DO YOU KNOW THAT MASSILLON NEGOTIATES WATER PRICES FOR THE STARK COUNTY METRO WATER/SEWER DISTRICT. ARE COMMISSIONERS SIMPLY GOING TO LET IT HAPPEN?

At last Wednesday's meeting, Stark County commissioners were astonished to learn that the city of Massillon negotiates (at least in a de facto if not de jure setting) the water rate for Stark County's unincorporated area insofar as to what price Aqua of Ohio/America, Incorporated (Aqua) charges for its water to the likes of the Stark County Metropolitan Sewer District which services about 2,300 Stark Countians.

A month or two ago Aqua notified commissioners that it would be seeking a 20% up front increase from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).

This news caused a storm of protest by water users of Aqua supplied water.  Apparently, the protests were effective as Aqua is now only asking for 14.75% spread over three years.  Another shift?  Aqua is now willing to negotiate (but only with Massillon).  Hmm?

From what the SCPR has been able to learn, the process by which Massillon negotiates the lead agreement goes back perhaps as far as 1961.  The Report talked with Mayor Cicchinelli this past week and all he could tell yours truly was that this has been the arrangement that he is familiar with going back to the beginning of his days in Massillon government.


Relevant to this discussion is a item on the Mayor's campaign finance report for 2009 that shows a $180,.00 campaign contribution by Aqua America, Inc's H2O PAC.

So what?

The Report's take is as follows:

The principals would, if asked,  - one would think - assert that the contribution had nothing whatsoever to do with the upcoming negotiations between Massillon and Aqua as well as the results as shown in the Jones letter to the county commissioners date June 2nd.

More specifically, Cicchinelli, for his part - the SCPR believes -  would say that Aqua was and is merely interested in good government and that he has been a good mayor and deserving of support.  Undoubtedly, Aqua would would vouch for such an explanation.

The SCPR has no basis on which to question the conjectured  positions on the contribution as they were posited in the preceding paragraphs.

However, whether it's Mayor Healy in Canton or Mayor Cicchinelli in Massillon or any other elected official, the SCPR does not think it is a wise practice for elected officials to accept campaign contributions from company PACs (Political Action Committees) for companies or, for that matter, from individuals with which/whom the political entity involved does business.

In this day and age there is heightened skepticism and cynicism about government, in general.  Only about 20% of Americans - national polls show - trust government at any level;.

Accordingly, elected officials - across the board - should reevaluate whom they will and will not take campaign contributions from.  Otherwise, they fuel public skepticism and cynicism and have only themselves to blame when they experience citizen criticism.  Moreover, declining such contributions will, over time, help restore public confidence in government to higher levels.

In his memo, Engineer Jones does point out that "[t]he last increase for Aqua was in 2005."  He goes on to elaborate that Aqua got no increase in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Jones' assertion that "[i]n light of no increases for two and one-half years, the requested [Aqua] increases seem reasonable" did not mollify commissioners.  They asked Jones to have an Aqua representative appear at Wednesday's (June 9, 2010) meeting.  The meeting should be interesting.

Here is a video showing the amazement, astonishment and disgust of commissioners demonstrated in their June 2, 2010 meeting.

LOCAL REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP TRYING TO CHANGE THE "POLITICAL" CONTROL OF CANTON VIA A SWITCH TO CHARTER FORM OF GOVERNMENT?

The Stark County Political Report has for a number of years been an advocate of the rebirth of the Stark County Republican Party.

Why?

Because political competition in Alliance, Canton, Massillon and countywide in Stark County should make for more creative, innovative and energetic government.

The Stark GOP is in pathetic shape these days.  The Report thinks it got that way through the lackluster leadership of Board of Elections member Curt Braden and Board of Elections Deputy Director Jeff Matthews.

However, local Republicans are not of a mind to change the broken leadership resident at 2727 Fulton Drive NW.

So the prospects of a revival of the county party are not good.  Oh yes, Janet Weir Creighton will win in November.  But that will be a "personal" win.  It is not a signal that Stark County politics is in for a shift from predominant Dems to resurgent GOPers.

Okay, but what does this point have to do with "What you don't know can hurt you?"

Here's the SCPR's take.

