IT IS OBVIOUS TO THE SCPR THAT "SERB" IS BROKE AND OUR LEGISLATORS SIT ON THEIR COLLECTIVE "THUMBS" WHILE THE AGGREIVED SUFFER!

The SCPR doesn't know whether to throw bouquets to Representative Todd Snitchler or roundly criticize him. He has been working with his constituents since January, 2009 to get the State Employment Relations Board (SERB) of dead center in resolving an unfair labor practice case filed on the constituents by their union.

So? Snitchler's going to bat for his constituents. What's The Report problem with Snitchler?

First, a little background.

It all started with a "on-the-job" altercation.

On October 12, 2006, Faber and Knerr got into an fight in the course of their work for Tuscarawas Township.

On October 26, 2006, Tuscarawas Township trustees fired Faber and Knerr.

On January 8, 2007, the General Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union 92 filed and unfair labor practice charge against the trustees.

On April 12, 2007, SERB found "probable cause" that the trustees had violated Ohio law by not arbitrating grievances filed by Faber and Knerr according to the terms of the trustees/union negotiated contract.

On January 9, 2008, SERB filed a complaint.

On February 21, 2008, the trustees and the union agreed in writing as what the facts of the dispute were and therefore there "no" hearing was held.

On July 25, 2008, SERB an administrative law judge proposed an order finding that Tuscarawas Township had violated Ohio law on the implementation of the grievance and discipline language if its contract with the union with respect to Fabor and Knerr.

Multiple exceptions/cross-exception (August 13, 28 and 25) were filed by the various parties to the complaint. SERB responded.

December 8, 2008 SERB made a decision BUT the letter articulating the orders out out that decision was not sent out until:

September 1, 2009.

So the grand total time line of pending action at SERB was from January 8, 2007 to September 1, 2009.

The September 1, 2009 publication of the SERB decision did find the Tuscarawas Township trustees to be in violation of Ohio law,

And it is interesting that Representative Snitchler did send, what the SCPR interprets from descriptions given to be some sort of "ultimatum" letter, to SERB on Thursday August 27th. Then the December 8, 2008 decision gets published September 1st.

Coincidence?

Probably not.

But this doesn't leave Snitchler off the hook.

Why wasn't he throwing a very public fit about the outrageous delay going on at SERB.

The SCPR does not believe that it is only the Faber/Knerr decision that is involved.

Look at this. SERB's first "published" opinion in 2009? On September 1st? Think there isn't something broken about SERB?

Back on April 15, Sntichler got up on the dais at Tea Day, Tax Day and fulminated about some imaginary political boogeyman.

Everyday people being denied "speedy" justice at the hand of SERB is a "real" problem Representative Snitchler!

But he is not alone. How about senators Schuring (R-29th), Schiavoni (33rd), Boccieri (former, 33rd); represenratives Slesnick (D-52nd), Healy (D-former 52nd), Oleslager (R-51st) and Okey (D-61).

Certainly, the "SERB" problem has been there for some time.

Why haven't they fixed it?

WHY DON'T ALL STARK CO SCHOOLS VALUE GOD? SCPR COMPARES STARK'S 16 OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS ' MISSION STATEMENTS TO LAKE: TODAY FAIRLESS

A couple of Lake Township residents contacted the Freedom from Religion Foundation with complaints about a part of Lake Local School's Mission Statement. Lake is the home district of the SCPR and three Olson children graduated from Lake and the Mrs. served on the Lake Board of Education twice.

The first thing that occurred to yours truly is how the mission statements of Stark's other 16 school districts compare to Lake's.

Today we compare Lake"s controversial statement to that of the Fairless schools.

No mention of God in Fairless school's statement of Beliefs.

So far the SCPR has examined the mission statements of Alliance, Canton, Canton Local and Fairless schools. None mention God in their mission statements.

Who has it right: Lake or Alliance, Canton, Canton Local and Fairless.

