FOR CANTON BD OF EDUC MEMBER KEATON: "WITH A GUY LIKE RON DUFF AS A FRIEND, WHO NEEDS ANY ENEMIES?"

 

Board member Eric Resnick is likely Ron Duff's "real" target in Duff's quest to return to the Canton City Schools Board of Education, but Resnick fellow-incumbent Jennifer Keaton could be the political casualty if Duff gets elected.

Such a twist would be a clear example of the "what have you done for me lately" phenomenon that is rampant in the political world.

Back in June, 2008, the Stark County Political Report did a blog on how Keaton changed her initial indication that she was in favor of (along with Nadine McIllwain [an African-American herself) appointing a male African-American to a board position vacated by Democrat John Rinaldi.

It appears that Keaton switched on the basis of person connections to Duff and was instrumental in the appointment going to him.  Duff was reportedly Keaton's campaign manager in 2007 when she was elected.

An irony (after the McIllwain June, 2008 fuss) is that African-American Wilbur Allen, III who was appointed in an errant process (then re-appointed in a corrected process) chose not to run for election this time around.

For whatever reason, it appears that Duff and Keaton have had a falling out and her "friend" may now prove to be her undoing as a Canton City Schools board member.

But then again she may not have much to worry about.  It seems that Duff is not much of a campaigner.  Take a look at these results.

 

Eric Resnick gave Duff a political thrashing.  Even if one were to put all the Smith votes in the Duff column (which certainly would not have happened had Smith not been running; let's say a 50/50 split), Resnick wins comfortably and assuming a 50/50 split it would have been Resnick 65% to 35%.

While Duff is good to put out press releases, they contain very little of substance as to why he would be a better choice over incumbents Keaton and Resnick.

His one serious allegation is:  “The last two years has shown us that this board lacks the honesty, integrity and transparency necessary to regain the trust of the public."

However, he fails to tie the broad brush statement with a convincing specifics-building case and therefore is subject to be taken as being an office seeker who throws statements around and hopes that something sticks in the minds of the voters.

It is interesting that he should bring up the issue of trust in reference to Keaton as a board member.

Let's see:  Whom can't trust whom?  Duff running to unseat Keaton, after she bolted an initial position supporting another to put him on the board in 2008, right?

A "what have you done for me lately" guy questioning the honesty and integrity anyone?

Hmm?

Voters beware!

(VIDEO) BEWARE "EDUCATIONAL MEETINGS?" SPONSORED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT "A LA" THE LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES

Yours truly has been to one-sided presentations over many years of civic involvement.  The meeting sponsored by a Stark County local government (the Lawrence Township trustees - Wednesday, August 11th at 6:30 p.m. at the North Lawrence Fire Department) ranks placement right at the top of the list in terms of bias.

The worst part of the evening (about 100 attended) as far as the SCPR was concerned was the seeming interminable (propagandistic - in the view of The Report) presentation by Executive Director Rhonda Reda of the Ohio Oil & Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP).

She had been told by Lawrence Township Trustees Lester Kamph and Michael Stevens that she had 1-1/2 hours to present her program.  And she took every second of the allotted time to provide oil and gas industry "approved" education in excruciating detail.

When The Report observed to Trustee Stevens on the "gilding of the lily" by Reda, he said: "Well, if you don't like it, you can leave."  A fine attitude for a public servant, huh?

In the end (about one hour after Reda's "promo," The Report did leave.  The only worthwhile things for attendees were presentations by a Harrison Countian (Jim Milleson) and a Texan (Attorney "Scott" Bauer of Braxton Acquisitions) who offered direction to those with oil and gas rights on their lands to get help negotiating with the oil and gas behemoths.

The video below contains some of Milleson's/Bauer's remarks that oil and gas mineral rights holders may find helpful.

Reda's remarks were totally worthless to the SCPR inasmuch as The Report has been to many meetings on fracking and knows the oil and gas company spiel A to Z.  It was unmitigated gall on her part to slam the anti-fracking folks as being progandistic and liars.

It appears that Reda does not understand that the middle group on this issue (including the SCPR) view the oil and gas industry line on the fracking issue about as skeptically as that of the anti-frackers.  So for her to land on anti-frackers is sort of like "the pot calling the kettle black."

Apparently, Trustee Michael Stevens had something to do with bringing the Texan in.  As it turned out, who is one of the Texan's clients?  The Clay family of Clay's Park (Yankee Peddler) fame for whom Michael Stevens worked for many years.  Hmm?

Trustees had nobody at the meeting to present the other side of the issue.  Some citizens did get up and ask some "embarrassing questions" of Reda.  The Report understands that her educational background is in marketing and not in geology or any other aspect of science that might qualify her in a more or less objective sense to speak to the safety or non-safety of fracking.

Lawrence Township citizens should be outraged at the use of local government sanction in the service of such a one-sided event.

The Plain Township trustees (back in January, 2011) in conjunction with Ron Ponder of WHBC's Points to Ponder made a proper presentation of both sides of the fracking issue.

Perhaps Kamph and Stevens should attend a Plain Township trustee meeting in order to "educate themselves" on the proper use of the authority of local government to the benefit and welfare of ALL its citizens!

Here is a video summary of Wednesday night's presenters:

A WELL DRILLING/FRACKING FIGHT LOOMING IN MASSILLON?

Councilman Tony Townsend (a staunch political ally of Massillon mayoral candidate [as a Democrat] Kathy Catzaro-Perry and Clerk of Courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.) won Round 1 of a fight with lame duck Mayor Frank Cicchnelli on whether or not Massillon Council ("Council") would authorize Massillon entering into a "Non-Developmental Oil & Gas Lease" with Ohio Valley Energy Systems Corporation on some 52.51 acres of land owned by Massillon.  Included in the proposal were three locations:  two at Towne Plaza and one in the 300 block of 2nd Street SW (in Councilman Townsend's ward).

But the July 5 "no vote" apparently is not the end of the matter.

The SCPR has learned that Townsend believes that Cicchinelli is coming back to Council on Monday night (August 15) with a new try to get Council to approve the lease.

Here are excerpts from an e-mail (that is circulating among opponents of fracking) that the SCPR received a copy of on the matter:

Tony Townsend, Massillon councilman, wants all of us to attend the city council meeting this Monday Aug 15 ---- 7:30 pm.

Mayor Cicchinelli  will be there. He is going to chastise city council for turning down the well proposel in downtown Massillon. The mayor claims that Massillon lost 500 jobs. The mayor told city council tonight that there was a company that was going to bring 500 jobs to Massillon but changed their mind because they didn't like that council voted no on fracking in Massillon.  

City council [sic] has never heard about any company wanting to locate itself in Massillon like the mayor is claiming. If he knew there were 500 jobs out there, why didn't he tell council.  According to some council members the mayor is probably going to bring another well proposel to council and is going to make those council members that vote no look bad.

It's a scare tactic the mayor is using. He needs 3 more council members to change their vote to yes for fracking downtown.

There is an election this year. Some members on city council are not sure they will be re-elected and don't want to be singeled [sic] out by the mayor as being the reason Massillon lost jobs.

So now a vote on a new ordinance oil and gas proposal would be tied to an argument that voting against drilling would be a vote to pass on new jobs coming to Massillon?

Quite "a different kettle of fish" from the original ordinance (73 B 2011) which was not tied directly to jobs coming to Massillon with Council's approval.  An Ohio Energy Spokeswoman did talk about 14,000 "indirect" jobs that exist in Ohio as a positive attribute of oil and gas drilling activities.

Hmm?

Councilman Townsend, by the way, is running unopposed.

Who might the councilpersons be who do not want to be on record as opposing the 500 jobs that Cicchinelli is said to be referring to?

Start with Councilwoman Kathy Catazaro-Perry, Townsend's political ally, and her run for mayor.

One wouldn't think she in a heavily Democratic city would face much of a challenge from Republican Lee Brunckhart.  Accordingly, and she is not likely to be worried by a possible call-out by Cicchinelli.  However, these are topsy-turvy political times and it is a long time until November 8th and, perhaps, a number of missteps by her could put Brunckhart in play.