Lately, The Repository has taken to writing about the highly partisan Michael Cunnington's "grassroots?" attempt to turn Canton from a "statutory" city into a "charter" city.  The Repository stories include:  Meeting set to discuss charter government in Canton (Balint - May 31st), Share your thoughts on city charter, (Editorial - June 3rd) and Charter plans not yet specific, (Balint - June 4th).

It appears to the SCPR that the person "really" behind the reorganization of Canton city government is none other than W.R. Timken, Jr.

How can The Report say that?

A clue is Timken's (who is currently chairman of the board of directors of The Timken Company) recent association with the the Strategic Public Partners Group.

And, of course, anyone who has lived in Stark County for any length of time knows that whatever Timmy Timken wants will be mirrored by the poohbahs at The Repository.

The Report's hypothesis is that Timken has decided that Canton needs to be a charter city and he has chosen his company Strategic Public Partners Group (owned by committed Republicans) to go out and hire local Republican insider Michael Cunnington (former executive director of the Stark County Republican Party) who - because of Timken's control over The Rep - gets carte blanche to an entity that buys ink by the barrel and, in the words of former executive editor David Kaminski (now with the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce) views itself as a "800-pound gorilla."

Another tip-off that The Repository is on a mission to take on the Stark County Democrats is its recent foray into the flap about the "letter of arrangement" between the State of Ohio Auditor's office and the Stark County commissioners.  

Remember The Rep's editors chastising the commissioners' for not knowing about the letter (which the Auditor suggested to Zeigler's office that it be kept secret from the general public). 

Remember also that the editors attributed the "not knowing" - an absurdity, to say the least - to the fact that all three commissioners are Democrats.  

The point?  The editorial board has adopted the viewpoint that all that ails Canton and Stark County is attributable to Democratic dominance.

While the SCPR is for a healthy Republican Party, The Report does not think for one nanosecond that Republicans offer any panaceas for Stark's troubles.  

There is a powerful argument to be made that both political parties are bankrupt on new ideas and the creative energy to implement them and that there needs to be a third political party option.

The SCPR is close to this option, but just not the Tea Party.  It is too much timed to the radical right of the Republican Party.  Hopefully, in the near future a saner option surfaces.

Okay, Olson; get back to "What you don't know can hurt you."

Alright.

Rather than offer the Canton voting public superior candidates (e.g. Mark Butterworth - Republican 8th Ward) backed by a first-rate party organization, the SCPR suspects that the Republicans from W.R. Timken down through the thoroughgoing Republican owned Strategic Public Partners Group to Cunnington as aided and abetted by The Repository are trying to re-create Canton government for partisan purposes; not necessarily the public good.

And, if the "real" motive is political rather than for the public good, then Canton will be  hurt by the expenditure of all the time and effort required  to reinvent Canton.  It is time an effort that would be better used by all of these players to roll up their sleeves and work, work, work to get Canton and all of Stark County on a positive economic development track.

The form of Canton's government whether statutory or charter is probably six one and half of a dozen of another.  In other words, a mixed bag.

When the Republicans were out of power in the state legislature, one of the devices they concocted to get back in power was term limits.  The idea?  Force those entrenched Democrats out of office and then we have a chance to win those districts when facing a non-incumbent.

Have term limits improved the quality of the policy decision coming out of Columbus?

No.

Did Republican dominance in place of Democrat dominance change things for the better in Ohio?

No.

A case can be made that term limits hurt Ohio by depriving it of long term leadership that becomes expert enough to combat the lobbying interests that now dominate Columbus.

Moreover, you have situations like we have in Stark with Scott Oelslager and Kirk Schuring trading the 29th Senate district and the 51st House district back and forth to avoid the spirit of term limits.

A final word.

Ed Balint of The Repository did an incomplete job of reporting the obvious Republican push behind the Cunnington effort.  Reading between the lines, one can smell out the Cunnington agenda.

A superficial check on the Internet would have revealed a wealth of information to Balint about the Timken, Strategic Public Partners Group, Cunnington and Republican nexus.

Even Cunnington senses that his pure-bred Republican connection will not go over well in this overwhelmingly Democratic city.  Accordingly, he goes out and rounds up Democrat Mayor Healy and Councilman Smuckler for reaction.

Cantonians should be wary of the Cunnington effort.  It seems rather obvious to the SCPR that the effort is more about helping the Republican Party cause than the citizens of Canton.  Efforts like these need to be led by the politically disinterested. 

Here are just a few Internet pieces that show the connections referred to in the body of this blog:

SERIES: HOW ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE STARK COUNTY DELEGATION TO THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY DOING? TODAY - SCHURING #2

So far as the SCPR is concerned J. Kirk Schuring and his "musicial chair" sidekick, W. Scott Oelslager, have been pretty much worthless to Stark County in terms of "bringing home the bacon" to the county.  Together they have about 40 years in the Ohio General Assembly.  But to what end for Stark County?

While it appears that Schuring is being effective in looking at the graphic accompanying this blog, detailed scrutiny indicates a disturbing legislative phenomenon being invoked by Schuring.  It is obvious to the SCPR that Schuring is attaching his name to House legislation (remember, Schuring is in the Ohio Senate - at least until January, 2011)  that are sure to become law.  Undoubtedly, the bills are important to those affected.  But - looking at the subject matter of the bills - are they really that significant to Stark Countians?  The Report thinks not.

The Schuring/Oelslager duo for some reason (which totally escapes the SCPR)  have been able to endear themselves to Stark County voters and by playing their version of musical chairs (varying from the classical kids game in that each gets a seat - just a different seat:  a House (the 51st) or a Senate (the 29th); depending on the demands of term limits, seem to be guaranteed a place in the Ohio General Assembly for as long as they live.

In this year's game Schuring needs to occupy the 51st and Oelslager the 29th.

The Report's analysis is that neither will have any trouble being re-elected.  Unfortunately, for Stark Countians, that political reality means stagnation for the county.

SEE VIDEO OF ANNEXATION - (HEARING?) APPARENTLY, THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT. ANNEXATION TYPE 2 PROCESS IS ABOUT FAR FROM A SENSE OF "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" AS ANYONE CAN GET. ADD IN "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" TO UNDERSCORE AN UNDEMOCRATIC CONSEQUENCE OF A POORLY THOUGHT OUT LAW - IF YOU TREASURE DEMOCRACY

Democrat Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley is running for the Ohio House (50th) and, if elected, he already has one item of legislation on his agenda:  correcting a glaring problem with expedited annexations.

At Wednesday's  commissioners' meeting, the commissioners (Meeks and Ferguson voting yes) were compelled under existing Ohio law as advised by Stark County Prosecutor (civil side) Debbie Dawson to approve a Massillon petition for annexation under Ohio Revised Code Section (ORC) 709.023.  Bosley held out and voted no.

The video below shows all the commissioners' dissatisfaction.

As long as seven objective criteria as listed in the law are certified as having been substantially complied with, the commissioners have no choice.  Had either Commissioner Ferguson or Meeks voted with Bosely, the county would have certainly faced a Mandamus action in Stark County Common Pleas Court brought by Massillon to force the annexation.

No subjective factors are allowed to be considered.  Not the concerns (i.e. emergency services, snow plowing and the like)  of any residents in the area being annexed have the right to testify at a hearing (if that is what you want to call it) held by commissioners as part of the approval process.

Massillon's petition is commonly thought to be nothing more than about income tax revenues for Massillon from the employees of the R.G. Drage Career Technical Center (Drage).  


Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. affirmed to the SCPR last Thursday that the revenues are indeed a part of the goals.  However, he insisted that long term Massillon will be pushing forward with additional annexations in the area which should yield true economic development for Massillon and Stark County.


He pointed out to yours truly that any jobs produced in Massillon are jobs that will be staffed by non Massillonians as well as Massillonians and therefore benefits all Stark Countians.


You talk about "taxation without representation," it is immediately clear that ORC 709.023 annexation has been used by Massillon as the vehicle to subject the employees at Drage to a reduction of 2% of their income (unless they happen to live in Massillon currently). The newly taxed folks having no say in the matter. They can't even vote against the Massillon elected officials (Cicchinelli and the Massillon councilpersons) who foisted the forced taxation on them. 


The Mayor told the SCPR that not one Drage employee contacted Massillon to protest the taxation.

So?


Does that mean they are glad to be taxed?


