IS CONLEY OPPOSITION A "KILLER" FOR COMMISSIONER PROPOSED 1/2 CENT INCREASE IN SALES TAX?

 

On the heels of a smashing defeat at the polls in November 2009 of a December 2008 "imposed" 1/2 cent sales tax levy split between a countywide 9-1-1 rehab and the county general fund, Stark County commissioners started talking about forming a group of Stark County citizens (April, 2010 - Commissioners Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) "to review county government operations and make recommendations to the Stark County Commissioners (sic) and other elected officials."

Among those asked to and agreeing to serve was the leader of the repeal movement:  local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (who, if not the formal leader of the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee was clearly the de facto leader).

At the time, the Stark County Political Report mused that putting Conley on the committee was an attempt to co-opt his opposition.

Well, if it was:  it did not work.

On Friday, Conley sent Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson a letter.

In the hand-delivered letter, he tells them that he opposes their proposed 1/2 cent sales tax increase for the following reasons:

• "[W]ay too generous and actuarially unsustainable retirement and health care benefits,"
• "no mention [in area media reports] of wage or benefit decreases,"
• [the use of] "the usual scare tactic that, without the sales tax, criminals will be free to rape, pillage, plunder and murder."

Conley's opposition has to be terrible news for commissioners.

While he is just one person; he is a person of enormous influence in certain sectors of the Stark County population.  The only good news coming out of the Conley missive was a no-mention of the revival of the Vote No Increased Taxes Committee to join him in a formal way in opposing the sales tax increase.

It could be that he did not take this extra step  (reconstituting "Vote No") because (in the words of the communication) of his happiness that the "Board [including new commissioners Bernabei and Creighton and carryover Ferguson] implement[ed] a new era of openness and dialogue in County government and for steadfastly refusing to impose any sales tax."

The SCPR believes that had Conley done so (rebirthed "Vote No"), then the defeat of the sales tax issue would be guaranteed.

Nonetheless, many Stark Countians are telling the SCPR that the 1/2 cent sales tax has no chance whatsoever to pass.

What would it take to turnaround the thinking of the likes of Conley and get the attention of Stark Countians, generally that the county is serious about getting the expenditure side of its budget in proper Conely-esque proportions?

In conversations with Conley, The Report recalls his mentioning that it would be better for Stark County employees to agree to a 20% decrease in their wages than to risk losing their jobs altogether.  Moreover, he has repeatedly talked about getting benefits trimmed to match those of the private sector.  His focus has been on the benefits that unions get.

In fact, in his letter to the commissioners he attached a copy of an editorial from the Wall Street Journal (A City Unended by Unions - CLICK HERE TO READ) as "succinctly set[ting] forth the true cause of political subdivision budgetary problems.

The SCPR believes that the current board of commissioners (as Conley says) have opened a "new era of openness and dialogue in County government."

However, they are still saddled with county officials who have not bought into their new standard and Conley's standards.

County officials have pledged an all-out-effort to convince Stark Countians to vote yes on the 1/2 cent proposed increase.

But to what avail?

What may work is for county officials to get to work between now and November in implementing Conley's prescription for what ails Stark County government!

(VIDEO) IT BEEN AWHILE SINCE THE SCPR VISITED THE STARK CO. DOG POUND ISSUE. AND IT SEEMS THAT VERY LITTLE HAS CHANGED, MAYBE EVEN GOTTEN WORSE?

 

It was December 26, 2010 when the SCPR last dealt with the issue of the quality of care that dogs processed through the Stark County Dog Pound are receiving.

The past Wednesday the commissioners appointed a new member (Judy King) to the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB) and reappointed a serving member (Sally Rouse).  Both Ms. King and Ms. Rouse are volunteers at the Stark County Dog Pound.

At Commissioner Creighton's initiative, the commissioners now ask appointees to come to the commissioner meeting at which they receive an appointment so that all the commissioners are acquainted with and somewhat familiar with their appointees.

One of the things that the commissioners did not do in their exchange with the candidates for appointment was to pursue points brought up by them in their remarks about problems continuing to exist at the Stark County Dog Pound. 