SHAME ON CANTON! CITY REFUSED TO HONOR ONLY WOMAN KILLED IN VIETNAM WAR WHO HAILED FROM CANTON: SHARON LANE, GRADUATE OF AULTMAN SCHOOL OF NURSING.

UPDATE: 09/03/2009 - 2:00 PM.

A redacted portion of an e-mail from Trustee Louis Giavasis (Plain TownshIp) with photo of Plain Township bench below:

... Above [below in this blog] is an attached photo of the bench Plain Township dedicated this past spring at the opening and dedication of the Ohio Vietnam Memorial in Clinton, Ohio. Trustee Al Leno and myself were present for the opening ceremonies, the bench sits at the far left corner facing the wall listing out the names of all Ohioans' that served and gave the ultimate sacrifice to our country in Vietnam

ORIGINAL BLOG BELOW

To its credit the city of Akron is supporting the newly constituted Ohio Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Park (OVMP, Park). (See Plusquellic confesses to mistake on bench, ABJ, Bob Dyer, 09/02/09). To the discredit of Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic, he had his name etched in the bench that Akron paid $3,500 to have created and placed in the park.

Akronites were upset that Plusquellic (who is not a Vietnam veteran) would have his name inscribed on the bench.

In reading the Akron Beacon Journal post on the furor, the SCPR noted a passing observation in the story, to wit:

Noon [Ken Noon, owner of Summit Memorials in Akron, which produced the benches] did give Akron credit for buying a bench in the first place, saying both Cleveland and Canton declined to participate. (emphasis added)

Canton declined to participate?

Has Noon made a mistake?

Unbelievable!

For in the heart of Canton is a statute at the Aultman Hospital complex honoring Sharon Lane, a nurse who graduated from the Aultman Hospital School of Nursing in 1961 (Canton South, 1951) and who gave her full measure in Vietnam on June 08, 1969.

Get this.

Sharon Lane's mother and sister were featured speakers at the Park's dedication on May 17, 2009. Isn't this a slap in the face by Canton City Council? The only female killed in Vietnam does not have her hometown honor her by participating in the development of the Park honoring her sacrifice.

Even the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce wouldn't support the Park. Chamber members called OVMP officials wanting to know why they were listed as places where visitors could sleep and dine.

Answer: The Canton Regional Chamber refused to participate in the Park effort.

The Ohio Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Park's inception (a 501(c)(3) non-profit which pays nothing to its 7 "worker bees") is aptly described by Massillon Independent report by Doug Staley (Thousands gather for dedication of Vietnam Veterans [sic] Memorial Park, May 18, 2009):

The park, conceived in 2005 by the Ohio Veterans’ Memorial Park Commission, features a 125-foot-long granite wall engraved with the names of the 3,095 Ohio natives who died in Vietnam.

Ken Noon tells the SCPR that over the past three years that the committee working on funding for the project has visited virtually every nook and cranny (either by actual appearance or telephone call) of Stark County government (probably about May, 2007 - before the financial crisis hit) asking for financial participation in the development of the park only to be turned down by all except for Canal Fulton, Lawrence Township, Plain Township and several graduating classes of Northwest High School (Canal Fulton/Lawrence Township/New Franklin).

Astonished? Yours truly is!

Shame on the city, village and township governments of Stark County.

Canton city council officials reportedly told OVMP officials that the park is not in Stark County and therefore they do not wish to participate.

Can you believe that?

Cantonians (Frank Sasz of the Park says 63 in number) gave their lives 11,000 miles from Canton but Canton officials couldn't dig up $3,500 for a park honoring the 63's ultimate sacrifice located a mere 10 miles from the heart of the city of Canton.

Here's another insult.

Jackson Township government officials told Park officials that Jackson would give no money but would issue a proclamation if Park officials would come to pick it up at (and this is the SCPR's description - not that of Park officials) "at a photo-op" session.

Remember, Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez is a mover and shaker in Jackson (fiscal officer and former trustee). Lot of substance to this guy, no?

