WHO IS RUNNING 16 OUT OF 17 STARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS? LOCAL TEACHER UNIONS?

According to an Akron Beacon Journal (ABJ) editorial yesterday (Out of the race) some $400 million in grants are available to Ohio schools under a federal stimulus program put together by the U.S. Department of Education which the department titled Race to the Top.

The editorial named the Canton City Schools as one of three urban school districts which did not apply for a grant.

These grants are designed to deal with: (source - The Ed Watch blog)

• supporting advances in standards and assessments, 
• state data systems, 
• teacher distribution, and 
• assistance to struggling schools

 The ABJ editorial says that only 40% of Ohio school districts have applied.

One source (a retired educator and former Stark County union leader) told the SCPR that he knows of only one school district that applied for a Race to the Top grant (Canton Local aka Canton South).

So for Stark County the rate of application is about 16%, far below the unacceptably low 40% for all of Ohio.

Why are the application rates so low?

Again, according to the ABJ editorial, it is local teacher unions; not statewide unions such as the Ohie Education Association and the Ohio Federation of Teachers.

Here is how the ABJ editorial writer summarized the objections:

[Race to the Top grants] "might require changes in how teachers are evaluated, compensated or assigned to buildings and classes in relation to student performance."

The SCPR asked Canton City Schools board member James Carmen why Canton City Schools did not participate in the Race to the Top grant application process.  Here is his response:

In order to participate in the race to the top grant each school district in Ohio had to sign off on a memorandum of understanding which described how the state would implement the grant if funded.

The signatures required were the superintendent, the school board president and the president of your local teacher's union.

The board passed a resolution at our Jan (sic) meeting instructing the board president to sign off and the superintendent agreed to sign off.

Unfortunately the Canton Professional Educators Assoc. was not comfortable with how the grant was to be implemented and their president would not sign off.  As a result, we were not able to apply.

The SCPR tried to get in touch with Pam Jackson, who is president of the Canton Professional Educators Association which is the bargaining agent for teachers in the Canton City Schools, for a response to Carmen's version of events,  but was unable to reach her.

However, a source close to Jackson (emphasizing he was not speaking for the union or for Jackson) says that his understanding is that the decision "not to apply" was a joint decision by the CPEA and the superintendent of Canton City Schools.

The SCPR asks this question:  What difference does it make?
 
Whether it is a joint decision or one that the union vetoed by not being willing to sign on, the fact of the matter is that Canton has not applied for sorely needed funds.

New board member Eric Resnick during his campaign forthrightly said that Canton schools need to ask for a new levy and soon.

How will the failure to apply for Race to the Top grants affect voter willingness to approve a new levy?

If the Canton decision is a joint enterprise between the superintendent and the union, then both have some explaining to do to Canton taxpayers.

If Carmen is correct and it was the union which scuttled the application process, then Pam Jackson has some explaining to do to Canton taxpayers.

And while we are into the "explaining mode," how about the other 15 Stark County school districts?

Northwest and Fairless are both on financial life support, why haven't they applied?

Why haven't the remaining 13?

Is it because the teachers unions are running most of Stark County's school districts?

FORMER STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONER TO TAKE ON FORMER STARK COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIR CURT BRADEN ON TUESDAY FOR A REPUBLICAN BOARD OF ELECTIONS SEAT? ALSO, WHEN ASKED BY THE SCPR, WHETHER NOT REPUBLICANS ARE ASKING HER TO SEEK THE PARTY CHAIRMANSHIP, JANET CREIGHTON RESPONDED: "NO COMMENT."

The Stark County Political Report has a well placed source from within the Stark County Republicanism telling The Report that Jane Vignos is burning up the telephone lines this weekend seeking support to unseat former Stark County Republican Party chairman as one of two Republican representatives on the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE).

The source tells yours truly that Vignos is getting a very positive response from Stark GOP executive board members.

The SCPR is somewhat skeptical that Braden can be beat in his quest to retain his BOE seat.  But when The Report learned that the person interested in running against him is Jane Vignos, the skepticism faded sustantially.

If the Vignos report is true and if Janet Creighton does seek and gain the chairmanship of the Stark GOP, then there will be a sea change in how the Stark County Republican Party is run.

Democrats with the Zeigler problem, a new appointed commissioner (Meeks), a new county engineer (Bennett - "conflict-in-interest" concerns)  and the possible departure of incumbent commissioner Todd Bosley could be in for lots of political trouble come November, 2010 with a Vignos/Creighton managed Stark County Republican Party which will be much more invigorated with a change in leadership from current chairman Jeff Matthews.

The Report's source says that if Republicans do make a change that it is likely that Matthews will remain as deputy director of the BOE.

Matthews may remain.  The SCPR believes it depends on how bitter the fight between Vignos and Bradern (if it materializes) becomes.

For job security, it might be wise for Matthews to sit this one out!

REPUBLICAN STARK BOARD OF ELECTIONS MEMBER CURT BRADEN IN A PANIC?

UPDATE 01/17/2010 AT 09:30 AM

 

ORIGINAL POST

Stark County Republican Party chairman Jeff Matthews (deputy director of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE)" - how do you like that for a "confilict in interest," had it all set up.

He (the SCPR believes) worked with former Stark County Replublcan chairman Curt Braden to go "low profile" in informing members of the Stark County Republican Party executive committee that there is an election coming up for Braden's seat on the Stark County BOE.

Only on Thursday did Matthews get out an email to party executive committee members informing them of the the election to be held next Tuesday.

The post pays almost $20,000 of Stark County taxpayer dollars which apparently is being withheld (via the "last minute bums rush political procedure) by Braden and Matthews from the Republican general public.  This analysis sounds somewhat familiar coming from the SCPR doesn't it?

No doubt, Republicans like Braden smugly enjoy it when The Report criticizes the Stark Democratic Party and Democratic officeholders for setting aside public jobs for poltical insiders.

Well, Mr. Braden what is the Braden/Matthews operation but the same kind of operation that the Democrats do.  Hmm?

And there is no doubt that were Republicans in control of countywide government, the Matthews led regime would be using taxpayer money to warehouse their political loyalists and workers ion the public's dime.

The Bradens of party politics is why more and more everyday citizens are disassociating themselves from the formal organization of either party.

The SCPR is told by well placed party sources that Braden is now scrambling to retain his seat on the BOE.

His campaign?

You will love this.

First, to ensure that elections are fair for Republicans, and

Second, to fight Acorn (a group that Republicans thinks works hand-in-glove with Democrat organizations and candidates).

Fair for Republicans?  Hey, Curt, how about fair for everybody?

The Report is told that a female candidate (anti-Bradens say this is an opportunity to inject diversity into the BOE)  is surfacing to run against Braden this coming Tuesday, but yours truly is not being told the name of the lady.

Why not?

Probably because there is resistance by the person considering a run.

Why is she resisting?

Because if she enters the race and loses, she will have to deal with Braden and Matthews post-election.

Some Republicans are telling the SCPR they would like to see Janet Creighton run for the seat and to become Stark County Republican chairperson.

When The Report talked with Janet a few weeks ago, she refused to weigh-in on the Matthews quality of  leadership question that the SCPR posed to her.

To The Report, the refusal to weigh-in might be a clue in and of itself about Matthews hold on his job.

One final comment.

The SCPR doubts that Braden will  be denied re-election if he really, really wants it.  Most of the executive committee folds are hard core party establishment types who would have an awfully hard time voting against the former chairman.

But how about all those election losses at the end of the Braden chairmanship era going into the Matthews reign?  How about the opportunity that the Democrats are presenting Repubicans on countywide office this time around (the November, 2010 election)?

Based on what he has done, wouldn't one expect Matthews to blow the 2010 opportunity?

BRADEN WITH HELP OF STARK COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIR JEFF MATTHEWS "STEAMROLLING" ANY POSSIBLE OPPOSITION TO BRADEN'S BEING REAPPOINTED TO A REPUBLICAN SLOT ON THE STARK COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS?

Not until Thursday night did an email go out to Stark County Republican Party executive committee members informing them that the committee is set to meet Tuesday evening at the Hampton Inn (in the Belden Village area) to select one of the party's two representatives sitting on the board.

Undoubtedly, the Thursday to Tuesday ploy is a Braden/Matthews inspired "squeeze-out" for any potential rivals to get things together.

What's more, the notification referenced an application but no application form was attached.

By Ohio law, local boards of elections have four members (2 Democrats, 2 Republicans) and in the event there is a tie on any vote taken by the board members (which occurs frequently - especially of clearly partisan issues) the Ohio secretary of state, who is now a Democrat, breaks any ties.


BACK TO THE STARK COUNTY REPUBLICANS

The SCPR Republican source complained to yours truly about the Braden/Matthew nexus and the destructive negative effect they are having on party viability.

Other musings by the Source:

• How Braden had undermined former (to Braden) Stark County Republican Party chairman Ron Dougherty to become chairman himself.
  
• The lack of diversity in the Stark Republican Party and how this election would be a terrific opportunity for the local GOP to advance a woman into the board slot.  (Editor's Note:  Braden and the other GOP board member William Cline are both from the second Ward in North Canton - how about some geographical diversity?)
  
• Talk within the Stark GOP to the effect that Braden's longer term goal is to re-establish himself.as chairman and in the meanwhile he is content to collect the nearly $20,000 per annum for doing virtually nothing
  
• How there is much dissatisfaction within the party about Braden and Matthews.
• Travis Secrest is a front man for Chairman Matthews in an effort to secure the executive director's position when it comes open in May.
  

Another Republican source to the SCPR added to source number one's observations:

• The Young Republicans are the only factor within the party organization enabling the party's candidates to win any seats because a main party infrastructure for recruiting, supporting and empowering candidates simply does not exist.
• Jason Wise (who is soon to leave for the military) as executive director has been "lapdog for Chairman Matthews."

THE SCPR REACTION

Interesting, interesting indeed!


SCPR readers know full well that The Report has long been critical of Braden and Matthews and their "uninspired" leadership as being the primary reason that Stark Repubicans have been largely relegated to having member elected to boards of township, boards of education (both of which are "offcially - nonpartisan") and village/city council seats.


Yes, they have some mayor seats but two of them (Louisville and North Canton) are a "weak" mayor form of government.  Only Alliance stands out as a significant non-county office held by Stark Republicans.


Why should the general run of citizenry care about the fate of the Stark Republican organization?

Answer:  political competition is sorely needed within Stark to enhance choice to the voters and accountability that goes with choice.

It surprises not the SCPR that Braden and Matthews are "short-circuiting" the local party processes to structurally ensure that they continue their stranglehold on the Stark GOP for their personal agrrandizement.

Stark Democrats under former chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., appeared to be a "setup" type operation a la  what the Republicans are experiencing under Braden/Matthews.

A rift remains among Democrats because of a Maier engineered ouster of union member (Ironworkers) and long time board of elections member Billy Sherer.

Maier left it to successor chairman Gonzalez to clean up the mess.  Gonzalez has a tough way to go because of his work against union member Kathleen Kelly when she ran for Jackson Township trustee on two occasions.

BACK TO THE REPUBLICANS

Will the dissident Republicans be heard on their complaints about the Braden Steamroller?

Not likely.

The likes of Braden and Matthews are experts at "gaming the system" for the advantage of themselves and their loyalists.

People like Braden and Matthews would rather see the party decline than see their "special privilege" be diminished.

Braden, Matthews, Maier, Gonzalez and the like and their self-serving ways are a primary reason why scores of everyday citizens are turning away from party organization politics.  These folks are turning to alterntive such as the tea party movement.

Expect a further deterioration in the Stark County Republican and Democratic organizations as citizens create more alternative organizations as a way to get the concerns of day-in, day-outs before the Stark County public.

IS THE NORTHWEST BOARD OF EDUCATION BECOMING "TRUSTWORTHY?"

On January 12, 2010, The Canton Repository picked up on a press release from the Northwest Local Board of Education, part of which the SCPR picks up on, to wit:

District officials want suggestions on how the district should move forward. This is not a meeting about a levy but an opportunity to participate in the discussion.   (emphasis added)

Using suggestions from the event and other sources of resident input, the Northwest Local Board of Education will create an action plan ...

The question that the SCPR has is this:  is this an exercise in kidding oneself?

The Report believes this meeding has everything to do with a levy.

School officials would serve themselves better in being straightforward with Northwest's consumers of educational services.

No rational person will believe that the community meetings and "action plans in the making" on the brink of putting a levy on the ballot in either May or November is unconnected with the levy effort.

"This meeting is not a meeting about a levy" (the phrase)  may be correct in the "technical nomenclature" sense of the word meeting.  But in a "gestalt" sense, the survey done recently by the Board, the meeting last week (that somehow got omitted - inadvertently - from the the district's website calendar) and the meeting for this coming Monday billed as not levy related,  coalesce to make it clear to a discerning person that "the phrase" is at the very least a disingenuity and at worse an "in-your-face" insult to to thinking/analytical people.

Although Superintendent William Stetler's fingerprints are all over this approach, the official line is that Stetler is not a part of  this "let's slip one over on Northwest voters" approach.

Everyone in Stark County knows that the Northwest and Fairless school districts are in the worst financial shape of all the Stark County districts. And the SCPR believes it is because they have lost the trust of their respective publics.

All the geniuses from Northwest have done is to deepen the skepticism of many Northwest voters.  The leadership of Northwest would have better advanced the cause of honesty and its concomitant of trust by owning up to the obvious.

Everything they (the board members and the school administration) have done since the levy defeat in November, 2008 is to employ gimmickry and tactics in hope of achieving the miraculous:  the passage of a substantial levy in a school system that has been a long time in building mistrust in the toughest economic times that this nation has faced in many a year.

The Northwest school leadership can continue to play the "ostrich head in the sand" routine or they can get real and start building real trust by being straight with the people.

TREASURER ZEIGLER "CHERRY PICKS" NUMBERS HE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT? JANET CREIGHTON ASKED THE SCPR: IF THERE IS A SHORTFALL TO THE COUNTY TREASURY, WILL TREASURER ZEIGLER BE LIABLE?

On January 9th, the SCPR did a blog, which among other points, raised the question of how much it was "really" going to cost for Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor to do her forensic audit of the Stark County Treasurer's office.

CLICK HERE to review the prior blog.

Rota Cutter, head cashier in the treasurer's office, emailed the SCPR with a report that the actual contracted cost - by contract - would be $210,000.  Rota advised The Report that the number could be confirmed with county administrator Mike Hanke.  The SCPR did contact Hanke and he confirmeS that Rota had her number correct.

The SCPR was glad to be in a position of getting the attention of the treasurer's office so that we could get a correction of numbers that The Repository had published  which proved to be ill-founded.

Rota's willingness to correct the forensic audit cost numbers got The Report to thinking.

Hmm?

Is Rota a person in the treasurer's office that will give the Stark County public some idea of how much taxpayer money is missing and which Treasurer Zeigler alleges that his former chief deputy Vince Frustaci took.

 

 Why so much focus on how much money is missing?

Because if more than the bond money ($500,000) on Frustaci (should Zeigler's allegations prove true) is missing, then the question becomes how much and is there a civil liability case to be brought on behalf of Stark County taxpayers to make the county whole on the missing money.

Former Canton mayor Janet Creighton posed this question to the SCPR recently.

 

Normally, if there is to be a recovery action instituted for Stark County taxpayers, it would fall to the Stark County prosecutor's office (civil side) to move on behalf of Stark's taxpayers.

But the SCPR believes such would not be appropriate in this case.

Prosecutor John Ferrero's office does not appear to the SCPR to be a proper entity to act on behalf of taxpeyers, if there proves to be a need, Ferrero's office will not do because of obvious "conflict-in-interest" factors.

So the question is this:  Is Ferrero's office preparing for the possibility that Stark's taxpayers will need looking after and lining up outside counsel to take a look at the potential legal culpabilities from within the treasurer's office and determining whether or not action should be taken?

Of course, if it turns out that a legal determination is made that substantiates Zeigler's accusation of Frustaci and more than $500,000 is missing; it would be nice to have an inkling ahead of the actual finding so that Ferrero's office can be looking for alternative advocates for Stark County taxpayers

Surely someone within Zeigler's office has a good idea of how much is missing.

But apparently they aren't talking.

As of January 14, no answer from Head Cashier Cutter.

Apparently some numbers are more important than others?

Is knowing a number on the missing money really all that important?

On second thought, perhaps not.

There is the issue of the admitted cost of $210,000 for a forensic audit that would not otherwise, but for the missing money, have been needed.

Even if the county suffers no out-of-pocket on the missing money, shouldn't a look be taken at recovering the cost of the audit?

The word is that bonds on covered employees does not cover such things as the cost of forensic audits.

Accordingly, Ferrero's civil division should be in the planning mode no matter what.

Nonetheless, it would be nice if Head Cashier Cutter or someone else would give some sort of indication of how much money seems to be missing.

After all, it is our (taxpayer) money!!!

VIDEO: SEE STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOSLEY & (NEWBIE) MEEKS "CAT FIGHT" OVER SALES TAX FUNDS TO BE COLLECTED ON "IMPOSED" TAXES.

It is an overstatement to term the exchange between Commissioners Bosley and Meeks as being a "cat fight," right now, but acrimony could takeover in the relationship between the two over time and make "cat fight" an apt description.

When Meeks talks about Bosley's "style," the SCPR believes he is reflecting on conversations he has had with Stark County Democratic Party leaders in recent times.

Bosley is a maverick Democrat who charts his own course and is not beholden to the likes of Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez, former chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. and political director Shane Jackson.

It is likely that the "party brass" are holding their collective breaths hoping that Bosley opts to become more Columbus centered by taking up Ohio Speaker of the House Armond Budish's strong wish that he take on Republican Todd Snitchler (Lake) in the race to be the 50th district Ohio House representative.

For if Bosley vacates his commissioner's seat, then the SCPR believes Meeks will decide to take out petitions to run for the Bosley seat so that, if elected, he will be in office until 2014.

As it stands now, Meeks, if he is "retained" by the voters; will have to stand for re-election in 2012.  Well, the timing for re-election could not be worse.  The economy will not have recovered and Stark County finances will be in the toliet for 2011 and 2012 and Meeks will have to face a lot of unhappy voters who have been subjected to huge cuts in county services.

If Bosley stays and survives in this November's election, the SCPR believes that the political undertow in the commissioners' officer will engulf both Bosley and Meeks and make it difficult, if not impossible for the two to work together.

So the SCPR is coming around to believe that it would better for Stark County (things will be bad enough, let alone having two "cat fighting" commissioners) that Bosley take up Budish's offer to make the 50th a Democratic seat. 

Here is a video showing Bosley and Meeks squabbling yesterday: