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?

THE "OATH OF OFFICE" & THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BE HANGED?

UPDATED:  09:00 AM

I recall that when Republican state Representative Christina Hagan's father John, when he was the representative for Ohio's 50th, now, of course, passed down to the daughter (a family "rite of passage," no doubt?) wrote to The Hartville News how much he revered the constitutions of the United States and of Ohio and how utterly seriously he took his oath of office to uphold both.

Of course, that was all political melodrama that was not borne out by his actual work as a legislator.

He along with many, many state legislators since Ohio passed its constitution in 1851 have routinely violated the provision of that very constitution that requires "that no bill shall contain no more than one subject."

As unthinking as John Hagan is, it probably did not occur to him how out-of-tune his own conduct was in relation to his politically inspired rhetoric.

And it appears that daughter Christina is just as unthinking as Dad as, apparently, are her fellows in the Ohio General Assembly from Stark County constituencies; namely, Scott Oelslager (R - Plain, the 29th Ohio Senate), Kirk Schuring (R - Jackson, the 48th Ohio House) and Stephen Slesnick (D - Canton, the 49th Ohio House).

It simply never occurs to them how contradictory some of the legislative actions are compared to the "supreme" law of Ohio.

A haven for the contradiction is the biennial (once every two years) Ohio budget bill.

If there is a piece of legislation, other than a budget item, that:

• can't make it on its own, 
• needs to avoid being scrutinized by the public through the legislative hearing process, or which
• a legislator does not want to be held accountable in voting for

then the place for it is an omnibus (all encompassing) budget bill.

The political analysts name the various political processes being implemented as being:

• logrolling,
• ridering, and
• avoiding accountability and transparency

In a sense, to place these labels on the overall process is to clothe it in political talk and there somewhat disguise what really is going on.

They are violating their oaths of office and they are violating the supreme law of Ohio, which is to say, the Ohio Constitution.

And they do so, "clueless" in the process.

The only saving grace is the Ohio Supreme Court.

Since the Ohio Constitution was instituted by Ohio's voters (1851), the legislature has been challenged some 212 times on alleged violations of the "single subject" requirement of Article II, Section 15(D).

Well, you can chalk up number 213 with the filing of a lawsuit by (who else?) the American Civil Liberties Union this week in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.

Here is the vote on the "offending" budget bill (HB 59):

Here is a LINK to go to the Ohio House website to get a look at the "throw everything in but the kitchen sink" monstrosity that three (Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring) of Stark County legislators helped pass.

Here is a sampling of what you will see in the 699 page listing, said sampling happens to be part of the objection that the ACLU has to non-bugetary bills being included.

Democrat Slesnick gets no pass from the SCPR inasmuch as, during Democratic Governor Ted Strickland's administration, he did the very same thing.

For the Stark County Political Report it is immaterial what the subject matter is of the offending legislation.

The real topic of concern, if not outrage, is the blatant violation of "the rule of law" by lawmakers.

Beneficiaries of the violating law will find reason to support the violation of "the rule of law;" whereas losers will be quick to come to the defense of "the rule of law."

Folks who "really" believe in "the rule of law" will be outraged no matter that the like or benefit from the illegally included in the budget bill legislation.

Back in 1997, believe it or not, the Legislature itself took a serious look at getting its house in order and respecting "the rule of law."

But, of course, the legislation went nowhere.

Oelslager, Schuring and the-now Massillon clerk of courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (D - Tuscarawas Township) would have constituted the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly.

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a Stark County politico about Christina Hagan trying to find a legislative identity.

So far, she hasn't.  But she has only been legislator a little over two years.

Since her father has an utter reverence for the oath of office and the constitutions of Ohio and the United States and assuming she "is a chip off the old block," why wouldn't she want to revive the 1997 House Bill 524?

And, beyond that, the next time a budget bill comes up and her fellows "throw in everything but the kitchen sink" why doesn't she show her family's articulated respect for "the rule of law."

Come on Christina.

Redeem the family "legislative," "rule of law" honor!

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

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

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

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

Same for law school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STARK STATE COLLEGE (SSC)

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

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

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

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

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

KENT STATE - STARK (KSU - STARK)

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

But the difference is not anything to brag about.

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

Hmm?

Stark County commissioner Richard Regula among them.

Interesting, no?

Canton mayor William J. Healy, II among them.