The SCPR is working on developing a list of other Stark Countians who lost their lives in Vietnam. So far the total number is 91 (63 from Canton). What communities did they come from? What haven't those communities jumped in to support the OVMP?

But whether or not a particular Stark County community has suffered a loss, each and every Stark Community should be participating at the OVMP at some level.

Governor Strickland turned down the Ohio Vietnam Memorial Park both for Ohio's financial support and for his appearance at the May 17, 2009 dedication before 7,000 potential voters.

He haa made multiple appearances in Stark/Summit County since the dedication, (in fact he is Canton today (headline in Sherrod Brown press release: Brown to Join Gov. Strickland in Celebrating Dedication of Saxton McKinley House, National First Ladies’ Library as McKinley Historic Home) but has not stopped once at the Park. But he could come to Stark in October 2008 to attend a fundraiser for a Democratic Ohio House candidate at the behest of former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

Doesn't Strickland have his priorities straight?

Everyday Stark Countians have supported the Park. About 600 to 800 bricks have been purchased by individuals and probably 10% of them have been purchased by folks like you and me. The Park purchased and laid a total of 11,000 bricks and are now being ordered at the rate of about two a day.

Take some time and watch the video about the OVMP done by Channels 45/49 (PBS) by clicking on this sentence.

Call your city councilperson, trustee and village councilman or your mayor and ask:

Why hasn't my community supported the Ohio Vietnam Veteran's Park?

FINALLY! HARTVILLE'S POLICE CHIEF DRAGOVICH TO RETIRE?

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly has been urging Hartville Police Chief George Dragovich to retire.

Dragovich has had a long run in Hartville, but the times seem to have passed him by and retirement seems to be a good option.

The chief has been the subject of a number of somewhat controversial incidents in Hartville in recent years and the SCPR believes that is is counterproductive to the interests of Hartville's citizens for him to remain in place.

The Report has learned that Dragovich is telling his Hartville friends that he is retiring before the end of 2009.

The SCPR congratulates him on his apparent decision and wishes him well.

HMM? CANAL FULTON POLICE INVESTIGATE INCIDENT INVOLVING MAYOR. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA?

The SCPR knows of at least one Canal Fulton resident who does not think is was appropriate for the Canal Fulton Police Department to investigate an incident involving Canal Fulton mayor John C. Grogan on August 8, 2009.

Here is an outline of the basic facts redacted from the Canal Fulton Police Department report of the incident:

See a copy of the entire police report below.

It is interesting to note that Officer Buhecker and his supervisor Officer Swartz were aware from the get-go that they had a "political hot-potato" on their hands.

As soon as Buhecker figures out that Mayor Grogan is somehow involved in the incident, he calls Swartz and on the way to the scene Swartz calls Chief David Frisone.

No reference at all in the police report as to whether or not Canal Fulton police should be investigating this matter, but there is a heavy implication the thought of conflict-in-interes entered Buhecker's and Swartz's mind because of their contacting the next higher level.

In the opinion of the SCPR, as soon as the Canal Fulton Police Department knew that the mayor was part of the investigation, they should have backed off and called in an alternative policing authority to do the investigation.

And why (?) didn't Grogan, in his capacity as mayor, say: "You know what, the Canal Fulton Police Department investigating the mayor's involvement in an alleged Ohio criminal code violation is not a good idea. Please bring in an outside policing authority to do this work."

What's more is that Grogan is a lieutenant in the Summit County sheriff's department (corrections) which the SCPR believes is an additional basis, in terms of an additional perspective, for him to have suggested outside policing on this incident.

The SCPR did pass this situation by a Stark County based police figure who didn't have the problem that yours truly and the Canal Fulton resident (referenced above) do with Canal Fulton police investigating this incident.

The SCPR's opinion is based on the following reasoning:

Given the lines of authority connections between the police department and the mayor, any decision to prosecute or not is going to be questioned. Such a state of affairs is not fair to anyone: not the public and its confidence in the police department's objectivity and its ability to identify and remove itself from obvious conflict-in-interest situations nor the subjects of the investigation itself.

In the end, the judgment that matters is that of the Canal Fulton community.

So to that end, the SCPR provides the entire police department for your review. What do you think? Did the police make the correct assessments? Did the prosecutor?

Here are the pertinent documents in their entirety for you to review in making your judgment.Grogan Police Report Docs Grogan Prosecutor Conclusion

WHY DON'T ALL STARK CO SCHOOLS VALUE GOD? SCPR COMPARES STARK'S 16 OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS ' MISSION STATEMENTS TO LAKE: TODAY CANTON LOCAL

A couple of Lake Township residents contacted the Freedom from Religion Foundation with complaints about a part of Lake Local School's Mission Statement. Lake is the home district of the SCPR and three Olson children graduated from Lake and the Mrs. served on the Lake Board of Education twice.

The first thing that occurred to yours truly is how the mission statements of Stark's other 16 school districts compare to Lake's.

Today we compare Lake"s controversial statement to that of the Canton Local schools (aka Canton South).

No mention of God in Canton Local school's statement of Beliefs.

So far the SCPR has examined the mission statements of Alliance, Canton and Canton Local schools. None mention God in their mission statements.

Who has it right: Lake or Alliance/Canton/Canton Local?

CONGRESSMAN HAS GOT TO BE ONE "BIG TIME" KIDDER?

Undoubtedly, Congressman John Boccieri has given a lot of speeches in his time as a politician and office holder.

And in those speeches he peppers his audience with quotes from famous and revered Americans.

One of the revered Americans would be Abraham Lincolon.

But you can bet that he doesn't use the following quote to describe himself:

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time"

He may use it to describe some of his political opponents, but the SCPR suggests that the well known quote may be best applied to himself.

The SCPR never believed that Boccieri would vote against "cap-and-trade." Remember now, yours truly favors some form of "cap-and-trade." So Boccieri cannot say that the SCPR's critique is based on much of a difference on the result of his caving into Obama and House Speaker Pelosi.

And the SCPR thinks that the health care industry is collusive and not truly competitive with one another and people should have a "competitive" choice. So if Boccieri ends up voting with an Obama/Pelosi plan that includes a "public option," would yours truly be upset? Absolutely not!

What the SCPR sees in John Boccieri is a disingenuousness and a feigning of leaning a way contrary to his political party or a undecidedness, when in reality he is the captive of Democratic Party policies and positions on major legislation.

Moreover, Boccieri is more than a tad hypocritical. When newly elected, he criticized Republicans for voting lock-step against the stimulus package.

What is Boccieri's voting percentage with the Democrats?

Ninety-five percent!

With that kind of loyalty factor, how can you criticize others?

Back to the disingenuous factor.

Health care is a major issue. So no matter what Boccieri says now, you can bet he will end up voting the Obama/Pelosi way.

The Repository did excellent work (Robert Wang, Boccieri faces a quandary on health care) on the health care issue and Boccieri's "supposed" dilemma on Sunday.

A lesson that Boccieri needs to learn is this: "talk is cheap."

Perhaps in time he will prove to be his own man. But he hasn't so far.

So when he says (as he did to Wang):

“If people aren’t pleased with the service I’ve provided them, they can vote me out of office, I’m going to vote what’s best for the country. What’s best for the district. ... I’m not afraid to take a stand against my own party.”

One has to be skeptical based on how he has conducted (not words, conduct) himself so far in his tenure as congressman.

The Report expects a lot of Boccieri "bobbing and weaving" over the period that the legislation is being debated in Congress.

All one can do is dare, in fact "double, double dare" him to ACT with boldness. Unless and until he does so consistently, he will continue to come across as a vacillating politician.

And people will ask: Does Congressman Boccieri think he can prove Lincoln wrong? Does he really think you can " fool all the people all the time?"