Moving on to council-at-large, the most likely worry-wart in this arena is Councilman David Hersher. 

 

In 2007 and 2009 Hersher came in last among the Democrats running.  So he just might be vulnerable to Republican Milan Chovan's challenge. 

Ward 2.  What a delight it likely would be for the outgoing Frank Cicchinelli to take Gary Anderson with him.  Anderson has been a bitter Cicchinelli foe ever since taking office.  Souces deep inside the Cicchinelli administration tells the SCPR that Republican Nancy Halter has an excellent chance of unseating Anderson.  So one wouldn't think that Anderson would relish a vote no as being tantamount to the equivalent of "a job killing" vote?

Ward 5.  David McCune would be an unhappy consequence of a Cicchinelli initiative to put councilpersons on the spot in terms of voting no in the face of the mayor equating a no vote on drilling to a no vote on new Massillon jobs.  McCune has been supportive of Cicchenlli and therefore an unintended consequence of his ongoing feud with the likes of Catazaro-Perry, Hersher and Anderson.

If Cicchinell is to get to five (5) votes, he will have to add to his Manson and Peters support three more votes.

The Report believes that Councilpersons Slagle and Catazaro-Perry are not viable prospects.

Slagle is likely to be vying with Paul Manson as the highest vote getter in the council-at-large race and therefore unlikely to be under any pressure to switch from supporting Townsend.

There is no way Kathy Catazaro-Perry can be seen as knuckling under to Cicchinelli and moreover she is not about to abandon her political ally Townsend.

Are the remaining councilpersons vulnerable to Cicchinelli arm twisting?

Monday night's council meeting could be interesting indeed!

CRAIG CONLEY: ON A MISSION TO DRIVE ZEIGLER FROM OFFICE?

UPDATE & REPUBLICATION  08/11/2011 AT 8:00 AM

At yesterday's Stark County commissioners' meeting, the SCPR asked Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton (Commissioner Ferguson was not available) whether or not they were considering local attorney and civic activists Craig T. Conley's request that they increase Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler's bond from $500,000 to $1,000,000.


Before viewing the video of their responses, go to this LINK and take in a short lesson of what a bond is and how it differs from insurance.


Here is the Creighton/Bernabei video:






ORIGINAL BLOG

Today, Stark County civic activist and attorney Craig T. Conley (who coined the term "Zeiglergate") hand-delivered a letter to Stark County commissioners asking them to increase the bond required of Gary D. Zeigler before he re-assumes his full duties and Stark County treasurer.

Here is a copy of the letter:

 

Zeigler is having trouble getting a $500,000 bond; let alone get a $1,000,000 bond.

Obviously, Conley knows that.  

The SCPR believes that what Conley's request really is all about is to keep Zeigler from becoming treasurer again.  If Zeigler cannot get the bond (which the commissioners have the full statutory authority to set), the office is deemed vacant and his victory in the Ohio Supreme Court becomes a bragging rights victory which never acquires substance.

Obviously, Conley knows that too.

The Report's take is that if Conley had not been birddogging Zeigler from the day the Frustaci theft was revealed (April 1, 2009) that life would have been a lot more comfortable than it has been.

Had it not been for Conley, who knows when Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero would have gotten off his hind end and went after Zeigler under the provisions of Ohio Revised Code Section 321.37 to recover the $2.96 million that has come up missing during Zeigler's tenure.

Conley has been in detailed and frequent communication with Ferrero's office pushing them each step of the way in his endeavor to get Zeigler out of office (August 23, 2010) and to keep him out (failure with the Ohio Supreme Court - June 23, 2011).

Recently, he started an effort to get Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio to prosecute Zeigler for dereliction of duty (a second degree misdemeanor).

The Report hears, that at the urging of Conley, Martuccio has contacted Ferrero's office and is getting Ferrero's cooperation (in terms of the files that Ferrero has on hand from the local, state and federal investigation of the Frustaci matter) as he looks into whether or not a provable case can be brought against Zeigler.

