CHRISTINA HAGAN PROBABLY DID NOT REALIZE THAT SHE VOTED FOR A REDISTRICT PLAN THAT MIGHT RESULT IN HER BEING A SHORT LIVED STATE REP? PLAIN TWP TRUSTEE LOUIS GIAVASIS PONDERING A RUN IN THE "NEW" 50TH HOUSE DISTRICT?

Louis Giavasis has been a Plain Township trustee for 18 years.  And he has really enjoyed being trustee.  But now that his children are older and becoming more and more independent of the need to have constant parental contact, Giavasis is considering a run for the Ohio Statehouse for the "new" 50th Ohio House District.

But wait a minute, he lives in Plain, no? 

Yes, however, Christina Hagan (Republican - Marlboro), who was appointed state representative earlier this year when former Rep. Todd Snitchler (R - Lake - the 50th) took up the more personally lucrative position of being Governor Kasich's man in Columbus as chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), apparently did not realize that she may have voted against her own interest in remaining 50th District representative in approving the new redistricting plan for the Ohio House.

It turns out that Giavasis recently moved (08/05/2011) into a part of Plain that is included in the "new" 50th recently.  Likely that Christina was so involved in helping carve out a "safe" district for herself that she lost track of Giavasis.  He used to live south of Easton and in Kirk Schuring's "old" 51st District and still in Schuring's "new" 48th.

It is basic Political Science 101 that the best time to defeat an incumbent is her first time out for an election.

Well, that's Chistina Hagan this time around.

And Louis Giavasis tells the SCPR that he would not rule out running against her in 2012.

Hagan owes her office to "daddy John."  John Hagan held the "old" 50th from 2000 through 2008 when he got term limited out and then was out of government for a short spell when Democrat Pete Ferguson defeated him in a county commissioner's race in 2008.  Since then he has re-established himself as a Marlboro Township trustee. 

When Snitchler took off for more prosperous political/governmental haunts despite just being re-elected 50th District representative, John Hagan made it his crusade to get daughter Christina (who qualifications include being Carnation Days queen in 2007, a restaurant server and a university student) into his "old" district.  And, of course, his efforts paid off and we add to the "politically entitled" families that dot the Stark County political landscape (Republican and Democrat).

Giavasis himself appears to the SCPR to be a Democratic version of the politically entitled.  His brother Phil is Canton Municipal Court clerk of courts.

Phil used to be Stark County clerk of courts.  It appears that when he figured out, on Tom Harmon's retirement as Canton Municipal Court clerk of courts, that that clerk of courts was significantly more remunerative than the county position and that the higher pay would enhance his retirement benefits probably not that far down the road, he made the switch.

To the SCPR, the most interesting aspect of Phil's switch was that he felt like he was entitled to name his successor.  So when Lawrence Township Trustee Mike Stevens expressed an interest to him in running for the position, Phil got indignant with Stevens.  It seems that Phil did not want Stevens upsetting his plan to have his top assistant Nancy Reinbold (wife of now former Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge Richard Reinbold) appointed by Stark County Democrats to replace him when he moved on to the city of Canton.

And guess who now works for Nancy Reinbold?

You've got it.  Coming full circle:  Louis P. Giavasis.  He serves as Reinbold's (as the SCPR likes to put it) "Car Title Czar."

So if Giavasis decides to run against Hagan, will it be a race of the entitleds, no?

The SCPR's take on a comparison of the two is that Giavasis does have a maverick/independent streak about him despite likely being a member in good standing of the Stark County Democratic Party "good ole boys" network.

Louis has a history of taking up causes and fighting them to the bitter end.

One example is his taking on Giant Eagle (the grocery store behemoth) when it vacated its Plain Township situated Oakwood store site for Washington Square only to maintain contract rights to veto its replacement at Oakwood by a competing grocery.

Another is his leadership in the anti-fracking movement.  Many Plain Township resident worry about the damage that fracking may do to the water they drink, the air they breathe and the township infrastructure (i.e. the roads) among many other concerns.

