meeting.

The SCPR notices that The Repository as a matter of course seems to give Repository readers the short-shrift on what actually transpires at the weekly commissioner meeting.  For instance, Kevin Ellis of Louisville who made a important plea to commissioners to do something about a long standing flooding problem in Louisville/Nimishillen Township was totally ignored by The Rep in its publication of contents of the meeting.

Now don't you suppose Louisville/Nimishillen Township residents would be interested in the Ellis presentation?

If they are, it appears that they will have to come to the SCPR to get their information.  Moreover, it is becoming apparent that Stark Countians who want more thorough coverage of coverage of the weekly meeting will have to get it from the SCPR.

Here is the video on the Ferguson an Meeks responses to the Conley letter.

DISCUSSION: CANTON SELF-DESTRUCTING? INTRA-COUNTY WARFARE - JACKSON V. NORTH CANTON! WHAT IN THE WORLD IS GOING ON?

Is the the week from hell in Stark County?

It is the battle of which story is the most compelling?

William J. Healy, II, mayor of Canton, and his problems. Or, the clash between Jackson Township and its partner Canton versus North Canton.

Benjamin Duer of The Rep reports this way on Jackson Township trustees reaction to North Canton's annexation efforts of the Fosnaught Auto Parts business located in Jackson in order to block a Jackson/Canton Cooperative Economic Development (CEDA) agreement, to wit:

Pizzino [Jackson trustee & president of the board] said the board is “united” in its fight, and would explore all legal action to stop North Canton.

He also said the board might eliminate free mutual-aid agreements they have with North Canton for police and fire services.

Is Pizzino willing the jeopardize the safety of North Cantonians because of the Jackson trustees' tiff with North Canton officials?

On the other side.

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has learned that North Canton may renege on its deal to provide water to Jackson Township over this fight. Do North Canton officials have any concern for the well-being of the water users?

Folks, this is real warfare!

The question. Is this fight in the best interest of Stark County?

Most would probably agree that it is not.

But who is going to step forward and bring the warring parties to a truce and, in fact, something beyond that - a win-win-win situation for Jackson, Canton and North Canton?

DISCUSSION: DID COUNTY COMMISSIONER FERGUSON "FLIP-FLOP" OR "SEE THE LIGHT" ON THE STARK COUNTY ENGINEERING MERGER? HOW SO?

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has learned that newly elected Stark County commissioner Dr. Peter Ferguson was "against" the merger of the Stark County Sanitary Engineer with the Stark County Engineer before being "for" the merger.

Fair enough.

Public officials change their minds on issues everyday in Stark County and across the nation. Whether its a "road to Damacus" experience or a slower process, citizens want their elected officials to be "open minded."

So why would The Report even raise the point?

One gnawing little fact.

The imminent hiring of Ferguson's brother-in-law as Project Compliance Officer on Ohio's prevailing wage law in the office of the Stark County engineer.

To be fair to Ferguson, this merger was going to take place whether or not he voted for him. Commissioners Todd Bosley and Tom Harmon had let it be known that they were going to vote in favor of the merger - so - even if Ferguson voted no (as now retired county commissioner Jane Vignos had vowed to do), the merger was going to happen anyway.

But still, at the very least; shouldn't Ferguson at least abstained on the vote?

The Report acknowledges that the hiring of the relative could be totally unrelated to Ferguson's change of heart. Someone could have persuaded Ferguson that on the merits alone he needed to vote for the merger. Or, he could have had a "road to Damacus" experience.

These are public jobs that should be open to every Stark County citizen to apply for. County engineer Mike Rehfus has told The Report that he looked no further than the Ferguson relative once Ferguson let it be known that his brother-in-law was interested and he, Ferguson, recommended him highly.

What do you think?

Does this whole situation pass the smell test?

DISCUSSION: STARK COUNTY CITIES & THE COUNTY ITSELF PARCEL OUT OUR MONEY. WHERE'S THE ACCOUNTING?

A question that every Stark Countian ought to have on his or her mind?

What are taxpaying Stark Countians, Cantonians, North Cantonians, Massillonians and Allianceites getting for their economic development money?

Yesterday, the Alliance Review ran an outstanding AP wire piece which critiques how government accounts for our tax dollars in the area of economic development.