Zeigler's attorney (Nakon) has complained about the county's pursuit of his client saying in a Stark County Court of Common Pleas brief that Zeigler is the victim and that county officials are out to make a martyr of him.

Nakon doesn't say a word about Conley.  Interesting?

If Zeigler ends up resigning or if he is unable to get a bond and therefore the office becomes vacant, Stark Countians like Stark County Auditor Alan Harold who think Zeigler ought to go should not be thanking the commissioners or Prosecutor Ferrero.

The person who deserves the credit will be:  local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley!!!

(VIDEO) GETTING TREASURER ZEIGLER BONDED: A VERITABLE "ALPHONSE & GASTON" ACT - STARK COUNTY VERSION?

 

When the Ohio Supreme Court (June 23, 2011) ordered Gary Zeigler reinstated as Stark County treasurer it set off a chain of events that eventually took on comedic aspect within Stark County government circles pretty much on the order of an Alphonse and Gaston act.

Alphonse and Gaston is presented thusly in Wikipedia:

Alphonse and Gaston was an American comic strip by Frederick Burr Opper, featuring a bumbling pair of Frenchmen with a penchant for politeness. They first appeared in William Randolph Hearst's newspaper, the New York Journal on September 22, 1901 in a strip titled: "Alphonse a la Carte and His Friend Gaston de Table d'Hote".

First, On Zeigler's reinstatement, he only needed to convince Stark County Alan Harold he had a bond to re-assume his full duties  Harold is not buying that Zeigler's bond before he was removed from office by Stark County commissioners on August 23, 2010 was sufficient.  Accordingly, although Zeigler showed up for work on July 5, 2011, Harold's insistence on the issuance of a new bond stood in his way of being a full fledged treasurer.

Hence Harold (an devoted Zeigler political enemy who is said to believe that Zeigler applied pressure on his then employer Huntington Bank to force him from a planned run against Zeigler in 2008) will not authorize Zeigler to be paid.  Moreover, he limits Zeigler's use of county equipment.

When asked by the SCPR a week or so ago whether or not he thought Zeigler's return would present problems for the commissioners to get a sales levy passed, Harold's response?  "Zeigler needs to be gone!

Second, a question came up between Zeigler's legal counsel and the commissioners as to who was responsible to make sure the required bond is in place (either the current/old bond, depending on one's perspective) or a new one; if you view Zeigler's prior bond as being kaput as does - needless to say, the old bonding company that paid off on the old bond.

Third, after some squabbling between Zeigler's counsel and Stark County Prosecutor Ross Rhodes (representing the commissioners), Rhodes instructed the commissioners that Stark County Personnel Manager Marsha Cimadevilla could go ahead and coordinate the issuance of a bond which included Zeigler completing two applications for a new bond.

She did so July 5th in forwarding Zeigler's applications to local insurance agency Sirack-Moore.

Fourth, Cimadavilla told commissioners on July 6th that it was likely to take months to get a new bond for Zeigler.  She was basing her estimate upon the trouble Zeigler encountered getting his bond renewed after the Frustaci theft of Stark County taxpayer money ($2.46 million admitted; $2.96 million speculated) story broke (April 1, 2009).


Fifth, A week later (July 13th), Stark County Prosecutor Rhodes met with Stark County commissioners in executive session with regard to whether or not it was legally appropriate for them to release the current/old bond (again, depending on one's perspective).  After the meeting, the commissioners passed a conditional release requiring that a new bond be in place first.  Moreover, the bonding company (Western Surety) would be refunding the unused portion of the bond (about $3,900 or so).

Rhodes, then told SCPR, in post-meeting questioning, that the issuance of a new bond would happen within days but that the premium cost would at least double.

Here is a video which show Cimadevilla and Rhodes making their statements.

 

Sixth, "within days?"  Not really.

What is today's date and still no bond? 

Yes, August 10, 2011.

