END OF THE HAGAN ERA IN MARLBORO TOWNSHIP?

AND, PERHAPS, STARK COUNTY?

Earlier this year state Representative Christina Hagan was talking to anyone who listen about the dawning of a new political era in Stark County politics and governance whereby the John P. Hagan family was on the cusp of becoming a political dynasty in Stark County.

But as the Hagan family approaches the November 7th election, it appears that family political patriarch John P. Hagan is fighting the fight of his political life to stay on as Marlboro Township trustee.

In the 2013 Marlboro Township trustee election, Hagan ran unopposed in a two person running, two persons to be selected race.

Perhaps John should have seen the "handwriting on the wall" in that he came in second (see graphic above) to Ken Eddleman that perhaps someone in Marlboro would see the second place finish as being a sign of vulnerability come the 2017 elections.

Well, that somebody is not just anybody but former long time serving Marlboro trustee John Battershell.

As the SCPR sees it, "the gig could be up for John in Marlboro" and, as The Report has written, for Christina too in her run for the Republican nomination for Ohio's 16th Congressional District seat being vacated by Wadsworth resident Jim Renacci as he has decided to run for the Republican nomination for governor.

ON JOHN HAGAN

It appears to the SCPR that John Hagan's arrogance is increasingly making him "persona non grata" in Marlboro Township politics and governance.

Interesting in view of the fact that he has served as township trustee from 1989—2000 and again from 2009—the present (December 31, 2017).

Battershell, who describes himself as being "friends" with Hagan, says he has decided to run because Hagan "as a public official" (emphasizing:  "nothing personal") has left a lot to be desired.

Battershell is said to be telling Marlboro voters that he thinks that Ken Eddleman is doing a terrific job as trustee as is Wayne Schilig who is not running in this election cycle and, of course, when it comes down to choosing a second person to vote for, it ought to be John Battershell.

Hagan, Battershell claims, is into micromanaging township operations and consequently is doing his best to muck things up in Marlboro.

Moreover, he offered the SCPR some examples of why he thinks Hagan needs to be replaced.

One example he provided does seem to have a personal tinge to it despite Battershell proclaiming that he and Hagan are friends who continue to converse with one another.

About four years ago Trustees Eddleman and Schilig decided that Marlboro needed a change in who serves as the township's zoning inspector.

Because of his long service in Marlboro Township government as trustee (1985 through 2005) and thereby being the most knowledgeable person in the township about the particular zoning priorities for the township, Schilig and Eddleman suggested to Battershell that he ought to apply.

And he did.

Guess who—sort of—did object?

You have it!  None other than Trustee John P. Hagan.

Hagan abstained from the trustee votes on the Battershell hire and renewal thereof.

Abstain?  Isn't that for when one might:

• have a conflict-in-interest,
• doesn't know enough to vote based on a lack of having full information, or
• has not been present at a trustee meeting for which minutes are adopted, and
• THEREFORE "not" in a position to vote?

It is obvious to the SCPR that Hagan would not endorse Battershell because he likely was worrying at the time that Battershell as zoning inspector might be the first step to his wanting to return as trustee.

The Report does not think John Hagan is the "brightest bulb" in Stark County political subdivision politics and government, but he is savvy enough to know when his own longevity might be threatened.

The SCPR sees Trustee Hagan as a political hanger-oner.  In 2008, as he came to his end (because of term limits) of his time as Ohio House District 50 state representative, he looked around for a Stark County political opportunity.

And, lo and behold! he found one.

Republican Jane Vignos had announced she would be retiring as a Stark County commissioner as of December 31, 2008.

It is hard to believe that a state representative with tons of free Stark County-based media ink could do no better that staying within a 1,000 downside vote to a political newcomer.

Despite being in a heavy Republican majority Statehouse political caucus, Hagan's individual legislative record was quite unremarkable.

Hagan was looking again for something more lucrative than being Marlboro Township trustee in 2014.

Despite having been chairman of the Ohio House Public Utilities Committee during his days in the Legislature, Hagan was rejected as a replacement for former Ohio House District 50 Republican state Representative Todd Snitchler.

Snitchler ran in 2010 and got re-elected to the Ohio House in November, 2010 only to bail out shortly after being sworn-in for his new terms to become a newly elected Governor John Kasich appointee to the PUCO post.

The Hagans pounced on the Snitchler Ohio House vacancy like a "a pack of wolves" going after raw meat.

John Hagan, a mere two years, term limited out of the Ohio House, used his remaining influence to get his political neophyte daughter Snitchler's job.

