RESNICK INJECTS "ANIMOSITY" INTO CANTON COMMUNITY LEADERS MEETING?

The Stark County Political Report is not quite sure how former Canton City Schools board member Eric Resnick got on yesterday's invitation list sent to community leaders.

But he did.

For media, Resnick being present at any public meeting is like "manna from Heaven."

For Canton City Schools (CCS) Superintendent Adrian Allison, it had to be "a time that tries men's souls."

Allison made a presentation yesterday to some 40 or so Canton-based or interested persons singled out by te superintendent as being community leaders.

After the presentation, Allison opened up the session into a Q&A which most of us is a Question & Answer time.

But with respect to former CCS board member Eric Resnick's participation, it might be more fitting to think of his and Allison's segment as being a Question & Animosity time.

As readers of this blog know, the SCPR is sympathetic to citizens who actively participate in public meetings.

However there are a few that even the SCPR find hard to abide.

Resnick is one and there is another one who hangs out in Massillon official circles.

One characteristic of folks like Resnick and the Massillon guy, the SCPR thinks, is that they are "my way or the highway" people and therefore The Report deeply discounts their input when it comes to assessing the value of their public arena participation.

The Report's take on Resnick is that he lives in a world of his own defining and if one does not share that definition you are just flat out wrong.

The Report sees Resnick as a doctrinaire type (way left of center politics) who seemingly cannot image in his wildest dreams that anybody might see things differently than he does.

The SCPR has been acquainted with Eric Resnick for about ten years or so.

And he has been a subject of a half a dozen blogs since this blog got started in March, 2008.

Yesterday, Resnick, at the aforementioned meeting, made a rather sobering suggestion to the effect that the CCS Board of Education may have violated Ohio's Sunshine Law (i.e. decisions can only be "open to the public" meetings) in coming to a decision to "merge" Timken High School into McKinley High School.

To boot, Resnick took issue with and scolded (as arrogant types are apt to do) the media for using "merger" rather than "acquisition" in writing about Canton City Schools' Brighter Tomorrow Phase III initiative which, again, is the phase that deals with the high schools being merged into one.

Below is the entire exchange between Resnick and Superintendent Allison.

Things to look for (not covered elsewhere in this blog) in Resnick's questions and comments: (SCPR's interpretation)

• Superintendent/BOE being hostile and disrespectful in the merger (if The Report may disagree with Mr. Resnick) of Timken with McKinley,
• Superintendent Allison was being deceptive (the SCPR's word/phrase; not Resnick's) on November 15, 2014 at a CCS BOE work session in which Resnick says Allison never mentioned the phase including a Timken/McKinley merger,

For the record, Resnick was corrected by prominent Canton attorney Gust Callas to the effect that "no, Eric, merge is the correct term. We at Black, McCuskey ... have 'merged' firms and the name after the 'merger' remains Black, McCuskey ... ."



Resnick has the potential to be an effective "hold them accountable" factor if he can rein-in his "my way or the highway" attitude.

Notwithstanding the SCPR's disenchantment with Resnick, he did raise a important point (the Sunshine Law thing) that board/school officials need to answer.

It is interesting to note however that Resnick did not mention yesterday the opinion of some that the CCS-BOE may have violated Ohio Sunshine Law in the appointment of a board member on June 14, 2010 when Resnick was a board member.

Maybe Resnick had misgivings about that process and the SCPR is having a run of bad luck in finding online documentation of same.

The Report is just a tad suspicious that the-then board member Resnick had nothing publicly to say about the June 14, 2010 appointment when it became a matter of controversy in September, 2010.

If he didn't, it does not invalidate his current Sunshine Law compliance concerns.

However, most of us expect that one who sounds off like Resnick did yesterday to have a track record of consistency.

Maybe he did object or express reservations about the 2010 appointment process back in 2010 and it is merely of case that the SCPR can't chase it down.

Credibility is everything to school boards and school officials and they need to respond to and, if need be, correct on this suggestion of legal impropriety.

But not the merger/acquisition language thing.

Resnick's oration on comparing/distinguishing the two words was just "old fashioned" silliness that apparently bespeaks Resnick's compelling need for everyone to speak as he does,  to do as he does; even if on the most inane of things.

It is a credit to Superintendent Allison and the CCS BOE that Resnick (who appears to be billing himself as the spokesperson for "Keep Timken - Timken" folks) was invited to the community leader breakfast (muffin and coffee) meeting.

But it is difficult for the SCPR to think of Eric Resnick as being a community leader.

(SATURDAY UPDATE) THERE IS MORE TO THIS FIGHT THAN RINALDI V. RESNICK FOR CCS BD OF EDUCATION SEAT?

UPDATED 09:30 AM (SATURDAY)

A major issue of contention betwee John Rinaldi and Eric Resnick has been the use by Rinaldi of what is known as being "the Union Bug" (The Bug) in his campaign literature (which label indicates that "union workers and/or union licensed shops" were part of the work product).

Resnick claims that Rinaldi's use is an unauthorized use of The Bug in that he alleges that it was faked in at least one piece of Rinaldi's campaign literature.

Rinaldi's counter is that the allegation by Resnick is bogus and that he obtained the right to use The Bug in the objection lodged with the Graphic Communications International Brotherhood of Teamsters in ordering letterhead from local printer PPI Graphics.

Today, Rinaldi provided a copy of an invoice for the letterhead from PPI Graphics.

To the SCPR, Resnick's campaign tone and in particular the flap about Rinaldi's use of The Bug is a sign that Resnick thinks he is running behind in his race for election as an at-large representative to the Canton City Schools' board of education.

The SCPR has done some checking around with Canton officials and The Report's thinking on Resnick "running scared" appears to be shared by a number of these officials.

One official told the SCPR that he has never seen a CCS Board of Education race generate such intense interest.

And, of course, The Report thinks that such is the case because there are larger stakes at play in terms who is going to control the Stark County Democratic Party over the longer haul.

UPDATED:  02:53 PM (FRIDAY)

With reference to that part of today's blog, to wit:

He [Resnick] brought Hall of Fame AFL-CIO [HOF/AFL-CIO] president Dan Sciury into the points he was making about the Gonzales,

I did not go into the specifics of that part of Resnick's press release that questions whether or not the Hall of Fame AFL-CIO endorsement of John Rinaldi was on merit or merely based on Rinaldi being a longstanding union member and therefore as a matter of the requirements of the bylaws of the union Rinaldi was entitled to endorsement irrespective of his merit of receiving same.

Moreover, Resnick references three HOF/AFL-CIO union members who he says contacted him to tell him about the perfunctory nature of Rinaldi's union endorsement.

In the press release's and Resnick words, to wit:

The Hall of Fame Labor Council has a provision in its bylaws that mandates that when a member runs for office, they must endorse the member. Rinaldi was an Ironworker, and claims to still be a dues paying member. Venerable labor leader and fellow Ironworker William Sherer Sr. is Rinaldi’s uncle. Bill Sherer Jr. is the current Ironworkers president and Rinaldi’s campaign treasurer as well as his cousin.

“Three people who were in the room when the vote for the HOF endorsement was taken called me to apologize and explain about the bylaws."

"I get it, and I respect Organized Labor’s need to look after their own, I know that Rinaldi’s Labor endorsements are based on his pedigree, not merit, and the people who contacted me were very clear about that."

(Note:  The material in quote ("...") marks are the actual words of Resnick)

The SCRP received an e-mailed letter from HOF/AFL-CIO 3rd Vice President Joseph Liolios early this afternoon which is a response by the union to the quoted material (note:  there is another matter which The Report chooses not to deal with).  The Resnick quoted material was taken from his campaign Facebook page.

Here is an "extract" from Lilolios' response:

As implied above, the SCPR chooses not to publish specific material referred to in the union e-mail and on which Liolios says the HOF/AFL-CIO used in evaluating Resnick for endorsement and declining to do so.