Prosecutor Rhodes was summoned by Commissioner Bernabei to the regular - more or less - (a number of them have been canceled) work session Monday about three (3) minutes (his estimate) prior to its commencement without prior indication to the media or the public that the Zeigler bond was to be a discussion item.

Until Rhodes was called in, the only topic on the agenda was Stark's sanitary sewer system.

Rhodes informed commissioners (according a Repository report) at the meeting that a Tennessee surety company had withdrawn its willingness to issue a bond but that one more company might be interested in issuing one.

Rhodes also indicated that if the second company would not issue a bond, then Stark County has a legal problem once again with the Stark County treasurer's office. 

Under state law, the inability to get a bond leaves the the office vacant.  Zeigler's legal counsel disputes the current/old bonding company's contention that the prior bond is no longer live. 

Commissioner Bernabei told yours truly that Sirack-Moore (handing negotiations to find a new bond issuer) would be appearing at yesterday's "regular?" Tuesday version of Stark County commissioner work sessions to answer commissioners' questions on the bond company search process.  Also, the commissioners were to call Prosecutor Rhodes into executive session.  But, alas, guess what happened?

The "not so regular" - regular meeting - Tuesday work session got canceled because, according to Bernabei, Sirack-Moore needed more time.  Hmm?  So why was it so urgent to get Rhodes into the commissioners' work session meeting on Monday?

Supposedly, Sirmack-Moore's representative is to appear before commissioners next week some time?  When?  Some time!

All of these machinations have to be diverting the commissioners from their primary task at hand.

What task might that that be?

Put together a campaign effort to get the 1/2 proposed sales/use tax (for criminal justice and administration) passed in November.

Undoubtedly, it is very helpful (sarcasm, of course) to getting the levy passed that they are devoting so much time to getting Treasurer Zeigler on board as a fully functioning as Stark County treasurer.

Although this whole process has taken on a tragic-comedic tone, it is no laughing matter.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, it (the bond snafu) is a second tarnishing of the leadership abilities of the commissioners that raises questions about how much different they are from boards of commissioners that preceded them.

The Report has been favorably impressed, over its eight months of existence, with this board of commissioners.  And they are better in terms of access, accountability, community contact, openness, and transparency over prior boards.  However, they may be on a path of sliding down to down the level of their predecessor boards level.

The Report spoke of a "second tarnishing" which implies a first, which would be?

Scheduling 22 community meetings (February - June of this year) - to discuss the rate and duration of a sales tax issue - across Stark County without having adequately gotten Stark County's village, city and township elected officials behind the effort.

In Canton, not one person showed up.  No city elected officials; no citizens.  In Alliance, only two people showed up.  Overall the attendance was so poor that Commissioner Creighton calls the Stark County public apathetic.

The reality is that citizens need to be prompted to attend meetings for their own edification.  It appears that the commissioners thought people would be eager to attend.  But we now know that they were not.  It is hard to believe that the commissioners (especially Bernabei and Creighton - long time public officials) did not have some glimmer that the public would require prodding to get out to the meetings.

Yours truly has been attending local government meetings since the late 70s/early 80s only to witness lots and lots of empty or near empty township halls, city council chambers and boards of education meeting rooms. 

The point is that if commissioners cannot plan for a series of well attended public meetings by enlisting the active and committed support of their natural allies (councilpersons, trustees, fiscal officers, law directors, mayors, board of education members and the like), what can they plan for?

Another Alfonse and Gaston exercise, perhaps?

CANTON CITIZEN STEPS FORWARD TO DEFEND COUNCIL PRESIDENT SCHULMAN. CANTON DOES NOT EXPECT TO BE SUED OVER OFFICER HARLESS INCIDENT?

It had to be heartening for Canton City Council President Allen Schulman, in particular, to have a day-in, day-out Canton citizen step up the the Public Speaks microphone at last night's meeting to defend Schulman and Canton city officials in general from anonymous attacks on them made on the comments section of the Canton Repository.

Citizen "Pete" DiGiacomo, a regular at Canton City Council (Council) meetings, gave a heart rending presentation that had to boost the spirits of city officials.  See the presentation for yourself in the video of DiGiacomo's remarks at the end of this blog.

It appears to the SCPR that the city of Canton officialdom is not all that worried that a lawsuit may be forthcoming out of the Officer Harless incident of early June (captured by a Canton Police Department cruiser-cam).  The video shows Harless reacting in a highly agitated state after learning that one of the occupants of a vehicles he and a partner had stopped had a concealed carry weapon.

The profanity/threat ladened video was posted on the Internet by Ohioans for Concealed Carry (OFCC) and, of course, it went viral.

Within a few days OFCC was calling for the resignation of Officer Harless and, surprisingly, Council President Schulman.

Why Schulman?

For expressing concerns about the  proliferation of concealed carry weapons, that's why!

Apparently, one cannot disagree with OFCC without be subjected to an attempt to being drummed out of office for exercising one's First Amendment rights. 

OFCC bills itself as being "a civil rights organization" on its website. 

Perhaps OFCC should rephrase its self-description to:  "a civil RIGHT organization," meaning that it is only interested in promoting the civil right under the Second Amement of the U.S. Constitution right to bear arms?

Another question coming out of this incident is whether or not Canton should expect to be sued by the butt of Officer Harless' outburst?

City officials speaking on the condition of anonymity tell the SCPR that it would be surprising to them if the subject; namely William Barlett of Brewster,  (facing charges of stopping in a roadway and a carrying a concealed weapon charge with the allegation that he failed to properly notify the officer he had the gun), were to file civil litigation against Canton.

The sources are confident that any such lawsuit would not survive a Motion for Summary Judgment. 

However, the strangest things can happen in litigation. 

What if a lawsuit is filed and what if it gets by a summary judgment motion and what if Canton is adjudged to have civil liability or works out a settlement agreement?

What if, meaning:  would such a turn of events put Canton in financial jeopardy?

The answer seems to be:  no.  The Report is told that Canton carries civil liability with a cap of several million with a city deductible of $125,000.  Even in a worse case scenario, it appears that Canton only is in jeopardy - if a lawsuit is filed - for $125,000.

Canton can ill-afford any payouts given it current financial crisis in the light of coming local government funding from the state of Ohio.

Here is the DiGiacomo video.

IS "THE REP" SYSTEMATICALLY TRYING TO REHAB HEALY?

In what appears to the SCPR to be a "puff" piece (Healy goes extra mile for Canton to gain call center, Ed Balint, August 6, 2011) that is more likely to come from a public relations type (or, in the case of Canton government, the likes of former communications director Adam Herman) than MSM (main stream media).

It seems as if The Repository - realizing that Healy is highly likely to be around for four more years - has embarked on a rehabilitation project of the mayor and his administration?

The Report has long maintained that The Rep should do a disclaimer each and every time it does publish anything on Canton officials in light of the contract that Stark County's only countywide newspaper (its parent company:  GateHouse) has with Canton to publish a glossy quarterly Canton public relations magazine:  The Canton Connection.

Repository publisher Kevin Kampman has promised Stark Countians that The Rep's commercial ties to the Healy administration would not affect its reportorial/editorial coverage of the mayor.  Promises, promises!  So Kampman has the audacity to ask us to trust them?  A newspaper man should know better than to ask readers to suspend their critical faculties.  What a perversion of what a newspaper ought to be doing.  Newspapers are to encourage reader "due diligence;" not falling back to "blind faith."

Trust, but verify is more in order.

However, how can one verify that Kampman, Gauger and Beck keep their hands off the reporter staff or are unaffected by The Rep's financial interest in their journalism. 

Answer:  You can't.

So we have come full circle to simply trusting the poobahs at The Rep.

The SCPR is not willing to do that.  Neither should any discerning reader.

In hypocritical fashion, then, The Rep's editors annotate letters to the editors and the like indicating any interests/connections/associations the writer of the letter may have in the subject matter of the letter. 

Readers of The Rep should be constantly be reminded of its money making ties to Canton government so they are equipped to factor same into the credibility and reliability of the published material.  Moreover, the same should apply with other units of Stark County government that The Rep writes about and has commercial ties with.