After their appointment, The Report stepped out into the hallway and interviewed the two appointees (see the video at the end of this blog).

Was yours truly surprised.  The two gave The Report an ear full of dissatisfaction with the way things are going at the Pound and their dismay that Warden Tetreault was not improving matters.

In fact, they told the SCPR that they were inviting the commissioners to their next SCDPAB meeting scheduled for August 18th so that they can air out with commissioners problems which linger and perhaps worsening at the Pound.

The SCPR has a alternative suggestion.

The commissioners have work sessions on Mondays (10:00 a.m) and Tuesdays (11:00 a.m.) of each week.  Why not take one of those days and have a work session with advisory board members, Tetreault and the Stark County public on the issues that surround the operation of the Pound?

Last year was a year within which commissioners (not the current board except for Ferguson) fired (January 27th) the then dog warden Evert Gibson.  Matters had gotten so out of hand at the Pound in terms of Gibson to effectively manage union personnel that commissioners felt compelled to replace him with Reagan Tetreault (May, 2010) who was dog warden in Holmes County.

But even the Gibson successor hire process was not without some controversy.  Members of the SCDPAB suspected then Commissioner Bosley of trying to finagle a person, who had not been a part of the SCDPAB's screening of candidates, to the top of the list of persons being considered to replace Gibson.

Moreover, there was a controversy between Commissioner Ferguson and some SCDPAB members as to whether or not he saw a video of Pound employees mistreating dogs housed at the Pound.

While the SCPR understands that the commissioners figure to have "bigger fish to fry" (i.e. getting their 1/2 cent levy proposal passed on November 8th), the county does have other business and it is high time that they dig into the bubbling problems that appear to continue to plague the Pound and get them resolved "once and for all!"

Matters like the quality of work being done at the SCDP also factor into the commissioners' quest to reestablish trust between themselves and the Stark County public.

The commissioners can ill afford to lose votes for their 1/2 cent proposed sales tax increase.

While no one connected with the SCDPAB, Friends of the Pound, or from the members of the dog-loving public have indicated to the SCPR that their vote is in jeopardy as a consequence of perceived problems at the Pound, The Report believes that, if the commissioners fail to act on the complaints, they may be risking such a reaction.

BACK TO ROUSE AND KING

The state of repair at the SCDP have gotten so bad and with the county experiencing severe financial problems and likely that commissioners are not willing to make needed repairs themselves, the Friends of the Pound (which both Rouse and King are involved in) is holding a fundraiser to raise money to fix a ventilation problem among others at the Pound.

Here is the video of Sally Rouse and Judy King 

LOCAL REPUBLICANS OELSLAGER (JUNE 8TH VERSION OF THE BILL), HAGAN & SCHURING ISSUE THEIR "STAMP OF APPROVAL" OF THE KASICH ADMINISTRATION'S DEMOLITION OF LOCAL GOV'T

UPDATE (CORRECTION) 08/05/2011 AT 6:00 PM (LATEST)

While Oelslager did vote for HB 153 on June 8th, he voted against a House/Senate conference version of the bill on June 28th.

The dramatic cuts in local government funding(LGF) were in the June 8th version of the bill.

As the SCPR sees it, there must have been other reasons why Oelslager changed his vote because the House/Senate conference version is only slightly different from Governor Kasich's proposal. The House/Senate inserted minimums that small counties could get in the reduction scheme.  The Senate won out in that its minimum ($750,000) won out in conference.  However, the Senate's preference for a $50 million fund in each year of the biennium to take the minimums from with any leftovers being distributed proportionally to the remaining (above the minimum) counties was rejected in conference.  

While every dollar helps, $50 million (distributed apparently the better part of Ohio's 88 counties) on what the SCPR calculates as being in the neighborhood of $1 billion in cuts to Ohio's political subdivisions is hardly an amount of money that would stave off the effect of the draconian cuts on Stark County's budget which is already in crisis mode because of the loss of all sales/use tax revenues.

Robert Wang of The Repository has refreshed yours truly on a piece (Local state reps vote along party lines on state budget) he did on June 29th in which Oelslager himself gave the reason for his no vote and it wasn't local government funding, to wit:

Oelslager, who had voted for the Senate’s initial budget bill, said Wednesday that he was the only Republican senator to vote against the final bill because he opposed the conference committee inserting provisions into the bill related to merit pay and performance standards for teachers. The committee reconciled the House and Senate versions of the bill.

Endorsed last year by the teachers’ state association, the Ohio Education Association, he said merit pay and performance standards should be a subject of collective bargaining between teachers and school districts, and they shouldn’t be imposed by the state.
 

Here is a comparison of the various versions of (executive, senate, house and conference) of the LGF provisions of the bill.

ORIGINAL BLOG

Politics over a solemn promise?

That's how one might explain the votes of Stark County's legislative Republicans as a "stamp of approval" of the Kasich administration's HB 153 (the state biennium [two year] budget - July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2014) which takes away 25% of local government funding from Stark's political subdivisions in 2012/2013 and then another 50% in 2013/2014.

The SCPR's take is that state Senator Scott Oelslager (R-Plain), state Reps Christina Hagan (R-Marlboro) and Kirk Schuring (R-Jackson) think their political party's position is more important than the financial viability of Stark County's local government units.

Another element of their vote is that it puts their imprimatur on the breaking of a promise by the state of Ohio in 1935 (76 years ago) to help local governments with the financing of local governments by taking 40% of the state sales tax and passing it through to Ohio's localities.

A well written Cleveland Plain Dealer piece:  Ohio's pact to support local governments has a 76-year history, Aaron Marshall, March 27, 2011 sets out the history of how the Local Government Fund (Fund - LGF) got started.


As part of a legislative deal to get approval of the instituting of a 3% statewide sales tax and in the light that the year before the state legislature had eliminated a local government property tax, the Fund was established and has been honored by state officials ever since.


Some in Ohio are wondering whether or not the LGF will exist at all by the time Republican Governor John Kasich finishes his four year term on December 31, 2014.  His final executive budget will cover July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016.


It is politically unthinkable for a state senator or a state representative of either party to vote against a governor's (of his/her party) budget.  It happens very rarely and for those who do so, there will be political revenge to deal with.


Needless to say, neither Oelslager, Hagan or Schuring have the stomach to dissent on a Republican governor's budget even if (as in the case of Stark) it deals a devastating blow to their home area.


Such is an example of a key reason why a growing if not a predominant number of Americans and Ohioans are developing a profound dislike of politicians of whatever variety.  For the most part, they prove over and over again that if it is their personal political hide at stake, then their constituents get cast by the wayside. 


House Bill 153 is a prime example of party politics prevailing over the local government public good.


With HB 153, the state budget shrinks 17%.   Yet the cuts to local government funding are 25% and then 50%?  


If the cut formula for local government funding had been a proportional "share the pain" 17%, then the cuts become reasonable and livable.


And a proportional cut makes it appears (plausibly so) that it is not so much a political agenda of forcing tax increases at local levels and using severe cuts to compel mergers/consolidations and "sharing of local government services," but rather a sharing in the economic/financial realities of the state of Ohio.


It could be that Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring genuinely agree with the Kasich administration implicit position that local governments need to raise revenues and they need to merge/consolidate or at the very minimum "share services."


If so, they need to stand front and center and say so.


But they aren't!


Because to do so - you've guessed it - would put their political hides in jeopardy.


While the 1935 promise is remote to Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring and the distance probably makes it comfortable for them to undermine the promise; their promises to look out for the financial viability of Stark's local government are as fresh as their last election (appointment in the case of Hagan).


In supporting the Kasich administration's severe local government funding cuts, the trio have broken their promise to the people who sent them to Columbus, but the Columbus-based Republican political pols absolutely love 'em!

(VIDEOS) STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GIVE THEIR REASONS FOR PUTTING A 1/2 CENT SALES TAX INCREASE ON BALLOT. GOOD ENOUGH?

Yesterday the Stark County commissioners voted to place a 1/2 cent sales/use tax increase issue on the November 8th ballot.

The SCPR was there to record the entire event.



It appears to The Report that a new trend in placing sales tax initiatives before Stark County voters may be emerging.

What may the trend be?

Earmarking.  Yes, earmarking; the revenues produced by a given levy for a specific purpose.

If the November 8th measure passes, it is to be used exclusively for criminal justice and ancillary administration.

What might be next over the next half a dozen or so years?  A drainage ditch/flooding issue?  An economic development issue?

Asked yesterday by yours truly whether or not earmarking/designation was an emerging trend, Commissioner Bernabei responded that such is not the case as he sees it.

For the SCPR, it should be.

The SCPR advocates that commissioners consider establishing a pattern of committing future revenue measures for specific purposes.

Why?

So that the Stark County public can measure the success/failure of the tax increase in light of and in terms of the monies provided to, as is the case of the upcoming vote - if it passes, criminal justice. In a word:  earmarking leads to - accountability.

Moreover, it has the potential to lead to a commissioner/citizen dialogue in the way of building a countywide consensus what the county's priorities ought to be.

Todd Bosley, when he was commissioner, determined that Stark Countians had a rebuilt 9-1-1 emergency call receiving/dispatch as a top priority.

As it turned out, it was Bosley's priority; not the vast majority of Stark Countians.

As part of his plan to get the financial wherewithal to fund the rework, he unwisely convinced fellow commissioners Harmon and Vignos to "impose" a tax which not only went to rehab 9-1-1, but also to put millions in the county general fund.

Obviously, the primary problem with Bosley's "stroke of genius" was the "imposing" of the tax.

In his own mind, Bosley had the "failsafe" plan of getting all political subdivision employees (of Stark's cities, villages and townships) solidly behind the campaign because the were going to get "free" call receiving/dispatching services and thereby sell the imposed tax to Stark Countians.

A clear flaw in Bosley's failsafe plan?  A no doubter - imposing the tax!

But there was another flaw, if the first one was not enough to get the imposed tax repealed.  It was the public perception that the commissioners (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) were sneaking a county general fund through under the cover of 9-1-1.

Consequently, the imposed tax was recalled by voters in November 2009 by a 2/3rds majority.  

In the end, the Bosley maneuver falls into the category of "the best laid plans of mice and men."

There continues, moreover, to be one more very important consequence of the Bosley-led effort.  It may have, when coupled with the failure of the management (Treasurer Zeigler - ref:  state of Ohio Auditor's Report) to have measures in place to have prevented the theft of county funds (Frustaci), been a contributory cause of the Stark Countians being merely skeptical of county government to become "cynical" of county officeholders.

We will know for sure whether or not Stark Countians have become cynicists with the results of the November 8th vote.  Commissioners have established the need for the increase in the judgment of the SCPR.  But will Stark Countians trust them enough to agree that they and Stark County governmental department heads get more money to operate with.

The Stark County Political Report believes that the commissioners have lifted the credibility of the commissioners by implementing new processes of transparency, accessibility and accountability.

A few examples:

Though they were met by what Commissioner Creighton labels public apathy in large doses in their February (starting with Plain Township) through June (ending with Marlboro Township) series of community meetings, it was heartening to hear Commissioner Bernabei say yesterday that the community meetings would continue.

Commissioner Creighton answers her own phone at the commissioners office.

All three face up to critical questioning.  Their meeting in Perry Township was particularly hostile inasmuch as many Perry residents had experienced flooding in the days leading up to the Perry sited community meeting.  But the SCPR have seen the commissioners respond in many venues and have not seen them refuse to respond to a question:  friend or foe.  Creighton especially impressed in Jackson where she was faced with a belligerent series of questions from a particularly hostile citizen.

Commissioners have been quick to respond to The Report's public records requests.

Notwithstanding the public interface improvements made by commissioners, they have only been in place a little over seven months.  So it is likely that Stark Countians want to see more of the same over a sustained and enduring period of time.  November will be some measure of the effect of the "new" look of the Stark County commissioners on the voting public.

Restoring public trust is the commissioners' Job #1!