Except for his response to the material from Liolios not published by the SCPR in this blog, here is what Resnick had to say about the Liolios' points on endorsement criteria.

I certainly have more integrity than to out people [i.e. the three union people referred to by Resnick in his original press release and picked upon by Liolios] who have told me things in confidence.

And if you want to verify the HOF Labor Council's policy on endorsing members, I suggest you contact Dan Scuiry.  He is good at explaining it.

Not much else in Mr. Liolios' letter merits response.

 Hmm?  A quintessential dodge, if you've never seen one, no?

Finally, Resnick has written this on his Facebook page:

I call your attention to Martin Olson's blog today, which is about as conspiratorial and crazy as you can find ... .

My response?

I wouldn't expect anything else from Resnick.

It seems to me that if one has a look, an assessment, an opinion different than Eric's, then it's time to smear and denigrate.

When Rinaldi first told me about what he thought was going to be Resnick's campaign strategy, I was skeptical.

But it is looking more and more to me like Rinaldi was "right on the mark."

Although I have limited knowledge of his [Resnick] way of interacting with others; my take on him is my belief is that he sees politics in rather stark terms and on the left side of the political spectrum where left, right and center are in play.

However, I must say I was surprised to see his lashing out at Rinaldi the way he has.

Of course, one should expect that no one is immune when one operates the way Resnick seems to.

As I wrote in the original blog:  "It appears to the SCPR that Resnick is 'the main man' in dragging the campaign to the 'lowest common denominator.'"

All I can say is that Resnick needs "political maturity" in spades.

At least, if he is elected, the users of the Canton City Schools better hope he acquires it in a hurry!

ORIGINAL BLOG

Yesterday about 2:30 p.m., the SCPR received an e-mail from Eric Resnick (candidate for an at-large board of education slot with the Canton City Schools) with nothing but an attachment.

And the attachment was?

A press release.

And what did the press release have to say?

In its essence it was an allegation by Resnick that his opponent John M. Rinaldi had committed fraud in using a fake Graphic Communications International Union (GCIU) label on a fund raiser flyer.

See this LINK for the particulars on the "union" printing label.

Resnick in the press release indicated that he had referred the matter to GCIU president Christopher Farrand who is located in Cleveland and that Farrand has the matter under investigation.

Resnick went on to say:  “This is serious because it is fraud, and an affront to the unions who have endorsed Rinaldi and their families.” 

The SCPR telephoned Resnick within minutes of receiving the press release.

Here is where it becomes apparent to The Report that there is more to the Rinaldi/Resnick square off than the CCS board of education seat.

The SCPR has written previously on this contest and was told by Rinaldi that Resnick had decided to take the low road as a campaign strategy.

And it appears to The Report that Rinaldi may be correct in his assessment.

In the conversation referred to above, Resnick brought Stark County Democratic chairman Randy Gonzalez and his son Kody into the discussion.

What do they have to do with Resnick's allegation?

Absolutely nothing insofar as the SCPR is concerned.

Resnick mused to himself that it was hard for him to believe that the chairman (who is a contributor to Rinaldi's campaign) and son Kody (the head of the Stark County Young Democrats) could support John Rinaldi.

Resnick claims that Kody is helping Rinaldi with flyer design work and such explained why the Stark Young Democrats have endorsed Rinaldi.

And he went further than that.

He brought Hall of Fame AFL-CIO president Dan Sciury into the points he was making about the Gonzalezs.

How could Stark's long time union leader possibly support Rinaldi in light of Resnick's allegations (which included a charge that Rinaldi had done the same thing during his 2003 campaign for a CCs board of education seat)?

And, just as an aside, how Resnick could think he makes a plausible point that "unions do not "authentically" support Rinaldi is on the absurd side, is it not?

Just look again at Rinaldi's pre-general campaign finance report (above).  Compare to Resnick's below.  How many union contributions does Resnick have?  How about none.

The largest block of financial support for Rinaldi ("the mother's milk of politics) comes from where?

You've got it:  Stark County-based unions. 

One notable exception for Rinaldi on union support is his failure to get any funding from the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 94 which is run by Healy ally David Kirven.

The Local 94 exception fits nicely in the The Report super theme (see the argument below) that at its base the Rinaldi/Resnick battle is a manifestation of a larger fight taking place within the Stark County Democratic Party.

I got to thinking that with Resnick bringing the Dem chairman and son into the fray was a signal to me that, perhaps, the Resnick/Rinaldi (both former board members) fight had a larger picture to it.

Maybe, just maybe, this race is a skirmish in what the SCPR believes is a subtle effort by Canton mayor William J. Healy, II (a known supporter of Resnick; despite his not appearing on Resnick's pre-general campaign finance report as a contributor), to undermine the chairman.

Healy appears to The Report, for the chairman's the chairman's friends consumption, to say all the things that one would expect in terms of support for the chairman's leadership for intra-party appearances sake.  But the SCPR is not buying.

The Report has written in previous blogs that it appears that the mayor is laying in wait to, perhaps, in concert with Dave Kirven of the Plumbers and Pipefitters union to make a move on Gonzalez's continued tenure as chairman.

Not that the SCPR thinks Healy has anything in particular against Gonzalez.  But we political junkies all know that he has to be "'the all' and 'end all" that he is involved in.

That's why The Report believes that the Rinaldi/Resnick race is more than simply a political face-off between the two.

I think Healy likes to lurk in the background "seeking whom he may devour."  And Resnick, wittingly or unwittingly, may be a convenient tool with which to ply his mischievous politics.

Of course, the SCPR contacted John Rinaldi about Resnick's allegations.  Resnick told me that he had not confronted Rinaldi on the matter.

So what does Rinaldi have to say in response to Resnick?

In part: (click on graphics to enlarge)

The SCPR has written that Resnick seems to be the stronger of the two candidates on "purely educational Issues" and was impressed in his 2007 successful school board candidacy run in getting out in front on pushing for a tax increase for the CCS.

However, The Report is not impressed with his campaign style this time around.

It smacks of desperation.

Additionally troubling was his bringing the Gonzalez factor into our discussion.

Such suggests to the SCPR that there is more at play here than simply Rinaldi versus Resnick.

The only CCS board member who impresses the SCPR is member Richard Milligan, the lone Republican.

The Democrats and their "we are not part of any organized political party [a la humorist Will Rogers)" standard fare gig is playing out full tilt in the Rinaldi/Resnick match up.

Moreover: Is the mayor of Canton up to his political intermeddling once again in his quest to be "the go to guy" insofar as Stark County Democratic politics is concerned?

In the final analysis one must ask how having folks like these (i.e. either Rinaldi or Resnick) on the board is going to help with the dire state of affairs with the Canton City Schools?

It appears to the SCPR that Resnick is "the main man" in dragging the campaign to "the lowest common denominator."

The kids of Canton's prime school system deserve better than this!

But the politicos are apparently willing to sacrifice the students/parents interests to the primacy of the politics of personal destruction.
 

(VIDEOS) A "TAKE NO PRISONERS" ELECTION FACE-OFF: RESNICK V. RINALDI, CANTON CITY SCHOOLS-AT-LARGE RACE?

UPDATED AT 8:35 AM

VIDEOS

ERIC RESNICK

IN

2009 CAMPAIGN

ON

TAX LEVY

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

JOHN RINALDI

ON

RON JOHNSON MATTER

It is so very, very obvious; Canton City Schools (CCS) Board of Education at-large candidates John Rinaldi and Eric Resnick do not like each other.

Here is a LINK to their candidate profiles.

Several weeks ago, the SCPR crossed paths with Resnick at a meeting of the Stark County Black Caucus (SCBC) held in the Canton City Council chambers on September 26th and spoke briefly to him about his face-off against Rinaldi.

Resnick filled out Rinaldi's term in office (2008 - 2011) when Rinaldi abruptly resigned in May, 2009.  Republican Ron Duff was appointed but Resnick defeated him and another candidate in the election of November, 2009.

However, because Resnick could not get his petitions in proper order, he was disqualified from seeking reelection in the November, 2011 election.

A distinguishing characteristic on Resnick in that November, 2009 election insofar as The Report is concerned is his being out front proposing and supporting a tax initiative (which passed, November, 2011) for the CCS as part of his campaign.



In that campaign, it appeared to me that Resnick was running a "high-brow" campaign.

But in this campaign, maybe not.

In the chance meeting with him at the SCBC meeting, Resnick volunteered to confirm a certain piece of sensitive personal information about Rinaldi that may have factored into his resignation from the CCS-BOE in 2009.

I was somewhat taken by surprise as to how aggressive and eager Resnick was to confirm the information which I had heard from a number of sources since the resignation.

The point is that Resnick's zeal in discussing the matter was a tip-off that the Resnick/Rinaldi election was going to get heated.

John Rinaldi showed up at Canton Councilman Kevin Fisher's Town Hall meeting at the former Sourers Middle School on October 16th.

As with Resnick, the SCPR had a brief exchange with him as to the race.

His message:  "Resnick is going negative.  He is out digging up attendance records (2004 - 2008) when I was the CCS representative on the Joint CCS - City of Canton Recreation Board."

Sure enough, from Resnick's Facebook page, I was able to retrieve a copy of his investigation into Rinaldi's attendance.

While Rinaldi himself (at least to me) hasn't gone off on Resnick, I have talked with several of his "politically-aligned" friends who have taken a negative tack on him.

Surprisingly, one thing I have not heard from Rinaldi supporters is a reference to the bankruptcy that Resnick went through during the 2005 - 2008 time span.

Maybe they are not as good as Resnick in doing what politicos call "opposition research?"

Or, perhaps, want to keep the campaign at a higher level so as to contrast with Resnick's campaign.

One Rinaldi supporter compared Resnick and his ego to Canton mayor William J. Healy, II, saying, that if the two were in a room together one of them would have to get out because both think they are the smartest men in the world and therefore no room would be large enough to contain the ego of two.

Wow!

Readers of the SCPR know what I think of the seemingly "uncontained" ego of Healy.

While I have not had quite the same impression of Resnick (it could be because I have much more familiarity with Healy in term of frequency of contact than Resnick), I have had enough that I can see that Resnick is "full of himself" and can be a test of one's patience and forbearing.

I will say that he addressed the "real" issues of the CCS much more thoroughly than Rinaldi.

One such issue he addresses is one that came up at the Stark Community Foundation (Neighborhood Leadership Council)  candidate forum (Annual Neighborhood Showcase and Town Hall Meeting) held at the McKinley Grand on October 14th (from which Rinaldi was excluded because he is said to not having "timely filed" a candidate questionnaire).

The issue?

Requiring CCS employees (including the superintendent [Adrian Allison]) does not live in Canton, but his two daughters attend Cantons schools) to live in the confines of Canton city limits.

While unpopular with some, it appears to the SCPR that Resnick makes a compelling argument that the law of Ohio does not allow such a requirement.

It seems to the SCPR that the forum failed CCS voters in not allowing Rinaldi to appear on the filing of the questionnaire matter.

Which is more important?

Standing on technicalities or getting the opposing candidates side-by-side to voters' to gauge on the issues discussed.

Councilman Frank Morris (Democrat - Ward 9, who is said to be supporting Rinaldi) tells the SCPR that he filed his questionnaire two days late but was permitted to speak.

Here is an excerpt from the Ward 9 Facebook page on Rinaldi's reaction including his answers to forum questionnaire questions:

Here are my answers to the neighborhood association questionnaire that I filled out and turned in to the Foundation for the function Monday night.

I am very proud of my neighborhood association and the work/service they provide us. I'm a single father of two with a full time job and a homeowner in the City of Canton. I have been trained by the Ohio School Boards Association as a school board member and I have also been educated on educational policies at Harvard University.