In his writing Balint seems to be praising Healy for doing what Healy ought to have done without seeking/receiving any recognition for the effort.

But that wouldn't be Healy.

For The Repository to be a willing conduit of Mayor Healy seemingly incessant need to have his ego stroked is disturbing.

Going the extra mile?  You have to be kidding. 

In reality, Healy's effort has been a matter of survival for him personally in the political sense and for Canton in the economic development/financial sense. 

While getting jobs - any jobs - even those VXI Global Solutions call center jobs paying $10 - $12 an hour (not likely a living wage job for a breadwinner with family) are worthwhile; these are hardly the kind of jobs that are going to return Canton to a "new" glory, to wit:  “My vision is not about going back to the glory days of the past.  My vision is to create the new glory days.” (William J. Healy II - City 'is far better today.' The Repository,  Balint, April 23, 2011)

In the City 'is far better today' article, Healy is also portrayed as follows:

Detractors of the mayor describe him as a pompous dictator. A leader who is arrogant, boasting of his master’s degree in business administration from the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University.

Asked about that image, Healy fired back with the swagger of a gunslinger. “If you want to know the root of brain drain, it’s the small-minded folks who criticize those who go out and get our education and come home and want to give back to their community, and are criticized because they did something (with) their lives.”

“... If every kid could do that ... the city would skyrocket to success,” he said.

Leave it to Healy to invent a word ("those") that was never used in the critique he is referring to.

The SCPR is the critic he is referring to.  The Report has never criticized people in general who try to improve themselves with advanced education.  Yours truly has a daughter who is a medical doctor, another who is an attorney working on her PhD and a third who has a masters degree and is a lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve.


It would be strange indeed if they were to have had a father who did not promote higher education as they were growing up right here in Stark County, wouldn't it?

No, Mayor Healy, cannot hide behind his contrivance of "those" in order to divert attention from himself.  He stands alone in The Report's critique of his misuse of having an advanced education.

When one trumpets ad nauseam as he did and continues to do  - his NYU degree - such suggests a certain insecurity on his part.  The way he has used his achieving an MBA from the NYY Stern School of Business has been as an play on arrogant superiority and as a club; not as an inspiration/motivation for others to follow.

The SCPR honors those who achieve intellectually.  Canton and Stark County does need the best and the brightest to stay in, return to and come anew to the area to provide the intellectual power that we need to get out of the deep, deep hole that unthinking, self-serving, power grabbing politicians have put us in over a number of decades.

The Report does not see Healy as being an intellectual powerhouse who has the potential to bring on a "new glory" to Canton, his NYU degree notwithstanding.  He is way too much into himself to be thinking much of others and their well being.

The SCPR continues to see him as smart in the sense of having political street smarts with the chutzpah to bully his way through most any tough situation so that he can be king of his own little world.

Apparently, the folks at The Repository see him differently.

Time will tell who is right.

In the meantime, it would be real nice if The Rep writers started applying disclaimers to themselves when writing about their customers.

One other thing about Balint and his pieces on Healy.

It has to do with Balint's discussion about the viciousness, horror (Healy's terms) perpetuated by The Repository in its article Healy Fakes Illness and its column Healy's time off debated which were, according to Balint, written "in late 2000 and 2001."

From Balint: (William J. Healy II - City 'is far better today.'  Balint, April 23, 2011)

But “there was nothing anyone could do that was more horrific” [Healy said to Balint] than the article and column about his father, he said, referring to bloggers, council members, the media and the public.

Who specifically were:

• the bloggers, 
• the council members, ... and 
• members of the public circa late 2000, early 2001 had anything to do with The Rep's article and column about Healy's father?

Were these Healy's words or were they Balint's fill?  Hmm?

The reference to "the media?"

Of course, we know its identity.

But who at The Repository ('the media") wrote Healy Fakes Illness?

Who at The Repository ("the media") wrote Healy's time off debated? 

It is interesting that Balint does not identity the writers!