Giavasis started (in December, 2009) the Stark County anti-fracking movement in making noises about banning hydraulic fracking for natural gas within Plain Township.  He encountered heavy opposition from Stark county oil and gas interests.

Because of concerns about being caught up in possible litigation at the hand of the oil and gas industry, Giavasis has had to settle for Plain Township passing a resolution requesting a moratorium on fracking and a resolution banning fracking on Plain Township owned property and under Plain's roadways.

Chistina Hagan, on the other hand, gives every sign of being "owned by the company store:" that is to say - the Ohio Republican House Caucus to which she owes her appointment.  And, of course, she wouldn't want to cross "daddy."

Moreover, she is likely to be a person that if Republican Governor John Kasich (perhaps Ohio's foremost fracking enthusiast) were to ask her to jump, her response:  how high?

On this issue alone, their couldn't be a starker contrast between politically polar opposites that on the issue of fracking.

But there are certainly a bevy of other issues that Giavasis and Hagan would clash on:  Her votes for highly gerrymandered congressional and Ohio General Assembly redistricting, her vote for curbing collective bargaining (SB 5 - state issue 2), her vote to allow fracking in Ohio's state parks, to name a few of the many.

Should Giavasis decide to run against Hagan, the SCPR's take is that he would present a formidable obstacle to Christina Hagan returning to Columbus as state representative on January 1, 2013!

(EXTENSIVE "VIDEO" COVERAGE) SCPR ASSESSMENT - HEALY BEING THE EXPERIENCED "INCUMBENT" DEMONSTRATED AN "EDGE UP" IN LAST NIGHT'S CANTON MAYORALTY DEBATE

LIST OF VIDEOS:

1. CONDE CLOSING STATEMENT (BLASTING HEALY FOR BEING EXCESSIVELY POLITICAL)
2. CANDIDATE OPENING STATEMENTS
3. CANDIDATES ON SPENDING PRIORITIES OF HEALY ADMINISTRATION
4. THE POLITICAL HEROS OF THE CANDIDATES
5. CANDIDATE VIEWS ON CANTON'S APPROACH IN DEALING WITH CRIME
6. CANDIDATE TAKES ON THE EFFORT TO BRING JOBS TO CANTON
7. STATE ISSUE #2 (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING):  CANDIDATE POSITIONS
8. ISSUE #29 (STARK CO SALES TAX INCREASE):  CANDIDATE POSITIONS
9. CANTON SCHOOLS 7.9 MILL LEVY:  CANDIDATE POSITIONS
10. QUALITY OF MAYOR HEALY'S DECISIONS
11. ON TEARING DOWN VACANT BUILDINGS
12. TAPPING INTO THE FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME AS A CANTON ASSET
13. HEALY, MILLER AND HART CLOSING STATEMENTS

It was - well - sort of an opponent "tag-team" match last night at the co-sponsored NewsTalk 1480 WHBC and Repository debate at the Palace Theater featuring the candidates running for mayor of Canton.

But, as Republican A.R. "Chip" Conde said in his closing remarks, independent challengers John Miller and Richard Hart realistically have not been nor did they become as a consequence of the debate serious contenders to replace William J. Healy, II as mayor of Canton.

Conde is a serious threat, but even he showed last night that he is at a marked disadvantage in running against Stark County's most consummate politician.  As Conde and Miller tellingly pointed out, Healy has used and continues to use actually being mayor of Canton to his fullest political advantage in his drive to retain office for four more years.

So if anyone was going to get some political body slams on Healy, it was going to have to be Conde.

In the judgment of yours truly, Conde failed to deliver and, barring a miracle, believes that Healy will coast to re-election victory on November 8th.

The SCPR has been, perhaps, Healy's severest critic since coming online in March, 2008 about three and one-half months into Healy having been elected over Conde chief supporter Mayor Janet Creighton November, 2007.

Ever since Healy lost (unbelievably?) to Canton Councilman Bill Smuckler in the 2003 Democratic Primary, Healy has perhaps become - at least within the confines of Canton proper - the Stark Dems' best politician.