My concerns are not unlike other Canton citizens. Money. Tax money to be specific. I have over 20 years of professional business experience and will bring that mind set to the board. When elected, I will make sure that all Canton City School Board meetings are televised on TV 11 and available on the CCS Web site.

The community needs to be able to see how their government works and we have a great way of providing this service.

Thanks again to Frank Morris and the Ward 9 Crew!

The difference could be that Morris is running unopposed.

However, the SCPR stands by the assessment that the Neighborhood Leadership Council stood on ceremony over substance and thereby did not effectively serve the voters of the Canton City school district.

I searched "high and low" for a Rinaldi website, but could find none.  If I am able to track one down, I will update this blog with a link.

My take on Rinaldi is, while he may have a significantly friendlier tone to him than Resnick, that he is not nearly as substantive as his opponent.

Rinaldi "went head over heels" in an effort to get former Canton McKinley football coach reinstated when he was let go about two years ago.



The SCPR recognizes that "football is king" at McKinley, but CCS voters should be more interested in the candidates' stands on the very serious issues that the schools face than which candidate is more involved in the sports program.

In any event, this race is set to be one of the most hotly contested in all of Stark County.

Resnick is a close political ally of the mayor of Canton and is said to be Healy's choice for election.

Rinaldi is union connected and has Billy Sherer, Jr. (head of the Ironworkers) as his campaign treasurer.

Both have their core supporters.

The SCPR predicted result?

Too close to call!

But it will be a "knock down, drag out" fight from here to election day.

The stakes for the CCS are very high indeed.

KUDOS TO CANTON BOE MEMBER ERIC RESNICK: RETIRE/REHIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICY DESERVES A FULL VETTING

It used to be in America that when a policy controversy surfaced, the proponents and opponents on any particular matter would do their homework and come to the public forums throughout the land and "have it out."

Not so much anymore.

Go to any Stark County local government meeting, by and large, they are sparsely attended by the public.  And some really important issues are being considered and decided by public officials in near anonymity.

What happens all too often is that the policy decisions made are not thoroughly thought out and then when the practical ramifications of those decisions come to the fore on implementation; then a huge community uproar is likely to surface.

Retire/rehire is one of the issues that has been thusly decided.  The most prominent forum these days is with public school officials, but in actuality the true forum is all of Ohio and Buckeye State government employees in the context of its public retirement systems.

The real guilty entity - in terms of not having fully and completely vetting retire/rehire policy - is the Ohio General Assembly.

With the disclosure last evening that Canton Board of Education (CBOE) member Eric Resnick (newly elected last November) is putting together a retire/rehire policy for the BOE is great news for the Stark County education community.

Hopefully, the CBOE policy will be put through a wringer washer and will serve as a template for other Stark County school districts as well as districts across Ohio to adopt.

A commenter on The Repository's coverage of the CBOE meeting (Canton Board of Education to adopt double dipping policy, Melissa Griffy Seeton, June 28, 2010) has this terrific observation (quoted here, in-part):

(rino333) RE: Mr. Milligan comment, In the long term, (the retirement system) cannot afford to pay the kinds of dollars that allow them to retire at early ages and be rehired, said Rich Milligan, Canton board member. But you can hardly blame people for doing what the law encourages them to do.

Mr. Milligan, one of two things is going on here. You don't understand how the retirement system works, or I'm grossly uninformed on how it works. (Maybe a little of both) ... .

Rino333 is right on the mark as far as the fiscal/financial mechanics of Ohio public retirement is concerned.

Many, if not most, Stark County board of education members (for instance) do not understand the public retirement scheme of things in Ohio.  Rino333's piece is an excellent thumbnail sketch for board members to get a quick take on how Ohio public retirement works.

However, Rino333 does not appear to understand that the "real" issues with retire/rehire in Ohio is not the fiscal and financial underpinnings.