(VIDEO: AUDITOR ALAN HAROLD - "I WANT ZEIGLER TO BE GONE!" AN IRONY OF COUNTY FINANCIAL CRISIS - STARK TREASURY TO SUFFER BIG TIME IF LEVY FAILS

As the SCPR figures it, there are two primary reasons that a county sales tax of whatever monetization and duration is likely to fail in November, to wit:

1. the continuing presence of Gary D. Zeigler as Stark County treasurer, and
2. the imposition of a 1/2 cent sales tax by former commissioners Bosley, Harmon and Vignos in December, 2008 (since repealed).

Stark County Auditor Alan Harold apparently feels the same way about the Zeigler factor.

Immediately after the Stark County work session of July 26th, The Report interviewed Harold and the following interview is what he had to say in part:



With the Ohio Supreme Court voting (5 to 2, with a strong dissent) to reinstate Zeigler on June 25th (the day the decision was handed down), Zeigler has once again become a "bigger than life" political figure in Stark County.

Many feel - and they could be right - that Stark County will never recover from it current financial problems until Zeigler is gone from the public office holding scene.

There is a lot of irony to go around in the unfolding in this seeming political reality.

Zeigler was appointed as a favorite-son type of the Stark County Democratic Party when Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero was the party chairman.

How times have changed with Zeigler and his relationship with a party chairman.  A few weeks ago, The Report talked with Stark County Democratic Party Chairman Randy Gonzalez who said that he had run across Zeigler out in the Stark County community and how he was snubbed by Zeigler.

When Zeigler was appointed by the Stark Democrats, there were at least three candidates who appeared to have much better training and professional qualifications to be treasurer.

In 2008, Zeigler and Ferrero were re-elected as county treasurer and county prosecutor, respectively.  Moreover, they ran unopposed!  The SCPR - at the time - roundly criticized the Stark County Republican Party for allowing such to occur.

The SCPR has information to the effect that Zeigler himself became very aggressive to get now Stark County Auditor to back off on his plan to run for county treasurer in 2008.

In the days that yours truly was an active Stark County Democrat (now an Independent), the recollection of Zeigler is of a person who was seemingly preoccupied with who would be running against him at the next election (2004).

When he was appointed back in '99, Zeigler was quoted in local media at the time as going to work to make internal reforms at the Stark treasury to ensure there was no repeat of missing money at the office.  There had been a finding by auditors that $1,000 came up missing while Mark Roach was treasurer and though no one thought or claimed that he had anything personally to do with the missing money, he stepped up the plate and replaced the missing money.

Ferrero's office was involved with federal prosecutors out of Cleveland in their investigation of and the formulation of the case against Zeigler's former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci who was charged with and convicted of stealing an admitted $2.46 million from the county treasury.

Prosecutors said at the time of filing the federal information against Frustaci that they uncovered no evidence that Zeigler was in any way involved in the theft.

And Zeigler himself went a step further and said not only was he not involved in the theft, he did nothing wrong in the management of his office in an administrative sense in instituting preventative measures to ensure that no theft could have happened in the first place by Frustaci.  This notwithstanding a state of Ohio auditor's office report which listed multiple shortcomings in policies, procedures and the quality of facilities in place on Zeigler's watch that needed corrected.

In a "straw that broke the camel's back"-esque way, in brief argument before Judge Inderlied (sitting by assignment) of the Stark County Common Pleas Court, Zeigler's attorney - obviously with Zeigler's blessing - argued that Zeigler himself was a victim and being made a martyr of by Stark County officialdom.

In the brief, Zeigler's attorney argued that a persuasive point for the court to consider in determining that if Zeigler had liability under a "the buck stops here"-esque Ohio Revised Code Section 321.37 (a no fault, only that money came up missing during a treasurer term type liability) in finding that Zeigler was entitled as a matter of law to be indemnified for any monies he was held liable under 321.37 was that the prosecutors themselves had agreed with Zeigler's self-exoneration of his management/administration of the Stark treasury.

In the SCPR's analysis of the prosecutors' conduct, it appears that they actually played it both ways.

A local attorney has told the SCPR he sees that the prosecutor's statements are irrelevant to the question of Zeigler's civil liability as 321.37 is not a fault statute.

But that is just one attorney's opinion.  It could be, that if Zeigler is successful in his argument before Inderlied, that the prosecutor's office itself might be cited in his decision as agreeing with Zeigler on the issue - if deemed relevant - of mismanagement.

Ironic?  Indeed, if it happens!

As demonstrated in this blog the whole Zeigler saga is one big mishmash of irony and contradictions.

Most importantly to the Stark County commissioners and Stark County officeholders including Zeigler himself, is the dark cloud of Zeigler's continuing presence (at least from the Stark County voters' perspective) on the Stark County governmental and political scene is having on their effort to restore the Stark County's public trust in government.  Many county offices are in line to receive a 40.7% cut in 2012 from 2011 appropriations should the planned November levy effort fails.

As part of the effort to come to a decision on how much of an sales tax increase (on top of the current 5.75% [ 1/4% for SARTA, 5.50% exclusively to the state of Ohio] the lowest in all of Ohio), the commissioners on July 7th sent this email to county officeholders, to wit:

To All Elected Officals and Department Heads (with budgets funded in part or in whole by General Fund revenues):

The Commissioners have completed two statutorily required public hearings conceding placing a .5% sales tax for submission to Stark County voters in November. The next step will be a public meeting or meetings of the Commissioners to vote on submission of the issue, which will occur not  later than August 1.

The Commissioners need to decide and submit: first, the amount of the sales tax to be voted on -- .5%; second, the duration of the tax--anything from one year to permanent; and third, the identification of the purpose of the tax--for general operations or for criminal and administrative justice services. We would appreciate your ideas on these issues.

The Commissioners are estimating General Fund revenues of $36,108,640 for 2012 (this amount includes an estimated $3,000,000 carryover as of 12/31/11) if no sales tax is passed and $47,108,640 for 2012 (again including an estimated $3,000,000 carryover) lf a .5% sales tax is passed. By comparison, the 2011 appropriation is $48,657,752 and 2010 actual expenditures were $$5,683,825.

We are submitting to all elected officials and departments as an attachment to this document a table showing by office/department 2009-2010 actual General Fund expenditures, 2011 appropriations and proposed 2012 appropriations (If no sales tax is passed.) The cuts in 2012 will need to average 25.7% across the board. If some offices that have mandate authority elect to order a smaller cut, then the cuts to other offices/departments will be greater to meet the required 25.7% reduction.  Priority to public safety issues (all, road patrol, and criminal prosecutions) may need to receive priorities in funding. We contemplate that lt may be necessary to close some offices for 2-3 days per week to operate within these budgetary numbers.

We are asking each elected official/department head to review the attached budget and advise us of two things: to those offices with ability to mandate, how much in budgetary cuts in 2012 can and will you absorb; and given the level of cuts contained in this table, describe how it will affect your operations (personnel cuts, hours of operation, level of services, etc.) 

The Commissioners wish to publish this information as part of their decision associated with the sales tax vote that they will be making.

This document is for planning and public discussion purposes only and is not a formal budgetary request. We are requesting your responses within 10 days (not later than July 17.) Depending on the level of cuts in some offices, a second recalculation and re-submission to some offices may need to be made and completed by August 1.

Please respond to Commissioner Bernabei. Thank you.

Continuing the theme of irony upon irony, here is a copy of a letter from Zeigler's Chief Deputy Jaime Allbritain's response to the commissioners:

Zeigler can rip the prosecutors and his fellow county officeholders all he wants, but he could solve a large part of the commissioners', his fellow officeholders' and the county citizens' problem by resigning notwithstanding his victory in the Ohio Supreme Court.

But that would require caring about someone other than himself.

If that were to occur, irony would not be a strong enough word to describe the occasion.  A phrase is more in order.

Absolutely stunning?

(VIDEO): WILL IT BE A COMMONER OR ROYALTY AS MAYOR OF MASSILLON COME NOVEMBER, 2011?

In terms of personage, there could not be a greater contrast between Republican Lee Brunckhart and Democrat Kathy Catazaro Perry as they gear up to run against one another for mayor of Massillon.

He lives in a working class neighborhood, she lives in one of Massillon's posh communities.