A mere 140 votes out of 7,852 cast and Healy would today be seeking a third term as mayor of Canton.   They are now tight political allies, but The Report's analysis is that council-at-large candidate Jimmy Babcock (son of a former Canton Democratic mayor) cost Healy the 2003 Democratic Primary election.

Had Healy won the Democratic Primary, the SCPR believes that Janet Creighton would never have been mayor of Canton.

BACK TO THE CAMPAIGN AT HAND

Rewind Democrat Mayor William J. Healy's tenure as mayor back to the early days of his administration.

It was one snafu after another "in the early days" which Healy attributed last night to be owing to his selecting administration members (Bernabei, Nesbitt and others) by committee rather than by his own gut instinct.

In summing up why voters should vote for him rather than Healy, Miller or Hart, Conde in the following video focuses on the "tripping over his own feet" history of Healy's start up as mayor.



As far as the SCPR is concerned, Conde's closing statement is a case of being "too little, too late."

Conde's major hope (if he had any in a city with a huge Democratic voter registration margin) was to get started much earlier with an intense campaign much along the lines of what he closed with last night but with the addition that - in time - Healy will find a way to get into a self-destruct mode and, unfortunately drag Canton down with him.

However, Conde is not a politician that matches up in any way, shape or form against Healy.  To expect him to get into a political cesspool with Healy, is not to understand "Chip" Conde.  Political skulduggery is not "Chip" Conde.

OPENING STATEMENTS

Healy provides Conde with the opportunity in bringing politics to the forefront (i.e. "I am a Democrat;" "my opponents [apparently including the independents] are Republicans who have failed in the past at governing)" in his opening statement as a basis on which Conde could repeatedly and forcefully make the point that Healy is consummately political and weak on governing.

In his own statement which came before Healy's, Conde signals that he will do just that.  But The Report's take is that he did not successfully do so.  Conde wrapped up nicely in this vein, but the "in between" was pretty much the statesman Conde.



ON THE ISSUES

Quite frankly, though the SCPR is highly troubled by Healy's marked politicization of the mayor's office, "on the issues" Healy appeared to The Report to best Conde.  This notwithstanding some cheerleading going on on the facebook page Democrats and Independents for Chip Conde, to wit:

ISSUE #1
WISDOM OF HEALY ADMINISTRATION SPENDING DECISIONS IN LIGHT OF PROJECTED $6.2 MILLION REVENUE SHORTFALL IN 2012/13

Healy effectively makes the point that the projected shortfall is beyond the mayor's control and sets himself up as the fiscal conservative best positioned to see Canton through the existing and coming tough times.

Conde does point out an internal Healy administration management problem which resulted in the loss of $481,000.  But does not take advantage of this opening to really pounce on Healy for apparently making spending decisions to enhance his getting through the Democratic Primary race and winning re-election.



A NON-ISSUE & ON A LIGHTER NOTE
THE CANDIDATES' POLITICAL HERO



ISSUE #3
CITY'S APPROACH TO FIGHTING CRIME

Conde wins the day on this issue in the sense that it simply is not credible as Mayor Healy asserts that his administration is getting a handle on crime in Canton to the degree that people who grace the streets of Canton, whether a resident of Canton or not, feel safer.

However, it does not appear to the SCPR that Conde has an "outside-of-the-box" solution to the Healy administration's apparent failure on this front.  He says to put more police on the streets.  Duh?  Where is the money to do so in the light of an impending $6.2 million shortfall? A hope and a prayer for grants?

Healy persists in hanging on to FBI reports of a three year decline and piggybacks on to the reports as his administration's police programs and techniques being the reason not withstanding Candidate Miller's list of crime statistics that fly in the face of the FBI report.



ISSUE #4
BRINGING JOBS TO CANTON

Conde is correct.  The Healy administration was not ready to go when it took office on January 1, 2008 especially on the matter of economic development and bringing jobs to Canton.