It is a threefold controversy:

• There is a public perception that the retire/rehire process is an "inside" deal in which the retiree (exemplified by retiring school superintendents) has cultivated a close political relationship with board members to facilitate their rehiring (without meaningful outside competition).
• Next, the deal struck with the rehired retiree is not an "arms length" bargaining process.  For the most part, the retirees are hired at their former salary.  Although there is some relief for the taxpaying public on some fringe benefit issues, not enough is being done on the salary front itself.  It should be no higher than 60% of the former salary.
• Finally, retire/rehire has the effect (conceded by rino333) to keep an infusion of "new blood" out of local government leadership.

Resnick, Rino333 and Melissa Griffy Seeton are to be commended for their work on this very important public issue.

The SCPR believes that as a consequence of the work of the three named above and The Report, the issue is about to get the complete and full public debate that the retire/rehire issue should have.

DISCUSSION: KEY HEALY SUPPORTER TELLS "THE SCPR" THAT HEALY ADMINISTRATION PLANS "FAVORABLE" LGBTAC" LEGISLATION. REALLY?

UPDATE: April 21, 2009 at 7:00 AM - No mention was made by Mayor Healy of the Resnick predicted action on favorable LGBT legislation in his State of the City address.

Back on March 20, 2009 the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) did a piece on campaign contributions to the TeamHealy Committee by out-of-town contributors.

A highly puzzling piece had to do with one Tony Dane of Las Vegas, Nevada who contributed $15,070.00 to William J. Healy, II's run for mayor of Canton.

CLICK HERE to see the referred to piece for detailed background information.

In short, this contributor was puzzling to The Report because how utterly anti-gay Tony Dane is known to be in Las Vegas political circles. The Report has never fancied Healy as being anti-gay. In fact, one of his key supporters is openly gay.

That supporter has supplied the missing link between Dane and Healy.

What is it?

Go figure!

Healy and Dane went to the New York University Stern School of Business together, for heaven's sake. Yours truly should have known!

Apparently the Healy supporter referred to (Eric Resnick - who writes for the GAY PEOPLE'S Chronicle.com), was distressed that Healy had received money from a LGBTAC basher and must have gone to the Mayor with his concerns.

Resnick in his email to The Report promised to provide a "hot tip" once he knew a telephone number contact. The Report was immediately wary of the promised tip.

Why?

Because the tip could easily have been included in the email. Why the need for telephone contact?

The Report believes that something else was up. Whatever something else was, if it was anything, never materialized.because telephone contact was never established.

Yours truly thinks that the "hot tip" was going to be Healy's ethics ordinance proposal that The Repository reported on and which The Report commented on.

The Report suspects that Resnick was acting as an emissary from the Healy administration as a Healy-esque manipulation in an attempt to blunt The Report's propensity to be highly critical of the imperious and ethically challenged ways of the Mayor.

While The Report appreciates getting tips, yours truly has been around the political block a time or two and is onto such attempts.

If Mayor Healy would only sit down with the SCPR and provide chapter and verse on his campaign contributions, perhaps yours truly would be less suspicious of matters emanating from the Healy camp. But Healy does not have the stomach to face The Report when he has the soft touches on The Repository Editorial Board to finnesse.

The Report does thank all of you readers who have provided significant and timely tips. For those of you who have important inside political/governmental info to share, you can reach The Report at (330) 699-5002 or at tramols@att.net.

Back to Healy and Resnick.

Interesting information that Resnick provided in his email is the following (an excerpt from his email):

The Healy administration has lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender support, and a gay cabinet member. There will be, as time goes on, some administration-led legislation very favorable to LGBT Cantonians. I doubt that contributions from Tony Dane will inoculate the mayor from local nut ball gay haters when that time comes.

So the next question is?

When will the "administration-led legislation very favorable to LGBT Cantonians" be forthcoming and, picking up on Resnick's point: will there be any political fallout for Healy if and when he makes to legislative move forcast by Resnick?

And, of course, exactly what will be the specific subject matter of the Resnick predicted legislation?