He is a union member bus driver for the Stark Area Transit Authority (SARTA); she is a nurse/entrepreneur married to a doctor.

Based on lifestyle and background one would expect Lee Brunckhart to be a Democrat whereas one would expect his opponent in the upcoming November mayoralty election to be a Republican.

But the opposite is the actuality.

She's the Democrat; he's the Republican.

The contrasts do not end with neighborhood associations, vocations and political affiliations.

It appears to the SCPR that their campaign styles will be dramatically different, too.

Brunckhart tells The Report that now that he has beaten his Republican opponent (Andrew Oser of a well known Massillon entrepreneurial - real estate - family), the Stark County Republican Party is taking him seriously.

Initially, he was told by Stark GOP Executive Director Travis Secrest "anyone can run" and - by the way - you will need to raise $60,000 to be competitive.

Undoubtedly, Secrest was discounting Brunckhart ("anyone can run") and in his innermost thoughts must have been saying to himself:  "Huh, Brunckhart - a bus driver and hence an atypical Republican? beating Oser a real estate executive - a typical Republican, no way!"

Wow!

How did he do it!!

As is impressive as Brunckhart's win over Oser was, he will have to ratchet up his "common man" campaign to beat political blueblood Kathy Catazaro-Perry this fall.

Brunckhart is getting moral support from the Stark GOP, but little else.  Catazaro-Perry has professional politicians behind her.

Former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and his attached-at-the-hip political expert? pal Shane Jackson (son of former Stark County commissioner and Strickland administration appointee Gayle Jackson) are the brains behind the Catazaro-Perry campaign.

Cantzaro-Perry herself was very impressive is knocking off long time mayor of Massillon Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr in the Democratic primary.

Of course, she had big time help from the Maier/Jackson Massillon political machine whereas Brunckhart defeated the Republican Party establishment favorite Andrew Oser.

The SCPR has long maintained that Catazaro-Perry is the political captive of the Maier/Jackson axis and that she has taken no political position without coaching from her political handlers.

There is already talk that Maier may be positioning his brother George to become Catazaro-Perry's service director.

It would not surprise the SCPR that a Catazaro-Perry victory in November might bring with it a Jackson family member as part of her leadership team.

The Report expects Catazaro-Perry to win, but Massillon would know exactly who is mayor if Brunckhart were to win.  While Catazaro-Perry would be the de jure mayor were she to win, the SCPR believes that Johnnie A. Maier, Jr would be the de facto mayor.

Brunckhart has a huge hill to climb to become mayor of Massillon.  If he pulls it off, it will have been the second hill he has surmounted.  Nobody expected him to defeat Oser.

The Report believes that his being a working man in a working class town presents him with an advantage as he tramps through Massillon's mostly working class neighborhoods.  While he carries the label Republican, he appears much more the Democrat than does Catazaro-Perry.  He did share with The Report that he has a family history of being a "blue dog" Democrat.

"Blue Dog Democrat?"

Yes, conservative Democrats as contrasted to "Limousine Liberal Democrats" that some might think Catzaro-Perry to be more representative of.

Such a contrast might be effective for Brunckhart to peel away Democratic support from Catazaro-Perry in a predominantly Democratic town.

Moreover, there is the Cicchinelli factor.  While Cicchinelli will not in a flagrant and open way campaign for Brunckhart, you can bet that he is smarting from his ouster from office by the Maier/Jackson/Catazaro alliance and will be privately helping Brunckhart to pull off a political upset of huge proportions come this fall.

The SCPR believes that Brunckhart (and his everyday, common man, working man profile) will appeal to many of the 46% who preferred Cicchinelli over Catazaro-Perry (a darling of the politically polished and sophisticated).

The SCPR did an extensive and far ranging interview with Lee Brunckhart last evening.  Here is the video:

(VIDEO) DID CHIEF SHERIFF'S DEPUTY MIKE McDONALD (CANDIDATE FOR SHERIFF - 2012) CHANGE THE COMMISSIONERS' MINDS ON PROPOSING A TAX INCREASE FROM 1/2% TO 1%? IF HE RUNS, DORDEA IS WILLING TO ACCEPT CHALLENGE OF BEING SHERIFF "WITH NO NEW TAXES." HMM?