Interesting, no?

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

Interesting, no?

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

Interesting, no?

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

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

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

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

From a SCPR blog of November 30, 2011:

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

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

Isn't that scary in 21st century America?

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

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

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

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

The SCPR's forecast?  Absolutely not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(VIDEOS) 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?

WILL STARK CO. DELEGATION TO OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY BE EFFECTIVE FOR COUNTY IN KASICH TURNPIKE FUNDING PLAN FIGHT THAT IS SURE TO COME?

Tom Suddes of The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote a column (LINK) over the weekend that members of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly should be paying close attention to.

That is, if they want to make sure that Stark County gets Governor Kasich's defined share of bond revenues for bonds (underwritten by Ohio Turnpike ["Turnpike"] tolls).

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) plans to float bonds to leverage up revenues available to local governments across Ohio and, of course, the state government itself to maintain and upgrade Ohio's highways.

Since Kasich (Republican - Columbus) has been governor, he has endeavored to carry out his underlying philosophy that government should be stripped of everything not fastened down that can be moved and shuttled off to the private sector.

Accordingly, speculation has been rampant that he would move the Ohio General Assembly for authority to lease (long term) the Ohio Turnpike to the private sector.

Ohioans will remember that such is what losing Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell proposed doing in his 2006 campaign, had he been elected.

But lo and behold! Kasich has fooled us all.

On Friday last, Kasich began his campaign for reelection; not that any incumbent in less obvious ways ever ceases campaigning.

The governor unveiled his bond-underwritten-revenue-generation program as a "free lunch" for all Ohioans.  And, of course, Republican officeholders as a generality like to say that "there is no such thing as a 'free lunch.'"

Free lunch?  Indeed!

Bond interest and set up fees will come off the top of Turnpike revenues.

Not a dime is to be taken out of the pocket of any Ohioan.  And a high percentage of Turnpike revenues come from guess who?  You've got it:  out-of-staters who travel portal to portal across the Buckeye state.

Kasich aides, in his political barnstorming trip Friday across the Ohio Turnpike corridor running across Ohio's northern most counties, said that the Kasich "tax free to the taxpaying Ohioans highway funds plan" will raise about $3 billion.

And, get this.

Some 90% plus of the $3 billion or about $2.7 billion is to go to "northern" Ohio community roads and highways.  Northern Ohio?  Yes, "northern" Ohio.

And "northern Ohio" is defined to mean?

According to Kasich aides, the area of Ohio north of U.S. Route 30 otherwise known as The Lincoln Highway.

Terrific for Stark County, no?

But not so fast.

Does anyone believe that there will not be a fight in the Ohio General Assembly (OGA) when the Kasich proposal comes up for consideration after the first of the year in its new session (the 130th) on:

• how "northern" gets defined, or
• whether or not northern gets expanded into "the funds are to be distributed over all of Ohio."

Suddes, being Cuyahoga County tied, seems to be suggesting if not advocating that "northern" should be the area north of U.S. 224 (including, of course the Turnpike itself), which, of course, cuts Stark County out of the 90% plus factor.

Under the U.S. 224 and north scenario, Stark would share in $300 million with 61 other Ohio counties.   Compare this with about $2.7 billion with 32 other counties under the U.S. 30 and north Kasich administration plan.

Hmm?

Question to the  Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly:  

• Oelslager (Ohio Senate - R/Plain, the 29th),  
• Schuring (Ohio House - R/Jackson, the 48th),  
• Slesnick (Ohio House - D/Canton, the 49th) and
• Hagan (Ohio House - R/Marlboro, the 50th):   

Is a pie of $2.7 billion (spread over 33 counties) over one that is $300 million (spread over 61 counties) one worth fighting for?

If Suddes is merely suggesting the north of U.S. 224, then obviously he is hearing from some Cuyahoga County legislators/northern Ohio legislators representing legislative districts right along the path of the Ohio Turnpike that since the revenues are coming from the Turnpike that the lion's share of revenues should go to a more limited area (i.e. U.S. 224 and north) rather than the more expansive U.S. 30 and north.

Moreover, isn't it predictable that the legislative fight will involve more than the 33 north of U.S. 30 counties versus the 26 north of U.S. 224 counties.

Does anyone believe that those 61 counties out of both definitions won't be advancing arguments as to why there should be "an equal distribution" across all of Ohio?