Of late, there have been some Healy administration success and this is what is going to stick in the mind of Canton's voters.  A good part of the jobs (the telemarketing ones) appear not to be living wage jobs.

These days, the mere appearance of jobs is a political plus.

For his part, Conde had nothing earth shaking to say about how a Mayor Conde would introduce a new dynamic into improving on the Healy so-so record.



ISSUE #5
STATE ISSUE 2 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

The relationship between unions and any administration is a really big deal in Stark County.

Notwithstanding his support of the Canton Professional Firefighters union, with all his equivocation as to whether or not he supports the Republican Kasich administration Senate Bill 5 (on the ballot as state Issue #2), Republican mayoralty candidate Conde likely has hurt himself badly in any hope he may have of getting public employee (including school teachers) support in his effort to unseat Mayor Healy.

Healy himself could not be more forthright in his denunciation of Issue 2.

Candidate Miller (who like Healy is clearly against Issue 2) had a problem squaring up his discussion with describing how he will vote on the issue.  With the help of questioner Ron Ponder (NewsTalk14080 WHBC Points to Ponder)he got it straight that he is "no on Issue 2."



ISSUE #6
STARK COUNTY ISSUE 29 - 1/2% SALES TAX INCREASE

Other than Mayor Healy being the most articulate and committed in support of Issue 29, there was no difference in the positions of the candidate.

It is in the compelling interest of all Canton governance types to be for Issue 29.  For it it fails, Canton stands to lose $400,000 more on top of the expected $6.2 million shortfall ($1.7 through 2012; $4.5 through 2013) that is in the offing for Canton.



ISSUE #7
CANTON SCHOOLS' 7.9 MILL LEVY

Canton Schools levy is really a non-issue.  The Report can't imagine why the question framer did not construct this matter in such a way as to draw some different perspectives from among the candidates.

Candidate Conde did manage to get petty with Healy over whether or not The Mayor's Scholarship Program is the only one in the nation.  But the SCPR does not think that was Conde's real point.

The SCPR takes Conde's criticism to be a subtle and larger issue:  a Healy tendency to exaggerate the beneficial or specialness of his programs and policies?

Rather than look petty, it would have served Conde better to call Healy on his tendency to braggadocio.  Of course, there is the possibility Conde was simply being petty.  The crowd did cheer wildly when Healy talked about the scholarship program.



ISSUE #8
QUALITY OF MAYOR HEALY'S DECISIONS

Prime Healy opponent Conde must have been seeing red as he stood and listened to Mayor Healy go through a list of three decisions he thinks he has made as mayor as possibly being his best (e.g. starting with the Cavaliers, then saying no and then going onto the second, et cetera) in the context of the questioner (Ponder) asking merely for the "best" decision.

Of course, this was a slick way for the consummate politician to remind the audience of his accomplishments.

It must have been a jolt for Healy to hear Miller and Conde say that firing now Stark County Commissioner Bernabei as being the worst Healy decision.  Healy had just got done saying implicitly that hiring Bernabei as part of his cabinet was his worst.

Interesting.  Both sides agree that the Bernabei thing was the worst, but for entirely different reasons.



ISSUE #9
DEMOLITION OF VACANT BUILDINGS

Mayor Healy's administration has made significant progress in demolishing vacant buildings:  500 so far, with another 4,000 on the waiting list.  The buildings breed crime and tearing them down has to help in the fight against crime.



ISSUE #10
MORE EFFECTIVELY USING THE HALL OF FAME AS AN ECONOMIC ASSET



CLOSING STATEMENTS OF HEALY, HART AND MILLER

(VIDEOS: CIRELLI, SCHULMAN, McMASTERS, HEALY & REAM) IS ISSUE 29 HEADED TOWARDS APPROVAL? CO-CHAIR DAN McMASTERS SAYS STARK COUNTIANS SHOULD FEAR CONSQUENCES OF NOT PASSING THE ISSUE. A KEY QUESTION: IS PASSAGE OF ISSUE 29 AT A RATE LESS THAN IS NEEDED A WISE THING FOR THE LONG TERM?

It is hard to know about Issue 29 (the 0.5% sales tax increase) prospects on next month's ballot:  are the stars lining up as a omen that the issue will pass?

Well, the "Yes for Stark Safety - Issue 29" (YFSS-29) campaigners are scattering to and fro across Stark County trying to get all 35 of Stark County's local government entities to endorse the effort.

Last night YSFSS-29 forces showed up at Canton City Council and got a 10 to 1 thumbs up (Councilwoman Cirelli voting no and Councilman West absent due to a death in his extended family) on a requested endorsement via an informal resolution.

Cirelli seemed to cause consternation among the pro-29 folks in questioning the courage of the Stark Commissioners in not voting to impose the proposed tax increase rather than leave it up to a vote of Stark Countians.  Apparently, the councilwoman has forgotten that a former board of commissioners (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) imposed a 1/2 cent sales tax (December, 2008) which Stark Countians overwhelming repealed in November, 2009.

Another point that Cirelli pushed hard on to make clear is that while county officials say that Issue 29 money will be used "primarily" to make the sheriff's department whole to 2010 levels, the fact of the matter is that the 1/2% increase will not be used exclusively for that purpose or even the expanded notion of the entire Stark County criminal justice apparatus.   A significant part of the money will still be used to cover all other county operations that currently participate in county general fund allocations.

Here is a number of video excerpts indicating the frustration of Issue 29 supporters with Cirelli's argument and point.



If it were just local government types that were voting on the issue, there is no doubt that the issue would pass overwhelmingly.  But there is a detectible nervousness emanating from the campaigners for 29.

Why so?

Because it is believed that some 100,000 or so Stark Countians will be voting on the issue on November 8th and notwithstanding a strong campaign to reach all of them with convincing proof that Stark County government is on the brink of a massive financial collapse come 2012 should the issue fail, and uncertainty persists that given the stubbornly down economy and the influence of a general anti-tax attitude as overtly manifested by the the likes of the Tea Party movement whether or not YFSS-29 can get to 50,001 votes.

Most of the YFSS-29 campaigners have stayed away from out-and-out using fear of the consequences to voting no in terms of the devastation they say the failure of a tax increase failure will have on Stark County governmental services.

But Co-Chair Dan McMasters (a Massillon State Farm Insurance agent) is not one of them.

Here is a video of McMasters articulating on the "fear argument" last night.



All-in-all it was a very good night for YSFF-29, witness this video of endorsements by Mayor Healy and Safety Director Thomas Ream.



It is looking more and more to the SCPR that the stars may be taking on a favorable alignment for the passage of Issue 29.

But, at best, the commissioners are only treading water if the issue passes.
On this point, Council President Allen Schulman had the best question of the night in pointing out what the 1/2 cent tax does not do in terms of not providing money for economic development and job production.

A major concern for commissioners should be whether or not the passage of the 1/2% increase will make it impossible for an additional hike in a year or so.

For it is abundantly clear that even with a 1/2% increase that Stark County will be right back in a financial crisis very soon indeed.

In fact, word has just come out that the Veterans Service Commission (VSC) which is entitled as a matter of Ohio law to about $3.2 million in the county's share (about 4% of the total take) of property tax assessments is going to be taking about $2.5 million for 2012 as compared to $1.3 million this year.  On October 14th, the VSC board is holding a meeting of Stark County veteran stakeholders to consider using much of its available money to facilitate a plan being pushed by Commissioner Pete Ferguson to develop a Veterans Home in Stark County.

So in one-fell-swoop it appears that beginning in 2012 commissioners are going to lose $1 million or so annually for its general fund operations in heretofore unused VSC fund set asides.

The SCPR believes that this action is at least - in part - a VSC board reaction to Commissioner Janet Creighton's question (paraphrased) earlier in this year when the board gave VSC pay raises over the objection of commissioners, to wit:  "What does the VSC do for Stark County veterans, anyway?"

These are times that call for very wise political/governmental leadership in Stark County.

The ultimate question which Issue 29 raises is this:  Are Stark Countians getting wise leadership from the current crop of county officials?

DID MARY CIRELLI MISS HER OPPORTUNITY TO BE MAYOR OF CANTON? ALSO, WHY IT APPEARS THAT CIRELLI WILL VOTE NOT TO SUPPORT A COUNCIL SALES TAX "INFORMAL" RESOLUTION AT TONIGHT'S MEETING

The SCPR was told by a Stark County official last week that several Canton officials were either wavering on whether or not to support the Stark County sales tax issue of a 1/2% increase (Issue 29) or in some cases had definitely decided to vote no when the matter comes up for a vote at tonight's council meeting.

Issue 29 committee members Belden (a Canton Municipal Court judge), Bernabei (a Stark County commissioner), Sherer, Sr. (a former ironworker and Stark union insider) and Swanson (sitting Stark County sheriff) will be there in full force to convince "all" members to support the informal resolution of support.

One name mentioned was that of Councilwoman-at-Large Mary Cirelli.  Also named as possibly not being supportive was Councilman Thomas West (Ward 2) who The Report is told will not be at council meeting tonight because of a death in the extended family, and 8th Ward Councilman Mark Butterworth who is in his second consecutive political fight of his life against Democrat Edmond Mack.

He barely eked out Democrat Karl "Butch" Kraus, Jr. two years ago.

Cirelli is one of Canton's most popular politicians.  In fact, these days there is evidence that she may be more popular than Mayor William J. Healy, II.  (See "On Cirelli's Missed?  Opportunity to be Mayor" below).

Mayor Healy is reported to be saying that "he will have to think about it" as to whether or not he will support Issue 29.  Of course, he has trouble supporting anything that might benefit arch political enemies and Stark County commissioners Janet Creighton and Tom Bernabei.  More than that, he is always angling for political positions which he thinks benefits his personal political objectives.

When The Report brought up the Yes for Stark Issue 29 claim that Canton stands to lose $400,000 in income tax revenues should the issue fail due to the layoff of county employees who pay the Canton income tax, Cirelli questioned the validity of the claim.

On questioning Councilwoman Cirelli about whether or not she was going to vote for a resolution that Majority Leader David Dougherty was putting together supporting Issue 29 for tonight's meeting, she replied that she was only considering voting for the measure if certain conditions were met.

Conditions?

What are her conditions?

Here they are (as the SCPR understands them):

• that Healy, all city employees, department heads, vendors selling to Canton government and non-profits getting funding from the city sign on (apparently, verbally support) any such resolution,
• that she have some assurance that the turf fights within Stark County over consolidating/merging such government services as building permits, public health services, information technology services and 9-1-1 operations be ended, and
• that Stark County get back to providing services in a highly efficient manner.

Hmm?

It appears that Cirelli - if she sticks to her conditions - has set them up so that it will be hard for her to say they have been met thereby freeing her not to vote for tonight's expected resolution.

ON CIRELLI'S MISSED? OPPORTUNITY TO BE MAYOR

What evidence is there that Mary could have been on her way to being mayor of Canton.  Mary's political history in Canton and even parts of Stark County outside of Canton proper is rich indeed, to wit:

In the course of conversation with Mary on Saturday, Mary told The Report that Councilman Bill Smuckler, who actually ran against Mayor Healy in the May 4th Democratic Primary, pointed out to her that she ran ahead of Healy in her Democratic Party re-nomination for council-at-large quest.

Cirelli received 3,137 voters compared to Healy's 3,031.  So Cirelli bested HIZZHONER by 106 votes.  Impressive, no?

But then again Jimmy Babcock also beat Healy's number. The Report does not think Babcock could defeat Healy, but could Cirelli given her long line of electoral successes?

Cirelli said that she had considered a run against Healy.

As anyone who follows political races knows, each and every race has its own dynamics.  In fact, one of her few electoral defeats came at the hand of Mayor Healy when he committed a political unpardonable sin in running against and defeating Cirelli as an incumbent Democratic state representative in 2004.

The near 2,500 vote Healy victory in the state representative race contraindicates that Cirelli could have defeated Healy in May.  However, a significant part of the vote in the 52nd House District comes from outside Canton proper.

Given Cirelli's longtime Canton-based political success and Healy's strong 2004 win over her, a straight up race within the political bounds of Canton between two would have been a political sight to behold!

(VIDEO OF FERRERO) A BIZZARE TWIST? COUNTY OFFICIALS WHO FAILED TO "EFFECTIVELY" COLLECT DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES OVER MANY YEARS SAY PASSING A SALES TAX INCREASE IS NEEDED TO ENABLE THEM TO DO WHAT THEY FAILED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE. GO FIGURE!

Back on September 19th Stark County officials from the treasury, the prosecutor's office and, of course, the commissioners themselves sat down to review the progress being made to collect upwards of $40 million in back property taxes owned by Stark Countians.

It is unclear whether or not any net progress is being made on the collection of the $40 million in unpaid property taxes.  For every collection being made, it could be that it is offset by new delinquencies coming on the list.  Stark County Auditor Alan Harold says that whether or not progress is being made will not be known until about the end of October.

The fact there is $40 million, more or less, in back taxes owed is in and of itself an indictment of county officials to the effect that they have not been exercising "due diligence" on behalf the "we pay our taxes and pay them on time" segment of Stark taxpayers.

Also, hurt by the lack of "due diligence" has been local school district, township, village, city and other property tax dependent local government entities who are being shorted by the failure of the Stark treasury and the Stark prosecutor's office.

Now comes Stark County Prosecutor John D. Ferrero (who the SCPR sees as a principal county officeholder who, along with Treasurer Zeigler, as not getting the job done in collecting the back taxes), appearing at a July meeting of elected county officials and spoke of the impending reduction of his professional staff to a skeleton-esque operation should an increase in the county sales tax fail this November.

The obvious implication of a sales tax increase failure for back property tax collection going forward into 2012:  "forget it!"

Had it not been for local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley bringing the arrearage front and center to Stark County political dialogue, you can bet your bottom dollar that the September 19th commissioners' work session would not have happened in the first place:  "out-of-sight; out-of-mind!"

Also to be commended is former or "usurper" (as Zeigler's attorney describes him in court pleadings but who the SCPR sees as having been a first-rate public official) Republican Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumber.  He is the treasurer who got the ball rolling on collecting delinquencies. 

it was a bit much for yours truly to sit and listen to Ferrero on September 19th (see video at the end of this paragraph) point out that only 3.58% of property taxes collected go to the county.



The apparent Ferrero intended message is that collecting the back property taxes will not solve the county's impending financial/fiscal problems.

Obviously, Ferrero doesn't see or is conveniently ignoring that "the other side of the coin" message is that since Stark County profits so little (i.e. 3.58%), what incentive has there been and continues to be for county officials to push for collection of the monies.

In doing so, he is setting up yet another "distrust" of county government factor.

Both Ferrero and Zeigler originally were political appointees (Ferrero a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman who was chairman when Zeigler was appointed by the Party's central committee) who, in the opinion of yours truly, are mainly interested in their own personal political longevity and not in serving the Stark County public and taxpayer interest effectively.

Both ran "unopposed" in 2008, and in the case of Zeigler, the now Stark County Auditor Alan Harold has let it be known he (Harold) believes that Zeigler put pressure on Harold's then employer - Huntington Bank - to force him out of his projected race against Zeigler.

Though it is breaking apart these days, the SCPR sees Zeigler and Ferrero as having been (and Ferrero, in the judgment of The Report, continues to be) quintessential members of the Stark County Democratic Party's "good ole boys" network.

Whether it is a Democratic Party "good ole boy" network, or a Republican one at work (e.g. Stark GOP Chair Jeff Matthews seeing to it that former Stark GOP Executive Director Travis Secrest gets a Stark Board of Elections job), the ramification on a county government that house these folks is that of growing distrust.

It is clear to the SCPR that those running the Yes for Safety Issue 29 campaign are focusing on documenting "need" using "fear of consequences" messages if the 1/2 cent issues does not pass as their approach.

What they are not focusing on is whether or not Stark Countians trust county government to have 1/2 cent more on the dollar.

For if they did, Issue 29 surely would not pass?

CONGRATS TO THE LAWRENCE TWP TRUSTEES. THEY GET THEIR FRACKING INFORMATIONAL SERIES RIGHT THIS TIME: FAIR & BALANCED

Hydraulic fracturing:

An operation in which a specially blended liquid is pumped down a well and into a formation under pressure high enough to cause the formation to crack open, forming passages through which oil [and natural gas] can flow into the wellbore.


Sand grains, aluminum pellets, glass beads, or similar materials are carried in suspension into the fractures.

When the pressure is released at the surface, the fractures partially close on the proppants, leaving channels for oil  to flow through to the well.

Source:  Oilandgasglossary.com

On August 11th, the Lawrence Township trustees (Stevens & Kamph) to their credit decided to put on a series of meeting which they said were designed to educate their residents about the fracking issue that abounds in Stark County, the state of Ohio and, indeed, across the whole of America (CLICK THIS PARAGRAPH TO LINK TO PRIOR SCPR BLOG ON THE MEETING OF THE 11TH).

Basically, while undoubtedly well-intentioned, the trustees failed on the 11th to have a fair and balanced presentation.  And, The Report's blog on the meeting to the trustee to task fro their failure.

From all reports (e.g. Fracking advocates, opponents make case at forum,

Matthew Rink, The Massillon Independent, September 30th), the trustees did much better at Thursday night's meeting (the 29th).

However, The Report thinks they could have done better by having an alternative to oil and gas spokesperson Rhonda Reda of the Ohio Oil & Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP).

Reda from Rink's account appears to have injected a nasty tone into the discussion, to wit:

Rhonda Reda of the Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program, a nonprofit group funded by the energy industry, tried to explain the history of drilling and the processes currently used. The final speaker, Reda said Lincoln and Giavasis presented “disturbing misinformation” and “propaganda.”

For their part, Plain Township Trustee Louis Giavasis and Dan Lincoln did not stoop to the personal insult level that Ms. Reda demonstrated.


In talking with Giavasis today, he said that he felt that the forum was fair and balanced and that he felt he had ample opportunity to tell what he thinks was about 100 persons in attendance that the owed it to themselves to get on the Internet and check out the advisability of fracking for themselves.


Giavasis said that it is his hope that citizens will not take the talking points of the likes of Reda nor necessarily the position of folks like himself to heart in forming an opinion about whether or not to support the continuation of fracking.


It appears to Giavasis that with the support of fracking by Republican Governor John Kasich, the Republican dominated Ohio General Assembly (on the issue of drilling on state park land) who are politically linked to the oil and gas industry, that fracking "is on a roll" and it will take a catastrophic accident before Ohioans have second thoughts about allowing fracking.


He pointed out how at the Lawrence Township meeting Reda wanted to separate the actual - technical - event of "fracking" out of the multi-step fracking process so that she can say as a technical matter there has never been an accident from fracking per se.  Talk about splitting hairs?


The SCPR thinks that such nuancing is evidence that Reda presented "disturbing misinformation" and "propaganda;" not Giavasis and Lincoln, and, that she was merely projecting onto others (i.e. Giavasis and Lincoln) her own agenda.


As reported by Rink, Lincoln made the telling point that destroyed Reda's nuance of fracking per se by pointing out that fracking is a process that can involve faulty materials, to wit:

But Dan Lincoln of the Northeast Ohio Gas Accountability Project would disagree. Lincoln, the first speaker, said fracking itself isn’t necessarily the problem; poor well casings and concrete jobs are.

Anyhow, the SCPR congratulates the Lawrence Township in rectifying the problems of the August 11th meeting.