Last week at a Stark County commissioner work session designed to hear the input of county officials on what amount of new sales tax (1/4, 1/2 or 1 percent) for what period of time (1, 5, 8 years or permanently) that the commissioners should present to the Stark County voters in November of this year.

The SCPR believes that the commissioners had pretty much decided to propose a 1/2 cent increase for from five to eight years.

But Stark County Sheriff Chief Deputy Mike McDonald (Democrat) may have changed the commissioners plans with his dire description of dangerous conditions at the Stark County jail currently let alone the continuation of a "no new sales taxes" that will result in the county sheriff's department being reduced to about a $8.5 million budget come 2012.

Hear/see McDonald again.



Within hours of McDonald making his shocking statement, the commissioners decided to postpone their expected  Wednesday July 27, 2011 regular meeting resolution placing a 1/2 cent proposed sales tax increase on the ballot.

Was McDonald and his Tuesday statement "straw that broke the camel's back?

Stark Countians will likely find out this coming Wednesday as the August 10th filing deadline looms close  much like the federal debt ceiling issue (August 2nd) at the national level.  Commissioner Bernabei did tell The Report today that the decision could slip to the 10th, the actual due date for the commissioners' decision.

No one has stepped forward from county officialdom to suggest to the commissioners that calamity might not be the order of the day for county government operations should they offer a 1/2 cent option that voters pass or - God forbid - voters opt not to pass any increase.

The SCPR went looking for someone who might be willing to face up to the possibility if not the probability that in 2012 many county officials will be operating their departments of government at 40.7% less than their 2011 appropriations.

And The Report did find someone who was will the to discuss the "what if."

Republican Alliance Councilman Larry Dordea (also Hartville chief of police and former Alliance chief of police) took the question head on from the Stark County Political Report.

Dordea ran against Sheriff Swanson in 2008 and may run against Mike McDonald in 2012.  However, he says that he needs first to run his re-election campaign for Alliance councilman-at-large and then ponder whether or not to run for sheriff.   The Ohio legislature has changed the Ohio primary to May, 2011 and so Dordea has plenty time to mull the matter over.

This is what he had to say in terms of being willing to accept the challenge of running EVEN IF the voters reject the sales tax initiative that commissioners will be offering this fall:

• Sheriff Swanson still has high paid employees on staff that need to have their salaries cut,
• "he (Swanson) has a big staff of people" which can be cut,
• Stark County could use the state of Ohio crime lab if the Stark County crime lab is lost because of state cuts in local government funding (which Dordea said "would be a terrible thing").  
• Stark County government official, during the financial austere times, have to put up with inconveniences such as having to deal with BCI (the state crime lab) at its regional location in Richfied, Ohio and the several day delay when compared to the response capability of a local crime lab,
• Swanson and his top people want for nothing and that the cuts are on lower eschelon employees.  Dordea believes it should be the reverse,
• The county does need the 1% asked for by Swanson and Ferrero, but the county must find someone other than Swanson as a publicly visible proponent of the increase,
• If he runs for sheriff and is elected and faces running the department on an $8.5 million budget that he:
• would welcome the challenge,
• it would be very difficult,
• maybe the department could not run well on $8 million but $18 million is not needed
• Sheriff's office should not be a landing place for one's political friends and supporters,
• Sheriff's office (because of long term Democrat control) stranglehold has become a "culture of inefficiency"
• If the department goes down to a $8 million or so budget, then there is an opportunity to rebuild it from scratch with a lot more efficiency and effectiveness,
• Rebuilder needs to risk being a "one term sheriff" as a consequence of creating a "no-frills" Stark County sheriff's operation,
• Stark County needs a stand up,  "think out of the box" leader to surface who can lead an effort to reconstruct Stark County government so as to restore Stark to a pre-eminent position as one of Ohio's premier examples of efficient and effective government.

Should Dordea decide to run, it will be interesting to see how Mike McDonald responds to Dordea's "bring it on!" mindset when it comes to the challenge of running an austere Stark County sheriff's department.