Hardly.  

What their inaction means is that it is obvious to them that they can do nothing about being drug into being Massillon taxpayers.  Undoubtedly, Cicchinelli understands this and it is disingenuous for him to take the employees' failure to protest as an endorsement by default.

In proceeding in this fashion with the added insult of no immediate economic development goal on the table, Massillon officials have joined Ohio elected officials, who passed the law in the first place, in undermining a basic democratic tenet.


What the Ohio General Assembly needs to do is to add  "economic development" and "public safety" factors to ORC 709.023 and require the taking of testimony from statutorily defined interested parties including those who will have taxpayer status if the annexation is approved.

The timetables can remain the same (i.e. expedited).  However, the process needs to be more consistent with the spirit of notice and opportunity to be heard (due process) that is at the very heart and soul of the American system of government.


Here is the video that is a compilation of the "public speaks" presentations made to the commissioners.  Remember, the 709.023 hearing itself, allows no public testimony.

SHALL WE CRY WOLF "ONE MORE TIME?" THE FRUSTACI INVESTIGATION RESULTS ABOUT TO BREAK?

Maybe the frustration of county officials is about to end.

The SCPR has learned that the Stark County Prosecutor's office had one of its attorneys in Cleveland recently going over the progress of the Vince Frustaci investigation with the U.S. Attorney's office.

Readers will recall that on April 1, 2009 Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler fired Frustaci (his chief deputy) making allegations that Frustaci had stolen from the county treasury.

Stark County has spent $209,000 plus a little in fees paid to State of Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor's office for service rendered in conducting a forensic audit of the county treasury.  Results of the audit is in the hands of the United States Attorney.

Several weeks ago there was a big flap among the Stark County commissioners over the authority of the commissioners to pay the $209,000.  As far as the SCPR is concerned, the flap - started by the folks at The Repository - was "much ado about nothing."

The genesis of The Rep story was an agreement between the Ohio Auditor's office and Treasurer Zeigler regarding the outlining of and provision for payment of the auditor's services.

So what was the problem?

Zeigler's office chose not to share the existence of the agreement with county commissioners.

The Repository editors blasted county commissioners (blaming the failure to ferret out on the fact that the three commissioners are "all" Democrats" - how thin can you get in your reasoning?)  for not being on top of the situation and knowing about an agreement that Zeigler's office held out of public view on the suggestion of the Ohio Auditor's office itself.

If anyone thinks that the county commissioners were not going to have to pay the $209,000 plus out of county general fund dollars, then please see The Report about the sale of some swamp land in Florida.

A well placed source tells The Report that Stark Countians are likely to learn about the federal investigation within the next week to ten days.

Although The Report source is highly reliable, as we all know - "there is many a slip between the cup and the lip," and one has to be skeptical of any reports.

COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS OF SHERIFF DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WHO NEGOTIATE UNION CONTRACTS? ALSO, SEE VIDEO OF COMMISSIONERS' RESPONSE TO SHERIFF CRITIC CRAIG T. CONLEY

On May 6th and again on May 27th the Stark County commissioners were happy that they had just approved a second contract of no pay raises for deputies, lieutenants and captains.

It was kind of "in your face" time (especially for County Administrator Mike Hanke - see video below) on Stark County community activist and local attorney Craig T. Conley.  On March 16th, Conley wrote a letter to commissioners asking them to see to it that the deputies' contracts reflect the financial/economic realities of these troubled money times with Stark County government, to wit:

Hanke seems particularly offended by Conley's reference to Summit County.

The SCPR last week (post-commissioners meeting) talked with Conley.  He said he is not impressed with the wage freezes per se as he believes that the Sheriff's payroll cost is going up significantly notwithstanding the commissioner office's ballyhoo of the "pay freezes."

Conley pointed to things such as heathcare costs (which commissioners did say on May 6th are going up "slightly" - whatever that means), time-in-grade increases, uniform allowances and other less obvious payments that he believes deputies receive which need to be looked at and curtailed.

The SCPR does believe that commissioners and other county officials need to get a grip on the cost of the administration of justice which is 70% of the county budget.  Sheriff Swanson's budget is about 1/3rd of the county budget (nearly $17 million).

With the loss of the 0.50 sales tax in December, 2008 imposed by Commissioners Bosley and ex-Commissioners Harmon and Vignos, the proportion of the cost of administration of justice and the Sheriff's share of the county budget will become a larger share of Stark's financial pie.

And the place to make huge savings is in personnel costs.

County commissioners should have Sheriff Swanson come to a commissioners' meeting and lay out in chart form the real cost of year-to-year over the past five years including not only actual wages, but any and all other personnel costs.  Moreover, Swanson should be asked to do a Q&A with the public during the meeting.

Rather than rely on conclusionary statements by Administrator Hanke and commissioners, the Stark County public has a right to know in detail exactly what makes up the cost of having a deputy.

To the degree that Swanson and other county officials try to mask the real personnel costs, they undermine their chances of getting the Stark County voting public to support retention of the 0.25 of a percent renewal of county sales tax that most certainly will be on the November ballot.

It appears to the SCPR that Conley (a member of the Stark County Review Committee along with fellow "Vote No for Increased Taxes" member Charles Snyder - also a member of the financially stressed Fairless School Board) will be revitalizing the Vote No's to oppose the renewal.

Here it is June (only five months before November) and it seems as if the commissioners and Stark County's Common Pleas judges together with Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero (appointed liaison by the judges) and their Stark County Review Committee (SCRC) are making very little progress in examining county finances.

The activities of the SCRC are not being publicized which is a huge mistake.  Whatever the results of the committee's final report, the process being secretive as it is; will make it especially vulnerable to criticism and probably not helpful in terms of the public trusting the thoroughness of the work and the meaningfulness of criteria used in doing the examination.

And when will the final report come out?

In October?

Timed to give very little space to scrutinizers to take a thorough look at how the committee got to the final report?

Here is a video out of the May 27th commissioners meeting in which the response to the Conley letter (in the opinion of the SCPR) is made.

WILL IT BE CATAZARO-PERRY VERSUS FRANCIS H. CICCHINELLI, JR. COME MAY, 2011? AND WHOM CAN THEY COUNT ON TO BE AMONG THEIR FINANCIAL SUPPORTERS? SEE A LIKELY LIST GATHERED BY THE SCPR FROM THEIR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS

REVISED AT 2:37 PM

Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. has told the SCPR that he will announce this summer as to whether or not he will seek another term as mayor of Massillon.

If he chooses to run and is re-elected, Cicchinelli will have, by the end of his term on December 31, 2015 have been a fixture in Massillon government for 41 years:  27 of them as mayor and the rest in Massillon City Council.


The irony of the prospect of a Catazaro-Perry race is that Cicchinelli was among the first to urge Catazaro-Perry to run for the 3rd Ward seat held by a Republican.  In fact, the photo appearing above is a picture that is posted on Catazaro-Perry's website featuring guests at her fundraiser event in 2006.

Catazaro-Perry (who the SCPR believes under the marked influence of former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. who is Massillon's clerk of courts and a member of the Stark County Board of Elections) has become the arch political enemy of Cicchinelli.

If the Cicchinelli does get officially challenged in the Democratic primary in 2011, it will likely be one of three Stark County mayoralty races in which the incumbent gets taken on by a party insider in the primary with the winner having a cake walk in the general election.


There is a likelihood of Smuckler v. Healy (Democrats - Canton), Davies v. Held (Republicans - North Canton, and, of course, Catazaro-Perry v. Cicchinelli (Democrats - Massillon).

The SCPR believes that these races will fracture both of Stark's main political parties, but moreso the Democrats than the Republicans.

The Report has analyzed the recent campaign finance reports of both Cichinnelli and Catazaro-Perry in order to determine whom (among Stark Democrats) will be "financially" supporting them between now and May, 2011:

In general, it appears to be a line up of the Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. wing (Jackson, Elum, et al) of the Stark County Democratic Party versus the anti-Maier wing of the party. 


The Report had received information to the effect that Cicchinelli and Elum were in the process of patching up their differences.  However, The Report spoke to Cicchinelli on Thursday and Friday of last week and the Mayor said that such was not the case.  Moreover, the Mayor said he hardly ever talks with Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

First, here is a list of Cicchinelli's supporters:

Now Kathy Catazaro-Perry: