Showing posts with label Stark County commissioners Tom Bernabei. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stark County commissioners Tom Bernabei. Show all posts

Thursday, June 20, 2013

(VIDEOS) CRANK THE STARK COMMISSIONERS "JACK-IN-THE-BOX;" OUT POPS CANTON TWP TRUSTEE CHRIS NICHOLS AS NEW COUNTY BUDGET MANAGER



UPDATED:  AT 10:50 AM

VIDEOS

REVISIT THE PHIL DAVISON VIDEO

COMMISSIONERS HIRE OF
CANTON TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE
CHRIS NICHOLS
AS
DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

COMMISSIONER EXPLAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
OF
NICHOLS
HIRE

Of late, Stark County commissioner meetings have been like "watching paint dry."

But that all changed yesterday when County Administrator Brant Luther read a resolution to hire Canton Township trustee and current First Communications employee Chris Nichols into a position entitled Director of Management and Budget at $70,000 per annum after a 120 day probation period with a start date of June 26th.

The SCPR's ears perked up immediately.




This announcement had shades of the Phil Davison over-the-top political rant of September, 2010 in terms of being a surprise to everybody in attendance.

One of the persons present at that Stark County Republican Party executive committee event was current Stark County commissioner Janet Creighton.

The meeting had been called to select a person to run for Stark County treasurer (which turned out to be Alex Zumbar) to replace Gary Zeigler who had been, as it turns out, unconstitutionally removed from office by the-then county commissioners Todd Bosley, Steve Meeks and Pete Ferguson.

Then this.



The Davison caper took everybody by surprise including Creighton who told yours truly that the rendition was out-of-character for the Phil Davison she knew.

Well, yesterday's move by Stark County commissioners was not a surprise of Davison dimensions, but it did seem to come "out-of-the-blue."

And, it was a tad disconcerting insofar as the SCPR is concerned in that the hire was made without any public discussion of the need to do so and in terms of not putting the position out there in a public-at-large advertisement to prospective applications.

The Report is told that the commissioners did mull over whether or not to advertise for the position but decided not to.

"Disconcerting" as in "so much so" that the SCPR thinks that the commissioners have taken another step back from the days that Republican Creighton and Democrat Tom Bernabei were elected in November, 2010 to replace Democrats Meeks and Bosley (who chose not to run for re-election).

At the time, Bernbei's and Creighton's election presaged a new day dawning in terms of a new emphasis on county government openness, accountability, transparency, communication and access.

Bernabei and Creighton were so committed to restoring trust in county government that they allowed a .025 sales tax to expire because they thought the county had not yet restored itself to a sufficient trust level growing out of situation in the county treasurer's office (LINK for background) that it would be unavailing to as Stark Countians to renew or replace the levy.

Consequently, in 2011 and going forward through 2012, Stark County experienced a financial crisis that resulted in dramatic cutbacks in county services.

By the November, 2011 election, the commissioners had instituted austerity moves and democratizing moves and had gotten out into the outlying regions of Stark County so that the were able to convince voters by a rather healthy margin to pass a 0.50 sales tax increase by a comfortable margin.

Since then, the SCPR has sensed a gradual deterioration of the commissioners' commitment to the reforms they made both in structure (e.g. instituting public accessible work sessions so that the public could witness first hand the inner workings of county government) and in commissioner attitude towards their constituents; namely, the Stark County taxpaying public.

There have been a series of events which has raised the eyebrows of yours truly in the sense of signaling a diminishment of commissioner due diligence in maintaining  the heyday (November, 2010 - November, 2011) of the "restore trust to Stark County government."

And yesterday's hiring of Nichols out-of-the-blue without any work session or equivalent being held (in the SCPR's knowledge) to discuss the need for an additional budget person and their inclination not to make the job publicly available should be disturbing to Stark Countians.

The Report thinks that the lead up to the Nichols hire was a ripe topic for discussion as to whether or not the commissioners would hire a top level employee at $70,000 per year as contrasted to hiring perhaps two employees at substantially lesser compensation level and thereby help the commissioners office better in serving the Stark County public.

What is going on with the commissioners appears to the SCPR to be akin a person who ends up getting boiled to death one degree at a time.

While the SCPR's sense of commissioner internal operations is that they do need an employee or two as they under Bernabei and Creighton have seemed to be operating on a shoe string and in a "lead by example" austerity/efficiency modeling paradigm, the way they did the Nichols hiring should be wholly unacceptable to the Stark County public.

Nothing against Chris Nichols.

He seems to have the qualifications for the job for which he has been hired.

Nichols was a candidate for the job to replace Mike Hanke as county administrator.

It was apparent at the time that the commissioners were having a difficult time choosing between the eventual selectee (Brant Luther) and Nichols.

By The Report's calculation, advantage Luther by virtue of having worked for Creighton when she was Stark County auditor and having succeeded her in office.

And the SCPR's take is that Creighton is every bit the equal of Bernabei if not moreso in factoring into the ultimate decisions made by the commissioners as a body.

If there was an irreconcilable difference between her and Bernabei, one has to believe that fellow Republican Commissioner Richard Regula is going to side with Creighton both in the politics of things and as a matter of personal affinity.  On the latter factor, these two have known each other for years and years and have, undoubtedly, worked with one another on various matters over those years.

Getting back to the Nichols hire, it appears to yours truly that finding a way to bring him on board has been under consideration since he interviewed for the Hanke-vacated position.

There are a number of curiosities surrounding the Nichols hire.

Luther says that he is hiring in at 12% less than what he makes as Revenue Assurance Director (LINK for general definition) since May, 2002 at First Communications which by the SCPR calculation would be about $78,000.

Hmm?

Why would anybody take a 12% cut for a county job?

Did the commissioners explore this line of questioning and the potential bearing those reasons might have is doing the job for which he was hired?

Another thing.

The political aspect of the hiring.

Because he had a long, long history of intense political involvement with the Stark County Republican Party (as an office holder [Alliance councilman and Stark County auditor] and as Republican Auditor Janet Creighton's employee and Republican Probate Judge Dixie Park's employee), the commissioners in hiring Luther got a commitment from Luther that he would cut all activist ties with Stark Republicans.

Chris Nichols, too, has political aspirations as a Republican.

In a story appearing in The Repository in 2010, Nichols talks about his lifelong ambition to one day be United States Senator Chris Nichols.

Luther tells The Report that Nichols agrees to be constrained in his political party activism on the same standards as Luther himself while a commissioner employee.

The SCPR's thinking is that for his employer to have implemented his hiring as the three commissioners did is not exactly the best circumstances under which for Nichols to be hired and that so doing they have undermined their own credibility on the ongoing issue of public trust in how they conduct the county's business.

Another moral of this story is that one never knows on cranking the Stark County commissioners' Jack-In-The-Box what is liable to pop out!

After the meeting, the SCPR brought the matter up to the commissioners.

Here is the video.



Wednesday, November 30, 2011

(VIDEO) WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE 0.5% SALES TAX ON NOVEMBER 8TH, ARE THE COMMISSIONERS ALREADY FORGETTING THE LESSONS LEARNED IN THE PRE-TAX PASSAGE DAYS?


As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly is impressed with the turnaround that Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton have brought to the Stark County commissioners' office with their coming on board in November, 2010 and January, 2011; respectively.

Compared to prior boards, this current board of commissioners is much more accessible, informative, communicative and transparent.

However, keep in mind that they have been under the gun to get a levy passed to avoid a county government financial catastrophe come 2012 and beyond.

With a prior board (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) having imposed a 0.5% sales tax in December, 2008 (which a citizens group got repealed in November, 2009) and with the troubles in the Stark County treasury (revealed in April, 2009), the trust level in Stark County government was probably at an all time low.  Consequently, Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson knew they had a lot of repairing of the public trust to do before they could even think about putting a new levy on.

In a remarkably short period of time (less than a year), commissioners were able to restore enough trust to persuade Stark Countians to pass a 0.5% sales tax on this past November 8th.


If memory serves correctly (as to the date), yours truly asked the commissioners on the 9th whether or not Stark Countians could expect a continuation of:
  • work sessions (which Bernabei and Creighton instituted) and the transparency they offer (Monday and Tuesday of each week), 
  • community meetings (21 from February through June of 2011) designed to promote dialogue (exchange of viewpoints) between the governed and the governors, 
  • open and accessible communication (e.g. Commissioner Creighton answers her own phone), and a
  • drive towards greater efficiency and accountability in county employment.
Predictably, they reaffirmed their commitment to the pre-tax county government environment.

Of course, words are one thing, but actions are another.

The Report is somewhat concerned that the commissioners may be losing their zeal for maintaining all of the positive changes they have brought to county government.

Admittedly, the evidence is thin that there may be some slippage occurring already so soon after the sales tax victory.  However, the SCPR in bringing the matter up now is into the "a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" mode.



On November 21st Stark County Benefits Coordinator Carol Hayn was brought into a Monday work session by commissioners to talk about the county's health insurance program (non-bargaining employees - 705 in number) and specifically to address the matter of how much employees should pay for insurance (Stark County is a self insurer except for catastrophic [in excess of $150,000 per claim] coverage) and what percentage of the premium the employees themselves should pay (currently at 10%).

The commissioners took in Hayn's information and recommendation (no increase in the total premium, but no recommendation on whether or not the 10% should be increased) and said they would decide the matter later. 

It was not all that alarming that the commissioners did not discuss in public view their thoughts on that Monday.  Perhaps they needed additional information, input, et cetera.  However, it is not unusual for commissioners (especially Creighton) to give a first impression on the matter being considered.

What might be a cause for concern was that on Wednesday the 23rd (the regular commissioner meeting day) a motion was made to keep the percentage paid by affected county employees at 10 percent and passed without discussion and without comment as to the merits/demerits of raising the rate unless one thinks that the term of years that a rate is in place or a reference to the "unstable financial condition of the county" is such a discussion.  The SCPR does not.

After the meeting, Commissioner Bernabei did address the questions of media present including yours truly.  The Report's take on Bernabei's answers is that they were of a superficial variety and indicative, perhaps, that the commissioners did not consider seriously the possibility of requiring county employees to pay more.

Hayn had presented data on Monday that an increase to 16% would save county government some $217,000.

The Kaiser Family Foundation recently put out a report showing that in the private sector employees pay an average of 27% of their health insurance premiums.

But the commissioners did not discuss in public in much detail as to why there should not have been an increase for 2012.  Bernabei did say (is sort of an after thought fashion) as justification for holding the rate at 10% that employees have not had a pay increase in several years.

The question the SCPR has is this:  why didn't the commissioners discuss the matter in a public meeting and provide chapter and verse detail why Stark County employees should maintain their 17% advantage on their health insurance contribution rate over private sector employees?

Yours truly spoke with local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (he led the effort to repeal the imposed sales tax of 2008) earlier this week and he says that he believes that the commissioners are on a track to forget past lessons learned (on the trust issue)and that within a year or so they will be asking Stark Countians for additional sales tax money without having changed/negotiated or encouraging other county departments of government to change/negotiate the formula of employee benefits (primarily pensions) and their contribution rates for health insurance/retirement plans.


The commissioners may have indepth reasons why they chose stay at the 10% rate but they chose not to share them with the Stark County public.

Could it be that they are in a mode of backsliding on the matter of transparency in county government?