PICKING UP AGAIN ON CHRISTINA HAGAN

Both Christina and Jim Renacci are running in the May 8, 2018 Republican Party primary election.

The SCPR would not at all be surprised to see Christina abandon her congressional race and run for the one remaining term before being term limited out of the Ohio House (50th Ohio House District which includes Marlboro Township).

See this blog in which the SCPR provides chapter and verse on her substandard fundraising when compared to a person whom appears to be the national GOP congressional campaign organization's preferred 16th District candidate (Anthony Gonzalez).

So POOF! goes the Hagan Dynasty?

The Report hears that Reggie Stoltzfus who has "filed" to run for Christina's seat is a bit unnerved about the possibility that she will opt out of the congressional race

But he just might want to hang in there.

The SCPR is hearing more and more that many Republicans in the 50th (mostly in the Marlboro Township vicinity) are "Hagan-ed out."

Maybe just maybe now that she has taken the congressional district move (a district, by the way, she does not live in), she will be seen across the 50th as being just another "opportunistic" politician who looks out for herself first and foremost.

Looks like Christina is a "chip off the old block [father, John]," no?

One week after these ads appeared in a local Lake Township weekly periodical "The Hartville News" (which provides heavy Marlboro Township coverage) two weeks ago:

This one appeared:

Kinda looks like there might be a little bit of political panic going on within the Marlboro Township sited Hagan household, no?

The Hagan political "hot air" balloon might be about to make a crash landing number one with crash landing number two to follow-on in 2018.

WHAT DOES OUTLAWING CITIES SETTING $15 HOURLY MINIMUM WAGE HAVE TO DO WITH OUTLAWING BEASTIALITY?

To repeat the blog headliner:  What does outlawing cities setting $15 hourly minimum wage have to do with outlawing beastiality?

According to Judge Richard A. Frye of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, NOTHING! and consequently Frye (on June 2, 2017; the suit having been filed on March 20, 2017) invalidated the minimum wage aspect, as being unconstitutional(re:  the Ohio constitution), in Ohio Senate Bill 331 passed by the "lame-duck" Ohio General Assembly (OGA) on December 7, 2016.

The suit was filed by 50 Ohio cities in defense of the Home Rule provisions of Ohio law (some of whom joined in on the litigation in order to specifically defend enactment of the $15 hourly minimum wage at the city level.  (See this LINK for other Home Rule victories/defeats)

The Ohio legislature in a clear example of "we have met the enemy and it is us" provided the perfect vehicle to the listed cities to challenge the Legislature's attack on Home Rule, in general, and, specifically, Cleveland's legislation setting a $15 hourly minimum wage for the jurisdiction of Cleveland city government by including in S.B. 331 the following diverse and unrelated (for the most part) topics:

From a Google search:

As far as the SCPR can determine, Cleveland is the only Ohio city who has passed $15 hourly minimum wage laws.

Back on November, 2015, Ward 7 councilman John Mariol expressed interest in bringing the legislation to Canton and thereby into the Stark County political mix.

Ohio U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown is part of a Democratic Party sponsored policy initiative:   "Raise the Wage Act of 2017" to make the $15 hourly minimum wage "the law of the land."

The objective of the 49 other Ohio cities joining in the Franklin County based lawsuit obviously defending Home Rule.

One of the more disturbing phenomenons of  S.B. 331 being enacted  is summed up succinctly by past Ohio Supreme Court chief justice C. William O'Neill:

Even more unsettling for Stark Countians is that three of Stark County's legislators (i.e. Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring; all Republicans [Democrat Stephen Slesnick voted "no"]) voted for the illegality.

If there is any consolation for the Stark County legislators is that they are but part of a gaggle of lawless legislators in that 20 other Republican senators and 53 other Republican representatives who in Sarah Palin's words "went rogue" in disrespect for the rule of law.

One of the recurring themes of The Stark County Political Report has been that many if not nearly all of our elected officials from the White House down through the local boards of education take initiatives, pass laws and do other official acts that send a message:   "the rule of law" be damned.

At play in Beckley v. Ohio was Article II, Section 15D, to wit:

A primary reason that the likes of Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring love catch-all legislation is that they can vary their reasons for having voted yes or no on a given bill and thereby avoid be held accountable on their respective positions on matters like Home Rule and the $15 hourly minimum wage.

To be perfectly blunt about the effort to hide, Frye's decision in Bexley v. Ohio (see the entire decision embedded in PD article at this LINK) makes those voting for the bill "lawless legislators."