When the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) visited with Democrat Mayor Francis Cicchinelli a few months ago, he decried the absolute need to ante up taxpayer money as a precondition to even begin discussions with companies about expanding in or relocating to Massillon. Cicchinelli doesn't like this reality, but a reality it is. Being kind, one would call this an "entitlement attitude," but to be brutally honest about this corporate economic development reality would be to term it: "we have you over a barrel and we are going to put the screws to you - grin and bear it."

A couple of days ago, The Report e-mailed Commissioner Todd Bosley an asked him whether or not Stark County could account better than Ohio does. No answer as of the writing of this piece. But The Report will be patient, with the storm and all.

The Report turns attention to Ohio House 50th District candidate Republican Todd Snitchler on this "reality." Here's a guy who has unbridled faith in the goodness of corporations and their "PR organizations" to wit: Stark County's local chambers of commerce and, of course, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

As far as The Report is concerned, Snitchler's fascination with the chambers has more to do with his deficient ability to think of new approaches to get at solving severe Stark County and Ohio economic problems than anything else. The chamber of commerce thing is a cover for his inadequacies to think outside-the-box. He is so utterly unoriginal in thought that he needs the chambers to have any economic program whatsoever, notwithstanding Ohioans' clear understanding that the Ohio Chamber of Commerce has been and continues to be a failed key player in solving Ohio's economic problems.

By his own account, his own Lake Development Foundation is floundering. How's that? Snitchler says on a video published by The Report (prior article) that the foundation has no money.

With ties like his, it is not likely that Stark Countians can count on him to push for greater accountability in the slipshod relationship between government and the corporate world on the matter of economic development.

Snitchler's only consolation in his race is that his opponent, Democrat Celeste DeHoff, is even more anemic on this front. All she has to do, if elected, will be to call on former state representative Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., (now clerk of courts in Massillon and chair of the Stark County Democratic Party and her chief sponsor) for direction. We all remember what a "giant of a legislator" he was in the Ohio House, don't we?

There is a growing citizen suspicion that taxpayers are getting worked over by companies who are working a system they invented and who are insulated from public scrutiny by bumbling government officials or those who are in the hip pocket of corporate interests.

We have "No Child Left Behind" to document achievement/non-achievement as a check on educators. But what to we have to measure how state and local governments are "investing" taxpayer dollars and whether or not recipient companies are producing according to their promises.

Ohio, for its part, in The Review piece admits that it has no way to tell whether or not the 200, 000 promised jobs over the past 10 years have materialized for the $1.7 billion in tax breaks, et cetera.

How about this for a laugh (to the lament of the taxpaying public)? Ohio is going after Skybus which is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. What genius in the Ohio Department of Development (Lee Fisher?) helped this company with taxpayer money? A company which was offering $10 fares (a terrific business model). Gee, maybe it would have been prudent to require the company to post a bond with the state of Ohio?

All Ohio has is a fragmented, case-by-case, way to track. And currently, it is obvious that the fragmentation reduces to some Department of Development bureaucrat scrambling to come up with a scintilla of data to satisfy an inquiring newspaper reporter for the moment.

And remember, in January, 2006 Governor Strickland, in his Inaugural address, promised government accountability as well as personal accountability. Now, according to the AP report, in the light of big deficits that Ohio is currently running - there's a question: Is there money for devising a tracking system that will provide the promised accountability.

Returning, for a moment, to Todd Snitchler and his chamber friends. Next we will hear how requiring corporate accountability and requiring them to return taxpayer money for promises unkept will hurt Ohio's and Stark County's ability to compete.

The question: (Republican or Democrat) Will Ohioans, Stark Countians, Cantonians, North Cantonians, Massillonians, and Allianceites ever get accountability from our government executives? From beneficiary-corporate executives?

DISCUSSION: ARE STARK COUNTY VOTERS GOING TO ALLOW TOM HARMON TO RUN A "FRONT PORCH" CAMPAIGN FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER?

The Secrest Plan For Stark County? Yes, indeed. The man has a plan; that is Travis Secrest who is the Republican candidate four Stark County commissioner. He is running against a powerful Stark County Democrat - Tom Harmon, who served many years as clerk of courts for the Canton Municipal Court.

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) would be stunned if Secrest were to unseat Harmon (sitting by appointment at the hand of Stark County Democratic political boss Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.). But don't tell this candidate that he has no hope.

Secrest is (from a rhetorical standpoint) running the best countywide (not including the 16th Congressional District race) campaign. Look at his web site. He lists the key issues of the campaign:

(1) Stimulating Stark County's Economy and Protecting our jobs
(2) Enhancing Public Safety
(3) Providing Ethical and Open Government
(4) Maintaining Balance Budget
(5) Revitalizing Stark County Communities
(6) Reducing Unnecessary Regulation
(7) Exploring the Possibilities of Alternative Energy Sources
(8) Trusting and Empowering County Employees

And, if you hit the direct link to his web site above, he provides the core of his answers on each of the first four issues as of the date of this piece.

Now The Report has found Secrest's discussion on issue #1 to be a touch naive and hooked in the typical Republican panacea talking points (i.e. "cut taxes" [which by the way county commissioners do not have much in the way of taxing power]) but at least he is talking on the issues.

More than his opponent Tom Harmon is doing. Unless, that is, you consider articles appearing in The Repository reciting the financial crises in Stark County government.

But what kind of talk is this?

"Anybody got any bright ideas?" Commissioner Tom Harmon asked the group [of county deparment heads and elected officials in a meeting on Tuesday, August 19th].

Is this acceptable? A candidate for county commissioner doesn't expound on his own ideas?

Harmon is apparently feeling smug enough about the prospect of being elected that he proposes no ideas of his own. A google search by The Report does not locate a web site for Harmon. But if you are a shoe-in, what need is there to communicate on the issues with voters.

Are Stark County voters going to let Tom Harmon get away with not having a pro-active campaign (a la Secrest) with proposals for what ails Stark County?

DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER TOM HARMON DOESN'T RETURN PHONE CALLS?

Commissioner Tom Harmon thinks he is above returning phone calls to everyday citizens? If you believe one of the Stark County Political Report's (The Report) sources.

If this is so and if Stark Countians elect John Hagan county commissioner (Hagan v. Ferguson), then none of us will get our phone calls returned, unless, of course, we call Commissioner Todd Bosley.

A The Report source located at Stark County Jobs and Family Services tells us that
Harmon's words to the source were to the effect: "I don't return phone calls - people call me and may or may not get me - but I do not return phone calls." Also, Harmon dubbed himself as management that does not soil himself in dealing with everyday people issues.

Harmon sounds like 50th district Ohio House representative John Hagan (Republican - Marlboro) who is running against Doctor Pete Feguson for county commissioner.

Hagan filters his calls for devoted supporters and followers, or, powerful media he cannot ignore, and those are the only people who can get through to him. The moral of the story: Never take exception to John Hagan or you will end up on his ____ list and you certainly will not get your phone calls answered or returned.

So there you have it folks. County commissioner candidates who think they are not accessible and, it stands to reason, not accountable to everyday citizens?

Question: Do Stark Countians want Ivory Tower commissioners?

DISCUSSION: HARMON (THE LION) VERSUS SECREST (THE LAMB): STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RACE?

As of mid-June, Tom Harmon comes as close as you can get (except for the unopposed candidates) as you can come to as a "unbeatable candidate" in the November 4th elections.

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) tabs Harmon as the most powerful politician in Stark County politics.

He rivals, (and, in the opinion of The Report trumps - when he needs to) Stark County Democratic Party chair Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. as a power center in Stark County Democratic Party politics.

Harmon schmoozes with and has the ear of power brokers in both Stark County political parties. He has the ear of the "captains of industry" and business and has a solid relationship with organized labor. He dominated all his races for Canton City Municipal Court over his years in that office. For the foregoing reasons, The Report tabs him as the "lion" in this race.

His opponent, Travis Secrest, is indeed the "sacrificial lamb" offered up by Stark Republicans. Secrest will learn a lot in this campaign an could develop in to a formidable Republican standard bearer in future elections. But not in 2008.

Secrest's issues as articulated on his website bespeaks of a thoughtful candidate:








Harmon's vision for himself was spelled out in a Repository report (June 14, 2007) on his selection as a replacement for a resigned Stark County commissioner as being:











Undoubtedly, Secrest sees that Harmon has not made sufficient progress on public safety, economic development and government efficiencies, and, he may be right.

Unfortunately, Secrest's campaign will not be heard by Stark County voters. He will, in the end, be the sacrificial lamb of this campaign season barring catastrophic events overtaking the Harmon campaign.

Agree or disagree?

DISCUSSION: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 9-1-1 SET UP DEBACLE?

Drum roll, please.

Announcing the names of the public officials who created the 9-1-1 mess Stark County is in.

First, recently retired mayor of Canton Richard D. Watkins (Republican). Second, Jerry Patrick (Republican). And, last but certainly not of a lesser responsible person, Norm Sponseller (Democrat - now deceased).

Stark Countians need to pay attention to the lack of vision demonstrated by these three. Not that their mistake can be rolled back and the damage undone.

The lesson to be learned is to quiz current candidates for county commissioner: Ferguson, Hagan, Harmon and Secrest and know what their vision for the future of Stark County is.

On 9-1-1 we know the views of Secret and Harmon. Secrest fails the test. In a press release a few weeks back, Secrest takes the position we need to go slow. Go slow for what! So more people lose their lives (perhaps) or do not get timely critical care (say like in the case a stroke where a few minutes can make a huge difference).

Normally one shouldn't hold it against the likes of a Secrest who is 22 years of age or so. But his age is against him on the 9-1-1 issue. He probably feels young and invulnerable. Most Stark Countians are older and know better. Harmon has a big leg up on Secrest on this one.

One wonders if there isn't a lose confederation of stance on the 9-1-1 issue among Republicans running for county office. Is it just happenstance that Larry Dordea (candidate for sheriff) and Secrest have virtually the same position. We will know more when we hear from the remaining Republican candidates for county wide office.

9-1-1 is not a partisan issue. Republican Commissioner Jane Vignos is a staunch proponent of fixing 9-1-1 and fixing it now (or, at least within the next two years).

New Stark County Republican Party Chairman Jeff Matthews is from Alliance. Larry Dordea is from Alliance. Are the two of them making 9-1-1 a partisan issue in the November election?

Is Travis Secrest merely following marching orders from Jeff Matthews?

DISCUSSION: (DAY 1) WHY STARK COUNTY'S 9-1-1 IS SUCH A MESS. WHO'S TO BLAME? WHAT POLITICAL LESSONS DO WE LEARN FROM OUR HISTORY?

According to the "Regional 9-1-1 Dispatch Radio Study, and Recommendations (911 Report), "Stark County is served by a non-standard 9-1-1 call processing and answering environment ... '

What's wrong with being "non-standard," isn't Stark County unique?

The problem: Non-standard "results in the need to transfer well over 70 percent of the 9-1-1 calls."

So what? Delay, my friends, delay!

If it's your life on the line and that extra call or two has to be made before aid is on the way - it could be a matter of life or death! Only if you live in the city of Canton, does a 9-1-1 caller get immediate call receipt and dispatch.

All other Stark Countians experience at least one more call before dispatch is made. In 2006, the delay affected 130,000 Stark Countian calls.

The original set up by the 1986 set of Stark County commissioners initiated the onset of Stark County's "non-standard" 9-1-1 configuration. From the get-go, only Canton city residents go one-step 9-1-1 services.

Many times voters do not know what criteria to use to determine which of the commissioner candidates.

Well, "vision" is one criterion for sure, and, perhaps, gumption. Gumption? Yes, gumption!

Because of entrenched interest in the "status quo" system, it takes commissioners with the will power to resist and more forward for the good of all citizens against the established political interests (fire department chiefs, police department chiefs, and EMS leaders and their patron mayors, city/village councils and township officials).

More than 20 years later Stark County is dealing with deficient decision making in 1986!

Agree or disagree?

DISCUSSION: IS LARRY DORDEA TOO PROVINCIAL TO BE STARK COUNTY SHERIFF?

On April 7th Stark County Commissioner Jane Vignos appeared at a Alliance City Council session asking the Council to give a "thumbs up" to supporting a centralized 911 dispatch over the 10 dispatch center configuration Stark County currently has.

Who stood front and center in opposition? Fellow Republican, and former Alliance police chief, Larry Dordea who is now running against incumbent Tim Swanson for county sheriff.

Recently, an area woman who had been in an auto accident, had to wait 20 minutes for dispatchers to figure out whose jurisdiction she was in before dispatching assistance even though she was less that one-half mile away from the nearest fire department.

So candidate Dordea, is your message that you favor fragmentation and turfism over efficiency? Is this what Stark County voters want in a county sheriff?