In 2008, the-then governor, Democrat Ted Strickland, came out in favor of doing an equal distribution statewide.  He failed, but citing his action is evidence that such sentiment does exist in Ohio political circles that the fair thing to do is to distribute the money across all 88 Ohio counties.

Citation authority on Strickland action:

Kasich, for his part, has a total win-win-win reelection equation to work with.

If the "north of U.S. 224" plan wins out, he has enhanced his chances to cut into the traditional Democratic majorities (particularly in Cuyahoga, Lucas and Summit counties) against a Democratic candidate for governor in 2014.

If the "north of U.S. 30" plan wins out, he is in about the same shape, plus he picks up Stark County which can go either way in statewide elections.

If it ends up an "all of Ohio" plan, he still wins.  He can say and will say to the 26/33 counties that he tried to advantage them on a rational basis since the Turnpike runs across the northern most counties of Ohio

Summit, but that politics internal (i.e. rural counties dominate) to the Ohio General Assembly prevailed.

Of course, the latter prevailing means he gets the least political benefit, but he still will benefit in his quest to stay in the governor's mansion.

The SCPR thinks Kasich's plan is "a political stroke of genius."  In a close race, it could be the difference maker come November, 2014.

And get this quote from the Suddes piece:

Then aides [of Kasich] showered [northern] Ohio with endorsements, including -- very significantly -- one from Democratic Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, and another from Gary Tiboni, president of Teamsters Local 436, which represents 688 turnpike employees.

It is big news when Republicans get Democratic mayors and union officials supporting their projects.

Kasich in 2011 bloodied his political standing in north/northeast Ohio with his politically "unwise" Senate Bill 5/Issue 2 plan to deal with public unions last year.

Perhaps his Turnpike plan with help him mitigate the lingering adverse political effect from having inartfully attacked public unions in the guise of Senate Bill 5.

And the good news for Stark County Republicans Oelslager, Schuring and Hagan is that they can get on the governor's bandwagon and in doing so help themselves and the governor politically.

But most importantly for the well-being of Stark Countians and our transportation artery infrastructure work to make sure that Stark County is part of the $2.7 billion and not the $300 million.

DISCUSSION: WILL SENATOR DO WHAT'S RIGHT OR WILL HE DO WHAT'S POLITICAL?

Dennis Willard, Columbus Bureau Chief, of the Akron Beacon Journal (remember - The Canton Repository - [Stark County's only countywide newspaper] has no political reporter in Columbus) wrote an interesting piece about how politicized Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor has become (or, more likely, has always been) a highly partisan politician even though she has a responsibility to be a "rule of law" person as a state government administrator.

It is especially interesting when an "accountability/auditing" person is primarily a political partisan. Because Ohio Republicans are nearly shut out of state government in Ohio these days, the Ohio Republican Party (OPR) is using her (though she likely is fully complicit) as a point person to oppose the Strickland administration in any way she can for any political gain she can make for the OPR.

The flap that Willard writes about is Taylor's prediction (looking into a "red" tinted crystal ball). Before the 2010 - 2011 budget has been dealt with, Taylor is saying that there will be an $8 billion shortfall in the 2012 - 2013 budget.

Strickland through his political mouthpiece (Democratic state party chair Chris Refern) says that Taylor and House Republicans are set to be Ohio's version of the "Just Say No Republicans" (i.e. refuse the stimulus money [including the jobs that the money will create] and, by the way, cut taxes),

Willard points out that "just say no" (or, if you will, play the role of backbenchers) will work with isolated Republicans like Taylor and Ohio House Republicans but not likely with Ohio Senate Republicans. Unlike minority Republican members of the House, "in the majority" Republican state senators actually have a state constitutional responsibility, working with the governor and majority Democrats in the House, to provide Ohio with a balanced budget.

This is where Stark County comes in.

Undoubtedly, Stark Countians Scott Oelslager (Republican - Jackson) and Todd Snitchler (Republican - Lake) will toe the party line in the Ohio House Republican caucus.

Both Oelslager and Snitchler like to insinuate that they seek opportunities to be bipartisan. But the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) sees very little evidence to support either's claim.

Oelslager has done a little bit along bipartisan lines over his 20+ years in the Ohio General Assembly. While Snitchler is in his first term, there is no "real" evidence (only rhetoric) that he will shake free of Ohio minority leader Billy Batchelder and do what is good for Ohio and Stark County over his political party.