With rank-and-file citizens going more and more often rogue and lawless when they find it "inconvenient" to their personal interest to comply with this or that law, it is unacceptably hypocritical for the likes of Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring and their colleagues and indeed all similar acting officials (e.g. Stark County probate court judge Dixie Park being overturned on constitutional grounds by the Ohio 5th District Court of Appeals, Judge Frank Forchione in ordering fine money diverted from the Stark County treasury to a Massachusetts civic effort [later changed his mind]) to expect the respect for and compliance for the "rule of law" when it suits them.

The SCPR recognizes that there is certainly is a legitimate difference of opinion whether a given government official's act is lawful or not.

However, when such officials are determined to have acted unlawfully; acknowledgment and very "public" apologies and a commitment to re-direct actions in a lawful manner are in order going forward.

Moreover, in an egregious context (e.g. the Dixie Park situation), the offending official should resign.

How often does even one of the four of the foregoing repentances happen?

And to the degree that acknowledgment, apology and re-direction or resignation does not occur; make no mistake about it, these government officials make themselves by virtue of their lawless political example a key part of growing lawlessness in America!

Another example of:  "we have met the enemy [to our democratic-republican system of government] and it is us," no?

(VIDEOS) ARE OLESLAGER, SCHURING AND HAGAN HEADING TOWARDS A CONFRONTATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OVER DEVASTATING LOCAL GOV'T FUND CUTS?

 VIDEOS

Prosecutor John Ferrero 

tells

Stark County Police Chiefs 

to 

Harass

Stark County Delegation

to 

Ohio General Assembly

on

Local Gov't Fund Cuts

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

SCOG Administrator

Don Archer

Paints

Bleak Picture

on

Financial Future

of

Canton-Stark Co. Crime Lab 

   

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

Canton City Council 

President Allen Schulman

Chastises

Stark County Legislators

on

Local Gov't Funding Cuts 

  

Yesterday, the SCPR attended a Stark County Police Chiefs meeting with representatives of the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) Executive Committee.

The Topic?

The threat to the continued existence of the Canton-Stark County Crime  Lab (Crime Lab/CSCCL) due to draconian cuts to local government funding at the hand of the State of Ohio through Ohio Legislature budget cuts over the past several years.

There is in place an agreement that Stark's cities, villages and townships will annually allocate 9% of their local government funding to SCOG in order to fund the Crime Lab.

Here is Crime Lab administrator Don Archer providing the police chiefs with a very graphic description of the dire condition of the lab's financing.  



In 2014, the CSCCL faces a $500,000 short fall.  And  if one goes back to the heyday of Crime Lab funding (2007), its budget has taken about a three quarters of a million dollar ($750,000) hit because of the huge State of Ohio reduction in its distribution from the Local Government Fund.

There were some calls at the meeting for dipping into sales tax revenues being generated from the passage In November, 2011 of an 0.5% issue.  Waynesburg Chief of Police William Bath took the position that the police chiefs supported the sales tax issue, at least in part, because of a promise that a significant part of the Crime Lab's monies would come from the revenues it generated. 

If the commissioners were to specifically earmark sales tax money to the CSCCL, then it would mean less money for the sheriff's department, the prosecutor's office, and other Stark County criminal justice units for which the tax issue was designed.

In effect, Ohio's cut on local government funds forces taxes be raised in one form or another at every level of Stark's local government.

Yes "local tax increases" forced by the Ohio General Assembly:  Be it the county (sales tax), township (road, fire, Park and EMS levies), cities and villages (income tax increases).

And get this.  What has happened to the money taken away from local communities?  The State of Ohio has used the money to balance the state budget.

Such is a form of creative tax increase legislation whereby Ohioans taxes go up at the local level but the appearance is that Ohio is reducing taxes.

Talk is that Governor Kasich who is running for re-election in 2014 is going to push through a tax reduction on the state income tax level during this 130th Ohio General Assembly.

He is depending on an easily fooled electorate buying into the "apparent" tax reduction and ignoring that the cost of government is in reality rising exponentially at the local level.

So who takes the political hit?

You've got it!  Commissioners, mayors, city councilpersons, trustees and board of education members.

Meanwhile, the governor gets re-elected campaigning on:  "Hey, folks, I reduced your taxes!"

One thing you very rarely see among police chiefs (usually very conservative and politically inactive folks, at least in public view) is agitation to get in the face of other public officials.

But yesterday they were exhorted by Prosecutor John Ferrero to do just that each and every time they see a member of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly.

He even used the term expression:  "Harass them."



Interesting, no?

If the chiefs follow Ferrero's admonition, it is likely to get the attention of the likes of state Senator Scott Oelslager, state Representative Kirk Schuring, state Rep. Christina Hagan, (Republicans which constitute a super majority in the Legislature) and state Rep. Stephen Slesnick (a Democrat).

As far as the SCPR is concerned Oelslager (a legislator since 1988) and Schuring (a legislator since 1995) for all their combined 43 years in the Ohio General Assembly (switching back and forth between the Ohio House and Senate to get around term limits) have produced relatively little for Stark County.

Yesterday, Commissioner Tom Bernabei said that about 10 years ago Stark County received about $19 million in State of Ohio local government funding.  The projection for 2013/14 is a little over $8 million.

Hmm?

Stark County has gotten cut almost 60% on the Oelslager/Schuring watch going back to 2002/2003.

Wow!

Nevertheless, Stark Countians keep sending them back to Columbus?

And local officials have in the opinion of the SCPR aided and abetted their becoming fixtures in the Legislature in providing public forums for them to appear in the form of council meetings, trustee meetings and the like to make cameo, grandstanding-esque appearances to engage in glad handing with these very same officials.

It has been rare indeed that the SCPR has ever heard a councilperson, a trustee, or a board of education member put either Oelslager, Schuring, Hagan, or Slesnick on the griddle when they make their public relations appearances at about election time.

These four must chuckle to themselves about how they have just fooled the people, no?

Of course, none of the four have the b_ _ _ s to sit down with the SCPR and answer the incisive questions that only yours truly (of all the Stark County media) has for them.

Not on their life would they ever, ever do that!  

For they know that yours truly has the background knowledge of their specific work in the Legislature and the ability to analyze that work or lack thereof and to frame questions the answers to which (if compelled by the SCPR's persistent questioning on point until the question asked is answered) would prove politically embarrassing to them if not make them vulnerable to not being re-elected.

In short, Oelslager, Schuring, Hagan and Slesnick work very hard to avoid accountability to Stark County voters.

The most active Stark County public official in going after the Legislature and specifically after Oelslager, Schuring and Hagan has been Canton City Council president Allen Schulman.  (LINK to a prior SCPR blog)



A few weeks ago he as council president issued letters to federal and state legislators to come to council and explain why local governments are being cut.

Oelslager said he is too busy.  Schuring and Slesnick said they would come, but does anyone believe they really will?  Hagan just totally blew Canton off.  And the congressmen?  No way they are coming to Canton, Ohio!

The SCPR learned today that Alliance is facing up to a million dollar deficit in it budgeting.

Of course, Massillon has felt the crunch too.  City officials (council, not the mayor) have put an income tax issue on to increase it by 0.2% and also reduced the credit that Massillonians, who work outside the city and pay taxes to other jurisdictions, get.

On March 15th, Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry laid off seven (7) from the city's Roads and Highways department because the city was looking at a $600,000 deficit this year.

North Canton is looking at about a $1 million deficit.

Canton citizens are pushing the Healy administration to add 25 or so new policemen to the Canton force to get it up to 175 officers as soon as possible. 

But where is the money to come from in the face of massive cuts that Ohio has visited on the Hall of Fame city?

Schulman told the activists to go after their legislators.  But will they follow his direction?

All these cuts are being made in the midst of Ohio having generated a $1.7 billion and trending higher surplus (per Schulman, see video above).

Hmm?

With all the furor in Stark County from many different quarters about the cuts being made in various government services, is life in the hometown about get a lot more uncomfortable for Oelslager, Schuring, Hagan and Slesnick?

Are they about to have to face discordant music for their failure to protect Stark County local government funding?

DISCUSSION: IS JOHN HAGAN ABOUT TO RETURN TO A LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT THAT - MAYBE - HE CAN HANDLE?

Things are topsy-turvey in Marlboro Township government these days.

According to a Stark County police official observation to the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) who knows all the parties in the Devies/Township trustee flap; the trustees are hurting themselves by not telling all they know about the basis of Devies situation.

It will be interesting to see whether or not the official has good advice to the trustees. Of course, we will not know until this matter comes to a conclusion.

If the answer is yes, this would be an indication that THE PETER PRINCIPLE is in full swing in Marlboro Towship.

If he turns out to be correct, it could be said, perhaps, that THE PETER PRINCIPLE is in full swing in Marlboro Township government.