If you take his performance at Matt Patrick's and Jason Wise's highly partisan ditty (with denials of partisanship galore - "thou protest too much") at Tax Day, Tea Day - Canton as any indication where Snitchler is on the right wing continuum, it is beginning to appear to The Report that Snitchler is pretty much a carbon copy of his predecessor John Hagan except he may be a little smarter. He should be. After all he is a lawyer who should have superior analytical skills.

Maybe in time Stark Countians will realize that Todd Snitchler is not one wit sharper than Hagan, just more polished. And perhaps even worse on policy matters.

State Senator Kirk Schuring is the local politician to watch on the budget.

Schuring keeps telling yours truly that he is "no cookie cutter Republican."

Well, according to Willard, his vote on the Strickland budget will be "come to Jesus" time for the good senator and his colleagues in the Ohio senate.

We shall see.

Watch Ohio Auditor "Mary Taylor" (from the nearby City of Green - Summit County) speak for herself in the accompanying video snippet from the full piece produced by the Ohio Republicans.

Be sure to note the "great" Ohio economy that Taylor refers to in the video that apparently only a blindly partisan Republican such as Mary can see as having come from Republican one-party-rule for the better part of 20 years in the pre-Strickland political era of Ohio.

How did the rest of us miss the booming Ohio economy that Taylor thinks came out of the Voinovich and Taft administrations and the Republican controlled Ohio General Assembly?

DISCUSSION: SHOULDN'T THE MAIN PLAYERS - OELSLAGER & SCHURING - BE HANGING THEIR HEADS IN SHAME TODAY?

For years they were in the majority/supermajority as Republican members of the Ohio General Assembly (OGA).

Yes, the two who violate the spirit of term limits (their party instituted as a tool to get into the majority in the first place) are the MAIN political culprits who have brought on this day of massive levey failures (75%) in Stark County, namely; SCOTT OELSLAGER (51st - Ohio House) and KIRK SCHURING (29th Ohio Senate). The now term-limited out (thank the Almighty, friends) Republican John Hagan (formerly the 50th) also bears responsibility.

The Democrats (Boccieri, Healy, Cirelli, and Slesnick) get a pass on this one because as a political minority the Republicans literally froze them out on getting anything done in Ohio's law making halls.

Indeed the "chickens have come home to roost" in Stark. Most of Stark County's school district's are shaky at best. And the majority/supermajority Statehouse Republicans (including our Stark Countians) are responsible.

Oelslager in particular has said many times over his recent times in the Legislature that the OGA had fixed the funding of schools. Well, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) says Oelslager's assertions have a rather "hollow" ring to them on February 4, 2009.

Even though Jackson's levy passed, it is a "get by on the skin of your teeth measure." But Lake's, Northwest's and Minerva's efforts were solidly defeated and in today's economic environment there in no chance that any of them will succeed any time soon.

The Report believes that Schuring was merely toying with and tantalizing the Stark County electorate with his proposal, pre-16th Congressional District race, to begin the process of reforming how Ohio funds public education.

Now that the election is over and Schuring lost, has he come back with his proposal anew? No! And he won't. With the Democrats now controlling the Ohio House, the proposal has no chance at all.

What a thing to do. Play politics with - the future of Stark County kids and concomitantly the financial well-being of Stark County's school districts.

Stark Countians need to be thinking more and more that when the names Oelslager and Schuring appear on a Stark County ballot - to vote for the other person.

Now the ball is in the Democrats court because they control the Ohio House and the governorship (remember Strickland: [paraphrased] "I will have failed as governor, if I do not get the funding of public education fixed").

From a local perspective the glare of the spotlight will be on Okey (61st), Shiavoni (33rd).

Now it's their turn to be politically accountable.

Will they succeed where Hagan, Oelslager and Schuring have failed?

DISCUSSION: STARK COUNTY HAS AT LEAST ONE LEGISLATOR WHO IS AT LEAST WILLING TO CONSIDER FIXING SB 221?

Plain Township trustee Louis Giavasis has received communication from Mark Okey (D - 61st which only includes the extreme eastern slice of Stark County), to wit:

I did recieve (sic) a letter from Representative Okey in support and he is polling other legislators to see if there is any interest in revisting SB 221.

SB 221, what's that?