THE PETER PRINCIPLE is thusly defined in Wikipedia:

The Peter Principle is a special case of a ubiquitous observation: anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails.

The Report brings this up because The Report believes that former Marlboro Township trustee John P. Hagan is the Stark County personification of the principle once he got out of township government.

And it may have been in full operation when he was township trustee.

The Report simply does not know enough about how he performed as trustee to make a judgment.

But The Report has had an up close look at Hagan as state representative and in his attempt to become a Stark County commissioner.

All Hagan can do to survive at a higher level is to find someone to attach to that can do his thinking for him and provide him with some model of how to handle himself. This guy is not a leader. He is a follower who tries to bluster himself so as to appear to be a leader.

From the comments that have been made on The Report's story, there appears to be some interest in Hagan returning as a township trustee.

Is township trustee, in a rural township where, John Hagan truly belongs?

DISCUSSION: STARK COUNTY LEGISLATORS COST STARK COUNTY $55,200 IN 2009 ($140,000 - 2011?) ON COUNTY BUDGET VIA UNFUNDED MANDATE!

Who should pay for the operation of the Stark County Law Library?

Lawyers and other users - right?

Not right.

In its collective wisdom the Ohio General Assembly including Stark Countians Kirk Schuring (R - 29th Senate), Scott Oelslager (R - 51st Ohio House), John Hagan (now term limited out R- 50th), John Boccieri (now 16th District congressman - but then D - 33rd - Senate), Steve Slesnick (D 52nd - Ohio House) and Mark Okey (D - 61st which included a part of Stark County) voted to reverse direction on who pays for the operations of the Stark County Law Library.

Now yours truly is a lawyer and a dues paying member of the Stark County Law Library.

But should I and my colleagues-at-the-bar and other users of the library be subsidized by Stark County taxpayers?

A resounding no! - so says the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report).

Kelli Young of The Repository reported on 1/22/2009 that a Stark County Board of Commissioners obligation to pay for the library on a phased out basis was abruptly reversed in December, 2008 when the Ohio General Assembly completed action on HB 420 to re-institute - immediately - an non-reimbursed (from state of Ohio funds) mandate that Ohio's counties (of course, including Stark) pay for the operation of county law libraries.

If you were to ask any of the supporters of HB 420 whether or not they are in favor of "unfunded mandates," undoubted they would also say an unequivocal no.

What these legislators hide behind is no one pointing out chapter and verse where the rhetoric doesn't match the action.

One of the missions of The Report will be to go and check on how these folks vote on "unfunded mandates" and report to Stark Counties name, rank and serial number of the offending legislators.

There is nothing like a "high intensity light" on an legislative activity to put the actions in the public spotlight.

So thank you Stark County - courtesy of your Stark County legislators - for the subsidy.

DISCUSSION: HAS LARRY DORDEA MADE AN ERROR IN CAMPAIGN JUDGMENT?

Larry Dordea, candidate for Stark County sheriff is a novice at running for political office.

One of the temptations for political neophytes is to latch on to seasoned politicians; especially when you know that early in the campaign you know your political party (the Republicans, in this case) have a poll showing you behind the sitting sheriff 75% to 25%.

As troubling as those number may have been, they were early numbers and have more to do with name recognition than anything else.

Now that Dordea has been running a vigorous campaign for a number of months, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) has to believe that the numbers have narrowed significantly.

By associating with John Hagan, Dordea may be stunting his ability to get closer to his opponent Swanson.

The Report did a piece some time ago suggesting that Hagan and his Democratic opponent Pete Ferguson may be the laziest candidates running for countywide office in the November election. The Report did not invent this notion, it came from an elected countywide official and has been confirmed in an offhand way by a high Stark County Republican Party insider.

Another thing that may hurt Dordea in connecting with Hagan in his effort to attract independents and disaffected Democrats (disaffected with Swanson), is that Hagan is widely known by political insiders to be a Republican Party hack.

The Report realizes that both Dordea and Hagan are Alliance area politicians. But why would Dordea allow geographical affinity to hurt his chances to become county sheriff?

The Report can readily see why Hagan likes the Alliance alliance. It gives him more credibility than he can garner on his own. Dordea does have significant independent voter support and even some Democrats going his way. Hagan does not. Hagan has never had to run in an area dominated by Democrats and Democrat leaning independents. He has only run in the Republican gerrymandered 50th House district.

Question: Is this Dordea's political naiveness coming to the fore? Will being an inexperienced politician be the difference between him and Swanson?

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?