It is the bill that set up the mechanism for the likes of American Electric Power (locally, Ohio Power), First Energy (locally, Ohio Edison) to ask the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for rate increases and WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE UTILITIES HAVE A "VETO" POWER OVER PUCO MODIFICATION/REJECTION of the request.

SB 221 received "unanimous" support in the Ohio General Assembly which means, of course, no one read the bill. Who would allow an affected party to legislation to have a veto power of the action taken. This is like sentencing to jail then providing the key to the inmate.

Of course, we do have Oelslager on record as saying in effect "no way, Jose" in terms of taking the matter on. Oelslager defers to higher powers in the government of Ohio.

Otherwise, nothing from Schuring, Slesnick, Snitchler, and Shiavoni (also, only the eastern slice of Stark).

To the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT it speaks volumes to their constituents for "core" Stark County legislators to ignore a specific request to act.

Even Oelslager had to be buttonholed by Giavasis at a public event.

And elected officials wonder why the general public does not hold them in high esteem?

DISCUSSION: CAN KIRK SCHURING WIN COUNTYWIDE IN STARK COUNTY?

It was truly shocking. No, not that Republican Kirk Schuring lost to Democrat John Boccieri in November, 2008 in the contest for the 16th congressional district. The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) early on in the race predicted a Boccieri victory by about 10%. Which turned out to be pretty much on the money.

The Report thought Schuring would lose Stark County because Stark has turned into a Democratic county - if the Democrat runs to his/her strength, to wit: the cities of Alliance, Canton and Massillon.

But not 57% to 42%. Not for all the ink that Schuring has gotten in area media and all the campaigning he has done in Stark over the last 14 or so years. The Report thinks the size of the loss was mostly due to the strong Democratic tide that is sweeping the nation. Schuring gets more specific. He blames Taft (former Ohio governor) and the now ex-president Bush. Taft left office with a favorability rating of 19% and Bush was in the 20s.

Does the pounding Schuring took from Boccieri signal that he is a vulnerable candidate, no matter what he runs for in Stark in 2010? If he chooses to run for anything.

Schuring and his musical chairs partner - except there is a chair for each of them to sit on; just different looking chairs - have exchanged the 29th Ohio Senate seat and 51st Ohio House seat over the last several election cycles. Why? Because in the early 90s the Ohio Republicans came up with the idea of term limits as one of their tools to wrestle control of the Ohio General Assembly away from the then "in control" Democrats.

So Oelslager and Schuring have defied the "spirit of term limits," but Stark Countians and Jackson Township voters have left them get away with it. Of course, there is the factor of Stark County Democratic Party chair Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.. who gave Oelslager a "free pass" in the 2008 elections.

Oelslager has already announced that he is running for the 29th come November, 2010. The question is: will he have a viable Democratic opponent or will Maier and the Democrats either put up a token candidate or none at all.

Schuring? Well, he is undecided. He has told The Report that he may run for Oelslager's seat in the House, leave politics altogether and re-enter business or - are you ready for a surprise? - run countywide for either county commissioner or county auditor.

It could be that Stark County Republican Party chair Jeff Matthews is urging Schuring to run for a county post. Right now, the Republicans have NO countywide elected officials except for a few judges. Would Schuring running for commissioner or auditor be the beginning of a Republican resurgence in Stark County?

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: A CLASSIC CASE - CANDIDATES TRYING TO BE SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT?

An upside down question mark? Yes, indeed. Because the candidates for the 16th Congressional District are trying to confuse the voters by denying their history.

J. Kirk Schuring is business through and through.

John Boccieri is a union man, through and through.

But now, according to area media reports, both are out courting the other side's base support.

Try they may, but a "leopard does not change its spots" except the leopard in the accompanying cartoon figure.

J. Kirk Schuring is owned lock, stock and barrel by business types. Just look at his history with the W.R. Timken family.

John Boccieri is owned lock, stock and barrel by union organizations. Boccieri would not have a political existence unless the unions had made him their cause celebre in his run against right-to-work Ron Hood in a race for the Ohio House years ago.

It's Stark County politics "really weird" when candidates try to being something they're not. Everybody knows, but guess who? The candidate!

Does any one other than a Rip Van Winkle-esque person in Stark County think Kirk Schuring is pro-union?

Does any one other than a Rip Van Winkle-esque person in Stark County think John Boccieri is about to become the darling of chamber of commerces?